MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2014/02

checkmarx.com


OTRS received a query which turned out to be an edit refused because it was a link to a site on the blacklist.

The site was added to the blacklist by WilliamH

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist&diff=prev&oldid=559707078

which would obviously be my first point of contact, except he is retired. I know nothing about the site, so do not know whether it belongs on the list or not. I will invite the person who questioned it to add some comments here, but is there someone else who might know why it was added, and how to go about determining whether it should be removed?-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  15:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The log item was edit 2 edits later (diff), the inbetween edit closure of the sockpuppet investigation that precipitated the two edits surrounding the close: Sockpuppet investigations/Grenoble jojo. I also note that someone was trying to add this link very recently, I hope that edit did not attempt to do the same as this edit.  Without asking who is asking about this, I would strongly suggest to decline any de-blacklisting, and also decline whitelisting of the whole domain - MAYBE a specific link for a specific target.
 * For me: . This is plain spam.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The same user tried to add the link also last week, to no avail - maybe the editor was trying to do this. Note that also this is of interest (notice the locking of the page), as well as the three (!) AfDs regarding this page.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The decision becomes easier and easier: more. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * - do you mind logging the ticket number here? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * -- S Philbrick  (Talk)  16:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I hope they now realise that this is not the place to promote their business. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I fully understand we need to ensure that people aren't using Wikipedia in an inappropriate way. However, I hope editors also realize that most readers are unfamiliar with our rules. If one of them sees an article listing several companies which so something, and they are in the same business, it is natural to think that it is entirely reasonable to add yourself to the list. I do not know the company, but if they are a notable company, and someone creates an article about them, I would think we would want to add them to the list of companies doing that sort of work (or remove the list, if we think the list is spamming).-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  17:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * - Yes, if someone creates an article for that reason, then that is certainly a thing to consider. But, likely, that person gets told at that point that their page is not suitable, and hopefully they are pointed to the appropriate pillar.  Maybe a second time, sure.  This is not such a case.  The article was created 6 times (2 times speedy deleted, 3 times through AfD, and another one was speedy deleted and undeleted in a sandbox; I forgot to count the articles posted under alternative names like with all caps, or with '(company)' appended), their edits were reverted, and if they make numerous sockpuppets, then that is generally not because they forgot the password of the first account.  That is plain and clear a campaign to game the system.  This was not 'adding themselves to a list', these were numerous page-creations.  I could agree on adding to a list, but also for that, maybe that is done 2 or 3 times, and then an editor should either understand that there is a reason their name gets removed, or should consider asking somewhere (they could have gone to OTRS at thát stage).
 * If they are notable, then someone unrelated will at some point write an article about them - and maybe that is the reason why they feel they have to create the articles themselves (and if there are three AfD's, then it was asked to find independent references to show notablity, and the last one of those, was less than a year ago, as was the DR). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)