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 22:56, 18 February 2021 (→‎Investing.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|1007590281#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}}



    Notice to everyone about our Reliable sources and External links noticeboards

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

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

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

    Proposed additions to Whitelist (web pages to unblock)


    Game

    Link requested to be whitelisted: https://web.roblox.com/games/6152418973/Live-Event-Escape-the-zombie-obby As a link to the game Escape the zombie obby.

    Necessary Duplicate Home Page of and Organisation Mentioned in the Wiki

    The link to be White Listed hosts a duplicate of a home page of a site that often has issues showing a pop-up by its provider over the contents of the page.

    Further argumentation: Without the link contacting the featured organisation can become impossible. It would deprive the Wiki entry of context. It also would put Wikipedia.org in a position that could make the seed-exchange organisation covered in the Wiki look as if withered while it is an active entity struggling at times with government interferences. The duplicate is made by a registered Wikipedia user and sponsor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarpal (talk • contribs) 13:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined, please link to the correct page of http://www.kokopelli-seeds.com instead. We don't link to copyright violations. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    city-data.com

    (malformed unsigned old section, not sure who added this)

    This link http:// www. city-data. com I don't understand why City Data is blacklisted. It has no controversies and is just a city website. I am trying to cite this site for a wikipedia article thats currently a stub. please unblock it ----

    no Declined, see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April_2019#Advameg_sites_(city-data.com,_filmreference.com,_etc.). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The London Economic

    Hi. Just enquiring about the url www.thelondoneconomic.com as I've been trying to cite it on Lee Jasper.

    I've looked at their site and it seems generally legitimate. However when I go to use a link it says it is blacklisted. I've looked on mediawiki and here and cannot seem to find the url blacklisted anywhere, and there seem to be no reports about it. Indeed the website itself has its own page at The London Economic so I'm not sure what the issue is.

    Is someone with more experience with these issues able to clarify why I'm prohibited from using their links, and if not, could it be whitelisted? Much appreciated. Llemiles (talk)

    @Llemiles: no Declined, this says it all. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Article on a practical approach to prevent insertion performance loss when using a UUID as a primary key in a database

    I wanted to include a link to the page explaining the practical approach in the page on wikipedia about the UUIDS Universally_unique_identifier (section Universally_unique_identifier#As_database_keys). The most recent blacklist for percona.com is about recurring edits. I certainly won't try this twice, I've spent more than enough time already :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwillem (talk • contribs)

    @Jwillem: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Critical review of fictional character

    Hey, I wanted to include this article as a reception in the Kaworu Nagisa article. Other opinions from sites I don't think are very reputable like Comic Book Resources are there. It seems the block was made on account of the platform hosting he site, but there are quite a a few articles using it in the same way already. Can I have it unlocked? FelipeFritschF (talk)

    @FelipeFritschF: the nature of the hosting site (hubpages) pretty much brings this into the not reliable area (shaky or non-existent fact checking, publishing to make money), and the articles that link it probably 'still' link it (as in - it has not been cleaned out). The remaining items still may need to be cleaned out. @Graywalls:, do you have any comments/assessment here? --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They're not reliable for same reason as Hubpages article. Contents are created by independent authors (thus, WP:UGC )) and the "editorial decisions" used by Hubpages revolve around traffic brought, presentation and subjective opinions of mods, thus they don't pass WP:RS and such sources are prone to being inserted by those promoting the contents of their own monetized articles. Look at the author's credential in this case "Mamerto Adan Just a bored engineer trying to express himself! I also loved novel writing and yes, as the profile picture shows, I love gunpla.". No definitely doesn't pass WP:RS standards to qualify as expert authored WP:SPS. Such opinion pieces of some random person shouldn't be cited into Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @FelipeFritschF: no Declined, per user:Graywalls. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    PDF page

    Wanted to add this because it was a research project done by Asian Military Review alongside IQPC on OPV/Corvettes used in the Asia Pacific region. Looks to be a good reference material. Ominae (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ominae: seems to have been denied in the past as being unreliable, can you comment on that? --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't know that it was denied in the past. Only asking because the data in the PDF file is what I need to cite some articles. Ominae (talk) 06:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ominae, but that does not help if the information on the site is considered unreliable, why would you use an unreliable source as a citation in some articles? Dirk Beetstra T C 08:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    AcademicJournals.org

    Will somebody take a look at my request? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist&oldid=998643809 Carystus (talk) 06:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Copying request from archive:

    From the site academicjournals.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com , I would like to use the link Link requested to be whitelisted: academicjournals.org/article/article1380125484_Ingale%20and%20Hivrale.pdf as a reference for the natural occurrence of several substance. Academicjournals.org has articles on various topics. My guess is that it is not this kind of topic that got the whole site blacklisted - and should the whole site be blacklisted? Leave a note on my talk page. Carystus (talk) 10:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Carystus: no Declined. Predatory publishing, you'll have to find something more reliable and reputable than that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: Could that perception of academicjournals.org not apply to the individual journal or be archaic? The article is published in African Journal of Plant Science, a journal which has a peer review policy: https://academicjournals(.)org/journal/AJPS/about/peer-review. I did a short search and found that the article is cited by other articles unrelated to the Academic Journals platform, e.g. https://www.scielo.br/pdf/aabc/v90n3/0001-3765-aabc-201820170809.pdf. These findings does not fit the profile of predatory publishing, and as a consequence the predatory publishing should not apply, if we are not to err on the side of 'guilty until proven otherwise'. Academic Journals is a platform, not a journal; it seems misguided to disqualify all journals on that platform by assuming predatory publishing without being specific. It could be that the Academic Journals platform got categorized as predatory publishing based on an individual journal, publishing e.g. about African Politics. My point is that there are all sorts of journals under the umbrella of Academic Journals. For example, I am barred from citing from the article "Stability and elastic anisotropy of diamond related C8-yBy materials" published in International Journal of Physical Sciences. Wikipedia policies such predatory publishing should be meaningful, justified, and applied with caution if Wikipedia should continue to be recognized as a balanced encyclopedia. Predatory Publishing should not be used as a 'catch-all' for a given platform, or applied by people without due consideration to the case in question. As for the kind suggestion that I will have to find 'something more reliable and reputable', sometimes that is possible to find a reference elsewhere to make a point, sometimes - if it is a new finding - it is not. I was barred from publishing this reply because it contained references to the site in question, hence the (.) So maybe you can point me to the relevant place on Wikipedia where the case of a blanket ban on e.g. academicjournals(.)org may be reconsidered? Carystus (talk) 08:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Carystus, I guess that this is not the right place to discuss that, what you are now discussing is something for WP:RSN, but I am very weary after reading academicjournals.org/about_us. This was added to the blacklist because it was on Beall's list and considered predatory publishing and hence I do not think it is right that we just whitelist without proper vetting of the material through an RSN or specialist discussion.
    The way forward is likely to discuss these requests on WP:RSN for specific links, and if they consider a particular piece reliable these can be whitelisted. If that result on RSN is more often positive than negative, we could in the end consider to remove it. Dirk Beetstra T C 09:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    AcademicJournals.com is one of the worst predatory publishers out there. This is not a reliable journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: I'll suppose, when you wrote weary, you meant to write wary. But /about_us tells of how the publishers offered an extensive rebuttal which was acknowledged by Beall but not acted upon, likely for reasons detailed in the WP article about Predatory publishing, which state that Beall retracted from actively maintaining the list, and thus defending his position. The list hasn't been maintained for years! The underpinning accusation in the concept of predatory publishing is that the journal do not check articles for quality. This would be reflected in the number of citations by articles in other journals, so if the article gets cited, that is indicative of quality, and this should be taken into consideration in each case as an article is considered for whitelisting. It seems to me that people who do not use articles for a real-world purpose and/or are not in academic circle commit the elementary error of making little or no distinction between articles, journals, and publishers. In this case, every article in every journal under that publisher is banned without due consideration, as a reflex reaction to the mention of the publisher, disregarding that every journal has it's own policy. The lack of reasonability of this approach should be evident. To add insult to injury, the affected journals or publishers can't get their case reviewed by the one man who accuse them, because he refuse to answer! In the face of these complications, I propose that it is the duty of the WP reviewer to do a more detailed evaluation. The onus is on the reviewer to show that this is likely a junk article, or else allow it, and pointing to Beall's List won't do as an argument, for the reasons outlined. Beall's List is not gospel, yet it seems to be treated like that in WP. Yes, I will take it to RSN. In the meantime, WP reviewers should review their approach to this type of request in order to err on the side of not guilty unless proven, at the very least on the journal level, e.g. demonstrate that the journal is lacking a genuine review policy. In that case, the article could still be whitelisted if it is cited by other articles considered reliable.
    @Headbomb: I shall ignore that comment, as it offers no argument and confuses AcademicJournals with a journal. Carystus (talk) 10:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no confusion. I'm talking about the publisher AcademicJournals.org. It is a predatory publisher, and all its journals are unreliable, including the one above. That Beall isn't around is irrelevant and immaterial. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Carystus, we tend to err on the side of 'get a confirmation of reliability and suitability at WP:RSN or WP:ELN first'. You'd be surprised how many people ask for whitelisting of articles (or the whole site) on material that has continuously failed reliability, or even are plain copyvio or doxing sites. In this case, the site did not end up on Beall's list by mere chance. I understand that that has tainted a site, and that is why I am careful.
    Academicjournals.org got blacklisted after a discussion regarding reliability and predatory publishing concerns. If there is community consensus that this is (now) false (e.g. at RSN), I will happily delist the whole site. The other way is to show that there are many articles on the site that do pass reliability sufficiently, and hence we end up whitelisting articles on this site over and over, resulting in a general consensus to de-list as well. Dirk Beetstra T C 10:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    News Article Mentioning Wikipedia Editors

    The article (Redacted) mentions multiple Wikipedia editors. For one, I would like to add that I was mentioned by them to my user page. So can we get this article whitelisted as it can (and might) come up in the future? Elijahandskip (talk) 14:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a bad idea since Breitbart routinely tries to dox editors. CUPIDICAE💕 14:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mean free all of breitbart. I mean just this article. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say that either. I'm saying that I think this is not a valid request. CUPIDICAE💕 14:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elijahandskip: no Declined. No valid use in article space, since this article from Breitbart News (RSP entry) fails WP:BLPRS. A 2019 RfC at Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Archive 4 § RfC: Should we use Breitbart News as a source regarding the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram? found consensus against linking to Breitbart News's coverage of a Wikipedia-related matter on a non-article page. — Newslinger talk 15:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposed link has been redacted, as it was in violation of the Wikipedia:Harassment § Posting of personal information (WP:DOX) policy. — Newslinger talk 17:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Fluoride toxicity - site blacklisted

    The following page citation for article Fluoride toxicity was rejected solely on the basis of the blacklisted URL: 'fluoridealert.org'. This particular page includes detailed summaries *and URLs* of 67 studies

    <ref name="FAN-Connett-019">{{cite web |last1=Connett |first1=Ellen |title=Fluoride & IQ: 67 Studies |url=http://fluoridealert.org/studies/brain01/ |publisher=Fluoride Action Network |access-date=16 February 2021 |date=3 Sep 2019}} Detailed summaries of all studies</ref>

    The page is primarily composed of a list of detailed summaries of 67 *published* papers from 1989 to Nov 2020.

    EACH of the 67 summaries is topped with a URL pointing at the paper which was summarized.

    I didn't see any reasoning for the blacklisting on MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. (Was that added 15 years ago? Why?) If you agree that *this single page* should be whitelisted, and include the cite above in the returned message, I'll add it. Twang (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Twang, it is from the "Fluoride Action Network", that is not a reliable source, it is an action network. You say it has summaries of 67 "published" papers (whatever that is supposed to mean). Then use the information from whichever of the 67 references it uses, if those are in themselves reliable sources.
    This was blacklisted after spamming by sockfarms, I am not comfortable to whitelist this without an independent WP:RSN consensus backing this up. Dirk Beetstra T C 06:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    .go.kr/board domains

    I read the instruction at the top but was still referred to here instead of the Spam-blacklist. 

    \.kr/(?:cloud|software|board)/.+/\d+   # MER-C #

    was blocked because of spam edits, but this also included reliable domains. .go.kr is the second level domain for South Korean government websites. For example, I tried to add a citation to www.gangnam.go.kr/board/article/2932/view.do which was blocked because of this domain filter, although it is an official government website. I don't think that the intention of the original block was to exclude government domains, as the spam edits were all using .co.kr domains. I request to whitelist all .go.kr/board URLs. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 11:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Pieceofmetalwork: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. As user:MER-C already mentioned in the original thread (now here), there was a chance of collateral damage. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Muzique Magazine for interview

    I'm requesting this be whitelisted for an article I'm currently writing on Ava Cherry, with the present draft hosted at User:Vaticidalprophet/Ava Cherry. It's an interview with the subject that has information that serves to supplement other sources and improve the article overall, and I'm not using it for spam (the subject passes GNG with or without this interview, and my track record on Wikipedia hopefully disputes the idea I'm pushing anything like that), POV-pushing, or any other issue that would jeopardize whitelisting. That said, I'm curious in hearing how this ended up blacklisted in the first place. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This should never be whitelisted, it's a paid for spam site that takes money to publish articles and then republishes them as if it's journalism. This has been discussed extensively. CUPIDICAE💕 00:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vaticidalprophet: no Declined, unreliable. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Investing.com

    Normal usage in infobox about the website investing.com, request use of the "about-us" subpage in the infobox. MB 14:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @MB: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. Thanks for requesting this. — Newslinger talk 22:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals from Whitelist (web pages or link patterns to re-block)


    General discussion

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist&oldid=1007590281"