Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Beetstra (talk | contribs) at 08:11, 1 August 2017 (→Whitelist articles on Concise Encyclopedia of Economics (CEE): Added using SWHandler). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives (current)→

    Spam blacklists
    Shortcuts

    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|793358870#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:
    no Declined {{Declined}}
     Not done {{Notdone}}
    Information:
     Additional information needed {{MoreInfo}}
    information Note: {{TakeNote}}



    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)


    change.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: change.org/p/name-the-bay-bridge-for-emperor-norton?lang=en-US

    Please whitelist the specified link to the Change dot org petition for use on the page The Emperor's Bridge Campaign.

    The petition was the "foundational gesture" and the impetus for the launch of the nonprofit, The Emperor's Bridge Campaign, that is the subject of the page. As such, it is a key historical moment in the development of the Campaign.

    Numerous of the page's references describe and link to the petition. These references include the San Francisco Chronicle, the San Francisco Bay Guardian, KQED, the Los Angeles Times, SFist, Laughing Squid and the San Jose Mercury News. Johnlumea (talk) 04:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I strongly second that! How did it ever get on the blacklist?? There is a Change.org page. To me it's worse than blacklisting Twitter. Rant over :) DadaNeem (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Johnlumea and DadaNeem: Change.org, and many petition sites, are blacklisted because of continued abuse. People are creating or supporting a petition and they link it from Wikipedia to gather more support. That goes from the very silly till serious subjects, but is in all cases in direct violation of WP:SOAPBOX. Wikipedia writes about a subject, we are not writing a soapbox. Now there are two scenarios: a petition is gathering some votes but in the world no-one cares about. So we don't need to mention it either, it is irrelevant to us. Or, it gets noticed in the outside world. Newspapers write 'the petition gathered 20.000 votes in less than a month, people really want it to be changed'. That secondary analysis then makes the whole primary reference unneeded. So in short, petitions should only be mentioned in Wikipedia if there are sufficient secondary references speaking about the subject, and that is when the petition itself does not need to be used.
    This is very much such a case, you say that The Francisco Chronicle, The San Francisco Bay Guardian, KQED, the Los Angeles Times, SFist, Laughing Squid ánd the San Jose Mercury News all mention it. That is enough. It is also not the official website of the subject (that is http://www.emperorsbridge.org/), so also per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL a link to the petition would not be needed there.
    So I think the question is: what do you want to use this link for that cannot be conveyed through secondary sources. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Beetstra for the prompt reply. I appreciate that the secondary source can be sufficient to carry the news-in the case of Marjan Davari, the Twitter part of the campaign to get Amnesty to take on her death sentence case surely links to Change.org. I would be interested in how Change.org got blacklisted in the first place as I don't see any "paper trail". Can you enlighten me Beetstra? DadaNeem (talk) 11:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Quick & dirty links to paper trail: Original addition, subsequent discussion, subsequent discussion, FAQ. Kuru (talk) 11:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @DadaNeem: (ec) The exact paper trail is here: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/July_2015#Petition_sites, but there are many discussions about many petition sites, including the whitehouse.gov one, and the UK parliament one. This is not spam in the sense of an organisation posting their link everywhere for promotion/financial gain, but many unrelated individuals posting one or two links each for attracting attention to a ‘good cause’ (spamming their link to get exposure). In many cases it involves single purpose accounts. That then needs to be offset against the fact that there actually is not often legitimate use, one of the rare exceptions is when a petition is actually the direct subject of a page, or rare needs for primary sourcing (the latter is mostly replaceable). –Dirk Beetstra T C 12:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    bmihealthcare.co.uk

    bmihealthcare.co.uk: 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: www.bmihealthcare.co.uk/consultants/lawrence-peter-ormerod

    Reputable UK healthcare organisation, whose website includes biographies of notable physicians, and descriptions of hospitals, many of which are historic buildings. The specific URL s needed for Lawrence Peter Ormerod (citation currently commented out). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Pigsonthewing: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist, may be reputable, but the spamming smells too much of SEO work (which is something also reputable organisation use). See MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2017/06#BMI. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    360cities.net

    360cities.net: 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: www.360cities.net/image/sm-southmall

    Reputable link for the article SM Southmall in which it provides a reliable source for the history of the mall and the 2010 redevelopment. Please whitelist the whole site or just the link I requested on SM Southmall. BugMenn (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @BugMenn: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. Per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2011_Archive_Nov_1#360cities.net, seen the active advertising incentive and spam incentive (even if it is now in the past), I am uncomfortable with whitelisting the whole site. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    rns.online

    • Link requested to be whitelisted: rns.online

    Per discussion. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Beetstra: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wikimandia: Testing: https://rns.online/transport/Glava-Vneshekonombanka-Sergei-Gorkov-voshel-v-sovet-direktorov-OaK--2016-06-28/ .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now done it through \brns\.(ga|cf|ml|gq|online|site)/.*?\d{4,5}[-/]\d{1,2}[-/]\d{1,2}.*}} I know it could be simpler but this is a complex conflict of rules. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Works!! Thank you so much! —МандичкаYO 😜 07:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hxbenefit.com

    Per discussion. --CFCF T C 13:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I was trying to added useful research on this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paresthesia) to point this great research by "HxBenefit Editorial Team" here (www.hxbenefit.com/causes-of-numbness-and-tingling-paresthesia-in-fingertips.html ) and its on blacklist here.

    This article and the portal are great sources for useful information and help me a lot so i dont think we should block it, might be a mistake

    Idanb85 (talk) 07:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC) : -->[reply]

    @Idanb85: (I'm not sure why you added a copied malformed signatures here). This was spammed and deemed useless by the relevant wikiproject, and fails our inclusion standards. no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Manning.com

    Specifically, www.manning.com/books/ejb-3-in-action which is a book cited by the Plain old Java object page. Urhixidur (talk) 14:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined. There's no requirement for references to be online, particularly for books. Also you can cite Google books if you want: https://books.google.com/books?id=Qo8pmwEACAAJ ~Anachronist (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Northern Transmissions

    I'm trying to figure out why the website Northern Transmissions has been blocked. It seems like a perfectly legitimate music criticism site as best I can tell. Mbroderick271 (talk) 04:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mbroderick271: This was spammed by several IPs in 2012, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2012_Archive_Oct_1#northerntransmissions. plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dirk Beetstra:So does this mean I can use it now or is it still on the bad boys list? Mbroderick271 (talk) 04:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mbroderick271: You can use this specific link, no other documents on the same site. There has been multiple-IP spamming of this, I am not comfortable with removing such sites before we really see whitescale, general use. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC) (reping: @Mbroderick271: --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]

    change.org petition re iYogi

    change.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

    Article iYogi would benefit from a link to www.change.org/p/ministry-of-labour-and-employment-iyogi-technical-services-pvt-ltd-hasn-t-paid-us-salary-since-april-2016

    This is a company which seems to be closing down without paying its employees. There is much information in forums and the like by employees seeking redress, but I haven't found more formal information. The petition I link was started by an employee, and lists a number of issues that are not well-sourced elsewhere. The purpose of the link is to establish the existence of a petition, and to report on claims. The text I have drafted is

    An online petition was set up in late 2016 starting "I was working with iYogi Technical Services Pvt Ltd Gurgaon Haryana ... iYogi didn't pay my salary from April 2016", and listing events and problems, essentially that promises are made, no funds are provided, that the company had asked all employees to resign though they had not been paid, that payment into the Provident Fund had not been made since August 2015, and that the company owner has funds, and has set up new companies in other names. The petition, to be delivered to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, reported 343 supporters as of July 2017. It requested payment to workers of three months' back salary, with the remainder 45 days later. [link to petition URL here]

    Thanks and best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 10:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Pol098: did you read /Common requests? --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for response. Yes, I had read the section on change.org carefully, which is why I said "The purpose of the link is to establish the existence of a petition, and to report on claims", rather than any of the we don't allows. Perhaps I should rather say that the petition is a source to support that specific claims have been made against the company.
    • we don't allow users to add links to Wikipedia to get people to visit and perhaps sign their petition, whatever it is.
      Clearly not the purpose of the text I have drafted. It's also not my petition; I have no connection whatsoever beyond having contributed to the technical support scam and related articles.
    • We also don't allow links to petition sites to demonstrate how many people have signed the petition
      While I mention the number of responses, it's simply a piece of information not vital to the issues, rather than something I want to demonstrate; I have no objection to not mentioning it.

      The problem with information on this company is that very little is actually happening, so there is no news to report: there are pending lawsuits and so on, but the company simply seems to be vanishing. In addition to this petition, searching finds many complaints by employees of iYogi trying to gain redress; but the petition seems a somewhat better source. Pol098 (talk) 13:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pol098: So this is a primary source, where you have no independent sourcing that this is actually encyclopedic material. I mean, you have no evidence for the point that they did not pay salary, for the made promises, .. except for this petition? --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "you have no evidence for the point that they did not pay salary?". (1) I do; it's documented elsewhere in the article, though not in the proposed text. (2) My draft says that an online petition exists making these claims; it does not state them as simple fact. This is one of the many cases where there is ample information, in the form typically of complaints sites where large numbers of employees claim, with name and employee number, about their salaries and pension contributions not being paid, without this having been picked up much by news sites. See for example:
    https://www.complaintboard.in/?search=iyogi
    https://www.consumercomplaints.in/?search=iyogi
    http://www.beindian.org/complaint-against-iyogi/
    http://www.consumerredressal.com/complaints/categoryID/18/Provident-Fund
    Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pol098: Sorry, I misunderstood that. There are just no independent sources for the existence of the petition. Then the question remains: why does Wikipedia have to report that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What I mean here is, is that I have problems with having a primary source on that, without secondary sources to back it up, on a petition that has , you say, 343 votes. That number is unreliable, it has not been vetted, there could be 250 fake votes in it. Anyone can write a petition on change.org. Why is this petition important (to Wikipedia readers, I understand that it is to the people itself, but that argument is a WP:SOAPBOX violation). I just have been looking a bit, and all I see is the primary source. Nothing else. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Anyone can write a petition on change.org." I suppose that's the critical point; I don't know anything about the site. I'll leave it there, failing other sources. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Whitelist articles on Concise Encyclopedia of Economics (CEE)

    The Library of Economics and Liberty (www.econlib.org ) website has been globally blacklisted because of problems in the past. However, these problems do not involve the CEE which is hosted on that site. I request that all articles from the CEE be whitelisted, i.e. all links beginning with address www.econlib.org/library/Enc* should be whitelisted. LK (talk) 07:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Lawrencekhoo: I have added some full trees and biographies/title lists to the request - would that all be sufficient (the links requested here are whitelisting the tree, anything can be after the last '/' - htts://econlib.org/library/Enc/articlename will work). This is rather strictly CEE only. Just to confirm, the 2nd edition from 2008 is (for now) definitely the last edition, right? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that is sufficient. As far as I know, there are no plans for a third edition. If this ever changes, I'll make a further request here. Thanks, --LK (talk) 08:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lawrencekhoo: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals from whitelist (sites to reblock)

    Troubleshooting and problems

    Discussion

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist&oldid=793358870"