Spam blacklists |
---|
|
The associated 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
- The link that you want whitelisted in the section title, like === example.com/help/index.php === .
- The Wikipedia page on which you want to use the link
- An explanation why it would be useful to the encyclopedia article proper
- 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 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|1024014934#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}} |
![]() |
{{StaleIP}} |
![]() |
{{withdrawn}} |
Request declined: | |
![]() |
{{Declined}} |
![]() |
{{Notdone}} |
Information: | |
![]() |
{{MoreInfo}} |
![]() |
{{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)
econlog.econlib.org
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- econlog.econlib.org: Linksearch en (https) (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com • Alexa
I'd like to restore the references from this revision:
- econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/06/the_ideological.html (already whitelisted)
- Link requested to be whitelisted:
econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/06/two_tries_at_th.html
- Link requested to be whitelisted:
econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/07/the_conservativ.html
- Link requested to be whitelisted:
econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/07/religious_turin.html
- Link requested to be whitelisted:
econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/07/judge_the_relig.html
- Link requested to be whitelisted:
econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/06/a_hawk-dove_ide.html
I don't think this domain should be on the blacklist at all, but since my request for that was declined, whitelisting the blog's subdomain would be ideal. If that's not possible either, then just these 5 links. — Omegatron (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- Omegatron, this is a thing made up by Bryan Caplan, who has been spammed to all hell on Wikipedia, and all the references are to "econlib" despite his association with them (so they are not independent). I'm stunned that we even have an article. It was basically a blog post and the idea has close to zero traction in the literature despite its assiduous promotion. Why would we need half a dozen links to a think-tank, rather than just one, which is already arguably too many? Guy (help! - typo?) 19:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- JzG: Yeah, I was surprised we didn't have an article, so I reverted the previous deletion. I understand that the domain was being spammed in the past, but that doesn't make the links any less informative about the facts they're being used to reference. Lots of things mentioned on blogs are notable.
- For the record, I'm not a paid spammer, I'm not familiar with this domain or blog, I'm not libertarian, I'd never heard of Bryan Caplan before reverting this article, but I had heard of the ideological Turing test before this, multiple times. It sounds like you've had a bad experience with the spammers, or maybe just personally dislike Caplan/libertarians, but try to see this from the perspective of a Wikipedia reader who wants to know more about this topic that they've heard of before? — Omegatron (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- Omegatron, OK. The problem with the previous article is that it was created by a spammer promoting Caplan and the Liberty Fund. That sets off the red flags, and is also why this site is blacklisted (we had routine material like Areopagitica represented as "published by" the Online Library of Liberty, and spammers were replacing Gutenberg and other neutral sources with this site). It was blatant WP:REFSPAM and done for ideological and commercial reasons. Yes, their presentation is slick and easy to read. That's the whole point: to suck in people interested in a subject, and make an ideological site, their go-to. It's Newsmax for economics.
- I have no issue with a genuinely sourced article based on mainstream academic work, but as a notional philosophy topic we can't be using LessWrong, Patheos or primary sourced bert blogs and think-tanks for this, it's entirely against NPOV to rely on in-universe sources for a thing invented from whole cloth by a libertarian activist with virtually no outside scrutiny. Even the sources you've now added don't amount to a significant literature on the topic. Compare this with the actual Turing test, which has real weight. All Caplan did was apply a catchy brand to existing thought (which, to be fair, is on-brand: it's what right-wing think tanks are for, making the extreme, especially, seem not only obvious but widely supported and indeed incontrovertible - that's how the fringe judicial philosophy of "originalism" was mainstreamed by the Federalist Society into a qualifying test for Republican-appointed judges).
- X was proposed by minor figure Y in Year, source, minor figure's blog proposing it in Year, is not how Wikipedia sourcing is supposed to go. Nor should we be succumbing to the circular referencing used by think tanks to inflate the importance of the things they promote. That is how the entire climate change denialism shit show happened. Let's not pretend that bad-faith arguments are in good faith, when sourcing Wikipedia articles.
- Frankly I think you'd have been better staring afresh, rather than resurrecting a spam article. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Please allow archive.org links to old content from faqs.org
- faqs.org: Linksearch en (https) (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com • Alexa
- archive.org: Linksearch en (https) (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com • Alexa
- Regex requested to be whitelisted:
\barchive\.org\/.*?faqs\.org\/
I wanted to fix the broken link in the second reference in the article about Dave the Resurrector but could not, apparently because any mention of FAQs.org, even within a link to another site, is blocked. (For what it's worth, the latest Archive.org mirrored copy with the actual content is https://web.archive.org/web/20140127005825/http://www.f*a*q*s.org/faqs/usenet/cancel-faq/appendix/ where you will have to remove the asterisks.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22faqs.org%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 currently finds 357 Wikipedia articles which contain this text, the vast majority of which are probably links to the site.
Where these links are now broken, it would be useful to be able to resurrect them. I have no insight into which FAQs.org pages have been removed over the years; many links to the site still work for the time being, although it has apparently come under irresponsible management at some point.
For context, this site used to be the de facto official repository of Usenet FAQs, and it continues to host some of that legacy content.
era (Talk | History) 09:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Eeera:
Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. Can you please test whether this works? --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Whitelist specific URLs from Kickstarter.com for a Sandbox
kickstarter.com: Linksearch en (https) (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com • Alexa
I am wanting to start work on a semi-large article called Pebble (watch), which I think needs a rewrite in order to correctly discuss its subject, as I noted in the talk page. In order to work on this over multiple days, I am attempting to copy it into a sandbox in my userspace here in order to not affect the main article while being able to iterate on it. However, I cannot save the sandbox page because approved references in the original Wikipedia article include web pages from kickstarter.com. I would like this sandbox page to be whitelisted from links to kickstarter so I can work on the original article there. I'm kinda new to this, so I hope I'm doing this correctly!
Known URLs affected:
- www.kickstarter.com/projects/597507018/pebble-e-paper-watch-for-iphone-and-android/posts/400063
- www.kickstarter.com/projects/597507018/pebble-e-paper-watch-for-iphone-and-android/posts/206882
- www.kickstarter.com/projects/597507018/pebble-e-paper-watch-for-iphone-and-android/posts/207595
- www.kickstarter.com/projects/597507018/pebble-time-awesome-smartwatch-no-compromises
- www.kickstarter.com/projects/597507018/pebble-2-time-2-and-core-an-entirely-new-3g-ultra
- www.kickstarter.com/projects/getpebble/pebble-2-time-2-and-core-an-entirely-new-3g-ultra/posts/1752929
- www.kickstarter.com/projects/597507018/pebble-time-awesome-smartwatch-no-compromises/updates
While it would be helpful for these urls to be whitelisted, I would like to ask (if possible) for the domain kickstarter.com to be whitelisted for the aforementioned Sandbox page as well as for the original Wikipedia article, Pebble (watch), as Kickstarter was core to the Pebble's history. Thanks! :) ~the.one.and.the.only~ (talk) 05:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- ~the.one.and.the.only~, that would be a terrible idea. These are primary affiliated and heavily promotional sources, any significant information will be reflected in reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- JzG, I agree that better sources other than kickstarter should be found. The primary reason of this request was to move a copy of the article to a sandbox on my user page so that I can work on some major editing over time, iterating and improving it before I make any changes that affect the main article. The URLs listed above are already in the main article, so either editors before me got exceptions approved for these sites, or kickstarter was not in a blacklist at the time. Wouldn't it be counterproductive to remove existing references before I begin editing? Let me know if there is some other way I should go about this - I'm open to suggestions!... ~the.one.and.the.only~ (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- ~the.one.and.the.only~, just obfuscate or comment out. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- JzG, I agree that better sources other than kickstarter should be found. The primary reason of this request was to move a copy of the article to a sandbox on my user page so that I can work on some major editing over time, iterating and improving it before I make any changes that affect the main article. The URLs listed above are already in the main article, so either editors before me got exceptions approved for these sites, or kickstarter was not in a blacklist at the time. Wouldn't it be counterproductive to remove existing references before I begin editing? Let me know if there is some other way I should go about this - I'm open to suggestions!... ~the.one.and.the.only~ (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- @~the.one.and.the.only~:
Declined just comment them out, or work on the article in mainspace. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
libgen.life forum post by founder for reference
libgen.life: Linksearch en (https) (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com • Alexa
The Library Genesis has had repeated disputes over the project URLs, I would like to reference a post by the founder of Library Genesis on the libgen.life forums. The libgen.life domain is a forum for discussing the project which is caught by the \blibgen\b
regex but does not host Library Genesis content. Here is the specific post by the founder I would like to reference:
- Link requested to be whitelisted:
libgen.life/viewtopic.php?p=80161#p80161
Soapwort (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Breitbart Author
Request whitelist of this specific url for article Draft:Dustin Stockton. www.breitbart.com/author/dustin-stockton/ This is not being used as a citation for any story... simply being used to cite that he was a reporter for Breitbart News. DoctorTexan (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Proposed removals from Whitelist (web pages or link patterns to re-block)
The Tribune
It is a local newspaper that contains accurate and verified information. Kindly remove it from the blacklist Uriyah Unknown (talk) 05:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
General discussion
Malta Genealogy
I have made an edit on the page Edgar Atheling stating that a minor Italian family claims descent from him. This page is unreliable, and in my edits I use this to show how unlikely this is.
I would like this page to be allowed as a source for this one article. MCMax05 (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- MCMax05, please read instructions at top of this page and then make a post in the right way in the right place, we don’t understand you like this. Dirk Beetstra T C 03:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)