Talk:Spam blacklist

←Requests and proposals

Spam blacklist

Archives (current)→

The associated page is used by the Mediawiki Spam Blacklist extension, and lists strings of text that may not 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. There is also a more aggressive way to block spamming through direct use of $wgSpamRegex. Only developers can make changes to $wgSpamRegex, and its use is to be avoided whenever possible.

For more information on what the spam blacklist is for, and the processes used here, please see Spam blacklist/About.

Please post comments to the appropriate section below: Proposed additions, Proposed removals, or Troubleshooting and problems, read the messageboxes at the top of each section for an explanation. Also, please check back some time after submitting, there could be questions regarding your request. Per-project whitelists are discussed at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. In addition to that, please sign your posts with ~~~~ after your comment. Other discussions related to this last, but that are not a problem with a particular link please see, Spam blacklist policy discussion.

Completed requests are archived (list, search), additions and removal are logged.

Projects

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

[edit]

snippet for logging: {{/request|961803#{{subst:anchorencode:section name here}}}}

If you cannot find your remark below, please do a search for the URL in question with this Archive Search tool.

Spam that only affects single project should go to that project's local blacklist, if available: en.wiki

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. Completed requests will be marked as done or denied and archived.

Proxy lists

• www.bind.com Myspace Proxy Server]
• www.opencity.us Anonymous proxy For Schools]
• free-proxy.org.ua Free Proxy list. Daily Updated. HTTP, Socks]
• geexzone.free.fr/ Free WebProxy]
• www.trproxy.net Proxy]

I found these when clearing out a list of bot-reported spam links. I see a lot of lists like this on proxy articles, all of which are SPAMHOLE candidates. Should we consider blocking sites that are just lists of proxies? JzG 19:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Was that crosswiki spam? — VasilievVV 04:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Linked on several wikis, yes, but I deleted them. Thing is, proxy lists have no obvious valid use on Wikipedias. JzG 23:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that they ma be linked from Wikipedia internal pages (like NOP) — VasilievVV 17:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If they haven't been spammed across multiple wikis, I'd recommend not adding them to the list. Nakon 01:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Closed - Not done --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wilhelm Maybach

docs.google.com/Doc?docid=ddmfmctb_88d85bf3hc&hl=en/ was spammed in many articles about Wilhelm Maybach:

• http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wilhelm_Maybach&diff=44347177&oldid=43859169
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wilhelm_Maybach&diff=202180747&oldid=198290404
• http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wilhelm_Maybach&diff=16229866&oldid=15275646
• http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wilhelm_Maybach&diff=27974975&oldid=25987559
• http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speciale%3ARegistri&type=&user=&page=Wilhelm+Maybach (by a different IP)
• http://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wilhelm_Maybach&diff=11960267&oldid=11953918

Thanks --Jaqen 09:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I had rollbacked those edits, but the link was inserted again, by another IP (eg). I didn't rollback this time. Bye. --Jaqen 09:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This still looks rather spammy to me - any other views? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but I'm not sure that blacklisting is needed. If it keeps on getting spammed, then yes. Werdna 09:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Not done, not enough activity to require blacklisting at this time. Nakon 20:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

www.fcbursa.com/

Commercial tourist night club site placed by one IP-address, currently on 5 Wikipedia versions, now active.

---

www.fcbursa.com/

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)www.fcbursa.com/

(Reports: Report ← track | XWiki | Local | en | find entry)(DomainTools: whois | AboutUs | Malware?)

---

Kind regards, MoiraMoira 09:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just pulled a chunk of tourist links from the en wp article including this one and taken it out of the fr article too - is this still an issue? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Not done, relist if spamming continues. Nakon 01:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

inca-cola.com

According to the link description it is the website of Inca Kola International, but according to the info on the page you are sent to when you click the link, the domain is for sale.

Cross wiki spam, the link has been inserted again after the links got removed.

---

inca-cola.com

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)inca-cola.com

(Reports: Report ← track | XWiki | Local | en | find entry)(DomainTools: whois | AboutUs | Malware?)

---

IPs adding the link:

• 89.181.21.161
• 194.65.23.69
• 89.181.4.28

Reference: User:SpamReportBot/cw/inca-cola.com

--Jorunn 10:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed & thanks  Added --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

boydabloc.blogspot.com

---

boydabloc.blogspot.com

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)boydabloc.blogspot.com

(Reports: Report ← track | XWiki | Local | en | find entry)(DomainTools: whois | AboutUs | Malware?)

---

Several different SPAs keep inserting this link into en:Nancy Boyda. It's just one person's advocacy blog, not officially associated with Ms. Boyda. I'm tired of reverting it.--Father Goose 20:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this solely an en wp issue? If so you should request local blacklisting (here) rather than global blacklisting - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 06:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Not done, Please try local blacklisting. Nakon 18:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed additions (Bot reported)

This section is for websites which have been added to multiple wikis as observed by a bot. It used to transclude User:SpamReportBot/cw, but since it has about 100 sections, it was removed. You can follow this link to see it. Items there will automatically be archived by the bot when they get stale. Sysops, please change the LinkStatus template to closed when the report is dealt with. More information can be found at User:SpamReportBot/cw/about These are automated reports, please check the records and the link thoroughly, it may be good links! Please place suggestions on the automated reports in the discussion section.

List
User:SpamReportBot/cw/nakedafrica.net
User:SpamReportBot/cw/hnl-statistika.com
User:SpamReportBot/cw/therasmus-hellofasite.it
User:SpamReportBot/cw/prolococusanese.interfree.it
User:SpamReportBot/cw/rprece.interfree.it

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 URL blacklisted, links to the articles they are used in or useful to, and arguments in favour of unlisting. Completed requests will be marked as done or denied and archived. See also /recurring requests for repeatedly proposed (and refused) removals. The addition or removal of a link is not a vote, please do not bold the first words in statements.

commonpurpose.org.uk

How this foundation's website ended up on the blacklist I'd be rather curious to be informed about. That it doesn't belong there is rather obvious. A recent administrative edit to Common Purpose UK on the English Wikipedia resulted in all links to the organization's own web site having to be removed. __meco 09:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It was added by user:VasilievVV after being picked up by the user:COIBot from the Wikipedia in Spanish. See Spam blacklist/Log and [1]. Hillgentleman 11:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone abused links on this site in articles which are not related to that foundation itself. I commented it out, but I'll bring it back if there is some crosswiki spam or another abuse — VasilievVV 14:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The situation is worse. It was spammed by an IP belonging to Common Purpose, pushed strongly to pages where its use was not really necessery. I would suggest re-blacklisting, and adding a specific whitelist rule to local wikis. --Beetstra 17:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me know when I can re-add the external links on the en:Wikipedia article about the organization itself. __meco 19:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I was able to re-add them now, but do implement that whitelist thing if you put it back in, otherwise this article will have the same problem again. __meco 19:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Common Purpose UK was also active in removing statements from the en:Common Purpose UK article: diff and diff. Meco, can you request a couple of specific links that need to be whitelisted on the whitelist on en:wikipedia? --Beetstra 09:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• I have whitelisted the home page on enWP and uncommented the blacklist, due to credible evidence of past abuse. I think that accurately reflects consensus? JzG 22:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Not done, whitelisted on en.wiki. Nakon 01:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

komendant.cal.pl

Seems like the bot mistook anon's adding new useful website for a spam. As a speaker of Polish language I don't see anything violating our policies there at a quick glance, rather it is a portal dedicated to en:Józef Piłsudski and as such its addition to articles related to him is relatively relevant. Do note that the link was quickly whitelisted at pl wikipedia, within hours of being blacklisted here.--Piotrus 17:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Given the strictly Polish nature of the site & the fact that is was added to a number of wikis where it does seem less appropriate I'm not sure removal is correct? Other views? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Not done, Please use local whitelisting. Nakon 01:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? It's an informative Polish website. It was added to several wikis, yes, but only to the single article that has multiple language versions - and the subject was Polish, so it's not surprising many resources are in Polish. Would you like to ban English language websites if they are added to Polish wiki? Or Finnish, if they are added to Polish article on a Finish person? In any case, please direct me to the English Wikipedia whitelist, I cannot find it.--Piotrus 04:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

bossanovamusic.net

I'd like to ask you to unlist the link bossanovamusic.net/en/5-bossa/index.html since it's very vital for Bossa Nova ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bossa_nova ) since this site contains informations and nice visual and audio illustrations not contained in other sites about this subject. Thank you!— The preceding unsigned comment was added by 78.142.160.178 (talk)

Please request whitelisting on en wikipedia for this specific url, see en:MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 16:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Not done, Please use local whitelisting. Nakon 20:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

nacion.com

At en:WP:VPP#spam protection filter: too zealously?, the rule triggers lanacion.com too, which is an Argentine newspaper. Perhaps the rule could be refined, or should it be whitelisted? X42bn6 11:48, 17 April 2008 (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).

urlic.com

Don't really know why this was added, but it's blocking a legitimate site on srwiki: paundurlic.com. Is there any way to exempt this site? --FiLiP ¤ 09:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Added \b around it — VasilievVV 14:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, vvv --FiLiP ¤ 20:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Done, tagging for completion. Nakon 01:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Help needed

Dear all. Eagle 101 and I have been working on bots in the spam IRC channels (see #wikipedia-spam-t for talking, people there will be able to steer you to the other channels; #wikipedia-en-spam and #cvn-sw-spam). The bots are now capable of real-time cross wiki spam detection (and soon that will also be reported). It would be nice if some of you would join us there, and help us cleaning etc. as this appears to go faster than we at first expect (and I do get the feeling the en wiki is not a good starting point for finding them! --Beetstra 21:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Something interesting for ya all to look at. I'm going to work on making each link go to subpages, and have them updated in a way that we can comment on the subpages as well, and bring the ones that need blacklisting to the meta blacklist. I can't have the bot automatically post here, we would flood this list out, so we will have to look at them all and then link to them. Hopefully we can get all the reports in one place, the coibot reports etc. Folks more or less simple crosswiki spam is easily detectable. :) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 22:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Bah, you probably want to see the subpage at User:SpamReportBot/test ;) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 23:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Addition to the COIBot reports

The lower list in the COIBot reports now have after each link four numbers between brackets (e.g. "www.example.com (0, 0, 0, 0)"):

1. first number, how many links did this user add (is the same after each link)
2. second number, how many times did this link get added to wikipedia (for as far as the linkwatcher database goes back)
3. third number, how many times did this user add this link
4. fourth number, to how many different wikipedia did this user add this link.

If the third number or the fourth number are high with respect to the first or the second, then that means that the user has at least a preference for using that link. Be careful with other statistics from these numbers (e.g. good user do add a lot of links). If there are more statistics that would be useful, please notify me, and I will have a look if I can get the info out of the database and report it. The bots are running on a new database, Eagle 101 is working on transferring the old data into this database so it becomes more reliable.

For those with access to IRC, there this data is available in real time. --Beetstra 10:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Log weirdness

I guess it may be a caching issue but for me the log appears to end at July 2007? Editing gave me March 2008 but it ain't there now for me? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've rv'd myself for now but something is going wrong??? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like you put the log entry in the right section, I'm re-adding it for ya. Did you purge? ~Kylu (u|t) 16:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed in a sense but just purged the cache & it cuts off at July 2007 for me (I even tried making it #March 2008 and got de nada). Is it just me - it has been "one of those" days :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see past July 2007 either :\ Mønobi 17:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

https://wikitech.leuksman.com/view/Server_admin_log#March_26 - issues with the rendering cluster again (which would keep &action=purge from working) ~Kylu (u|t) 17:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Did the full ff purge & still have the same as Monobi today. I am recording the entries that I cannot log at present but I guess if this is not resolved soon alternatives of some sort may be needed. If anyone else finds (or does not find) the same it would be good to hear. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Leave me the log entries you want added on my talk, and I'll add them for you if you'd like. I can get around this problem. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 14:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for archiving this. It looks like we hit some sort of limit. My suggestion is to make a second log page for the time being and start logging from that while the original bug is reported to bugzilla. —— nixeagle 02:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully sorted for now via Spam blacklist/LogPre2008. Of course this is a wiki so if anyone disagrees....:) Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Crosswiki spam detection

Ok folks we can more or less detect any crosswiki spam addition. Wander over to User:SpamReportBot/cw. This is a report of all links added by only a few people across more then 3 wikis. Each section here is its own subpage, which means you can transclude them on this page, link to the specific section, etc. You can also comment on the subpages if you have further notes etc, such as "this is not spam because of X". Depending on what we all think of it, I'll transclude User:SpamReportBot/cw on this page. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 00:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll also note that it automatically removes old items. Items should stay up for 2-3 days before being removed by the bot. (that is if no more links are added). If good links consistently come up, I'll come up with a whitelist mechanism that we can add links to if we deem the additions ok and we don't want to see the additions there. Please suggest improvements on how the bot reports. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 01:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I started to blacklist a number of these and then stopped when I noticed the blacklist log is acting seriously weird. --A. B. ^(talk) 02:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for your work. I'm going to continue to work on the bot and the algorithm being used, so noting false hits is important. The major one seems to be knowing accounts that edit a lot. I'll work on a fix to that tomorrow, I'm hitting the sack tonight. —— nixeagle 03:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again, Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors.--Hu12 13:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

XRumer spam

Well, anyone who is involved in crosswiki spam, has at some point seen Xrummer (is the best!) spam. Now he hotlinks a thumbnail for his program, as seen on [2]. Code he's using:

X-Rumer is the BEST! 
 
<img>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/6b/XRumer_screenshot.gif/200px-XRumer_screenshot.gif</img> 

So I added the following line: \bupload\.wikimedia\.org\/.*XRumer_screenshot\.gif\b to blacklist all links to possible thumbnail sizes. although I don't know if I did it properly (and the logging system used here confuses me). So, could anyone here review if I did it properly? es:Drini 19:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That works. I just tried it out. (adding the link that is). —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 01:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the pic on enwiki, btw, but am told that it'll be a while before that link is purged. If it's a huge problem, we can request that a shell user delete the file manually, but... ~Kylu (u|t) 22:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

SpamReportBot/cw feedback

First item: after a lot of checking, I went through and made comments in each section as to which bot-reported domains needed blacklisting and which looked legit. When I was all done, I saw that none of my edits "stuck" -- it was if I'd never made them.. This must have something to do with the fact that these reports are transcluded. Then I went and blacklisted 13 domains; afterward I saw others had also blacklisted some of the same links, so there was some wasted effort. Conclusion: we very much need a way to mark up these reports so we don't duplicate each others' efforts.

In lieu of marking each report, here's my feedback on some of the domains reported so far:

• I blacklisted these:
  • tremulous.net.ru
  • logosphera.com
  • vidiac.com
  • yarakweb.com
  • img352.imageshack.us
  • ayvalikda.com
  • sarimsaklida.com
  • worldmapfinder.com
  • cundadan.com
  • bikerosario.com.ar
  • alfpoker.com
  • karvinsko.eu
  • yarak.co.uk

• Links added to these sites looked legitimate:
  • wikilivres.info
  • unwto.org
  • en.pwa.co.th
  • villatuelda.es

• Some others still need evaluation

All in all, SpamReportBot/cw looks like a very powerful, useful tool. --A. B. ^(talk) 03:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I just figured out that if I post my comments in the bot report sections above the line that says "<!-- ENDBOT POST BELOW HERE -->", then they'll show up. I don't know if it's a good idea to do this, however -- will it screw up the bot or the transclusion? --A. B. ^(talk) 03:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The work of the bot is awesome & deserves both thanks & discussion. There seems a few issues that need addressing such as what to look at, logging etc & it would be good to see discussion here. I feel that there may be a case for listing all bot generated sites because the behaviour is "spammy". However I also think because it is bot generated and there will likely have been no warnings, that entries can & should be removed after some sensible interaction has taken place. I am well aware that others here would not share my views so I will substantially reduce my activity on this page (& Meta).

The bot - while excellent - has generated far more work that I have time for and so I will just look at dealing with the request from the people who make requests here & who I've got to know & trust if I am around. Given the vast number of admins on Meta this should not cause any problems - however Meta seems to attract many people who want be admins but are not inclined to do any of the work. If I am around I'll help but my time is short & there is much to do on Commons. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You do raise a valid point, as far as no warnings. Thankfully we just turned a major corner. We now have the ability to detect most spammy behavior. However now that detection and reversion is easier (SUL), we may want to evaluate what we do in response to those that add links many times.

When I first started helping in this effort, we were shooting in the dark. There was no COIBot reports, irc feeds, the crosswiki linksearch tool, or any sort of monitoring of more then one wiki at a time... thus detecting spam across multiple wikis was... pardon my language, damned hard! As such we blacklisted all we could find. This type of spam was and is sneaky as it bypasses most community's detection mechanism. Its only one link to folks on the various wikis, but added togather its across 5 or more!

Now that we have a detection mechanism, one that we can adopt should the behavior of spammers change significantly, we need to ask ourselves, should we blacklist with the same vigor? Should we attempt to assume good faith of ones that appear to us to be accidental, or in good faith? How do we go about warning someone that may never see the warning, or be unable to read the language in which the warning is placed in? In addition, we must remain ever wary of en:Joe jobs.

These are questions that need to be answered, and Herbythyme is right on the ball hinting at these here and elsewhere. Its perfectly valid to keep our response the same as it always was, but this may not be the best course of action. I don't know for sure what is. Please discuss your thoughts to this below my comment, or in its own section. :) —— nixeagle 18:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone will have to remove the blacklisted links from the wikis. Can that be done by a bot and/or can a bot be set up to give information on the affected wikis about where the blacklisted links are, so the local community can remove the links themselves? Removing spam is a tedious task, and sometimes one feels one is as much infringing with the local communities as is any spammer. If possible the local communities should evaluate the blacklisted links themselves, and remove the ones they don't want, and either strip or whitelist the others. I realize that might not be very realistic. For Commons there is the CommonsTicker and CommonsDelinker. Is it possible to handle the blacklisted links in a similar way? --Jorunn 13:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly it could be done by bot... I can work on writing this if its wanted. SUL will make things much easier. I usually just click the diff links and click undo on each of the ones I blacklist. In otherwords I don't blacklist things I'm not willing to undo the link additions to. —— nixeagle 17:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

A.B. - As far as your edits not sticking on the transcluded pages... can you show me an example? I can't fix it unless I can see an example of the problem. :S It will be useful down the road to have the blacklisted or not portion in the page itself, so this should work without any problems... —— nixeagle 18:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Replying to myself again: AB - "<!-- ENDBOT POST BELOW HERE -->", posting above that means the bot will overwrite your comments should there be future link additions from that domain.

Also, A.B. and everyone else interested, I just modified the algorithm to remove 2 out of 4 identified false hits. I'll look at the other two, but I'd like to see this run for a day or so and see what crops up. Please do attempt to comment on the actual sub pages. —— nixeagle 19:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed transclusion from this page because it was loading very slowly — VasilievVV 06:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, when and if it gets back to a manageable level, we can place it back on this list. —— nixeagle 19:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I want to add, we also need people on IRC watching our bots. The output of the bots we are running there does show when accounts are actually busy spamming cross-wiki, and much work and damage can be stopped when reacting promptly there. I yesterday added two before they were reported here (closed the reports this morning). Also, when you hit them when they are busy, they notice that what they do is a problem, if you add them the next day, they may never know what happened. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 10:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Clearing the backlog!

OK - we have a choice - drown in it or tackle it! It will not be long before that page will not load never mind anything else.

Assuming drown is not the choice (:)) I think we need to use a larger mesh. These are reports of possible excessive linkage. If we had the time & people we would look in detail at every one with a fine tooth comb - we haven't.

Action plan

1. I'm going to close all those that have been around for a week or so. The worst that will happen is that they will be re opened again?
2. I think we need to take the view that we take a quick look at each - if it doesn't look like a threat to the project we close it and move on. One of the issues here is great though the bot is no human has actually checked it so it is far more labour intensive that manual reports.
3. Recruit - can anyone who knows anyone who is a "spam fighter" get them to take a look at this stuff. For anyone who has time & some cross wiki experience it is a worthwhile area to work. Those with close ties with other language projects could approach local workers too.

Comments welcome but it is a time for doing not talking (I'll spam talk pages on Meta with a link to this). Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What actions can a non-admin take? I'm an admin on nlwiki and I'd like to help out if I can, but I'm not an admin here. --Erwin(85) 07:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Any help would be seriously appreciated Erwin. This being a wiki you can do what you like! More helpfully (& my opinion only) are the links really excessive, unwanted, spam? Again for me it means checking the diffs out on some of the wikis (& the site probably too). Has it been removed by the local folk (fr & nl are pretty good at spotting spam)? Maybe try Luxo's tool for cross wiki contribs (& blocks too).

Then it is your judgement - if you feel it is not excessive linkage or is not a current threat to the project then "close" it (as far as I know that merely means replacing "open" on the status with "closed"?) with any comments.

If you do see it as spammy then add that comment and hopefully someone will get round to blacklisting it and closing it - certainly I will do what I can.

There are some reports where the same IP is placing a number of links - that makes me quite suspicious so if you pick up on anything like that do mention it. Any help will be appreciated - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• OK, can you move any that are more than a week old but not fixed to a /backlog subpage? I'd still like to work through them. JzG 07:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Will that "break" the bot? (I have no problem with doing it) Equally you will need help or that page will merely get larger & larger - we need people :)! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It will probably not break the bot, but the bot will just put it back .. so it is of no help. I would suggest to just close those that seem fine-ish, they will come back if it reoccurs. The problem is that I am at the other side of the bots, and hell, there is a lot of work that does not even get onto this page. We need people here, and on IRC! Blacklisting is a solution, but it would be better to hit them with the wikitrout when they are actually doing it. I blacklisted a couple of links while they were busy spamming, and I have seen two immediately coming here to complain. It also gives us less work, when the links are blocked (here) or whitelisted (on the bot), the reports can be closed, and there is less to clean .. We just really need more people! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 10:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I will automatically hide those older then 5 days. Later I can (vie a database call, display them should we ever get that far). If there is continued link additions, the bot will re-add the link. Sorry folks for not being around :( —— nixeagle 19:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, those hidden can be recalled at a later date if folks are interested in looking at it. I do agree, we just need more people! —— nixeagle 19:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you have one more person. If I step on toes, or mess up with the various templates etc, please poke me or I won't learn. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 04:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've re transcluded the list, as nakon did some damage to it. That along with the removal of the older items did the trick, however! we need folks to continue to watch this, or its just going to happen again. If the bot reported sectino ever gets larger then about 25-35 items, we have a backlog. (It should generate about 20-30 a day). —— nixeagle 04:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(same as above :-) ): I want to add, we also need people on IRC watching our bots. The output of the bots we are running there does show when accounts are actually busy spamming cross-wiki, and much work and damage can be stopped when reacting promptly there. I yesterday added two before they were reported here (closed the reports this morning). Also, when you hit them when they are busy, they notice that what they do is a problem, if you add them the next day, they may never know what happened. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 10:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)