Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Reliability of sources and spam blacklist

Other blacklisting criteria
A question that was not asked on the project page, but should have been, is "Should sites be blacklisted through the spam blacklist mechanism if they disseminate malware?" --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No need to ask, those are one of the few exceptions that go onto the meta blacklist without even having been abused yet. No need to put our readers through those risks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. How does one nominate a page one believes disseminates malware (this is just in case, I don't have an example at this time) --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Post it to the additions section on the MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, there is not really a controversy over malware containing sites, blacklisting those is appropriate in order to contain damage. Gigs (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This is funny, because just yesterday Symantec was flagging Wikimedia for hosting an image with malware. The image has been replaced with a clean copy.  I guess http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2b/AVMeiyappan_young.jpg should've been added to the meta-blacklist *joke*.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  18:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * note: these sites are often temporarily blacklisted, the add-to-blacklist request stays there and after a couple of days they are checked and often removed (note in note, there are some that are permanent). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, once it is shown the issue has been fixed (free from malware/exploits), there is no need for the site to remain blacklisted. Protecting readers and visitor on wikipedia is a very serious matter, which few here will dissagree with.--Hu12 (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Inacurate Background facts
For clarification purposes;
 * (current); "Blacklisting prevents editors from saving a revision that adds a link or a reference to the blacklisted site."
 * clarification;
 * → Blacklisting prevents editors from adding a hyperlink to the blacklisted site.
 * Agree in part, however for clarification purposes the distinction here is that "saving a revision that adds a link or a reference" is not to be confused with "saving a revision that contains a link or a reference... " a revision with a blacklisted link, is infact not prevented from being saved.


 * (current); "Recent practice has been to refuse de-blacklisting based on the reliability or suitability of the source, as judged by the admin(s) who handle the request. Examples: 1,2"
 * Incorect, clarified;
 * → Removal requests are handled where outcomes are based on community established policies and guidelines, such as "Verifiable Reliable Sources".
 * The practice of handling and reviewing removal requests using community established policies and guidelines is not "recent practice", nor restricted to the english wikipedia. The statement "Recent practice has been to refuse de-blacklisting ", is not neutral and factualy omits and implies that approvals are not considered nor are rooted in the same community established policies and guidelines, when infact they are. The statement "as judged by the admin(s)" implies subjective reasoning and interperitation of policy, rather than simply following community established policies and guidelines.


 * (current); "Recent practice has been to consider the reliability of a site as one of the factors in blacklisting decisions. Examples: 1,2"
 * clarification;
 * →Common practice does consider the reliability of a site as an additional factor to abuse/evidence in blacklisting decisions.
 * Blacklisting is abuse/evidence-based and should not be used Pre-emptively, nor should blacklisting be based soley on the reliability of a site. Secondary to the primary (spam/abuse/evidence) can at times include the consideration of additional community established policies and guidelines. Its function is not "recent practice", and mentioning such policies in an initial request, should be interperated as a primary reason for blacklisting, as is implied. Additionaly, mentioning such policies funtion as a background that can help expedite future requests handled by adims who may be unfamiliar with the depth or circumstance of a particular case.


 * (current); "It is general practice in declined de-blacklisting requests to ask editors to consider specific whitelisting of specific documents which are needed"
 * clarification;
 * While not "general practice", it is a civil courtesy to requestors. Unfortunately, the whitelist is not a function of the MediaWiki blacklist although releted in namespace, for the puposes of this RfC this has no merit.


 * (current); "It is general practice in whitelist requests to ask editors whether the linked documents are deemed necessary, and/or if there is consensus under editors that the specific document is needed"
 * clarification;
 * The whitelist is not a function of the MediaWiki blacklist, for the puposes of this RfC.


 * (current); "Until recently, XLinkBot could not revert WP:REFSPAM"
 * clarification;
 * XLinkBot is not a function of the MediaWiki blacklist.


 * (current); "XLinkBot can revert the addition of sites that are listed in it, however it will not re-revert if an editor adds them again or undos the bot's revert. It will also not revert established editors."
 * clarification;
 * XLinkBot is not a function of the MediaWiki blacklist.

--Hu12 (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It is what I said earlier, it does not convey a right feeling, and the last question is simply an incorrect one. If something is a reliable source has NEVER been used as a SOLE issue to blacklist something, there is ALWAYS something more.  Everyone will agree that that is not a reason to blacklist, and asking that is hence TOTALLY useless.  Abuse is the reason why something gets blacklisted, the question should be if reliability should be an issue on de-blacklisting or whitelisting, and that is what I put in there.  I ranted a bit on the Talkpage of the Spam blacklist, but I am afraid that the issues did not come through .. Could you please fix the issue, Gigs.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 21:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't asking about using it as a sole criteria. It never was about using it as a sole criteria.  The question is whether it should be considered as a factor in black or whitelisting decisions, and the question is properly worded for that. Gigs (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To Hu: XLinkBot facts are relevant because people may not be aware that XLinkBot exists, or may be confused about what it does. Link vs hyperlink... whatever... I can change it to hyperlink if it bothers you that much. Gigs (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but blacklisting and de-blacklisting/whitelisting are two different things. If this is what you want to know, then please split it, one question for blacklisting, and one for de-blacklisting/whitelisting.  Because I am afraid that the de-blacklisting/whitelisting aspect is not going to get answers.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 21:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's being used in nearly the same way in both places. WP:RS is being cited as a factor both in additions to the blacklist, and denials of whitelist entries.  The "facts" section breaks this out and gives examples of both for people to consider. I don't see how the policy is being applied in a materially different way in one venue vs the other one. Gigs (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In my feeling, it is not. Blacklisting goes on abuse, and it may consider the reliability, while whitelisting is sometimes plainly denied because the document in question is not a reliable source.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 21:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesnt matter Gigs, whitelisting is not a function of the MediaWiki blacklist (nor is XLinkBot for that matter).--Hu12 (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They are both relevant to this discussion. Gigs (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Beetstra I added your comment to the facts section. Gigs (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure it is possible at this point to break the question into separate parts for black and white listing. I think we will have to live with what we have.  Feel free to respond to comments asking them how they would consider whitelisting or vice versa. Gigs (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a blacklist RfC you created, not a whitelist Rfc and Not a XLinkBot Rfc. Thinking you have a valid point does not confer the right to act as though it is accepted when it is not. Your changes at this point still wholey miscaracterizes the facts, purpose, intent and actual use of the blacklist.--Hu12 (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are the only one that seems to think that. Gigs (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * An RfC is not a blunt instument or platform for you to exploit, because you dissagree with with an outcome of a blacklist request. Clearly your manipulating and distorting the facts, despite those of us who are attempting in good faith to correct those errors. --Hu12 (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The RfC is to determine if there is community support for the current practices of using WP:RS in black and whitelisting decisions, and on the treatment of pay-per-view sites. My request to the blacklist page merely lead me to discover this history of citing reliablity as a factor in black and whitelisting, which I don't believe is supported by consensus.  Gigs (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I believe I've been more than generous in letting the admins that maintain the blacklist have 4+ days to give input on this RfC prior to making it public. I didn't need to do that.  I've done everything possible to avoid making this personal, even though you are, by far, the worst offender when it comes to blindly citing WP:RS for black and whitelisting decisions.  I could have just opened up an admin tool abuse RFC on you; I didn't.   I wish you would give me some more credit here. Gigs (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * First the authority to the guideline of WP:RS is the policy WP:V (detail). Policies are community and consensus supported, others related to sourcing can be found below . again, whitelisting is not a function of the MediaWiki blacklist. --Hu12 (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus for WP:RS and WP:V does not imply consensus for using those policies when making black and white listing decisions. The technical implementation of white and blacklisting is irrelevant. Gigs (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, Gigs, there is no abuse of admin tools. ANY EDITOR can discuss on white and blacklisting discussions.  The final action has to be done by an admin.  It would be admin abuse if an admin would blacklist while there is strong opposition against it.  I hope you will reconsider thoughts of 'admin abuse', or even retract those remarks, this is bordering on assuming really bad faith on Hu12 or other regulars on the spam blacklist.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 22:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Only if he retracts his remarks that accuse me of using this RfC as some kind of petty revenge. Gigs (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Accusing other editors of abuse is uncivil unless there is genuine abuse is prima facie evidence of your failure to assume good faith here. Following wikipedia guidelines and policies in good faith is not "admin tool abuse " by any volunteering admin. Never attribute to malice that which may be adequately explained by a simple difference of opinion. --Hu12 (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't quote WP:AGF to me right after you accuse me of "exploiting the platform" of the RfC because I "disagreed with a blacklist decisions". It is you who is not assuming good faith. Gigs (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actively and intentionally keeping out correct and appropriate "Background facts", mischaracterizing existing facts, all seem to show a significantly different motive, than the one your attempting to portray.--Hu12 (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Claiming that I have a hidden motive is the definition of assuming bad faith. Gigs (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No longer is there an assumption. Editors need not continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence (Permalink), Gigs.--Hu12 (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No one at ANI was much impressed with your "evidence" either. I didn't want to clutter ANI with rebuttals to your varied accusations, but I might as well here.  I never opened two de-blacklist requests on examiner.com.  I opened one request to reexamine the issue which had been brought earlier by a different editor and then withdrawn by that editor.  The ning.com discussion wasn't "a fabrication", there was indeed a record in the blacklist for "\ning.com\b".  Since I don't work with the blacklist much, I did not realize that this is actually an incorrectly formatted regex that does not in fact block ning.com.  It was a misunderstanding, not a malicious fabrication.  I have never claimed that WP:V or WP:RS lacks consensus.  I have expressed that the consensus for those policies does not necessarily extend to consensus to use them to justify black or white listing.  Working toward and then opening an RfC is part of the normal process when there is doubt and controversy about policy application.  It is not a malicious act to open an RfC, it's our normal way to refine our policy.  I hope you can reexamine your "evidence" and realize that this is not what you think it is, and stop assuming bad intentions on my part. Gigs (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 04:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Community established policies and guidelines on sourcing
Policies such as "Verifiable Reliable Sources" inherantly reflect consensus and are a generally accepted standards that editors should attempt to follow.


 * The policy on sourcing is;
 * ”Verifiability”
 * "Verifiable Reliable Sources"
 * Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are needed to substantiate material within articles, and citations directing the reader to those sources are needed to give credit to authors and publishers, in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. (See Verifiability)
 * ” Questionable_sources”
 * Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight
 * ”Self-published sources (online and paper)”
 * Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets, etc., are largely not acceptable. ( From Verifiability.)
 * Wikipedia and sources that mirror or source information from Wikipedia
 * Articles and posts on Wikipedia, or on websites that mirror its content, should not be used as sources...
 * ”Reliable sources”
 * The word "source", as used in Wikipedia, has three meanings: the piece of work itself (an article, book, paper, document), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability.
 * ”Self-published sources”
 * Anyone can create a website ..."Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.
 * BLP
 * Material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used anywhere in the article, including in "Further reading" or "External links" sections
 * BLP
 * External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a stricter standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or that are not fully compliant with our guideline on external links.

--Hu12 (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)