Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2021-01

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

---

---

Hello, I'm trying to understand how to manage the inclusion of pages created with Wikidata list Template using d:Property:P2671 and d:Property:P646 in the ListeriaBot Spam/abuse filter: any hint? Pietro (talk) 09:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Pietro: you mean https://www.google.com/search?q=knowledge+graph+search+api&kponly&kgmid=/g/113qbrbyl as redirected from https://g.co/kg/g/113qbrbyl? My solution would be is to make a google custom search engine to feed your search term to https://www.google.com/search?q=knowledge+graph+search+api&kponly&kgmid=<your search term> (not the full redirect on g.co), and whitelist that specific custom search engine on your wiki. As it looks now, you'll have to whitelist the whole g.co/kg tree (which may not be too bad, as that is a specific corner which cannot be custom-abused). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 10:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Beetstra: as we are talking about URLs that have been deemed worthy of listing as properties in Wikidata, I would avoid custom search engines in every Wiki, but I would rater whitelist g.co/kg as you proposed. To prevent another potential problem, how to deal with d:Property:P3749? Pietro (talk) 11:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Pietro: Would excluding kg in addition to maps in \bgoo\.gl\b(?!/maps\b).* work? Is g.co/kg the same as goo.gl/kg?? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 11:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Beetstra: I would use the formatter URL in Wikidata for each property, so g.co/kg for both d:Property:P2671 and d:Property:P646, and maps.google.com for d:Property:P3749. I'm sorry, but I cannot help for goo.gl/kg. Pietro (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll change the first rule, and add a second:

• Regex requested to be blacklisted: \bgoo\.gl\b(?!/(maps
• Regex requested to be blacklisted: \bg\.co\b(?!/(maps

--Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 05:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Pietro: Added  Added to Spam blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 05:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Beetstra and Billinghurst: editing wikidata:Property:P2671#P1630 still triggers g.co blacklist error, I suppose, because regexp was refined, but original rule was not removed[1]. --Lockal (talk) 09:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Lockal and Billinghurst: I tried some things, don't seem to get it fixed. @Billinghurst: can you try? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 12:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I am just confused. What are we trying to add/stop? Seems like the blacklist is blocking whatever is your issue.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: we are trying to stop everything on g.co and goo.gl (both (abused) redirect sites) except for the /maps and /kg paths on those two. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 05:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe if I would have signed the previous, User:Billinghurst would actually have been pinged. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 05:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

From What I Know, according to text on https://g.co/, "you can trust that it will always take you to a Google product or service". goo.gl is a google maps + arbitrary redirector, there is no need to unblock "/kg/" there. https://g.co/kg/m/010qx6n8 - works and safe, https://goo.gl/kg/m/010qx6n8 - 404 - whatever, https://goo.gl/maps/2VgGWLJSeR58JA156 - works and safe, https://g.co/maps/jxc9u - works and safe, https://goo.gl/kgbybz - arbitrary redirect - should be blocked). All links from https?://g\.co/kg\b redirect only to Machine-Readable IDs (MREIDs) and should not be unshortened, because http://g.co/kg is official Google's RDF prefix (e. g. for json-ld notation). Other g.co links are "although it is specific for google services, it is still a redirect" (as discussed at Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2014-09#g.co) and may remain blocked (up to you). --Lockal (talk) 13:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Beetstra and Billinghurst: still a problem. --Lockal (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Beetstra and Billinghurst:, I see you are both active. If you have issues with building regexp, just remove (?<!-)\bg\.co\b completely, as it was added with incomplete rationale (no examples of spamming activity), efficiently working like a ban of google.com. --Lockal (talk) 11:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Pietro, Lockal, and Billinghurst: I am going to remove all of the g.co blacklist rules (will create a section below). I have been going through logs manually, and I did not see any which seem malicious. If any of these do show up, I would suggest to blacklist those paths specifically (\bg\.co\/<badpath>\b). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 10:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! --Lockal (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

---

---

Regex requested to be blacklisted: twitter\.com/kurtstaudt

---

---

Spreading hate against wikipedians, providing false "real names", libel, anti-Semite slur. Spammed at least here by globally locked cross-wiki cyberstalker System-Analytiker KS (talk · contribs) (en and de), risk of repetition due to long-time abuse. Admins may see more link spam, at least 1 edit on de was removed. Best regards, Agathenon (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Agathenon: Added  Added to Spam blacklist. Not certain how extensive is the vandalism and whether it should be local instead. On the balance of precaution, blocking it. -- — billinghurst sDrewth 22:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Global blacklisting was OK, these cyber mobbers work crosswiki. :-) Agathenon (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Blackhat sites that are being used to create non-notable entries on small wikis and then corresponding Wikidata items. For ex. d:Q92052575. More to come.. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

These have a long history of being used to provide references for UPE articles on en.wp. I consider using these as references to be a block on sight offence. Support blacklisting. There's a longer list at w:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Publicity_farm_including_londondailypost.com_and_others and w:User:Praxidicae/fntest. MER-C (talk) 12:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment Comment I will generally also put a monitor command onto the dodgy domains that are unblocked so far. So they are searchable "monitor domain blahblah.com blackhat SEO" or something similar.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@1997kB: Added  Added to Spam blacklist. -- — billinghurst sDrewth 13:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

and will manually amend to some smaller regex when adding  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Added  Added to Spam blacklist. -- — billinghurst sDrewth 02:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

---

---

Requested on en.wiki, but cross wiki. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 10:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Beetstra: Added  Added to Spam blacklist. For reference, see en request by User:Pigsonthewing (it is a redirect site). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 10:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

---

---

Spammed on multiple wikis, see Special:CentralAuth/Mbt2020. Sgd. —Hasley 17:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Added  Added to Spam blacklist. --Sgd. —Hasley 17:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

---

---

Spammed at enwikinews, svwikinews, no chance of being linked legitimately. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 10:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Martin Urbanec: Added  Added to Spam blacklist. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 10:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

---

---

---

---

---

---

Spammed xwiki, per Praxidicae --Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Martin Urbanec: Added  Added to Spam blacklist. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

---

---

Cross wiki addition as pseudo-reference by seemingly single purpose accounts, see User:COIBot/LinkReports/freeessaywriters.net. Blacklisted on en.wiki and es.wiki (the latter by me just now). — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Savh (talk) Sa vh ^ñ 16:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Eg. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 of this afternoon. Sa vh ^ñ 16:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@COIBot/LinkReports: Thanks! Added  Added to Spam blacklist. -- — billinghurst sDrewth 23:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

---

---

This link to a commercial travel company seems to fail our reliable sources approach and it has bursts of what looks to be conflict of interest editing.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Added  Added to Spam blacklist. --GeneralNotability (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

---

---

found in a spam link on Commons. --Achim (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Achim55: Added  Added to Spam blacklist. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

On WD there have been a trend of people replacing the official websites of adult websites with similar sounding fake sites in order toget the links transcluded onto Wikipedia. Due to the similar names i'm worried that these links might be added directly to Wikipedia (replacing the official website) without anyone having discovered it. --Trade (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Trade: Added  Added to Spam blacklist. Sounds reasonable, done. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

---

---

As it was mentioned in Talk:Spam blacklist this domain was blacklisted because: ‘Spammed by numerous IPs on Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedias. --Mercy 15:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)’. I found this site useful for gambling articles. There are original interviews, articles and news. F.e. Gambling in Ukraine – the article in english is poor and need a lot of work and references from native speaker’s sites will be good. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casino_token https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling_in_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling_in_Macau https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling_age https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaming_law

Sort of an EP per User talk:SmurFF2020. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment Comment Keen to defer to en for local whitelisting though, as globally there is still some undesired impact, @Ohnoitsjamie: is it possible to whitelist locally, yes, it cannot be removed from en blacklist as it's on meta but there is a possibility of using local whitelist. I am uncomfortable to remove it globally per just some pages in one wiki needing it as it's clearly spammy (and true on ru/uk wp) Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@SmurFF2020: Best that you ask at w:mediawiki talk:spam-whitelist and ask for local whitelisting. Asking there will create a local record and enable a local conversation.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I see no reason to remove it globally. The user who requested removing it from the en blacklist has no edits there; we rarely whitelist for new users, as it usually suggest the strong possibility of a WP:COI. Ohnoitsjamie (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• @SmurFF2020:  Declined Deferred to w:en:MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Pietro, Lockal, and Billinghurst: per above section on this revid I am removing all rules regarding g.co:

---

---

• Regex requested to be blacklisted: (?<!-)\bg\.co\b

--Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 10:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Beetstra: Removed  Removed from Spam blacklist. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 10:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

---

---

It was blacklisted for link submission and the business has nothing to do with it. The company has now made their own page in Wikipedia, but cannot add their own link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Flower_Delivery_(company). As a floristry companies.— The preceding unsigned comment was added by UKFlower (talk)

 Declined Please seek local whitelist at w:en:MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist.(削除) I am not comfortable to remove from blacklist per request of a very new user and for just one local page, a local whitelisting can be considered given the global impact is still spamming. (削除ここまで)I will say the local en version seems spammy to me too. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment Comment not globally blacklisted, this is listed specifically at enWP, so can only be resolved there.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't read the logs properly. Ammended but still declined as we can't do anything here. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

---

---

Needs to update rule for da.ru to excludes from this all sites what not matched with the *.da.ru mask. As example, elections.istra-da.ru is valuable statistical site about elections in Russia. --Kaganer (talk) 11:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, I think that we need to do \b(?<!-)da\.ru and will implement, though not being a negative lookbehind regex guru I am happy for someone to implement something better. It definitely will not let in less if I have it jiggered.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Added  updated @Kaganer: change It should definitely let the link through, well it did in my local testing and still stopped the istra.da.ru private log  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Thanks! This is worked correctly! --Kaganer (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

---

---

This blacklisting is quite unfortunate for Wikipedia. I have started creating articles in psychology for the French Wikipédia, and this site would be immensely useful. I would, for example, need to use references from goodtherapy for articles about Murray Bowen, Virginia Axline and Family Systems Therapy. Their articles appear clear, concise and thorough, which are invaluable advantages for our work on Wikipedia. Thank you for considering my humble request. --Liberlogos (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Liberlogos: It was blacklisted years ago at the request of the Wikipedias. I suggest that you talk to the admins at both sites to see if they will whitelist it. frwp: Defer to w:fr:Mediawiki talk:spam-whitelist and enwp: Defer to w:en:Mediawiki talk:spam-whitelist We are unlikely to remove without other positive comment.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

---

---

as the domain is fully blocked, even at de:AliExpress there is no link. possible solutions:

1. use the edit filter instead -> disadvantage: more complicated maintenance
2. use \baliexpress\.com\b. (i.e. require a char after domain name for blocking, s.t. only deep links are blocked) -> disadvantage: spammers could still use links to the main page https://aliexpress.com
3. variation of 2. by local whitelisting \baliexpress.com(?!.) -> same disadvantage as 2., but only locally.
4. temp unblock aliexpress.com, add the link to the wiki article, then reblock the domain -> disadvantage: if anybody deletes the url, the re-addition might get to complicated for normal users.
5. variation of 4. by temp local whitelisting -> disadvantage: this might confuse admins, cause it looks like the domain was blacklisted and had been be added though.

the second option is be fine in some cases, but i'm not sure, whether aliexpress.com is such a case. so at the moment i tend to 4., i.e. temp unblocking here.
other opinions? other options? -- seth (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Lustiger seth: You have to take into account that option 1 is an enormous strain on the server for the humongous number of regexes we have. Options 2 and 3 are indeed a problem if the main page gets spammed (pornhub.com is there the prime example, schoolkids have fun with changing the webpage of their school to that domain, an action which happens a regularly (en:Special:Log/spamblacklist/153.33.4.30), and it doesn't block the 'buy my product [https://aliexpress.com here]'-type of spam (spammers spam to make money, they go at lengths to get it). Options 4 and 5 are indeed a solution, but difficult to maintain (repair becomes frustrating).

The option we have chosen on en.wikipedia is to find a neutral landing page and whitelist that. Generally we ask for the about, or similar. It would be better in reverse by excluding that from the global blacklist and make it global. That avoids the root-spam, and most spammers and schoolkids will not figure out that they can use pornhub.com/about, and that is less effective/offensive than the front page, and if they do that is more reason for harsher sanctions. This is one of the frustrations why I wrote this. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 10:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

yes, an about page would be good. unfortunately i don't find such a page at aliexpress.com. afaics they don't even have an imprint. :-/

concerning pornhub: i excluded pornhub.com/information globally now from being blocked. -- seth (talk) 12:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Lustiger seth: Me neither now I look for it. But 'aliexpress.com/index.html' would serve the purpose here, not very obvious and taking you where you want. Note, for the tech-savvy under us, if you exclude the root, I can use every single document on aliexpress.com that I could possibly want to link to (and would be blocked in minutes for those admins that know where to look, but one could stay under the radar for a bit). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 13:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

gudn tach!

index.html -> good idea. i used that now.

but i don't understand your last sentence. -- seth (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Lustiger seth: there are ways around the blacklist, and with a rule like \baliexpress\.com\b. becomes easier (ánd it allows, as you say, the spamming of the root). I will not go further per en:WP:BEANS. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 12:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

ok, i guess, i know what you mean. -- seth (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

---

---

as the domain is fully blocked, even at de:AliExpress there is no link. possible solutions:

1. use the edit filter instead -> disadvantage: more complicated maintenance
2. use \baliexpress\.com\b. (i.e. require a char after domain name for blocking, s.t. only deep links are blocked) -> disadvantage: spammers could still use links to the main page https://aliexpress.com
3. variation of 2. by local whitelisting \baliexpress.com(?!.) -> same disadvantage as 2., but only locally.
4. temp unblock aliexpress.com, add the link to the wiki article, then reblock the domain -> disadvantage: if anybody deletes the url, the re-addition might get to complicated for normal users.
5. variation of 4. by temp local whitelisting -> disadvantage: this might confuse admins, cause it looks like the domain was blacklisted and had been be added though.

the second option is be fine in some cases, but i'm not sure, whether aliexpress.com is such a case. so at the moment i tend to 4., i.e. temp unblocking here.
other opinions? other options? -- seth (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Lustiger seth: You have to take into account that option 1 is an enormous strain on the server for the humongous number of regexes we have. Options 2 and 3 are indeed a problem if the main page gets spammed (pornhub.com is there the prime example, schoolkids have fun with changing the webpage of their school to that domain, an action which happens a regularly (en:Special:Log/spamblacklist/153.33.4.30), and it doesn't block the 'buy my product [https://aliexpress.com here]'-type of spam (spammers spam to make money, they go at lengths to get it). Options 4 and 5 are indeed a solution, but difficult to maintain (repair becomes frustrating).

The option we have chosen on en.wikipedia is to find a neutral landing page and whitelist that. Generally we ask for the about, or similar. It would be better in reverse by excluding that from the global blacklist and make it global. That avoids the root-spam, and most spammers and schoolkids will not figure out that they can use pornhub.com/about, and that is less effective/offensive than the front page, and if they do that is more reason for harsher sanctions. This is one of the frustrations why I wrote this. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 10:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

yes, an about page would be good. unfortunately i don't find such a page at aliexpress.com. afaics they don't even have an imprint. :-/

concerning pornhub: i excluded pornhub.com/information globally now from being blocked. -- seth (talk) 12:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Lustiger seth: Me neither now I look for it. But 'aliexpress.com/index.html' would serve the purpose here, not very obvious and taking you where you want. Note, for the tech-savvy under us, if you exclude the root, I can use every single document on aliexpress.com that I could possibly want to link to (and would be blocked in minutes for those admins that know where to look, but one could stay under the radar for a bit). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 13:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

gudn tach!

index.html -> good idea. i used that now.

but i don't understand your last sentence. -- seth (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Lustiger seth: there are ways around the blacklist, and with a rule like \baliexpress\.com\b. becomes easier (ánd it allows, as you say, the spamming of the root). I will not go further per en:WP:BEANS. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 12:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

ok, i guess, i know what you mean. -- seth (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

---

---

Regex requested to be blacklisted: \brt\.com/search Search term being link spammed by spambots.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

---

---

Redirect service for:

---

---

URL shortener for Quora. There are some usages on English wiki, and looks like a handful in the top 20, enough to stop it early. Ravensfire (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: Question, is it being abused, or is it a domain where we have had abuse? Typically where they are non-dangerous and dedicated redirects they have been left alone, eg. Washington Post. Is there a requirement to focus people through the main domain name for continuity or consistency.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I haven't seen anything significant. About the only potentially harmful use would be if specific Quora pages were blacklisted, this would be a work-around, similar to youtu.be. Actual harm right now, I don't see any. I guess my habit is to list shorteners when I see them, especially if they are generic. Ravensfire (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I hear you, finding the balance is always the fun thing. I am not adverse to doing it as required, though would want to see a consensus to do so, rather than based on a single request. I will leave it open and see what appears over the next while.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

---

---

Redirect service for:

---

---

URL shortener for Quora. There are some usages on English wiki, and looks like a handful in the top 20, enough to stop it early. Ravensfire (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: Question, is it being abused, or is it a domain where we have had abuse? Typically where they are non-dangerous and dedicated redirects they have been left alone, eg. Washington Post. Is there a requirement to focus people through the main domain name for continuity or consistency.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I haven't seen anything significant. About the only potentially harmful use would be if specific Quora pages were blacklisted, this would be a work-around, similar to youtu.be. Actual harm right now, I don't see any. I guess my habit is to list shorteners when I see them, especially if they are generic. Ravensfire (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I hear you, finding the balance is always the fun thing. I am not adverse to doing it as required, though would want to see a consensus to do so, rather than based on a single request. I will leave it open and see what appears over the next while.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst and Ravensfire: Just as a comment: quora.com is listed at en:WP:RSP as 'generally unreliable', which generally means that we check and often remove references to that. It appears that en.wikipedia currently has only ~1000 references to quora That housekeeping becomes easier if we do not allow for the (albeit dedicated) redirect to the site.

Now, with https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-words-in-English-which-are-synonyms-but-have-separate-ancient-Greek-and-Latin-origin-and-the-Latin-word-is-not-etymologically-derivative-of-the-older-ancient-Greek you know where you get, with https://qr.ae/pNyjiF you don't even have a clue. That is another reason not to use redirect sites .. they are unclear/opaque, easily 'spoofed', even if they are 'the same', not disallowed (and I would even for a generally reliable and highly used source suggest that we do not do that). I would at least encourage to just blacklist obscuring dedicated redirect sites if there are reasons to minimize the link already (but I would be more in favour to have a bot enforced expansion of any links that are not redirecting to blacklisted/revertlisted domains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 06:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

---

---

Redirect service for:

---

---

URL shortener for Quora. There are some usages on English wiki, and looks like a handful in the top 20, enough to stop it early. Ravensfire (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: Question, is it being abused, or is it a domain where we have had abuse? Typically where they are non-dangerous and dedicated redirects they have been left alone, eg. Washington Post. Is there a requirement to focus people through the main domain name for continuity or consistency.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I haven't seen anything significant. About the only potentially harmful use would be if specific Quora pages were blacklisted, this would be a work-around, similar to youtu.be. Actual harm right now, I don't see any. I guess my habit is to list shorteners when I see them, especially if they are generic. Ravensfire (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I hear you, finding the balance is always the fun thing. I am not adverse to doing it as required, though would want to see a consensus to do so, rather than based on a single request. I will leave it open and see what appears over the next while.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst and Ravensfire: Just as a comment: quora.com is listed at en:WP:RSP as 'generally unreliable', which generally means that we check and often remove references to that. It appears that en.wikipedia currently has only ~1000 references to quora That housekeeping becomes easier if we do not allow for the (albeit dedicated) redirect to the site.

Now, with https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-words-in-English-which-are-synonyms-but-have-separate-ancient-Greek-and-Latin-origin-and-the-Latin-word-is-not-etymologically-derivative-of-the-older-ancient-Greek you know where you get, with https://qr.ae/pNyjiF you don't even have a clue. That is another reason not to use redirect sites .. they are unclear/opaque, easily 'spoofed', even if they are 'the same', not disallowed (and I would even for a generally reliable and highly used source suggest that we do not do that). I would at least encourage to just blacklist obscuring dedicated redirect sites if there are reasons to minimize the link already (but I would be more in favour to have a bot enforced expansion of any links that are not redirecting to blacklisted/revertlisted domains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 06:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

---

---

Redirect service for:

---

---

URL shortener for Quora. There are some usages on English wiki, and looks like a handful in the top 20, enough to stop it early. Ravensfire (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: Question, is it being abused, or is it a domain where we have had abuse? Typically where they are non-dangerous and dedicated redirects they have been left alone, eg. Washington Post. Is there a requirement to focus people through the main domain name for continuity or consistency.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I haven't seen anything significant. About the only potentially harmful use would be if specific Quora pages were blacklisted, this would be a work-around, similar to youtu.be. Actual harm right now, I don't see any. I guess my habit is to list shorteners when I see them, especially if they are generic. Ravensfire (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I hear you, finding the balance is always the fun thing. I am not adverse to doing it as required, though would want to see a consensus to do so, rather than based on a single request. I will leave it open and see what appears over the next while.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst and Ravensfire: Just as a comment: quora.com is listed at en:WP:RSP as 'generally unreliable', which generally means that we check and often remove references to that. It appears that en.wikipedia currently has only ~1000 references to quora That housekeeping becomes easier if we do not allow for the (albeit dedicated) redirect to the site.

Now, with https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-words-in-English-which-are-synonyms-but-have-separate-ancient-Greek-and-Latin-origin-and-the-Latin-word-is-not-etymologically-derivative-of-the-older-ancient-Greek you know where you get, with https://qr.ae/pNyjiF you don't even have a clue. That is another reason not to use redirect sites .. they are unclear/opaque, easily 'spoofed', even if they are 'the same', not disallowed (and I would even for a generally reliable and highly used source suggest that we do not do that). I would at least encourage to just blacklist obscuring dedicated redirect sites if there are reasons to minimize the link already (but I would be more in favour to have a bot enforced expansion of any links that are not redirecting to blacklisted/revertlisted domains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 06:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

---

---

Redirect service for:

---

---

URL shortener for Quora. There are some usages on English wiki, and looks like a handful in the top 20, enough to stop it early. Ravensfire (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: Question, is it being abused, or is it a domain where we have had abuse? Typically where they are non-dangerous and dedicated redirects they have been left alone, eg. Washington Post. Is there a requirement to focus people through the main domain name for continuity or consistency.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I haven't seen anything significant. About the only potentially harmful use would be if specific Quora pages were blacklisted, this would be a work-around, similar to youtu.be. Actual harm right now, I don't see any. I guess my habit is to list shorteners when I see them, especially if they are generic. Ravensfire (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I hear you, finding the balance is always the fun thing. I am not adverse to doing it as required, though would want to see a consensus to do so, rather than based on a single request. I will leave it open and see what appears over the next while.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst and Ravensfire: Just as a comment: quora.com is listed at en:WP:RSP as 'generally unreliable', which generally means that we check and often remove references to that. It appears that en.wikipedia currently has only ~1000 references to quora That housekeeping becomes easier if we do not allow for the (albeit dedicated) redirect to the site.

Now, with https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-words-in-English-which-are-synonyms-but-have-separate-ancient-Greek-and-Latin-origin-and-the-Latin-word-is-not-etymologically-derivative-of-the-older-ancient-Greek you know where you get, with https://qr.ae/pNyjiF you don't even have a clue. That is another reason not to use redirect sites .. they are unclear/opaque, easily 'spoofed', even if they are 'the same', not disallowed (and I would even for a generally reliable and highly used source suggest that we do not do that). I would at least encourage to just blacklist obscuring dedicated redirect sites if there are reasons to minimize the link already (but I would be more in favour to have a bot enforced expansion of any links that are not redirecting to blacklisted/revertlisted domains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 06:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

---

---

Redirect service for:

---

---

URL shortener for Quora. There are some usages on English wiki, and looks like a handful in the top 20, enough to stop it early. Ravensfire (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: Question, is it being abused, or is it a domain where we have had abuse? Typically where they are non-dangerous and dedicated redirects they have been left alone, eg. Washington Post. Is there a requirement to focus people through the main domain name for continuity or consistency.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I haven't seen anything significant. About the only potentially harmful use would be if specific Quora pages were blacklisted, this would be a work-around, similar to youtu.be. Actual harm right now, I don't see any. I guess my habit is to list shorteners when I see them, especially if they are generic. Ravensfire (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I hear you, finding the balance is always the fun thing. I am not adverse to doing it as required, though would want to see a consensus to do so, rather than based on a single request. I will leave it open and see what appears over the next while.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst and Ravensfire: Just as a comment: quora.com is listed at en:WP:RSP as 'generally unreliable', which generally means that we check and often remove references to that. It appears that en.wikipedia currently has only ~1000 references to quora That housekeeping becomes easier if we do not allow for the (albeit dedicated) redirect to the site.

Now, with https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-words-in-English-which-are-synonyms-but-have-separate-ancient-Greek-and-Latin-origin-and-the-Latin-word-is-not-etymologically-derivative-of-the-older-ancient-Greek you know where you get, with https://qr.ae/pNyjiF you don't even have a clue. That is another reason not to use redirect sites .. they are unclear/opaque, easily 'spoofed', even if they are 'the same', not disallowed (and I would even for a generally reliable and highly used source suggest that we do not do that). I would at least encourage to just blacklist obscuring dedicated redirect sites if there are reasons to minimize the link already (but I would be more in favour to have a bot enforced expansion of any links that are not redirecting to blacklisted/revertlisted domains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 06:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

---

---

Redirect service for:

---

---

URL shortener for Quora. There are some usages on English wiki, and looks like a handful in the top 20, enough to stop it early. Ravensfire (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: Question, is it being abused, or is it a domain where we have had abuse? Typically where they are non-dangerous and dedicated redirects they have been left alone, eg. Washington Post. Is there a requirement to focus people through the main domain name for continuity or consistency.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I haven't seen anything significant. About the only potentially harmful use would be if specific Quora pages were blacklisted, this would be a work-around, similar to youtu.be. Actual harm right now, I don't see any. I guess my habit is to list shorteners when I see them, especially if they are generic. Ravensfire (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I hear you, finding the balance is always the fun thing. I am not adverse to doing it as required, though would want to see a consensus to do so, rather than based on a single request. I will leave it open and see what appears over the next while.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst and Ravensfire: Just as a comment: quora.com is listed at en:WP:RSP as 'generally unreliable', which generally means that we check and often remove references to that. It appears that en.wikipedia currently has only ~1000 references to quora That housekeeping becomes easier if we do not allow for the (albeit dedicated) redirect to the site.

Now, with https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-words-in-English-which-are-synonyms-but-have-separate-ancient-Greek-and-Latin-origin-and-the-Latin-word-is-not-etymologically-derivative-of-the-older-ancient-Greek you know where you get, with https://qr.ae/pNyjiF you don't even have a clue. That is another reason not to use redirect sites .. they are unclear/opaque, easily 'spoofed', even if they are 'the same', not disallowed (and I would even for a generally reliable and highly used source suggest that we do not do that). I would at least encourage to just blacklist obscuring dedicated redirect sites if there are reasons to minimize the link already (but I would be more in favour to have a bot enforced expansion of any links that are not redirecting to blacklisted/revertlisted domains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 06:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

---

---

Redirect service for:

---

---

URL shortener for Quora. There are some usages on English wiki, and looks like a handful in the top 20, enough to stop it early. Ravensfire (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: Question, is it being abused, or is it a domain where we have had abuse? Typically where they are non-dangerous and dedicated redirects they have been left alone, eg. Washington Post. Is there a requirement to focus people through the main domain name for continuity or consistency.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I haven't seen anything significant. About the only potentially harmful use would be if specific Quora pages were blacklisted, this would be a work-around, similar to youtu.be. Actual harm right now, I don't see any. I guess my habit is to list shorteners when I see them, especially if they are generic. Ravensfire (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I hear you, finding the balance is always the fun thing. I am not adverse to doing it as required, though would want to see a consensus to do so, rather than based on a single request. I will leave it open and see what appears over the next while.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst and Ravensfire: Just as a comment: quora.com is listed at en:WP:RSP as 'generally unreliable', which generally means that we check and often remove references to that. It appears that en.wikipedia currently has only ~1000 references to quora That housekeeping becomes easier if we do not allow for the (albeit dedicated) redirect to the site.

Now, with https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-words-in-English-which-are-synonyms-but-have-separate-ancient-Greek-and-Latin-origin-and-the-Latin-word-is-not-etymologically-derivative-of-the-older-ancient-Greek you know where you get, with https://qr.ae/pNyjiF you don't even have a clue. That is another reason not to use redirect sites .. they are unclear/opaque, easily 'spoofed', even if they are 'the same', not disallowed (and I would even for a generally reliable and highly used source suggest that we do not do that). I would at least encourage to just blacklist obscuring dedicated redirect sites if there are reasons to minimize the link already (but I would be more in favour to have a bot enforced expansion of any links that are not redirecting to blacklisted/revertlisted domains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 06:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

---

---

Redirect service for:

---

---

URL shortener for Quora. There are some usages on English wiki, and looks like a handful in the top 20, enough to stop it early. Ravensfire (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: Question, is it being abused, or is it a domain where we have had abuse? Typically where they are non-dangerous and dedicated redirects they have been left alone, eg. Washington Post. Is there a requirement to focus people through the main domain name for continuity or consistency.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I haven't seen anything significant. About the only potentially harmful use would be if specific Quora pages were blacklisted, this would be a work-around, similar to youtu.be. Actual harm right now, I don't see any. I guess my habit is to list shorteners when I see them, especially if they are generic. Ravensfire (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I hear you, finding the balance is always the fun thing. I am not adverse to doing it as required, though would want to see a consensus to do so, rather than based on a single request. I will leave it open and see what appears over the next while.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst and Ravensfire: Just as a comment: quora.com is listed at en:WP:RSP as 'generally unreliable', which generally means that we check and often remove references to that. It appears that en.wikipedia currently has only ~1000 references to quora That housekeeping becomes easier if we do not allow for the (albeit dedicated) redirect to the site.

Now, with https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-words-in-English-which-are-synonyms-but-have-separate-ancient-Greek-and-Latin-origin-and-the-Latin-word-is-not-etymologically-derivative-of-the-older-ancient-Greek you know where you get, with https://qr.ae/pNyjiF you don't even have a clue. That is another reason not to use redirect sites .. they are unclear/opaque, easily 'spoofed', even if they are 'the same', not disallowed (and I would even for a generally reliable and highly used source suggest that we do not do that). I would at least encourage to just blacklist obscuring dedicated redirect sites if there are reasons to minimize the link already (but I would be more in favour to have a bot enforced expansion of any links that are not redirecting to blacklisted/revertlisted domains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 06:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2021-01&oldid=21180428"

Category:

• Talk archives