Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2020-10
 | Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in October 2020, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index. |
Proposed additions
|
This section is for completed requests that a website be blacklisted |
danangsale.vn
danangsale.vn
Xwiki spammed, see special:Centralauth/Tnguyenbk. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 09:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Martin Urbanec:
Added to Spam blacklist. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 09:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
imuabanbds.vn
imuabanbds.vn
See [1] and similar. Already viwiki blocked. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 09:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Martin Urbanec: Added to Spam blacklist. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 09:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
windowsvps.host
windowsvps.host
Same as above, see Alex9993's activity. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 09:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Martin Urbanec: Added to Spam blacklist. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 09:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
wewpet.com
wewpet.com
Spammed at multiple projects, see cs:Special:Contribs/113.161.94.153, hr:Special:Contribs/113.161.94.153, Special:CentralAuth/Otishenry123 and similar. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 08:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Martin Urbanec: Added to Spam blacklist. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 08:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
twitter.com/autobulk regex
Regex requested to be blacklisted: \btwitter\.com/autobulk
spambot in progress — billinghurst sDrewth 06:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst: Added to Spam blacklist. -- — billinghurst sDrewth 06:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
sexvideospro.com
sexvideospro.com
Not really going to be useful anywhere, see [2]. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Martin Urbanec: Added to Spam blacklist. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
northeastjob.in
northeastjob.in
Spammed on a wide range of India related articles by various IP addresses. Reported by Ravensfire (talk) at 23:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC) to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&curid=21039124&diff=983562131&oldid=983307998. Cross posted here. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 05:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Beetstra: Added to Spam blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 05:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
forum.ximicat.com
forum.ximicat.com
[3], [4]. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Martin Urbanec: Added to Spam blacklist. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Proposed removals
|
|
This section is for archiving proposals that a website be unlisted. |
TheGreighCanary
thegreighcanary.xyz
I need this link for my personal user profile. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheGreighCanary (talk)
not globally blocked @TheGreighCanary: The TLD has been blocked by English Wikipedia, so you will need to talk to them about this 
Defer to w:en:Mediawiki talk:spam-blacklist — billinghurst sDrewth 01:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
OnlyFans
onlyfans.com
I need the domain whitelisted so i can get the OnlyFans identifier working. --Trade (talk) 11:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Well that is problematic. It has been globally blacklisted due to abuse, so adding a url identifier at WD for a globally blacklisted site may not be the best idea. You will need to seek a local whitelist, though do realise that it won't work at wikis due to the global blacklisting. That will still give local wikis the ability to whitelist those urls that they wish to have rather than a universal right for it to be linked simply for its presence in WD. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- How did you handled it when the Pornhub identifier was created? Anyways, you just need to add the formatter url to the identifier and then you can blacklist it again --Trade (talk) 11:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- That can all be handled at WD … Mediawiki talk:Spam-whitelist for requests, and use the local version of {{edit protected}}. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- How did you handled it when the Pornhub identifier was created? Anyways, you just need to add the formatter url to the identifier and then you can blacklist it again --Trade (talk) 11:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Trade: where is the Pornhub ID linked? I only see it as an identifier without linking to the website. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- d:Property:P5246 in the formatter url line presumably. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Trade and Billinghurst: but there pornhub is not 'linked', so that url is not being blocked by the blacklist. On d:Mandingo the ID is resulting in a link, because the specific path is d:MediaWiki:Spam-whitelisted. I think that is the preferred way of doing that, carefully whitelist the specific path locally on WD.
- Note that removing the whitelist will likely result in again the blacklist kicking in, and you cannot save any pages where you add the identifier (as it would result in a working link). I again urge to be careful with the whitelist on WD, allowing material on WD results in it possibly being re-used on Wikis where the material is (rightfully) blacklisted, and opens up ways of abuse that WILL be abused by spammers and vandals. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 07:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- I haven't been able to find the WD whitelist page. Do you know where it's located? --Trade (talk) 07:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Trade: I just linked it in my post: d:MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 11:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Judging from the talk page from the talk page you don't seem too happy about us using the local whitelist? --Trade (talk) 11:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Trade: There is a large problem there that is nearly impossible to resolve, whitelisting has to be done with a lot of care. The data is being re-used, and using the whitelist on WD careless can cause a lot of disruption with re-users. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Judging from the talk page from the talk page you don't seem too happy about us using the local whitelist? --Trade (talk) 11:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Trade: I just linked it in my post: d:MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 11:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- I haven't been able to find the WD whitelist page. Do you know where it's located? --Trade (talk) 07:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- d:Property:P5246 in the formatter url line presumably. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
seek local whitelisting If this is to be done, it should be handled at Wikidata as local whitelisting. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
youtu.be
youtu.be
youtu.be is blacklisted by user:Beetstra since 2010, see https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&oldid=2224420#Youtu.be_2. The reason given has too parts: 1. useless and 2. could be used to circumvent.
1. i agree that it is useless in our articles. but that would not be a sufficent reason for blacklisting. (however, better than blacklisting could be a bot that transforms those links into a more uniform format.)
2. the circumvention does only concern blacklisted youtube-links, right? in this case, it would be better to modify the youtube.com blacklist entries, because then we would avoid false positives.
on the other hand some people get annoyed, if they mustn't use those links even on talk pages. especially not so technically skilled users might even give up.
for those reasons i ask, if we could and should improve that blacklist entry by removing the complete blacklisting of the domain and instead modify the youtube.com entries. what do you think? -- seth (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- The original reasoning being what it is, I also think that we need to consider that it is a favoured way to spam, and its utilisation by spambots. So I think that any conversation needs to address those components. I would like to see evidence of how many wikis have whitelisted the regex to allow it, as that is a better representation of the reality. [Running a query on COIBot, results pending] I know that the wikisources typically only have spam from those spaces as it is not traditionally a required domain for use. If the rationale is that someone is just adding youtube links and is dissuaded from further editing, then I wonder on the value of the editor adding just those links. So I see it as a more complex argument. It also seems that the argument is implicitly focused on wikipedias rather than all the sisters that are represented. Isn't part of the issue that the blacklist as designed is a very blunt instrument but it is the only global instrument, and the abuse filters are a butt ugly way to further manage that in a global approach. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Lustiger seth: Declined. This was heavily spammed by spambots crosswiki (en:User:Beetstra/Long-term_spamming#Using_Youtube_for_spamming), it is a useless redirect (the full link works), and it thwarts blacklisting on several wikis, also on ones that do have less tech-savvy admins. Against common believe, youtube IS spam as well, even if most of the material is not spammed. In a recent discussion regarding youtube on en.wikipedia it took me less than 2 minutes to identify 3 youtube spammers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Weeble69, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Anjyog, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pakkepunjabi). Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 03:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- ok, thanks for your detailed answers. then i'll try local whitelisting at dewiki, because usually there is not so much spamming than for example in enwiki. additionally i had already several people complaining that they are not able to use those comfortable links in discussions.
- if this will lead to much spamming, i can remove the whitelisting again. -- seth (talk) 13:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Lustiger seth: I decided to have a look myself. The youtu.be spambot attack seems to mainly have affected en.wikipedia (the concurrent shoe-outlet spambot attack was cross-wiki, there are some youtu.be links crosswiki but not as heavy as en.wikipedia). A quick look on de does not show any obvious spamming of youtu.be (it is more difficult for me to gauge youtube.com spam on de, the three examples above were 'caught' by en:User:XLinkBot and were quite obvious between other youtube.com reversions). Disabling only youtu.be and not youtube.com is not going to stop that per sé (it may be a useful reminder). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- thanks for investigating. :-)
- i had a look at some blocked youtu.be links in dewiki now, too. some of them are indeed spam. but that's the case with many youtube.com links, too. i'll have a look at the youtu.be links at dewiki via linksearch after some time and then decide (together with others) whether we will keep it whitelisted. -- seth (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Just as a note, blacklisting the video-ID (the stuff after the 'v=') is not working, you have to blacklist 'youtube.com.*?<videoID>', and hence 'youtu.be.*?code, becoming a regex 'youtu(be\.com|\.be).*?<videoID>'. That is not something that people will quickly get. Most admins will see spamming of 'youtu.be/<videoID>' and blacklist '\byoutu\.be\/<videoID>'. Since spammers are persistent (it pays their bills), they will then obviously evade by starting to spam 'youtube.com\watch\?v=<videoID>' and you can continue spamming longer. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 05:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
<COIBot> 1: [global] \byoutu\.be\b (youtu.be )
<COIBot> 2: [w:de (bl)] (?:youtu.be\/|youtube\.com\/watch\?v=)wHfiCX_YdgA ((?:youtu.be/|youtube.com/watch?v=)wHfiCX_YdgA )
<COIBot> 3: [w:nl (wl)] \byoutu\.be\b (youtu.be )
<COIBot> 4: [w:pt (wl)] \byoutu.be\/ITcA0nEBpRQ (youtu.be/ITcA0nEBpRQ )
<COIBot> 5: [w:ar (wl)] \youtu.be\b (\youtu.be )
<COIBot> 6: [w:bar (wl)] \byoutu\.be\b (youtu.be )
<COIBot> 7: [w:cs (wl)] \byoutu\.be\b.* (youtu.be.* )
<COIBot> 8: [w:fi (wl)] youtu.be\b (youtu.be )
<COIBot> 9: [w:he (wl)] \byoutu\.be\b (youtu.be )
<COIBot> 10: [w:ru (wl)] \byoutu\.be\/fviMQyyei2k (youtu.be/fviMQyyei2k )
<COIBot> 11: [w:tr (wl)] \byoutu\.be\b (youtu.be )
<COIBot> 12: [w:uk (wl)] youtu\.be\b (youtu.be )
<COIBot> 13: [w:vi (wl)] \byoutu\.be\/YCwOEvchu8w (youtu.be/YCwOEvchu8w )
<COIBot> 14: [w:vi (wl)] \byoutu\.be\/106UyXYnSSM (youtu.be/106UyXYnSSM )
<COIBot> 15: [n:ru (wl)] \byoutu\.be (youtu.be )
<COIBot> 16: [q:it (wl)] \byoutu\.be\b (youtu.be )
<COIBot> 17: [wikiversity:en (wl)] \youtu\.be\b (\youtu.be )
<COIBot> 18: [wikt:fr (wl)] youtu\.be (youtu.be )
<COIBot> The term 'youtu.be' found in 18 rules.
— billinghurst sDrewth 08:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Troubleshooting and problems
|
|
This section is for archiving Troubleshooting and problems. |
Discussion
|
|
This section is for archiving Discussions. |
vpnoverview.com
vpnoverview.com
Extensively spammed by multiple accounts on the English Wikipedia, and also spammed on the German and Portugese Wikipedias. See en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/vpnoverview.com for the full COIBot report. — Newslinger talk 12:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'll defer to someone more experienced on the final decision here, but it looks like the cross-wiki spam isn't enough right now to merit global blacklisting. I see three additions (two on dewiki and one on ptwiki), the dewiki addition you linked was spam similar to what we saw on enwiki but the other two additions just had vpnoverview cited as part of a spammy new article. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- I will also concur that this is not enough. I will think a Enwp blacklist is sufficient alone as the spam isn't that widespread. The user who added on dewp had that edit marked as reviewed (per flagged revs) and the one in ptwp is added by an editor which isn't blocked (have other legit edits). I am hesitant to add though defer to someone with better experience here too.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)