Talk:Spam blacklist
| ←Requests and proposals | Spam blacklist | Archives (current)→ |
The associated page is used by the MediaWiki Spam Blacklist extension, and lists regular expressions which cannot be used in URLs in any page in Wikimedia Foundation projects (as well as many external wikis). Any meta administrator can edit the spam blacklist; either manually or with SBHandler. For more information on what the spam blacklist is for, and the processes used here, please see Spam blacklist/About.
Please sign your posts with ~~~~ after your comment. This leaves a signature and timestamp so conversations are easier to follow. Completed requests are marked as {{added}}/{{removed}} or {{declined}}, and are generally archived quickly. Additions and removals are logged · current log 2019/04. |
- snippet for logging
- {{sbl-log|19027832#{{subst:anchorencode:SectionNameHere}}}}
Contents
Proposed additions[edit]
|
This section is for proposing that a website be blacklisted; add new entries at the bottom of the section, using the basic URL so that there is no link (example.com, not http://www.example.com). Provide links demonstrating widespread spamming by multiple users on multiple wikis. Completed requests will be marked as {{added}} or {{declined}} and archived. |
io.goldfash.com[edit]
io.goldfash.com
- (LinkSearch: meta s/meta | en s/en | es s/es | de s/de | fr s/fr | ru s/ru | zh s/zh | simple s/simple | c s/c | d s/d | Wikipedias: top 20 · 40 · major wikis )(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)
- (Reports: Report <-track | XWiki | Local | en | find entry)(DomainTools: whois | AboutUs | Malware? | Alexa)
redirect service — billinghurst sDrewth 06:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst:
Added to Spam blacklist. -- — billinghurst sDrewth 06:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Proposed additions (Bot reported)[edit]
|
|
This section is for domains which have been added to multiple wikis as observed by a bot.
These are automated reports, please check the records and the link thoroughly, it may report good links! For some more info, see Spam blacklist/Help#COIBot_reports. Reports will automatically be archived by the bot when they get stale (less than 5 links reported, which have not been edited in the last 7 days, and where the last editor is COIBot).
|
COIBot[edit]
The LinkWatchers report domains meeting the following criteria:
- When a user mainly adds this link, and the link has not been used too much, and this user adds the link to more than 2 wikis
- When a user mainly adds links on one server, and links on the server have not been used too much, and this user adds the links to more than 2 wikis
- If ALL links are added by IPs, and the link is added to more than 1 wiki
- If a small range of IPs have a preference for this link (but it may also have been added by other users), and the link is added to more than 1 wiki.
COIBot's currently open XWiki reports
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Proposed removals[edit]
|
|
This section is for proposing that a website be unlisted; please add new entries at the bottom of the section.
Remember to provide the specific domain blacklisted, links to the articles they are used in or useful to, and arguments in favour of unlisting. Completed requests will be marked as {{removed}} or {{declined}} and archived. See also recurring requests for repeatedly propo sed (and refused) removals. Notes:
|
genetherapynet.com[edit]
genetherapynet.com
- (LinkSearch: meta s/meta | en s/en | es s/es | de s/de | fr s/fr | ru s/ru | zh s/zh | simple s/simple | c s/c | d s/d | Wikipedias: top 20 · 40 · major wikis )(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)
- (Reports: Report <-track | XWiki | Local | en | find entry)(DomainTools: whois | AboutUs | Malware? | Alexa)
I tried adding this and found it was blacklisted here. It seems that someone with a COI to that site and others was spamming it on articles cross wiki. As far as I can tell the editor has not been here for quite a long time (see here, this and Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2011-02). Was wondering if it could be removed. Not sure about the other websites that were blacklisted at the same time as I have not explored them. Aircorn (talk) 06:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Aircorn: it was being spammed in 2011. A removal needs more than "I want to add it", it usually needs firm reasoning about why it is usable at the sites. You can always ask about whitelisting at w:en:mediawiki talk:spam-whitelist — billinghurst sDrewth 09:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- It is quite hard to find sites that explain genetic engineering and are user friendly. It would make my editing life a little bit easier if I could use it as a reference, but it is not a site I would regularly use as there are much better (although less accessable) resources out there. I figured that since it was (as far as I could tell) only blacklisted due to spamming a long time ago then it would be relatively easy to unblacklist once that was no longer an issue. I will look at whitelisting if I really need it. Thanks for the response. Aircorn (talk) 09:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Aircorn and Billinghurst: This is a bit curious, they were blacklisted per Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2011-02#3_Adsense_related and apparently delisted per Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2011-02#genetherapynet.com_etc. That suggests that our good faith de-listing did not work, and that they got re-listed afterwards. Not sure what to suggest here (sites from such organisations would qualify for a second chance, but this already seems to have happened). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 10:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Beetstra: It was removed? The history tool indicates that it has been there consistently since 2011, so if it was out, it was for less than 500 revisions. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
| “ | The version history of Spam blacklist is being searched for genetherapy as plain text |
” |
| — http://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/wikiblame.php?user_lang=en&lang=meta&project=wikimedia&article=Spam+blacklist&needle=genetherapy&skipversions=0&ignorefirst=0&limit=500&offmon=2&offtag=10&offjahr=2019&searchmethod=int&order=desc&user= | ||
more than 3000 entries[edit]
related: Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2015-01#Now_restarting_the_original_debate
hi! (ping billinghurst, Beetstra)
At user:lustiger seth/sbl log stats/all wikis no hits I started again to make a list of all sbl entries that have 0 hits in all ~900 wikis since they were added to list (but not earlier than 2013, when the sbl log came into existence).
The script takes some time (another week probably). Half of the sbl entries (~4800) are checked already. more than 3000 never have been the reason for a blocked edit.
What do you think? Shall we delete those entries (except from the url shorteners) from the list? Advantage: the lesser entries, the clearer the structure. -- seth (talk) 10:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Lustiger seth: Thank you for this effort. I think most of the non-shortener domains can be removed.
- Re 'clearer [the] structure': Would it be possible to 'sort' the list at some point, stuff all the shorteners until now into a 'section', with at the end a mark from 'below here unsorted'. In that case, every year or so we can sort the unsorted into the above 'groups', and it would make clean-up of non-shorteners easier (you can even take them out before your parsing, no need to check whether they were abused or not, we keep 'm anyway if they are still a shortening service). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 07:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment I am interpreting that as you have been running through all wikis Special:log/spamblacklist. On checking some randoms, I see that some listings have come from a Poke, eg. User:COIBot/LinkReports/onlinetripadvisorturkey.com so there has been concerns that have caused addition. Have we done a cross reference against generated XWiki reports as numbers of urls come about from AbuseFilter hits, so if we have additions to blacklist, and generated XWiki reports, I am not certain that we want those removed. Also if we have a regex in place, I am loath to remove those as they have been specifically added from an evidence-base. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)- I am also seeing numbers of essay writing domains in the list, and while they have not been spammed, I am not certain that I want them removed. Call me paranoid, or call me nasty! If we are to remove urls, maybe we want to eyeball cull-proposed removals and remove those we would like to keep. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst: We could easily cut the regexes which have been added in the last # years (2?) from that list. If seth would re-run the script in a year (e.g.) then those with still no hits would come.
- Alternatively, we run a script on those filters, extract all the domains in those ... (heck, I could teach LiWa to read certain filters as prescribed in the settings and extract domains from that ... but that would be a feature that at the earliest I could write next summer; moreover I would love to have LiWa to have access to all special:log/spamblacklist, so I could record attempted additions there as well - attempts to spam would be a welcome addition to the coibot reports ...). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 05:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- (barging in) Maybe you are interested in checking against potential positives of my lists before removing? All of their entries are not collected automatically but are handpicked: spam links on Commons, spamming wikis. Best, --Achim (talk) 14:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Achim55: Your list can be loaded into COIBot; if you use IRC, we can give you permissions with COIBot to add these to be monitored per Small Wiki Monitoring Team/IRC or if not, we can give you permission so you can add them to User:COIBot/Poke. @Beetstra: are you thinking of converting to json, or something similar? If not, then I am going to need to get js/css permissions :-/ — billinghurst sDrewth 03:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst and Achim55: I cannot just convert to json, it is currently not valid json. I will have to go to regular pages and e.g. get template-editor access for COIBot. But that is besides the point. We can also poke that list, and I will give access to achim to poke as well. —Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 04:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Achim55: Your list can be loaded into COIBot; if you use IRC, we can give you permissions with COIBot to add these to be monitored per Small Wiki Monitoring Team/IRC or if not, we can give you permission so you can add them to User:COIBot/Poke. @Beetstra: are you thinking of converting to json, or something similar? If not, then I am going to need to get js/css permissions :-/ — billinghurst sDrewth 03:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- (barging in) Maybe you are interested in checking against potential positives of my lists before removing? All of their entries are not collected automatically but are handpicked: spam links on Commons, spamming wikis. Best, --Achim (talk) 14:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- I am also seeing numbers of essay writing domains in the list, and while they have not been spammed, I am not certain that I want them removed. Call me paranoid, or call me nasty! If we are to remove urls, maybe we want to eyeball cull-proposed removals and remove those we would like to keep. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I would think that there would be value in at least keeping the old list of removed domains somewhere and having COIBot use that list at least for "monitor", or proactively pushing those in to be monitored. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment I am interpreting that as you have been running through all wikis reading the blacklists ..[edit]
@Lustiger seth: related to your work here .. how do you manage to read ALL spam-blacklist-logs? I thought they were admin only .. ?? If they can be (bot-)read that would be very welcome, I could then build in the capability into LiWa3/COIBot, so the attempts to circumvent the blacklist can be shown in the reports which is very welcome evidence in case of de-blacklisting-requests, as well as for sock-hunting and finding spammers implementing workarounds (spammers attempt one blacklisted domain, and other that are not yet blacklisted .. that is a one-strike-and-you-are-out situation suitable for immediate blacklisting/blocks of the other domains). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 05:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Beetstra: they used to be, apparently the developers decided they should be open to all logged in users in phab:T64781. — xaosflux Talk 15:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: I I never understood the initial choice... thanks, I will need to code this into my bots! Thanks! —Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 17:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hi!
- another related ticket phab:T184483.
- I use the replica db at toolserver. -- seth (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: I I never understood the initial choice... thanks, I will need to code this into my bots! Thanks! —Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 17:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
thewayoftheninja.org[edit]
thewayoftheninja.org
- (LinkSearch: meta s/meta | en s/en | es s/es | de s/de | fr s/fr | ru s/ru | zh s/zh | simple s/simple | c s/c | d s/d | Wikipedias: top 20 · 40 · major wikis )(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)
- (Reports: Report <-track | XWiki | Local | en | find entry)(DomainTools: whois | AboutUs | Malware? | Alexa)
Wanted to add this to N's page on Wikipedia after finding a fake link listed, but found this link was blocked. This is the official site for the N series of games. -- TheV360 (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- @TheV360: The domain is
not globally blacklisted, it is locally blacklisted at enWP only. You will need to address this at w:en:Mediawiki talk:spam-blacklist. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
visitsubotica.rs[edit]
visitsubotica.rs
- (LinkSearch: meta s/meta | en s/en | es s/es | de s/de | fr s/fr | ru s/ru | zh s/zh | simple s/simple | c s/c | d s/d | Wikipedias: top 20 · 40 · major wikis )(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)
- (Reports: Report <-track | XWiki | Local | en | find entry)(DomainTools: whois | AboutUs | Malware? | Alexa)
It is blacklisted before 10 years, and I think to this should be removed from global blacklist, as it is The Official Tourism Website of Subotica. Subotica is city in Serbia. --Zoranzoki21 (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, and that was recognised in the XWiki report prior to it being added as it was being spammed. I would suggest that you should seek whitelisting at the wiki of interest, as an initial measure. I feel that this request would need a level of support to be removed when considering its history. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
rebelmouse.com[edit]
rebelmouse.com
- (LinkSearch: meta s/meta | en s/en | es s/es | de s/de | fr s/fr | ru s/ru | zh s/zh | simple s/simple | c s/c | d s/d | Wikipedias: top 20 · 40 · major wikis )(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)
- (Reports: Report <-track | XWiki | Local | en | find entry)(DomainTools: whois | AboutUs | Malware? | Alexa)
RebelMouse is a now very popular enterprise CMS platform. The person requesting the blacklist removal is founder and CEO, Andrea Breanna. We used to allow users to publish in a free sandbox that was abused by spammers. We have removed all of the offending content as well as that feature and would love to be put back in the good graces of Wikipedia and such. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AndreaBreanna (talk)
- @AndreaBreanna: I am not seeing how that the links would be utilised through our wikis, so it is not obvious why we would remove the domain. If you think that you have a valid use case, you may wish to initially broach the matter with individual wikis through their suggesting that it be whitelisted at a specific wiki. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
twitter.com[edit]
twitter.com
- (LinkSearch: meta s/meta | en s/en | es s/es | de s/de | fr s/fr | ru s/ru | zh s/zh | simple s/simple | c s/c | d s/d | Wikipedias: top 20 · 40 · major wikis )(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)
- (Reports: Report <-track | XWiki | Local | en | find entry)(DomainTools: whois | AboutUs | Malware? | Alexa)
The blacklisted pattern \btwitter\.com/search\b blocks cleanup of archived pages as it is used on a lot of mass messages. Over two years I had about 500 hits. I believe the best would be to remove this entry from the blacklist. — Jeblad 14:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Jeblad: how can this be used in mass-messages if it is blacklisted? Are the very old messages? --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 07:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- Can you whitelist it locally? Even temporarily for an archiving run. It was being horribly abused by the spambots when we added it. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- This was archive runs at Meta.[1] Some of the twitter hits was the news letters from Wikimedia Norway. In my opinion this blacklisting has turned a minor problem into a major one. — Jeblad 10:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Jeblad: I am afraid you are underestimating the problem of the spambots. These are archives, it hardly hurts to disable the links by removing the http://. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Beetstra: Thank you for the information. I've been on Wikipedia since 2005, and running and writing bots for nearly as long. Blocking all kinds of entries just because you can is not a good solution. — Jeblad 14:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- I have (temporarily) whitelisted locally, and will review. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Jeblad: having spambots go on a rampage is not a good idea either. I am sorry, but to protect wikipedia sometimes you have to block stuff. I have been pushing now for a more fine grained blacklist for probably close to 10 years .. one solution here is to temporarily whitelist, the other more permanent solution (since we are talking archives here) is to disable the links. —Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 03:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Special:diff/19004956, what is this?--AldnonymousBicara? 07:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Irrelevant. This is a regex that is more than the base domain, see the lead. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Special:diff/19004956, what is this?--AldnonymousBicara? 07:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Beetstra: Thank you for the information. I've been on Wikipedia since 2005, and running and writing bots for nearly as long. Blocking all kinds of entries just because you can is not a good solution. — Jeblad 14:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Jeblad: I am afraid you are underestimating the problem of the spambots. These are archives, it hardly hurts to disable the links by removing the http://. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- This was archive runs at Meta.[1] Some of the twitter hits was the news letters from Wikimedia Norway. In my opinion this blacklisting has turned a minor problem into a major one. — Jeblad 10:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- Can you whitelist it locally? Even temporarily for an archiving run. It was being horribly abused by the spambots when we added it. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
youtu.be[edit]
youtu.be
- (LinkSearch: meta s/meta | en s/en | es s/es | de s/de | fr s/fr | ru s/ru | zh s/zh | simple s/simple | c s/c | d s/d | Wikipedias: top 20 · 40 · major wikis )(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)
- (Reports: Report <-track | XWiki | Local | en | find entry)(DomainTools: whois | AboutUs | Malware? | Alexa)
Hi,
Don't reject it outright :)
I see that removing was already proposed multiple times. It was rejected every time because it's a redirect site, and redirect sites are undesirable.
I'm going to try to propose it for removal again. Here's why: while I agree that redirect URLs are indeed not desirable, youtu dot be is not otherwise harmful. As far as I know, it can only be used to redirect to youtube dot com, which is mostly allowed. So the intention of the people who want to add a youtu dot be link is as good as the intention of people who want to add a youtube dot com link.
But when people try to add it using the mobile editor, the edit fails with the cryptic message "Error, edit not saved." Of course, the mobile editor could be improved to give a clearer message (see https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T220922). But till then, can there be a better solution for youtu.be links?
For example, there could be a bot that automatically changes these links to youtube dot com links soon after such an edit happens. This would give users, who really just want to make a constructive edit, a much smoother experience.
Existing blacklisting of particular YouTube videos can be retained robustly by adding youtu.be to the line that blocks them.
Please give it a thought :) --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Troubleshooting and problems[edit]
|
|
This section is for comments related to problems with the blacklist (such as incorrect syntax or entries not being blocked), or problems saving a page because of a blacklisted link. This is not the section to request that an entry be unlisted (see Proposed removals above). |
Discussion[edit]
|
|
This section is for discussion of Spam blacklist issues among other users. |
Réclamation pour mon article[edit]
Je souhaite que lien posant problème soit retirer. Vu qu'il est vérifiable, vous donc aussi vérifier. Merci Bob jeci (talk) 10:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Bob jeci: Hi, you are going to need to provide specific information. We cannot guess where you are editing, and the domain which you are wishing to add. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Informations[edit]
Juste préciser que les seul informations vérifiable sur moi que je voulais ajouter je les copié à partir d'une recherche faite sur Google. Vous rentrez ( N'guessan Enoh Jean cinel) et vous aurez les liens que j'ai proposé. Merxi Bob jeci (talk) 08:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Bob jeci: It is unclear what you wish to achieve. If you are saying that a search link for Google is blocked, yes, that is the purpose of the blacklisting, and won't be changed. I suggest that you discuss that matter at the wiki where you are looking to add your information. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Smart template for deferring to local wikis?[edit]
Can we have a template, e.g. {{Deferlocal|w|en}} that results in a text 'Defer to English Wikipedia Spam blacklist' (but displaying the target in the local language etc.?) --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 11:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Beetstra: done. Defaults to enWP where parameterless. $1= sister, $2 = lang; $3 = override text link — billinghurst sDrewth 09:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- Comment someone wish to turn it into a translated template. <shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 09:58, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
COIBot and the spam blacklist log[edit]
COIBot is currently, in the 'free time' of the report saving module, backparsing the spam blacklist log, one wiki at a time. It turns out that one wiki is a humongous chunk of data, and that the bot spends quite some time before starting to parse reports again. Please be patient while this operation runs. The data is stored with the regular link additions, and the bots will then accessit in the same way as usual.
That likely results in certain parts of COIBot's reporting functions (on wiki and on IRC) to show strange results as some code may not understand how things are stored. I will resolve that later. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 17:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Beetstra: Are there things that we should not do as they may hinder the process; or things that we should moderate/lessen in doing? — billinghurst sDrewth 23:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- Just be patient with it .. —Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 00:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Beetstra: FYI: note that COIBot is writing to the wiki where quickcreate is requested, however, it is not recording its standard analysis from "report xwiki ..." They pass through in time, and are not written up at this point of time. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst: I will have a look this evening. COIBot is running 2 LinkSavers, one parsing blacklists, the other one not. Unfortunately, that is prone to crashes. I presume that currently both are on a blacklist parsing the whole thing. I just hope that the one parsing en.wikipedia is done soon, but there are hellish months in the history of that (spambots hitting thousands of times an hour, back in 2015, see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/spamblacklist/91.200.12.79&action=edit&redlink=1). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst: bot was confused .. I restarted the LinkSaver that should be saving. It borked (nothing you can solve from IRC .. unfortunately). Just to illustrate, the blacklist parser spent the last 13 1/2 hours parsing the 2nd of May 2015 ... --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 17:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Beetstra: FYI: note that COIBot is writing to the wiki where quickcreate is requested, however, it is not recording its standard analysis from "report xwiki ..." They pass through in time, and are not written up at this point of time. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Just be patient with it .. —Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 00:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Overly aggressive blocking[edit]
Checked a few of the newer entries, and a whole bunch of them are added without ever being used for spam. Some of them are used one or two times, but most of them is not used ever. Most of them is not on known spamlists. It seems like some (many?) of them are sharing IP addresses, but given how some webhotels operates this is a very weak (I would say invalid) indication, as HTTP 1.1 allows IP sharing. I guess a whole lot of the new entries are based on the same flawed assumption. — Jeblad 15:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Jeblad: Not sure to which entries you are referring, so you will need to ask specific questions of the person who added the entries. I would suggest that numbers of entries of domains will be found in the abuse filter logs due to spambot activity, and usually in proliferation, so there can be a case of early intervention of known problems and persistence.
Also at this stage COIBot is patchy since it was moved when WMFlabs lost one its instances and the bot account was moved nd liited, so beware trusting all of its reports, it has elements of quirkiness and gaps. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Jeblad: Can you show me a couple of the domains you are talking about? But note that if we have one IP that adds in 10 edits 10 different domains, then that is still a spam-account. Yes, it may be 10 different people sharing the IP, but if that is all that that IP is doing then that is a very small chance that it is a coincidence that that is not an address used by spammers. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 08:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
the name viagrandparis contains viagra so it is detected as a spam[edit]
viagrandparis.tv
- (LinkSearch: meta s/meta | en s/en | es s/es | de s/de | fr s/fr | ru s/ru | zh s/zh | simple s/simple | c s/c | d s/d | Wikipedias: top 20 · 40 · major wikis )(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)
- (Reports: Report <-track | XWiki | Local | en | find entry)(DomainTools: whois | AboutUs | Malware? | Alexa)
Hi. My article for Jean-Claude Durousseaud is refused beacause of a spam detected in the name of the french TV channel : viàGrandParis as there are v.i.a.g.r.a letters. Can you help me with that, please?--Léa Rateau (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)Léa Rateau
- @Léa Rateau: I would consider to locally whitelist this domain. Although it is possible to exclude parts through writing complex regexes, I would not do that for domains which are maybe used on 2-3 wikis (out of the hundreds) as rules then quickly become too complex. (yes, a global whitelist would be good, as that is easier to administrate, but unfortunately that gap has never been filled by WMF). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 08:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Wikimedia URL shortener[edit]
w.wiki
- (LinkSearch: meta s/meta | en s/en | es s/es | de s/de | fr s/fr | ru s/ru | zh s/zh | simple s/simple | c s/c | d s/d | Wikipedias: top 20 · 40 · major wikis )(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)
- (Reports: Report <-track | XWiki | Local | en | find entry)(DomainTools: whois | AboutUs | Malware? | Alexa)
This is a 'redirection service' in principle, should we block it? — regards, Revi 14:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- I am semi in favour as we should be utilising proper and evident links as we specify for all others. Though we should get labelling on the new tool to identify that it cannot be utilised on WMF wikis. @Lea Lacroix (WMDE): — billinghurst sDrewth 01:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst, -revi, and Lea Lacroix (WMDE): I don't assume that this extension is so smart that it is capable to check the target versus our spam-blacklist, right? --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 08:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- I will note that this issue of WMF blocking external url shorteners/redirects was brought up on the initial phabricator ticket, so it is not an unexpected for this discussion to occur. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Beetstra: it is internal link only, so I am not sure that it needs to check blacklists, it is more whether we are wishing to encourage use of these links in preference to use of interwikis, and the like. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:36, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst: Oh, OK. Note that we do allow for some very specific redirect services to go unblacklisted, as assignment of those is purely restricted or assigned (dx.doi.org is one of them). If this is similar (cannot be abused on outside material, scheme is the same as <lang>.<wikiflavour>.org, then I do not see any reason to block this. For what I see from its current use, it seems to be quite clear where you are going. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 09:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
