MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May 2018

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

UpgradedPoints.com[edit]

I was trying to add a link to this site for the Norwegian Airline article and noticed that it was blocked. It doesnt fit the criteria for a spammy site. They seemed to have received a good number of press coverage.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Budha Everyday (talk • contribs)

@Budha Everyday: no Declined,  Defer to Whitelist for specific links on this domain. Spammed by what is likely a paid editing ring, low value blog. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

World Heritage Encyclopedia mirrors[edit]

Extended list of World Heritage Encyclopedia mirrors
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have a bit of a non-typical problem. One of the problematic links I periodically scan for has been a bit of a challenge. The "World Heritage Encyclopedia" is a simple Wikipedia mirror. Articles are a straight-up copy, usually (but not always) stripping images and some markup, and claiming the material is "Compiled by World Heritage Encyclopedia™." They do provide another clear notice "Help to improve this article, make contributions at the Citational Source, sourced from Wikipedia", with the "Citational Source" usually being a link back to the article's contributor history.

The problem is that they also have about 40 other domains which link back to the "World Heritage Encyclopedia" and claim that as the source ([http://schoollibrary.org/Articles/RT%C3%89%20News%20at%20One?&Words=Michael%20John%20O%27Leary example]). Again, images and references are usually stripped. These "mirrors of mirrors" note the "author" as "World Heritage Encyclopedia", and futher note that it is "Sourced from World Heritage Encyclopedia™ licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 Help to improve this article, make contributions at the Citational Source." The "citational source" is linked back to the original Wikipedia's history, but that's the only clue that this is a mirror. They also add a "Copyright © 2018 World Library Foundation. All rights reserved." which seems to break our license and cause futher confusion.

Unfortuntely, these fool many people, including competent and long-term editors.

There are hundreds of automated and non-automated copyright notices as well; these are difficult to whitelist as there are many domains. I've removed several speedy deletion tags claiming the article was copied from one of these mirrors, but it's very difficult to catch those after the fact.

I'd like to blacklist all of these (about sixty domains) to avoid further disruption. As this is a non-standard use of the spam blacklist, I'd like other opinions before I do it. Kuru (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuru: Do I see that gutenberg.us is not owned by Project Gutenberg but by this ... ?? If that type of maiming is in the practice, I agree with at least blacklisting all mirrors-of-mirrors, and likely also for the original. (do we need a blanket discussion on mirrors of Wikipedia, so that we can blacklist these by default?). --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: That's correct, he's sitting on the gutenberg.us domain (see the technical contact for the whois). It appears there is a legitimate relationship with gutenberg, though - they run the "central" and "self" subdomains on the actual gutenberg.org site as a "self-publishing" arm. Both of those house a full Wikipedia mirror + a few other public domain works that can likely be sourced elsewhere. Obviously, the gutenberg mirrors cause tremendous confusion. There's a history of odd domains that likely are intended to promote an association with other corporate entities: see ituneslibrary.net, icloud-library.org, sonyebookreaderlibrary.com, zunelibrary.net and others on the extended list. Other pass-through domains seem to confuse people with their seemingly officious names: see militarylibrary.org, and nationalpubliclibrary.org.
Concur with the need for a general extended mirrors discussion - that's going to be complex. They're not always just copies. Most of these, for example, also hold some public domain works that can likely qualify as legitimate RS. The confusion with the inadequately identified mirrors seems to outweigh that benefit, and we can use whitelisting if needed. A bit gray. Kuru (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess a third opinion would be in order, but for me you can pull the trigger. You may want to put the rest of the domains in a LinkSummary in a collapsed box here, so all trace back to this discussion. —Dirk Beetstra T C 18:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added the full list collapsed above as recommended. Kuru (talk) 01:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't have that much experience with World Heritage Encyclopedia but I would suggest an immediate blacklist prior to any discussion, the potential for BLP violations from this source appear to be too great in my view. A controversial lie could be removed from a BLP and then one of these mirrors could be used as a citation, waiting to blacklist this will just mean that such problems are more likely to occur. Similar could happen with exceptional and libellous claims. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I probably remove 30-40 or so mirror links a week - this week maybe 200 as I found a new mirror set. Usually, it is people trying to google up sources for obscure birthdays or people who don't read English very well and miss clear attributions back to Wikipedia. With this specific set of mirrors, even experienced editors miss the "attribution." I'm not sure I've even seen a serious BLP problem come up, but you're right, the possibility exists if they're not keeping the mirrors refreshed. I did notice earlier that the owner of these mirrors is in the middle of a copyright lawsuit over his image attribution, but that is not yet concluded and he's actively contesting it. Kuru (talk) 01:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist per the above. Let me know if this goes awry. Kuru (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

cruisebe.com[edit]

This was brought up a month ago in project spam here. I just cleaned out about fifty more instances. This is a site to buy a cruise and not something we want to be citing. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just regenerating the report for this one, in case we have to bl both mentioned there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

realbaze.com[edit]

Nigerian shop site and personal blog, continued spamming in Teahouse after final warning. No foreseeable encyclopedic usage. GermanJoe (talk) 08:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GermanJoe: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cuetracker.net[edit]

  • cuetracker.net: 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 - appears to be a site with useful statistics about snooker. No evidence of harm. Appears to be regularly updated with statistics. --LukeSurl t c 17:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I oppose removing Cuetracker from the blacklist. There is plenty of evidence of "harm" in that many of its statistics are incorrect contradicting that of the BBC and World Snooker, and it has proliferated as a source on biographical articles about living people. While many of the stats are indeed correct many of them are demonstrably not. It appears to be a fansite with no demonstrable editorial oversight. Editors shouldn't be using statsitics from this website without corroborating them first, and if you can corroborate them then there is no need to use this site as a source. Betty Logan (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Betty Logan. Cuetracker has come up a few times at other boards where editors have pointed out its unreliabililty, appears to be maintained by one person. Black Kite (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

mywikibiz[edit]

Spammed by yet another long-term abuser per [1]. Given the history I am rather surprised this isn't already on the blacklist. Guy (Help!) 22:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG/help: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

coinlib.io[edit]

New cryptocurrency tracking site, that was spammed into several articles. Just what we always wanted! Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thebiomedcenter.com[edit]

Was spammed into three articles by a corporate-named account. Nothing encyclopedic there. Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: no Declined, blocked the editor - if that does not get the message through, we blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Beetstra:, see this from an IP. Jytdog (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jytdog: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist - per my previous comment. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

bitcointalk.org[edit]

  • bitcointalk.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 Bitcointalk has its own article. The forum was first established by bitcoin's creator and his posts are still hosted on the current website. As noted in bitcointalk's Wikipedia article, "Initial coin offerings are usually announced at the forum". That statement also would hold true for all cryptocurrencies, including updates for them. Many historical announcements have taken place in bitcointalk. And I believe it would also be useful to reference in many other situations. Bitcointalk holds as an outpost from which anyone can freely discuss cryptocurrencies, and this has produced valuable insight in certain cases. For example, there have been community-led investigations that were reported through the forum and brought out evidence on cases against certain coins.
no Declined,  Defer to Whitelist for specific links on this domain. It was spammed, abused. It is a forum, and we are not writing a newspaper. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sweetas.net.au[edit]

This link has been spammed into the Lindt & Sprüngli article as an official shop since January 5 from multiple ip's. Araratic | talk 09:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Araratic: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist - not only IPs, an editor was blocked for spamming in January. Also spammed to many articles. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Safer-networking.com[edit]

Trying to adding the link to the site for BonziBuddy article for missing citations. It appears to doesn’t have any spams.—Ijoe2003 (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was implicated in phishing attacks back in 2009.  Defer to Whitelist to request whitelisting of a specfic page on that site (not the home page). We won't delist the whole site. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

facebook.com/freemasonrywatch[edit]

FreemasonryWatch is already on the blacklist. This particular variation is being edit warred into multiple articles by Lastman8-12 (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). I don't know for sure if it qualifies under the same reasons the original link was blocked for. (I know the link summary template doesn't take slashes, sorry...) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

mobilespecs.net/phone/Vivo/Vivo_V2.html[edit]

I was using this site to research the Vivo V2, but it said it was blacklisted. I don't understand how it is spam. EDG 543 (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EDG 543: you were able to link it in the header, it is not blacklisted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out you were adding:

I need to have a look at this one. —Dirk Beetstra T C 05:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EDG 543: regard8ng the maxabout site: no Declined. That site is made to be spam, and was spammed, there should be better alternatives (and I doubt that this site is a reliable source). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: Whoops. Sorry about the mix-up. Thank you for reviewing the website. EDG 543 (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

musiqclub.in[edit]

Site being slowly spammed by IPv6 editor. This isn't a reliable source, so easier just to close the door on the spam. Ravensfire (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IPV6 continues (added) plus IPv4 address (added). Ravensfire (talk) 04:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravensfire: plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. Lets issue some warnings. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me - thanks! Ravensfire (talk) 13:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

bskud.com[edit]

Repeated spamming under the pretext of adding PIN codes to articles. User(s) have been warned multiple times over the course of five months but they seem to be IP hopping and reverting to the same behaviour. —Gazoth (talk) 09:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

223.230.64.113 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
More spamming from a new anon editor. See first and second diffs. —Gazoth (talk) 08:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gazoth: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 10:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

kubavize.com[edit]

IP added links today to many articles as external links to a PBS documentary, but there is no documentary, only these Turkish tour operators' websites. IP already blocked. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

cachdieutrimuntrungca.com[edit]

This group of users spam the link in question and another link to LinkedIn articles. -Mys_721tx (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mys 721tx: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

zunzun.com[edit]

zunzun.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 zunzun.com is an open-source web application that provides tools for curve fitting. The owner of the website has dedicated his time and knowledge to provide a free, open source, advanced and easy-to-use web application that is benefiting students, engineers, researchers and many others as shown on his google-group and bitbucket repository (links for both are available on the website). I'm just a user of the website among many people in my field, and I believe the value of zunzun should be appreciated. Please visit the website, google group, and repository to better understand how useful this website to the community.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr-7alawa (talk • contribs)

no Declined. Massively spammed by a large number of IPs. Warnings were not heeded, warnings were blanked. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

atoall.com[edit]

most recently spammed by

but concerns and spam activities date back to 2010 (see also old history of poke report). No encyclopedic usage, recurring spam is likely. GermanJoe (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GermanJoe: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Slipped through, it seems I earlier suggested to meta blacklist related stuff. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Csgopedia.com[edit]

Trying to adding the link to the site for KioShiMa article for information about player Maikelele. It appears to doesn’t have any spams.Site does not look like spam. There are 3 top sites about CS:GO esport and this one is one of them- it provides all information about settings of pro players and their current gameplay. Site had changed in 2017 very much. Alexkillern1

@Alexkillern1: no Declined,  Defer to Whitelist for specific links on this domain. The site was also definitely spammed in 2017 by multiple accounts and IPs (this list is not for spam (per sé), but for material that is spammed). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

cubic-zirconia-cz-platinum-jewelry.com[edit]

Upon trying to use https://www.cubic-zirconia-cz-platinum-jewelry.com/blog/history_of_blood_diamonds/ as a reference, I'm denied on the premise that \bjewelry\.com\b is in the blacklist. I don't know the reasoning for the \b and I don't know what conventions you're trying to follow here, so should that entry be edited, or the longer domain added to the whitelist?Googol30 (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Googol30: likely the latter, unless it was intended (in which case we can still consider to whitelist the precise link). Please request for whitelisting in the way outlined there. —Dirk Beetstra T C 20:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May_2018&oldid=845931910"