User talk:A. B./June 2008

=Note: many of these were archived out of chronological order!=

User:Xheadadventures
I permanently blocked this user earlier this evening for persistently creating spam articles about his/her clothing line. I noticed that after I blocked him/her, you added some material to the talk page about multiple accounts, the specific website, etc., and I note that you're part of an anti-spam project. I'm just wondering, is there something that I could have done to be more useful to your efforts? For instance, should I have been accumulating that kind of information on your behalf, and reporting it somewhere? My admin work tends to focus on new page patrol (vandalism and nonsense page deletion), and I'm not especially experienced in other areas like anti-spam work, so I'm always open to suggestions on how I can make it easier for other Wikipedians to do useful things. Your comments are welcome. Accounting4Taste: talk 04:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to be slow in replying. Comments:
 * If they're bad enough to block and they've had at least 4 warnings across all their IPs and user names, then they should have their domains blacklisted. (That's my belief -- others have shorter or longer fuses.
 * Blacklisting, not blocking, is what really hurts a spammer and what can deter them (and others) from adding more spam.
 * Most spammers have more than one domain. So even if we blacklist some domains, they may be back in the future with other domains.
 * I personally seldom block spammers. They just switch accounts or IPs and come back harder to find. It's easier for me to track their addition of new domains if they keep using the same IP or account name.
 * Got to run -- got a meeting. Will answer more in the next day or two. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I sympathize with your time constraints -- no worries there. I think the key thing I gleaned from this is "blacklist their domains" -- I've never done that.  Unless there's a single page you can recommend that tells me exactly how to do that, I'll just wait until the situation crops up and then walk my way through it slowly and surely.  I'll look forward to seeing more! Accounting4Taste: talk 15:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

User:81.149.130.129
Here's another spammer you may want to consider blocking. I haven't actually warned them, but unless you can tell me a real easy way to do that, I'll probably never bother. Regards, Mannafredo (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Had a warning & I've done a spam4, maybe ok for now, cheers -- Herby talk thyme 12:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I spent some time with this one -- you can see the results at User talk:81.149.130.129. Thanks for your help. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As for warning spammers (and other vandal-types), you can never go wrong with the ascending sequence of warnings listed at:
 * Template messages/User talk namespace


 * They've been extensively discussed and subsequently approved by the community. Some folks will jump straight to level 4 warnings but I normally start off with level 1. (If the spammer switches accounts or IPs, I don't reset my next warning back to level 1; I continue adding ascending warnings based on the total number received to date across all accounts).


 * In the long-term, I've found that being overly harsh with spammers can come back to bite me in the form of time-sucking wikidrama. Some other editor gets indignant about BITEy behaviour and reverses all my link removals or starts a discussion at WP:ANI about "link-nazis".


 * I've got all the time in the world to use ascending warnings and stay patient; well-meaning people who don't understand our ways will stop after a warning or two but the hard core spammers will keep at it and get their domains blacklisted sooner or later.


 * Once a spammer gets enough warnings to justify a block, I seldom block them (see my reasoning just above at User talk:A. B.) but instead blacklist them. Before that, once they get to level 3, I'll usually list them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam so others can also keep an eye out for them. Also, a bot can be set up to look for further link additions.


 * It's not a formal practice, but many of our anti-spam volunteers will add links to the spam web site on the talk page. That makes it easier to track which IPs and accounts are adding which links. It certainly doesn't help the spammer to get these links to his site since all Wikipedia's external links are coded "nofollow".


 * Thanks again for your help, and, please, do bother and do give a F. We need all the help we can get with spam at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam.-- A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi AB. When reverting some of 81.149.130.129's spam additions and edits, I failed to spot that he and Chivalry21 are probably one and the same. Thanks for sweeping up after me. Regards, Mannafredo (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC).


 * I've read all the above a bit more thoroughly now. I'd obviously just scraped the surface of Chivalry's editing, and you're way ahead of me. Many thanks for the warnings and notices link. That's exactly the 'real easy way' I was looking for. Regards, Mannafredo (talk) 11:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't feel bad about Chivalry21. The hard-core spam volunteers such as myself use a lot of specialized tools such as LinkSummary, IPSummary and userSummary to investigate spammers more fully. Other editors don't have to do the same if they don't want to; they can just list stuff at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam as you did and hopefully someone will have time to look at it sooner or later (we could always use more help there, hint, hint). A good threshold for reporting at WikiProject Spam is either when the spammer hits their third warning or if they've been adding a lot of spam but just not getting all the warnings they should have.


 * One other simple thing besides reporting spam at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam that anyone can and should do: it's always good to include "live links" (example: http://example.com) to the spam domains on the user talk page when leaving a warning. That way if the spammer changes accounts or IPs (very common), a simple Special:Linksearch will identify the other accounts that have added the same link. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies
Please accept my sincerest apologies for any confusion I may have brought in my recent editing, as per the Spam page discussion of sme-online.com. I genuinely didn't realise I was creating a problem.

I would also request that you please keep the article Phil Hall (US writer). I did not create that article -- I only contributed to it, and I believe Mr. Hall's achievements as a writer warrant notability for Wikipedia inclusion. It would grieve me to know that my stupidity would be responsible for the erasure of someone else's work. I can solemnly promise not to touch the article again. I have no problem with your deletion of the other items that you cited.

And please, as a token of my appreciation, kindly accept this as a gift of friendship and sincerity:

Be well. And, again, I am so sorry for any problems. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. As you requested, I took the initiative and deleted all of the links to those articles. Again, I am so sorry for this. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks!


 * I appreciate your comments.


 * Just please don't retire! -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I am back. I was just welcoming new members to Wikipedia. I appreciate your support and understanding. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * PS I just went to Phil Hall (US writer) one last time, to clear up two links. That's my last time on the page, promise! Thanks again!Ecoleetage (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

About artical CBSE
Is every link spam? What are relevant links according to you? Are websites providing material relevant to CBSE spamming by putting their link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.251.87 (talk) 11:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * See my answer below. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Stop Vandalisining CBSE
You are removing links from unsigned comment added by 59.94.250.74 (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Take a look at what I wrote at Talk:Central Board of Secondary Education/Spam. This article has ongoing spam problems which resulted in a request for administrator attention.


 * Having said that, when I got all done with my spam investigation, I screwed up and left in the spammy cbse.co.in by mistake, not the official http://www.cbse.nic.in. I am glad this error got corrected and I am sorry for the mistake. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:
ummm.. ok, no problems here. Thingg &#8853; &#8855; 17:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Next step?
Hello! It appears that your request to delete an article I wrote, A Writer Named Phil Hall (movie), was declined. The declining admin suggested taking the article to AfD. I was going to do that myself, but I stopped when I thought it would look somewhat odd since I created the article.

I wanted to know what should be done with this article. If you want to nominate it for AfD, I will not stop it. But if you could leave the article online, as I have no intention of returning to it, that would be highly appreciated. Thanks! --Ecoleetage (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm hitting the road for several weeks -- I'll look at it later. By the way, I'm happy for it to stay if it can meet the notability rules. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I will work on it to make it meet the notability requirements. Please give me a bit of time to work on it.  Thanks! --Ecoleetage (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * To avoid any conflict of interest issues, just put any sources you find on the talk page. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do. Enjoy your time away! --Ecoleetage (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Info
Cheers (I think there is a COI issue somewhere too) -- Herby talk thyme 15:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't have time to look very deeply, but I did chip in with my two cents. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

blacklisting website
As I have undestood from discussions on this page you have blacklisted website cbsemath.com even when it contains original content and is free. I have seen a large no. of articles on wikipedia and they contain relevant links then please can you give the reasons why this site was blacklisted? aboutCBSE


 * See:
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist (permanent link)


 * I don't see why you should be puzzled; various Wikipedia editors have warned you repeatedly to stop adding your links:
 * User talk:59.94.241.174
 * User talk:59.94.242.94 (twice)
 * User talk:59.94.244.168
 * User talk:59.94.253.147


 * These warnings included links to these relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines:
 * External links
 * Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files
 * Spam
 * Self-published sources
 * Disruptive editing
 * Blocking policy
 * Spam blacklist


 * Usually sites are blacklisted after the third or fourth warning. They may also be blacklisted with fewer warnings than that if they've spammed more than about ten times. Given the number of warnings and the fact that you used over 40 different IP addresses, I'd say you were lucky for a long time. You're welcome to appeal this decision at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist but I know from experience that any other editor or administrator will tell you the same thing.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * But I put up a link to my site only once or twice not more than that. The IP add you are talking about is same for large parts of north India which has a population of millions. How I can be held responsible for that?
 * Secondly I have a little knowledge of wikipedia and so appealing at this time at the link is difficult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AboutCBSE (talk • contribs) 08:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Archived list of spam domains:
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/June 2008
 * Interestingly, those many IPs' contributions are limited to the removal of competitors' links and the addition of your own. Extraordinary coincidence, isn't it? Then there's also this threat to other Wikipedia editors to leave your links alone or face "banning".


 * Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopaedic value in support of our encyclopaedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed.


 * In the meantime, I wouldn't worry too much about blacklisting. Wikipedia has two blacklists and your domains are on the English-only version. The major search engines give much greater attention to linkspam domains listed on the other, global blacklist.


 * Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

OK sir. But Some of the website which were never linked from wikipedia are also blacklisted, can you please provide some help about them. eg my personal domain name which is only used for email add. devanoop.com aboutCBSE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.243.68 (talk) 06:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
I just want to offer my thanks for your taking the time to contribute to the William M. Connolley and Lawrence Solomon pages. --GoRight (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I just want to see our processes followed properly. That's always tricky in cases like this one involving BLPs and tensions between editors off-wikipedia that spill over on to Wikipedia (and vice versa). -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)