Jump to content

User talk:XLinkBot/RevertList/archives/October 2021

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

issuewire.com and yolodaily.com

[edit]

Press release spam sites. I'd personally want these to be globally blacklisted, but I doubt that'd ever happen. I can't really think of any circumstance these could be used as legitimate external links or references? Both of their usage in mainspace seems to be reasonably low from what I can tell, but they're much more frequently added in drafts. Perryprog (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Perryprog: a quick scan suggests that maybe we should just blacklist this, not only revertlist. I see many, many (related) IPs, and I see many blocked users and redlinked users - I doubt that this is being used by any serious editor here (the ones in the reports may very well be reverts of other vandalism that inadvertently re-insert the link). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Beetstra, if you think they're bad (good?) enough for a local or global blacklist, then go right ahead! I figured it wasn't severe enough, and in some cases press-releases can be okay, although they're rarely, if ever, the best choice for a reference—hence why I figured there might be a case where an experienced editor could use it. Regardless, I'm all in favor of blacklisting, as they are ultimately leaning towards the side of spam than anything else. Perryprog (talk) 11:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Perryprog: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. The spamming of yolodaily is rather clear. I have gone through the edits of some established editors (which only exist for issuewire) and noted 1 tagging for copyvio from there, and 2 reverts to 'good version'. The number of redlinked editors and IPs does not suggest that this is used properly a lot. I guess blacklisting to keep this out and whitelisting what needs to go in is a better way forward than whack-a-mole (which doesn't work with spammers anyway). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty pageant fansites

[edit]

There are many bad beauty pageant sites listed as WP:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Sources, I'm listing the top two (or three if the .org and .com are actually separate) that I seem to revert daily. Other efforts to curtail their addition, such as education about the WPBPS sources list, and blocking sock accounts, are going nowhere. See recent massive list page protections (Special:Diff/1022116110/1048589587), and sockpuppet investigations (User:Bri/COI index#Beauty pageant socking) for rationale that this is necessary. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: any reason why we should not just blacklist this? I fail to see any serious editor using this stuff, and there is COI involved with some of these. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was following the escalation path listed at Wikipedia:Spam blacklist#Introduction: page protection, single user block, multi user block, then XLinkBot, then blacklist. But I'm so tired of the whole thing, going straight to blacklist is totally okay by me. ☆ Bri (talk) 12:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bri: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. We do the 'go directly to jail, do not pass GO, do not collect $200', the steps are the suggested escalation. If I see 5 IPs doing each 1 edit to spam, then I know that warning and blocking is futile (except if they are in a range, then I can range-block), and then also XLinkBot does not help much (it is hit and run, they do not do a follow up edit that notifies them that they have a message - as if a true spammer would care in the first place, they just re-add). If then the site is anyway not very useful (or completely useless) I prefer to just skip the whole 'Whack-a-mole' and blacklist the stuff. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CounterPunch

[edit]

CounterPunch was confirmed deprecated. See WP:COUNTERPUNCH. - Amigao (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Amigao: plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Amigao: plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've been editing Wikipedia for 15 years and have never been involved in the process of deprecation of sources, nor do I know how to contest a listing. I'm a bit baffled as to how Counterpunch was deprecated as a source. I read their article on their being gulled by a writer or writers using the name "Alice Donovan." They were hardly the only ones, and that shouldn't have been cause for deprecation. These were articles they published five years ago and regarding which they analyzed their role at great length at: <https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/12/25/go-ask-alice-the-curious-case-of-alice-donovan-2/> I thought they did a terrific job on that situation. I've found to be what I consider a reliable and valuable source. I've also seen other sources similarly deprecated, namely Raw Story and Alternet which are associated. I've also found them to be reliable. I even have seen complaints about HuffPost, which I think has done some fine reporting, and which has not in recent years reflected a partisan viewpoint, and which I've never found to be unreliable. Others with which I'm familiar on the list are definitely unreliable. I remember one very brief 2015 story in the Daily Mail in which I found five mistakes of fact. In the Counterpunch story about "Donovan," they compare "her" to Judith Miller, whose continuous abysmal reporting (with Michael Gordon sharing a byline, got the U.S. and to a lesser extent, the U.K., into a war. Miller's stories were regularly on the front pages of the New York times. So, how do I weigh in to oppose the deprecation of Counterpunch? Activist (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Activist: those discussions take place at WP:RSN. — Dirk Beetstra T C 03:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NewsBlaze

[edit]

NewsBlaze was confirmed deprecated. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#NewsBlaze. - Amigao (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Amigao: plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Amigao: plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unz Review

[edit]

Unz Review was confirmed deprecated. See WP:UNZ. - Amigao (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Amigao: plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Amigao: plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Republic TV

[edit]

Republic TV was confirmed deprecated. See WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_Republic_TV. - Amigao (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Amigao: plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Amigao: plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:XLinkBot/RevertList/archives/October_2021&oldid=1061671698"