MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist

"wikipedia review et. al."

Just in case people complain about blacklisting them, here are a few considerations:

They are never an image source so copyvio-tagging and giving them as a source or providing them as a source is not required
They carry an official title while they aren't official (we don't know which data they evaluate and whether they run skimming-attacks, advertise, ...)
Wikis really do not need a forum. People should discuss here.
If we allow people to promote them by linking, we run in danger that more discussions will switch over there

-- RE rillke questions? 21:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinkSearch&target=wikipediareview.com – Comments on the Wikipedia Review have been useful in the past:

They exposed Encyclopedia Dramatica's role in the creation of File:TTSGA.gif.
They exposed File:Patricia_montes.jpg as a fake.
They identified several hypertrichosis images as being copyright violations.

--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of which would have been better done on-wiki. Their witch-hunts generally just seem to cause drama here. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The spam-blacklist is for stopping spam, not drama. Drama happens. Discussions where users are confronted by uncomfortable facts and realities happen, and they're necessary. The spam-blacklist shouldn't be used to block out uncomfortable facts and realities. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with Rillke and Matt. No (clickable) links to these sites are needed. --Leyo 00:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This does neither matter nor focuses on the arguments, I presented. There might be useful stuff on these pages but discussion about Commons users and Commons problems belong to Commons and not on a foreign-administrated website that could change its contents intransparently. -- RE rillke questions? 19:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICS, the only thing this will achieve is Commons being accused of hypocrisy (presumably on the basis that it will allow pictures of autofellatio but it apparently won't allow links to it). FormerIP (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure we allow links to autofellatio. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FormerIP was making a joke. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This truly is messed up. I'm a Commons admin. I'm also one of the founders of the aforementioned site (it's not actually Kohser's site, BTW, regardless of some of the talk around here) and am their forum moderator's group leader. The link is clearly displayed on my user page on enwiki for all to see (I'm an admin there, too). However, due to its being added to the list here, I'm utterly unable to add this link to my own userpage. Why is that?

Having this link added to the Commons' Spam Blacklist sends a clear message that Commons actually is censored. Not only is it clearly censored, but it's censored to hide reasonable debate and third-party criticism of the site. Is this the message that Commons wishes to send? I strongly believe that WMF sites (English Wikipedia, Commons, etc) need a site dedicated to independent discussion and criticism. There are things that people cannot say on-wiki, and besides, things can get far too insular and introspective on the projects themselves. English WP fought the BADSITES wars years back, and these proposals were rightly defeated. Adding the sites here serves no purpose other than suppression of links to valid and useful discussion, IMO - Alison ^❤ 10:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is something going to be decided?

It's been over 2 weeks now, and I believe the general consensus was that placing Wikipedia Review and Wikipediocracy on the spam blacklist is not an upheld motion on Commons. Will a brave individual do the right thing and remove these sites from the blacklist? -- Thekohser (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly lots of people involved in these sites voted there. Are they perhaps biased? It's also interesting to see how they run attacks against Wikimedia Commons on en:User talk:Jimbo Wales.

Thekohser, BTW MediaWiki allows you to specify links using [[]]. The advantage is that users are always directed to the right server. But why caring for other people... -- RE rillke questions? 13:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question about bias, yes -- if people have been unfairly discriminated against via the misuse of a publicly-funded tool, then they are probably more likely to voice their displeasure to the so-called "management" of the site doing the discriminating. Again, I ask... It's been over three weeks now -- will a brave individual do the right thing and remove these sites from the blacklist? -- Thekohser (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why brave if it's the right decision, in your opinion. Please explain. -- RE rillke questions? 16:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You must not be a student of history. Because the "right" decision is often the socially or politically risky decision. Rosa Parks was "right" to not yield her seat to a white person, but her decision could be called "brave". I'll assume you understood this, and you were just trying to tweak my nose. That's okay... When will the site be removed from the "spam blacklist"? -- Thekohser (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear. I am very much disgusted with some of the witch-hunts and outing I've seen come from these sites. I very strongly oppose their Commons-bashing campaign to try to impose censorship, unseat admins who believe in our values of freedom of speech and inquiry, and I suspect, though I have no proof, that there is some some functioning financial connection, not just a personal connection, between MyWikiBiz's business model and this censorship crusade, because the worse Wikipedia and its cogeners become, the more material is censored here, the more stuff they can take over and make money on. I have begun to believe that the "deletionists" are moved by more than an abstract hatred for detail or salaciousness or Wikipedia. And I recognize that there are times when citing their threads on these other sites can contribute to harassment. Even so, using the "spam filter" to block these sites is the wrong thing to do. Censorship isn't just wrong, it really doesn't work for its ostensible purpose, whatever that may be. It works only for the corrupt individual purposes of the person doing the censoring. The fact that we're here arguing over this now is all too revealing that even having a "spam filter" in the first place was already too much to concede. Wnt (talk) 06:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wnt, for the record, the MyWikiBiz "business model" is as such -- $39.95 in the red per month for site hosting; about $0.15 per month in advertising revenue; about $250 per month in paid Wikipedia article editing (which depends completely on preserving the Wikimedia Foundation's retention of content, which is the exact opposite of your concern). That being said, thank you for recognizing the wrongful use of the spam blacklist in this case. We look forward to User:A.Savin reversing his action. Perhaps you could join me in leaving him a note on his Talk page? That seems to be the most expedient way of resolving this mess. -- Thekohser (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussions, and Commons:Forum#wikipediocracy.com_in_Blacklist? show only a few sysops in favour of the spam blacklist entries, and the decision was implemented in very short time. Commons:Requests_for_comment/offsite_discussions#Spam_blacklist also has only a few people in favour, and many people complaining very bitterly about this new use of the spam blacklist for censorship as oppose to spam and copyright problems. Therefore I am removing the blacklist entries - anyone wanting to re-insert them should first either

establish policy for using the spam blacklist to prevent links to discussions on other websites, or
link to a proper discussion on COM:AN which has broad participation from the community, where there is consensus that these websites should be listed on the spam blacklist.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well done John Tuxlie (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Panoramio user 3018836 (Majid Majid)

Can we please blacklist files from this user, which all link to URLs starting with "http://www.panoramio.com/user/3018836?"? See also Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Panoramio user "Majid Majid". — Jeff G. ツ 13:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ludovic5443: hqtext.com and closeupcheck.com

{{Edit request}} Please add hqtext\.com and closeupcheck\.com; see Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ludovic5443. Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 18:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done and thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SBLCheck

Following entries might probably not work as intended:

\cheka30\.com\b
\miz-mooz\.com\b
\metropolitanmovers.ca\b
\asphalt-plants\.cn\b
\fugenx\.com\b
\expert5th\.in\b
\bconfortonline\.es\n

SBLCheck by Achim (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly looks like someone has used naked \ instead of \b in the first six regexps and \n instead of \b in the last one. --jdx ^Re: 05:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Achim (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

flic.kr. in spam filter

I had tried to import https://www.flickr.com/photos/vipevents/17083967309/ to Commons, but the spam filter reacts on "flic.kr.". Can someone explane why?--Andriy.v (talk) 09:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Krd: hi, sorry for bothering you, can you tell me why flickr is in blacklist? Or simply why i can't upload that foto?--Andriy.v (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

University of Nigeria on blacklist

{{Edit request}} Why is the University of Nigeria website on the blacklist? I tried to add the Wikidata infobox to the Category page today (Category:University of Nigeria, Nsukka), and I was able to add the infobox only after removing the link from the Wikidata entry, but after I added back the link to the Wikidata entry, I can't edit the category page unless I remove the Wikidata infobox or remove the link from the Wikidata entry again. Can we remove the UNN website from the spam blacklist? (unn.edu.ng) Clay (talk) 09:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CC @King of Hearts, who added the entry back in 2013. Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 13:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember why, so I've removed it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thank you! Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

bestsupplements-sac.com

{{Edit request}} Please add \bbestsupplements-sac\.com\b. Commonly spammed, see https://spamcheck.toolforge.org/by-domain?q=bestsupplements-sac.com. Count Count (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Krd 14:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bolidenforum blocked because of CountryCam1?

Dear Community,

I am currently working on an article about tractor pulling and have uploaded an image (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prinzipskizze-Bremswagen.png) sourced from this website: https://www. bolidenforum.de/portal/tractor-pulling-bremswagenziehen-erklaert-regeln-technik-und-internationale-beliebtheit/.

Upon referencing this source, I encountered a notice stating that Bolidenforum has been blacklisted due to actions associated with a user named CountryCam1 (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=772666028#CountryCam1).

Given that my use of the Bolidenforum domain is solely for the purpose of providing a source for the image used in this specific project, I respectfully request that the domain be whitelisted, at least temporarily, to facilitate this contribution.

Thank you for considering this request.

Bremswagenzieher (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]