MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/July 2024

pv-magazine.com
Not clear why this domain should be blacklisted. "Miasolé sets new flexible CIGS efficiency record" is cited in Copper indium gallium selenide solar cell and I was trying to fill in with a URL to the news page, but was blocked. — Chris Capoccia 💬 14:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Seconded. Came here to write the same. I also saw this previous request from 2021 MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March 2021. Apparently the domain is blacklisted from 2011. Definitely time to remove it. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 13:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I was trying to add this link: www.pv-magazine.com/2024/06/06/worlds-largest-solar-plant-goes-online-in-china-2/ to update the List of photovoltaic power stations and this is the most complete source. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 13:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This has been waiting for a while. It is the third request to remove this from the Spamlist and no reason to maintain them on the list has been presented. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 18:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Recovered from the archive. Will ping admin noticeboards on this. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 18:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I will third this. I find this to be a very useful source that I often want to cite but am unable to. Please remove from blacklist. Reywas92Talk 03:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The report that resulted in the blacklisting is here: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April 2011 and it references this WikiProject Spam report. If you search the archives of this talk page for "pv-magazine" you find numerous requests to remove this from the blacklist. The most recent request to delist was in November 2021: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/November 2021; the request was detailed, and it was declined by with a correspondingly detailed rationale. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. My current example looked more like self-published article from someone with knowledge common across the web than actual spam, but who knows what the rest of the site is. — Chris Capoccia 💬 09:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Anachronist thanks for the reply. I've read the decline reason but I think it is somewhat out of topic: we are just talking about spamming here. The reliability of the source is another matter and something editors should discuss themselves (maybe at WP:RSN) and is unrelated to spamming links.
 * With regard to spamming:
 * - @Beetstra says it was still spammed in 2016. That is 5 years worth of spamming but how could it be "respammed" in 2016 if it was blacklisted in 2011?
 * - Even if the last occurrence was in 2016 that is still 8 years ago. Is there a rule that clarifies how and when a site should be removed? I don't think it makes sense for those blacklists to be permanent.
 * I don't see much risk in removing them from the blacklist in any case. Several editors have pointed out they are a longstanding and reliable source in the field. If the link spamming starts again we can block them once again and I guess it will be hard to reverse at that point. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 10:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A decision to de-list a blacklisted site is based not only on risk of recidivism, but also on reliability. The reliability consideration isn't off topic. After all, there is no purpose whatsoever in removing an unreliable source from the blacklist just because somebody asks. The fact that both you and Reywas92 are trusted editors is why we're discussing this instead of simply denying the request.
 * To your question about being spammed after blacklisting: Attempts to add a blacklisted site show up in the logs when the blacklist filter is triggered.
 * I suggest creating a case on RSN and reporting back on the consensus. That's the usual process in getting a site de-listed. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is wild, the last incident (however that happened) was 8 years ago! The fact that some of their coverage is adapting news releases does not make them unreliable or unusable, and Beetstra should not be handing down his own RSN decision by himself. Reywas92Talk 14:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We also generally don't remove a site from the blacklist without an RSN case showing a consensus for reliability. Has that been done? It isn't Beetstra's responsibility to initiate one. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That feels like moving the goal posts, there was never an RSN case showing it was unreliable! It was blacklisted because it was spammed, not because the site was otherwise bad. Spam_blacklist says absolutely nothing about having to prove something that wasn't challenged in the first place. If that's the "usual process", you need to add that there. Searching this page's archives for the noticeboard, I don't see instances of this happening, with most links to it being for why something should be added to the blacklist.
 * There are additional requests to delist pv-magazine in 2018 (four times), 2019, 2019 again, 2020, 2020 again, 2021, 2021 again, 2022, and now. It's time to let editors use it appropriately, and if the site should be restricted for reliability rather than spam, there's a separate place to make that decision. Reywas92Talk 18:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with @Reywas92‘s point here. Several editors have pointed out this source is reliable and only one admin has disagreed some years ago. I don’t think that is sufficient to conclude that a source should be blanket banned. This is a spam blacklist after all. I think it should be removed and then it can be challenged on a case by case basis or if someone feels so inclined they can open an RSN discussion to declare it unreliable. @Anachronist do you agree? Do you also believe this source is entirely unreliable? &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 22:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, that isn't moving the goalposts, that is the normal process. You can look through the archives of delisting requests. To delist a blacklisted site, we ask for an RSN case. A couple of editors doesn't equal community consensus. Most of what PV-Magazine publishes seems to be "churnalism", scraping other sources to republish them, in which case the original sources should be cited instead. This isn't a vote; we don't discount the valid points given by one administrator just because it's one person. Get a consensus on RSN. That supplies a proper record and rationale for delisting it.
 * A suggestion was made in 2013 to move the site to XLinkBot to see what happens. you've done most of the declines for delisting requests, what say you? Also  because you've been involved in the past also. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have searched the archives and only see links to RSN where sites were added to the list, not removed, so could you please point to an RSN case as an example for me to create? But again, if "we ask for an RSN case" is the "normal process", that needs to be on the instructions at Spam blacklist and here. The instructions at the top of this talk section say to "Familiarize yourself with the reasons why a site was blacklisted" – the reason was spam, not inherent unreliability! This box literally says "Note that the bar for blacklisting is whether a site was spammed to Wikipedia, or otherwise abused, not whether the content of the site is 'spammy' or unreliable." But now you are directly contradicting this by saying the bar is because you believe this site is unreliable! I believe the "compelling evidence" per the stated directions is that the spamming happened over a decade ago, the abuse has stopped and is unlikely to return, and that many editors have stated this is a useful and reliable source. Even if many of their articles are considered churnalism, others are not, the original source may not be accessible or have the same information, and there is simply no ban on churnalism-type sources either even if not preferred. Gtoffoletto requested above to add www.pv-magazine.com/2024/06/06/worlds-largest-solar-plant-goes-online-in-china-2/; Reuters published a similar article – is it merely a churnalism website that should be restricted too? Reywas92Talk 00:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You found no examples? A simple search of "WP:RSN" in the archives reveals these, taken from just the first 20 search results. As you can see from the dates, this precedent goes back more than a decade:
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/August 2019
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/July 2012
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/July 2012
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/September 2019
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/September 2018
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/July 2015
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April 2021
 * All of these examples have different administrators suggesting using RSN as a means to aid a decision to de-list, or at least add links to the whitelist. For those of us who are unfamiliar with the site, we need the RSN case as an aid to make a decision.
 * I have no opinion on the reliability of the site. You say it is reliable, but I also see compelling arguments that it isn't, that alternative sources exist for the information found in PV Magazine.
 * Therefore, I absolutely am not going to de-list it until I see a consensus on RSN. If another administrator disagrees and decides to de-list it, I have no objection.
 * And you're correct that it should be mentioned in the instructions. Yours is the first pushback I've seen when an administrator makes this suggestion, so it never really came up before. I honestly don't understand why you object so strenuously to opening an RSN case and prefer instead to continue arguing. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Anachronist is correct. Anyone wanting links to pv-magazine.com should go to WP:RSN and provide a couple of articles plus text that might be added with the proposed source. Johnuniq (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Would it be correct to state that there's been 14 requests to take this off the spam blacklist, about half by experienced editors? Interesting that this is still on the blacklist in the face of that kind of interest in removing it. – Novem Linguae (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you're comfortable removing it, go ahead. After reading every single one of those 14 reqeusts, I am not. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I had mainly looked at results for the full name rather than the abbreviation, and those from recent years, but one instance just says "(and WP:RSN may be of help regarding reliability)". IQPC is clearly an event sponsor, that like others is not a news website and not a similar case. One merely says "Have you discussed this on WP:RSN?" None actually link to a discussion at RSN, suggesting this is not a typical process. It should be quite obvious that's it's unpleasant to be told an unstated requirement that is entirely unrelated to the reason for the original blacklisting, one that's contrary to the box above that says unreliability is not the bar for blacklisting, and that starting an RSN discussion shifts the burden to everyone else to analyze something different when there's clearly an interest to move past a 13-year-old incident solely about spamming. Reywas92Talk 22:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Once on the blacklist, there is obviously no reason to delist an unreliable site. An obvious fact shouldn't need saying in the box above, but it could be added for clarity.
 * Regarding the reliability of pv-magazine, I see arguments both ways in the archives; therefore, as someone with no opinion about it, I am reluctant to delist without seeing a broader consensus.
 * The bar for determining reliability is consensus on RSN. That is also an obvious fact that needn't be stated in the box above, but that could also be added for clarity.
 * In the examples I listed above, you can see a pattern: when we ask for an RSN consensus, the requester doesn't follow through. And so far, the same pattern is becoming evident here in spite of the length of this discussion.
 * This summer is pretty busy for me until August. I'd start the RSN discussion myself just to get closure on this, referencing points made in the archives of this talk page (including the points made by the editor of PV Magazine who also requested delisting), but I haven't yet found the time. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually it is false that there is a pattern of "not following through with RSN". I started over at RSN and I was actually sent here (!!!) to fix the "spam problem". Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 441
 * I think we are being excessively bureaucratic. This is an easy fix. Do we really need more beyond 14 request to prove there is a consensus to reinstate this?
 * We are wasting time and an admin needs to take action and fix this. What are we afraid of? Let's Be bold and move on. It's not like blocking the site again would be hard... &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 13:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I answered a question, I didn't send you anywhere - certainly not to fix a "problem". I don't support this delist request, so please don't imply that I do. MrOllie (talk) 13:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the resistance to starting a proper discussion on RSN. Be bold, do that, reference the past discussions in this archive. The number of requests to delist is irrelevant, and those discussions have valid points pro and con. The fact that it's been declined 14 times also means something, but it seems inconvenient to notice that, eh?
 * I'd start the RSN discussion if I can find the time to gather up all the details from the archives.
 * This request is until that happens. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure I'll open a thread on RSN again if it is the preferred procedure. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 18:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: having a proper discussion on RSN is pretty hard when liking to the source is not possible at all. @Johnuniq proposed to provide a couple of articles plus text that might be added with the proposed source, yeah I just tried that and I can't link pv-magazine in any way. Am I supposed to give other editors instructions on how to compose a link to the article so they may manually reach the website?
 * I love the smell of bureaucratic drift in the evening. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 18:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You link to a blacklisted source by omitting the "http" at the front. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I had just posted there by separating the URL with a space: Reliable sources/Noticeboard &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 20:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

trimfeed.com


It looks like a currently blacklisted site, BNN Breaking, has now rebranded as TrimFeed. Here's a recent New York Times article about it. Worth adding Trimfeed? - Amigao (talk) 02:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

report-accident

 * Link

Persistent link spamming, please blacklist.-KH-1 (talk) 05:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Spammers:


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNo itsJamie Talk 11:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

brandmydispo.com


These are very likely the same editor. I also saw this link added sometime in the past week in exactly the same manner but now can't find my revert of it. The spamming is unusual: the article gets edits in every section, moving words or sentences around, looking like a decent copyedit that just happens to introduce a new reference or external link. But on closer examination, the changes are unnecessary at best and actively harmful at worse, and the intention is to add this link to a sales site with SEO-optimised fake 'reviews' of the products it's selling. Sneaky. 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:7DCA:43EC:BDAF:A739 (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: was also added to three unrelated items on Commons – see my reverts. 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:7DCA:43EC:BDAF:A739 (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Found my revert from yesterday, added the sock to the list. 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:7DCA:43EC:BDAF:A739 (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNo itsJamie Talk 11:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

genesisbiopharma.co

 * (username blocked)
 * (username blocked)
 * (username blocked)

India-based sales site, being added today as a "helpful link" with associated sales language around it – sometimes to an SEO-optimised 'blog' section of the site. No encyclopaedic value. 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:7DCA:43EC:BDAF:A739 (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNo itsJamie Talk 11:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

precisionwriter.com


Link slipped in amongst a couple of paragraphs of what seems to be AI-derived drivel. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 11:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNo itsJamie Talk 11:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Google.com
I'm being blocked from adding a link to books.google.com/url?id=hMA2DwAAQBAJ because of the google.com part. It does work for new Google Books URLs, e.g. https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/Gz3f0gx530EC. So that's confusing. Is this issue local to me, or should that be fixed? Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think any google link with that URL parameter is blocked globally. Something about it acting as a URL redirector/shortener at some point. You can just use the normal books URL like so: https://books.google.com/books?id=hMA2DwAAQBAJ&hl=en Sam Kuru (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Huh, interesting. I'm glad there's a workaround. Thanks for responding! Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

vpnranks

 * Link


 * Spammers:

Spamming since 2015, please blacklist.-KH-1 (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Recent activity

HealthLine.com
Hello, I just want to find out why healthline.com is blacklisted? Please be specific ; general regurgitations of Wikipedia's policies aren't all that helpful. 70.108.8.143 (talk) 01:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Deprecation/blacklisting was the consensus reached at this discussion. OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. 70.108.8.143 (talk) 02:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

redshiftresearchproject.org
Request blacklist of redshiftresearchproject.org. The site was written by a "specialist" to promote his or her "Consultancy" service. The link gets added back to the Amazon Redshift article even after removal.

-- Thanks Raysonho (talk) 04:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Link


 * Spammers:

rizwardsleather.com


Sales site, no encyclopaedic value, added to Sex swing by these socks. 87.74.252.246 (talk) 11:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

TradingEconomics.com
Could anyone please give a link to the blacklisting of this link? Regards, 48JCL 01:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * , blacklisted in Janurary 2008 here (MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January 2008). Pahunkat (talk) 01:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)