MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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|731276187#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)


    Sherry Jackson interview - Examiner.com

    One interview, in three parts, for use in Sherry Jackson, a WP:BLP.

    • Link requested to be whitelisted: examiner.com/article/from-baby-sherry-to-sherry-baby-my-memorable-afternoon-with-sherry-jackson
    • Link requested to be whitelisted: examiner.com/article/60-s-chic-k-the-retro-fantasy-world-of-sherry-jackson
    • Link requested to be whitelisted: examiner.com/article/the-times-they-are-a-strange-thing-sherry-jackson-and-the-end-of-the-1960s

    examiner.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

    These articles are taken from a day-long interview conducted 35 years after then end of the actor's career. She talks about her family, early work, financial trouble, on-set experiences, and career determinants, topics which are not covered elsewhere. In particular she talks about the spurious nude scene in Gunn which lurks, inaccurate and unreferenced, in the article.

    The interview will be a primary source for details of family and personal life - parents, childhood, financial and career difficulties, creative and professional influences - which are now absent from the article and from her official website. It will support some of her appearances until secondary sources are added; currently none of the Filmography entries are referenced. It might be used for a first-person account of how her career developed as it did. Her career was over long before this interview, so she is in a position to consider it more objectively from a distance than in earlier interviews. (And maybe she does.)

    The interviewer is an NYU film studies graduate [www.examiner.com/classic-movie-in-new-york/mel-neuhaus] [1] with apparently a lot of experience writing about film but no paid experience as a film critic or journalist. Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    atomic7brandladiesshoes.com

    • Why: False positive of a generic broader regex filter (per Talk:Atomic 7). Despite its weird name this is the legit homepage of a rock band (see Atomic 7). A Google search for this name showed a few valid usages in forums and other rock-related sites, mainly as provider of band information and music.
    • Affected article: the band's legit main article.
    • Specific link to whitelist: www.atomic7brandladiesshoes.com (the only URL in use, see External link section).

    Just a minor cleanup request, as this band's homepage URL is caught by an unrelated edit filter due to its weird name choice (it probably has some fancy background meaning). GermanJoe (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Further to that:
    • The link is permissable per the External links policy for official websites
    • The term "ladiesshoes" triggers the blacklist for shopping websites. This is not a shopping website.
    -- Callinus (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Will need an index or about page to be specified in order to progress this as entire domains are not whitelisted. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Not done due to lack of follow up. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    www.examiner.com/article/destination-historic-eudora-plantation

    I want to unblock this page to use as a reference in Eudora Plantation. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bubba73: Have you read /Common requests? --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I haven't, but I will. I tried adding this as a reference, it was blocked, and it said to add it here. This is the first time I've done one of these. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, it says that examiner.com is often denied, but I don't see any reason to doubt what it says about the house burning in 1987, which is why I wanted to use it as a reference. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A Google search says that it is on page 124 of the book Antebellum Homes of Georgia, so I ordered the book. The link is not needed. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I just came here to make the same request. I did see the common requests. The reference to the date of the burning is definitely needed. I also put in a sentence about the movie that was filmed there. This article seems quite above-board, though I have seen some of the worst artivles possible at examiner.com. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for that. I've ordered the book that the Google search found and I'll provide the reference when I get it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done due to lack of follow up. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    www.travelsmart.net/article/10000281/

    I would like to request the site to be whitelisted for the following reasons:

    Why would it be useful to the encyclopedia article proper? The page contains a very essential content that is crucial to the Wikipedia page's article. The said page contains latest events regarding the archaeological discoveries in Batangas, Philippines. And the source of the page is a newspaper based in the Philippines.

    Which articles would benefit from the addition of the link? One of the articles is the Excavated Treasures in Calatagan and the other one is the History. ArkiGroup5 (talk) 13:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined. If a blacklisted page is referencing a reliable source for its content, then Wikipedia should reference that same reliable source, and not the blacklisted page. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    archive.is/bjXKk

    This link is relevant to the Melinda Haag article. It provides background on her time as US Attorney for the Northern District of California by capturing the Department of Justice's website at the time she was in office. This site should be whitelisted because it is simply an archival snapshot of the DOJ site. There is no other link to this material since it would have been removed by the DOJ once Haag resigned. Since her time as a US Attorney is a major part of the entry/article, it should include a link to this DOJ page. ndenise (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Stifle: Removing decline - this is not a shortener service
    @Ndenise: Did you read /Common requests? --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined Restored decline. This exact same page is available via other routes, for example https://web.archive.org/web/20131103030633/http://www.justice.gov/usao/can/meetattorney.html ~Amatulić (talk) 06:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    \barchive\.is\b

    Which article? The bot tagged Palm Springs Walk of Stars. Why? The triggered link is an archived page from The Desert Sun, a legitimate publication. Specific tagged link: [archive.is/20130620232544/http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:80tHVm-OzxkJ:www.mydesert.com/viewart/J1/20130424/NEWS01/304240001/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us this one]. – S. Rich (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Stifle: This is not a shortener.
    @Srich32977: Did you read /Common requests? --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    archive.today/jt83s

    This link has been placed on the blacklist in the article about the Bruno Mars' song Gorilla. The triggered link is an archived page from the BBC Radio 1Xtra, which is updated every month, and therefore no longer exists, though the original page would have been at http://www.bbc.co.uk/1xtra/playlist/, on October 21, 2013. Despite search on webarchive.com and waybackmachine no similar result has been found, being this the only proof of a release date of the song in the UK. It's not the first article that I had to change the archive.is or archive.today, however the other always had their page archived somewhere else. Therefore, I believe blacklisting such link should be white-listed since it was used in good faith and it's quite legitimate and has the date of the release of the song on the UK radio. I have not hidden the blacklist notice, so anyone could see for their own eyes. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Stifle: This is not a shortener
    @MarioSoulTruthFan: Did you read /Common requests? --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined. Restored decline. The same information about Bruno Mars is available here: https://web.archive.org/web/20131029014000/http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/playlist/ ~Amatulić (talk) 07:03, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    kifdatabase.no-ip.org

    Requested Wiki Entry: Shogi strategy and tactics (and possibly others if en.wikipedia editors become motivated enough to increase the shogi strategy coverage to the level of western chess or ja.wikipedia's shogi articles...)

    Reason for Request: Contains hundreds of recorded shogi games by professional players that are grouped into 16 opening classifications. It's useful for folks studying opening strategies. There's nothing else like it. (The no-ip.org is globally blacklisted.) – ishwar  (speak) 15:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined. There was nothing else quite like my statistical markets analysis blog either, while it existed. A self-hosted site on a dynamic IP address? And the root domain name kifdatabase.no-ip.org going to a Linux test page? Is the person who maintains it and comes up with these categories a notable expert on Shogi, with significant coverage?
    If such a reference gets a more permanent home (like one of the many free blog sites available), we can revisit this. And, I'm skeptical that the information on that isn't already available elsewhere. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Amatulic:, so what exactly is the objection? Are you worried about spam? Rejecting my rationale? You don't actually say.
    The person who maintains it doesn't need to be an expert or notable. The classification of opening moves is traditional and they are indicated in newspapers or by TV announcer/analysts when televised.
    To be more specific by my 'There's nothing else like it' comment, I meant that there isn't a database as large as this one that has the game records categorized by traditional openings. I'm sure that there are other collections of game records online and that game records are kept by the Japan Shogi Association in print form. So, I'm skeptical that another website that does exactly what this site does is already available elsewhere. The site was brought to my attention by someone who promote shogi outside of Japan. He said that the site is currently popular with amateur shogi players in Japan. – ishwar  (speak) 06:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm open to being convinced to change my mind, and I welcome other admins to chime in.
    My objection is mainly grounded in WP:ELNO. It's a self-hosted, self-published site, and there are alternatives to get the information on it. Mere convenience isn't a sufficient reason to whitelist. On top of that, it isn't even on an established IP address to host a real domain name on — and this databse doesn't even have a website; it's on a sub-page of a sub-domain that doesn't even have its own landing page! This just screams 'some guy's personal hobby site maintained on a home server' to me. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    archive.is links on Rockwell_B-1_Lancer

    I believe the archive.is links are valid, but they are highlighted as prohibited. --Vigilius (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Vigilius: first, can you please post the links (leave off the http://) here for review, and second, did you read /Common requests? --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vigilius:  Not done due to lack of reply. --Stifle (talk) 08:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    etaileast.wbresearch.com

    [1]

    Dear admin this link provides users an option view the official website of the original etail conference eTail east, which i believe could be useful to users and improves the article.

    Not sure why this is black listed, it is a reputable company which ranks top on google when i search for it. I would not consider it spam.

    JoeGranata (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @JoeGranata: per /Common requests, we would need an about-page or a full url of the index page. Can you please provide a suitable link? --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: Thanks for the response. Here is a the full url to about page: www.etaileast.wbresearch.com/about-etail Also the home page www.etaileast.wbresearch.com
    @JoeGranata: I'll do the about page. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Reference section for etaileast.wbresearch.com

    1. ^ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etail_Conferences
    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Reference text from petition.parliament.uk

    This specific link will be used to reference text in Fixed-term_Parliaments_Act_2011. I have read /Common requests, the petition link is useful to the article because a reference is needed to cite the Government response to the petition itelf, and not how many people signed the petition. It is a primary source, but is being used cautiously as per WP:PRIMARY. --Ekantik talk 02:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ekantik: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    archive.is

    Please whitelist the root domain for use in the Archive.is article as the official website. nyuszika7h (talk) 11:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nyuszika7H: per /Common requests, we would need an about-page or a full url of the index page (including an index.htm or similar). Can you please provide a suitable link? --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: I can't seem to find a working index URL, maybe archive\.is$ would work? nyuszika7h (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nyuszika7H: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: Seems to work fine, and other links are still blocked. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I know, I tested it.  :-) (also updated the script so it now can handle '$'-ended requests, though this is a somewhat rare exception). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    archive.is/oNhCL

    For List of Steven Universe episodes. Appears to be the only functional archive for this tweet, as the two Internet Archive copies are both dead, nothing else found on MementoWeb. nyuszika7h (talk) 08:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nyuszika7H: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    www.ticketmaster.com/creditcardentry

    Adding www.ticketmaster.com/creditcardentry as source to section Ticket resale#Purchase and re-sale methods on paperless ticket entry, as well as name change of the system. Shaded0 (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215

    Petition on the ongoing discussion regarding the UK referendum of June 23. Whitelisting per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=726863818#UK_Parliament_website. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Britt Marie Hermes - opposingviews.com

    Recent coverage of an op-ed written by Britt Marie Hermes, which would be a better source than her own op-ed per RS guidelines. Wanting to reference her self-identification as a "quack" on her article. Confused why the domain is blacklisted in the first place, since Opposing Views has a WP page. Previous entry on the site also raises this question, which was answered with the site being blacklist on all wikimedia sites. Medicalreporter (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I wouldn't call that "coverage", it's basically a self-published article by an author with no history (that I can tell) about a change.org petition and a letter in Science 2.0. It simply regurgitates information found in the primary sources. How is that better than the op-ed? ~Amatulić (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess you are right. I assumed it was better to have a secondary source, rather than a primary. Medicalreporter (talk) 04:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
     Request withdrawn ~Amatulić (talk) 02:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Drowners interview

    I was updating the Drowners page and used this interview to reference the recording period of the second album. Can it please be white listed? Karst (talk) 12:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Anirudh Kala profile - Mind.Plus

    The page refers to the profile of Anirudh Kala, a WP:BLP.

    • Link requested to be whitelisted: mind.plus/our-team.php

    mind.plus: 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

    This link points to the profile of Dr Anirudh Kala, a prominent Psychiatrist, on the website his latest venture Mind Plus. It is not a content aggregation website but a proper website of the rehab clinic and mental health wellness hospital started by Dr Anirudh kala. Websupplements (talk) 08:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)websupplements 13:57, 04 July 2016 (UTC+5:30)[reply]

    Ziyarat Locations

    This link points to a useful site of descriptions of religious and archeological locations in Karakalpak region of Uzbekistan. There is no spam that I can see, although some pages of this large site may contain advertising. Please whitelist to be allowed to use this material.

    Nlight2 (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nlight2: this is on meta, old addition, it was added to many wikis in a quite general way - often failing inclusion standards (i.e., the site was spammed, not that the site contains spam). It is quite old, so I am minded to approve this (would even consider to take it off meta) - can you elaborate a bit more on the content on this site (reliability, etc.). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Beetstra: The site seems very clean and well done. The main thing is it has aerial and closeup photos of each site and a concise description, better than I have found elsewhere, for quite a few sites. It also has a list of lat. and long. for each. These are both archeological and pilgrimage sites, but enough of the latter are put in that it is quite worthwhile. I see no advertising or spam: the whole site is maintained by a couple who are themselves scholars and occasional guides in the region but they do not even run outside advts on the site. thanks! Nlight2 (talk) 10:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nlight2: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Examiner Martin Freeman Fargo Interview

    For the page, Lester Nygaard (a character on the tv series, Fargo) an interview with Freeman from examiner would be very helpful in talking about how the actor prepared for the role.

    --Joef1234 (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Joef1234: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Computer Business Review

    Informative trade publication with many articles useful in documenting history of computing in U.S. and UK.

    Argyriou (talk) 00:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Argyriou: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Mrskin.com

    Please white list the following link as it contains information relevant to the Samantha Ryan page.

    Link requested to be whitelisted: www.mrskin.com/not-in-kansas-anymore-ms-mance-the-big-dance---16524

    mrskin.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

    Holanthony (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Change.org online petition

    According to me this article should be whitelisted because I think the only reason this link is not allowed is because in the original link there are some letters in Thai, because this is a Thai online petition. This link would be very helpful for the upcoming wikipedia page of Amnesty International Thailand. In the examples of activist compaigns I talk about the online petition made by Amnesty Thailand against the Bill to amend Computer-related Crime Act in Thailand. This link would be my reference. Thank you.

    • Domain : change.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
    • Link: Link requested to be whitelisted: change.org/p/%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%99%E0%B8%8A-%E0%B8%AB%E0%B8%A2%E0%B8%B8%E0%B8%94-single-gateway-%E0%B8%AB%E0%B8%A2%E0%B8%B8%E0%B8%94%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%8E%E0%B8%AB%E0%B8%A1%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A2%E0%B8%A5%E0%B9%89%E0%B8%A7%E0%B8%87%E0%B8%82%E0%B9%89%E0%B8%AD%E0%B8%A1%E0%B8%B9%E0%B8%A5%E0%B8%AA%E0%B9%88%E0%B8%A7%E0%B8%99%E0%B8%9A%E0%B8%B8%E0%B8%84%E0%B8%84%E0%B8%A5
    • Link: Link requested to be whitelisted: change.org/p/สนช-หยุด-single-gateway-หยุดกฎหมายล้วงข้อมูลส่วนบุคคล

    (The link looks different once on the website) Robin Amnesty Thailand (talk) 06:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin Amnesty Thailand (talk • contribs) [reply]

    @Robin Amnesty Thailand: no Declined - we do not link to (ongoing) petitions (mainly per WP:SOAPBOX), petitions are only mentioned in Wikipedia when they are notable, which means that there is significant independent coverage for them. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    www.mixcloud.com/discover/the-beatdown/

    The Beatdown was a radio show Scroobius Pip ran on Xfm, 2013-2014. It was a live show, but all the shows are archived on Mixcloud: that is the only place they can now be found, so I believe a link is of interest to viewers of the following page: Scroobius Pip. Cfmdobbie (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Cfmdobbie: No, I don't think that they belong here. We are not here to link to every web-presence of the person, or anything that is related to them. In the text the radio show deserves a description, referenced to reliable, independent sources, but this list is something that is out of our scope. no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    vimnasiapress.pr.co/108242-nickelodeon-premieres-make-it-pop-a-new-musical-comedy-series-in-asia-on-monday-31-august-at-5pm-th-wib-6pm-hk-my-sg-and-6-30pm-ph

    Legitimate press release, for use as citation in Make It Pop. It was previously typoed as .coo and I got hit by the blacklist when trying to correct the link. nyuszika7h (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nyuszika7H: can this information be found on the official site, viacom.com? The site appears to be a front-end to that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: The official site for press releases seems to be http://www.nickpress.com/, but I can't seem to find that there (or any other official site with a Google search), that one is probably only for the U.S. nyuszika7h (talk) 08:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nyuszika7H: I did not do a thorough search (not always possible here), thanks for the information. It is a full link, so plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals from whitelist (sites to reblock)

    Troubleshooting and problems

    Discussion

    Common requests : archive.is

    I added a section to /Common requests about archive.is at /Common requests#archive.is, trying to explain what the consensus of the two RfCs means in terms of whitelisting the now blacklisted links. Please adapt if further clarification or interpretation is needed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    In /Common_requests#URL_shorteners there is a factual error about archive.is (aka archive.today). It is not a URL shortener. A URL obtained from archive.is does not redirect to the original longer URL. For a description of what archive.is actually does, please read on.
    In /Common requests#archive.is it says "pages on archive.is will not be whitelisted, unless one can show that there is no functional alternative". In specific cases, there may be an alternative place to find content archived on archive.is. But there is no alternative for the functionality provided by archive.is in a general sense. The function that archive.is provides, which I cannot find anywhere else on the Internet, is this: One can give archive.is a URL for any web page, and it will create a very close replica of that web page, complete with styles and images, and will archive it indefinitely. Now that archive page becomes a backup for the original page, should the original ever go offline. So, when one sees a web page that is one of its kind, and likely to have no substitute, one can cite that web page in Wikipedia, but also go to archive.is and archive that web page. In the future, if the original goes offline, the archived version can be consulted.
    The usual place where we find archived content is archive.org. But archive.org does not immediately archive web pages on demand, and it does a very poor job in any case of preserving images and styles. It's not a good replacement for archive.is.
    I understand the spam issue -- anybody can go to archive.is and archive a spam page and cite that in Wikipedia. We should think about a better solution than simply blacklisting archive.is, otherwise we are throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
    Rahul (talk) 08:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dhesi: - archive.is was blacklisted as a result of a community RfC. It is not blacklisted because of the spam issue that you describe. I understand what you mean (that you can go there now to archive something that may need a copy in the future), but a same copy may (and often does) already exist on other sites. Again, if such a copy (of sufficient quality) does not exist on another site, then archive.is for that specific case can be whitelisted (which is already a very loose interpretation of the RfC, which even calls for removal even if no alternatives exist). The handful of requests that where posted here show that in several cases good alternatives do exist.
    The spam issue that you do describe is true for all archives. If someone would apply an archive to evade the blacklist, then that specific case would go up for immediate blacklisting and likely the editor in question would run a significant risk to be blocked.
    You are right, archive.is is not an URL shortener, that text will need adaptation. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the last point, archive.is was already removed from the list of redirect services. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll point out that you can also take snapshots of pages at archive.org also, which isn't blacklisted. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    'Gadget' User:Beetstra/Gadget-Spam-whitelist-Handler.js

    Dear whitelist admins. I have been crafting a gadget in line with User:Beetstra/Gadget-Spam-blacklist-Handler.js, to make the process of whitelisting more automated.

    Activation: put importScript('User:Beetstra/Gadget-Spam-whitelist-Handler.js'); in Special:MyPage/vector.js (your personal vector.js) and save the page. It will only work for admins.

    What you get is on each of the 'addition' sections on this page a handful of extra edit links next to the edit-section link:

    • 'add WL' - starts the addition to whitelist process - it will close the request (waiting for confirmation - you have a possibility to adapt the final text), then upon confirmation will suggest the edit to be made to the actual whitelist (which also needs to be confirmed), and upon confirmation will edit the log (with links to the original discussion and also a link to the actual addition it just performed).
    • 'decline' - standard decline answer
    • 'CR?' - the often recurring 'did you read /Common requests?'-reply.

    For the 'add WL' process the script needs to know what to whitelist. I have therefore created {{WLRequestLink}}, which takes as parameter the actual link (without http://) that needs to be linked. There is a caveat to that, if there are multiple occasions of the template, then it will read all of them. If in the course of the discussion the link gets refined, and there are hence multiple occasions of the template, all of them will be parsed out of the text. Either one has to make sure that there are only templates for the actual links to be whitelisted before clicking 'add WL', or one has to do an intermediate adaptation (which can be done within the script).

    I hope this will help us handling these whitelistings a bit faster. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Beetstra: That's good work. The burden for me, however, isn't the physical act of responding to a request or editing the whitelist, it's slogging through this page and trying to maintain it, which has gotten so large and unwieldy I don't really like to come here anymore. Every once in a while I make an attempt to organize it. I don't see the point in maintaining categories of accepted, rejected, and withdrawn requests. It would be great if there were an archiving bot that would somehow recognize when a request has been answered and has had no further activity for a month, and then just move it to an archive. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Archiving

    As these pages tend to become really long, I was considering another mechanism for archiving these. What about making transcluded pages for the accepted, denied and stale requests, which are then automatically archived by one of the archiving bots (after 2-4 weeks or so). I will then set-up the gadget from the section above to be able to move the handled requests into one of those three depending on whether there is 1)  Done or plus Added, 2) no Declined or  Denied or 3) the rest. It would take away a lot of hassle on these pages (since we here use a two-phase archiving system which none of the archiving bots currently likes). Thoughts? --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    As I replied above, I don't see the point in maintaining separate sections for approved, done, added, etc. requests. If we need separate sections at all, let's just have pending and answered, nothing else.
    An analogous page would be WP:REFUND, where requests to undelete can also have multiple categories of answers, but the requests are simply archived. If anyone wants to search for them, they can just search the archive. The advantage on that page is that it has enough participation from administrators that any request old enough to archive will already have been answered, so the standard talk page archiving bot is sufficient. Here, it isn't so simple.
    Isn't there a way to have a bot archive a stale section that has had one of the 4 tags in it and no activity for, say, 1 month, regardless of where the section is on the page? ~Amatulić (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, didn't look at it this way. I'll consider whether I can just write something for a more straightforward archiving. I was already considering sub-pages so standard archiving could be applied to the subpages, while transclusion here keeps things like it was before. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I advocate keeping it simple to use and maintain. I'd be happy if this page had no major sections at all, just un-answered requests and answered requests that haven't yet aged off. I don't visit WP:ANI much, but doesn't that page have stale sections (like, no activity for a couple of days) be archived automatically regardless of where they are on the page? ~Amatulić (talk) 02:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll ask on the bot requests to see whether we can have a bot to handle this a bit more sophisticated (archiving everything after 2 weeks - the problem is that we have two subsections, one for requested additions and one for requested removals (which is more of an issue on WT:SBL and on the XLinkBot request page)). I'll also have a second look at the one-click-archiver-system (maybe cloning it, and adapting it for these pages), see if that helps here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Amatulic: Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Backing_up_spam_blacklist_and_whitelist_requests. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:17, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I thought you were referring just to this page (is there a removal section? I never noticed). The only existing analogy I can think of is WP:RFPP, which has separate sections for requests for protection and unprotection, and the sections get archived automatically and independently as far as I can tell. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I was originally only referring to this page, but other pages follow the same system and are also done manually. WP:RFPP is similar, though everything gets archived into one section, regardless of which subsection they came from (diff - the request for Template:Xt is in the 'reduction' section, though in diff just combined with the other two 'protect' sections).
    The removal section here is hardly used, but on WT:SBL it is quite heavily used (people do care to get pages from the blacklist, things that are whitelisted though unused stay generally whitelisted regardless unless they get abused). As the archives here are quite heavily used (by me at least; especially on the blacklist, but also the 'other' whitelist requests on a current request) I'd like to keep them separated as add and remove requests). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Other projects with active whitelists
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist&oldid=731276187"