Wikipedia:Weblinks/Block/netzsch-thermal-analysis.com
Zur Navigation springen
Zur Suche springen
Auf dieser Seite werden Anfragen zu Sperrungen und Entsperrungen der im Titel oder der Überschrift genannten Website, Domain oder Sub-Domain besprochen.
netzsch-thermal-analysis.com
[Quelltext bearbeiten]Wird von der gobalen BL seit 2011 [1] falsch-positiv mitgeblockt. User:Julia Kelbler hat es bemerkt, als sie den irrtümlich entfernten Link in Netzsch-Gruppe wieder einfügen wollte, vgl. ihre Adminanfrage [2]. Revi hat [3] vorgeschlagen, die Whitelist zu benutzen. --MBq Disk 14:31, 17. Dez. 2014 (CET)
- gudn tach!
- hab den globalen sperr-eintrag angepasst, sodass das verlinken jetzt moeglich sein sollte. -- seth 17:27, 20. Dez. 2014 (CET)
- Hallo - I have undone that as that is possibly going to be a too wide a net that is opening, it allowed for e.g. 'http://spammy-thermal-analysis.com, and there was clearly no consensus either way. My advice there was to whitelist it locally, as also suggested earlier by Revi - this is a link that is very likely only going to be used on one wiki and on likely only one page on that wiki: here on Netzsch-Gruppe. That is exactly what the whitelist is for, exclude specifics from the local or global blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C (meta: U, T) 20:07, 20. Dez. 2014 (CET)
- Hi!
- I disagree with this, but let's continue talking at meta. -- seth 20:48, 20. Dez. 2014 (CET)
- As I described on meta, the company that owns 'thermal-analysis.com' also owns 'simultaneous-thermal-analysis.com', a site that is also allowed through the hole you created (in other words, you gave the possibility to spammers of 'thermal-analysis.com' to spam one of the other links of the same owner; and in my many years of experience in (cross-wiki) spam fighting I have seen spammers use such holes, companies/SEOs which are still active years after their first domains got blacklisted, companies/SEOs that return days after someone de-blacklsits their rules - it is how spammers/SEOs make their money). Finding whether it was spammed or whether the spammers of the original domains are still active is a very lengthy task and not an exercise that spam fighters are often willing to do, nor an analysis that was performed before creating the hole (all because there is an alternative: local whitelisting on the wiki that needs it). Obviously, that research was not done anyway because the hole created did allow for on of the domains out of the series of domains that were spammed through the hole (and I doubt that other checks were performed too). That link can then be added to the ~800 wikis of MediaWiki, with all problems with that. And that hole is created because ONE wiki needs ONE other domain ('netzsch-thermal-analysis.com') for, probably, less than 4 pages on that one wiki. Further about opening the global hole - it would allow a company that is legitimately linked on ONE wiki to pick up, and start linking themselves on other wikis 'because we are linked on that Wiki we should also be on others' (yes, I have seen that argument before as well - 'but I am notable on fy.wikipedia, why not here?'). Moreover, you ask meta Wikipedia to research whether one domain merits a global hole while the company that owns the domain is only notable in one Wiki. Meta tactics is generally the other way around: if 3 or 4 local wikis merit a local hole (through whitelisting), then maybe for that one domain a global hole should be created (and then, only for that one domain). --Dirk Beetstra T C (meta: U, T) 04:50, 21. Dez. 2014 (CET)
- Hi!
- The domain netzsch-thermal-analysis.com is useful at least at w:de and we don't know whether there are other wikis for which it could be useful. And as far as I see, nobody wants netzsch-thermal-analysis.com to be blocked anywhere. So the domain should not be blocked globally (and whitelisted locally), it should not be blacklisted at all.
- As I mentioned on meta, false positives are much more worse than temporal spamming. Anyway, I unblocked the domain on meta now explicitly. -- seth 12:15, 21. Dez. 2014 (CET)
- As I described on meta, the company that owns 'thermal-analysis.com' also owns 'simultaneous-thermal-analysis.com', a site that is also allowed through the hole you created (in other words, you gave the possibility to spammers of 'thermal-analysis.com' to spam one of the other links of the same owner; and in my many years of experience in (cross-wiki) spam fighting I have seen spammers use such holes, companies/SEOs which are still active years after their first domains got blacklisted, companies/SEOs that return days after someone de-blacklsits their rules - it is how spammers/SEOs make their money). Finding whether it was spammed or whether the spammers of the original domains are still active is a very lengthy task and not an exercise that spam fighters are often willing to do, nor an analysis that was performed before creating the hole (all because there is an alternative: local whitelisting on the wiki that needs it). Obviously, that research was not done anyway because the hole created did allow for on of the domains out of the series of domains that were spammed through the hole (and I doubt that other checks were performed too). That link can then be added to the ~800 wikis of MediaWiki, with all problems with that. And that hole is created because ONE wiki needs ONE other domain ('netzsch-thermal-analysis.com') for, probably, less than 4 pages on that one wiki. Further about opening the global hole - it would allow a company that is legitimately linked on ONE wiki to pick up, and start linking themselves on other wikis 'because we are linked on that Wiki we should also be on others' (yes, I have seen that argument before as well - 'but I am notable on fy.wikipedia, why not here?'). Moreover, you ask meta Wikipedia to research whether one domain merits a global hole while the company that owns the domain is only notable in one Wiki. Meta tactics is generally the other way around: if 3 or 4 local wikis merit a local hole (through whitelisting), then maybe for that one domain a global hole should be created (and then, only for that one domain). --Dirk Beetstra T C (meta: U, T) 04:50, 21. Dez. 2014 (CET)
- Hallo - I have undone that as that is possibly going to be a too wide a net that is opening, it allowed for e.g. 'http://spammy-thermal-analysis.com, and there was clearly no consensus either way. My advice there was to whitelist it locally, as also suggested earlier by Revi - this is a link that is very likely only going to be used on one wiki and on likely only one page on that wiki: here on Netzsch-Gruppe. That is exactly what the whitelist is for, exclude specifics from the local or global blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C (meta: U, T) 20:07, 20. Dez. 2014 (CET)
Ok erledigt, seth hat den Eintrag in der globalen Blacklist modifiziert --MBq Disk 11:28, 26. Dez. 2014 (CET)
