MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives (current)→

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

  1. The link that you want whitelisted in the section title, like === === .
  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.

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|949432229#section_name}}

Note that requests from new or unregistered users are not usually considered.

Admins: use seth's tool to search the spamlists.

Request completed:
 Done {{Done}}
 Stale {{StaleIP}}
 Request withdrawn {{withdrawn}}
Request declined:
 Declined {{Declined}}
Not done {{Notdone}}
 Additional information needed {{MoreInfo}}
 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)

Pre-2014 articles links has been problematic since 2014 when it was taken over and its staff replaced by a pro-government one (see this Guardian article for details). However this means that the links to pre-2014 articles are being removed or at least cannot be added. I'm not sure what is the best way to deal with this situation, for now I'd like to request whitelisting of a specific url:

Link requested to be whitelisted: Linksearch en (https) (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: Alaexis¿question? 23:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Alaexis: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
@Beetstra:, could you instead use this regular expression suggested here to whitelist all pre-2014 Lenta articles? \blenta\.ru\/\w+\/20([2-9]\d|1([5-9]|4\/(1|0([4-9]|3\/([23]|1[2-9]))))) Alaexis¿question? 10:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Regex requested to be whitelisted: 1([5-9]

Lets try. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Alaexis: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry that I didn't notice this earlier. The above regex matches all articles on or after 12 March 2014, so it should actually be on the spam blacklist (replacing \blenta\.ru\b). I'll make the changes now. — Newslinger talk 10:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
minus Removed from MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. See Special:Diff/944860476. — Newslinger talk 10:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Resolved in MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. See Special:Diff/944861360. — Newslinger talk 11:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I've tested the new regex and it should be working as expected. — Newslinger talk 11:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Website of University College London. A useful primary source for UCL Medical School. feminist (talk) 11:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Feminist, where do you see this blacklisted? I do not see you run into a problem with this (no blacklist hits for this domain for your name), nor do I see blacklist hits on either of the two pages with respect to this domain. For as far as I see, is not blacklisted. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
{{Blacklisted-links}} appears on the UCL Medical School article. feminist (talk) 06:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Feminist, aah, I did not see that. That is due to .*mbbs.*admission.* (as Cyberbot noticed). That was spammed rather severely IIRC, so I would suggest to whitelist:
Link requested to be whitelisted:
(which I will do in the next edit). Dirk Beetstra T C 12:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@Feminist: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist, you can remove the template, or wait for the bot to do that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC) Linksearch en (https) (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: Link requested to be whitelisted: Link requested to be whitelisted: Link requested to be whitelisted:

OpIndia was recently blacklisted for doxing a Wikipedia editor, but I would like to use links to the site at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#OpIndia, where a discussion (which I hope to join later) is taking place as to whether or not the site will be depreciated. Thanks. SamHolt6 (talk) 06:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@SamHolt6:  Declined, we are not going to whitelist for the sake of discussion, which then also means that the links can be used elsewhere. Copy/paste of the broken url will suffice until they are needed in mainspace. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi SamHolt6, it's a bit late, since I already saw your comment in WP:RSN § OpIndia, but in the future, you can wrap blacklisted links in nowiki tags to disable them. Disabled links are not affected by the blacklist, and can be used in discussions. — Newslinger talk 11:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Newslinger: thanks for the tip. SamHolt6 (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Link requested to be whitelisted:

For the subject article. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Beetstra: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist for subject article. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC) links at Pornhub

The article Pornhub cites the website a few times as a primary source (as acceptable uses). Two examples are and, which I've added references to in an edit today. There are also a few other references with URLs missing that should have URLs. I don't know whether it's possible to whitelist as a domain specifically for the article Pornhub, but if not the individual examples I've given and other pages alluded to in the Reference section should be whitelisted. Thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Link requested to be whitelisted:
  • Link requested to be whitelisted:

For whitelisting. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bilorv: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC) (without spaces)

Needed for Allied Academies. But really the entire domain should be removed from the website. Yes it's a highjacked domain, but this is a really annoying blacklisting, that makes COI/ vandal fighting way harder than it has to be and causes issues for a bunch of archived discussions, or even new discussions about predatory journals and Beall's list in general. You can't even make a whitelisting request without triggering the damned blacklist. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. If you would have read the instructions, you would not have had problems. For the rest, WMF is thataway. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Linksearch en (https) (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain:

Link requested to be whitelisted:

For the article Xlibris, which has a broken reference to "FAQ" but when I try to restore it, it gives the error that this page has been blacklisted. Therefore, it is impossible to re-add this reference. There is currently a reference error that cannot be fixed. Since this is the article about the blacklisted site itself, I feel it is important to have this reference whitelisted for this specific case. (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The FAQ is going to be a problem due to its promotional nature, but we could whitelist for the infobox. Guy (help!) 18:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Link requested to be whitelisted:

For the article on red light therapy. The web page in question appears to be a rather thorough and carefully researched piece on this kind of light therapy, and I would like to be able to refer to it as a suitable secondary source on RLT's effectiveness for treating arthritis. The author reviews a series of medical journals and presents her findings: there is nothing at all promotional about the article. Please consider whitelisting it. Thanks. A loose necktie (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@A loose necktie: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

is a source supporting details of Offensive Security's Offensive Security Certified Professional certification and training, and being well known, etc. -- Yae4 (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Yae4, the site is primarily aimed at selling stuff, and their resources are hence self serving. Surely it supports the material that they are selling. For other use, there should be better, non-promotional, sources. The use of this site was in previous discussions mainly described as only useful for primary sourcing. Just being ‘a source supporting’ does not cut it for me. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC) is regarded as a pretty reliable source about business related South African news so I am supprised to see it black listed. Its black listing is also causing some impairment when adding South Africa related content on Wikipedia. This is why I feel it should be whitelisted as it will benifit all South Africa related articles and South Africa related economic/business articles in particular.--Discott (talk) 08:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@JzG and Praxidicae: Since this is related to the discussion at WP:SBL § "duleweboffice", do you have any comments on this request? — Newslinger talk 08:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Newslinger, the "about us" page redirects to, which is not a good sign. Where's the evidence this is considered a reliable source? Guy (help!) 12:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
There is a link to on the left side of the site's footer, which indicates that Fin24 is a subsidiary of Media24. Media24 owns a significant number of the publications in List of newspapers in South Africa. I'm not familiar with South African press, but Fin24 appears to be the South African equivalent to Yahoo! Finance. — Newslinger talk 21:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Comparing Fin24 to the South African version of Yahoo! Finance is, I feel, a good comparison. News24 in this analogy would be the equivalent of Yahoo News. Only difference is that Naspers, the company that owns Media24 and all of these subsidiaries, started off as a news company and grew into a tech company much later. Indeed its original and still flagship news brand is Die Burger which is a highly regarded Afrikaans language daily newspaper in South Africa. Although one with a politically controversial distant past in the country. Other subsidiaries like careers24 or traveler24 are much less reliable. The quality of Media24 brands varies greatly in this way. WikiProject Africa has put together a list of trusted news sources from different countries which a) might be helpful to people here generally and b) I encourage people to checkout and double check. As African editors are encouraged by community leaders on the continent to refer to it for African based reliable sources.--Discott (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, just coming back to this. It was added because like Deccan Chronicle and parts of TOI and several other big name newspapers, they do not differentiate their paid content, user submitted content or press releases from their editorial staff (if they even have any.) They often publish pushed PRs and blatant spam. Praxidicae (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
From a spot check, most of the content on Fin24 does not appear to be promotional or user-generated. For example, these articles are linked from the front page:
While many of the other sites listed in WP:SBL § "duleweboffice" are clearly unreliable, I think blacklisting Fin24 in its entirety is a serious mistake. Neither The Times of India (RSP entry) nor the Deccan Chronicle is blacklisted, even though a portion of their content is not suitable for citation. International examples include Forbes (RSP entry) and social networks like Facebook (RSP entry) and Twitter (RSP entry), none which are blacklisted despite having a large proportion of promotional content. It would be inconsistent to blacklist Fin24, a large media property in South Africa (with an Alexa rank of 62 in South Africa), because a minority of its content is not usable on Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 01:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

One specific link

More or less needed, in my opinion, in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency (TV series), as a primary source about the number of signatures which gets from time to time "updated" in the article by various editors, but without changing the old secondary source/without adding a new source. The use of the petition itself is ok per WP:PRIMARY, and would ensure no unsourced numbers are added. (See my last changes in the article in which I restored the old sourced but outdated numbers.) On the other hand, there are other means how to deal with such edits in the article, so if declined, no big deal; not sure how much work it is. Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 09:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@WikiHannibal:  Declined, these are raw numbers, and are meaningless without independent secondary sourcing. If numbers need to be updated one needs a new independent source stating a new number. Everything else can just be reverted. Updating the numbers based on the daily/hourly/microsecond change of the number is nothing else but soapboxing itself. I presume the petition is still open and active, and that is exactly the reason why we don't want to link to these sources? --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Nevermind. If I understand it correctly, the petition itself is notable (more or less, for the sake of the debate) bcs it has secondary sources but the rise in the numbers of signatures is not notable (it has no secondary sources). I can live with that, though I belive once notability of the petition has been established (by the sec. source), there is no reason not to use the petition as a primary source about itself, to provide more up to date info. This is not the same as just adding a sentence to an article, stating that "a petition on.. the topic of the article.., was launched"+ref to (Which is why was blacklisted, I guess.) WikiHannibal (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

One specific link

relevant wikipedia page:,_California Hello, new to wikipedia. The requested addition to the whitelist is not a whole website, but one exeption. This link is required for referencing as it denotes that Ian Carter (IDubbbz) and Michael Stevens (Vsauce) live in Inglewood, California. This is unique as both are youtubers, so a native youtube link for referencing would be natural. It's said in one of Ian Carter's videos off handedly. I've used this info to add that they are notable residents of Inglewood.

  • Link requested to be whitelisted:

it also goes to the appropriate time in the video where Ian says the information. Thanks. Sorry if I got anything wrong. 6th of April, 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by VN28 (talkcontribs) 12:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@VN28:  Declined, we do not use shortening services (and especially not the one, which are heavily spammed by spambots). Please expand the link to come from ''. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed removals from Whitelist (web pages or link patterns to reblock)

What is Wiki.RIP There is a free information resource on the Internet. It is open to any user. Wiki is a library that is public and multilingual.

The basis of this page is on Wikipedia. Text licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License..

Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. is an independent company that is not affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation (Wikimedia Foundation).

Privacy Policy      Terms of Use      Disclaimer