Talk:Skrill/Archive 1

Archive 1

Moneybookers

"The principal security hole of this service is an inability to verify credit cards safely." This (approximately) was the second of the two sentences which comprised the first revision. It was written by an anonymous user. I can't find any evidence of this. Perhaps the anon had an axe to grind? Pending evidence, I've deleted it. Tualha (Talk) 15:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't even know what it means by "verify"? Evercat 11:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I removed the following edit:

Ebay has previously stated that it is just a venue. After acquiring paypal it has become more than a venue by listing in auctions whether the buyer accepts paypal (no other payment options listed) and allowing buyers to sort by paypal. In August 2005, it required that sellers who take paypal not refuse credit card payments, which result in fees and may result in chargebacks due to credit card and other buyer fraud. Beginning in January 2006, ebay now prohibits any online payment system except Paypal, as stated here. Ebay deceptively gives bidpay.com as an alternative, but bidpay has already gone out of business. This singularly requires that online payments through ebay must use ebay's system. Issues of illegality and antitrust have been raised over this decision. [1] Ebay specifically prohibits E-gold, a legitimate competitor to Paypal.

Based on ebay's policy, here, a seller can have their account banned for accepting payment through Moneybookers.

Please feel free to reinsert it after it's been toned down from being an anti-eBay rant to being something close to what you'd read in an encyclopedia. kmccoy (talk) 01:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I've done some editing. Anyone who feels it still needs more but does not want to edit it, please specific which sentences so it's easier to figure out what you wish. Thank you. DyslexicEditor 02:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that the entire paragraph should be struck. The title is too long and the whole section is principally about Paypal, not Moneybookers. The tone is whiny and it generally comes off as complaining that Moneybookers has been shut out of a lucrative market. Your edits did litle to address the general negative tone of the section. Jasongetsdown 22:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's work together on revising it, but keeping the basic information. DyslexicEditor 22:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Ebay prohibits buyers and sellers from using moneybookers for its auctions

Ebay has previously stated that it is just a venue. After acquiring paypal it has become more than a venue by listing in auctions whether the buyer accepts paypal (no other payment options listed) and allowing buyers to sort by paypal. Next, sellers with Paypal accounts that have issues such as chargebacks or stolen cards from buyers result in their ebay accounts being closed as well. In August 2005, it required that sellers who take paypal not refuse credit card payments, which result in fees. [1] Beginning in January 2006, ebay now prohibits any online payment system except Paypal, as stated here. Ebay only gives Bidpay.com as its alternative, a company that has already gone out of business before the policy. This singularly requires that online payments through ebay must use ebay's system, paypal. Questions of illegality and antitrust have been raised over this new rule. Ebay specifically prohibits E-gold, a legitimate competitor to Paypal.

Based on ebay's policy, here, a seller can have their account banned for accepting payment through Moneybookers.

If something must be included I would revise it to something like the following...

Beginning January 2006, ebay's Safe Payments Policy prohibits the use of Moneybookers for auction payments [2]. Based on ebay's policy a seller can have their account banned for accepting payment through Moneybookers.

Even in this abbreviated form I still do not think this is relevant information, especially considering that the policy makes no mention of moneybookers and is far from exclusive in its list of allowable payment options. It is simply not NPOV.

If the only reason that moneybookers is not allowed is that ebay owns Paypal then there is no reason for this here. If it was prohibited because of questions about its security or reliability then I could see it getting a mention. Jasongetsdown 18:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The smaller version is more precise, but it needs to explain why. Ebay of course never says they're prohibiting everything except paypal because they own paypal. They claim it's for safety reasons and what not. So Jasongetsdown, Ebay says it's security or reliability. But most people think it's because ebay owns paypal. DyslexicEditor 08:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we say this then, DyslexicEditor...

As a result of ebay's purchase of Paypal, beginning xxxx 2005 ebay's Safe Payments Policy prohibits the use of Moneybookers and some similar services for auction payments [3]. Based on ebay's policy a seller can have their account banned for accepting payment through Moneybookers.

Also, it would appear that the "ban" started before this month [4]. Can you pin down the date that the policy changed? The linked post is from october, shall we go with that? Jasongetsdown 15:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

First, I need to correct the date. It's 2006. The whole rule is right here. http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/safe-payments-policy.html That's the whole thing. It starts on the 15th of January, 2006. Reports from earlier were just because people heard about it. I believe ebay announced it, but their help system can not find this URL at all so the information is kind of hidden. But welp, it starts the 15th of this month and that URL is the whole policy. And I suppose that description is good enough. They trimmed it up in the egold article from what I put, too. DyslexicEditor 18:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

September 2006. The links above take you to the ebay policy "Accepted Payments" At the bottom of that policy is a box which says "Some examples" Clicking on this gives a range of payment examples which are and are not permitted. Moneybookers is in the permitted section.

I've made the changes per our discussion. Thnx for being constructive. Jasongetsdown 15:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

straight poop

Ok, someone added this...

However, according to ebay Canada's country manager Jordan Banks Moneybookers is still an acceptable form of payment.

...And now I'm confused. I've asked eBay support for the official line. They should be getting back to me in a bit. Jasongetsdown 14:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ebay's told me no many times. DyslexicEditor 01:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

They told me no as well. I've been busy so I didn't get back to this. I'm removing that line. There's sufficient evidence to show its not true. Jasongetsdown 17:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Ebay now accepts moneybookers.com

as stated at http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/accepted-payments-policy.html -- (James McNally)  (talkpage)  02:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Specify time period please

"Moneybookers claim to have over 2.4 million users and processed over €2,000 million in transactions" - is this per year, per day? --Cryout 07:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Their turnover and member numbers are since inception. --trademe 14:23, 23 January 2007 (NZDT)

Currency conversion fee between USD, GBP and EUR is 0.95%

anyone can explain this fee, by using an example? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nkour (talk • contribs) 23:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Affiliate spamming of Moneybookers

• Affiliate ID 1188674
  

Spam sock accounts

Nnnlll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
84.174.32.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
84.174.61.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
de.88.70.62.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
de.84.174.28.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
de.Nasowas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
84.174.35.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
de.

• Affiliate ID 3872559
  

Spam sock accounts

196.206.192.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
196.206.228.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
196.206.205.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
196.206.218.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
196.217.191.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
196.206.203.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
196.217.151.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
196.217.149.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
196.217.189.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
de.

• Affiliate ID 3462058
  

Spam sock accounts

67.68.153.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• Affiliate ID 1405659
  

Spam sock accounts

87.250.113.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• Affiliate ID 3174545
  

Spam sock accounts

87.212.129.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• Affiliate ID 321266
  

Spam sock accounts

Enwik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Affiliate ID 2894426
  

Spam sock accounts

88.191.19.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• Affiliate ID 815360
  

Spam sock accounts

83.99.36.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
213.135.227.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• Affiliate ID 466479
  

Spam sock accounts

Fiach6383 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Affiliate ID 316906
  

Spam sock accounts

81.190.146.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• Affiliate ID 3224340
  

Spam sock accounts

Daviesoul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please remove Affiliate spamming, thanks --Hu12 (talk) 20:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Type

Moneybookers is a payment service as well as a money transfer service - can someone edit the type definition in the box at the top of the page to read 'Online Payment and Money Transfer Service'? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobyjwalsh (talk • contribs) 11:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Parent company

The parent company of Moneybookers is now 'Investcorp Technology Partners' - this needs to be amended as is it currently reads Gatcombe which is a factual error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobyjwalsh (talk • contribs) 11:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Moneybookers won't refund stolen money

Could an established user please add to the "Major drawbacks as reported by users include:" section that Moneybookers refuse to refund money stolen from an account by criminals. We recently lost £450.07 in 4 Send Money transactions to moneybookers@pay-pro.com and multipurposeadmin@spidernet.com.cy on 24 and 25 April 2008. This cleared the account. Maybe they hacked the login, maybe it was an inside job, moneybookers aren't saying. All they said was "Unfortunately the hacked ammount cannot be refunded - we are really sorry for the inconvenience caused." - Moneybookers333 (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Autobiography?

I would like to question the objectivity of this article. It is my concern that the author might be Skrill itself. Please add citations and make sure that this article meet the wikipedia standards. --109.70.49.30 (talk) 23:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Sebastian

Done. Naturally, feel free to improve it further. kashmiri (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Very nice. I wanna thank you for your fine work on this Kashmiri, but I don't know where to message you. It has really helped a lot!

--173.255.160.184 (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC) Sebastian

Terms of Service

re: this edit: Most sites have TOS, and violating them can lead to suspension or termination of the account. For example, Section 4 of the PayPal User Agreement says something similar.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

To put it differently, Terms and Conditions form part of a contract between the two parties (the website operating company and the individual). If one of the parties is in intentional breach of the contractual terms (esp. the essential terms), the other party can lawfully regard the contract as terminated. kashmiri 10:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

ianmacm, kashmiri, it's a financial issue I'm trying to explain. You mentioned PayPal User Agreement, which is saying "...your access to the Service may be suspended or terminated". Don't you see the difference? Termination of access to a service vs. closure of an account? Simple example: you go to your bank which suspects you in money laundry. Instead of a normal practice to freeze your account, they just close it. If you don't have account, there is no place to keep your money -> you loose your money because they only suspect you in a laundry. Doesn't it seems ridiculous? Another part of PayPal User Agreement: "You will cooperate fully with PayPal Wells Fargo, MasterCard or VISA to investigate..." Is this still "similar" to TOS of Moneybookers? Obviously not. That's was my message: termination of contract is absolutely normal practice, but if somebody is deciding on their own discretion (and without any involvement of interested party) of whether they can own somebody's money, that's outstanding fact in financial operations, isn't it?

Wikiuserleo 16:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC) — Wikiuserleo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It is hard to comment on this because I'm not sure if we are getting the full picture here. If you have been involved in a dispute with Moneybookers which led to suspension or termination of the account, it is beyond the scope of the article unless there is reliable sourcing. After another read through of Section 17 of the Moneybookers Terms of Use (Section 17), it does seem to be broadly similar to PayPal on the circumstances that would lead to account suspension or termination without notice.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "broadly similar". I'm specifying and very concrete parts of these two documents, no generics. Because I was not aware of those facts and most importantly, their interpretation, I lost my money, and it turned to be lawful! Before creation of an account with Moneybookers, I consulted Wikipedia as one of sources that could tell me about that organization. Now I have additional knowledge that Moneybookers may keep somebody's money because they'll decide so on their own discretion and according to their TOS, as it turned out. Doesn't it seem to be a knowledge that other people using Wikipedia should have? Do you want to put censorship at this point? Otherwise please suggest how can the page can be improved to account this ridiculous, as I see, financial terms of usage, which has little to do with usual practice of *safe* financial operations in today's world.

Wikiuserleo 17:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC) — Wikiuserleo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

PayPal does have complaints about restricting customer access to money, this site was found in a quick search. Since the edits here relate to a specific case where all of the facts are not known, it is not within the scope of the article in its current form.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems that you persistently don't understand the key issue. Even taking the two points from your last comment: 1) the url you provided mentions about a *procedure of resolution* of a case, while I'm saying that Moneybookers can just say (in simple words for better understanding, but according to the legal document they issued) "we decided so, and we don't want to hear any objection". 2)The edits are not about a specific case, but about a valuable note of existing documents of the company, which is not obvious on their own - that's why I insist on added value of the comments. Wikiuserleo 17:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikiuserleo, this is a very complex matter that you seem not to have studied in full. Please be aware that in many legislations, the ownership of the money - be it in a bank account or deposited with another company (like PayPal, Moneybookers, and any else) - remains with that company. Legally, you do NOT own the money in your bank/company account: you only have a right to demand a payment from that bank/company. While banks are usually subject to legislation that limits the risk to the depositor, money paid to an "ordinary" company can usually be lawfully kept by that company and they are under no obligation to make any payments to you once you stand in breach of the contract. It makes no real difference whether it is Moneybookers, PayPal, or ABCDEF Ltd., and Google search shows that most if not all payment companies sometimes take such action.

Then, I am not sure that you see a difference between losing access to funds (due to "account suspension/termination") and losing the funds. Even if your "account" is terminated, you can still be paid the balance. Having an active "account" is not prerequisite to being paid.

All in all, your edit to the article did not bring anything specific to Moneybookers (as I wrote, any company can lawfully keep the funds - because they are theirs) and only promoted a personal opinion that "Moneybookers is not to be trusted". You are welcome to discuss the matter of fund ownership in more depth, e.g., on the talk pages of the E-commerce payment system article. While any controversies related specifically and only to Moneybookers should naturally be highlighted in this article - however, promoting a personal opinion based on (mis)understanding of Terms and Conditions (and perhaps original research) is not really acceptable.

Hope you agree. kashmiri 17:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

US to non US and non US to US both banned?

The lead says " Also, US-based customers cannot receive money from non-US accounts, and non-US customers cannot upload funds using cards or accounts located in the United States." But should it say something like "US based customers cannot send money to, nor receive money from, non-US accounts"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.127.103.208 (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

This might be a bit confusing as it is unclear whether the word "account" would be used for Moneybookers accounts or for bank accounts. I have not researched the topic in detail (I only have first-hand knowledge that I can send money from my non-US Moneybookers account to my US bank account). If you are willing and able to look the precise info up on MB's website and share the results along with a reference it would help a lot. kashmiri 20:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I went through Moneybookers T&C and also did a quick Google search, and it seems that US accounts no longer face any restrictions. One blogger [5] posted that MB support informed them that as of May 2012 US restrictions were to be lifted. I edited the article text correspondingly. kashmiri 13:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Skrill rebranding

Hi, I work at Skrill (Moneybookers) and would like to change this page wholesale, as we are rebranding as Skrill. I want to make some factual updates I cannot create a Skrill page as it is already taken as a link to the Moneybookers page. Could you help me find out how I could fix this? 154.32.157.63 (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. It is good to see you want to improve Wikipedia. A note that although anonymous editing is absolutely acceptable on Wikipedia, it might be more convenient if you register for an account, so that your edits can be referred to directly in a discussion; registering also prevents cases when you could be tagged as spam or blocked if using a shared IP.

As to your intended contributions to this particular article, you will be discouraged from editing it since you have a clear conflict of interest.

As to your proposal of moving it to "Skrill", from what I have understood when following this article over years, it will be definitely moved once the rebranding process Moneybookers --> Skrill is complete. However, as of today, Skrill is still advertised as "the future of Moneybookers" (instead of Moneybookers being the past of Skrill); the company states: Our next evolution is to rebrand as Skrill [6]; webpage is copyright of Monebookers Ltd.; and the digital site certificate (of https://www.moneybookers.com) still shows as issued to Moneybookers Limited. In short, while Moneybookers is used as the main/current brand, it can be assumed that most people would search Wikipedia for "Moneybookers", not for "Skrill". Hence, the article should rather stay where it is.

Also, I would suggest you familiarise yourself well with Wikipedia's Manual of Style so that, for example, you don't start typing at the top of the page but below all other threads, and add titles to your newly created threads. kashmiri 19:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree, renaming the article to Skrill should wait until the formal change has taken place. If there is anything in the article that is factually wrong, please mention it here on the talk page and provide a reliable source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

As of this posting the website states Moneybookers USA, Inc. rather than Skrill Holdings Ltd. Still has the "were changing" and logo remains "the future of moneybookers.." formal change does not appear to have taken place yet. --Hu12 (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Moneybookers impostors scam - Buyer Beware!!!

I find it interesting that this page has been locked for editing, yet requests source information. The following is an article from the Baltimore Sun, a credible news outlet.

Car Bargains Used in Wire Payment Fraud

If someone overseas is offering to sell you a popular car for less than its Kelley Blue Book value, don't get rolled over, the Better Business Bureau of Greater Maryland warned.

Advertising such cars through online classifieds and trade magazines, scam artists pose as sellers from outside the country. To give the buyer a false sense of security, the seller claims the transaction will be completed through Moneybookers.com, which is a United Kingdom-based service that is similar to PayPal.com.

Follow-up e-mail messages from the seller are drafted to appear to be from Moneybookers. Buyers are then asked to send a fully insured and refundable 30 percent down payment on the car and they're instructed to wire the money to the seller in London, contrary to Moneybookers' policies.

The BBB warned that this scam has developed into a multilevel strategy in which consumers are sent e-mail modeled after the Moneybookers format. Links to online chats with scammers posing as Moneybookers reps are included in the e-mail to lure unsuspecting buyers.

The scam has been so successful that documented reports to the BBB have shown that some eager buyers lost thousands - and then sent an additional 30 percent to the scam artists.

When it comes to sending money via wire services, take Western Union's advice: The Western Union Money Transfer Service is not intended to send money to someone you don't know. Americanpooje (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It is protected, but only for those people who are not logged in or if logged in, but their account is less than 4 days old. Since you just created your account today, you will be unable to edit this article until sometime on 22 April. If you believe something should be in the article, put a draft here on the talk page and other editors will be along, review, help make better and maybe insert into the article. Please ensure that the text you want to put in is written in a neutral point of view with reliable sources so the information can be verified. If I can be of any assistance let me know, either here or on my talk page. Jons63 (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm heard Moneybookers is still an active scam.--82.212.85.183 (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Skrill turned to scam

They are pure scammers who made their online "service" to look like a legal one, but in fact this is just a shell with nothing inside. Once you upload a small amount to your account balance from previously verified credit card and then try to withdraw it back either to visa card or bank account, you get an email like this:

Dear %USERNAME%,
We would like to inform you that your account is temporarily suspended for payments following a routine security audit.
In order to lift the restrictions imposed on your account, please comply with the following requests:
1. For what purpose are you using your Skrill  account?
2. Provide the following documents:
-       A full colour copy of a valid, official identification document; such as your international passport (double page), national identity card or drivers licence (front and back). This is required in order for us to verify your identity.
-       A copy of a paper utility bill (Gas Bill/Electricity Bill) or bank statement issued in the last three months clearly displaying your name and address that has been received at the registered postal address detailed on your Skrill  account. This is required in order for us to verify your address.
The required documents/information should be sent via email to security@skrill.com.
Please accept our apologies for any possible inconvenience, however Skrill  must adhere to strict security standards which are there to protect your account privacy. Please be aware that your account will remain frozen until you comply with this request.
We thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter.
Kind regards,
Skrill  Security

After that you can try to contact them as much as you like and you will NEVER receive a single response. Moreover, you will not even see that your account has been blocked when you are logged it, you may even think that you have wrongly speficied your birth date when creating an account because you will get "transfer failed" message every time after specifying your birth date when trying to withrdaw your money back. It even seems that they have a support ticket system because the email they send has ticket number attahced, but even this is just a decoration with nothing behind because you will never get any reply, and you cannot access your previously sent requests via their "help" system in any way! Aaleksanyants (talk) 07:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)