Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May 2023

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

uttarpurbanchal.com[edit]

It has been spammed on a number of articles by Assamese wiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) who also created an article about the site which was deleted as advertising. The site has no about page and is very poor quality, for example it has bios that can't decide whether the subject is male or female. Atlantic306 (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove our site from here.It is a mistake without knowing it.@Atlantic306 Assamese wiki (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked this editor for spamming. They can explain themselves in their unblock request. And yes, this should be added to the blacklist. Black Kite (talk) 10:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

alljobs.co.in[edit]

Spammed by at least 3 accounts. plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist.OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proreviewsapp[edit]

Link
Spammers

Please blacklist.-KH-1 (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KH-1: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

dichvuchinhsuaanh.net and many other Vietnamese spam sites[edit]

Links
Diffs
IP addresses

I'm making this report per this thread at AN/I. Far too many different IP addresses and ranges, and wide range of articles affected to make neither protection nor blocking effective. Been going on for at least several weeks now, quite a number of the IPs have been warned, some have been blocked, yet this still continues. — AP 499D25 (talk) 06:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AP 499D25: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thecustomboxes.co.uk[edit]

Circumventing blacklisting of thecustomboxes.com. plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:44, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

radioitaliacina.com[edit]

Getting bored of playing whack-a-mole with this person. Easier to head them off at the pass by preventing this link being added in the first place. — Trey Maturin™ 13:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

myphamthanhduoc.com.vn[edit]

IP addresses

From vi.wiki JohnyCuTis (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnyCuTis: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

olxponsel.com[edit]

It was used by Junedijunar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) like this.... 2001:448A:1021:28B1:FD1B:4647:D453:8C31 (talk) 11:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined. A single spammer doesn't necessitate blacklisting. --OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

aingmacan.shop[edit]

It was used by Genie889 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) like this.... 2001:448A:1021:28B1:FD1B:4647:D453:8C31 (talk) 11:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined. A single spammer doesn't necessitate blacklisting. --OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

parish.uk[edit]

A business listings scam pretending to be a network of official UK local government websites, using the same design system as official UK government websites. The scam has been reported on by BBC Radio 4 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001ljdx). The website operator defends his site by explicitly referencing its authority (largely gained from Wikipedia links) https://www.trustpilot.com/review/parish.uk?sort=recency

www.cinatv.it[edit]

Persistent spam added by multiple IP addresses and users--VVikingTalkEdits 15:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Viewmont Viking: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetize[edit]

I am tempted to alphabetize the list. Is there a reason not to? —Tamfang (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamfang: yes, the list has some groups (regexes for domains of one owner, e.g.) and it is now more sorted in time. Moreover, some of the regexes sort wrongly or sort senselessly anyway (it needs human interaction in the sorting). Also, the automated script we use will currently write to bottom, and would be complicated to put it in the right space. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

www.makemyanswer.com[edit]

Persistent spam. General Ization Talk 04:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Has it been added by more than one user/IP? OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

growthmarketreports.com[edit]

Has been spammed off an on starting in 2020, but has been stepping up in frequency a bit lately. - MrOllie (talk) 12:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MrOllie: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

inf.news[edit]

per w:zh:Wikipedia:可靠来源/布告板/存档/2021年6月#資訊咖的來源是否可靠？, content farm aggregated from personal medias. Comment from User:Jingkaimori: "中文部分直接复制微信公众号内容，外文部分机翻微信公号，内容农场。" [The Chinese part is directly copied from WeChat personal medias, and the foreign language part uses machine translation of the WeChat content, content farm.] ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 19:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also w:zh:MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 00:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Filmcompanion.in[edit]

Per unanimous consensus that the site is among the most reliable sites, dedicated to film-journalism in S. Asia. Enough time has elapsed since the last round of spamming and we have EFs to prevent addition of the link by, say, editors of a certain class. The last decline-argument:

Given that there are a lot of available review sites out there, there isn't a strong reason to ever remove it given that whitelisting is sufficient for the likely rare cases where other reviews aren't available.

is patent nonsense. Ohnoitsjamie appears to be laboring under the misapprehension that our articles on films need only one review, and any additions are an opulence. And whitelisting requests are seldom fulfilled, lingering for months. Also, WP:SPBLIST asks of admins to adjudge whether the site have any validity to the project as the first locus of deliberation, when considering a site for blacklisting. In previous discussions, I see no admin engaging with the question, which has been already answered by the community in affirmative and cannot be overriden by an individual admin. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support TrangaBellam in this. Those incessantly adding FC links may not have been spammers or paid editors, they possibly believed they were improving articles by adding FC links. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.
My point is simple: even if they were spammers, we cannot blacklist this site because this is undoubtedly a RS. Otherwise, tomorrow, bad-faith-actors can start spamming in NYT/BBC/... links and our admins, evidently acting outside policy, can blacklist them! TrangaBellam (talk) 14:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, this was a very dedicated spam campaign from the site itself. Look at the original report, especially note the keywords included in the url for the campaign. THAT is a hallmark of a marketing push. I will not trust a site that blatantly uses Wikipedia as a promotional tool. There's enough spam around this area as it is. Yes, it sucks that filmcompanion decided to be a bad actor. Point your vitriol there. Ravensfire (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in RS suggests us to decide on "trust[ing] a site" on the basis of whether "it blatantly uses Wikipedia as a promotional tool". If you seek for a baptism by fire, I am happy to go RSN.
Dozens of users — editors from ICTF who write on Indian films and even outsiders (like me) — have been screaming hoarse for over a year about the reliability of this site only to be pointed to the whitelisting board, where requests lie unfulfilled for months and get archived. So, yes, the vitriol is warranted; admins (or you) cannot substitute community judgement on the reliability of a site. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments about WP:RS are non-sequitur. We have the whitelist for when something is blacklisted due to spamming but is still usable as a source. Even if there is some process problem that prevents your whitelist requests from being filled, that really isn't a reason to remove from the blacklist - it is a reason to improve the whitelist process. MrOllie (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments about WP:RS are non-sequitur. - To reiterate myself, WP:SPBLIST asks of admins to adjudge whether the site have any validity to the project as the first locus of deliberation, when considering a site for blacklisting. I suppose that validity encompasses reliability and assertions by about a dozen long-standing editors about the site being among the best sources to cover a topic area.
Secondly, have you not heard of edit-filters? TrangaBellam (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That does not mean that any link which has 'any validity' cannot be blacklisted. MrOllie (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strawman. Validity — which includes reliability — is a criterion that shall guide an admin into deciding between the nuclear option (spam blacklist) and alternates (AbuseFilter). TrangaBellam (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From what I see, there is absolutely no "vitriol" from TrangaBellam. She is making a reasonable request to this website, that needs to be addressed by this website. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see why a site that attempted a significant campaign to spam itself into Wikipedia should be removed from the blacklist. Perhaps I could be educated as to why this isn't the case. Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite: Because, those editors (~a dozen) who edit articles on Indian films, argue the site to be among the best resources for writing the relevant articles? FC's coverage of art-films, interviews, etc. is unparalleled. I am yet to hear any argument detailing why an Abuse-filter won't be enough to withstand the spamming. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What type of edit filter are you suggesting here? One where new editors can't add the source? Black Kite (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; be quite conservative and disallow all editors who are not autoconfirmed? TrangaBellam (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite, in case you missed my reply. [No issues, if you do not wish to engage me or decide on the whitelisting.] TrangaBellam (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like an agreeable truce. I'm up for it. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that seems reasonable. Black Kite (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! @Red-tailed hawk, can you help us out with setting up the Abuse Filter? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can try to write something up that would do this. Alas, I am merely an WP:EFH, not an WP:EFM, so I'm going to need to find a willing EFM to implement the filter after I draft and test it. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I did not see the existence of EFM. Maybe, Suffusion of Yellow can help? TrangaBellam (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See this thread. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

smswishes4u.com[edit]


Already IP hopping and have hit multiple articles. Still only a few edits, but doesn't show much signs of slowing down. Ravensfire (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Courcelles (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

assamjobz.com[edit]

Links being added since at least July 2022, not aggressively added, but enough to warrant listing here. Ravensfire (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Courcelles (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

culture-silat.fr[edit]

Years (almost 10!) of spam attempts. plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

vacantnepal.com[edit]

Link farm assiduously spammed by a new user in the past few days. --MasqueDesRonces (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence that more than one user/IP has spammed this? The user will be blocked if they add the link again; blacklisting is overkill for instances of spamming from a single user that can be addressed by warnings/blocking. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I know of, no! I wasn't aware of that criterion, but it certainly makes sense. Thanks! MasqueDesRonces (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

minghui.org[edit]

Accounts that are only used to distribute spam, will post a large amount of spam about Falun Gong to other people's user pages. --Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

cre8iveskill.com[edit]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cre8iveSkill. Courcelles (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Courcelles (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

makeoverarena.com,automymo.com,tecteem.com,techiver.com[edit]

Multiple accounts spamming a group of sites. plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist.OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

socceriate.com[edit]

Spam of a self-published source. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

pureinsight.org[edit]

Accounts that are only used to distribute spam, will post a large amount of spam about Falun Gong to other people's user pages. --Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 01:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fumikas Sagisavas: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Courcelles (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manning and Manning[edit]

I originally posted this on the Spam blacklist: "In the w:en:Savile Row tailoring article, in the section "Other companies on Savile Row", there is a block to the website of Manning and Manning. M&M are bespoke tailors and it is a mystery as to why the website has been blocked - it is a normal business with a history of tailoring. I have not been able to find out when it was blacklisted.

I am not concerned with the company but interested in updating references for that article. The address is blocked only at English Wikipedia by the regex \bmanning\.com\b.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist Richard Nowell (talk) 06:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a false positive, manning.com was blocked due to spamming [1], this is getting caught in the regex. Perhaps it would be best just to whitelist the manning and mannning website? 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. If you can fix it so the Manning and Manning website is free from being blocked by whatever means that would be good. It seems unlikely that they will start a major spamming campaign.Richard Nowell (talk) 07:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May_2023&oldid=1162778019"