Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Beetstra (talk | contribs) at 11:50, 1 December 2021 (→‎FilmCompanion - additional: reply to Billinghurst (CD)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"Wikipedia:Spam-blacklist" redirects here. For a description of the spam blacklist, see Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. For instructions on administrating the spam blacklist, see Wikipedia:Spam-blacklisting.
    Spam blacklists
    Shortcuts

    Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist is meant to be used by the spam blacklist extension. Unlike the meta spam blacklist, this blacklist affects pages on the English Wikipedia only. Any administrator may edit the spam blacklist. See Wikipedia:Spam blacklist for more information about the spam blacklist.

    Instructions for editors

    There are 4 sections for posting comments below. Please make comments in the appropriate section. These links take you to the appropriate section:

    1. Proposed additions
    2. Proposed removals
    3. Troubleshooting and problems
    4. Discussion

    Each section has a message box with instructions. In addition, please sign your posts with ~~~~ after your comment.

    Completed requests are archived. Additions and removals are logged, reasons for blacklisting can be found there.

    Addition of the templates {{Link summary}} (for domains), {{IP summary}} (for IP editors) and {{User summary}} (for users with account) results in the COIBot reports to be refreshed. See User:COIBot for more information on the reports.

    Instructions for admins
    Any admin unfamiliar with this page should probably read this first, thanks.
    If in doubt, please leave a request and a spam-knowledgeable admin will follow-up.

    Please consider using Special:BlockedExternalDomains instead, powered by the AbuseFilter extension. This is faster and more easily searchable, though only supports whole domains and not whitelisting.

    1. Does the site have any validity to the project?
    2. Have links been placed after warnings/blocks? Have other methods of control been exhausted? Would referring this to our anti-spam bot, XLinkBot be a more appropriate step? Is there a WikiProject Spam report? If so, a permanent link would be helpful.
    3. Please ensure all links have been removed from articles and discussion pages before blacklisting. (They do not have to be removed from user or user talk pages.)
    4. Make the entry at the bottom of the list (before the last line). Please do not do this unless you are familiar with regular expressions — the disruption that can be caused is substantial.
    5. Close the request entry on here using either {{done}} or {{not done}} as appropriate. The request should be left open for a week maybe as there will often be further related sites or an appeal in that time.
    6. Log the entry. Warning: if you do not log any entry you make on the blacklist, it may well be removed if someone appeals and no valid reasons can be found. To log the entry, you will need this number – 1058091642 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.


    Proposed additions


    Movieselite

    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

    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

    users


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

    sreurl 2

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

    latestceleb.com

    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]

    machinemfg.com

    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]

    gotquestions.org

    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]

    tektonics.org

    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]

    jelvix.com

    Sporadic citespamming over the last few years. Got an indef block as YuliiaSoroka, so this is block evasion. - MrOllie (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @MrOllie: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Noted that one editor got a pretty strong warning to stop spamming and a new account came the next day to continue on same page. Also noting that this is also rampant on ru.wikipedia, so I expect that we will soon have to do this one globally. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    dainikbhoomi.com

    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]

    choegocasino.com

    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

    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]

    FilmCompanion

    It looks like we're being subjected to a months-long spam campaign here. For example, see Special:Diff/1052988879, Special:Diff/1049337705, Special:Diff/1026774898, Special:Diff/1047167583, Special:Diff/1050512053, and Special:Diff/1025745983. Notice how they all include utm_source=Wikipedia and some sort of "seeding" campaign. Sorry, but it's been too long since I dealt with this stuff, and I don't remember so well how the anti-spam bots work, but I'm pretty sure this is still going on. The most recent spam I've found is from this month, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @NinjaRobotPirate: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    FilmCompanion - additional

    • Regex requested to be blacklisted: \..*?(\?

    @NinjaRobotPirate: We can add a regex like above to block every domain with that parameter (or is it just this domain)? --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, good point. From an "insource:" search, it looks like other people are using that string, too. For example: Special:Diff/995687087, Special:Diff/1011444828, Special:Diff/984857057, Special:Diff/973697612. These are pretty old, but I don't remember a better way to find this stuff. It's been too long since I cleaned up after a big spam ring. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Billinghurst: suggestions, and would this be something that we should globally ban? Dirk Beetstra T C 13:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra and NinjaRobotPirate: No, from my observations it looks for a domain part near the protocol marker, so it cannot solely filter on the uri component nude of the protocol. In global filters I have used a broader generic TLD regex with the immediate uri component where it follows directly after the forward slash. I would think that a regex with TLD/otherpartofURI/?matchtext may have some interesting aspects to it. I think that an abuse filter may be better suited to your needs as it can target that specifically and in a url, rather than general text. The only time I have seen URI components caught in blacklists are where they do contain the protocol type as part of the uri, so {http://}domain.org/sometext/{http://}baddommain.org

    The search utm_source=wikipedia gives 285 interesting results and similarly utm_source= search saus 66,841 results soe of which are mediawiki: ns — billinghurst sDrewth 13:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Billinghurst: I guess that a global filter would then be the better solution here. Probably best to record be<redacted>. Dirk Beetstra T C 13:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    English Wikipedia does not utilise global filters. It is only small, medium, and opted-in large wikis that utilise them. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe we should then do a drive to have local copies of some of them, with some regular update? Dirk Beetstra T C 11:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals

    PV-Magazine

    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

    Reasons to delist

    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]

    noscommunes.ca

    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]

    Troubleshooting and problems

    Discussion

    Perennial/common

    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]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=1058091642"