Talk:Spam blacklist: Difference between revisions
Billinghurst (talk | contribs) →omeida.com: done and some other similarly loose regex |
Billinghurst (talk | contribs) trim subdomain |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
:It was a short burst spamming from a user, so I am not certain that it is needed from a single short spell. I would prefer that we monitor rather than blacklist, and have set COIBot to do its monitoring and reporting. — [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''<span style="font-size:smaller">[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]</span>'' 10:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC) |
:It was a short burst spamming from a user, so I am not certain that it is needed from a single short spell. I would prefer that we monitor rather than blacklist, and have set COIBot to do its monitoring and reporting. — [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''<span style="font-size:smaller">[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]</span>'' 10:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC) |
||
=== buatkaosmurahdemak.wordpress.com, |
=== buatkaosmurahdemak.wordpress.com, linkedin.com === |
||
* {{LinkSummary|buatkaosmurahdemak.wordpress.com}} |
* {{LinkSummary|buatkaosmurahdemak.wordpress.com}} |
||
* {{LinkSummary| |
* {{LinkSummary|linkedin.com}} |
||
Please [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kaos_promosi&oldid=19703121 see]--[[User:Turkmen|'''Turkmen''']] <sup>[[User talk:Turkmen|'''talk''']]</sup> 20:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC) |
Please [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kaos_promosi&oldid=19703121 see]--[[User:Turkmen|'''Turkmen''']] <sup>[[User talk:Turkmen|'''talk''']]</sup> 20:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 22:50, 13 January 2020
- Proposed additions
- Please provide evidence of spamming on several wikis. Spam that only affects a single project should go to that project's local blacklist. Exceptions include malicious domains and URL redirector/shortener services. Please follow this format. Please check back after submitting your report, there could be questions regarding your request.
- Proposed removals
- Please check our list of requests which repeatedly get declined. Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their value in support of our projects. Please consider whether requesting whitelisting on a specific wiki for a specific use is more appropriate - that is very often the case.
- Other discussion
- Troubleshooting and problems - If there is an error in the blacklist (i.e. a regex error) which is causing problems, please raise the issue here.
- Discussion - Meta-discussion concerning the operation of the blacklist and related pages, and communication among the spam blacklist team.
- #wikimedia-external-linksconnect - Real-time IRC chat for co-ordination of activities related to maintenance of the blacklist.
- Whitelists
There is no global whitelist, so if you are seeking a whitelisting of a url at a wiki then please address such matters via use of the respectiveMediawiki talk:Spam-whitelistpage at that wiki, and you should consider the use of the template {{edit protected}} or its local equivalent to get attention to your edit.
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 2024/06.
- Information
- List of all projects
- Overviews
- Reports
- Wikimedia Embassy
- Project portals
- Country portals
- Tools
- Spam blacklist
- Title blacklist
- Email blacklist
- Rename blacklist
- Closure of wikis
- Interwiki map
- Requests
- Permissions
- Bot flags
- New languages
- New projects
- Username changes
- Translations
- Speedy deletions
- snippet for logging
- {{sbl-log|19703427#{{subst:anchorencode:SectionNameHere}}}}
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 15 days.
|
Proposed additions
|
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. |
shorturl.at
shorturl.at
URL shortener used to add spam. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- @JJMC89: Where are you seeing it used? If you have a look at the XWiki report, you will see that I blacklisted the domain in 2018. I will get COIBot to kick a new report to see if it can also assist. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
-
Already done My bad, I misread the diffs. It was being added without the protocol. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
-
www.wikitechy.com
wikitechy.com
User:Kaniniki
Cross-wiki spam. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- It was a short burst spamming from a user, so I am not certain that it is needed from a single short spell. I would prefer that we monitor rather than blacklist, and have set COIBot to do its monitoring and reporting. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
buatkaosmurahdemak.wordpress.com, linkedin.com
buatkaosmurahdemak.wordpress.com
linkedin.com
Please see--Turkmen talk 20:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Proposed additions (Bot reported)
|
|
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
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
|
|
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 See also recurring requests for repeatedly proposed (and refused) removals. Notes:
|
dailybuff.ru
dailybuff.ru
Hello, many users of the site dailybuff, who participate in discussions and in improving wikipedia, noticed that the site is in the black list. Is it possible to remove it from this list?
- Not without "links to the articles they are used in or useful to, and arguments in favour of unlisting", and, ideally, from a high-volume user wanting to use that link in an article. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- What exactly do you need to provide? Look for people who noticed that the site is blacklisted, I can not. I do not leave links in Wikipedia. I know that the site has a lot of gaming news that diverge in Google News, Yandex News, Rambler News and which can be published by someone in Wikipedia as a source.
bet365.com
bet365.com
Website of a notable company with 15 sitelinks in Wikidata.[1] It was added to the blacklist in 2007; the log links to a diff to a page that has no spam blacklist log entries since the log started six years ago. Peter James (talk) 09:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- A pure betting website with zero encyclopedic information. The site has used referral link schemes in the past, see this spam diff (and probably still does). It has also made news for false advertising and other questionable business ethics (see en-Wiki article). ==> No possible value + high risk of misuse = I am strongly opposed to removing such a site from the blacklist. GermanJoe (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- So you think official websites shouldn't be linked in articles or in Wikidata? The "official website" template was once nominated for deletion ([2], and there was strong consensus to keep it. And if you think companies you dislike shouldn't have their sites linked, that's probably incompatible with NPOV. As for "high risk of misuse", all you can find is another edit by the same person at the same time as the diff I linked, twelve years ago (and on another article that hasn't had much spam - the log for that article only shows two attempts to add a Twitter link in 2017). Peter James (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- There are several options such as local whitelisting of an about page or simply adding the site information as raw unlinked text to show the official website in main articles on project level. GermanJoe (talk) 21:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- So you think official websites shouldn't be linked in articles or in Wikidata? The "official website" template was once nominated for deletion ([2], and there was strong consensus to keep it. And if you think companies you dislike shouldn't have their sites linked, that's probably incompatible with NPOV. As for "high risk of misuse", all you can find is another edit by the same person at the same time as the diff I linked, twelve years ago (and on another article that hasn't had much spam - the log for that article only shows two attempts to add a Twitter link in 2017). Peter James (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment generally the process that the wikis look to for high risk sites is for a local whitelisting of respective /about pages, so that those urls can be added as required, though limits the possibility of abuse. The subject matter is covered in the below discussion about vid.me. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- There's no evidence that it is a high risk site, only that one person, probably not involved with the company, added spam links twelve years ago. For one or two sites local whitelisting may be reasonable, but there are 15, and also Wikidata where it isn't possible to add unlinked text as an official website. Peter James (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- I am not certain that you can say it is or it isn't a high risk site without someone scanning the whole of spamblacklist logs, rather than just for a specific article. Our recommended process for removing sites from the blacklist is to suggest that whitelisting at a wiki first and see how it progresses. Ask at w:mediawiki talk:spam-whitelist and see how you go. [Noting that this is a consensus-based discussion forum, so you can point to this discussion at any whitelist conversation to see if that community has an opinion of the blacklisting anyway.] — billinghurst sDrewth 11:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- There's no evidence that it is a high risk site, only that one person, probably not involved with the company, added spam links twelve years ago. For one or two sites local whitelisting may be reasonable, but there are 15, and also Wikidata where it isn't possible to add unlinked text as an official website. Peter James (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Troubleshooting and problems
|
|
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). |
d:Q78682705
vid.me
Because of the \bvid\.me\b entry, this site can't be the P856 (official website) value of this Wikidata item. How to resolve this? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- Also, if in the future there are also many items that are about websites listed in this page, then it's expected that normal users can't add P856 values normally, so can we request such additions by posting this page or not? Or should Wikidata be exempted from global spam blacklist application? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- Bit dot ly, TinyURL are likely. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- WD is always welcome to utilise their local whitelist to exempt any domain that it chooses, though my understanding is that it isn't that simple, as the further usage at the WPs is not possible due to the blacklisting. There has been that discussion here—which will be in the archives—where Beetstra has propounded on this and I will let Beetstra better express his points rather than do my poor man reproduction.
If you believe that the policy of blacklisting url shorteners is incorrect, then worthwhile raising that matter through a well-structured RFC, as the policy pre-exists WD, and identifying all the aspects of the matter from its collection to its use, and how you expect to deal with spam or abusable urls. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst and Liuxinyu970226: Be VERY careful with this. IF you whitelist, say,
\btinyurl\.com\bthen that allows for not only the domain link as official homepage on the WikiData item for Tinyurl, but also for a lot of tinyurls everywhere throughout wikidata (there is no reason why the globally blacklisted 'myspammycompany.com' for the wikidata item for MySpammyCompany then cannot have a tinyurl redirect to myspammycompany.com). That gives a plethora of problems down the line: 'tinyurl.com' will be transcluded through external links templates, so a page on en.wikipedia suddenly has a link to tinyurl.com. Since it is not whitelisted on the local wiki, it will hence result in a spam filter block on that local wiki on the next edit. It also results in a spam block for anyone who wants to add that transcluded domain through one of the templates upon adding (in other words, they cannot add that through WD transclusion). If tinyurl.com is blanket whitelisted and starts appearing also on other items on wikidata, it may also result in spam blocks on edits on other pages. Please, do NOT do this. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 06:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC) - @Billinghurst: .. this is not only for url shorteners .. it goes for anything that is blacklisted. Redtube.com will have the same problem, whitelist that and you can just wait for tech-savvy high school vandals to add that as their school's official homepage on wikidata and have it transcluded on hundreds of Wikis at once. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 06:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- Sure, I know that. It isn't my job to explain folly to them. I was presuming that they were going to whitelist, add the url, the remove, as they would normally only asking for official webpage.
The bigger story is about the impact and consequences of having added links at WD, and then trying to utilise them at other WMF wikis when they are still blacklisted globally, or locally, and the consequences in editing. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I had to explain it to them quite some time ago once, when they whitelisted something on WD and someone on en.w came complaining they couldn't edit. What en.w locally does is to whitelist the /about page - that is generally a neutral landing page and not the top page (which is often the reason something got blacklisted - pornhub.com is blacklisted because students tend to replace their school website with it), and it is more difficult to 'abuse' (whitelisting tinyurl.com's homepage also allows tinyurl's redirects). But in any case, whether pornhub.com/about or pornhub.com is locally whitelisted on WD, it will impact editing on all wikis that try to transclude the globally blacklisted page, as pages cannot be edited.
- What COULD be considered is that our blacklist rule is exempting a neutral landing page (a /about) on each site that we blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 10:57, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- In Wikipedia they could still be added without linking to the URL. Probably better to use edit filters to block edits such as that, which are vandalism rather than spam. Peter James (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- There are already blacklists for specific types of URLs without blocking the entire Google and Amazon websites - could something similar be done here for URLs such as tinyurl.com, possibly using a regex for one or more characters after the domain name? Peter James (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- Also the spam blacklist doesn't prevent addition of blacklisted links, it only restricts editing of pages that contain them, so for example I couldn't undo this edit. Peter James (talk) 10:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- I beg to differ, I think that you have that back to front. An undo from no links to links is the addition of links. It is looking for "added_links". — billinghurst sDrewth 11:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- Sure, I know that. It isn't my job to explain folly to them. I was presuming that they were going to whitelist, add the url, the remove, as they would normally only asking for official webpage.
- WD is always welcome to utilise their local whitelist to exempt any domain that it chooses, though my understanding is that it isn't that simple, as the further usage at the WPs is not possible due to the blacklisting. There has been that discussion here—which will be in the archives—where Beetstra has propounded on this and I will let Beetstra better express his points rather than do my poor man reproduction.
- @Billinghurst: I just ask if how the P856 values can be added for items, where topics are websites that listed in this blacklist, if the answers are "no" or "not easy", then I will ask Wikidata community to consider technically excluding application of global spam blacklist, and only use local blacklist to anti-abuse. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Liuxinyu970226: That will have disastrous effects on all wikis that use that data. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 07:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Liuxinyu970226, there are currently existing external links on wikidata that are now blacklisted here on-wiki (these links were spammed to WD before they were blacklisted). There are now on all hundreds of wikis a page where you cannot add the official website by transclusion from WD (like e.g. en:template:Official website does when called without parameters). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 07:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Liuxinyu970226: It was a pretty naive question, and you were given a fulsome answer to try and cover the range of reasons that you may have been asking. I would think that this is a bigger question than just WD where the urls are used outside of WD. I would think that it may be something that all of the WMF community may have an interest in rather than just the technocrats/puritans at WD. As Beetstra said these were blacklisted as they were abused, not because they had the potential to be abused. If you take it to WD, I look forward to your holistic discussion, not something narrowly focused upon that the spam blacklist stops them being added. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst: see d:Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard#Local_spam_filter. From a WD perspective this all makes sense (though they would also get the real crap), but WD is however used by the majority (if not all) other wikis. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 09:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Liuxinyu970226: It was a pretty naive question, and you were given a fulsome answer to try and cover the range of reasons that you may have been asking. I would think that this is a bigger question than just WD where the urls are used outside of WD. I would think that it may be something that all of the WMF community may have an interest in rather than just the technocrats/puritans at WD. As Beetstra said these were blacklisted as they were abused, not because they had the potential to be abused. If you take it to WD, I look forward to your holistic discussion, not something narrowly focused upon that the spam blacklist stops them being added. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
To me, for these items the best option is still to exclude here on meta a neutral landing page. That solves a lot of problems throughout: it enables the WD item to have a representative link in their item that does not result in any problems on other Wikimedia projects (or when local projects want to use that link). That does still protect WD against edits like this and [ this] (can someone tell me why a municipality in Germany needs a link to pornhub.com?). All other options are of a technological level that needs significant changes in the structure of the software that Wikipedia is running on. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 09:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- I think we should only permit that for URLs specifically on request, lest the spammers refashion their /about page for promotion. Vermont (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment global whitelist. It seems to me that there is now the need for global whitelist page. We know that there are dangerous domain names, though for famous sites. Asking for every wikipedia to locally whitelist is now unreasonable, especially in light of WD, and its methodologies. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- What about negative lookahead? See
encyclopediadramatica\.(?:com(?!/Main_Page)|net|org|se)entry, encyclopediadramatica.com/Main_Page should work correctly, unlike the rest of the variants.\bgoo\.gl\b(?!/maps\b).*is similar variation. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)- Yes, though I think that it is a little harder to manage and simple pastes of an acceptable url just easier and more overt. We should only ever need the one, and on request. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Martin Urbanec: ED is a particularly bad example, where the /about was whitelisted on en.wikipedia as the official website, only to see the abuse that landed this wiki on the blacklist to extend to the only whitelisted page. Front pages are often not a good idea anyway, for ED that could be showing the content that we want to exclude, for others it is just the website that is being abused. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, though I think that it is a little harder to manage and simple pastes of an acceptable url just easier and more overt. We should only ever need the one, and on request. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- What about negative lookahead? See
d:Q21980377 (Sci-Hub)
sci-hub.
Need to add the new official URL, https://sci-hub.si, with the Recommended rank (other URLs need not be changed as well as their ranks). Sci-Hub is globally blacklisted for a good reason, but this is the element devoted to the website itself, so it needs this link, especially since other sci-hub.* URLs are already there. Perhaps the simplest way to do it is to de-blacklist it temporarily. --colt_browning (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Declined You can whitelist it locally at Wikidata with mediawiki:Spam-whitelist. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Martin Urbanec: No, it should stay blacklisted. Otherwise, people will add links to Sci-Hub to the elements of scientific articles (in good faith) which is bad because Sci-Hub violates copyright (see blacklisting discussion). If there is a way to whitelist an URL for just a single element, please explain how to do it. Or, do you mean temporary whitelisting? --colt_browning (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Colt browning: temporary whitelisting is an option, but that will affect all wikis that use the wikidata item to display the official link (as it is then on that page, editing on each wiki will be problematic). This likely needs a phab ticket to really get to a proper solution, as any official website that is blacklisted runs into this problem. I don't think we can do anything really here, and would rather strongly suggest against doing something on WikiData due to the effects that will have. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 08:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Beetstra: Since other URLs in that Wikidata item are also affected by the blacklist, all wikis already cannot use Wikidata to display the official link, so adding the new URL won't harm them. Also, this Wikidata element is used by an external website whereisscihub.now.sh which is not affected by blacklisting, so there is perfect sense in updating the Wikidata element. With this in mind, maybe still consider temporary whitelisting/de-blacklisting? Anyway, I agree that it needs a proper solution and will prepare a Phabricator ticket. --colt_browning (talk) 09:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Colt browning: the point is, that the other URLs in that Wikidata item are causing problems on other wikis - they cannot be 'used' on other wikis. Complete de-listing causes a horde of problems (quite some material on that site should never be linked to), local whitelisting will solve the WD problem, but we still have/get the horde of other problems. This really needs another solution - either we need a global whitelist for /about pages so we can avoid this, or a completely different solution (e.g. a flag on WD that the data is there on WD and locally whitelisted, but cannot be 'pulled' onto other wikis). None of that is now there. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 10:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Colt browning and Beetstra: Maybe use negative lookahead in the blacklist to make sure it's not /about? Not sure what WD wants to link to through. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 11:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Martin Urbanec: A good idea. In fact, if we globally whitelist links to frontpages only (smth like
\/\/sci-hub\.\w*\/?$), it solves the issue completely. Sci-Hub is blacklisted because of the copyrighted content, so the link to the front page is harmless (and no one is going to spam it, I guess). --colt_browning (talk) 11:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)- @Colt browning: No, it doesn't. The frontpage is often the one that is the source of the abuse/spam, allowing only the frontpage like you did is enabling the same rubbish that it is supposed to stop. My base example here is pornhub.com, the front page is on en.wikipedia only abused a handful of times a day (example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/spamblacklist/194.132.131.100 .. why does a Russian submarine need a link to the frontpage of pornhub? Or an Ohio school: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/spamblacklist/98.100.24.226). And all the spam companies that are being blacklisted.
- @Martin Urbanec: Yes, but only on request we could exclude with a negative lookahead (a recurring example where you don't want to do this standard is Encyclopedia Dramatica, who will just abuse what you whitelist). But I agree, that is likely not what WD wants. For the Wikipedia's you want a representative landing page, for WikiData you want the data ... --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Beetstra: Well, Sci-Hub is not Pornhub. Its frontpage doesn't violate anything. It is blacklisted because it gives access to copyrighted content, and users add direct links to the copyrighted content on Sci-Hub. People add links to Pornhub because they think it's funny, it's just common vandalism. Also, there are lots of websites that are interested to have links from Wikipedia (e.g., some news websites), so they add links to particular pages or the frontpages, and this is common spam. But Sci-Hub is a completely different case. It's not spam, it's not vandalism, it's just people linking copyrighted content in good faith. --colt_browning (talk) 12:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Colt browning: people can also add links to websites to spam, pornhub is indeed a particular example but that does not mean that it does not happen with companies as well - sci-hub would not be the first company that replaces any (wikilink to) Sci-Hub with a link to their frontpage to spam. And if not, then Sci-Hub would be rather an exception than a rule. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Beetstra: Yes, it is an exception, and that's exactly what I'm talking about. Also, it's not a company. See w:Sci-Hub. I bet if you check the spam filter hits (I don't know whether it's possible) you will find only direct links to articles on Sci-Hub, not the kind of spamming you're talking about. --colt_browning (talk) 12:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Colt browning: you don't know how to check, but you bet that it will be only that. I know Sci-Hub is not a company per sé, but also state funded musea need to show that their website is efficient and have been found spamming. Not being a company is not a reason not to spam.
- Now I do agree that for Sci-Hub at the very least most of the 'abuse' is on direct linking to (likely) copyvio material. But I'd prefer a proper solution which is more general, and this is not it. (and I am still pondering whether it is possible to abuse this through some template magic). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- you don't know how to check, but you bet — that's the whole point: if you check my prediction and find it correct, that would convince you better. Scientific method at its best. Not being a company is not a reason not to spam — I've never said it is (although in this case it's not simply not a company or a state organization, it is a single person who is already banned at least on ruwiki anyway). I do agree — well, thanks. --colt_browning (talk) 13:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Beetstra: Yes, it is an exception, and that's exactly what I'm talking about. Also, it's not a company. See w:Sci-Hub. I bet if you check the spam filter hits (I don't know whether it's possible) you will find only direct links to articles on Sci-Hub, not the kind of spamming you're talking about. --colt_browning (talk) 12:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Colt browning: people can also add links to websites to spam, pornhub is indeed a particular example but that does not mean that it does not happen with companies as well - sci-hub would not be the first company that replaces any (wikilink to) Sci-Hub with a link to their frontpage to spam. And if not, then Sci-Hub would be rather an exception than a rule. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Beetstra: Well, Sci-Hub is not Pornhub. Its frontpage doesn't violate anything. It is blacklisted because it gives access to copyrighted content, and users add direct links to the copyrighted content on Sci-Hub. People add links to Pornhub because they think it's funny, it's just common vandalism. Also, there are lots of websites that are interested to have links from Wikipedia (e.g., some news websites), so they add links to particular pages or the frontpages, and this is common spam. But Sci-Hub is a completely different case. It's not spam, it's not vandalism, it's just people linking copyrighted content in good faith. --colt_browning (talk) 12:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Martin Urbanec: A good idea. In fact, if we globally whitelist links to frontpages only (smth like
- @Colt browning and Beetstra: Maybe use negative lookahead in the blacklist to make sure it's not /about? Not sure what WD wants to link to through. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 11:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Colt browning: the point is, that the other URLs in that Wikidata item are causing problems on other wikis - they cannot be 'used' on other wikis. Complete de-listing causes a horde of problems (quite some material on that site should never be linked to), local whitelisting will solve the WD problem, but we still have/get the horde of other problems. This really needs another solution - either we need a global whitelist for /about pages so we can avoid this, or a completely different solution (e.g. a flag on WD that the data is there on WD and locally whitelisted, but cannot be 'pulled' onto other wikis). None of that is now there. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 10:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Beetstra: Since other URLs in that Wikidata item are also affected by the blacklist, all wikis already cannot use Wikidata to display the official link, so adding the new URL won't harm them. Also, this Wikidata element is used by an external website whereisscihub.now.sh which is not affected by blacklisting, so there is perfect sense in updating the Wikidata element. With this in mind, maybe still consider temporary whitelisting/de-blacklisting? Anyway, I agree that it needs a proper solution and will prepare a Phabricator ticket. --colt_browning (talk) 09:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Colt browning: temporary whitelisting is an option, but that will affect all wikis that use the wikidata item to display the official link (as it is then on that page, editing on each wiki will be problematic). This likely needs a phab ticket to really get to a proper solution, as any official website that is blacklisted runs into this problem. I don't think we can do anything really here, and would rather strongly suggest against doing something on WikiData due to the effects that will have. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 08:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Martin Urbanec: No, it should stay blacklisted. Otherwise, people will add links to Sci-Hub to the elements of scientific articles (in good faith) which is bad because Sci-Hub violates copyright (see blacklisting discussion). If there is a way to whitelist an URL for just a single element, please explain how to do it. Or, do you mean temporary whitelisting? --colt_browning (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Discussion
|
|
This section is for discussion of Spam blacklist issues among other users. |
omnislots.com
omnislots.com
Hi, can I please have some more information regarding the reason that this domain has been blacklisted? https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:COIBot/XWiki/omnislots.com --Jeditom (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I hope billinghurst I have done it at the correct section.
- Are we able to ask why your interest, and where you have tried to add it, and the circumstances of the addition. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I know that honesty is appreciated, so I can mention that I was requested by this brand (which is 100% legitimate and with official game licence) to investigate the matter of the blacklist.As far as I know, the company tried to create the company's page with some basic business profile info and for some reason the article was removed and the domain ended up in the blacklist. So, can someone please explain what was the wrongdoing, as all references and sources used were from official websites? --Jeditom (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Jeditom: The domain was link spammed outside of the criteria for link addition of external sites, a reasonable read would be w:WP:EL, and it is not generally a site that we would be using as a reliable source. We get hammered with gambling, betting and slots site spam, and simply have a very low tolerance for it. I have left some links about paid editing on your user talk and would encourage you to use Wikipedia:Teahouse as the open place to get guidance about information about notability and editing. If the notability threshold is met, they will assist you with getting a short term whitelisting of an /about/ type url to add. — billinghurst sDrewth
billinghurst thank you for the feedback. Believe me the brand -and the company behind it- are legit and there is no problem for them to check if any 3rd party validations are needed. Their domain is clean from spam, has no ads (not even participating in Google ads) and it has all the proper Casino licences. As a reminder, that wiki page was created just for branding. Not for affiliates, not for ads or promotions. I would like also to ask you why the paid editing should be an option for this brand? They don't plan to do any paid advertising, as they are not after doing any promotion. Can you please provide a clear guidance of which links were creating the problem (as I am sure that the content writer used only official sources) and what other actions should the company take, in order to prepare better their content? Also, just as a suggestion, can it be that you have flagged wrongly some links as spammy? In that case, I would be glad to research and give you my feedback for the links that you believe are responsible for the blacklisting. In any case, I am available to perform any checks that are required.
- This is nothing about legitimacy, this is not about punishment, this is a technical restriction and control where links have been abused, and have potential for further abuse. For how to get a link added to an English Wikipedia, you will need to discuss that process at English Wikipedia. Links were provided and requirements explained as previously stated. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
billinghurst Yet you provide no actual reasoning behind the blacklisting or what exactly was the mistake/problem. If this is not about a punishment, then I don't really know about what it is.And what you are saying is that you are acting like a domain is guilty in advance, just because you may feel like it could be guilty in the future.--Jeditom (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree with your assessment, as I have provided reasoning and explanation. I have provided you with means to move forward. There are links provided on this page (Spam blacklist/About), and I have provided links to assist you to understand, and to comply. I will not provide commentary about your attempted additions, or your lack of compliance with terms and condition at English Wikipedia, that is an enWP discussion, though it guides my actions and response to you.
There is a community that is here watching this page and willing to make comment about the actions of anyone who makes additions and removals to the list. Their commentary will guide me on your request. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I can see no real proof of the "link spammed" claim or any other indication of what could be wrong with the posting of that page. No specific examples from that page are used to show what is or could be wrong, even if it has been requested repeatedly. Therefore everything in this discussion is just theoretical with no evidence of any wrong doing. How can I request the whitelisting of that page and the review of the content from another 3rd party? --Jeditom (talk) 11:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Jeditom: Thank you for your unbiased opinion. Not. All available information that you wish to have has been supplied or is available by those links.
I am again directing you to the terms of use and now instructing you to comply with these to be able to edit at this site. Please also note the FAQs linked from that page, and also note the results of failing to comply with the terms. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
omeida.com
omeida.com
This is a very old entry added by Special:Diff/82686 (in 2004!) and we do not have discussion logs on why this was added. A search on Google tells that we probably do not want to remove the entry, but can we at least add a \b so it does not match stuff like ayakomeida.com (the official site of a Japanese composer)? We have a request on Japanese Wikipedia to add this latter site to local spam-whitelist, but given the aged entry I feel more prudent to request for adding \b instead of blindly adding a whitelist entry.--ネイ (talk) 15:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- @ネイ:
Done good catch, thanks for the notification. I have done some of the others in that time and space, not that I wandered too far around the list. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
