Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2018-06

• • redirects to earlier blacklisted link. Top document signed by Steffen Fahl.

Continued with these links on multiple Wikis to add their own links without discussion. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 03:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Beetstra: Added Added to Spam blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 03:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Recently used on high-visibility page on EN; see here. Site clearly identifies as marketing-specific URL shortener. Blacklisted locally, bringing here as potential for wider abuse. Kuru ^talk 14:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kuru: Added Added to Spam blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 14:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Shortener. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 17:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Beetstra: Added Added to Spam blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 17:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Beetstra: Exact same thing as back.ly.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• (oops, typo).--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: Added Added to Spam blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 21:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

on the Blacklist since 2012 after adding several links for uncommercial digital realisations of Bachs Clavierübungen and other often rare classical music in multiple Language versions of Wikipedia. This was misunderstood as "Spam", meanwhile a music page with thousands of uncommercial recordings of rare classical music can contribute alot and has done so in many Wikipadia-articles before. But there was never any abusive or obnoxious activity nor any other breach of any Wiki-rule from that domain at all. Neither before blacklisting nor in any of the years after. Every link to that site was always a legitime and always regulary approved reasonable contribution to a certain article. The german Indiepedia has recently removed that domain from their Blaclist to allow links see https://www.indiepedia.de/index.php?title=Update2018. There never have been any substancial reason to put or to keep that domain on any blacklist at all. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2003:C7:E729:E701:9132:3DA0:D77D:8B92 (talk)

First question, are you the person fro the account Fahl5. Secondly, the domain was added following a request (see blacklist request), so you will need to address the unblock request with regard to the blacklist request. My initial thoughts are that you are better to address this request at English Wikipedia as we are unlikely to act without their involvement in this request. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

on the Blacklist since 2012 after adding several links from the subdomain klassik.s-fahl.de (which was an earlier URL for the page klassik-resampled.de) uncomercial digital realisations of often rare classical music multiple Language versions of Wikipedia. This was misunderstood as "Spam", meanwhile a music page with thousands of uncommercial recordings of rare classical music can contribute alot and has done so with the regular approval by the Wiki-admins in many Wikipadia-articles before. But there was never any abusive or obnoxious activity nor any other breach of any Wiki-rule from that domain at all, neither in the yers before blacklisting, nor in the years after. Every link to that site was always a legitime and reasonable contribution to the certain article. There never have been any substancial reason to put or to keep that domain on any blacklist at all. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2003:C7:E729:E701:9132:3DA0:D77D:8B92 (talk)

merging requests as they were blocked together. Commentary as above. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@SDrewth: why en.wiki? This was cross-wiki spammed using sockpuppets and IPs. As suggested by me on en, get some specific links whitelisted, then we may be able to talk.

It was the focus of the removals, and from where the block request came (and just guessing where links were wishing to be added), and I was going to suggest as you did, though only after a response. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry that is simply a aggressiv lie there was not a single abusive or obnoxious contribution. If you want to argue like that you should be able ro prove that only one link which was set was in any way not relating seriously to the article to which is was linked or/and in any other way abusive or obnixious. That one can contribute to Wikipedia with aswell as without using an account does not justify the assumpotion of abusiive or obnoxious use of "Sockpuppetps" this is simply a pretext to avoid arguing serious with concrete examples which you abviously are not able to.

@2003:C7:E729:E701:9132:3DA0:D77D:8B92: your chances of getting this whitelisted increase when you can make a point as to what your links can ADD to articles (e.g. through specific whitelisting), and your chances decrease by complaining about wrongdoing (it will even affect your chances of getting links whitelisted, and for sure it will result in us ignoring your requests). De-listing Declined. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 13:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Every single contribution absolutly every contribution i made was done to enrich the certain article as good as I can. You obviously are not able to prove the opposite! Over years all have been regulary approved by all admins. I have no reason to ask for only one or another Link to whitelist, if the whole blacklisting was completly wrong. It is up to the responsible to prove that they have concrete and convincing arguments for their blacklisting. But just to pretend the amount of contributions are high over the years, or the fact the link to a certain musicrecoding was set in multiple languageverions (because a recording of for instance a seldom heared piece of music or an uncommercial complete recording of a important group of Compositions by an important composer could be usefule in different language verions, since the music is always the same) should be "Spam" only because the music remains the same however which language you speak and therefore the Link a reasonable contribution in multiple languageversions of Wikipüedia does not justify the assumption of cross"spamming" to do so just shows, that the one who do so simply do not care at all for the quality of Wikipedia any longer but just tries to justify whith completly wrong pretexts a large mistake for which he obviously cannot bring any concrete argument of only one abusive or obnoxios link which ever could justify any "Spam" pretentions. It is up to you too justify more reasonable and concrete the assumption of Spam befor putting anything on a blacklist. If you cant do so you simply do not care for the rules you only pretend to care for with your blacklist decision.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2003:c7:e729:e701:9132:3da0:d77d:8b92 (talk)

YOU added links, those links were deemed unneccesay and were removed. YOU were asked to stop and discuss first. YOU persisted in adding despite warnings. You were blocked. YOU persisted in making new accounts or using IPs and persisted. The ONLY way to make you stop was blacklisting.

Now you choose to accuse, to call people liars, you do NOT discuss. I gave you a warning on en, you get the same here: stop, or I will simply block you. Wikipedia is NOT a linkfarm, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 18:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

So I do not accuse. You just pretend without any proof the following: "YOU were asked to stop and discuss first. YOU persisted in adding despite warnings. You were blocked. YOU persisted in making new accounts or using IPs and persisted." Meanwhile the Wikisofware meticolously documentate everything what ever happend. So if anything of those pretentions would be true. It must be verfiable. - If you are not a liar, you would be able to proof that I not only fixed in the very first moment in December 2012 some remoovals which seemed to be removed based on the a misunderstanding, but had as you pretend "persisted in adding despite warnings."(What is simply not at all the case!) If you are not a liar than you must cconfess, that you can not prove that for more than the very first links removed in this pseudospam-campaign. - If you ar not a liar, you must be able just to name me the alledged "new accounts" which you can documentate as being abusivly made by myself. But if you persist pretending such insulting assumptions, without being able to prove that meanwhile the Wikisoftware documents everything, - than you realy should ask yourself what you are. It is exactly what I simply demand. Do not act based on empty assumptions, but look for the concrete facts. Otherwise you are going to make Wikipedia based on alternative facts what contradicts the Idea of a dictioniar ass fundamental as ever would be possible. So do not pretend without proof. Give true and verifiiable facts. That is what I ask for and if you will find out, that the real verifiable facts does not realy justify 6 years blacklisting and persistently making such insultive assumption as you do, than just be honest enough to excuse yourself and correct your mistake. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fahl5 (talk)

Fahl5: you are entitled to your opinion, but that is all it is. Your block at enWP is pertinent to that wiki and your actions at that wiki, and if you think it is incorrect, should be addresses through that wiki, see w:en:Wikipedia:UTRS. All discussions about that wikis handling of that issue is pertinent to that wiki, not relevant here. This forum is solely the discussion of the addition or the removal from the global blacklist. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@SDrewth: again, Billinghurst, he was spamming his links everywhere, they got removed everywhere. This is not an en.wikipedia issue, it is a crosswiki issue. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 03:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I was just saying that fights from wikis are for those wikis, not here. I have to give fair warning that they irrelevant, prior to me removing future off-topic argument along that line. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Anyway, those fights are not for en.wiki either. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 11:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

For en.wiki: contribs of sfahl to Italian Concerto (Bach). One addition by sfach, removal, readdition, removal, readdition and removal. It was added 3 times to one page while after the first time you were told not to. Looking further I see IPs with the same behaviour, and other accounts (obvious socks). They use the same abusive language as this IP who has self-confirmed to be the owner of the site.

This is not getting you anywhere, not here and not on any wiki. Start contributing content and discussing the merits of your links. See if you find supporters for that. That is the advice that I have been giving you since the beginning. Without it This is not going to be de-listed from this blacklist. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 03:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

OK I do not accuse I just sum up. As I said there is no example of adding any links to s-fahl or klassik-resampled.de since 7.12.2012 but you block me today with pretending that are "persistent" addings instead of discussions. Since there are no afte 6.12.2012 this is simply not true. So this is just a wrong pretext and you know it. Why are you arguing with wrong facts? Since I prefered to discuss the wrong decision, as I said there is not a single prove that I ever used any "sockepuppet" wikipedia fake account for anything. You also have not a single proof for that but persitently go on pretending such insulting and wrong assumptions. To justify a block with that wrong pretention is in it self a breach of Rules since it is even illegal to pretend insulting wrong assumptions which are verifiable wrong. But in fact the Wikiadmins do not block me for any verifiable breach of Rules, but since they try to avoid to take responsability for referring to wrong unverifiable pretentions and insulting assumptions. They completly avoid any single discussion of the content they just think should block globally without other reasons than wrong pretentions about alleged abusive behavior for which ther is no real substancial proof at all. Be sure I am not looking to discuss with those who do not care for the truth of their pretentions any longer. since that is simply much to disgustive. I tried to contribute to a project which was in its idea good, but turned out to be ruled by those who do not care for the difference of truth and lie. So thats reason enough to just leave. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2003:C7:E729:E701:3403:BC50:F528:2936 (talk)

Checking:

Redirects to these sites. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 03:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Declined closing out, no action to be taken. No consensus to remove. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I believe Jalexander-WMF's original intention adding this URL was to block subdomains. It does not. Can someone modify to block it? — regards, Revi 07:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@-revi: Possibly it was for the purpose, though can you explain why the existing block is problematic, either for not doing its task, or overdoing its task. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

All the abuse (T194204 on phab) was conducted on subdomain: I can’t think of any other reason not to block subdomains. — regards, Revi 03:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@-revi:Sub-domains should be blocked, the \b just states a word boundary, which includes a period, so that fits within the regex to blacklist the subdomains, and without subdomains. If you want a more informed opinion then it might be worth adding me to that ticket. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@-revi: I am going to assume that the silence relates to that security matter on wiki. To demonstrate my point please see Special:log/spamblacklist/billinghurst, and if you need further evidence or further help, then you will either let me know the particularly issue (and remember that as an ombudsman that I already have complete view access across public wikis, and access to some private) or take that elsewhere to your friends' discussion. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Well I mostly forgot about this after 'ok I’ll respond this later today' moment. Digging further, I found he migrated to new domain _(suppressed) to abuse it. So, nothing to amend here further. — regards, Revi 00:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Talk archives