Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2019-11

Add topic
Active discussions

Proposed additions

  This section is for completed requests that a website be blacklisted

eccl.es



URL shortener found on a spam page on Commons. --Achim (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Achim55:   Added to Spam blacklist. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

short.concord.org



URL shortener found on Commons linking to casino spam. --Achim (talk) 12:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Achim55:   Added to Spam blacklist. -- — billinghurst sDrewth 13:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

can.si



URL shortener found on spam page on Commons. --Achim (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Achim55:   Added to Spam blacklist. -- — billinghurst sDrewth 13:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed removals

  This section is for archiving proposals that a website be unlisted.

albelda.info



the domain is blocked since 2009. from 2013-09 until 2018-11 there were only 5 (blocked) link addition. right now there is a whitelisting request at dewiki.
i guess a removal from the global blacklist would be more reasonable. any objections? -- seth (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

For the record, could you please link the whitelisting request? --Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
@Lustiger seth:   Removed from Spam blacklist; for the record can you do as Martin asks and provide a permalink to deWP's local discussion. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
thanks!
permalink to dewiki-request. -- seth (talk) 09:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

dailybuff



Hello, someone has abused my site in Wikipedia. I tried to change the section Diablo 4 in ru-wiki and I was given that my site is blacklisted. How can it be removed from the list?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 185.64.228.55 (talk)

@185.64.228.55:   Declined, yes, someone abused it (well, actually a large number of someones). And by your self-admission you are involved in the site so you should not be adding it either. Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 05:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Troubleshooting and problems

  This section is for archiving Troubleshooting and problems.

Discussion

  This section is for archiving Discussions.

ge.tt



Seeking the opinion of the community about the file sharing site ge.tt that has numbers of nefarious uses, and has recently the spambots utilising it, though I cannot tell what is at the end of the links. As the spambots are using other banned links, or too many urls it is not especially turning up in the reports, however, it is showing up through abusefilters.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I would regard this worrisome .. although there are undoubtedly good reasons for sharing files, this is just asking for cases where copyright violating content (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Madrecha+%26+Company&timestamp=20150324235401 deleted revid] -> ge.tt/9eltIa6 is 'XBRL for Dummies', available from Amazon, I doubt that that is freely downloadable), malware, illegal software systems is being shared. Do you believe it when someone writes: 'there is more data in this excel file'?? I don't, that should be showing a path ending in .xls .. and even then. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 11:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Esily abusable, and not checkable. I think that it should be confined linking as you expressed. Though feel that a consensus of the community is the best means forward, rather than IMNSHO.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Community discussion .. where? --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Cheatsheet.com and co (Endgame360)









The 4 sites are from the same company/group, Endgame360. ([www.motorbiscuit.com/about/][www.sportscasting.com/about/][www.remoter.co/about/][www.cheatsheet.com/terms-of-use/]) It's a family of unreliable sites, riddled with advertisements, blatantly practicing yellow journalism. In the instances where it is factual, it's direct copying/paraphrasing from other publications that should be used as sources instead. BLP violations, obvious lies, and spam are routinely published on these sites. The websites have no value for Wikimedia projects, and should be blacklisted to prevent further abuse. I would add it myself, however due to the extensive amount of link additions I'd prefer to discuss it first. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)



@Vermont: ... (I've disabled the live-links here, they would hinder archiving when we blacklist). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 07:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing that. Vermont (talk) 12:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Praxidicae noted it here a couple of months ago. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 07:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

  Comment Whilst we can all have an opinion, these are links validly added by communities by users of standing. None of these sites appear to be blacklisted at any of the sites, so what right do we have to blacklist their use? I don't see that global blacklisting fits within the scope in which we operate on the existing situations and links. As a bare minimum I would like to see local wikis manage it,and look to blacklist the use.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Return to "Spam blacklist/Archives/2019-11" page.