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 Newslinger (talk | contribs) at 12:22, 23 June 2020 (→‎infowars.com/contributors: 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|964070792#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)


    breitbart.com/author/Gary-Graham/

    The link currently at Gary Graham is broken because the page won't save otherwise. It should be pretty obvious that a Breitbart author link is the best reference for the statement that he's a Breitbart contributor. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Beetstra: Did I post this wrong? It seems to have been ignored and I don't know why. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Metaknowledge, "X writes at Breitbart, source, X writing at Breitbart" is a terrible idea. Just find a secondary source that identifies him as a Breitbart author. Guy (help!) 22:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG: I don't see the problem, but so be it. Does his Twitter bio suffice? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Metaknowledge, you really don’t have a secondary source? Maybe it is then not woeth mentioning, no-one seems to care. Dirk Beetstra T C 02:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: I honestly don't know what kind of sources make you guys happy for a fact whose truth value isn't in dispute. There are secondary sources around like this book, but I'll be the first to admit it looks like a crappy source. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Metaknowledge, it's not truth value, it's undue weight. We don't want to say that someone writes for a far-right conspiracist website unless reliable independent secondary sources establish that this fact is significant. Guy (help!) 11:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG: Political activities of actors are routinely included on their pages. Most actors don't write for notable political websites, so the fact that Graham does seems to pass that test, and make it worth a brief mention. I'm not sure why the fact that Breitbart is far-right and conspiracist is relevant to this dicussion, to be honest. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Deprecated, and other seriously unreliable, sources are frequently not reliable sources about their own content. If it's a noteworthy fact, then there will be citation to a BLP-suitable source - David Gerard (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    swarajyamag.com/about-us

    About Us page for Swarajya, used in infobox and "External links" section. — Newslinger talk 20:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. — Newslinger talk 20:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    www.tradedoubler.com/

    The Tradedoubler article currently lists tradedoubler.com/en/about/ (space added to get around the filter) as the company's website, which is an overly specific URL to a sub-part of the corporate website. I was trying to change it to the top-level URL https:// www.tradedoubler.com/ (with HTTPS for good measure, space added to get around the filter) but ran into the spam filter. I understand why people must be prevented from spamming Wikipedia with their affiliate links, but it should be quite ok to link to the website of an affiliate-marketing company from the article about said company.

    Linking to the top-level page without any affiliate codes should be of limited concern from a spam perspective. ehn (talk) 06:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ehn: per /Common requests#About, that is what we normally do: we link to an about-page or a full url (including an index.htm) of the index page. Top domain is often the reason why the sites were blacklisted, and also abusable in other ways. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: I see. This is, however, not what we normally do for other company articles. The link typically goes to the top-level web page, not an about page or something similar. It seems that we're compromising Wikipedia quality for technical reasons.
    I understand some URLs are blacklisted because the content is controversial, offensive, obscene etc. But in the case of an affiliate marketing company, I presume it's because people try to insert their own affiliate links on Wikipedia to make money. In that case, linking to the corporate website with no affiliate codes should not create any problems. What are we trying to protect against here? ehn (talk) 03:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ehn, no, they are generally blacklisted because they are spammed. We protect against further spamming, which is still possible with the top domain, and still abusable through the top domain. (Not explained per WP:BEANS)
    We link to the official website, even if it fails WP:EL, “to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself”. An about page just does that. Dirk Beetstra T C 04:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    beenverified.com

    Someone hijacked the links of my company's article page BeenVerified, and editing it back caused our actual homepage to get added to the global blacklist so we cannot undo the hijacked edit

    The timeline of events:

    April 10 - A new Wikipedia user performs their only edit - on our company's page, changing the URL to a domain under their own control (but not the text of the link). This ultimately redirects the user to our homepage, after setting some referral links along the way.

    May 22 - We notice the change and revert that edit to the page, resetting the link to our official home page.

    May 23 - The user changes the URL on our page back to their hijacked domain.

    May 26 - The global spam blacklist is updated with our home page URL.

    We are no longer able to revert the edit. How do we proceed from here? Reading through the recurring requests section, it seems like simply asking for it to get removed will be denied, yet at the same time someone is allowed to hijack our URL - this does not seem like what Wikipedia was built for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swbvofficial (talk • contribs) 20:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Swbvofficial: no Declined, this needs to be done on meta:  Defer to Global blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Handled there. —Dirk Beetstra T C 20:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    gcaptain.com

    gcaptain.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: gcaptain.com/financial-crisis-hits-ocean-carriers

    I propose that gcaptain.com be whitelisted for B+H Ocean Carriers, because it has information about that company in 2012. PrussianOwl (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't follow. If it wasn't reported by reliable sources, why should it be added in the article with an unreliable source? Praxidicae (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    see also these discussions [1][2][3] Praxidicae (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    PrussianOwl, "... said in a news release ...", "... said in January regarding the state of the shipping industry ...", "... said it has ...", "... according to its website ..." is all pure regurgitation of other, primary, sources. Find the originals and cite the pure primary work, if it is passable without independent sources. Dirk Beetstra T C 16:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    examiner.com interview

    I propose that these examiner.com links (in addition to their non-archived versions) be whitelisted because they include a song-by-song interview of Marshall Crenshaw's debut album and would thus be useful in adding to the album page, the artist page, and potential song pages I would like to create. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Beatleswhobeachboys, material on examiner.com is often created to make money with it (pay-per-view to the creator, not the company). Besides some spamming, that often included linking to scraped content and/or non-unique material, just so the creator would get incoming traffic and hence paid. I would therefore like to hear an assessment on how unique the material is. Are there other suitable sources, or originals, by any chance? Dirk Beetstra T C 10:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Dirk Beetstra. I have not found any other source that goes song by song like this. Songs like "There She Goes Again", which was a single and did get some radio play, have yet to be explained by Crenshaw in any other interviews I could find. The author seems reputable enough; I googled him and found that he does do some local news writing in New York at this time. One news article I found cited this as the original source for the interview as well. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the link for that article. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    aohwheeling.shutterfly.com

    I tried to cite this page in the geography section of Irish road bowling because the group to which this site belongs runs what the page lists to be "the largest Irish road bowling event in the world (although this needs to be cited). I believe that allowing this site to be on here is beneficial to Wikipedia because the group had not been credited on the page. They also make an attempt to substantiate the claim on the article. Allowing this would give citation to the fact that there were 737 participants in 2016. Joesom333 (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Joesom333, do you need the whole domain, or a specific page? Dirk Beetstra T C 02:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    theamericanreporter.com

    Hello, There is an article published about an artist and I want to white list the link which is as followed:

    • Link requested to be whitelisted: theamericanreporter.com/chit2ams-musical-success-is-the-result-of-his-love-for-hip-hop-hard-work-and-his-entrepreneurial-spirit/

    this is for a draft named "chit2am" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.137.104 (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to add Spotify links to bio Ronyaug1998 (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Ronyaug1998, spotify is not blacklisted, so there is no need to Whitelist. Dirk Beetstra T C 02:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    eduvision

    eduvision.edu.pk: 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

    Eduvision.edu.pk is blacklisted mainly due to spamming. We totally understand the wikipedia policy now, and will never use it for spamming. There were many pages on wikipedia that we thought could link back to eduvision for example https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_pharmacy_schools_in_Pakistan could be linked to Link requested to be whitelisted: eduvision.edu.pk/institutions-offering-pharmacy-with-field-medical-sciences-at-bachelor-level-in-pakistan-page-1for latest data. but we totally understand now that it is upto the users to add the links or not. We will not insert any links from now on. Requesting a removal please.

    no Declined. We are not removing on request of owners, nor is this a removal request. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    sci-hub.tw/alexandra

    Not all the domain but only this page if possible. Erkin Alp Güney 05:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This is Alexandra Elbakyan's official autobiography. Erkin Alp Güney 05:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    mydramalist article on feng yu xi guan

    1. Explain why the site should be whitelisted.

    I am trying to add the above website as a source for the English name of the drama feng yu xi guan(风雨西关) that Chen Kun starred in 2005. I know that mydramalist is not the best of sites to cite as a source but in this case, it is the ONLY English language site available with information about the drama. So I request for this specific link to be whitelisted as a source.

    2.Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link.

    Chen_Kun

    3.Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added.

    Link requested to be whitelisted: mydramalist.com/16381-feng-yu-xi-guan

    4.Please add a {{LinkSummary|example.org}}

    mydramalist.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

    SoarThroughTheSky (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    SoarThroughTheSky, it is preferred that sources are in English, but there is nothing wrong with sources in other languages. Is there sufficient sourcing in the other languages? Dirk Beetstra T C 17:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @BeetstraThis webpage is a source for the English name of the drama. Another language source would not be able to serve that purpose. SoarThroughTheSky (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @SoarThroughTheSky: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Asianbeat article for article of Gokuraku Jodo

    1. Explain why the site should be whitelisted.

    I make a wikipedia article about the song name Gokuraku Jodo, and when I tried to search a backgound of how Garnidelia making the song and the dance video, I just found the link of that thing only on that site, which i also found the translation of the interview on the same site to but in different language that I used regullary. So I request the link to be whitelisted for the source of my article.

    2. Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gokuraku_Jodo

    3. Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added.

    Link requested to be whitelisted: asianbeat.com/ja/feature/interview/43.html

    4. Please add a {{LinkSummary|example.org}}

    asianbeat.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

    Msonnyandrean (talk • contribs) 10:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Msonnyandrean: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: Finally, it's worked. Thank you so much Msonnyandrean (talk 18:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    onlyfans.com for onlyfans article

    1. Explain why the site should be whitelisted

    It's the website of the company.

    2. Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnlyFans

    3. Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added.

    Link requested to be whitelisted: https://onlyfans.com/

    Gagarine (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Gagarine: 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 14:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: is onlyfans.com/ considered a full url? That's the URL I need to add in the infobox. Gagarine (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Gagarine, We need an about or full URL including index.htm. An about page does exactly what it is supposed to do. Dirk Beetstra T C 17:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Gagarine, I suggest:
    • Link requested to be whitelisted: onlyfans.com/faq
    Which is neutral and away from the mainpage. Dirk Beetstra T C 17:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    abc.xyz

    official website, needs to be whitelisted after blacklisting all of .xyz. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Beetstra: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    xyz domains

    These are official websites on the recently blacklisted XYZ domain. Guy (help!) 14:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Guy (help!) 14:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    elasticplayer.xyz

    I ask that this site be whitelisted immediately and these links restored by JzG. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:18 on June 10, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
    Moved from SBL. Neutralhomer, I tested six of them and not one of them worked. How do we verify that this is the stations' officially supported streaming platform? Belay that: it's linked fomr at least one website. No clue why it does not work for me, but whateves. Guy (help!) 14:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Neutralhomer: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist and removals rolled back. Thanks. --Guy (help!) 14:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Much appreciated. :) Thank you! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:58 on June 10, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

    quatuor.xyz

    This is the official website for a documentary film about Olivier Messiaen's Quatuor pour la fin du temps; it was being used as an external link on both articles. gnu57 14:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Genericusername57, OK, verified from https://zenviolence.com/quatuor - fixing now. Thanks. Guy (help!) 14:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Genericusername57: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist, removals reverted. --Guy (help!) 14:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    petitions.whitehouse.gov (the new homepage)

    This is the homepage for We the People (petitioning system), but I can't make the url= link clickable. The whole site is blacklisted, to prevent every non-notable petition from being linked to. The whitelist re-allows https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/about, https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/responses, https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/*, and https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/homepage. (See? I added those links here.)

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/homepage used to be the site's homepage, but now it is 404, so you can delete that entry ("\bpetitions\.whitehouse\.gov\/homepage\b") from the whitelist.

    I hope you can add its new homepage, petitions.whitehouse.gov/, without adding the whole site. - A876 (talk • contribs)

    @A876: Per /Common requests, we generally don't whitelist top domains as they a) are often part of the original abuse, and b) can be abused for those who have the will and knowledge to abuse them, which is often true with links to sites where people have POV to push. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought I quite clearly requested that the site's homepage be whitelisted, and not the entire domain. (I don't know why someone would conflate the two.)
    For example, although adding new links to TinyURL.com/* is blocked, the TinyURL article has a link to https://www.tinyurl.com/, as it should. (In this case, the homepage is not whitelisted. If someone were to remove that old link, no one will be able to put it back.)
    I'm just asking for the same thing, that the We the People (petitioning system) article add or be allowed to add a working link to https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/ (homepage only). (Whether that is accomplished by a one-time override of the blacklist, or by adding petitions.whitehouse.gov/ to the whitelist, I don't care.)
    Also, https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/about is not the homepage. If it is reasonable or uncontroversial (a default "consensus") to list some other page instead of the site's homepage, then a comment is needed. This is a technical request; a work-around by substituting some convenient other-page that happens to already be whitelisted is not the expected solution. - A876 (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A876, and I think that I was quite clearly pointing to /Common requests, and explained that we do not do that. No, we link to the website to show what a website has to tell about themselves (see WP:EL) an about page fulfills that by definition. I need to see the tinyurl situation. Dirk Beetstra T C 02:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, a link is not an explanation. /Common requests doesn't say what you think it says. (btw, you don't actually say what you think it says.)

    You said "we generally don't whitelist top domains". (I never suggested any such thing.) Now you have repeated the error saying "we do not do that" (as if you still don't understand).

    /Common requests does not say that every page on every petition site and URL-shortening site is anathema (and in fact they are not – do "see the TinyURL situation" and others that link to the site, namely Bitly, Change.org, and (formerly) We the People (petitioning system)). It says "These sites are blocked for blanket reasons and it is rare that any page from them is whitelisted. " Okay, it is rare. Petition sites are blacklisted overall, for good reason ("we don't allow users to add links to Wikipedia to get people to visit and perhaps sign their petition"). Obviously linking the homepage (and possibly other pages) is okay, because it is normal and because doing so does not link to any specific petition (which meets the purpose of the ban).

    Linking a website's homepage is the norm in a template in an article about that website. I'm sure "official website" was set to https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/homepage because that was the homepage. Now, the old homepage URL is a 404 and the homepage resides at https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/ (as it always should have). It follows that the whitelist entry should be changed to drop the former and add the latter. What could be simpler? I see no advice or consensus to list https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/about instead of the page that the site set as its homepage. I see no advice or consensus to list an about page instead of the homepage even if someone thinks it is "good enough" or even "better than" the homepage. - A876 (talk) 04:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    A876, A876, as is explained there, whitelisting the homepage 'petitions.whitehouse.gov' is negating the blacklist, abusable in itself, and abusable through other ways. As with spam, people have a reason to abuse it - they are actively searching for support. That is why we do not generally whitelist top domains. That explanation is in /Common requests at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Common_requests#The_official_homepage_of_the_subject_of_a_page.
    Again, "Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself" (my bolding). We link to a neutral landing page, an about-page does fulfill the function perfectly and avoid ALL possibilities of abuse.
    Just to summarize:
    I hope this explains. Dirk Beetstra T C 06:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: My suggestion: Link requested to be whitelisted: petitions.whitehouse.gov/index.php which redirects to / and would serve the purpose. Jerod Lycett (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @A876 and Jerodlycett: Thanks, that is indeed better. plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed again. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    tinyurl.com

    The top page was overridden after explicit advice not to link to the top domain (though this happened way before we instated the advice at /Common requests#The official homepage of the subject of a page). Whitelisting this per that advice. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Change.org

    The link to change.org itself is still there, presumably it has not been revised after change.org got blacklisted. Using the /about per the advice at /Common requests#The official homepage of the subject of a page. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Beetstra: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Guy (help!) 16:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    sahafat.xyz

    I checked the "sahafat.xyz" links, they are image repository of the archive of sahafat.in, website of a print newspaper. The links in this case don't look like to be spam. Also, it is an official repository. The link to .xyz flows from main website, it is like, http://www.sahafat.in/index.html has a menu link to http://www.sahafat.in/archive_index.html, where, on selection of a date, archived newspaper is loaded in image format, the location of this image is at www.sahafat.xyz; so it seems to be legit. Also, there is no alternate of this archive available, if anyone has to quote articles from older version, then they need to add this link but that doesn't works and we are missing references. example links,

    1. http://www.sahafat.xyz/mumbai/May2020/31_05_2020/p-1-1.htm
    2. http://www.sahafat.xyz/lucknow/May2020/01_05_2020/p-1-1.htm
    • which articles would benefit from the addition of the link.

    Currently, it is regarding Syed Jawad Naqvi, but as it is one of the leading Urdu dailies of India, it definitely has implication on other articles.

    • specific link to the page you're requesting be added.

    Link requested to be whitelisted: www.sahafat.xyz

    --Fztcs

    @Faizhaider: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra:Thanks for the quickest turnaround I have seen on WP in years. :) --Fztcs 20:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Faizhaider, a well explained request makes our life easier. Thank you! Dirk Beetstra T C 20:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    stamp-workshop.eu

    This is a European academic/industry conference about the STAMP (System-Theoretic Accident Modelling Process) accident analysis methodology developed by Prof. Nancy Leveson. There is also a US workshop http://psas.scripts.mit.edu/home/stamp-workshops/ . I want to link the European workshop in the Nancy Leveson biography (Nancy Leveson#STAMP), or maybe in an eventual separate article about the STAMP metholodogy, or possibly in accident-related articles where STAMP was used to study the accident. I'd say whitelist the entire domain: it is a perfectly good site, blacklisted because of a Scunthorpe problem where anything with "shop.eu" in it is blocked. This is not a request for exceptional dispensation of a link that otherwise deserves to be blacklisted, but to undo that a legitimate site is blacklisted by accident. Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist, sorry for the delay, needed to see the records first. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, no prob about the delay, this wasn't urgent. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Serif

    A book publisher. Specifically that page is their list of distributors for the citation of who their distributors are. From what I can tell COIBot caught some spam usage in 2012. Jerod Lycett (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jerodlycett: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Census of India on Jhinjhana

    It's more or less a technical request, because otherwise Bender the Bot gets stuck in a loop at Jhinjhana. --bender235 (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bender235: no Declined, it is a scraper, it should be replaced by original/official data. —Dirk Beetstra T C 20:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bender235, I've removed the link. —Dirk Beetstra T C 20:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Equally fine by me. Thanks. --bender235 (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    South Dakota Birds

    I can't tell why these pages are blocked. www.sdakotabirds.com/species/maps/little_blue_heron_map.htm and www.sdakotabirds.com/species/maps/tricolored_heron_map.htm Geoffrey.landis (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Geoffrey.landis, possibly blacklisted due to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2012_Archive_Nov_1.5#6_years_of_Adsense_spamming. Maybe it is time to review that? Dirk Beetstra T C 20:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    yourstory hifives

    Don't understand why these pages are blocked - they contain media coverage of a new page that I am trying to publish. yourstory.com/2013/07/hifives-launches-revamped-cloud-based-solution-to-maximize-impact-of-employee-rewards-programs yourstory.com/2012/06/hifives-corporate-organization-gifting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaudhurisagar (talk • contribs) 18:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Chaudhurisagar, please see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October_2015#YourStory.com Dirk Beetstra T C 20:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Keeping thread in one place, moved from here

    Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist?markasread=193006586&markasreadwiki=enwiki#yourstory_hifives

    I am still not sure as to why YourStory.com is blocked.

    1. Shraddha Sharma, the founder of YourStory is a renowned journalist in India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shradha_Sharma She has worked with CNBC and has won several awards and accolades and has been named as one of the top influencers on LinkedIn 2. YourStory is one of the top online publications for startups and entrepreneurs in India with high domain authority. 3. I don't know about the spam link incident that happened in 2015 but that was a long time back.

    I am unable to publish my first article on Wiki because it has 2 references to Your Story which were actually interviews of me and my co-founder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaudhurisagar (talk • contribs) 09:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Chaudhurisagar, can you expand on ‘me and my co-founder’? Are you related to the subject you are writing about?
    Regarding the subject, you should be able to write an article without references to yourstory but using independent, reliable sources instead. Then it can be judged whether additional sourcing is needed. Dirk Beetstra T C 12:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The article quotes independent sources - leading publications in India - Economic Times (2 reports) - Bangalore Mirror - a Times of India publication (1 report) - Your Story (2 interviews) - Hindu Businessline (1 report)

    The above websites are of high reputation in India and high domain authority. However, I am unable to publish the article as it has references to the YourStory website which seems to be blocked. So my request would be to unblock the pages which we want to link to. These are critical interviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaudhurisagar (talk • contribs) 17:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Chaudhurisagar, then publish it first without the yourstory references please. If the article has merit without the yourstory references it will stay and we will revisit this, if it doesn't this discussion is moot. Dirk Beetstra T C 18:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Beetstra - published it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaudhurisagar (talk • contribs) 06:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    breitbart.com/masthead

    Neutral landing page as the official website for the Breitbart News article. — Newslinger talk 12:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. — Newslinger talk 12:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    infowars.com/contributors

    Neutral landing page as the official website for the InfoWars article. — Newslinger talk 12:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. — Newslinger talk 12:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    \bpetitions\.whitehouse\.gov\/homepage\b

    • Regex requested to be whitelisted: \bpetitions\.whitehouse\.gov\/homepage\b

    To be removed, is a 404. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    So, why is the deletion still not done? Beetstra edits MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist often. - A876 (talk) 07:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    echo

    The site's homepage used to be petitions.whitehouse.gov/homepage. Now that URL is a 404, so its whitelist entry serves no function, and should be removed (restating the above).

    The site's homepage is now https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/ (the site's root URL, where, as most webmasters have learned, every homepage should reside from the get-go). It follows that a whitelist entry (for this one page) should be added, to replace the one that is to be removed. - A876 (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    PS: The site's new homepage (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/) probably should not be added, because it contains multiple open petitions. (I belatedly noticed this.) I should not have asked for its addition (strike-out, above); I withdraw that request. - A876 (talk) 07:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @A876: removed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    \bpetitions\.whitehouse\.gov\/index\.php\b

    • REMOVE → Regex requested to be whitelisted: \bpetitions\.whitehouse\.gov\/index\.php\b

    Recently the site's new homepage was added to the whitelist using a synonym of its root url, petitions.whitehouse.gov/index.php. I think it should be taken back out (removed from the whitelist). (I don't understand the need for a synonym. This URL is no more or less dangerous than the root URL. Someone seems to think that adding the root page of a domain (calling it "top domain", whatever that means) adds the entire domain. They are not the same thing.)

    (Also, how about sorting the whitelist page next edit?) - A876 (talk) 07:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @A876: I am not explaining this per WP:BEANS, please read /Common requests for some reasons that are not so beansy. The root domain can be abused. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @A876: I did remove it per a remark above. Please keep using the /about.
    Regarding, if I whitelist '\bpetitions\.whitehouse\.gov\/' or '\bpetitions\.whitehouse\.gov\b' then you can add petitions.whitehouse.gov but also petitions.whitehouse.gov/whatever. Those whitelist rules negates the blacklist. I could add \bpetitions\.whitehouse\.gov$, in which case you can only add petitions.whitehouse.gov and nothing else, but that a) still allows you to add 'go find this petition on petitions.whitehouse.gov' (which people already happily add, we don't have to increase that success - it is worse with '[www.mycompany.com my company] is the best.' and pornhub, b) it is otherwise abusable (not explained per WP:BEANS, if people try to figure it out themselves I will blanket block them as they intend to be malicious). The index.htm is less obvious (people who run into the petitions.whitehouse.gov-block will have to figure out that they can only use the /index.htm which most will not understand how to figure out, and they will have gotten the warning with the first hit) and cannot be abused that easy under scheme b (disclaimer still applies). These are all limitations of the MediaWiki software. Sorry. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgot to answer: no, we are keeping the whitelist roughly in order of time (adding new additions generally to the bottom). Sorting it every time is an enormous bureaucratic waste of time, and the sorting is rather nonsensical with the regex tags (even if most are \b). --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    essay1

    I think we would have understood each other better if content here were clearer and terms were chosen more carefully. "Top domain" has no clear meaning to me – it sounds like "top-level domain", something which will "never" turn up in this whitelist. (The blacklist holds mostly second-level domains, so this whitelist could hold some third-level domains. A bad-enough top-level domain could be added to the blacklist, in which case the whitelist might begin to add some second-level domains.) "Root domain" also has no clear meaning to me – it sounds like either the DNS root zone (the parent of every top-level domain) -or- the root of a top-level domain, which can serve a website. (Though very few do, e.g. the redirectors http://org./ http://tv./ http://at./ http://ai./ etc. They use that obscure syntax because the "more-obvious" http://org looks for a computer on your LAN named "org", and http://.org must have seemed inelegant.) You seem to be using "top domain" and "root domain" to mean the top of a domain or the root of a domain. But I can't sustain that reading; the word "domain" keeps hitting me and it doesn't fit the context. The root folder and "everything in the root folder" are not the same thing (though they might seem that way if you are working with an inadequate processor that can't distinguish them). I think it is better to never use the phrases "top domain" and "root domain" again.

    A domain or website has a tree structure, similar to a file system (and it usually maps to a folder in a file system). A website has a root folder. Every folder can contain files and/or [sub-]folders. A URL can specify a folder name or a filename. A server can handle a request for a folder name in various ways. The most obvious default action is to return a listing of the files and folders in that folder (though some sites disallow that and show an error page instead). The next obvious approach is for the server to first check for an HTML document (which typically describes the contents or actions relevant to that branch of the website), that folder's "webserver directory index". The obvious place to store that HTML document is in the folder itself, with a generic name such as "index.[s]htm[l]". The server usually scans a prioritized search-list of names, such as "index.php; index.htm; index.html". But there is no standard name; many names are common; files of every name can exist concurrently; and the addition of a higher-priority name does not delete any lower-priority name. If one finds that the server returns the same content for http://example.com/index.foo as for http://example.com/, that is not proof that http://example.com/ actually returns http://example.com/index.foo; it might only be a coincidence; only the webmaster could find out for sure. I think a webserver that (for example) answers requests for http://example.com/ by serving http://example.com/index.foo should answer any request for http://example.com/index.foo itself by serving a 404 page, simply to disallow the use of unnecessary synonyms. Lacking that mechanism, a webmaster could achieve the same effect through obscurity, by configuring http://example.com/ to serve http://example.com/unguessable.filename (or maybe even serve a file that resides outside the website's folder tree, if possible, but that is awkward). The "moral" here is: Linking http://example.com/index.foo is not good practice; such links go bad and don't always show it. If the site's homepage links and Google results show http://example.com/, it is truly shameful to go and "sniff out" the existence http://example.com/index.foo and link that instead of the root URL. It seems generally wiser to link http://example.com/, even if the linked site rewrites or redirects that to http://example.com/wafflepack///-/~/%1234/monkeybar.cs?one=banana&2=hammer&sessid=2193829381f23267&fbclick=ilnuminatti665.9#aplic_woo.

    If the whitelisting processor cannot distinguish between the root folder and "everything in the root folder", it is sadly flawed, and probably needs a new syntax. (Btw, that \b \. stuff is ugly anyway.) There should be no difficulty listing the single "page" http://example.com/ without implicitly listing http://example.com/* (everything in the folder, recursive (or not)). Just as there should be no difficulty listing the single "page" http://example.com/foo/ without implicitly listing http://example.com/foo/* (recursive).

    Webservers differ, and that could add difficulty. But I think it is possible to interpret whitelist entries without having to know which webserver software each site is currently running. http://example.com/foo/ "should" be a folder. http://example.com/foo "should" be a file. I'm sure many webservers interpret .../foo as .../foo/ when there is a folder but no file. Maybe some webservers interpret .../foo/ as .../foo when there is a file but no folder. Some rewrite the URL in the browser; maybe some don't. (It doesn't bother the webserver. Is it a problem for us?) It could complicate if the server allows a file .../foo and a folder .../foo/ to coexist (in the same folder). It could complicate if the webmaster replaces the file .../foo with the folder .../foo/ (or vice-versa). Some servers could be case-insensitive (foo=Foo=fOo); some could be case-sensitive (foo, Foo, and fOo can co-exist); handling this could be as simple as making the blacklist case-insensitive and the whitelist case-sensitive. Is http://example.com/ interchangeable with http://example.com? Is https://example.com/ interchangeable with https://example.com? (I think so.) If the website is on https: should it be possible to add a link to http:? (Probably not; the user will never pick up http: from a browser view, they could only copy it from a link address on a page or a text. Or maybe; the site could "downgrade".) If the website is on https: should it be possible to add a link to http:? (Probably; sites "upgrade" all the time.) What if a site serves differnt content on http: and https:?? - A876 (talk) 07:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    A876, it can distinguish between the root and a subdirectory. The problem is that the root is often the problem in itself. If I whitelist the root for use on the one page it belongs, it is whitelisted everywhere. For many websites, the reason material gets blacklisted is because of abuse of the root. Although petition sites were not blacklisted for abuse of the root, and even if I allow the root only, people can still type ‘find <this petition> on [root of website]’ everywhere on Wikipedia (basically evading the blacklist), and even if we only whitelist the root further abuse is possible (again, I will not Explain this per WP:BEANS because the beans are worse than this, and I’ve seen people figuring this out). People who want to spam their website, as well as people who feel strong about the cause of a petition, go to great lengths to get stuff on Wikipedia. We had people blatantly asking for whitelisting their own pay-per-view websites because Wikipedia disallowed them to make more money. We see requests to whitelist open petitions. People go at great lengths to support ‘their cause’ (because often, it pays their bills). A neutral landing page is less obvious, and hence does not result in these problems. (and if someone goes through the effort ... the more reason to block them without warning - it is why I sometimes warn people not to evade with nowiki tags or other tricks, soliciting votes by providing a non-working link to the petition is still soapboxing and intentionally evading the blacklist to circumvent the very reason something is blacklisted. Providing that as an example on a wikipage is also beansy).
    Yes, the spam blacklist extension is stupidly flawed. That has been recognised years ago (as in: more than 10), and I am fighting for quite some years to get it completely overhauled. Until then we have to live with this. Dirk Beetstra T C 07:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Reliable source

    Please remove "THE HINDU" website from blocklist Sai Krishna bonda (talk) 04:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Sai Krishna bonda, you are here on the whitelist (removal requests go to WP:SBL), and can you please read the instructions in the green box at the top of the page as it is currently totally unclear what site you mean. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist&oldid=964070792"