Talk:BugMeNot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] good article

The article is good but its needs to be completed, actually is some ethics controversy about bugmenot use It would be good you can make reference to it in this article.

[edit] Down

Well, the site's down now.—thegreentrilby 20:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, the site's back up. --Shaddack 17:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'm very happy it's back!—thegreentrilby 02:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
It's down again, its a godaddy now
It's down again. 12:53AM PST, 7 September 2007
Down again - maybe someone can mention that in the article? 21:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


Try nagfree, a wikified version. 128.3.63.67 23:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use it!

Someone should put an entry on the BugMeNot site for Wikipedia, so that people that don't want to create a user name can use names that other people have registered. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.190.51.99 (talk • contribs) .

Shared accounts are not allowed on Wikipedia and are blocked on sight. Bugmenot does not provide any shared logins for Wikipedia. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 01:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
And besides, Wikipedia doesn't require any personal info, not even an e-mail address. --Happynoodleboy 11:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Bugmenot does not provide any shared logins for Wikipedia. They should. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.190.51.99 (talk • contribs) .
It would take as much time to look up a login for Wikipedia on BugMeNot as it would to create an account yourself. As I've said, no personal info and no e-mail address is required (e-mail addy is entirely optional). There would be NO benefit if BugMeNot provided logins for Wikipedia, which they do not and never will. --Happynoodleboy 17:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, BugMeNot blocked using its service for WP. The end. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 22:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
The truth is that people tends to abuse of that service, sharing accounts from paid services, people stealing shared accounts, and even sharing accounts for unregistered forums.Atenea26 19:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I fired off an email earlier today to BugMeNot, asking for what their actual reason was for blocking Wikipedia, and this is the response I recieved:
Hi Dreaded Walrus,
We kind of have an unofficial policy of not sharing accounts for services that require a login only to "write". It makes it too easy for bots and vandals to subvert a system. Registering to read just plain sucks, but registering to write seems like a necessary evil in a lot of cases.
Wikipedia doesnt even require a login to edit in most situations though.
Cheers,
bugmenot
So I guess that's why then (and it slightly differs from the reason mentioned in the article). Although I guess I'm a bit late to the party. --Dreaded Walrus t c 23:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] February 2007 downtime

Right now I get "Error 403 Forbidden (client denied by server configuration: /home/htdocs)". Meneth 16:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Are there any other website providing account information so organized, if so you could link to them....

Yes, this is important! A number of sites that require registration seem to quickly invalidate bugmenot log-ins and apparently Bugmenot also lets a lot of common sites opt-out. Registering to view articles or download articles is a waste of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.220.91 (talk) 08:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is at least one. http://www.naoenche.com/ You would think there would be more of these. It is a Brazilian site so it is not English :( 67.149.220.91 09:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Combat 18/neo-nazi sentence

Earlier, User:67.134.169.25 removed a sentence saying that BugMeNot shared hosting with a group called Combat 18, with an edit summary of "Remove inaccuracy that would be mostly irrelevant even if it were true.". At the time, I didn't pay much attention to the first part of the edit summary, instead realising that the following sentence seemed out of context without the sentence that the anon removed. That's why I reverted. It was then removed again, with an edit summary of "It's false. Context is not a justification for inaccuracy.". Just as I was about to actually make the article make sense by removing the stuff following the deleted sentence, I decided to have a look at our citation for that sentence. We have a citation which says that they are hosted on the same server, including a quote from the creator of BugMeNot that does indeed say "I don't care if I'm sharing a server with neo-nazis. I might not agree with what they have to say, but the whole thing about freedom of speech is that people are free to speak.". Now, while context is indeed not justification for inaccuracy (hence why I would have removed the whole sentence, were it not to be backed up by the citation), we do have a citation that says this. To say that they are not hosted by the same people, in the face of a citation that says that they are, would be original research. If you have a citation from a reliable source that says they are not hosted on the same server, that is more recent than the current one, please do feel free to present it. --Dreaded Walrus t c 00:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Even cursory inspection shows that this is not the case:

$ traceroute www.redwatch.co.uk

  • traceroute to www.redwatch.co.uk (72.29.94.88), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets
  • (omitted first 6 hops for privacy)
  • 7 ae-31-51.ebr1.dallas1.level3.net (4.68.122.30) 238.251 ms ae-32-54.ebr2.dallas1.level3.net (4.68.122.126) 163.068 ms ae-31-53.ebr1.dallas1.level3.net (4.68.122.94) 192.240 ms
  • 8 ae-1-100.ebr1.dallas1.level3.net (4.69.132.45) 140.856 ms ae-9-9.car2.orlando1.level3.net (4.69.133.69) 232.902 ms ae-1-100.ebr1.dallas1.level3.net (4.69.132.45) 193.684 ms
  • 9 hostdime.car2.orlando1.level3.net (4.79.118.38) 155.450 ms 143.470 ms ae-9-9.car2.orlando1.level3.net (4.69.133.69) 142.414 ms
  • 10 * hostdime.car2.orlando1.level3.net (4.79.118.38) 250.436 ms *
  • 11 * * *

$ traceroute combat18.org

  • traceroute to combat18.org (208.100.1.62), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets

(omitted first hops for privacy)

  • 11 ber2-pos-1-0-0.chicago.savvis.net (208.175.10.98) 200.820 ms ber1-vlan-241.chicagoequinix.savvis.net (204.70.196.22) 226.558 ms ber2-pos-7-0-0.chicago.savvis.net (208.175.10.254) 255.117 ms
  • 12 ber2-vlan-242.chicagoequinix.savvis.net (204.70.196.26) 215.844 ms bpr2-ge-7-0-0.chicagoequinix.savvis.net (208.175.9.138) 204.257 ms ber2-vlan-242.chicagoequinix.savvis.net (204.70.196.26) 171.338 ms
  • 13 208.174.225.202 (208.174.225.202) 194.574 ms 166.532 ms bpr2-ge-7-1-0.chicagoequinix.savvis.net (204.70.194.254) 179.328 ms
  • 14 62.208-100-1.nozonenet.com (208.100.1.62) 208.844 ms 208.174.225.202 (208.174.225.202) 244.058 ms 134.187 ms

$ traceroute bugmenot.com $ traceroute bugmenot.com

  • traceroute: Warning: bugmenot.com has multiple addresses; using 208.48.143.25
  • traceroute to bugmenot.com (208.48.143.25), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets
  • (First six hops omitted for privacy.)
  • 7 limelight-dallas.te3-1.ar2.dal2.gblx.net (64.215.27.206) 167.255 ms 171.292 ms 206.109 ms
  • 8 tge1-2.fr3.phx2.llnw.net (69.28.171.129) 229.012 ms 262.733 ms 281.369 ms
  • 9 tge1-1.fr4.phx3.llnw.net (69.28.172.142) 197.146 ms 137.530 ms 194.978 ms
  • 10 ve10.fr3.phx3.llnw.net (69.28.171.253) 212.058 ms 230.231 ms 243.506 ms
  • 11 c1.phx.nearlyfreespeech.net (199.1.92.201) 199.252 ms 137.837 ms 167.821 ms
  • 12 c1.phx.nearlyfreespeech.net (199.1.92.201) 157.356 ms 161.989 ms 131.721 ms
  • (repeats)

The boing boing blog referring to these sites quotes "an anonymous boingboing reader" in doing so. If anonymous blog readers are reliable sources now, Wikipedia is in a lot of trouble. 67.134.169.25 00:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)"Anonymous Blog Reader"

Question: If the bugmenot guy had said "I don't care if I'm sharing a server with baby-eaters" would it be okay to list random example baby eating websites, even if they also had no connection? 67.134.169.25 00:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict with separate question) The traceroute output above is original research, unless you can find a reliable source who has printed that. With regards to the Boingboing story, your point is a non sequitur. They quote an anonymous reader, but by reprinting it, it is their journalistic integrity at risk. As an example, BBC News may have an interview with an eyewitness to a bomb blast, who is a homeless person. If they include a quote from the homeless person on their website, and we use that story as a reference for our article on said bomb blast, we are most certainly not saying that homeless people are reliable sources. But by including that quote in their story on the bomb blast, they are putting their own integrity at risk. And I can guarantee that BBC News is a reliable source, as is Boingboing. And besides, you fail to address my other two points. One of them being that the creator himself has said that he doesn't mind being on the same service as Combat 18/Redwatch, and the other being that we require a reliable source. Given that we have a reliable source for inclusion of the sentence, I don't see why it should be removed. Regardless, I'm not interested in continuing this edit war any further, as I have currently reverted three times, and I don't really desire to get blocked for the first time over something as petty as this. If you want to revert me again, go ahead, but if we could discuss this here too, that would be great.
(and, after an edit conflict, I may as well respond to your second message, too). No, listing "random baby eating websites" would not be relevant. But if our citation listed a few notable baby eating websites in particular, and showed that it had been quite controversial, I would have nothing against the inclusion. --Dreaded Walrus t c 01:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Statements of fact are not original research. This is not a perpetual motion machine entry. If you must have link citations for basic facts, try these:

The bugmenot guy said only "neo-nazis" and did not refer to any site by name.

67.134.169.25 01:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a bad feeling I am going to conflict you again (sorry for that) but I re-read the Boing Boing article on the bugmenot "neo-nazi" comment. It says:

"4. Dissidenthosting decided to take advantage of the situation by redirecting traffic to a neo-nazi site [...]"

And then in 5.

"Personally, I don't care if I'm sharing a server with neo-nazis."

It seems plausible, or at least possible, that he was referring to the previous host that had neo-nazi sites and had shown those sites instead of his. Either that, or he picked an example of something obnoxious that was fresh on his mind. 67.134.169.25 01:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] roachfiend.com

I'm not sure exactly how bugmenot should be working with Firefox, but right now, the add-on page hosted on roachfiend.com seems to be down - well, roachfiend.com is down.

Does anybody know what's going on? RobiBuecheler 06:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)