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 04:59, 31 March 2019 (→‎www.uofa.edu/aboutus/: 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|890252943#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)


    bestchange.com


    • Link requested to be whitelisted: bestchange.com/

    I applied for the removal of bestchange.com from the global blacklist on this link https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist#Proposed_removals

    User:billinghurst referred me to ask for whitelisting here. He said, bestchange.com was blacklisted because It was abused.

    Actually, the info received from the bestchange.com company says that an unknown and inexperienced person started sharing bestchange.com affiliate link with 'referer' parameter all over Wikipedia hoping to get more funds from the company's affiliate programme. He or she hoped to get more traffic from the referred users. This resulted in bestchange.com getting blacklisted. The company has no hands in the spamming process. Uptill now, they don't know exactly who used the site on English Wikipedia.

    Reason

    I apply for whitelisting as directed by user:billinghurst. I think the link should be able to be used at English Wikipedia and override the global blacklisting.

    Bestchange.com is a specialized online e-currency exchange service that monitors rates for dozens of popular conversion pairs in near real-time and offers one-click access to lists of reliable e-currency exchangers capable of helping users complete their transaction quickly and efficiently.

    Please consider whitelisting.

    Thanks Belmanga101 (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined. You present no credible rationale for whitelisting, and you are asking us to whitelist the entire site. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


    ticketmaster.com

    A link to the website is valid in the infobox of Ticketmaster where it is already included as plain text in the infobox website parameter. Can this be accommodated? MB 15:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @MB: per /Common requests#About, 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 07:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @MB: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    zenodo.org

    zenodo.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: zenodo.org/record/2565052/files/Response%20from%20EC%20antitrust.pdf

    I'd like to suggest a change to the Elsevier page, citing this response from the European Commission, which can be found on zenodo. Is this possible? Ryoba (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a non-authoritative source. Where is the original? Guy (Help!) 08:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    "News" and "Reviews" sections of The Points Guy (thepointsguy.com/news, thepointsguy.com/reviews)

    In WP:RSN § RfC: The Points Guy, some editors have raised concerns that the blacklisting of The Points Guy (thepointsguy.com, proposed by me in November 2018) may be excluding usable content.

    I'm requesting the whitelisting of the "News" (thepointsguy.com/news) and "Reviews" (thepointsguy.com/reviews) sections of The Points Guy, which are the only sections of the site that contain usable content. — Newslinger talk 23:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure if they are the "only" sections of the site that contain usable content, but I don't see anything else on the site at the moment that I foresee to be reasonably appropriate as a reference. Regardless, these two sections should definitely be whitelisted. feminist (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Feminist and Newslinger: I see many reservations, and many options 3 and 4 in that RfC. I am willing to whitelist these, but prefer to have the RfC run its full time. As there is talk about possible replacements and not being fully independent we may still end up at a case where we want to individually evaluate these instead of blanket. For me:  On hold until end of RfC. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd note that the whitelisting request was made by the same user who previously requested the blacklisting. feminist (talk) 10:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Feminist: .. and I honoured the request for blacklisting (MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December_2018#Sponsored_consumer_finance_blogs). It is just that I do not read in the current RfC a strong feeling of 'this is good material that we should use everywhere', it is more 'it may be of use here and there, though sometimes replaceable, sometimes native advertising / not independent enough'. If an other admin wants to ignore my opinion on the status of the RfC and whitelist regardless then that is a possible choice, or we sit out the RfC. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    specific gofundme campaign for citation purposes

    gofundme.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

    At my article draft (User:Fourthords/Rescue of the Sea Nymph) I'm trying to cite an unsuccessful (0.1%) GoFundMe campaign: my other reliable source(s) talk about the creation of the campaign and its rate of success at the time of publishing, but none discuss its current state, so I presumed to use the primary source. The specific link that's in my citation is as follows:

    • Link requested to be whitelisted: www.gofundme.com/truth-in-media.

    Today it's my draft, though I plan to move it to rescue of Sea Nymph in the near future. — fourthords | =Λ= | 18:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    SkyscraperCity.com

    Please release the official website, for inclusion in SkyscraperCity, in "External links" section. TheWikiGuardian (talk) 11:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @TheWikiGuardian: please provide a /about page as per /Common requests. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The "About" page xl.skyscrapercity.com/?page=about was whitelisted in 2017 (per [1]). But apparently the link was never included in the article - Done now (with a bit of pipe trickery for aesthetics). GermanJoe (talk) 11:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    expres.online

    Reasons

    I tried to add a link https://expres.online/archive/main/2017/02/08/227083-desyatka-ty-chlenkor-akademiyi-nauk to the article Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (Non-Governmental organization), but it is blocked by spam filter. --Wanderer777 (talk) 06:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Does anybody see what is wrong with the ref? I can not find any relevant regexp in the list.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ymblanter: I need to poke COIBot (or it has to save a report on it) .. I don't see it either. There are some pretty complex rules on meta where this might be an accidental false positive off, but there are also a good handful of .online domains blacklisted (so it may also be intentional). I'll have a look in a good hour.
    Regex requested to be whitelisted: expres.online/archive/main/2017/02/08/227083-desyatka-ty-chlenkor-akademiyi-nauk
    (to help you further in first instance). --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wanderer777: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, thanks a lot.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ymblanter and Wanderer777: I asked coibot, who tells me that it is .*\.(ga|cf|ml|gq|online|site)\/.*?\d{4,5}[-\/]\d{1,2}[-\/]\d{1,2}.*. That rule was added in response to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Isla Riordan by User:MER-C (hereby pinged). It looks like this site is collateral damage to that one, but I'd prefer MER-C to make that call. If so, we can whitelist the whole site. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I think the whole site is better. --Wanderer777 (talk) 04:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    archive.org

    I'm trying to add the correct number of total signatures for a list on UK Parliament petitions website. It's a petition from 2007 and the current BBC reference shows a total of 1.7 million signatures. However, as the archived page demonstrates, it increased to 1,811,414. I can't find the final number elsewhere. I read /Common requests but this petition ended more than 12 years ago, so WP:SOAP shouldn't apply. Johndavies837 (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Johndavies837: plus Added to whitelist, though I don't know how an already closed petition can increase with such a significant number. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Jaw-dropping liberal bias - breitbart.com

    The community chooses and a quick search would have shown you this. WP:BREITBART. Praxidicae (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This should not be a surprise. WP:V is policy, and a site with a reputation for making things up and disguising them as news has no place here. Bradv🍁 16:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lingzhi2: note that plenty of sources on the left are also banned and deprecated (e.g. Occupy Democrats). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well then, call me a fuckhead. While you're at it, does "Wikipedia Editors Paid to Protect Political, Tech, and Media Figures" on Breitbart get banned too? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you read the actual discussion and sanctions? It will answer your question. Praxidicae (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This section, "Proposed removals from whitelist (sites to reblock)", is not the section you're looking for. If you want to overturn the strong consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 248 § RfC: Breitbart, you'll need to do so with another RfC on the reliable sources noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 11:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lingzhi2: although not technically a whitelist request: no Declined. If there are specific links that you feel pass the bar of our sourcing requirements you can ask for them to be whitelisted. For overturning the blacklisting, you'll need full community consensus (i.e. an RfC in favour of de-listing). --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    rebelmouse.com

    RebelMouse is a now very popular enterprise CMS platform. We used to allow users to create sites and publish content for free but spammers abused this. We have removed all offending content and also shut down that ability. Please consider unlisting us from the spam blockers are an honest, genuine company. AndreaBreanna (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC) wiki/User:AndreaBreanna[reply]

    @AndreaBreanna:  Defer to Local blacklist (but note that sites are hardly ever removed on requests by site owners). --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Nerdwallet.com

    nerdwallet.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: nerdwallet.com/card-details/card-name/Discover-It-18-Month-Balance-Transfer

    It is of interest to the outsource/offshore Wiki content that the back of some envelopes, of which millions are mailed each month, contain "100% U.S.-Based Customer Service" and the best citation I've found (including matters of formatting/presentation) is

    www.nerdwallet.com/card-details/card-name/Discover-It-18-Month-Balance-Transfer
    TITLE=Dis... (so as not to get into WP:ADVERT territory)

    I arrived here (indirectly) via Wiki's Help_desk

    to which I supplied
    Dr. Google found 3 Wall Street Journal citations for Nerdwallet (2011, 2015, 2016). Is there something that happened since 2016 which is the basis of the blacklisting, and if so, is it still current? ~~~~

    If it's not too much trouble (beyond whitelisting the above citation), can you give me a summary of why/when Nerdwallet.com was blacklisted? Pi314m (talk) 09:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Pi314m, this is a native advertising company (and that was the reason that a whole bunch of them were blacklisted), that basically reiterates what the company is presenting to them. Do you want to use this on a page about this credit card (then a primary source may be better ..), on any other page I doubt that this is even close to a reliabel source. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    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

    • Link requested to be whitelisted: change.org/p/european-parliament-stop-the-censorship-machinery-save-the-internet

    The signpost would like to use this link in the next "News and notes" piece regarding the EU copyright directive. Ping @Smallbones, the new Editor-in-Chief and the author of the piece.

    Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 04:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Well I just found MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Common requests, which says that Requests to link to petition sites will, in all but exceptional cases, be summarily denied. - hopefully this qualifies as an exceptional case - its not being used in an article, but rather in Wikipedia's own reporting about a current news story. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    www.uofa.edu/aboutus/

    For subject official website. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Beetstra: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:59, 31 March 2019 (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=890252943"