MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/November 2021

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

english-exam.org[edit]

Multiple IPs ignoring warnings. plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist.OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erenow.net[edit]

Rather strongly alleged copyvio for much of the material. See WP:COPYLINK - we do not link to material where there is a concern that the material is hosted in violation of copyright. Please use the original where possible (even if the material is hosted without it being in violation of copyright or a fair use case can be made), or use whitelisting for specific links that are permissible and where the material cannot be found elsewhere (note that 'there is no other copy online' is not a viable concern as long as you can refer to a hardcopy of the material). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beetstra: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

borgenproject removal[edit]

borgenproject.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

It is stated the link has been added by someone whose username is very similar to the domain being added, and the IP related to the link is added by someone with an IP close to the IP of the link. However, I want to use their website as a reference because it provide facts and information for the Homelessness topic. I am trying to use their website on this article:

Main article: List of countries by homeless population

zsteve21 (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zsteve21: no Declined, this is blacklisted globally due to spamming by a number of IPs, and I would not expect this of general use. Please,  Defer to Whitelist for specific links on this domain. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

lrt-sports.com[edit]

lrt-sports.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

Spam blitz by quite a few users. Fortunately, Wikipedia has a strong defensive line. plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

topinfoguide.com[edit]

topinfoguide.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

Spammed from many accounts for months. I think this website is a bot generated website or news aggregator. Pachu Kannan (talk) 11:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pachu Kannan: I note that you reported this before. It is now discussed on my talkpage and we are considering it to be blacklisted globally. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erenow problem[edit]

Strangely, the website erenow.net dinged the spamblacklist for me (see here, but I find it used in many articles (see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=erenow.net&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go&ns0=1], and yet I also cannot find it on the spam blacklist here. Can anyone solve this mystery? Thanks! --Jayron32 13:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The example you were trying to link to seems also a copyright violation of a book that has a copyright from Daniel Siemens in 2017 (ISBN 978-0-300-19681-8) - I fail to find anything on the pages that you were trying to link that shows the original bibliography, nor that they are hosting the material under any form of license (note that we are not supposed to link to such material per WP:COPYLINK: "However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." (my bolding)). --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nevermind. I sorted it out. It looks like it was added locally above very recently, per it being a site hosting copyvios. There's likely going to be some blowback, as it appears to be being used in many articles right now. --Jayron32 13:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jayron32: it needs some aggressive cleaning ... -- Dirk Beetstra T C 13:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it does. Have fun! --Jayron32 13:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sociotab.com[edit]

sociotab.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

I was working on the IRC helpdesk, and I noticed that User:Priyadarshi Shastri was seeking help adding links to this source from some of our more popular articles. Shastri told me that they are an editor who works at sociotab and that they were seeking to promote the site by adding links to sociotab from relevant Wikipedia articles. --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=x30MUdu6ATk[edit]

Regex requested to be blacklisted: \byoutube\..*?x30MUdu6ATk\b

It is an advertisement for a product. This link is repeatedly added as citation on RFID skimming after removal. I previously removed a sentence about this product since I can't find any non-primary sources supporting it; this link is still being added as a citation by suspected sockpuppets although it doesn't really support anything else. I don't think semi protecting the page is necessary as this link seems to be the only spam problem I'n aware of. --𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 01:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Atomicdragon136: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

routerhosting.com[edit]

plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Spammed by at least three users/IPs. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Magacinepharma[edit]

Link
Spammers

Please blacklist.-KH-1 (talk) 08:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KH-1: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

avif.io, jpegxl.io[edit]

Cross-wiki spam for avif.io and jpegxl.io, same imprint. When I blocked the long-term stable (>1 year!) /64 range "2A02:908:2D15:97A0:*", a new one appeared with the same spam ("2A02:3035:C02:30E3:*"), resulting in a /18 overall range that is unfeasible to block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ToBeFree: This should have been reported to meta:  Defer to Global blacklist, cross-wiki problem. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Beetstra, I was unsure because one link remains on dewiki in a list of external AVIF converters, where it does seem to fit. If dewiki can be excluded somehow, feel free to add it to the global list. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ToBeFree: that is what de.wikipedia would have a whitelist for, and blacklisting does not directly give problems with links that are already there. The refspamming seems to be all over the place and blacklisting here is not going to stop it elsewhere. Dirk Beetstra T C 11:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't have local whitelists in mind. Thanks Beetstra, requested at meta:Talk:Spam blacklist now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

onlineshop.co.uk[edit]

onlineshop.co.uk: 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

Please remove onlineshop.co.uk from blacklist, it is a legitimate domain which is run by a legitimate company with credible news sources and is necessary for proper image attribution on wikimedia and for wikipage|onlineshop.co.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jose82923 (talk • contribs)

 Defer to Global blacklist Blacklisted globally per this. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

kazimagazine.com[edit]

Link

An anonymous user on en-help IRC shared this] with the helpers as a proposed source for Drsft:Alex Panza. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is that a rationale for blacklisting? This appears to be a well-known music magazine. Do you have any evidence that it's been spammed abusively? OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Movieselite[edit]

Link
Spammers

.Please blacklist.-KH-1 (talk) 12:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KH-1: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. blanking of this as 'fixing typo' shows that discussion is not an option. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sreurl[edit]

links
users

Refspam. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beetstra: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sreurl more[edit]

users


More. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sreurl 2[edit]

--Dirk Beetstra T C 07:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

machinemfg.com[edit]

Hops IPs, including editing through web hosting providers. Unresponsive to talk page warnings. - MrOllie (talk) 12:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MrOllie: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PV-Magazine[edit]

pv-magazine.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

Background[edit]

Reasons to delist[edit]

  1. according to the original spammer's LinkedIn page, they no longer work for the marketing agency that they did in 2011
  2. PV-Magazine is a credible source as defined in WP:RS because it is a news source that covers the solar industry neutrally and has so for over 10 years. It is even cited by other magazines that cover the trade. For example PV-Tech cites a PV-Magazine article on advances in PERC record cell efficiencies (see also: bifacial PERC).
  3. According to their website they're a global publication that has been around since 2008. They have stated neutrality guidelines that may not have been in place in 2011. See their "www.pv-magazine.com/about-us/" and "www.pv-magazine.com/about-us/community-standards/" pages. I can comment that I have seen PV-Magazine and their competitors in circulation since I've been in this industry, over 10 years.
  4. in the +10 years since this url was blacklisted, the solar industry has matured significantly, and solar is now increasingly covered in the media[1]
  5. there are already citations to PV-Magazine and it's competitors (PV Tech, Greentech Media, Canary, Solar Power World, Photon, etc.) in Wikipedia:

I don't have a connection with PV-Magazine, but I am a member of the solar industry. I can't comment on the quality of the journal, but I do attend their webinars and read the articles from time to time, and in my opinion, it's really no better or worse than any of the other solar industry magazines. It seems inconsistent to blacklist this one branch of a global publication and not the other branches like the German or USA versions, which all have the same publisher. Or why not blacklist the other magazines like PV-Tech, GTM, Solar Power World, or Photon? I understand that a single user allegedly working as a marketer made some seriously bad faith edits in a blatant attempt to abuse Wikipedia 10 years ago, but in my opinion those conditions are no longer relevant, or at least I hope not. Please let me know if there's any further information I can provide. I believe having PV-Magazine and other periodicals that cover the solar industry are important in bringing quality, neutral, and important topics of interest to Wikipedia readers who are interested in solar energy, solar power, and renewable energy. Thanks!

--Mikofski (talk) 23:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/topic/subject/solar-energy
@Mikofski: no Declined. You are right, it was blacklisted in 2011, and it was still spammed in 2016. That is 5 years worth of spamming. Maybe the original account is now not anymore part of the spamming, but if you do this for 5 years, they do not magically stop.
Now as to the content, you say that other sites are referencing this site - sure, if you are properly advertising / performing proper SEO so that you are in the top of Google searches, then you are being used.
And for being WP:RS: I made this analysis a couple of months ago: By far most of their information is simple regurgitation of original primary sources. This is mostly just a primary source masquerading as a secondary source. To further that analysis: the pv-tech article you mention uses pv-magazine.com/2021/08/20/trina-solar-improves-efficiency-of-210-mm-perc-solar-module-by-0-5/ as a reference. Reading that article (I quote the pieces, my bolding): 'Chinese module maker Trina Solar has announced to have achieved a power conversion efficiency of 23.53% for a monocrystalline p-type solar cell based on 66 PERC cells with a size of 210×210 mm.' - hence there is an original announcement, but that is not referenced. Then 'The result was confirmed by China's National Center of Supervision and Inspection on Solar Photovoltaic Product Quality (CPVT).' Again, there is an original document from that, and that is again not referenced. Then we get a whole paragrahps "... said Yifeng Chen, head of the company's high efficiency cell and module R&D center. ...." .. again, said where? "The company improved by 0.5% the efficiency achieved for the cell in early July." (23.53% - 23.03%, see original source, noting that the original source states 23.56%) "That result was certified by Germany's standards bodies TÜV Rheinland and TÜV Nord." and again without references. "At the time, Trina said its scientists developed a new Multi-Musbar (MBB) technology to improve optical shading, and developed a new hybrid soldering technology to minimize the gap between cells, without providing further details." Again, "Trina said", said where? The language used in this piece makes it clear that it is just not original research or analysis, just a regurgitation of material from elsewhere. Most of this document is very likely from https://mgr.trinasolar.com/en-glb/resources/blog/fri-08202021-1536 and from https://www.trinasolar.com/de/resources/newsroom/fri-08202021-1124, just rewritten but almost literally the same.
I agree, it is a good source for information - everything in one place. Their information may be correct (though there is a mismatch in efficiency in the article I just analysed), but it is not a proper source, and I doubt that with these analysis they pass a discussion at WP:RSN. That with an (at least) 5 years history of spamming (where I do not see why it would abruptly stop) makes this unsuitable for de-listing. Please whitelist that material that passes this analysis (there are some rare cases where the original sources are not available anymore, and where this then can be used, knowing that this is a primary source). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perennial/common[edit]

Can we start setting up a /Perennial requests or /Common requests for material that we keep refusing to delist? It is a bit tiresome for some sources to do a whole analysis again on material and have to come to the same conclusion. I just want to be able to say 'no, see there'. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

tektonics.org[edit]

Spammers: very many, for quite many years. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: Seems similar as above, but I'll have a look through the list of additions when the report is there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:01, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

gotquestions.org[edit]

Spammers: very many, for quite many years. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu:, well:
<Beetstra> whoadded gotquestions.org
<COIBot> 1965 records; Top 10 editors who have added gotquestions.org: Jobas (111), JarBot (78), عبد المسيح (56), InternetArchiveBot (46), Nehaoua (41), ServB1 (31), MenoBot (31), Cyclone605 (30), باسم (27), شيماء (27).
<Beetstra> whatadded Jobas
<COIBot> Sorry, number of records exceeds stats limit (24639 > 5000), loading would stress MySQL too much.
The top 10 has 3 big bots, and a big editor who added ~5% of the links. I really need to see some significant evidence of spamming because it is not obvious from the database. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: It's a WP:SPS, while many newbies think it would be WP:RS. I have just removed several entries which violated WP:SPS. So, it might not be aware spamming, just spamming because of not knowing better. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tgeorgescu: we generally do not blacklist on the basis of reliability only (we only blacklist of intentional spamming). We do however blacklist if there is a WP:RS/N discussion that deprecates this and suggests to blacklist (e.g. because cleanup is likely more work than the use). I am sorry, you'll probably have to go the extra mile for this. Dirk Beetstra T C 15:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

latestceleb.com[edit]

links
users

User:BradfordXxx has been adding links to latestceleb.com, a website of which he is a paid editor. --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BradfordXxx removed this report. Waiting for reports. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay if you guys are fine with contributing without return than, please note no one is going to do anything for free. I just see the people here just want to start a dispute, which seems quite disturbing rather than helping a newcomer. After all, Wikipedia did mention you can edit freely. [[User_Talk:BradfordXxx| — Preceding undated comment added 15:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Is there any evidence that the addition of these links is sufficient a problem to blacklist them? It seems they've been added by a single user who has been informed they're not suitable and are promoting their own site, and they're not going to add them anymore. I don't see any evidence that this is a larger issue requiring blacklisting. Canterbury Tail talk 17:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you are correct. I was hoping the reports would tell us the answer to those questions. Salimfadhley (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay i think then, we are done with this. But may i add one question? If a link provided by wikipedia is dead and someone has a better link is it okay to link back to that website? If not i am okay with it since, i dont own wikipedia. "Well, if someone does" they should edit the main welcome page and tell new users, wikipedia is run by kids or people who dont want you to mingle with their community. BradfordXxx (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BradfordXxx: if that replacing of a broken link is then with a link with which you are closely connected my suggestion would be to suggest that changeover on the talkpage, as suggested in WP:COI. And a dead link does not make the reference unusable, and it was the reference that was used to write the information. Dirk Beetstra T C 15:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

choegocasino.com[edit]

A bunch of spambots linking to this, probably including others that aren't listed above (those are the ones that I blocked). SpencerT•C 05:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spencer: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your prompt attention to this Beetstra. CC: Kaseng55 and Ruy. SpencerT•C 05:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talakar[edit]

Link
Spammers

What appears to be an online vendor/pricing site for gold coin inserted en-masse as a fake ref for census data.-KH-1 (talk) 11:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KH-1: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

dainikbhoomi.com[edit]

Reference spamming linking to this Blogger blog. — kashmīrī TALK 01:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kashmiri: no Declined for now. One editor who has not added links in 12 days now, and has not added links after spam4im. Report editor to AIV after next link addition, and if they then resort to socks to continue we blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, noted, thanks. — kashmīrī TALK 20:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

noscommunes.ca[edit]

petitions.noscommunes.ca: 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

Background
  • Request for help! I looked in the global and en.wiki Blacklist, and none seem to contain this exact url or even the domain itself.
  • This issue arose as I was trying to cite the url on Queen Elizabeth II Platinum Jubilee Medal, an upcoming 2022 Commonwealth award, as the site includes the official French name of the medal. When publishing my edit, the red domain-blacklist pops up unexpectedly.
  • The closest match to this domain seems to be petitions\.news\, which starts with the same term but has nothing to do with my url.
Reasons to delist
  • This is a Canadian Parliament domain which lists current and past petitions to MP's. I don't think it satisfies any criteria for blacklisting.
  • Any help with this issue would be appreciated; I'm confused as to why this url is disallowed. Ideally, the entire petitions.noscommunes.ca domain would be whitelisted.

Cheers! Double Plus Ungood (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Double Plus Ungood: no Declined,  Defer to Whitelist for specific links on this domain. Petitions, fund request domains and similar are constantly misused, and often abused for WP:SOAPBOXing. You can try to whitelist the specific link, but since these this is an open link which is, at best, only useful as a primary source it is likely going to be rejected (we would only grant this in very special cases). Please find a secondary source mentioning this, and otherwise this is simply not needed tobe mentioned (we are not writing a newspaper, rather an encyclopedia). --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/November_2021&oldid=1059390251"