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 Herbythyme (talk | contribs) at 10:25, 20 December 2007 (→‎www.tvrage.com/shows/id-14792: done). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Spam whitelist Archives (current)→
 
Related pages:
Blacklist (Talk)
Blacklist Archive
Blacklist Log

Shortcuts:
WP:WHITELIST
The associated page is used in conjunction with the Mediawiki m:SpamBlacklist extension, and lists strings of text that override Meta's blacklist. Any administrator can edit the spam whitelist. Please post comments to the appropriate section below: Proposed additions (sites to unblock), Proposed removals (sites to block), or Troubleshooting and problems; read the messageboxes at the top of each section for an explanation.

Please enter your requests at the bottom of the bottom of the Proposed additions to Whitelist section and sign your requests with four tildes: ~~~~

Also in your request, please include the following

  1. The link that you want whitelisted in section title, like === example.com ===
  2. The page that you want to use the link on.
  3. Explain why it would be useful to the encyclopedia article proper.

Completed requests are archived, additions and removal are logged.

snippet for logging: {{/request|179158085#section_name}}

Proposed additions to Whitelist (sites to unblock)


www.spaced-out.org.uk

triggered the myspace.com protection, but not remotely close to that. I'm trying to add a link to the spaced wiki page and it is denied because of the fact that in spaced... you have space, like in myspace. Maybe the protection is a lil bit harder than it should

please remove this link from blacklist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.37.10.15 (talk) 09:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need some more info on this. What page are you getting the error on? The site you mention should not be affected by the blacklist here or on Meta - thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing more heard so closed as  Not done --Herby talk thyme 16:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

s10.invisionfree.com/Dune_Forum

At the bottom of the Frank Herbert entry is a list of forums and fan sites. I tried to add this one to the list, which is the second most popular and active Dune discussion board on the internet, and it is being blacklisted due to "invisionfree" being in the address. This is being added in a list of forums and message boards and deserves to be included in that list. Its actually more active than most of the existing entries. I would like to request that this particular forum (NOT all invisionfree sites) be added to the whitelist. thanks Tleilax Master B (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links to discussion forums/groups are Links normally to be avoided per External links policy--Hu12 (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done per Hu12, --Herby talk thyme 16:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com

Please whitelist this site. It does have the required information for the Ionic Bonding. I received this email today in response to an inquiry: 

 Mike,

Thanks for trying to add the link. Yes, unfortunately it seems that they're really picky about outbound links. I've tried to add just a few in the past and I think they red flagged the domain because they saw more than just a couple coming from the same user.

Being a 3rd party to the site yourself hopefully your can voice your opinion and it will carry some weight with them.

Thanks again for your efforts!

Bradford Folkens bfolkens@gmail.com

> Your information is on the, "Ionic Bonding" page at Wikipedia. I attempted to add your citation and the Wikipedia help editor returned that the URL, encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com has been blacklisted. Sorry to see this, it must be an oversight of some kind. Thanks, Mike --Michael William Andersen (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little look at this shows that the site was blacklisted on Meta a year ago because of excessive external links (here). A look at the site suggest to me that it is not necessarily a reliable source - I would imagine there are other reliable sources out there?. Others may well comment. --Herby talk thyme 08:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing more heard. If there is a proven need for a link that meets standards then please let us have the link, failing which I will close this in a day or so, thanks --Herby talk thyme 16:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did a little checking on this domain and it turns out that we missed a number of related domains when the blacklisting was done. This is just a first cut -- I think there's a lot more, but I don't have time to investigate:
Inter-related site owner names:
--A. B. (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

michaelsafyan.fw.nu

This is my personal website. I am requesting that it be whitelisted, because I would like to add a link to it from an userbox on my user page. However, the spam filter is presently preventing me from doing so. I believe the page has been blacklisted because of its ".fw.nu" suffix. Thank you for your time. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 03:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the details, but I suspect that fw.nu may be blacklisted as a redirect site. Redirect sites are normally blacklisted on site since they've been used by spammers to bypass our spam filters. The bad news is that catches a lot of benign sites, too. The good news is that the benign sites can still be linked to using their actual URLs. If I'm not mistaken, I think that same page can still be reached via:
If there's still a problem, let us know. --A. B. (talk) 10:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. The website can still be reached with that URL. However, the underlying URL may change; that is, I may end up hosting the site elsewhere. By contrast, the forwarding link will always provide access to the website. That is why I would prefer, if possible, to use the forwarding link. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 09:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would not seem a great effort for you to change the link to your website when you change the hosting arrangements? I'm afraid I do not see a compelling reason to whitelist this, thanks --Herby talk thyme 09:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My own link does not concern me, so much as the possibility of others linking to a page which may become obsolete. Since I do not know how complicated it is to whitelist websites and I do not know if it is possible to whitelist websites for a particular Wikipedia page, I will understand if you choose to decline the request. In any event, thank you for your time. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

alx.shows.it

This is actually the address of my redirector, but it is the URL I submitted. This will resolve into http://www.bigskyhorizons.com/alx/ which is the proper address. I assume it was blacklisted because I uploaded two images referencing said URL in short order. The link was intended to give users who were interested in similar imagery a shortcut to my gallery currently used at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imajica and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mi-go Miso-chan (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)miso-chan[reply]

Almost all redirectors are blocked per WP:EL#Redirection sites; it had nothing to do with your addition of the images. Is there some reason you can't link directly to your site? Kuru talk 18:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Confirming Kuru - redirectors are blacklisted at Meta for the potential damage they may cause and to prevent circumvention of listings. So  Not done I'm afraid --Herby talk thyme 16:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

www.independencia.net

This is the official website for a Political party in Puerto Rico. I am trying to add this website to the article page of Puerto Rican Independence Party. I don't know why it is blacklisted, but it should be whitelisted because it is an important site beloging to a political party in Puerto Rico. There is no span in that site, that I know of, and it mostly speaks of the party's official business, current political campaign or important matters in PR. --Charleenmerced Talk 06:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extensively linked across wikis earlier in the year. Blacklisted at meta with discussion here. I would not be inclined to whitelist, sorry --Herby talk thyme 16:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baxter & Cloggy's Niva sites

These are essential reference pages for Niva owners http://www12 . asphost4free . com/baxdesign/NivaMainPage . htm Not sure why it's blacklisted. Tartanperil (talk) 08:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is the asphost4free bit that is blacklisted on Meta as a result of some spam dumps in January. I guess one of the main questions is whether the site is a reliable source? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

www.ipetitions.com/petition/moveontoimpeachment

This page supports a reference in Movement to impeach George W. Bush#Online polls and surveys. It is legitimate, relevant, and has the endorsement of a number of prominent people, including Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn. I requested this whitelisting a while back, but that was never responded to and seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle. - JCLately (talk) 02:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

www.squidoo.com/

I tried to add this link in an "External links" section on the page about Squidoo. I think it's relevant to put it at least there. --Arnauld (talk) 08:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

www.tvrage.com/shows/id-14792

This is the only resource I could find that contains reliable information on The General (TV series), and the link is required for referencing purposes. Waggers (talk) 09:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Should work! If not get back to me - cheers --Herby talk thyme 10:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Approved Requests

www.mysundial.ca

Request for whitelisting Used on sundial Equation of time Diptych Gnomon I examined the site in May as did User:Walter Siegmund see talk page. Carl himself is an IP Wikipedist. I have posted the following on several user talk pages with no response.

What on earth is the objection to Carl Sabanskis site- apart from pitiful use of HTML! It is by far the most authorative site available on the subject and is an essential link. If the problem lies with someones bot please get that sorted- but remove this destructive blacklisting it does no credit the reputation of Wikipedia.

Further a mirror site has been removed. Can we please have this site whitelisted, and the 'bots' returned to their kennels. ClemRutter 14:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had considerable difficulty in understanding exactly where this request for white listing should be made. Attempts to place it at the bottom of the section, as requested, resulted on no posting (perhaps I was unlucky as my internet cafe had a very poor connection). Re-reading the instruction, *here*, was also logically possible and it looks wrong. I am sure that some one will move it to the correct spot.ClemRutter 14:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this continues under http://www.mysundial.2see.de slightly different address for the same site, I know this act itself can lead to a 'spam' reputation but it is a valueable website. --Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 14:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO this site had better remain blacklisted. The site is not that useful, and it is quite clear from the talk page and the massive cross-posting (with mirror pages) that the owner of the site merely wants to attract visitors. /SvNH 03:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Events have moved on- and Carls reaction to the breach of WP:CIVIL is not helpful. However, my solution is different- and for exactly the same reasons- Whitelist the url: for the en: site where it has not caused any trouble for 3 years. This can be considered a limited trial. But it is not true that it is not that useful- for anyone constructing dials and interested in the Mathematics rather than the artistry it is the first port of call. I have deleted many links on this page in the past that were not notable (this page attracts them!). Visit again talk page and read my analysis of the posting history. Pay particular attention to the Users who have been working long term on this page. Finally we need to separate the value of the content of the site from the frustrations of the author whose antics have annoyed many other wikis. WP:AGF with gritted teeth. Thank you all for your attention ClemRutter 23:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent idea maybe even double ring fence it - put it in nonwiki brackets. Then the researcher has to jump through another ring. Why the page is deemed as not important I do not know but hey I only build them on the odd occasion. As I have said many times the actions of the web author here in wikipedia does not best serve the cause of knowledge, but that should not be a reason for stopping it. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 12:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to take a look at what is going on in Diptych (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Imho Wikipedia should provide content, not links. Omitting one single external link cannot be a major loss, circumventing the external links and spam policies may be worse. But this is, perhaps, a Scandinavian point of view. /SvNH 09:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the pointer, yes I agree the actions do undermine the usefulness of the site. The site gave the mathematical content of the article. agreed circumventing the external links and spam policies may be worse would be worse, but the link did provide information and knowledge. I think now though the website is too intrinsically linked to spam. Ho Hum sad but I suppose we could look at adding the maths into the article. At the moment I cannot see where to go with this. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 19:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is extremely frustrating that there is still no resolution to this. It is even easier to see Carl's point of view where the random intervention of someone who had no significant role in the developement of the page- blacklists a significant resource- and all the 'official' routes to remedy are broken. ClemRutter 09:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've followed this from a distance over many months. From the perspective of a non-admin volunteer who clears a lot of spam in connection with WikiProject Spam, here are my comments:
  • The domain owner has worked very, very hard to get his site blacklisted on meta.
  • The domain owner has been informed many times not to link to his own site. He's been referred numerous times to WP:EL, WP:COI and WP:SPAM. This has seemed only to harden his determination and persistence.
  • The site seems to be run more as a passion than as a commercial operation. That doesn't change the fact that these links have been spammed, but it is worth noting.
  • The domain owner can be considered uncontrollable and not amenable to any Wikipedia consensus
  • Multiple established editors on en.wikipedia have fought for these links, not because they like the owner's behaviour but because they value the site's content.
  • Nobody on any other Wikipedia appears to want these links at all and they are mad to have had them spammed
My suggestion is to whitelist this domain on en.wikipedia on a trial basis and watch it like a hawk. We'd be whitelisting it not becuase we approve of the site owner's behaviour but because as an encyclopedia, this site has content that experienced editors here wanted to link to.--A. B. (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the site mysundial.ca. Simple inclusion of that link in any of our current articles would be hard to defend in terms of our policies as written, since it is a personal web site, and the author of the site can't be shown to be a recognized expert from reliable sources. I notice that there is some quirky (and possibly correct) information in there that may not be easily accessible elsewhere, for instance that site is the #1 Google hit for 'cycloid polar sundial.' If sundial enthusiasts feel that this information is valuable, they should consider writing appropriate articles in Wikipedia. Since mysundial.ca appears to be weak on sourcing, I'm not sure if this would be easy to do. People would have to dig up their own sources for stuff like 'cycloid polar sundial' which surely isn't easy. Still, this is the work of writing an encyclopedia. EdJohnston 16:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. As this still remains on the backlog- please excuse a reply. The specific difficulty on this article is finding reliable and understandable information that is consistent in style. It is here that the said site is valuable- in that it is the most complete didactic site around. Whenever any maths is written- it is this site that I will check it against for accuracy- the very traits that brought the author to the attention of the 'checkbots' are vert traits needed in composing a bit of good maths. (Like the dogged attempt to add a link to every new language ... becomes the dogged attempt to cover all types of dial). So your points
  • our policies as written I have personally culled over half of the links of this wikipage- so take it seriously though personally the quality of the site would cause me to be generous- if this were the real problem then citations would now be viable - but the blacklist hits citations too.
  • recognised expert from reliable sources- so he is unpublished but as a designer (from memory:- Pinawa memorial Dial Manitoba etc)shows he is a respeced practitioner. Every respected sundial society lists his primer --- but Wikipedia no longer can (this goes for French, Dutch German sites etc). As he has articles on line published by at least three national societies isn't this enough evidence of peer review.
  • it seems quirky that we (bruised and battered) editors link in to the said site- but our readers have to link to five or six other lists, that indirectly point them to this site.
  • the disputed site is week on sourcing (and html!) but so is the Book of Mormon or the Christian Bible- (both personal websites in their day!) but Wiki standards don't extend to external sites.
No, it was for none of these reasons that the site was blacklisted, it was to do with potential interwiki spam. So let's admit the analysis was wrong. Look at the maths, look at the CADialing. The site is needed on English wiki- so whitelist please and soon. ClemRutter 22:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself in a rather strange position here. I was one of the Meta admins who dealt with the blacklisting of some of the number of new domains used in connection with this site in August. The disruption across wikis was quite significant. However equally I see the argument offered by A. B. as persuasive. I've thought about this for a while & in the end I have  Done this whitelisting. However I do feel that we should be extremely vigilant in case there is any abuse of this whitelisting by excessive linkage. If that happened I would not hesitate to remove it or advise others to do so. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You are perfectly right to be vigilant. The article has stagnated since September- let's see if this will revive it. ClemRutter (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

www.mysundial.2see.de

Sundial we have asked many times for clarification as to how to keep this link. This policy is now stopping the development of the article. After a long period of time spent up loading images to be told that it cannot be saved is very frustrating. Please see talk pages for a history. The site to which this link goes does have its problems but is informative, instructional and knowledgeable. What more does one want? --Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 09:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would object to that, see above. /SvNH 03:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Requests

Withdrawn or Otherwise Past Relevance

Proposed removals from Whitelist (sites to block)


Netfirms

The majority of entries in the whitelist are for netfirms.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 .

The majority of these links are to low-quality sub-geocities sites that have conspicuous netfirms banners and content that can just as easily be found on non-spammy sites. Why the carte blanche?

chocolateboy (talk) 04:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Netfirms is a popular (and, I believe, free) webhost, so although a lot of the sites are spammed, and that's presumably the reason for blacklisting the domain in the first place, it's perfectly possible for many useful sites to be on the domain. I haven't looked to see why the particular sites we have have been white listed - but if you have evidence that any of them have been spammed I expect that would be good cause to take them off the list. General content issues can also be dealt with on each article's talk page. I don't disagree with your characterization of the sites in general but others may and it doesn't stop some from being good. -- SiobhanHansa 16:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Netfirms.com has both free and paid hosting. Whether a site is using free or paid hosting does not determine the quality, notability, or reliability of the site. Have you read my comments at #www.sbmkpm.com/graph.html? I think a blanket ban against the posting of external links (not citation/reference links) by unregistered users would be a lot better than all these problematic blanket blocks of whole domains. It would save a lot of time, too. We wouldn't have to spend all this time explaining all the fine points of external linking to millions of drive-by unregistered users. Posting external links should be a privilege and skill that comes with being a registered user. Even then we could block new registered users for 1 to 3 months from posting external links. All editors could enforce these rules by checking the "oldest" link in the user contributions history page. It would not only save time, but would stop a lot of ill feeling generated by the vagueness of the guidelines concerning external linking. I am talking strictly about external links in the "external links" or "further reading" sections at the end of articles. --Timeshifter 19:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't paid hosting customers tend to have their own domains? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 13:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People upgrade free sites to paid sites when they reach the bandwidth limit of a free site, or if they just want to get rid of the ads. Getting their own domain name is optional. Getting a domain name can mess up links to one's site pages from elsewhere too. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Troubleshooting and problems



END

Discussion

Criteria for Whitelisting

Can we share any thoughts on these please. I don't see anything specific in the way of pointers so I guess we can make our own.

So far my view have been that is should be

  1. An established editor
  2. Going into a "worthwhile" article
  3. That the editor can be interested enough to present some sort of case
  4. That the whitelisting should be aimed as far as possible at solely what is required

It would be good to have the views of others too. --Herby talk thyme 13:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents:
  • Whitelisting should not open the door to a bunch of spam. This would be most likely if the requested whitelisting was a home page as opposed to a deep link
  • Proposed link must meet the Reliable Sources Guideline and be "encyclopedic".
  • Requester sends money to the whitelisting admin.
--A. B. (talk) 06:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! If they send enough, maybe we'll even call off the Pornographic Fire Parrot ;-) --Versageek 07:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strangely, given recent publicity.... I wondered about putting something on my user page in the form of a "deposit box" :)--Herby talk thyme 07:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist&oldid=179158085"