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 21:09, 8 November 2017 (→tradingview.com: 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|809396896#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)


    Legend of Mir - blacklisted source

    I blacklisted the domain after years of abuse. This source (albeit maybe dubious in reliability) is used in one of the affected articles. As vanalism goes on on the articles, I am whitelisting to avoid revert problems. —Dirk Beetstra T C 06:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Beetstra: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/07/the_neo-reactio.html

    The link is needed at the Dark Enlightenment article to document the coining of the term "neo-reactionary" by Arnold Kling. Smooth alligator (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Smooth alligator: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For some reason it's still not letting me add http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/07/the_neo-reactio.html unless I put nowiki around it. Smooth alligator (talk) 04:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smooth alligator: If this saves, it should work: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/07/the_neo-reactio.html. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    www.chinatravel.com

    I am not sure why this site is blocked. In any case, it has good and important information about Chinese bamboo weaving that I would like to use. The specific link is www.chinatravel.com/facts/chinese-weaving-craft.htm. Thank you for your consideration. Gryffindor (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The blacklisting was logged here and here. Smooth alligator (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So we cannot make an exception to just this page? Gryffindor (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    An administrator will probably look at this soon. I was just pointing out those log items for informational purposes. Smooth alligator (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gryffindor: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist, could maybe be considered for delisting, 8 years old rule. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    PissedConsumer.com

    Hello everyone,

    I already wrote to the "MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed_removals" and to the user "Cyphoidbomb" regarding the removal of PissedConsumer.com website from "media-wiki blacklist". In last comment in "MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed_removals" section the user "Beetstra" declined my request and forwarded me to submit the request to this page. Pissedconsumer.com website was added to the media-wiki blacklist in August 2016 for the following reason: "As of this note there are about 20 links across the project. The site redirects to "Four Seasons Sunrooms Complaints and Reviews" at four-seasons-sunrooms.pissedconsumer.com/ which is obviously not a useful source of any kind. Both sites should be blacklisted, and I'll gladly do the honors."

    This issue was happened as a result the Pissedconsumer.com website was subjected to 'black hat' SEO attack. One of the tools involved was External Links Section of Wikipedia.org where attackers put bad old domains that 301 redirected to their business profile on PissedConsumer.com. At least two companies wanted to suppress freedom of speech and remove reviews about their business from search results:

    1. four-seasons-sunrooms.pissedconsumer.com
    2. glam-seamless.pissedconsumer.com

    Please, find here more information - pissedconsumer.com/blog/2017/09/negative-seo-on-pissedconsumer-and-its-effects/

    Pissed Consumer has been a trusted source of information for media outlets large and small, and even government agencies, for years. They are involved in more than consumer reviews. They're in consumer advocacy, and they've actively worked to protect consumers from unscrupulous reputation management schemes. Also Pissed Consumer has been the winning side of prominent industry court cases protecting online publishers of user-generated content. Scams we've uncovered were reportedly a factor influencing changes in policy with Google (www.pissedconsumer.com/blog/2016/03/dark-side-of-online-reputation-management-orm/; www.pissedconsumer.com/blog/2016/04/dirty-games-with-dmca-notices-for-pittsburgh-cbs-and-pissedconsumer/ ), as well as an investigation by the Texas State Attorney General. And PissedConsumer has also been active in industry events, presenting at and sponsoring several conferences. For example - https://www.ungagged.com/speaker/michael-podolsky/

    Major Media Press Coverage:

    1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/10/31/lawsuit-against-lawyers-who-allegedly-filed-improper-lawsuits-aimed-at-getting-internet-criticism-deindexed-by-google/?utm_term=.da826c0768b6
    2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/09/28/solvera-group-accused-by-texas-ag-of-masterminding-fake-defendant-lawsuits-now-being-sued-by-consumer-opinion-over-california-lawsuits/?utm_term=.7a6044468a5e
    1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanvardi/2017/09/14/the-man-who-duped-google-into-suppressing-bad-corporate-reviews/2/#481c213923c6
    2. https://www.forbes.com/sites/legalnewsline/2017/10/12/law-firm-drops-suit-against-pissedconsumer-com-over-reviews-about-sexual-dalliances/#2e6328330184

    Coverage in other media includes:

    More information you can find here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#PissedConsumer.com PissedConsumer is a website used by millions of people around the world as a source for information before making important buying decisions. So, most probably some of Wiki articles can reference to this website. Also links that I ask to add to "whitelist" would be added to Wiki article about PissesConsumer in future. Links requested to be whitelisted:

    1. pissedconsumer.com/static/about-us.html
    2. pissedconsumer.com/blog/
    3. help-center.pissedconsumer.com
    4. pissed-consumer.pissedconsumer.com

    We were placed on the Blacklist due to the fact that Wikipedia did not have sufficient information about 'black hat' SEO attack on PissedConsumer. We are trying to set the record straight. Could you assist me by adding PissedConsumer links to "whitelist"? Thank you. ElinaSivak (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The blocked link is to a now closed petition on Change.org

    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

    initiated by the biographee:

    Link requested to be whitelisted: change.org/p/chris-gahagan-senior-vice-president-of-products-sell-sibelius


    The petition attracted almost 12,000 signatures, and was hand delivered by the subject to the Managing Director of the company at a public meeting of British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors called specifically for this issue that Avid Tech had fired most of the Sibelius (software) development team. I feel this is material to the article currently under construction and would like to have it freed up for this purpose. Because of the block, the text so far is not published in Sandbox, and so is included below for reference:


    "In October 2012, (subject name) launched a '(link removed)' to try and persuade Avid Technology to divest itself of its flagship score writing application, 'Sibelius'. [1]"


    The block message states:

    If you feel the link is needed, you can: 

       Request that the entire website be allowed,

    Which led me here. I don't need the whole website unblocked, just this link to the closed petition for reference purposes.

    Thank you!

    Chrisdevelop (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Banks, Adam. (17 August 2012). Avid hits bum note with Sibelius, 'MacUser'. Page 14. Publisher: Dennis Publishing (London, England)
    @Chrisdevelop: did you read /Common requests? The '(link removed)' can be replaced by petition or by a petition called "<name>" without any loss of information provided. Note that we do not link externally in prose, normally (see the external links guideline). --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Dirk Beetstra User_Talk:Beetstra Special:Contributions/Beetstra, I'll check these out.

    Chrisdevelop (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Following this up: [1] suggests that inline links to external sources are ok so long as they amplify, don't duplicate, and follow the other rules regarding malware and other items on the exclusionary list at [2]. Would you mind taking a quick look at the opening few paragraphs in my Sandbox, as well as the Activist subsection and commenting on whether you believe the inline links conform with this?

    Thanks again

    Chrisdevelop (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Chrisdevelop: Yes, but not in the prose, and rather limited. /Common requests explains the use of petitions. Barring specific reasons there simply is not much use in linking to the primary petition. —Dirk Beetstra T C 04:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    tradingview.com

    Hi. I saw a notification on the article about TradingView, mentioning these 4 links to their site. I request to whitelist them, because they are unique sources with official information that is relevant to the article about TradingView. Those links are used to detail and source several statements in the article. Nothing is sold on those pages and they don't require any registration to view the content. Thank you for your consideration. PaulSarutman (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @PaulSarutman: per /Common requests#About, we would need an about-page or a full url (including an index.htm) of the index page (the last one in your request). Can you please provide a suitable link? --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: Sure, here you go Link requested to be whitelisted: www.tradingview.com/contacts/ PaulSarutman (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @PaulSarutman: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:09, 8 November 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=809396896"