MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February 2024

clanlib.org
Spam from multiple IPs. Annh07 (talk) 07:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

sciencedirect\.com\/topics

 * Per discussion at Edit_filter/Requested. Regex proposed by . --Artoria2e5 🌉 09:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Actually, hold it. Blacklisting was insufficiently discussed at RSN; the discussion only shows enough support for deprecation, so we go back to the filter. Artoria2e5 🌉 09:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that we'd need consensus for deprecation at WP:RSN before considering this; it might catch some users by surprise, and the blacklist message is not very informative regarding why something is blacklisted. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 17:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Excessively greedy regex?
This site is actually not blocked. It is getting flagged by a greedy regex at

.*\.(ga|cf|ml|gq|online|site)/.*?\d{4,5}[-/]\d{1,2}[-/]\d{1,2}.*

The link kafila.online seems like the new upstream of kafila.org (which is linked everywhere in wikipedia and is now squatted on by some squatter).

Please see phabricator discussion too: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T356558

asdofindia (talk) 08:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Asdofindia no, not excessively greedy, those have been a massive issue. Please request whitelisting of one link (or the domain) specifically. Dirk Beetstra T C 04:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

mapcarta.com
Needed for maps, coordinates and population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsMeGabeProductions (talk • contribs) 10:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not a reliable source per Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 236 hence no point in unblacklisting. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

trackscourier.com
Long-term and persistent re-addition of parcel tracker middleman site by numerous accounts. Just a few examples: --Wotheina (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * diff 2022-01-24 in Proof of delivery
 * diff 2022-06-23 in VRL Group
 * diff 2024-01-03 in VRL Group

picktracking.com
Persistent re-addition of parcel tracker middleman site by numerous accounts. Please also consider blocking the spamming editors. --Wotheina (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * diff 2023-07-26 in Greyhound Lines
 * diff 2024-02-02 in Aramex

trackingnumber.net
Another parcel tracker spam. Please also consider blocking the spamming editors. --Wotheina (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * diff 2020-01-06 in Parcel post
 * diff 2024-02-04 in Tracking number

trackingnumbers.net
Another parcel tracker spam. Editor already blocked. --Wotheina (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * diff 2024-01-20 in Tracking number

shop-booth.co
When I recently tried to link to shop-booth.com (note "m" at end) in a reference, it was blocked as it resembles shop-booth.co. shop-booth.com is a legitimate site for Booth magazine, which is published by Butler University, Indianapolis, IN, USA. Booth is a literary magazine.

shop-booth-com is needed to be able to refer to literary works that appear in the magazine. Please consider removing shop-booth.co (which returns DNS_PROBE_FINISHED_NXDOMAIN) from the blacklist.

Thanks.

Jeremy Butler (talk) 12:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This comes from the rule  on the global blacklist, added by  in 2010. * Pppery * it has begun...  18:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for notification. I modified the global regexp. The domain shop-booth.com should be usable now or in a few minutes. -- seth (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

pontiart.com
I am an art historical.I recentely started making some modification of Italian Artist wiki pages (especially XX century). There are a lot of information about bio and quotes of those artists that cannot be found else where.

I kindly ask to remove it. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.24.2.113 (talk • contribs)


 * This was extensively spammed, from the same ISP and IP range as the one you used to post this message. - MrOllie (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ❌ OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

astuteanalytica.com


Spammed off and on since 2021. Most of these are probable block evasion. - MrOllie (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This was archived without any action. I'm bringing it back because spamming resumed today. - MrOllie (talk) 13:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Multiple sites
Spam campaign. to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

supertutobet.com




Persistent spamming. Appears to be some sort of online casino. MaterialsPsych (talk) 10:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

shacktv.store
Continuously spammed on The Shak over several months by different accounts/IPs.


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Shak&diff=prev&oldid=1204594550
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Shak&diff=prev&oldid=1203209819
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Shak&diff=prev&oldid=1201335310

Accounts involved: GraziePrego (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

www.aubearing.com
Known accounts:

Diffs:
 * Special:Diff/1198194950
 * Special:Diff/1198463604
 * Special:Diff/1194317645
 * Special:Diff/1196418111
 * Special:Diff/1196771763
 * Special:Diff/1194320390
 * Special:Diff/1197192092
 * Special:Diff/1199029417
 * Special:Diff/1194321050

Persistent spamming, often in articles where the link is irrelevant to the subject of the article. The spammer uses throw-away accounts, each of which is used once and then abandoned, so blocking achieves nothing. JBW (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

annuaire-mairie.fr


Hello,

I suggest that you blacklist the annuaire-mairie.fr site because it is an unofficial site that does not cite its sources. This site is managed by a French company that has already been condemned by the courts for misleading consumers (https://mesinfos.fr/auvergne-rhone-alpes/saint-chamond-lentreprise-advercity-condamnee-pour-pratiques-commerciales-trompeuses-121955.html).

Their activity consists of placing as many links as possible to make people believe that they are the official site of the town hall, and then charging for administrative procedures that are free, or encouraging Internet users to call a premium-rate number.

This site has already been banned in France for similar practices: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist/archive7#Bloquer_:_divers_sites_g%C3%A9r%C3%A9s_par_Advercity --Torrora (talk) 10:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The 500+ existing links would need to be cleaned up first. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Can I start removing links without it being considered vandalism? Torrora (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to object; I don't see how that site would meet WP:RS. Are you aware of any users that have been systematically spamming it? OhNo itsJamie  Talk 18:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Not at the moment, and I hope not. I'm going to start removing the links and I'll let you know if there are any problems. Torrora (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ohnoitsjamie All is in order, there are no more links for this site. Torrora (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

app.lesite24.com


Malware-infested betting site being added to a pretty random set of articles. No encyclopaedic value. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ added to the spam domain block list. Sam Kuru (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Request to not use the spam blacklist to block non-spam sites
Please stop abusing the spam blacklist for editorial reasons. It should be used exclusively for spam, and URLs you don't like for editorial reasons should be handled in some other way. — Omegatron (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Examples I ran into yesterday: "state sponsored fake news" is not spam. Cyclowiki is not a spam domain.   The spam blacklist should be used for spam/malware domains and nothing else.  Discouraging people from linking to things for editorial/factual reasons should be handled through some other mechanism. — Omegatron (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The blacklist is not limited to blocking commercial links. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It should be limited to blocking spam domains, though. — Omegatron (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Omegatron this list is blocking sites that have been spammed or abused, or where community has achieved consensus that this list should be used to make sure that we should not link to a site. Dirk Beetstra T C 04:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I'm saying that's an abuse of the spam filter and we shouldn't be using it for that. "Community consensus to discourage linking to a site" is not spam.  That needs to be handled in some way other than a sitewide blacklist. — Omegatron (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Why? If the community gets consensus that some site should not ever be linked to (for any reason) then it should use every tool in its power to enforce that prohibition. Yes, the name "spam blacklist" is unideal, and we maybe should have come up with a better local name similarly to how we renamed "abuse filter" to "edit filter" locally, but that's water under the bridge now. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree, and part of the problem with some of these sites is that people override the edit filter all the time if it's set to permit override. The blocklist really is the only truly reliable way of stopping link abuse.
 * Sites like Kiwi Farms and the Daily Stormer should simply not be linked even in the most robust discussions. I find it ironic that Omegatron encountered this "problem" while trying to link to propaganda sites in support of an edit that was rejected for not being reliably sourced. I am sympathetic to the edit, by the way, but it's scarcely the end times for Wikipedia to insist on reliable sources not wikis or propaganda / fake news sites. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Omegatron: You are right. I objected to this action by Dirk Beetstra on 18 September 2021, when I saw a site blacklisted without being spam. Dirk Beetstra responded with some incorrect claims about Daily Mail / Breitbart / etc., and refused to change. Then Dirk Beetstra on 27 September 2021 added "some sites which have been added after independent consensus" to WP:BLACKLIST. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Peter Gulutzan you had any right to then revert and one of us would have started a discussion here to see whether or not that has community consensus. It is now an edit that stands for 2 1/2 years, and the only person who thinks that that is not a supported use of the spam blacklist is you (at least until now). This list (and its meta counterpart) is full of sites which are not spam but which are there because of the community requesting them to be blacklisted because it is the only way to combat them.  Porn sites are not spam (they get abused), url shorteners are not spam (though they get spammed), company websites are not spam (but their owners  find t sometimes necessary to enforce their links into Wikipedia).  They are however badly mis/abused and therefore listed by community consensus.  Community consensus is that sometimes links are listed here because the community does not want them linked without further vetting (i.e. whitelisting). Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Anybody always has a right to revert your WP:PGBOLD guideline change, but since you had decided not to follow what the guideline said, reasoning "There is a consensus to invoke IAR." etc. -- I gave up at the time. I later argued for de-blacklisting Breitbart and failed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Peter Gulutzan because breitbart was blacklisted by community consensus, the community decided that it should be made impossible to add breitbart links without previous discussion. We have two technical means to implement that, the lightweight blacklist (with easily accessible whitelist), or the heavyweight (but easier to configure) edit filter (where whitelisting is difficult).  Your (here plural) only argument to not use the blacklist is because that purpose does not fit the name of the list.  Have you ever used a flathead screwdriver to open a tin of paint? Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * My arguments in the past have included that the WP:RSN RfC specifically allowed use of Breitbart, that a direct quote of Breitbart should have been cited to Breitbart per WP:RS/QUOTE, that it's difficult to discuss Breitbart articles because it's impossible to point to them even on a talk page, that the original blacklisting was done after only a few edits blamed on JarlaxleArtemis who is now gone, that the supposed ways to get around the blacklist don't work, that a small number of WP:RSN participants aren't the Wikipediaa community, that you made demonstrably wrong statements in the prior discussion, but of course in this thread, because it's the thread topic, I mainly argued that the spam blacklist should be a blacklist for spam. However, if instead of claiming I had only one argument you had claimed my arguments have failed, you'd have been right so far. Maybe we can drop this till another objector comes along, eh? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * It's not an abuse of the spam filter. Those sites were being spammed and that led to egregiously false information being introduced. That is a pressing harm to the project. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)


 * FWIW the "spam blacklist" has grown to be simply the "Blocked External Domains" list (see the newest evolution at MediaWiki:BlockedExternalDomains.json). So from a purpose-built / technical perspective it is appropriate for any underlying block purpose. That doesn't stop the English Wikipedia from making a policy about this, and you are welcome to start an RFC. — xaosflux  Talk 15:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have been asking for it to be renamed since forever, partly because there are legitimate reasons for excluding links other than spam, and partly because several web property owners have complained that being called spammers is harming their reputation, even when their site legitimately was spammed. Blocked external domains is the perfect terminology. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

bnnbreaking.com


Per discussion here: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard

This is a content farm rife with almost-certainly-AI-generated content, copyvios and hallucinations. It masquerades quite convincingly as a legitimate news site, and many editors are using it as a source unwittingly. I removed about 80 instances of its use yesterday. About another ten have been added since then. I have no reason to believe the users citing this site are doing so in bad faith, but we should stop allowing it. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I’m actively following the the discussions on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard with great interest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#bnnbreaking.com, particularly those concerning bnnbreaking.com and the proposal to add it to the spam blacklist. I believe that the decision to blacklist a source should not be taken lightly and must be based on a comprehensive and balanced evaluation of the source's overall contribution to Wikipedia.
 * The characterization of bnnbreaking.com as a content farm warrants examination. However, it's critical to ensure that such evaluations are grounded in clear, verifiable evidence and adhere to Wikipedia's No Original Research (NOR) policy. The process should also respect the principle of the Neutral Point of View (NPOV), ensuring that decisions are not influenced by any undue bias against the publication.
 * Furthermore, the proposal to blacklist bnnbreaking.com raises questions about the impact on the diversity of sources and perspectives represented on Wikipedia. It's essential to consider whether all instances of citations from bnnbreaking.com are inherently unreliable or if there might be cases where the site provides valuable information that meets Wikipedia's reliability standards.
 * I advocate for a more nuanced approach to this issue. If there are concerns with the source, you may evaluate the reliability of individual citations on a case-by-case basis, considering the context in which bnnbreaking.com is cited, and whether alternative, more reliable sources are available.
 * In light of these considerations, I urge the community to engage in further discussion and analysis before taking any disruptive measure towards bnnbreaking.com. The current portrayal of the page, which lacks neutrality, underscores the need for cautious and balanced consideration. Let's ensure that our actions reflect a commitment to upholding Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and neutrality, fostering an environment where a wide range of reliable sources can contribute to the richness and accuracy of the encyclopedia. 49.130.118.20 (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Various detectors – plus the evidence of my own eyes – show this to be 88 to 98%-certainly AI generated text. How ironic. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Ohnoitsjamie, User:Kuru, can we add this soon? If you need to know why, check my logs. ;) Drmies (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * After further warrants were examined, I critically evaluated the evidence and ensured that clear and undue bias was proposed against these sites in a nuanced fashion; this will foster a rich environment of an encyclopedia. to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNo itsJamie  Talk 17:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

minervanaturalhealth.com.au


Users:

Diffs:
 * Special:Diff/1208700493
 * Special:Diff/1208700671

"Natural health" website being used as spam on user pages. Only two thus far, but any links to this site serve no encyclopedic purpose. Schrödinger's jellyfish &#9993; 01:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

pashminavogue.com


Plain ol' online shop, being added to various pashmina-related articles, also to AI-written drafts on the subject. No encyclopaedic value. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 10:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

themearound.com





 * Diffs:
 * Special:Diff/1167940689
 * Special:Diff/1206152183
 * Special:Diff/1206326642
 * Special:Diff/1206148409
 * Special:Diff/1206153727

Found some spamming of this domain that sadly persisted for a couple of weeks, seems to be getting added mostly by IPs. There are more examples, but these are just a sample. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Just FYI since you warned someone that also inserted this domain. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

thegoodypet.com
I've noticed it's been used to replace totallyjewish.com on three different occasions. Oddly it's been inserted into an existing reference by two different editors who appear to be good faith and long standing contributors to Wikipedia. Given they were both appearing to have used scripts during said insertions it's possible the script was hacked/modified to insert the url?


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abi_Finley&diff=prev&oldid=972509596
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=JFS_(school)&diff=next&oldid=1087080399
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_British_Jewish_entertainers&diff=prev&oldid=1130746502

Accounts involved
 * User:Derek R Bullamore
 * User:Philoserf

I don't think any action needs to be taken against the users but the URL should be blacklisted to prevent this from happening again. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)