Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2019/04

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

UK parliament petition website on archive.org

[edit]

I'm trying to add the correct number of total signatures for a list on UK Parliament petitions website. It's a petition from 2007 and the current BBC reference shows a total of 1.7 million signatures. However, as the archived page demonstrates, it increased to 1,811,414. I can't find the final number elsewhere. I read /Common requests but this petition ended more than 12 years ago, so WP:SOAP shouldn't apply. Johndavies837 (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Johndavies837: plus Added to whitelist, though I don't know how an already closed petition can increase with such a significant number. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

European censorship petitions on Change.org

[edit]

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 requested to be whitelisted: change.org/p/european-parliament-stop-the-censorship-machinery-save-the-internet

The signpost would like to use this link in the next "News and notes" piece regarding the EU copyright directive. Ping @Smallbones, the new Editor-in-Chief and the author of the piece.

Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 04:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well I just found MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Common requests, which says that Requests to link to petition sites will, in all but exceptional cases, be summarily denied. - hopefully this qualifies as an exceptional case - its not being used in an article, but rather in Wikipedia's own reporting about a current news story. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: change.org/p/jimmy-wales-founder-of-wikipedia-create-and-enforce-new-policies-that-allow-for-true-scientific-discourse-about-holistic-approaches-to-healing/responses/11054

Likewise for the "In focus" piece. again. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyS712: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

www.uofa.edu/aboutus/

[edit]

For subject official website. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Beetstra: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

bitcointalk.org on archive.org

[edit]
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: web.archive.org/web/20180220142344/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2897545.0
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: web.archive.org/web/20180903204924/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2807542.0
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: web.archive.org/web/20170317063622/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=922898.0
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: web.archive.org/web/20151017050237/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=709185.msg8013827

Hello,

I am in the midst of writing a page about the online gambling website bustabit. All of the official announcements made by the two prior owners (Eric Springer, Ryan Havar) and the current owner (Daniel Evans) have been made on the forum bitcointalk.org, which is a blacklisted site. I understand that bitcointalk.org is a forum and is generally filled with biased and uncited information. However, in this specific scenario, official announcements regarding the website have been made on (and exclusively on) this forum. I am submitting the archive links to the respective bitcointalk announcements so the actual announcements can be preserved, and any comments that are added on later aren't included in the source.

I'd like these links whitelisted since there is very little data online about bustabit and provably fair gambling sites in general, and this is the only reliable source. Although the website itself is not reliable, the people themselves who are making the specific posts I linked to are. Thus, I would like you to consider whitelisting those specific archived links I submitted above so I can proceed with publishing the article. Many thanks!

Goditor (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

gofundme.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

Previously requested on 13 March 2019 at 18:34 (UTC), this request was un-acted-upon (neither approved nor denied) prior to archival, so I'm renewing it. At my article draft (User:Fourthords/Rescue of the Sea Nymph) I'm trying to cite an unsuccessful GoFundMe campaign. My other reliable source(s) talk about the creation of the campaign and its rate of success at the time of publishing, but none discuss its current state, so I need to use the primary source. The specific link that's in my citation is as follows:

  • Link requested to be whitelisted: www.gofundme.com/truth-in-media.

Today it's my draft, though I plan to move it to rescue of Sea Nymph after this process. — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fourthords: it does sound a bit like that whole campaign is not notable beyond it's creation. It does still seem to be open, which makes me more reluctant to whitelist it (but I don't decline at this point). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I've removed the prose and citation from my draft. Thanks for the reply! — fourthords | =Λ= | 14:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

mangauk.com

[edit]

I previously tried to get this website link out of the spam backlist, but it was rejected by someone as they said it was spammed by people in the past and I should refer to here for specific details. I only want the home page (main) and the about pages of this site for the Manga Entertainment page as it’s the company’s official site. Luigitehplumber (talk) 08:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@LTPHarry: per /Common requests#About, we would need an about-page or a full url (including an index.htm) of the index page. Can you please provide a suitable link? You can post here if you leave off the http://. Note that we will not whitelist the top domain. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
www.mangauk.com/homepage will redirect to the homepage of the site at mangauk.com, while the about page is located at mangauk.com/about-us. Luigitehplumber (talk)
@LTPHarry: plus Added to whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hubpages.com

[edit]

One of the more rigorously researched and sourced articles available online covering the painting Street Light (painting) and others. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 13:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Swpb: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 19:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Change.org

[edit]

Please release this page in the official website, for inclusion in Soka University of America. While I have another source to corroborate my writing, I would like to cite the number of people who signed this petition on change.org. In addition, this petition is referenced in the article I cited in my writing, so it has been referenced before within an approved cite. StormWombat868 (talk) 8:30, 11 April 2019 (PDT)Stormbat868 (talk)

I'm not sure if NextShark (which is the sole reference for this petition) is a reliable source. I've started a noticeboard discussion at WP:RSN § NextShark (nextshark.com) for Soka University of America to confirm. — Newslinger talk 09:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion, now archived here, was inconclusive. As this is a WP:BLP issue and the petition is still active, I advise against whitelisting the petition page. The NextShark article can still be used if nobody objects. — Newslinger talk 10:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"News" and "Reviews" sections of The Points Guy (thepointsguy.com/news, thepointsguy.com/reviews)

[edit]

Requesting the whitelisting of the "News" (thepointsguy.com/news) and "Reviews" (thepointsguy.com/reviews) sections of The Points Guy, per the RfC discussion on RSN. This was discussed previously here, but the discussion was archived. feminist (talk) 13:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Feminist: as in the discussion on the blacklist: I agree that there are voices in the RfC showing that there is good material there, but this was blacklisted because of 'native advertising', and the conclusion of the RfC is "Hell no for anything related to credit-cards. Use editorial discretion for usage in other areas and avoid if other sources can be located", which does not give me the feeling that all material that is not 'hell no' is generally usable for Wikipedia - the tone of that discussion is certainly not 'anything but all material related to credit cards is useful without any precautions'. The combination of the native advertising with the general reservations makes me careful for blanket whitelisting. Seen that in more than 2 weeks there has been only one attempt to add this material to any page outside of primary points suggests that all of these can easily be handled by individual whitelisting of that source.
Just as a note: thepointsguy.com/reviews/united-explorer-credit-card-review/, which would be allowed to link if we were to grant this whitelisting, is a review of a credit card (the url gets rewritten). Secondly, thepointsguy.com/reviews/british-airways-777-first-class/ shows as disclaimer 'This post contains references to products from one or more of our advertisers. We may receive compensation when you click on links to those products.' which is, clearly, not neutral, but hints at native advertising for non-credit-card material. Yes, there is useful material on the site, but that seems to be rather limited. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are suggestions to implement an edit filter to warn users trying to cite the source, but ultimately allow them to cite it. A blacklist is clearly a less extreme measure than requiring individual links to be whitelisted, so any editor supporting Options 1 to 3 in that discussion should be seen as opposing the blacklisting of content. I am not seeing any support for blacklisting the whole site here. Pinging RfC participants @Slatersteven, Collect, Newslinger, JzG, MarkH21, EllenCT, Barkeep49, Markbassett, Peter K Burian, and Winged Blades of Godric: Should The Points Guy remain on the spam blacklist, or should parts of the website be whitelisted? feminist (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Feminist: That is, just like on the blacklist, not a response to my concerns, and does not address the reason why it was blacklisted. The RSN discussion is completely loose from that, and the RfC does not address the blacklisting in the first place, it addresses the reliability of parts of the website. Consensus that it can be reliable sometimes does not equal consensus to de-blacklist since it does not address the same concerns.
Whitelisting the /reviews part completely includes whitelisting the 'hell no' credit card reviews (and per the consensus in the RfC, I would suggest to decline that part), and negates the reason it was blacklisted in the first place: much of that site is advertising. Moreover, what hole do you want to open if we are talking 1 link in >2 weeks (do I have to stat further back?). --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns, they are valid but they do not overrule the opinions of other editors if they disagree that blacklisting is inappropriate. "1 link in >2 weeks" assumes that all editors who try and fail to cite the source know how to and choose to ask for whitelisting, which is unlikely to be the case, not that many editors are bothered to go through the whole process of asking to whitelist the link, waiting for the link to be whitelisted, then adding the link as a source. We should not make it excessively difficult for editors to cite a source.
My response to your concerns would be: 1. "This post contains references to products from one or more of our advertisers. We may receive compensation when you click on links to those products." seems to appear on every post regardless of whether it actually contains links to products. That is not in and of itself a hint at native advertising at every post. 2. The concerns with native advertising have been acknowledged at the RfC discussion, but editors ultimately did not consider these issues to warrant blacklisting of the whole source. At the RfC, I mentioned BuzzFeed and PopSugar as two Internet properties that also contain a lot of native advertising, yet continue to be accepted as sources on Wikipedia, with no suggestion of spam blacklisting. feminist (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The original concern included '... these are the most egregiously spammed ones ... '. Secondly, again, whitelisting the /reviews/ part of the site allows also the 'hell no' credit card reviews. Thirdly, an RSN discussion is about reliability, not about that it is/was being spammed. Fourth point is, that I am not discussing one person who comes here in 2 weeks discussing, I am discussing one attempted addition in 2 weeks. So no, I am not assuming that only one editor in hundreds of editors who tried to add this bothered to whitelist, I am talking about 1 editor in 17 days (who, indeed, maybe not bothered to whitelist). (parsing on, I get to 4 attempted additions in 40 days, indeed none of them bothered to request whitelisting; only 1 of the 4 by 'regulars', and for the last two I checked the editors found better sources; the last 2 were for news sources, not /reviews or /guide).
The way I read the RfC, most editors agreed that this should not be blacklisted based on its reliability, but that was not the concern that resulted in the blacklisting. And that other, maybe similar, sites are not blacklisted is because we do not blacklist sites based on their content (with exceptions that there is a clear community consensus that a site should be blacklisted based on content, a 'hell no' closure on a part is such a community consensus), we blacklist because .. something is spammed.
If anything, only the /news part could maybe get whitelisted, but frankly, I do not see why we would bother doing that as most of that is also available from better sources. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is spamming links to this website, block the user. If promotional content is added to articles citing the website as a source, remove the entire content. Don't make it needlessly difficult for good-faith editors to cite the source. Your job is not to judge editor opinions based on your own interpretations or views. If you are unable to set aside your own preconceptions, you have no business denying someone of such a request. I feel like I've been talking to a brick wall. feminist (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I'd note that credit card reviews being allowed under the /reviews URL was not a concern at the RfC. If you feel that this would affect the views of editors you are welcome to raise this point in a new discussion at RSN or similar; however in the meantime it does not affect whether the website should be whitelisted or not. feminist (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Feminist: oh, that one again .. 'If someone is spamming links to this website, block the user' .. this is not someone, I see a plethora of IPs (some of them rather close together) and a rather high number of red-linked users (which often suggests 'new' users). You want to block all of those with all the collateral damage it gives? Do you really think that when someone posts something that is 'egregiously spammed' that other options have not been considered. 'Don't make it needlessly difficult for good-faith editors to cite the source' .. WHO. I see 4 attempted additions in 40 days, of which a least 2 of them had perfectly other sources. I can return that with the exact same 'Don't make it needlessly difficult for good-faith spam-fighters to fight spam and keep our material in an optimal shape'. Are YOU going to check every addition from here to see whether there is better sourcing. This is a site where at least a third of the material is plainly not to be used (as per RfC) AT ALL, and you want to enable that material being used. And again, I have 4 addition in 40 days (which in itself can already be perfectly handled by the whitelist, if needed (and the two for which I checked did not need it)) of which most are on the /news part. I already have given you that I would be willing to do the /news part only, as the /reviews/-part is enabling linking to the hell no credit card reviews, does (often/sometimes/regularly/always/...) contain sponsored material as well, and is even less used.
It did not matter to the people in the RfC where the credit-card reviews are, they did not want to link to the credit card reviews. Moreover, ALL the credit card reviews are available through the /reviews/ tree of the site, not just a couple: thepointsguy.com/reviews/marriott-bonvoy-brilliant-amex-card-review/; thepointsguy.com/reviews/world-of-hyatt-credit-card-review/; thepointsguy.com/reviews/alaska-visa-signature-card-review/ - if you open the /reviews part, then you might just as well de-blacklist the whole site.
Now lets go a step further, shall we: thepointsguy.com/advertising-policy/
Below are the credit card companies who offer products that we have affiliate links for: American Express; Bancorp Bank; Bank of America; Barclays; Brex; Capital One; Chase; Citibank; Discover; Founders Card; MBNA Canada; Luxury Card; USAA; US Bank; Virgin America; Wells Fargo
That is clear, those are all the credit cards. But that continues:
We also have affiliate relationships with companies who sell products that are not related to credit cards. Those companies include: Airbnb; Amazon; Apple; Away Luggage; CLEAR; David’s Vacation Clubs; Emirates; Expedia; Expert Flyer; Hotels.com; iTunes; Plastiq; Points.com (my bolding)
... includes ... so even if the review is NOT a credit card, it may still be heavily sponsored. Then a significant part is influenced by links to sponsored content on the rest. I agree that this is not 'solely [of] sponsored content', but it looks like it is the far majority in the /reviews part.
My advice is still, maybe open the /news part through blanket whitelisting (though I, REALLY, do not see we need to with such a low frequency and high rate of replaceability), and do anything else through selective whitelisting. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then whitelist the /news part first, it at least helps solve part of the problem. feminist (talk) 06:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Feminist: what 'problem' ... ?? I still fail to see the problem. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please whitelist the /news part, as you just described? Thanks. feminist (talk) 06:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Feminist: I said, My advice is still, maybe open the /news part through blanket whitelisting (though I, REALLY, do not see we need to with such a low frequency and high rate of replaceability) (now with bolding). It was an advice, with a maybe, and a disclaimer that I do not see the need. So maybe you can describe to me what 'problem' you are trying to solve? --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Among the site's content, there is a general agreement that the News part is the most reliable (with a number of editors seeing the news articles as generally reliable for facts, citing mentions of them in reliable sources). Also, the News part contains the most amount of material that will be useful for citing facts. There is a general consensus at the RfC that the "News" section should not be blacklisted. An unwillingness to whitelist this part of the website is a WP:Supervote. feminist (talk) 06:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Feminist: What supervote, I did not, in any form, no Declined (I have even suggested that maybe only the /news/ could be considered for whitelisting (though, again, I foresee no problems if we don't)), nor did any other admin no Declined - we are having a discussion whether we need to have this blacklisted with opposing views in this discussion. Again, this was blacklisted after a report claiming it was SPAMMED (as opposed to your statement that this was blacklisted because it 'consist solely of sponsored content' (where you omitted that this was one of the sites that were the 'most egregiously spammed ones'), now you want to bring an RfC on its RELIABILITY as a reason to overrule that? All of those people say that it should not be blacklisted BASED ON RELIABILITY (which, basically, we don't do anyway). And the conclusion of the !vote still reads Hell no for anything related to credit-cards. Use editorial discretion for usage in other areas and avoid if other sources can be located; The closer did not take into account any of those blacklisting related comments, it was not the question in the first place - the RfC is only asking for a statement on the reliability of the site, which has nothing to do with why it was blacklisted. Here we discuss whether the amount of spam that was received warrants keeping this on the blacklist, whether blacklisting this site is going to give a massive influx of whitelist requests so that other solutions may be better, and whether regulars so often run into the blacklist with this site while they are trying to cite information that cannot be replaced. We are now at 5 hits to the blacklist, 3 of them were replaced, and for the other 2, better sources are available.
Being (sometimes) a reliable source is NOT a reason to not be on the blacklist, and that is what you asked: 'Which of the following best describes the reliability of The Points Guy?' (my bolding). My point still is that I do not have a problem with whitelisting the /news/ site, but I do not see ANY problem not to. You think that having the /news/ part blacklisted is a 'problem', but until now you totally fail to describe what problem it is giving, can you show me a specific needed citation for which that news report from The Points Guy is absolutely not replaceable with better sources. I still believe, seeing that evidence, that this can very easily be blacklisted with case-by-case whitelisting of single links as I expressed earlier. Until then I see no reason why we need to blanket whitelist this (but if you can convince me, or another admin, of the opposite, then I will stand gladly corrected). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Newslinger (who proposed the original blacklisting for "egregiously spammed") thinks that despite the concerns with spamming, the News section can be whitelisted; this means that, for the /news section at least, the concern with spam is less significant than the problem with blocking content that can be used as a source, otherwise he/she would not have proposed the whitelisting. This is in addition to the previous points I've mentioned. If you want an example, see Special:Diff/892989756. The Points Guy and Luchtvaart Nieuws are the only reliable non-self-published sources I can find covering Delta's 767-400ER business class retrofit. Per WP:RSUE, English-language sources are preferred over non-English language ones where they are of equal quality and relevance. Because the Luchtvaart Nieuws article itself cites The Points Guy as its source, we should cite the The Points Guy article instead. Is that enough for you? feminist (talk) 11:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Feminist: funny .. https://travelingformiles.com/delta-will-not-fit-delta-one-suites-to-its-767-400-aircraft/ seems to say the opposite. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Both sources confirm that Delta is refitting new business class seats on their 767-400 fleet, but differ on whether these should be described as "suites" or not. They are seats that incorporate some of the design elements of the Delta One suites being installed on the airline's A350 and 777 fleets, but unlike these seats, the refitted 767-400 seats do not feature doors. If disregarding reliability, both sources support the statement To be refurbished with new business class seats beginning in 2019. In any case, Traveling for Miles is a blog (i.e. a self-published source) and should not be used as a reference. feminist (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Similar: https://onemileatatime.com/delta-one-seat-767-400/ . It are not the delta one suites, but the delta one seats, apparently. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you consider this to be a better source than the The Points Guy article? If yes, I think I can drop my request to whitelist TPG. Their advertising= policy is much more ethical than the one from TPG, because they specifically reject any monetary compensation affecting content or product placement. However, they operate closer to a blog than how TPG operates. Yet, none of this changes what I said above: Newslinger (who proposed the original blacklisting for "egregiously spammed") thinks that despite the concerns with spamming, the News section can be whitelisted; this means that, for the /news section at least, the concern with spam is less significant than the problem with blocking content that can be used as a source, otherwise he/she would not have proposed the whitelisting. Plus, it is absurd to suggest that editors who have previously triggered the blacklist by adding a TPG link would add another one, because they know that it would trigger the filter as well and would not waste their time. feminist (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As these sources all conflict, and all are blogs I consider this information not reliable. The only reliable source is likely the primary (which, in this case, is not a problem). So I still do not see any problem. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When sources conflict, we resort to the more reliable publication, in this case The Points Guy. You still haven't responded to Newslinger (who proposed the original blacklisting for "egregiously spammed") thinks that despite the concerns with spamming, the News section can be whitelisted; this means that, for the /news section at least, the concern with spam is less significant than the problem with blocking content that can be used as a source, otherwise he/she would not have proposed the whitelisting. Plus, it is absurd to suggest that editors who have previously triggered the blacklist by adding a TPG link would add another one, because they know that it would trigger the filter as well and would not waste their time. This is not a fair "discussion" if one user controls whether the discussion would lead to a result. feminist (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, we are going on that tone. I have responded to that: "only the /news part could maybe get whitelisted, but frankly, I do not see why we would bother doing that as most of that is also available from better sources", and have shown my concerns and statistics. Other editors have shown their concerns as well (also in the RfC). I have NOT declined whitelisting /news/, I have only strongly suggested against whitelisting /reviews/ and do not see the need of whitelisting /news/ when most of the material that people have tried to add is easily replaceable. You call this, for the one occasion that you cite that this is 'the more reliable publication' (and I have concerns about the reliability of that particular piece - I do not see Delta announcing this for the 767-400ER, they seem to announce it for the 777 and A350 only, delta is not announcing on a seat configuration '764'). But that still does not need a blanket whitelisting (as I announced already in the previous whitelisting request, and which, IMHO, reflects the conclusion of the RfC).
I am not controlling this discussion. I am showing my concerns and I do not see the need of blanket whitelisting. I hope that another admin will come in and assess this independently. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I said at the RFC, I see obvious COI issues which makes then questionable for anything other then attributed opinion, and even then with care. I see no reason to lift any ban (what are we losing?), but equally no reason to have a blanket blacklist of it. But then it was not blacklisted for reasons of reliability, but of spamming. So no it should not be lifted.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability formed at least part of Newslinger's concern when the site was initially blacklisted based on the (false, or at least incorrect) claim "Site contains solely of sponsored content" because we can all agree that sponsored content is usually unreliable on its own. I'd also note that even Newslinger thought that the News and Reviews sections should be whitelisted, despite the concerns with spam. feminist (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Part of, but not solely. If it was being spammed then I see no reason to lift the block, even if there were otters reason...as well. If a man burgles my house but it can be proved did not kick my mouse that does not mean the conviction for burglery should be overturned.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Feminist - it seems a decent site, following journalism norms of being open about COI, so I’m in favour of whitelisting news and reviews. I really don’t see them as one of the worse sites out there for RS usage, advertisements are fairly common and any site should be used with caution, plus using this would seem infrequenr, so having this one particularly blacklisted seems a bit excessive. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Markbassett: As discussed above, both reviews of other material, and the reviews of credit cards are accessible through their /reviews/, so whitelisting that allows a part that was decided as not to be used at all. And again, you are addressing reliability, not the spamming that resulted in the blacklisting. This was NOT blacklisted because it is an unreliable source. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know I was one of several participants who explicitly drew a distinction between News and other parts of the site. Pinging the RfC closer Winged Blades of Godric to see if this distinction had any form of consensus or if they see consensus as supporting a blacklist of the whole site. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm late to this discussion, but it looks like Beetstra's argument is that the noticeboard RfC addressed whether The Points Guy is reliable, which is independent from whether it should be blacklisted. There is merit to this argument, as the spam blacklist guideline doesn't mention reliability and the reliable sources guideline doesn't mention blacklisting. Sponsored content is subject to both reliability and blacklisting inquiries, so it's important for us to have this discussion on both WP:RSN and this page. While the noticeboard RfC established that non-sponsored content from The Points Guy can be used with editorial discretion, neither the RfC question nor the closing summary addressed blacklisting directly.

    This discussion was escalated to the administrators' noticeboard, but unfortunately, it looks like the discussions there (first, second) didn't receive much attention before they were archived. If we can't settle on whether this whitelisting request should be accepted, I would suggest starting an RfC here that addresses this specific issue. As far as I'm aware, it's not common to have RfCs on this page, but we have already exhausted all of the other discussion options. Feminist, since you're the strongest supporter of this whitelisting request, I think you're in the best position to start this RfC.

    As for my personal opinion, I am ambivalent. Feminist has shown valid use cases for The Points Guy, but as I have explained in the noticeboard RfC, the site's affiliate relationships run too deep for me to endorse it. — Newslinger talk 05:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Newslinger: Note that I am willing to consider individual whitelistings of single pages, when data on said can be shown to be sufficiently reliable and not replaceable - which IMHO will not happen much more often than once every 1-2 months. If it turns out after a significant number of whitelistings that it is too much, then we can always blanket the /news part. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      This amounts to a mandatory review of each cited article before it's added and looks acceptable in this situation, since the usability of The Points Guy content varies. I note that the spam blacklist guideline is vague, and could use some more details to clarify the standard expectations for blacklisting/whitelisting. — Newslinger talk 08:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2019/04&oldid=935065855"