User talk:Mike.lifeguard/Archive 4

<older newer>

robots.txt

Heyas, thanks for helping out there.

I don't think you need to specify /Log and /Log/ in the robots.txt, see www.w3.org (the /Help & /Help/ example at the bottom of the screen). Kylu 19:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have barely no idea what I'm doing, so feel free to fix it!  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 21:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Bah, fixed again.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for my disruptive behaviour before

You have every bit of my respect. XxJoshuaxX 01:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see that it doesn't happen again.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 01:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I promise. XxJoshuaxX 01:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you please comment on these allegations? Thanks.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 01:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't do that on Commons,since I'm blocked there. BTW,I already have your talk page on my watchlist. XxJoshuaxX 02:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I meant here. Are those allegations true?  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 02:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No,they aren't. Unfortunately,the Commons admins think otherwise. XxJoshuaxX 02:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Then why haven't you contested the block?  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 02:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I have,but I got declined each time. XxJoshuaxX 02:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've made an inquiry on your behalf. However, I should note that being disruptive will get you blocked whether you are socking or not (obviously).  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 02:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Where's the inquiry? XxJoshuaxX 01:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It was made privately. At this time, we're not prepared to unblock you on Commons.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 16:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Your Nuke proposal.

Hi Mike, I just wanted to contact you about a certain aspect of your proposal. Its audience. This is quite a big thing you are proposing, but Metapub subjects it to only a relatively small body of Wikimedians. I think that before this proposal is given the go-ahead, we should attempt to give this proposal a wider exposure. If all of Wikimedia is to be subjected, it'd only be right that as much of Wikimedia as possible weighs in. Do you have any thoughts on how we could gain this added exposure? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Global sitenotice & foundation-l. At this point, I'm rather disappointed in the amount of the response from Meta folk, so I wouldn't hold my breath that either of those will make a difference.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 13:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Tagline

I've changed it slightly. Still essentially the same, but much less awkward and more concise. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Cher Mike, mes sincères salutations

J’ai essayé de mettre quelque chose dans Talk:Spam blacklist se rapportant au blacklisting du domaine www.exhauss-ibnkhaldoun.com.tn dont je vous ai précédemment raconté la mésaventure. Je n’ai pas pu rien faire vu ma totale ignorance des techniques Wikipedia. Cependant, par respect de l’action que vous meniez avec d’autres administrateurs pour immuniser Wikipedia du spam, j’aimerais développer avec vous cette question épineuse.

Le spam se sont des liens à contenus douteux, polémiques ou commerciaux non sollicités, qui, s’ils ne sont pas nuisibles sont inutiles. Wikipedia institution internationale du partage de la connaissance est en principe réceptive à l’idée de l’adjonction d’information pertinente concernant des sites qui ne sont en aucun cas des sites pollueurs par le spamming en l’occurrence les sites académiques qui sont réellement à la source des connaissances solides et valides. Et même si on introduit dans les pages Wikipedia des dizaines de liens menant vers ces sites, je ne pense pas que ce soit du spam, tout au contraire c’est du partage de l’information saine et utile. On peut me rétorquer que le spamming est détecté automatiquement, je le conçois, mais la méthode à prouver ses limites : le cas du problème du site consacré à ibn khaldoun www.exhauss-ibnkhaldoun.com.tn que j’ai soulevé, et dont je suis maladroitement à l’origine de sont blacklisting le prouve.

En outre, regardons l’autre cas de figure : quelqu’un de malhonnête veux blacklister un site concurrent ou un site dont il n’aime pas le contenu, ne suffit-il à lui simplement d’insérer dans wikipedia beaucoup de liens menant vers ce site, et le tour est joué automatiquement.

Donc, réfléchissons ensemble sur la manière la plus productive pour différencier le vrai spam de l’information sereine et entrant dans l’esprit initial de Wikipedia. Prière de discuter ce que je viens de vous en entretenir avec les autres administrateurs, moi-même je ne peux pas le faire vu mes difficultés à s’exprimer en anglais. Enfin, néophyte et quelque peu malhabile ayant entrainé, sans le vouloir, le blacklisting, du site ibn khaldoun www.exhauss-ibnkhaldoun.com.tn , j’avoue mon mea culpa. Prière, donc, de discuter son cas avec les autres administrateurs, de prendre en considération mes doléances et, si c’est possible, de le retirer de l’index des sites blacklistés. Très cordialement, Adoribnkhal adibnkhaldoun@yahoo.fr

I have added a section at Talk:Spam blacklist for this.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 19:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

ibn Khaldoun 4

Cher Mike, mes sincères salutations Je vous remercie pour avoir proposé le domaine www.exhauss-ibnkhaldoun.com.tn aux administrateurs de wikipedia pour discuter de la possibilité de l’enlever de la liste des sites blacklistés. Cependant, j’aime leur faire les remarques suivantes : - Parce qu’ils ne connaissent pas la langue française, ils n’ont pas discuté le problème du spam dans wikipedia tel que je vous l’est soulevé, alors qu’il est important de le faire, que se soit sur les pages de wikipedia, ou entre vous par mails interposés . - Je ne suis pas le propriétaire du site, c’est pour cela que je me sens vraiment coupable de l’avoir maladroitement fait blacklisté. - Le site est multilingue : il est essentiellement écrit en langue arabe, mais il contient des centaines de pages écrites en langue française, anglaise, allemande, italienne et espagnole. Et il s’adresse aux chercheurs universitaires internationaux qui s’intéressent à l’historien arabe Ibn Khaldun, et à fortiori ils connaissent quelque peu la langue arabe. J’ajoute que c’est un site académique sérieux, qui, je crois, n’essaie pas d’être populaire par une politique du spamming, un méfait dont les webmasters du site n’y sont pour rien, alors que moi-même ne les connaissant jamais, j’en suis entièrement responsable. Très cordialement, Adoribnkhal adibnkhaldoun@yahoo.fr

I've added your comments to Talk:Spam blacklist; discussion is happening there and you may post in any language you like.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 17:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

temp.->permanent adminship?

Hi!
My present adminship was temporarily and expired yesterday (well officially it did, but I still have got those "protect" tabs)
Shall I request a permanent adminship for keeping an eye on the blacklist or do you think, it would be better to let it be, because my help is too small? -- seth 10:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone will likely remove the permission shortly. I'm not sure whether I would recommend requesting permanent adminship at this moment. While you have certainly been helpful, I don't see that you're well-versed in how we run the global blacklist - perhaps some additional time helping out before requesting permanent adminship would be best? Please don't get the wrong impression - you've been very helpful and overall your work has been worthwhile. However I would want to see increased familiarity with how we do things before supporting permanent adminship on the basis of anti-spam work. As soon as I feel comfortable enough with your work to not double-check what you're doing I'll nominate you myself. Please do stick around and help out - as you can tell we need all the hands we can get.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 15:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thx for your honest reply. (And actually I thought to get such an answer from you.) :-)

Well, I see, how the global blacklist is run, but I have to admit that I don't know how big the global spam really is. I just know the de-wiki spam. And there I am we are not as strict as you are on the global list.

My opinion sometimes (well, quite seldomly) diverges from yours (plural), e.g., concerning blacklisting of unused links (Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2008/09#Redirect_domain), because I keep the performance of the software in mind. But that's why I did not decline or accept a request of which I thought you would do the opposite. In these cases I just said what I was thinking about that. All in all I just did some performance-optimization and that would be the main thing what I'd continue, if I had the rights. For more (i.e. irc watching etc.) I do not have the time anyway.

do you mean by "perhaps some additional time helping out before requesting permanent adminship would be best?" another temp. adminship? or do you mean just what you explained afterwards? -- seth 17:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me :) I'd go for another temp admin one for now (I'd certainly support that). The experience would be good for you anyway. Equally at least you do help which is more than can be said for many who just say they will :(. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant another temp admin. Like I said, we need all the help we can get (doing work, as opposed to promises). As well, some work outside performance-optimization etc (COIBot reports?!) would be nice, though I recognize that we all have limits on our available time. And again, I'll nominate you for a permanent one as soon as I feel comfortable not checking your work.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 19:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

ok, for which period of time? -- seth 20:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mike as to the work/help that is needed (& I am pretty inactive sadly). Go for 6 months maybe - nothing to stop a permanent Rf over that period. Certainly helping with the bot reported stuff would be great. Maybe look at SWMT and cross wiki stuff for a bit then seek global rollback - it links quite well with bot reported stuff. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I certainly and unfortunately won't have the time for things like SWMT. However, I requested another temp. adminship now. -- seth 09:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

All the help is welcome, seth, so I would go for it (and I see you have). To me you seem wise enough to be careful with what you add, and even the experienced under us make mistakes (and we can always remove it again!). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 10:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

dontcountme

Hi, I guess &dontcountme=s doesn't make a difference anymore, but does it do any harm when using it? I noticed you removing it, so I wonder if I should do so in my own scripts. Thanks. --Erwin(85) 20:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't do anything. I figured that out after removing it (ie as opposed to it breaking things).  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 20:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems to not to have happened

Hoi, given that even the implementation of official policies do not happen.. "seems to not to have happened" is not a reason to bury something that is widely welcomed. If anything you ensure that where consensus exists is defeated. Thanks, GerardM 08:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies; I was trying to clean up which was terribly organized. Feel free to re-categorize into subcats as needed or remove {{historical}} if a proposal is current.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 13:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

hi,

Hi Mike, i see my site zeta torrent in blacklist.. can you give me the reason?

I put the link only in the pages that contains url similar and that i think worst searcher .. if u dislike it, you can remove it from external links section (i'm not a bot and i don't repost) but why put in black list??

You leave other sites (without good results) i speak about bittorrent (it version but in other languages is the same):

torrentle? some technology (googlecse) but less sites ... less usefull results.. multitorrent? multi-frame site .. youtorrent? dont search anymore in multiple sites but only in few and limitated

Have you tried it? Have you try others sites that are linked from bittorrent in wikipedia first put in blacklist??

I spend much time for search good torrent sites and every day i search others valuable domain / pattern, instead you leave oldest.

How i regards you for your works and time spend on wikipedia don't offende my work. So, i ask to remove my link from blacklist.

Best regards and sorry for my bad english, [Nickel22]

At the end of the day it is Spam. It is unwanted and also it is Illegal to use a torrent to download anything or share files. Vandalismterminator 10:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The domain was blacklisted after this report, showing excessive linking across many wikis. Such linking is unneeded, unwanted, and unwelcome. You are welcome to open a request for de-listing on Talk:Spam blacklist. However, unless the domain is going to be used to benefit our projects, it will not be de-blacklisted.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 14:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

So, linux distro on torrent circuit is illegal... :O are you sure? i think no... technologies or alghorithms is not illegal, persons use it illegally or not, what about this? so, zeta is not in many wikies, only in 1 article (check it) ... more translations - ok - but 1 article and in this, only, in which there are others links in the same category that after comparision are result worst.

With your idea, you can blacklist all links in 'others links' and 'external links' on wikipedia? Compliment :)

Benefit? good word... but.. youtorrent, torrentle, multitorrent, pizzatorrent and others links on wiki-articles are benefit for wikipedia? mmm it's strange.. you talk me about "Illegal to use torrent" so wiki is illegal? Confused @_@

I removed one dead link and correct some wrong title, it's spam? it's botting? if yes please correct this too :|

i think that you have just remove the links, not more.. if i repost in same or others article: Yes I am a botter / spammer.. go in the hell blacklist.. one post is Spam?? Are You sure about this? exaggerated :P

If you dislike it ok I accept it and i dont repost (dude I am not a troll or botter and dont talk about this), it's ok remvoe it! First compare and then target with "bot" or "spam" label.

For me is all, but think about this and then write response if You want.

Bye bye Mike, [Nickel22]

Sorry, you seem to have confused who said what. It was Vandalismterminator who said that, and I said that. You'll note that it's not simply one addition. If you wish to appeal the blacklisting, please add a section for community input on Talk:Spam blacklist.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 15:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mike, I moved this discussion [here] is correct? Bye.

I'll move it to the discussion section on the bot report, but that'll be fine, yes.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for welcoming me. Just to let you know, I left SWMT to join CVN because I can only speak English. I do monitor the English and Simple English wikis. Techman224^Talk 19:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to be multilingual to be part of SWMT - I'm barely bilingual, and can certainly not speak however many languages we have projects in (>100 I think)!  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm using Google Translate. Techman224^Talk 02:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good - I use that too. If you're monitoring for vandalism, you might as well watch (almost) all wikis. We do need more people watching and taking action.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a doubt

Please, can you take care of this? I don't know if it is spammy or not. Seems to be an IP traceroute but I'm not sure. Thank you. Dferg (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Protections

Mike.l, regarding these pages (most of which you performed some type of moves on) do they require indefinite protection, or is it just a artifact of an old page? Thank you, xaosflux ^Talk 03:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No, those are protected pages - they are protected because the integrity of the spam blacklist archives are extremely important for proper functioning of the global blacklist with affects well over 700 WMF projects, over 3000 Wikia wikis, and the vast majority of over 25 000 other third-party users.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand the scope of the blacklist, but am not following this reasoning. In my understanding, the blacklist is in no way dependent on the talk archives to operate, and the nature of the wiki maintains integrity of history via page versions. I can't see much harm in having the talk archives unprotected, but would appreciate any other insight you have in to the matter. Thank you, xaosflux ^Talk 03:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Archives are regularly protected to prevent disruption. As I've said, archives in this case are especially important, and have traditionally been protected for that reason. If you'd like a review of that decision, the SBL team is who you need to ask, not me. However I wouldn't expect that to change.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 16:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The logs should be protected in my view. Yesterday I reverted two IP edits that removed log entries. One had been missed from a while back.

To me that are a "matter of record" and should be sensibly preserved (I have done the same on en wp). I'm not a fan of protection however such pages (effectively mediawiki pages when the devs get around to dealing with it) are very different from normal wiki pages. Meta is quite well patrolled but those got missed. I've protected all the logs - like Mike I would wish to get input from the BL folk & probably the rest of the community before such pages were unprotected. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)