MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2016/10

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

Use in talk pages[edit]

I found out about the blacklist just now because I tried to cite a blacklisted page in a talk page Talk:Battery terminal, and since I find no information on this page about how do deal with such link in talk pages, want to seek advice.

The note I added to the talk page references text I found at thehulltruth.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 thehulltruth.com/boating-forum/594786-marine-batteries-terminal-size-change.html#b

Why was this page blacklisted, and what's the appropriate way for me to reference it on the talk page? Should I request that this specific URL be whitelisted? Or is there a preferred method?Peter K. Sheerin 01:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@PetesGuide: Regarding why this was blacklisted: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/July_2010#First_batch_of_Internet_Brands_domains. Massive case of spamming.
Regarding the talkpages, for discussion being able to click is indeed easier, but it is not really needed, what you did here ('thehulltruth.com/boating-forum/594786-marine-batteries-terminal-size-change.html') is sufficient for discussion (unfortunately the other parties in the discussion will have to copy-paste, and not just click). If you need it in content space, it can be whitelisted if you can make a case for inclusion. I hope this helps.

Mixcloud[edit]

  • I was wondering if the following two links may be unblocked as they are both desired, and coincidentally both from the same domain.


I wanted to use them on the Wayne_Wilder article as references to radio shows that the artists has done in recent times. The information in these two recordings will help back-up information on the Wikipedia page while also providing a wealth of information yet to be documented on the page. They also act as a good reference point for people who want to hear some recordings of his music for free. Thank you. Whatsername92 (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

examiner.com/a-667352~Towson_gets_free_wireless_Internet.html[edit]

I want to use it as a reference on Piggybacking (Internet access) because it highlights an early instance of government sponsorship of public wireless networks. The Examiner is noted as a tabloid, but the article in question is newsworthy. The protection filter that triggered it, examiner.com/, also blocks reputable publications such as The Washington Examiner. --2601:587:101:12CA:C44:44:53DE:11D (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist.
Note that this does not block http://washingtongexaminer.com. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FishEaters.com and Chabad.org[edit]

Lets stop flogging this dead horse. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Note: Most of the following was also posted on the Spam Blacklist discussion page for reasons you'll understand after you read, and has been modified from the version posted there for obvious reasons:

Through a comment made on a blog, I came to learn about the (unwarranted, IMO) blacklisting of a traditional Catholic website called FishEaters, located at www.FishEaters.com That site's owner was accused of having been a "linkspammer" after having added links to that site back in 2004 or 2005, before there were any rules in place about adding links to one's own site. The site owner was also accused of adding "too many" links, but after asking for clarification of the rules and about what constitutes "too many links," received none. An editor named "Dominick," who seems to have had it in for traditional Catholics, edit warred against the site owner. Another editor, named JZG, who later became an admin, sided with Dominick and, immediately after becoming an admin, had the site blacklisted. The FishEaters site owner explains how she saw what happened on this page: fisheaters.com/wikipedia2.html.

It seems that any time she or anyone else attempted or attemps to have the site whitelisted, JZG immediately enters into the conversation, repeats his same arguments which are based on misunderstandings or falsehoods and, if you ask me, bigotry. He then down-votes the idea, and that's that since other Admins seem to automatically defer to his "take" on things. In other words, FishEaters is blacklisted for bogus reasons, and can't get whitelisted because the person who blacklisted maintains his bogus reasons.

I request a total re-evaluation of this site's blacklisting based on the site itself, without reference to JZG's input, as he apparently has an anti-Catholic attitude (see the wikipedia2.html page mentioned above, which links to pages here on which JZG refers to Catholics as "papists") and a personal animus against the site owner, whom he wrongly perceives as using Wikipedia to promote her site rather than simply adding links to relevant entries to give Wikipedia visitors more information on the entries in question. Note the links on wikipedia2.html, too, to material posted here that expresses the idea that, in essence, JZG never changes his mind, never revises opinions based on new information, and that he demonstrates a pretty nasty attitude toward people he sees, rightly or wrongly, as being on his "bad side."

The same wikipedia2.html page talks about how the FishEaters site -- which is the largest, second oldest, and very respected traditional Catholic website on the internet, one that is used in RCIA classes, in parish bulletins, is referenced in books and periodicals, which has a discussion forum with almost 6,000 members, and which is not a monograph, but a non-profit charity registered in the State of Indiana -- is disallowed a single link from the entry "Traditionalist Catholicism," which is all the site owner asked for when requesting white listing -- all while chabad.org is allowed over 700 links. The blog post in which I read about all this linked to Google returns for the search terms "site:en.wikipedia.org chabad.org" which now gives 4,870 links in return.

I find it extremely odd and a sign of possible anti-Catholic bigotry that FishEaters was blacklisted for having had "too many" links, and now can't even have one link from the entry "Traditionalist Catholicism" while chabad.org can have almost 5,000 links from often totally irrelevant entries (they at least used to even have a link from the entry "Waldorf Salad," according to that wikipedia2.html page).

I will post this as well on the Blacklist page, but post it here, too, because I think it only fair that if a Catholic site is blacklisted for having "too many links," and if that site isn't whitelisted given that the blacklisting was due to FishEaters having had "too many links," which stemmed directly from a lack of response to requests for clarification, made by the site owner, as to Wikipedia policy, and from what seems to be anti-Catholic bigotry coupled with a single Admin (JZG) -- one who calls Catholics "papists" -- being totally unwilling to honestly evaluate what actually happened with the blacklisting of the FishEaters website, then chabad.org should be blacklisted as well.

I will also try to get this information to Jim Wales and the Board of Trustees.

Desired action:

A) Whitelist FishEaters.com so that at least a link can be added from the Traditionalist Catholicism entry. Consideration of this should be carried out without the input of JZG who clearly has a serious animus against the site, is apparently bigoted against Catholics, and is, shall we say, inordinately stubborn, being extremely unwilling to reconsider his past decisions, even if they were made based on faulty premises and incomplete information. Given the reasons for the original blacklisting, the lack of clear linking policy at the time in question (over a decade ago!), and the lack of response to the blacklisted website owner's repeated requests for clarification and help, a general whitelisting would be more just.

OR

B) If FishEaters.com isn't whitelisted, then chabad should be blacklisted as well given that the reason given for blacklisting FishEaters.com was that there were "too many links" to it from Wikipedia, even though those links were on perfectly relevant entries and were nowhere near in number -- as in "in a completely different numerical universe" -- of the almost 5,000 links chabad.org has now.

Thank you for your time and consideration! Schoemann (talk) 07:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has been raised at User talk:Jimbo Wales#FishEaters and JZG where User:Black Kite notes that the Fisheaters.com site states that ""The purpose of this site is to bring souls to the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church -- the Church headed by Christ and built on the rock of St. Peter, the Church against which the gates of Hell will never prevail. Fish Eaters strives to do this by showing Protestants the errors of Protestantism...." The site states that "This site was written by Tracy Tucciarone ("Vox Clamantis" at the forum), an Italian-American laywoman". I don't consider it appropriate for a strong adherent to a faith to ask that someone that they think is against that faith shouldn't participate in a discussion. Doug Weller talk 15:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see it was raised last year.[1]. Pinging those involved then. @Evrik, Stifle, Beetstra, and JzG:. Doug Weller talk 15:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those who link to chabad.org are undoubtedly "strong adherents" to their faith. The thrust of the problem is this: before there were rules in place about adding links to one's own site, way back in 2004 or 2005, that site owner linked to pages on her site that provided further information on the subjects of various relevant Wikipedia entries. Someone who apparently hated traditional Catholicism, a user named Dominick, removed any link she added. She was then accusing of having added "too many" links, and when she repeatedly sought clarification as to what that meant, she received no answers and her site was blacklisted by JZG, a person who calls Catholics "papists," and who was extremely nasty to the site-owner. She later tried to get the site whitelisted so that a single link from the entry "Traditionalist Catholicism" could be had, and JZG nixed it. Others over the years tried to get the site whitelisted, with the same result, with JZG accusing the site of being "linkspam." Dealing with this situation always comes down to JZG having the last word, even though he is obviously biased and self-admittedly unwilling to ever change his mind. The issue isn't that JZG isn't a traditional Catholic; it's that JZG allows his beliefs to affect how he admins Wikipedia (at least when it comes to the topic of Traditional Catholicism).
What is requested is that this all be looked at with fresh eyes, without JZG being involved. As to the site in question, it's a non-profit organization that has as its purpose teaching about traditional Catholicism. It was written by a non-cleric, but so are many of the articles at chabad.org. The site's "About This Site" page says:
This site, which has been on the internet since 1996, is often used in RCIA programs, and is linked to from the websites of various parishes and chapels, cleric-run blogs and websites, the Catholic Encyclopedia, Latin Mass Magazine, Our Sunday Visitor, The Revealer and other credible, scholarly resources. It has been cited in Catholic Digest Magazine, dioscesan and parish newsletters, offerings from Circle Media, Inc. (publishers of the National Catholic Register and Faith and Family magazine), newspapers, and other such printed materials.
FishEaters.com is owned and run by FishEaters, Inc., a non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation.
The site, in other words, isn't some fly-by-night monograph; it's a catechetical tool used by Catholic priests and RCIA programs, is referenced in Catholic literature, and is well-known and well-respected in the traditional Catholic world. I only request that it be whitelisted and that a single link be allowed from the "Traditional Catholicism" entry. Barring that, I request it be removed from the Spam blacklist and that references to the site as being a "linkspammer" be removed because it's simply not true, is libelous, and affects how other Wiki-based media treat it. For a single Admin to have had complete control over this situation for over a decade now is not right. And for FishEaters to be slandered as a "spammer" after adding, for ex., links to the site's page on the traditional Catholic use of sacramentals on the entry "Sacramentals" while chabad.org has almost 5,000 links in place --- just wow. Schoemann (talk) 00:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: There is the request at m:Talk:spam blacklist#chabad.org for removal of the url. From my quick reading of the discussion it would seem that the matter is a local enWP issue only, rather than a global issue and may be better managed and resolved here. It does to make sense to me to have a blacklist here, then refer discussions to Meta, then have a whitelist discussion here, when the matter is spamming here. So please make your decision and inform meta of 1) keep global blacklist, or 2) remove global blacklist with the result of the discussion or why. Please include permalinks to the conclusion. @Doug Weller:

For reference sake it seems valuable to provide a link to numerous local discussions about this domain https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&profile=advanced&fulltext=Search&search=fisheaters.com&ns4=1&ns5=1&ns8=1&ns9=1&searchToken=cnglaiw0vgca27c9mbq5yd7rc
— billinghurst sDrewth 14:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Schoemann: no Declined. We are not blanket whitelisting this site, it was abused quite heavily, and no-one has shown any specific use - there are NO granted specific whitelistings. If you can show specific use, get those specific links whitelisted as needed for the specific pages. Something that was discussed before (including with you), and for which we have not seen any granted cases. Yet there has been, ever since 2005, insistence to link to this site, but still no-one (and especially no established editors) was where able to convince us of the use of this site.
I find it rather brutal to request blacklisting of a non-abused similar site because they contain similar/the same information. The reason for blacklisting is that fisheaters.com was abused. That you bring up that argument does strongly suggest that you have a vested interest in linking to this site, and not only because you think it is needed to improve Wikipedia
I also find it rather telling that by accusing User:JzG of constant interference that you are very aware of the previous discussions, and hence likely related to those discussions. It is close to an ad hominim - you are trying to disqualify the editor instead of using arguments why this should be used.
@Billinghurst: It is worth looking into the reasons why this was globally blacklisted indeed - was this blacklisted globally when there was no local blacklist? I do note the involvement of editors who are more interested in having this linked than in using it to improve Wikipedia (seen the remarks regarding JzG and the insistence to have other sites blacklisted because they have the same nature) - which does make me feel that, for now, maybe this should be on the global blacklist... --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is once again a matter of editors not listening and relying on false information which simply gets repeated. If you'd read what I wrote, I know about the history of this blacklisting because of a blog post, one made at Steve Sailer's blog, which linked to wikipedia2.html at the Fisheaters website. No one is able to convince Admins here of anything because they resort to JzG's account of the blacklisting, which is false and has been for over a decade now. The cycle repeats itself every time the issue is brought up, which is why I ask for a fresh look at this with the hope that the site can be whitelisted enough to be linked to from the single entry "Traditionalist Catholicism." I don't care about a global whitelisting, only that the site be allowed to be linked to from the entry "Traditionalist Catholicism." I've explained the reasons why the site should be linked to from that page. My interest in this is based on a number of things, especially my wanting the Traditionalist Catholic entry to be comprehensive. I am also personally bothered by the fact that Lubavitcher Jews can have almost 5,000 links to chabad.org while traditional Catholics can't have a single link to the oldest and largest traditional Catholic site on the internet from the single entry on the topic of traditional Catholicism. Explain to me how this is just and not totally hypocritical. Schoemann (talk) 20:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Schoemann: No, this is once again a matter of editors not listening and not understanding why and when we whitelist links. We whitelist (or delist, if it concerns the whole domain) because we feel that the abuse has stopped and a link is of proven use to the project. We do not whitelist/delist if editors keep saying that the blacklisting was wrong, that the site needs to be linked from one single entry, and that other links are linked anyway. We are not talking about justice here, we are talking here about inclusion standards. We are not writing a linkfarm here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will comment only to add, declaring that I am an active and devoted Catholic, that I endorse Beetstra's point of view. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am listening for sure, but was definitely not understanding. I think that the link is useful to the project for reasons I've stated, reasons having nothing to do with what other links are linked. I think that allowing a link to the site from the "Traditionalist Catholic" entry enhances that entry, that it provides researchers with relevant information that someone studying the topic of "Traditionalist Catholicism" would find useful. So forget about the chabad stuff, if you would, and let's focus on just that single issue. I tried to get that site whitelisted a while ago when editing the "Traditionalist Catholicism" entry before I knew anything about the chabad links, and I did so because I think that that site should be linked to from that entry for the reasons I've already outlined (the site is the oldest and largest Traditional Catholic site on the internet, it's used by priests and in RCIA programs, it's cited in books and in newspapers, has the largest traditional Catholic online community associated with it, etc.). But I was told that the site was "spammed." OK. But then, this week, I read the blog post that pointed to wikipedia2.html on that site and learned about all the chabad stuff and the story of how it got blacklisted, which really bothered me and made me want to try again to get a link on the "Traditionalist Catholic" entry. If bringing all that up is the wrong approach to take, OK. Lesson learned. But I still think that having a link to that site from the entry "Traditionalist Catholicism" would improve that page and be helpful to people researching that topic. So can we just work from there and deal with the possibility of whitelisting enough for a link from that entry based solely on the reasons I listed above as to why I think it should be allowed? Schoemann (talk) 05:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we entirely understand that you think this site is of surpassing value to Wikipedia, but you do not seem to understand why others do not. You have fewer than 150 edits, and over 10% of them are arguing for inclusion of this site: it is absolutely clear that you are a fan. However, it promotes a specific strand of catholicism that is defiantly non-mainstream, and there are criticisms even in catholic sources, with some websites regretting they are unable to use it as a source because it promotes a fringe view within catholicism. And bear in mind that this regret is expressed in the context of sites that want to use fisheaters for its apologetics, which is orthogonal to Wikipedia's purpose.
We have been discussing this site on Wikipedia since the end of 2005, when its webmaster first started what was agreed to be a campaign of link spamming. It's listed as a perennial request at the main meta blacklist, because of the repeated trips here by the webmaster seeking to be able to get link juice. At no point in the years you have been involved, have you followed the simple advice given to you numerous times: to request whitelisting for specific pages where there is consensus they might provide reliable sources for specified articles. I suspect that if you ask for blanked whitelisting again, you may be topic banned. There is a limit to everyone's patience with people who don't want to hear the answer they are getting. Guy (Help!) 07:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Schoemann: You raised it in the past in the right place: on the talkpage of the page where you want to add it to (revision of 19:22, 19 February 2016, which stood like this up to a couple of days ago; initial request is your ~20th edit). You got zero support (you only waited for 2 days, but it is now 2 years since the initial request - still the support is zero). If there is support from other (established) editors that that link adds something per what our external links guideline suggests for external links, then we can re-discuss this, otherwise these, and future, requests will be summarily closed as no Declined.

Further discussion at this time is hence futile. no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.

ask.fm/MrMuto[edit]

Why?: While this site can probably be used to poorly source articles in certain circumstances (like many other online/primary sources), I have used it in the past to source production info for the Cartoon Network series Adventure Time; the show's executive producer and showrunner (i.e. Adam Muto) uses it to answer fan questions about the show. Since, in the context that I use it, it meets all the requirements for inclusion according to WP:SELFSOURCE. I am only requesting that Adam Muto's (i.e. "MrMuto") subpage be whitelisted.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gen. Quon: per the previous request you made regarding this site, I would suggest to start a discussion on meta regarding the global blacklisting. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot I posted here. Thanks for the heads up.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

del(dot)icio(dot)us[edit]

@Chris troutman: no Declined, http://www.delicious.com is listed as the official website, and other official websites are then unnecessary per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: Perhaps I was unclear. The URL I provided has replaced the current one. Delicious.com is no longer correct. That's why I submitted the request. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Link to a Google Custom Search Engine[edit]

This Google Custom Search can be used to find reliable video game related sources. I'd like to add it as a quicklink on my userpage (it's currently commented out). It is similar to this whitelisted search. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anarchyte: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Links to SermonAudio.com[edit]

  • sermonaudio.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=616151747570 - a dialogue between Dr James White and Justin Lee on the question of gay Christianity
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=7180565810 - a sermon by Dr Carl McIntire
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Charles_Provan - list of sermons by Charles Provan
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=48121753414 - a conference presentation by Dr. Michael Barrett

SermonAudio.com is blacklisted due to some spam pointed out to me by Dirk Beetstra in [2]. It is unfortunate that somebody at one time felt it necessary and acceptable to spam wikipedia with references to what is generally considered a mainstream online publisher in the evangelical Christian community. If this spamming was done by somebody from Sermon Audio itself, I hope they have been reprimanded, since the blacklist no doubt stops many incoming links to their site.

I would like to request these whitelist links. Many well-respected Christian ministries use Sermon Audio for publishing all their sermons and podcasts, including Alpha and Omega Ministries, John MacArthur's Grace to You, Wretched Radio, and many others. The first link above is the one I actually wanted to publish myself. The other three are links that other people in the past clearly attempted to make but were blocked by the blacklist, but they probably lacked the knowledge or wherewithal to request whitelist exceptions.

In addition, while I understand the blacklist decision on SermonAudio.com as a whole, there are many reliable sources on Sermon Audio that I hope will be allowed under the whitelist in the future.

I apologize if I've done anything wrong in this process, as this is my first time doing it. Thank you for your consideration. Fool4jesus (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fool4jesus: On which pages these 4 links are going to be linked, and how (external links, or references)? --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2016/10&oldid=1108772573"