From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

mohammadghorbanighomshei2020.ir

Link used by prolific sock (here and on fa Wikipedia and Wikidata) see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mghghoffic/Archive for history. As the link has no use for anyone as a personal site hopefully it it's backlisted that will finally stop them from wasting our time at AfC and SPI. Cheers KylieTastic ( talk) 11:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC) reply

@ KylieTastic:  Defer to Global blacklist, cross-wiki problem. I'll take care of it there. -- GeneralNotability ( talk) 17:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Hey GeneralNotability thanks for taking care of the wrong location :/ - my first time here in my many years and didn't pay attention. I wasn't aware of a global blacklist, but I agree that sounds like a much better solution. Thanks again KylieTastic ( talk) 17:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC) reply
KylieTastic, no worries! It's not that blacklisting on enwiki would be wrong, it's just that blacklisting it xwiki would be better (since COIBot says they've also spammed it on fawiki and wikidata). GeneralNotability ( talk) 17:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC) reply


emergenresearch.com

After collecting warnings on Knowledgecrafter227, has now moved on to sock puppet accounts to avoid scrutiny, including 3 in the last day. - MrOllie ( talk) 14:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC) reply

After seeing the results of a SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jones.ava109, I'm adding reportsanddata.com to this report, which was also added by confirmed sockpuppets. - MrOllie ( talk) 15:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC) reply
@ MrOllie: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist (second attempt after creating the log). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 06:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply

dailystormer.su

Should we update this .su ccTLD name from .name domain? -- 49.150.112.127 ( talk) 13:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC) reply

plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. I'll just add the .su so we don't get people using the old domain again. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 06:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply

econlib.org

See here. It looks like it was banned due to being part of a paid-editing setup; without getting into the details, I'm not sure that's still relevant. The link I want to add is /a-correction-on-housing-regulation on that domain; I want to add it to YIMBY as it's an important addendum to Hsieh and Moretti on the costs of land-use regulation. grendel| khan 03:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Support removal. Rather surprising to see this on the blacklist. Looking at the logs and the page history, it seems that this entry was pointed out as mistaken right after it had been first added ("This is a legitimate, relatively prominent Economics blog where relatively prominent economists( Sumner, Bryan Caplan) discuss current issues in econ"). A partial whitelisting of the site several months later addressed some of the problems created by the initial block, but other relevant content remains blacklist. In any case, the supposed use in a paid edit happened almost half a decade ago, and I see no reason why (to pick a random example) the article Gustave de Molinari shouldn't link to the same online book as the corresponding German Wikipedia article. Regards, HaeB ( talk) 04:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC) reply
@ HaeB: because the subject of the page is the author, not the book. See WP:ELNO, it is indirect. Moreover, I don’t see why we should link to a book that is not even mentioned in the text, and if it were to be added, our ISBN functionality is more than sufficient to find a copy. And since this book is now in the public domain, it can easily be added to wikisource. Dirk Beetstra T C 20:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Grendelkhan: no Declined,  Defer to Whitelist for specific links on this domain. The material was spammed by a paid editing ring with conflict of interest. Except for the encyclopedia practically all material is easily replaceable, you have a rare exception. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 20:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Beetstra: Done! Thanks for the pointer. grendel| khan 02:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Businessmag

Link
Spammers

Please blacklist.- KH-1 ( talk) 00:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC) reply

@ KH-1: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 17:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC) reply

akshaykumarmovies.co.in

plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 17:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC) reply

shattari.blogspot.com

Redirects to site qadrishattari.xyz that was blacklisted in May 2021. Blogspot link had already been spammed in the past (see my report here from December 2020). Some diffs from July/September 2021: Special:Diff/1028154482, Special:Diff/1033792134, Special:Diff/1033966694. – NJD-DE ( talk) 18:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Njd-de: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 18:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply

romanempire0.yolasite.com

Multiple spam by this user despite four warnings. I would even recommend global blacklist as nothing of value would be lost. Veverve ( talk) 21:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply

onlineclassfix.com

The only edits made by this user were to add this site into existing refs. User also reported to AIV - wolf 14:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Thewolfchild: no Declined, only user blocked. I do however agree this is useless, so if this continues I will endorse blacklisting. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 19:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Beetstra: My first post here, didn't know what to expect. Thanks for the reply. - wolf 19:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Thewolfchild: no problem! Dirk Beetstra T C 19:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply

everybodywiki.com

everybodywiki.com seems to be scraping wikipedia including possibly drafts. I've noticed them a few times now used in AfC articles. A quick search showed only one, now-removed, use in mainspace but seeing as this will never be a reliable source should it be blacklisted? Slywriter ( talk) 15:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC) reply

I've removed hundreds of links from this site; it's on a list of mirrors I watch for daily. In addition to mirroring the content of both main and draft spaces on Wikipedia, it's also a wide open wiki with zero editorial control. 90% of the time, this is used for self-promotional or spam articles. While I typically don't support adding mirrors to the blacklist, this one has been used abusively by a very large number of people. I'd be in favor of blacklisting it - there is absolutely zero chance of it ever being used as a source or an external link. Kuru (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Kuru and Slywriter: I created a datadump in m:user talk:COIBot/LinkReports/everybodywiki.com (there are too many records for a regular report). Can you have a look whether there is evidence for systemic abuse? Dirk Beetstra T C 06:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Beetstra, I will take a look today. Slywriter ( talk) 12:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC) reply
(restoring from archive) - After looking at that dump, and after after removing about two dozen links in the last few weeks (all spam/promotional junk), I'm going to go ahead and blacklist this. There's no value to the link, and it fits the primary criteria for this filter. Kuru (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC) reply

AZ lyrics removal request

azlyrics.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • 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

AZLyrics.com is blacklisted due to WP:LINKVIO. However, I think this is based on outdated information. While the site may have been violating copyright in the past, its content has been legally licensed since at least 2013 [1]. Looking at an example page (azlyrics.com/lyrics/muse/wontstanddown.html), the bottom states "Lyrics licensed by Musixmatch", which is a legitimate licensing service. Thousands of Wikipedia articles used to link to MetroLyrics, but that legal site was shut down in 2021. Therefore, it would be very valuable to be able to link to AZLyrics instead.-- Albany NY ( talk) 04:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Albany NY: no Declined, AZLyrics claims copyright for everything they publish. They obviously do not have the copyright for the actual lyrics as that is exclusively with the composer/writer of the lyrics. The material is user submitted, so these are not the actual lyrics, they are user submitted lyrics. What AZLyrics is publishing is licensed by Musixmatch, but that does not mean that the actual lyrics are licensed by Musixmatch, it means that the user submitted content is licensed by Musixmatch. Seen that they have a clear DMCA notice, anything that is found to be a copyright violation will be removed when it is reported - until it is reported it is not removed, but that does not mean that it is not a copyright violation.
I am therefor not comfortable removing this just based on a request, but would like to see a proper independent discussion (RfC) to evaluate the copyright status and whether it is desirable to link to this site as an official lyrics site. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 06:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your quick response. As a company that works with the music industry, Musixmatch is only able to license actual lyrics, so I'm not sure what you mean by saying that it licenses user generated content and not actual lyrics. Do you have a source for that statement? In this case, it appears the lyrics were originally submitted by users and are now licensed by Musixmatch. Also, what would be the proper forum for such an RfC? -- Albany NY ( talk) 00:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply
What I mean is that all the lyrics are submitted by users. That it is licensed by musixmatch has nothing to do with having licenses from the actual copyright holders. What you publish on wikipedia is also licensed. That likely noone will sue us when we publish material to which we don’t have the copyright does not make it not copyvio material. Dirk Beetstra T C 02:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

songlyricspro.in

Lyrics website that is added as a citation, likely WP:LINKVIO. Spamming continues after Alanmonu ( talk · contribs) was blocked for the same. -- Ab207 ( talk) 09:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Ab207: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. -- OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

isaiahogedegbe.wordpress.com

Persistent spam by multiple sockpuppets. Pahunkat ( talk) 22:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Pahunkat: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. -- OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

dcgaragedoorsrv.com

Spammed by multiple IPs. Pahunkat ( talk) 18:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Pahunkat: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. -- OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

toaster.report

Spammed by multiple accounts. Pahunkat ( talk) 09:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Pahunkat: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. -- OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

baccaratthaipro.com

Reporting from m:User:COIBot/XWiki/baccaratthaipro.com. Camouflaged spam using reference tags by multiple IPs. See e.g., [2] or [3]. Thanks, — MarcoAurelio ( talk) 13:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply

@ MarcoAurelio: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, but since they were already on it I don't expect that this will be enough (p.s., the {{ BLRequestRegex}} is not needed if it can take the LinkSummary). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 14:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Beetstra: Thank you. I'll keep monitoring the meta report and see if it goes elsewhere, in which case, I'll globally blacklist it. — MarcoAurelio ( talk) 14:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply

mindgroom.com

Courtesy ping / thanks to: TornadoLGS. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 19:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply

@ TornadoLGS: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. -- ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 19:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply

talkref.com

Spam by sockpuppets. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 18:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC) reply

plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. -- ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 18:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC) reply

thisworldthesedays.com

See COIBot report. Rickroll site; no value except to vandals. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 22:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Suffusion of Yellow: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. -- OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply

upmetrics.co

Deferred from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Upmetrics. Spamlinks on "business"-related articles. — twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 22:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply

 Done from the original report (clearer in log). Thanks. Dirk Beetstra T C 03:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Filmcompanion.in

Spammers should have been range blocked instead of blacklisting the whole website. I suggest using edit filter to prevent utm_source=Wikipedia or seeding. The website was founded and edited by Anupama Chopra who have won National Film Award for Best Book on Cinema, another National Award winning film critic Baradwaj Rangan regularly write reviews in the site. So their reviews are much valued nationwide and the site has reputation.-- The Doom Patrol ( talk) 14:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

@ The Doom Patrol: no Declined,  Defer to Whitelist for specific links on this domain. What you suggest is simply not going to cut the deal. It is already two IP ranges, and both IPs and referral codes are cheap. specific links will do. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 18:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

abortions.co.il

I wasn't certain if to propose to the global blacklist or here, there appears to also be cross-refspam. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 18:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

@ PaleoNeonate: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 18:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2022&oldid=1070376129"