mangauk.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot- Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
Crypto-mining sideload. Not obviously useful as a source. Guy ( Help!) 10:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
spammed by:
Repeated promotional blog spam. Apparently two previous blocks failed to get across the message. GermanJoe ( talk) 14:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Persistent spamming of external link to
researchgate.net/publication/311370135_Vector_Lorentz_Transformations
Improper per wp:ELNO, by ever shifting IP from exact same location. wp:AIV and wp:3RR unlikely to work. The domain researchgate.net is used all over the place, so can this specific publication be blacklisted with the domain left untouched? - DVdm ( talk) 16:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
mediafire.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot- Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
IP is adding a ton of links to this cloud/file sharing website, pdfs etc. Was blacklisted before, not sure why it got unlisted. There is no way it can be a reliable source and it is too easy to host a virus or copyright infringement (or change the content on that site to that). Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
newpakhistorian.wordpress.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot- Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
Purely used for self-spamming and insertion of utterly-unreliable content by a former contributor.See this t/p thread. ~ Winged Blades Godric 10:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Spammed by:
Commercial website advertising marked cards that has been inserted repeatedly into the external links section of Card marking since 2006 despite multiple deletions. This was done by a former contributor and now done anonymously and is the only edit of each IP address.-- Countakeshi ( talk) 20:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
IP hopping spammer. Deli nk ( talk) 12:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
WP:NOTHERE account, AvantikaJoshi, possibly sock of Baseline12345, only adding links to Kerala-based blog masquerading (poorly) as a legitimate news site. Clearly SEO link related. [ [1]], [ [2]], [ [3]] User has been warned on talk page about adding such links. All their edits have been reverted. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 03:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Preqin.com is blacklisted, this is a redirect to that site. Using this is plain blacklist evasion. Get the official links whitelisted where needed. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 13:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
preqin.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot- Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
A employee of Preqin came into the Wikipedia-en-help IRC channel asking about changing the link on Preqin. Evidently, this link has been blacklisted since 2008, and had a failed un-blacklist request in May 2014. The article on Preqin has shown prequin.com, with the added u, as the website (which isn't their website). I attempted to change the link on Preqin and triggered a protection filter. Vermont | reply here 11:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
If someone first spams it, and then clearly involved editors come here to have it on their page, then yes, to me that makes it clear that they have a clear conflict of interest. All the actions further are appropriate (though I do have doubts about the very last edit to the subject page). WP:COI is clear: if you have a conflict of interest, then stay away from the article but discuss on the talkpage. Wikipedia is not here to have a page looking in exactly the way the subject (or representatives of the subject) want it to look. We are not running an advertising service. Is it natural: yes. Note that the use of the prequin links is plain blacklist evasion (seen the statements in this thread).
Anyway, I am not willing to de-blacklist it (I do not have a guarantee that the link will not start appearing in other places as well, the last edits to the page show a disregard for Wikipedia linking standards and for Wikipedia editing standards ..), but per WP:ELOFFICIAL and MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Common requests I will whitelist a specific page for the use on the subject article. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 13:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Please, also include the currently used references on Preqin in the whitelisting request. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 13:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
This website has been used as a source in quite a few articles related to Indian politics. Further research shows that its a consultancy service offering to do door-to-door surveys, political campaign and social media management for its clients. Most of the content on this website is copied from charts and reports published by the Election Commission of India and a few unsuspecting users have cited this websites pages as a reliable source for backing the official facts and figures. -- Skr15081997 ( talk) 11:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
This website has been added to many pages, most of which have had the link removed from them. It's an insurance quotes company advertising itself on-wiki. I'm going to go ahead and remove all instances of it. See this diff, showing the above-mentioned user repeatedly adding the website to pages after being reverted. Vermont | reply here 11:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
1. I did add the website to many pages, but that was a mistake and I got it. Never did that again, did I? 2. "It's an insurance quotes company" - not entirely true. The link I referenced to contains consumer reviews. My purpose was to back up the information about Canada Life activities with the opinions of the company's consumers. All in all, it's an insurance company and it has clients who use its' services and have their opinions about their quality. And as far as I know, Insureye presents itself as a platform for consumer reviews of insurance products. 3. If you do consider Insureye an insurance company, why does it not have its own wiki page then? It's a pretty popular site among the Canadians. Just look at the reviews quantity. Did you even look through the contents of the page? 4. Apart from the link to Insureye I added four more links. Why don't you delete them then? All links I added, including Insureye, were exclusively for informational purposes. Or do you think people who write these reviews pay the company for this opportunity? That's just dumb.
I would like to ask you to remove the website from the blacklist since it does not serve commercial purpose - it only spreads awareness about quality of insurers' services. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaneySmith ( talk • contribs) 12:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Obvious socks doing nothing but spamming this link into WP. Have filed at SPI to deal with the users. Jytdog ( talk) 15:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I just discovered the addition of the link here and have reverted it. The editor (a newbie) who added it has thanked me for the deletion. My edit summary: "No. Our External links rules forbid linking to a site with copyrighted works held there without permission. The same applies to the Trump-Russia dossier." The Trump–Russia dossier is a copyrighted work hosted at DocumentCloud, and because of our rules, we are not allowed to link to it. It seems these situations are analogous.
Since the very mission of Wikileaks is to host stolen information, our default position should be to treat links to them with strong suspicion, strong enough for inclusion in the blacklist. There can be situations where a link can be legitimate, and an exception to the rule can be made for that specific use. The most obvious situation is on their own article. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 17:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Russian spammers hitting cryptocurrency articles. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 17:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Spammed by
Seems to have no content not available from elsewhere; repeatedly spammed by multiple IPs which do little but add links to this domain. I've removed some, but still several links out there. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Note, this is not Wikimedia. The name Wikkimedia is obviously intended to prey upon the similarity. Although I have just encountered one instance of this being added to Wikipedia ( here), I think this is such egregious bad faith with potential for harm and confusion that it should be immediately blacklisted. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 14:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Persistently placed by
Also see the report on Meta. I couldn't find another wiki where it was added. Thanks.— Teles « Talk to me˱ M @ C S˲» 16:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Dennis Bratland: OK, this is complicated, there is way more here I am afraid. Quick list:
And
I need to see reports ('COIBot' in the linksummaries), and will probably need help to expand this further (track what links to the reports, and what links to the spammers). One of the reports shows that there is a small cross-wiki aspect to this, so this may go onto meta. This material needs to be blacklisted. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 07:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
+ -- Dirk Beetstra T C 09:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Ah:
More. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 09:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Pinging User:MER-C here, they have been looking into this before. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 09:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Funny, wherever I look, there are accounts popping up with similar behavior and sockpuppet investigations. Note that all sockpuppet investigations seem to have the same conclusion: 'inconclusive' on technical data. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 09:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
econlib.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot- Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
Hello, I am looking to remove econlib.org from the spam blacklist. It appears to be triggering the block based on the entry beconlib.org. I think its inclusion appears to be a mistake, and that there is trouble shooting going on here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=771045371#econlib.org
The site is a repository for economics definitions and articles by economists and doesn't seem to match the definition for blacklisting. Any assistance would be appreciated. Squatch347 ( talk) 19:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
In looking through the history, the "spamming" was done by someone not affiliated with the site, and was also some time ago. Site is consistently rated by other outlets as a top source for economics. EconLog (blog) and EconTalk (podcast series) and Concise Encyclopedia of Economics especially. They also consistently link to wikipedia entries... As a reader, I would also like to see this site removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.225.141.195 ( talk) 15:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC) Thank you in advance for your consideration. AmyWillis ( talk) 15:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)AmyWillis
I was irritated by the "econlib.org" blocklist message on John Gray (philosopher) since, having tried it, I thought the blocked link led to many useful resources for those who wanted to delve into Gray's published work available online. After looking into the Blocklist feature on Wikipedia (which I never encountered before though I have edited Wikimedia projects for over 12 years), I gather that someone from econlib.org or someone hoping to promote them, had been adding inappropriate links to that site on Wikipedia, presumably in an effort to increase their traffic. However the link from the John Gray article is appropriate as it leads to many of his essays. So I request that link be restored to it's normal function unless it is Wikipedia policy to risk inconveniencing its users as a way of punishing its spammers, in which case it should remain. — Blanchette ( talk) 17:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
See User_talk:165.142.249.81#Fake Neocatechumenal Way Website Daask ( talk) 18:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Daask They are back, I think.
To be blacklisted in a minute. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 07:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Links to movierecipe.infoversant.com have been popping up slowly over the last few years. It's a blog, so it shouldn't be used as a reference, and there are certainly more authoritative references than this one. Sometimes it's been added in batches like by 117.195.4.250 and 59.95.41.147, but often it's just one quiet edit like this one by IP 117.195.18.20. It looks like most of the IPs involved are located in India. This should raise suspicions, as these IPs are editing not only Indian articles, but also American and British ones. Here, they republish the plot summary found in the source they added, so we have copyright violation issues to consider. As of today there were about 50 links in various articles, but I'm chipping away at removing them. I'd previously performed a purge circa May 2016. I don't see anything of specific use at the top level domain infoversant.com. The site appears to be owned by Rightmix Technologies, which appears to be a marketing company based in Pune, India. Hmm... The IP I tagged above (103.61.202.54) appears to be connected to Manjunath Marketing. Anyway, it's your call if you think we should blacklist the TLD. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 20:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Blegh. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 12:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Quite possibly we should block*advice.com and *rates.com, as all instances of these I can find are not appropriate as sources. Guy ( Help!) 13:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Repeated spamming (the usual service site spam), continued after final warning. A second domain idghomez.com is also involved, but only once so far (just fyi). GermanJoe ( talk) 12:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
mangauk.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot- Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
Crypto-mining sideload. Not obviously useful as a source. Guy ( Help!) 10:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
spammed by:
Repeated promotional blog spam. Apparently two previous blocks failed to get across the message. GermanJoe ( talk) 14:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Persistent spamming of external link to
researchgate.net/publication/311370135_Vector_Lorentz_Transformations
Improper per wp:ELNO, by ever shifting IP from exact same location. wp:AIV and wp:3RR unlikely to work. The domain researchgate.net is used all over the place, so can this specific publication be blacklisted with the domain left untouched? - DVdm ( talk) 16:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
mediafire.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot- Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
IP is adding a ton of links to this cloud/file sharing website, pdfs etc. Was blacklisted before, not sure why it got unlisted. There is no way it can be a reliable source and it is too easy to host a virus or copyright infringement (or change the content on that site to that). Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
newpakhistorian.wordpress.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot- Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
Purely used for self-spamming and insertion of utterly-unreliable content by a former contributor.See this t/p thread. ~ Winged Blades Godric 10:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Spammed by:
Commercial website advertising marked cards that has been inserted repeatedly into the external links section of Card marking since 2006 despite multiple deletions. This was done by a former contributor and now done anonymously and is the only edit of each IP address.-- Countakeshi ( talk) 20:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
IP hopping spammer. Deli nk ( talk) 12:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
WP:NOTHERE account, AvantikaJoshi, possibly sock of Baseline12345, only adding links to Kerala-based blog masquerading (poorly) as a legitimate news site. Clearly SEO link related. [ [1]], [ [2]], [ [3]] User has been warned on talk page about adding such links. All their edits have been reverted. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 03:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Preqin.com is blacklisted, this is a redirect to that site. Using this is plain blacklist evasion. Get the official links whitelisted where needed. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 13:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
preqin.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot- Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
A employee of Preqin came into the Wikipedia-en-help IRC channel asking about changing the link on Preqin. Evidently, this link has been blacklisted since 2008, and had a failed un-blacklist request in May 2014. The article on Preqin has shown prequin.com, with the added u, as the website (which isn't their website). I attempted to change the link on Preqin and triggered a protection filter. Vermont | reply here 11:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
If someone first spams it, and then clearly involved editors come here to have it on their page, then yes, to me that makes it clear that they have a clear conflict of interest. All the actions further are appropriate (though I do have doubts about the very last edit to the subject page). WP:COI is clear: if you have a conflict of interest, then stay away from the article but discuss on the talkpage. Wikipedia is not here to have a page looking in exactly the way the subject (or representatives of the subject) want it to look. We are not running an advertising service. Is it natural: yes. Note that the use of the prequin links is plain blacklist evasion (seen the statements in this thread).
Anyway, I am not willing to de-blacklist it (I do not have a guarantee that the link will not start appearing in other places as well, the last edits to the page show a disregard for Wikipedia linking standards and for Wikipedia editing standards ..), but per WP:ELOFFICIAL and MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Common requests I will whitelist a specific page for the use on the subject article. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 13:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Please, also include the currently used references on Preqin in the whitelisting request. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 13:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
This website has been used as a source in quite a few articles related to Indian politics. Further research shows that its a consultancy service offering to do door-to-door surveys, political campaign and social media management for its clients. Most of the content on this website is copied from charts and reports published by the Election Commission of India and a few unsuspecting users have cited this websites pages as a reliable source for backing the official facts and figures. -- Skr15081997 ( talk) 11:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
This website has been added to many pages, most of which have had the link removed from them. It's an insurance quotes company advertising itself on-wiki. I'm going to go ahead and remove all instances of it. See this diff, showing the above-mentioned user repeatedly adding the website to pages after being reverted. Vermont | reply here 11:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
1. I did add the website to many pages, but that was a mistake and I got it. Never did that again, did I? 2. "It's an insurance quotes company" - not entirely true. The link I referenced to contains consumer reviews. My purpose was to back up the information about Canada Life activities with the opinions of the company's consumers. All in all, it's an insurance company and it has clients who use its' services and have their opinions about their quality. And as far as I know, Insureye presents itself as a platform for consumer reviews of insurance products. 3. If you do consider Insureye an insurance company, why does it not have its own wiki page then? It's a pretty popular site among the Canadians. Just look at the reviews quantity. Did you even look through the contents of the page? 4. Apart from the link to Insureye I added four more links. Why don't you delete them then? All links I added, including Insureye, were exclusively for informational purposes. Or do you think people who write these reviews pay the company for this opportunity? That's just dumb.
I would like to ask you to remove the website from the blacklist since it does not serve commercial purpose - it only spreads awareness about quality of insurers' services. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaneySmith ( talk • contribs) 12:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Obvious socks doing nothing but spamming this link into WP. Have filed at SPI to deal with the users. Jytdog ( talk) 15:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I just discovered the addition of the link here and have reverted it. The editor (a newbie) who added it has thanked me for the deletion. My edit summary: "No. Our External links rules forbid linking to a site with copyrighted works held there without permission. The same applies to the Trump-Russia dossier." The Trump–Russia dossier is a copyrighted work hosted at DocumentCloud, and because of our rules, we are not allowed to link to it. It seems these situations are analogous.
Since the very mission of Wikileaks is to host stolen information, our default position should be to treat links to them with strong suspicion, strong enough for inclusion in the blacklist. There can be situations where a link can be legitimate, and an exception to the rule can be made for that specific use. The most obvious situation is on their own article. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 17:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Russian spammers hitting cryptocurrency articles. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 17:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Spammed by
Seems to have no content not available from elsewhere; repeatedly spammed by multiple IPs which do little but add links to this domain. I've removed some, but still several links out there. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Note, this is not Wikimedia. The name Wikkimedia is obviously intended to prey upon the similarity. Although I have just encountered one instance of this being added to Wikipedia ( here), I think this is such egregious bad faith with potential for harm and confusion that it should be immediately blacklisted. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 14:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Persistently placed by
Also see the report on Meta. I couldn't find another wiki where it was added. Thanks.— Teles « Talk to me˱ M @ C S˲» 16:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Dennis Bratland: OK, this is complicated, there is way more here I am afraid. Quick list:
And
I need to see reports ('COIBot' in the linksummaries), and will probably need help to expand this further (track what links to the reports, and what links to the spammers). One of the reports shows that there is a small cross-wiki aspect to this, so this may go onto meta. This material needs to be blacklisted. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 07:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
+ -- Dirk Beetstra T C 09:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Ah:
More. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 09:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Pinging User:MER-C here, they have been looking into this before. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 09:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Funny, wherever I look, there are accounts popping up with similar behavior and sockpuppet investigations. Note that all sockpuppet investigations seem to have the same conclusion: 'inconclusive' on technical data. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 09:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
econlib.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot- Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
Hello, I am looking to remove econlib.org from the spam blacklist. It appears to be triggering the block based on the entry beconlib.org. I think its inclusion appears to be a mistake, and that there is trouble shooting going on here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=771045371#econlib.org
The site is a repository for economics definitions and articles by economists and doesn't seem to match the definition for blacklisting. Any assistance would be appreciated. Squatch347 ( talk) 19:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
In looking through the history, the "spamming" was done by someone not affiliated with the site, and was also some time ago. Site is consistently rated by other outlets as a top source for economics. EconLog (blog) and EconTalk (podcast series) and Concise Encyclopedia of Economics especially. They also consistently link to wikipedia entries... As a reader, I would also like to see this site removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.225.141.195 ( talk) 15:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC) Thank you in advance for your consideration. AmyWillis ( talk) 15:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)AmyWillis
I was irritated by the "econlib.org" blocklist message on John Gray (philosopher) since, having tried it, I thought the blocked link led to many useful resources for those who wanted to delve into Gray's published work available online. After looking into the Blocklist feature on Wikipedia (which I never encountered before though I have edited Wikimedia projects for over 12 years), I gather that someone from econlib.org or someone hoping to promote them, had been adding inappropriate links to that site on Wikipedia, presumably in an effort to increase their traffic. However the link from the John Gray article is appropriate as it leads to many of his essays. So I request that link be restored to it's normal function unless it is Wikipedia policy to risk inconveniencing its users as a way of punishing its spammers, in which case it should remain. — Blanchette ( talk) 17:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
See User_talk:165.142.249.81#Fake Neocatechumenal Way Website Daask ( talk) 18:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Daask They are back, I think.
To be blacklisted in a minute. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 07:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Links to movierecipe.infoversant.com have been popping up slowly over the last few years. It's a blog, so it shouldn't be used as a reference, and there are certainly more authoritative references than this one. Sometimes it's been added in batches like by 117.195.4.250 and 59.95.41.147, but often it's just one quiet edit like this one by IP 117.195.18.20. It looks like most of the IPs involved are located in India. This should raise suspicions, as these IPs are editing not only Indian articles, but also American and British ones. Here, they republish the plot summary found in the source they added, so we have copyright violation issues to consider. As of today there were about 50 links in various articles, but I'm chipping away at removing them. I'd previously performed a purge circa May 2016. I don't see anything of specific use at the top level domain infoversant.com. The site appears to be owned by Rightmix Technologies, which appears to be a marketing company based in Pune, India. Hmm... The IP I tagged above (103.61.202.54) appears to be connected to Manjunath Marketing. Anyway, it's your call if you think we should blacklist the TLD. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 20:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Blegh. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 12:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Quite possibly we should block*advice.com and *rates.com, as all instances of these I can find are not appropriate as sources. Guy ( Help!) 13:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Repeated spamming (the usual service site spam), continued after final warning. A second domain idghomez.com is also involved, but only once so far (just fyi). GermanJoe ( talk) 12:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)