MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist

Archives (current)→

The Spam-whitelist page is used in conjunction with the Mediawiki SpamBlacklist extension, and lists strings of text that override Meta's blacklist and the local spam-blacklist. Any administrator can edit the spam whitelist. Please post comments to the appropriate section below: Proposed additions (web pages to unblock), Proposed removals (sites to reblock), or Troubleshooting and problems; read the messageboxes at the top of each section for an explanation. See also MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist.

Please enter your requests at the bottom of the Proposed additions to Whitelist section and not at the very bottom of the page. Sign your requests with four tildes: ~~~~

Also in your request, please include the following:

1. The link that you want whitelisted in the section title, like === example.com/help/index.php === .
2. The Wikipedia page on which you want to use the link
3. An explanation why it would be useful to the encyclopedia article proper
4. If the site you're requesting is listed at /Common requests, please include confirmation that you have read the reason why requests regarding the site are commonly denied and that you still desire to proceed with your request

Important: You must provide a full link to the specific web page you want to be whitelisted (leave out the http:// from the front; otherwise you will not be able to save your edit to this page). Requests quoting only a domain (i.e. ending in .com or similar with nothing after the / character) are likely to be denied. If you wish to have a site fully unblocked please visit the relevant section of MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist.

Note: Do not request links to be whitelisted where you can reasonably suspect that the material you want to link to is in violation of copyright (see WP:LINKVIO). Such requests will likely be summarily rejected.

There is no automated notification system in place for the results of requests, and you will not be notified when your request has a response. You should therefore add this page to your personal watch list, to your notifications through the subscribe feature, or check back here every few days to see if there is any progress on it; in particular, you should check whether administrators have raised any additional queries or expressed any concerns about the request, as failure to reply to these promptly will generally result in the request being denied.

Completed requests are archived, additions and removal are logged. →snippet for logging: {{/request|1021365417#section_name}}

Note that requests from new or unregistered users are not usually considered.

Admins: Use seth's tool to search the spamlists.

Indicators
Request completed:
Done	{{Done}}
Stale	{{StaleIP}}
Request withdrawn	{{withdrawn}}
Request declined:
Declined	{{Declined}}
Not done	{{Notdone}}
Information:
Additional information needed	{{MoreInfo}}
Note:	{{TakeNote}}

Notice to everyone about our Reliable sources and External links noticeboards

If you have a source that you would like to add to the spam-whitelist, but you are uncertain that it meets Wikipedia's guideline on reliability, please ask for opinions on the Reliable sources noticeboard, to confirm that it does meet that guideline, before submitting your whitelisting request here. In your request, link to the confirming discussion on that noticeboard.

Likewise, if you have an external link that you are uncertain meets Wikipedia's guideline on external links, please get confirmation on the External links noticeboard before submitting your whitelisting request here.

If your whitelist request falls under one of these two categories, the admins will be more willing to have the source whitelisted if you can achieve consensus at one of the above noticeboards.

Proposed additions to Whitelist (web pages to unblock)

Onion URL of Deutsche Welle

dwnewsvdyyiamwnp.onion: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
Link requested to be whitelisted: dwnewsvdyyiamwnp.onion
This is the official site of Deutsche Welle, however, it isn't allowed to be directly added without a confirmation as far as I know because it's a Onion URL. Here is the announcement of Deutsche Welle about its Onion URL. Ahmetlii (talk) 13:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Ahmetlii, the official site of the Deutsche Welle is https://dw.com. We do not need to list all official websites of a subject. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ahmetlii: did you read /Common requests? --Stifle (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Stifle yes, although I didn't notice that I should not request a whitelisting at first look because it seems like necessary at first look per Template:Onion URL, however, I realized that the criteria is only for creating hyperlinks and plus, there's already a documented official clearnet site of Deutsche Welle. The request is  withdrawn by me (though I could add it after the comment of @Beetstra but anyway), since I can also reference the Onion link in the page of Deutsche Welle without creating hyperlinks as far as I understood. Ahmetlii (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Ahmetlii, what you think to do is close to blacklist evasion, and you are anyway still bound by my comment: we list only one official website with very few exceptions (and this is not one of those). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Beetstra okay, thanks. Ahmetlii (talk) 07:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Is this not a similar case the Facebook one? Clearnet address is widely known, but {{Onion Official site}} is used to link to Facebookcorewwwi.onion (wow, it even has its own article!). I think it is useful to show that a prominent news web site also uses Onion service (not as a primary URL)...  « Saper // @talk »  12:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Saper, No, the facebook .onion is notable in itself next to the facebook itself, and there the article needs the official website for the subject. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I understand. Certainly the Facebook one generated much more fuss than this one. Why there is a rule to list only one URL per subject? Onion URL are quite distinct and relatively difficult to find on its own. I think it would be useful to add it in the infobox.  « Saper // @talk »  10:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Saper, because we are not writing an internet directory, we are writing an encyclopedia. If Deutsche Welle thinks that their .onion needs to be used they should advertise that on their website, social media. Listing more than one official page is only done if a second official page merits that. For Facebook, it is not listed on Facebook, but on Facebookcorewwwi.onion. For more info, see WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I frankly disagree with you on that one, but I have nothing more to say on this subject. Thank you.  « Saper // @talk »  13:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

econlog.econlib.org

• econlog.econlib.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

I'd like to restore the references from this revision:

• econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/06/the_ideological.html (already whitelisted)
• Link requested to be whitelisted: econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/06/two_tries_at_th.html
• Link requested to be whitelisted: econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/07/the_conservativ.html
• Link requested to be whitelisted: econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/07/religious_turin.html
• Link requested to be whitelisted: econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/07/judge_the_relig.html
• Link requested to be whitelisted: econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/06/a_hawk-dove_ide.html

I don't think this domain should be on the blacklist at all, but since my request for that was declined, whitelisting the blog's subdomain would be ideal. If that's not possible either, then just these 5 links. — Omegatron (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Omegatron, this is a thing made up by Bryan Caplan, who has been spammed to all hell on Wikipedia, and all the references are to "econlib" despite his association with them (so they are not independent). I'm stunned that we even have an article. It was basically a blog post and the idea has close to zero traction in the literature despite its assiduous promotion. Why would we need half a dozen links to a think-tank, rather than just one, which is already arguably too many? Guy (help! - typo?) 19:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

JzG: Yeah, I was surprised we didn't have an article, so I reverted the previous deletion. I understand that the domain was being spammed in the past, but that doesn't make the links any less informative about the facts they're being used to reference. Lots of things mentioned on blogs are notable.

For the record, I'm not a paid spammer, I'm not familiar with this domain or blog, I'm not libertarian, I'd never heard of Bryan Caplan before reverting this article, but I had heard of the ideological Turing test before this, multiple times. It sounds like you've had a bad experience with the spammers, or maybe just personally dislike Caplan/libertarians, but try to see this from the perspective of a Wikipedia reader who wants to know more about this topic that they've heard of before? — Omegatron (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Omegatron, OK. The problem with the previous article is that it was created by a spammer promoting Caplan and the Liberty Fund. That sets off the red flags, and is also why this site is blacklisted (we had routine material like Areopagitica represented as "published by" the Online Library of Liberty, and spammers were replacing Gutenberg and other neutral sources with this site). It was blatant WP:REFSPAM and done for ideological and commercial reasons. Yes, their presentation is slick and easy to read. That's the whole point: to suck in people interested in a subject, and make an ideological site, their go-to. It's Newsmax for economics.

I have no issue with a genuinely sourced article based on mainstream academic work, but as a notional philosophy topic we can't be using LessWrong, Patheos or primary sourced bert blogs and think-tanks for this, it's entirely against NPOV to rely on in-universe sources for a thing invented from whole cloth by a libertarian activist with virtually no outside scrutiny. Even the sources you've now added don't amount to a significant literature on the topic. Compare this with the actual Turing test, which has real weight. All Caplan did was apply a catchy brand to existing thought (which, to be fair, is on-brand: it's what right-wing think tanks are for, making the extreme, especially, seem not only obvious but widely supported and indeed incontrovertible - that's how the fringe judicial philosophy of "originalism" was mainstreamed by the Federalist Society into a qualifying test for Republican-appointed judges).

X was proposed by minor figure Y in Year, source, minor figure's blog proposing it in Year, is not how Wikipedia sourcing is supposed to go. Nor should we be succumbing to the circular referencing used by think tanks to inflate the importance of the things they promote. That is how the entire climate change denialism shit show happened. Let's not pretend that bad-faith arguments are in good faith, when sourcing Wikipedia articles.

Frankly I think you'd have been better staring afresh, rather than resurrecting a spam article. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Request regarding parimatch

The "parimatch" website should be whitelisted at least to be used on its own wiki page about Parimatch (company). I wanted to fix the link in that article about Indian branch of Parimatch company, but it is blacklisted. So, I think that to allow to use "parimatch" weblinks on the page about Parimatch itself is not so bad idea. I don't know if it's possible to whitelist the usage of a certain website for a particular wikipedia page, but if yes, then the wikipedia page about Parimatch company will benefit because it has right now at least one false link which cannot be fixed because of a blacklist. Link I suggest for whitelisting: www.in.parimatch.com.

• parimatch.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

--KokoLubat (talk) 10:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@KokoLubat: per MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Common_requests#The_official_homepage_of_the_subject_of_a_page, we would need an about-page or a full url (including an index.htm) of the index page. Can you please provide a suitable link? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Beetstra: I considered this one concerning India branch of parimatch: www.in.parimatch.com/en/ --KokoLubat (talk) 12:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Beetstra: hey, did my request about whitelisting of (in.parimatch.com) succeed? I didn't hear for a while. Just interesting. Thanks! --KokoLubat (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@KokoLubat: Intended to look at it, but needed to be on another computer (access). No, that still allows also deeper linking. I fail to find a good about page or something else that cannot be appended upon. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Request regarding kickstarter

Thoug the site has a Kickstarter article, here it is blacklisted. thank you for your time.

• kickstarter.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Lotje (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Lotje, we will not whitelist the domain, which specific link do you need (see instructions at top of page). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Beetstra you will surely have your reasons not to whitelisting is, but then again I wonder why there is an article on it with a link, shouldn't that be removed then? Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 06:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Lotje, kickstarter links are often used for soapboxing: 'click [here] to donate to the kickstarter project'. Even when in good faith, those are bad edits that we do not allow. When a kickstarter is successful and worth mentioning on Wikipedia, it often has independent references. All in all, there is not often a reason to link to kickstarter pages at all. However, there are exceptions (e.g. the kickstarter itself may be notable as a subject) which case we gladly whitelist the specific link.

if the link is there, then it may have been in use under good cause. We tend to remove blacklisted links, but not the ones that are used as a proper reference. Pages generally work find with blacklisted links on them, you can normally edit them. In this case a 'subject specialist' should evaluate the case, and either get the link whitelisted now, or remove the link as an unsuitable reference (and replace it with a proper, secondary, source if possible). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Dirk Beetstra, you made my day cause I learned something today :-) Lotje (talk) 08:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Main page of Expekt.com

expekt.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
Link requested to be whitelisted: Expekt.com

I noticed this article seems to only have a spam link under the external links. For an article on the actual site, we should be able to link to it. - SimonP (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@SimonP: per MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Common_requests#The_official_homepage_of_the_subject_of_a_page, we would need an about-page or a full url (including an index.htm) of the index page. Can you please provide a suitable link? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Please allow archive.org links to old content from faqs.org

faqs.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
Link requested to be whitelisted: archive.org/*/www.faqs.org/

I wanted to fix the broken link in the second reference in the article about Dave the Resurrector but could not, apparently because any mention of FAQs.org, even within a link to another site, is blocked. (For what it's worth, the latest Archive.org mirrored copy with the actual content is https://web.archive.org/web/20140127005825/http://www.f*a*q*s.org/faqs/usenet/cancel-faq/appendix/ where you will have to remove the asterisks.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22faqs.org%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 currently finds 357 Wikipedia articles which contain this text, the vast majority of which are probably links to the site.

Where these links are now broken, it would be useful to be able to resurrect them. I have no insight into which FAQs.org pages have been removed over the years; many links to the site still work for the time being, although it has apparently come under irresponsible management at some point.

For context, this site used to be the de facto official repository of Usenet FAQs, and it continues to host some of that legacy content.

---

 era (Talk | History) 09:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)