Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ToBeFree (talk | contribs) at 23:59, 25 February 2020 (→‎gk4fast.in: Added to Blacklist using SBHandler). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"Wikipedia:Spam-blacklist" redirects here. For a description of the spam blacklist, see Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. For instructions on administrating the spam blacklist, see Wikipedia:Spam-blacklisting.
    Spam blacklists
    Shortcuts

    Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist is meant to be used by the spam blacklist extension. Unlike the meta spam blacklist, this blacklist affects pages on the English Wikipedia only. Any administrator may edit the spam blacklist. See Wikipedia:Spam blacklist for more information about the spam blacklist.

    Instructions for editors

    There are 4 sections for posting comments below. Please make comments in the appropriate section. These links take you to the appropriate section:

    1. Proposed additions
    2. Proposed removals
    3. Troubleshooting and problems
    4. Discussion

    Each section has a message box with instructions. In addition, please sign your posts with ~~~~ after your comment.

    Completed requests are archived. Additions and removals are logged, reasons for blacklisting can be found there.

    Addition of the templates {{Link summary}} (for domains), {{IP summary}} (for IP editors) and {{User summary}} (for users with account) results in the COIBot reports to be refreshed. See User:COIBot for more information on the reports.

    Instructions for admins
    Any admin unfamiliar with this page should probably read this first, thanks.
    If in doubt, please leave a request and a spam-knowledgeable admin will follow-up.

    Please consider using Special:BlockedExternalDomains instead, powered by the AbuseFilter extension. This is faster and more easily searchable, though only supports whole domains and not whitelisting.

    1. Does the site have any validity to the project?
    2. Have links been placed after warnings/blocks? Have other methods of control been exhausted? Would referring this to our anti-spam bot, XLinkBot be a more appropriate step? Is there a WikiProject Spam report? If so, a permanent link would be helpful.
    3. Please ensure all links have been removed from articles and discussion pages before blacklisting. (They do not have to be removed from user or user talk pages.)
    4. Make the entry at the bottom of the list (before the last line). Please do not do this unless you are familiar with regular expressions — the disruption that can be caused is substantial.
    5. Close the request entry on here using either {{done}} or {{not done}} as appropriate. The request should be left open for a week maybe as there will often be further related sites or an appeal in that time.
    6. Log the entry. Warning: if you do not log any entry you make on the blacklist, it may well be removed if someone appeals and no valid reasons can be found. To log the entry, you will need this number – 942649396 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.


    Proposed additions

    Statusbytes

    Spammers

    Please blacklist. -KH-1 (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @KH-1: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User continuing with the promotional spamming behaviour of previous blocked accounts 218.155.136.167 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), Globepedia (talk · contribs), 119.194.133.125 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 210.90.248.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (though many others are being used), at 2020 Emilia-Romagna regional election (diff), 2020 Delhi Legislative Assembly election (diff), 2020 Irish general election (diff) and Opinion polling for the 2020 Irish general election (diff). See previous discussions here, here and here.

    YouTube videos shown in the diffs should be blacklisted to stop its persistent addition into pages, namely:

    • Link/text requested to be blacklisted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-m6zldPYJU
    • Link/text requested to be blacklisted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVlcyDhM7I8
    • Link/text requested to be blacklisted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHtPrXVkmpk

    Also, considering their repetitive behaviour and past precedent on them doing this on ongoing/recent elections, their newest videos on the ongoing New Hampshire primaries should be blacklisted as well to prevent them from another spamming effort at 2020 New Hampshire Democratic primary and 2020 New Hampshire Republican primary:

    • Link/text requested to be blacklisted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qP4Mn1uV4j0
    • Link/text requested to be blacklisted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wMFl7rjg9Y
    • Link/text requested to be blacklisted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeaxwD1BXaI
    • Link/text requested to be blacklisted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zijALExsYRI
    • Link/text requested to be blacklisted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgaSdVwC7zo

    Not sure if there is any way to blacklist the whole channel as a whole, as this is obviously going to continue in the future. Impru20talk 14:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Impru20, I'm making an edit filter, this should be a better solution I think. Guy (help!) 14:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    express-cleaning-supplies.co.uk

    Dynamic IPs spamming this cleaning company on various occasions. Multiple warnings have been ignored. GermanJoe (talk) 12:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @GermanJoe: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --GermanJoe (talk) 12:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    thinkmobiles.com

    Systematic spamming for a blog and review site. Multiple SPAs and single-usage IPs. GermanJoe (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @GermanJoe: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --GermanJoe (talk) 12:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently checking a user for possible additional blog spam of sister sites. GermanJoe (talk) 12:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Done - only minor issues remain, warned on user talk. GermanJoe (talk) 12:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    onlinestoreforu.com

    Online shop spam. Reversal of previous removals, 2 only warnings have been ignored. GermanJoe (talk) 12:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @GermanJoe: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --GermanJoe (talk) 12:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    credit(s)karma

    Too close for comfort. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm ...

    And then:

    Seems all very spammy. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Beetstra: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Yes, this has a strong whiff of processed meat products. Bloody Vikings. --Guy (help!) 20:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    taylorinterventions.com

    Typical hijacked domain/malware redirect.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkurzweil (talk • contribs) 01:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Pkurzweil: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Confirmed, domain hijacked, malware. --Guy (help!) 20:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    1youm.com

    Spammers

    Five sockpuppets so far today. - MrOllie (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @MrOllie: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist - obvious spam and socking. Last 2 accounts blocked too. --GermanJoe (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And the first three are globally locked, so that removes any doubt. Should this also be on the Meta blacklist? Guy (help!) 20:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    14 of 16 additions have been on en-Wiki. Unless I am missing some background history behind the global locks (an LTA or something similar), I don't think it's necessary. GermanJoe (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    dailyhunt.in

    There is virtually no reason this site should be used as it's almost exclusively an aggregate publisher and it very often picks up items from unreliable, blackhat SEO "news" sources. example, see the disclaimer at the bottom. In the event that they do publish something as an aggregate that isn't from a non-rs, the rs should just be used. Praxidicae (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Praxidicae: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Agreed, a net negative to Wikipedia, sufficiently so that addition invites questions about the good faith of the user linking it. --Guy (help!) 20:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    "duleweboffice"

    Shamelessly nicked from User:Praxidicae/fakenews

    This set all belongs to a gmail account "duleweboffice@gmail.com" and several of thes sites, including foreignpolicyi.org were originally legitimate sites however they sniped the domain and it has since become an unreliable and frankly garbage spam site (as is the case for the rest, too.) Legitimate uses of this link look like: http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/node/17539 and we should see if there is an archived version somewhere. The illegitimate uses look like this and are rather easy to spot (basically anywhere this is used on entertainment, media personalities and media in general is the spam version.) the spam variant looks like this: https://foreignpolicyi.org/tanya-nolan-is-becoming-a-hit-with-new-single-love-ya/

    I did some checking. These sites have been abused on Wikipedia, in some cases severely so. It's hard to conclude anything other than SEO involvement. I salute Praxidicae for this hard work. If we blacklist then at least no new links will be added, and old ones will be nuked as the articles are edited. It's a huge job removing them entirely. Lustiger seth, is there any way to write a bot to copy the contents of the blacklist and compile a table with the number of active links on enWP, ideally just in mainspace? We might be able to use that as the basis for a reward system for Wikignomes. Guy (help!) 20:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Just a quick note that I archived a bunch of foreignpolicyi.org links (to the original site) and deleted all traces to the original, so those are fine but should be blacklisted going forward. Same for vermontrepublic. The rest are just plain old spam and can be blacklisted unless we would rather filter as a honeypot. There's another set by the same person/email (duleweboffice) under the name "santosmilewa"example and "kravitzcj" example. I'll make a list of these shortly. They're all operated by the same 3 blackhat SEO firms along with another handful that are using a dead woman's identity (I filed actual reports with the proper agencies about this FWIW), a fake phone number and a fake real life address (it's public, so i'm not disclosing anything out of the ordinary.) Anyhow, my lists are kind of a mess right now so I'll throw some together over the next few hours/days that'll make it all easier. Praxidicae (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Praxidicae, heroic work, thanks. Guy (help!) 21:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Praxidicae/fakenews: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. per User:Praxidicae/fakenews/sbl. --Guy (help!) 21:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    hi!
    regarding the question about the table: it would be possible, but it would take long time (weeks or months), i guess. (and i would need some time to adapt my scripts. that's propably the bottleneck.) -- seth (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The domain scholarlyoa.com was Beall's list. Articles on dodgy academic publishing practices are likely to point to archived copies of it. I discovered the problem when trying to revert section-blanking at World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology; the last good version had links that are now spam-blacklisted. Not being too familiar with how spam-blacklisting works around here, I'm not sure of the best course of action. (Ping JzG.) XOR'easter (talk) 13:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    XOR'easter, request whitelisting of specific URLs. Are you familiar with that process? I can help if not. Guy (help!) 15:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    JzG, I'm not sure the links should just be whitelisted, since the site itself is down, probably permanently, and the actual content we should be pointing readers to is in the archived copies. XOR'easter (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    rocketrobinsoccerintoronto.com

    Per RSN, requesting blacklisting of a frequently abused blog to prevent further additions. Wikipedia appears to be the victim of effectively resume padding by this site, and it would seem that we should stop it. Guy (help!) 20:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist in the absence of any dissent. --Guy (help!) 13:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    WikiLeaks

    I came across some citations to WikiLeaks. That seems like a really bad idea: pretty much by definition the material they host is in violation of copyright. Guy (help!) 13:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    As I understand it, the material they host was produced by governments and is not copyrighted.
    There is a possible problem in linking to information that governments consider classified. When I was a defense department employee, we couldn't even look at Wikileaks (even on personal time) due to the danger of being exposed to classified information we weren't cleared to know, which is a serious thing if you're in government. It was a weird situation where the public could do what they wanted but those of us in government service had restrictions. That was years ago; I don't know how they handle it these days.
    To the extent that government documents are reliable sources, citing such documents on Wikileaks should not be a problem if that's the only venue where they can be seen. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Anachronist, I'm not sure I understand .. is material from a government not copyrighted? I would expect that the organisation (not the individual that wrote it) holds the copyright.
    Though I agree that some of the material can be a reliable source, there is also not a necessity to have a working link to the information (if too much of the info is problematic linking to). Dirk Beetstra T C 06:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: I'll answer your question with the lead sentence of our article Copyright status of works by the federal government of the United States. If the communique, document, or other work was written by a government employee, it isn't subject to domestic copyright, but if the work was written by a contractor the situation is muddier. I'd wager that most of the documents on Wikileaks are generated by governments (largely the US government) and therefore not subject to copyright.
    I oppose blacklisting Wikileaks, but if we don't, then citations to it would have to be examined on a case-by-case basis. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Anachronist, not unless you consider material stolen from the DNC's email servers by the Russians to be "produced by governments". Also British government materials are Crown copyright. So there's absolutely no guarantee. And work product is exempt, I believe. Guy (help!) 19:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The DNC stuff isn't produced by governments, of course. I'm thinking more of US military messages, diplomatic communiques, stuff that Chelsea Manning released, and so on. I'm skeptical that government work products are exempt. There's legitimate material in there, and as I said, the citations would need to be examines on a case-by-case basis.
    I note that [link search] reveals an extremely low percentage of Wikileaks links in main article space. Most of them appear to be on talk pages and Wikipedia namespace. I wish the linksearch feature had a filter to show only mainspace pages. Glancing through it, there don't seem to be many articles actually citing Wikileaks. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Anachronist, did you look through wikileaks.org HTTPS links HTTP links? Guy (help!) 15:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool. I didn't know about that search parameter. I stand corrected. :) ~Anachronist (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    iwmbuzz

    This site has been the subject of several discussions - it's a wiki, it has no editorial standards and it's primary use is on Indian films, where the Indian Film Task Force has determined it should never be used. However, due to a lack of enforcement, there are hundreds of instances of it. It's nothing more than spam and should be blacklisted. Praxidicae (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Praxidicae, I can only find Talk:Silsila_Badalte_Rishton_Ka#About_reference_(iwmbuzz.com) as a reference for ‘never’ ... is there a wider discussion (RSN?) regarding this source? Dirk Beetstra T C 19:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll do some digging but I don't know that one is even needed. It's just a wiki (IndianWikiMedia + buzz) so there's really no legitimate reason it should be used. Praxidicae (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Blacklisting based on reliability only is generally not done lightly. But then, there is this ..... —Dirk Beetstra T C 20:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    alltoppro.com / easyshoptips.com

    Review blog spam, deceptive overwriting of existing source links. Continued after a first block. GermanJoe (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @GermanJoe: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --GermanJoe (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    stadimiz.com

    Batman Arena is the article I found this in. It open under a tab, you have to enter the address in a clean window. Messed up stuff. They force you to go to Google Play and install an app, or to change your search engine. This is a dangerous way to do business and has no place as a "reliable source", or any place in the encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Dennis Brown, this seems to be cross wiki .. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    posted on meta: m:Talk:Spam_blacklist#stadimiz.com. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    gk4fast.in

    Mass spam by 42.106.100.37/19. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/gk4fast.in. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals


    entrepreneurs.ng

    I would like to know why the website entrepreneurs.ng was blacklisted as I need to include it as a citation to the biography of a popular Nigerian businessman who is also a Billionaire in US dollars Ruth Pillars (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It's on the blacklist because it was spammed extensively; see [1], [2], and [3] for a small sampling. If there is a compelling need for a single article, you can request a whitelisting on that board. Defer to Whitelist.OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Logging / COIBot Instructions

    Blacklist logging

    Full instructions for admins


    Quick reference

    For Spam reports or requests originating from this page, use template {{/request|0#section_name}}

    • {{/request|213416274#Section_name}}
    • Insert the oldid 213416274 a hash "#" and the Section_name (Underscoring_spaces_where_applicable):
    • Use within the entry log here.

    For Spam reports or requests originating from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam use template {{WPSPAM|0#section_name}}

    • {{WPSPAM|182725895#Section_name}}
    • Insert the oldid 182725895 a hash "#" and the Section_name (Underscoring_spaces_where_applicable):
    • Use within the entry log here.
    Note: If you do not log your entries, it may be removed if someone appeals the entry and no valid reasons can be found.

    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 who adds 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. This data is available in real-time on IRC.

    Poking COIBot

    When adding {{LinkSummary}}, {{UserSummary}} and/or {{IPSummary}} templates to WT:WPSPAM, WT:SBL, WT:SWL and User:COIBot/Poke (the latter for privileged editors) COIBot will generate linkreports for the domains, and userreports for users and IPs.


    Discussion

    Logs

    Is there a log of hits for the blacklist? Some of the entries have been on here for years, and it might be worth reviewing and removing anything with no hits in two years, to keep the blacklist from blowing up. Guy (help!) 10:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @JzG: there is enough material on there that simply should never be taken off, even if it hasn't been hit in two years. Blowing up however would be a good thing, so maybe 14 year old bugs are finally going to be solved. You know, if something is not broken, develop something else that will break it.</sarcasm> --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Lustiger seth however has been cleaning up sometimes on meta removing things. Some domains can be removed because they have now a new owner, or have cleaned up their act. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Beetstra, sure, but there are a lot of sites added after brief spamming sprees - often by meatbots - where the risk is probably over. I wonder if we could at least check whether older sites are still online, using a bot? I they are 404 or domain parked, we could probably remove them. Guy (help!) 11:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    JzG, Ls should have that script/bot. Situation is somewhat complex but there will for sure be material that can be cleaned up. Dirk Beetstra T C 11:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Beetstra, see removal requests above for a possible quick win - I ran a DNS lookup script. A sample of around 100 manual checks has yielded no false positives. Guy (help!) 14:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi!
    I could create a list of non-hitting entries (for the last ~5? years). Afterwards we should remove url shorteners (and some other exceptions?) from the list. Then we could decide whether the remaining entries should be removed from the black list.
    imho this is almost indipendent from the content of the webpages. -- seth (talk) 22:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lustiger seth, Fantastic! Yes, please. Guy (help!) 14:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I started a bot run to collect all data. This will take a while. Maybe next weekend I can create a page with some results. -- seth (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lustiger seth, heroic work, thanks. Guy (help!) 12:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As a start: User:Lustiger_seth/sbl_log_2013--2020. this is not yet finished. it takes about 6--7 minutes per blacklist entry (and there are ~8,2k of them) to search the whole sbl log table (which has about 100M rows). -- seth (talk) 10:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC), 21:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Subsection for \b^\d{1,3}\.\d{1,3}\.\d{1,3}\.\d{1,3}\b

    The very first entry is quite interesting: \b^\d{1,3}\.\d{1,3}\.\d{1,3}\.\d{1,3}\b: this is a contradiction. it will never match any link addition because an url never starts with a digit, it starts with a protocol (e.g. http or https). so ^\d will fail -- always. this entry is just superflous. the question is: should it be deleted or should it be fixed (by replacing the \b^ with (?<=//)). the latter would require us to look for all ip urls and check them. -- seth (talk) 10:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Lustiger seth: can we figure out who added that and what they had in mind at that time? --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it was here by User:Reaper Eternal. It appears they only wanted to blacklist IPs. I can see good cause for that (I have seen it being used as blacklist evasion). But I am afraid there are quite some IPs on Wikipedia and (quite) some of them might be genuine-ish. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    hi!
    right now we have only 4 blacklisted explicit ip addresses in the sbl. so i guess, we could just remove the entry and continue blacklisting single ip-adresses.
    another solution would be to correct the general blacklist entry and whitelist explicit ip adresses. -- seth (talk) 11:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lustiger seth, it is very difficult to determine in how far IP addresses are an issue. I do know one issue if we block all IP addresses .. User:COIBot will fail to save reports until I fix it .. Dirk Beetstra T C 11:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Spamming of IP addresses obviously isn't much of a problem if it has taken 8 years to notice that this didn't take. - MrOllie (talk) 11:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    MrOllie, It's not that easy .. there are some IP addresses on the list, which are likely the cases which jumped out. Others are less visible because it likely is limited to just a couple of additions per IP. Some searching on the ones that LiWa3 found suspicious:

    (COIBot is convinced that these do match the rule .. funny; I haven't analyzed whether these are 'a problem'). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Next steps

    Lustiger seth, is User:Lustiger seth/sbl log 2013--2020 all entries with no hits, or does it require that the entry was in place before 2013? It looks like the former, the entries are added sequentially and the earliest one I can find is \bmuineresorts\.com\b - this was added in 2008 according to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/June 2008 § Vietnam Travel Promotion Group. If so, I think we should go ahead and purge any with zero hits in your list - 1017 records, or about 12% of the list. Is there any way of checking whether that has a performance impact? Do we track server cost of blacklists? Guy (help!) 13:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    hi Guy!
    as i said above, the list was not completed yet. however, the list should be complete now (since 2020-02-23 15:49).
    the first column contains all sbl entries that were on the sbl at the beginning of 2020-02. the second column contains the number of hits in the sbl log. the sbl log was created 2013-09, iirc. that means: 1. there is no log data prior to that date. 2. if an sbl entry is just 1 week old, this might be a reason for a low number of hits.
    performance: i don't know whether this can be measured (easily). -- seth (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Meta

    93 items have matching items on the global blacklist.

    Extended content

    \bxsl\.pt\b \badelaide-classifieds\.info\b \baliexpress\.com\b \bamericaswomenmagazine\.xyz\b \bcool-fuel\.co\.uk\b \bgeolocation\.ws\b \bgreattibettour\.com\b \bhappyjanamashtamiwishes\.blogspot\.com\b \blnk\.pics\b \bsportstation\.store\b \bstores\.ebay\.com\b \bhidemyass\.com\b \bsplit\.to\b \bempowernetwork\.com\b \bgrowtobacco\.net\b \bmeatspin\.com\b \bsukmulberryshops\.co\.uk\b \badfoc\.us\b \bgetinfo\.co\.in\b \boptimalstackproduct\.com\b \bmaletestosteronebooster\.org\b \bthehealthyadvise\.com\b \bteespring\.com\b \bfirstleaks\.com\b \bmuscleperfect\.com\b \bpharmshop-online\.com\b \blovifm\.com\b \bdankontorstole\.dk\b \bclonezone\.link\b \bgoods555\.com\b \bbikramsinghmajithia\.blog\.com\b \brebootmymodem\.net\b \b123malikoki\.info\b \bpisinaspa\.gr\b \bkickass\.ink\b \bpulseoxadvocacy\.com\b \bsport2018\.org\b \bmentaldaily\.com\b \bshort4free\.us\b \bpetstation\.store\b \bedubirdie\.com\b \batheistrepublic\.org\b \bwelookups\.com\b \bmywikibiz\.com\b \belbo\.in\b \beasy-bator\.com\b \ballxreport\.com\b \binfowars\.com\b \b1mg\.com\b \bsci-hub\. \bwhereisscihub\.now\.sh\b \bksol\.vn\b \byoucanplayandhavefun\.blogspot\.com\b \btournament-player-magazine\.blogspot\.com\b \blearn-how-to-play-this\.blogspot\.com\b \bletsmegetme\.blogspot\.com\b \bmedicines-for-allergies\.blogspot\.com\b \bnothingmoretodobefore\.blogspot\.com\b \bstarslots\.pw\b \btranscription-services-us\.com\b \bhoanganhmart\.com\b \bsuadieuhoagiare247\.com\b \bbladejournal\.com\b \bopknice\.com\b \bgame24h\.co\b \busagoldentour\.com\b \bozinice\.com\b \bsubweb\.co\.il\b \bdaynightcarebd\.com\b \bcamcavetxegiacao\.com\b \bgopaintsprayer\.com\b \bpro-pharmaceuticals\.com\b \bzom\.vn\b \buscagsa\.com\b \bsitusrajabola\.net\b \bagendominopro\.net\b \bforkeq\.com\b \bhempoilxll\.com\b \bgenericbuddy\.com\b \bmasterpkr\.com\b \btaruhanbandarq\.xyz\b \brevistas\.nics\.unicamp\.br\b \bmasters-of-fun\.de\b \bfreemansworld\.de\b \bonlinecasinounion\.us\.com\b \bschooltips\.com\.ng\b \bfreebitco\.in\b \blocuspharmaceuticals\.com\b \byoulike222\.com\b \bpharmacosmed\.com\b \bthrillophilia\.com\b \bsafe-steroids\.net\b \bbitmix\.biz\b

    I guess these alsoc an be cleaned up. Guy (help!) 15:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=942649396"