Jump to content

User talk:A. B.

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 12 years ago by VasilievVV in topic Notice of removal of adminship
This is a Wikimedia Meta-Wiki user page.

If you find this page on any site other than Wikimedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikimedia itself. The original page is located at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:A._B..

Wikimedia Foundation
Wikimedia Foundation

Welcome to my talk page. If you leave a message here, I will respond here to avoid fragmenting our discussion.

E-mail me if you need a faster response.


Hey there, just thought I'd say hello. So why is it that you're on a personal crusade against me?
--The preceding unsigned comment was added by B.C. (talk • contribs) 06:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

--A. B. (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply


"Broken into the kitchen" ? 14:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you'd grown up in a big family of kids and your mama often baked pies and cookies for consumption a few hours later ("A. B., get your hands off that pie -- it's for supper -- and for Pete's sake -- stay out of my kitchen!") ... well, then you'd know what I was talking about! --A. B. (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hot dang I'd forgotten I'd asked that. While the meaning was obvious from the context, that explanation IS, for lack of a better word, phrased hilariously. No, I don't know, but I do understand... <G> 01:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sysop rights[edit]

Thanks! -- Zanimum 15:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Texoma linkspam case[edit]

A.B. Did you care to warn the comments like General Tojo and I claim my five pounds that [[1]] made on [[2]]. This comment along with others was said before hand. Or are you just singling me out becuase I questioned some of your edits?
--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2007

--A. B. (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply


A.B. you was justified for surfquotes.com. An admin pointed it out to me here [[3]], if at any point I would have seen this earlier I would have stopped fighting for surfquotes. However, the admin hasn't found one for nationwidebillrelief.com and if you know of one please post it here and on the blacklist. Then I can rest assured knowing my word has stood and I don't owe the user warned anything, since it was spam, which deserves a blacklist. If not tell me one more time how to get the site whitelisted. I am sorry for not researching surfquotes good enough and for taking up so much of your time in which could have been avoided if not for me. I was just so mad at you for seeking revenge or to hurt others for a single edit, yet post many blacklist. Again I hope you can accept my appology on surfquotes.com and once one is found for nationwidebillrleief.com you will get one on that and the revenge I said you was seeking since you was justified. If not tell me one more time how to get the site whitelisted. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 04:46, 30 March 2007

--A. B. (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply


you are slanderous, and malicous beyond believe stay away from my brands in future and stop stalking me
The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 05:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

See en:User talk:Rickie rich#Summary: flo2flo.com accounts and behaviour on Wikipedia for a summary of this user's multiple accounts, domains, blocks and discussions.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2007

oops..sorry about that..[edit]

I'll fix my formatting macro so I don't post live url's to the domain I'm requesting blacklisting for (duh!).. thanks for cleaning it up! --Versageek 17:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

hi! excuse-me[edit]

hi, excuse for the vandaism :D i'm a newbie in wikimedia, and ii've thought: whi i can't try an edit? i'm a bit stupid, i know it :D anyway a say you goodbye and i prefer if you don't look my horrible english.

bye EDIT: i have forgotted the signature:D -- 19:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Context: I reverted this IP's vandalism to Meta:Requests for adminship. --A. B. (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Spam links[edit]

You are deleting from et: wikipedia links from the blacklist but don't comment the reason. Maybe it would be better if we decided ourselves what is spam? 04:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry to offend you -- thanks for contacting me. Comments:
  1. I have left links to the spam blacklist discussions in my edit summaries
  2. I keep the articles on my et:wikipedia watchlist and I check my et:user talk page for comments -- so far I've seen no objections at et.wikipedia
  3. I remove these links purely as a courtesy. Once blacklisted, these articles are "locked down" by the MediaWiki software and can not be edited until the blacklisted link is deleted or disabled (by putting a space between "http://" and the rest of the link). So someone, somewhere is going to have to disable or remove those links anyway. The pop-up spam filter warning does not make it especially obvious how an editor can fix the problem (at least not to all the people that come here to ask how to fix the problem). I'm not sure it make a difference whether the person is in et:Narva, es:Valencia, id:Jakarta or en:Toronto.
  4. You can always request the article be whitelisted on et.wikipedia, allowing the link to be used on et.wikipedia only. Any et.admin can add the link to et:MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. If you need help with this, I'll be happy to help.
  5. If you think the link is of value beyond et.wikipedia, you can request on Meta-Wiki that it be globally whitelisted at Talk:Spam blacklist#Proposed removals.
Is there a particular link you are concerned about? --A. B. (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Epilogue: no subsequent response here or on et.wikipedia. --A. B. (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Still no response, whitelisting or edit reversions here or on et.wikipedia. --A. B. (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Spam listing[edit]

Thanks for taking the time to answer me regarding the G-e-mm-i-s-m-o site, I agree with you and this won't happen again I located the person who made the changes and he is being dealt with by personally. I am a huge supporter of wikipedia and I also contribute in various projects online such as dmoz, open-site, chefmoz and wikipedia. All I ask is for a once off leniency to list the ip and not the domain name so that the name of the site won't appear on the spam blacklist, regardless this will never happen again unless the site has anything to offer in later stages. Thanks for your responses 18:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

What you say makes sense and I have an open mind to this, however I'm not an admin and cannot make this happen. (I recommended your site be blacklisted, but it took an admin/sysop to actually blacklist it). I see you made the same proposal at Talk:Spam blacklist -- let's see what response it gets. --A. B. (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Do you know who is the sysop that actually made this happen i.e. blacklisted the site? and you sure you can't just remove what you places on the page or at least change the url to an ip you were still the poster of this listing can you perhaps try to change it to help me out here... Thanks again for the understanding 20:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hi --A. B. (talk) can you please help me out here with removing us from the blacklist, I think you understand our position and we need all the help we can get this has already started to hurt us to great affect. Thanks for your help 07:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hi -- I'm not an admin (sysop). Only an admin can make the decision to add or remove a site from the blacklist. --A. B. (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
I understand that but it seems like you have a saying and are very active can you say something to one of the sysops to help us out? This silly action is costing us a lot of money investors are checking the site out online and find it within a spam list and that is really making us look bad. I going crazy here and I need to solve this somehow, any ideas? I just saw my request was rejected again. Any help would be appreciated, Thanks 23:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
--22:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible spam: www.world-archiv.de[edit]


I found you on hr wiki, and since you deal with the spam, it's best if I ask you this: Can you please check if these contributions (links to http://www.world-archiv.de) might be called spamming?

--Ante Perkovic 08:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I see that these links are only found in the Croatian and Bosnian Wikipedias, based on a search of the 57 largest Wikipedias:
I don't read German or Croatian, so I cannot ultimately judge this site and its relevance to the Wikipedia articles. When I've removed links from your Wikipedia before, they have always been confirmed as widely cross-wiki spammed and obviously spammy stuff, so I've not needed to read Croatian (or Sanskrt for that matter) to delete a link. I delete the links since, once a link is blacklisted, any page containing a blacklisted link is protected until the link is removed. So when I remove links on hr.wikipedia, it's more in the role of janitor than as a "link policeman".
However, just looking at the world-archiv.de pages, visually they appear "spammy":
  • Lots of Google ads
    • Adsense commission account ID: 7204057488406086
  • Content is mostly what appears to be a "scraped" news feed.
I see the links were also added by Neither the IP nor Animator have contributed much else to your Wikipedia. Your spammer has several characteristics:
In English, we have a saying: "if it walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck". I may not be able to understand what the text on those pages is quacking about, but those sites sure seem to walk and swim like ducks.
You can see something about the Google commissions from these ads by examining the "Google - Anzeigen" URL on a kroatien-reiseportal.net page:
The number after "ca-pub-" is the Google commission account, 8922862897421794, to which Google pays ad commissions. Some spammers use the same account number for more than one site, so it can be a tool for proving two sites are owned by the same spammer
The one Bosnian link appears to have been added innocently when an editor (not your spammer?[5],[6]) ported over material from hr.wikipedia; the link came with it.[7]
Domaintools.com shows both German and Croatian addresses for both sites:
I don't know how common "Novoselac" is --perhaps the two Novoselacs listed are relatives.
Aboutus.org suggests possibly related domains that it thinks may or may not be affiliated with these:
These pages lead us to at least more Novoselac-related domains (based on Google account numbers and/or whois records):
Cross-wiki searches on these additional domains don't show any more spam:
If your spammer persists in spite of warnings, you can request a Meta admin blacklist his domain by going to Talk:Spam blacklist. Meta admins have a much shorter fuse for cross-wiki spamming, however there does not need to be any spamming beyond hr.wikipedia provided it's persistent. (I am not an admin myself, so I cannot blacklist a domain).
If you are interested in some of the tools we use on en.wikipedia, feel free to check out procedures and tools we use at en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam.
We've been forced to be resourceful out of necessity since we're overwhelmed with spam-- on a typical day, we have 7000 to 8000 external links added to the >3 million we already have on en.wikipedia. Probably 10% to 20% of these new links are pure spam. Many others are inappropriate but added in good faith by editors who don't understand we're an encyclopedia, not a forum. We just concentrate on the pure spam. Probably 3/4 of our spam comes from spammers making money from ads and the rest from spammers trying to sell something.
I hope this helps.
--A. B. (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply


I've been trying to add the following text on the Spam Blacklist page in response to you, but am unable to (there's spam link somewhere else on the page that I cannot find!). I wonder if you would be kind enough to add the following text on my behalf and then respond to it.

I'm a bit confused by all of this and I suspect that anything I have to say is going to be ignored, but just in case, here are a few observations.
As far as I can see, no-one has produced a single example of spam. The links mentioned were added over years by a small number of people. All of them were good links.
I looked further into the links from Wiki pages in other languages and as far as I can see, they are not spam either. Checking my stats I see for example that visitors from de.wikipedia on average stay for over three minutes and visit four pages. That cannot be a profile for spam links. Again, looking at other foreign languege pages I find that many links are given in the corresponding language. Is it suggested that a single spammer is fluent in over a dozen different languages. It does not sound likely.
I'm wondering if we have different ideas about what constitutes spam. For me a link that improves the page it's on cannot be spam. You seem to believe that the identity of the poster is more relevant than the quality of the link. Suppose a BBC enthusiast posts nmerous good links to the BBC website over several years. Are those links spam? Will you blacklist the BBC? If not, could someone please explain the difference.
On the question of the merry invitation to visitors to add links to Wikipedia. Is this regarded as unacceptable? It is relevant here that www.languedoc-france.info is the leading and most comprehensive and authoritive site on the Languedoc, so people who find it useful might reasonably be invited to add links to Wikipedia. Adding good links benefits both Wikipedia and www.languedoc-france.info. Or is there some rule I don't know about?
As I said, I don't really follow most of the preceding two contributions. I get the impression that they are hostile and intended to suggest that I am responsible for the spamming. I am not a spammer and if I were I suspect I would not be inclined to spamlink only my non-commercial sites, and not one of my commercial ones. It simply would not make sense.
Although I don't really follow the previous contribution it definitely comes over as hostile and the author appears to be attempting to suggest some sort of unpleasant associations. In any case I wonder if it has occured to anyone to consider the possibility that I have acted in good faith throughout. James McDonald 00:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
You should be able to edit Talk:Spam blacklist now -- I encourage you to directly make your case there at Talk:Spam blacklist#languedoc-france.info --A. B. (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
--A. B. (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

On the Puerto Rican webpage you were blacklisting[edit]

Dear A. B.:
I agree with BeautifulFeminine, there seems to be arguments pulled out of context in your arguments, A. B.
It strikes me that somebody who has the interest and time to explain to you why this has seemed so outrageous may go point by point to explain why your arguments don't necessarilly hold water if you scratch the veneer a little bit.
For example, you talked to her about the Socialist International page, but you forgot to put that in context, such as that the Puerto Rican Independence Party happens to be an integral part of the Socialist International, it's webpage seems to carry many articles about the Socialist International; also, the President of the Puerto Rican Independence Party happens to be the Honorary President of the Socialist International, so I would see many potential reasons for that link to be cited; it's all about context. Also, you could go to the extreme of arguing that some people added links without the ideal care for explaining the edit, etc. but that doesn't seem to have generated blacklisting in thousands of practically thousands of other countless links on Wikipedia.
Other important arguments that may be explained more thoroughly by this directly affected and/or with better understanding of this matter:
Most of the 50some Wikipedias you cite had a link to that party's website either from the Wiki about precisely that party or on the section of official websites associated to Puerto Rico, its government or its government's dependencies.
Links to other alternative points of view were apparently added just the same! Just look at the links to the Puerto Rico government site (allegedly occupied by two other parties).
You neglected to say that the Puerto Rican Independence Party seems to be --by all the inquires I performed-- the only political party with an English & Spanish language website, and the only one of the parties in Puerto Rico that are a member of the largest conglomeration of political parties in the world, that it seems to participate in international summits and meetings way above-and-beyond the other two principal parties; doesn't this seem to offer important context to the arguments you presented?
You say that the other parties obtain the 95% of the remaining vote but neglect to mention that theirt two at-larg legislators (I think Senator and Representative) are allegedly the ones who obtain by-far the most votes in all of Puerto Rico; doesn't this nuance your argument about vote percentages, even if that argument were to hold some water?
You don't mention that the Popular Democratic Party of Puerto Rico's website (Spanish-exclusive website, that is, explains on its cover that it has been offline and in construction for an extended amount of time.
You don't mention that the independence party of Puerto Rico has various articles about direct democracy and its particular understanding of democratic self-determination that could explain links to the Direct Democracy Wiki-Entry.
The same thing seems to apply to slavery and the political ramifications of hip-hop and other urban music spin-offs that the Independence party in question seems to have been related to directly or indirectly; did you check what the links in question were offering as context for what you have offered as arguments?
You talk about percent of votes but neglect to remark that an encyclopedia isn't necessarily going to establish entries at the same order of who wins what percent of elections; has this measuring stick been used against other Wiki-link additions? You neglect to say that this party is apparently BY-DEFINITION more internationally-focused and projecting towards international contacts, precisely because it is an independence party; that might put into context your remarks about the statistics you provide about other political parties in Puerto Rico.
You explain that in cases where you found a link to the party, you merely removed the http:// suffix, but from what I have been told and I myself have been able to see, various of the Puerto Rico Independence Wiki's were completely stripped of any allusion to its website, including the English-Language wiki on the PIPR party, which until yesterday was stripped of the link stemming from the same page that expounds on that party, i.e. the Wiki entry on the PIPR.
How can you say that this may not be a case of unfair selectivity and out-of-context argumentation?
I sincerely hope to hear from you and receive your input because I think this matter has adversely affected other Wiki-Entries that have lost the enriching information-filled possibilities that are offered by people searching for more information and alternative points of view! At first glance, and after a more thorough review, I agree with the gentelmen and ladies that have written to questio whether this was a mistake or a case of assuming spam when it doesn't seem to fit the extreme-extent test (of a particular website link abuse) that should be taken into account before Blacklisting.
I think that a Reconsideration is in order. Again, on the basis of what has been discussed and the product of my own investigation (and I admit I am not an expert on Puerto Rico or the PIPR), I am awaiting your pondered response because this is important to all Wiki entries and future precedents on this wonderful free-information portal that is Wikipedia and the rest of the Wikimedia portals,

SuomiHombrougui 23:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for writing. Here are my comments:
  1. I did not request independencia.net be blacklisted nor was I the admin that reviewed the request and blacklisted the link. What I did do was "cleanup". None of the pages with these links can be edited until the links are removed or disabled. This was essentially a janitorial task to "unlock" many Wikipedia pages for editing.
  2. Where there was a directly relevant connection between PIPR and the article, I stripped the "http" from the link, disabling it as a software link, but leaving it for human eyeballs to see.
  3. I only cleaned up a portion of the links and I can only speak to the ones I cleaned up as to how I did it.
  4. For all the links I disabled, I looked to see if the indepencia.net page was relevant. So for instance, for every article about PIPR, I left the www.indepencia.net. For articles about Puerto Rico, I was not always consistent, but as a general rule, if there were many links, I left www.indepencia.net; if there was only the PIPR link, I deleted it.
  5. I've been aware of the indepencia.net spam problem for a while now from work in cleaning up smaller Wikipedias. These links were always added by drive-by anonymous editors busy spamming across many Wikipedias in the same session.
  6. Having said this, I support the decision to blacklist these links. It was clearly the only way to control the problem, given its extent and persistence.
Ultimately, this is an encyclopedia, not a bulletin board or a media outlet. Content including links are governed by various guidelines and policies. Here are the relevant ones to this discussion:
As I see it, many, many of these links were added in violation of these rules. The requesting editor and blacklisting admin were enforcing these standards and acted quite properly.
I think we'll just have to agree that we disagree on this issue.--A. B. (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
--A. B. (talk) 23:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply


You seem to be as much of an aficionado of spam as I am! Equally no one seems to be around actually putting stuff on the blacklist at present (no idea where they all are). If you come across anything you think needs attention I am usually on sometime each day - I'll help if I can (I am the main user of a few local blacklists but no expert). Cheers --Herby talk thyme 16:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. --A. B. (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Regarding Telugu WIki quote[edit]

Thanks for your support to keep Telugu Wiki Quote on WAit & Review status. I or another enthusiats will apply for adminship very soon. Regards - Kajasudhakarababu

Your opinions about deserted Wikiquotes[edit]

Are you pointing our Wikibooks instead. What do you imply? --Aphaia 16:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, I am not implying very much of anything. It's a typo -- sorry. My comment should have read "q:ga:Special:Allpages" and "q:ga:Special:Recentchanges". I was copying and pasting from my response from another requested closure and got my b's and q's mixed. --A. B. (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
I see, no prob. Thank you for caring those projects. But ... well, not offensive, but did you give a look to those projects? Your way doesn't mean necessarily so. --Aphaia 03:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I did look at these projects.
Aphaia, if you look at my contributions on 8 August, you'll see I spent multiple hours on these projects. I went to each project, checking out both the "All Pages" and "Recent Changes" reports. I looked at each page in each project (unless it was obviously spam from the title, such as "W/w/w/w/index.php"). In some cases where there appeared to have been an active user in the past who was still active on some other project or might otherwise have an interest, I left that person a message. Examples:
I use a tabbed browser and sometimes open and close multiple edit windows at once, so some responses that were saved within a minute of each other in my edit history were actually prepared over a longer time.
Notwithstanding typos such as the one you found, I tried to leave links to the "All Pages" and "Recent Changes" reports in my comments (and my edit summaries) for each closure proposal. I did this to enable and encourage others following me several weeks later to check for themselves if anything had changed since I left my response. Sometimes I've seen closure discussions stretch out so long that a once moribund project at the start of the discussion has come alive by the time others are commenting 3 months later. I think everyone needs, therefore, to check these projects for themselves.
Aphaia, I feel I put sufficient time and care into these to comment appropriately. In fact, I think I went beyond the effort and care put in by most respondents. At the same time, I can make mistakes (even after previewing several times). Are there any other problems that you see or should I be approaching these proposals any differently?
Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Open proxy[edit]

Not quite sure what you intended by the edit but the IP was blocked here a while ago by Nick according to the block log? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 16:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

This user vandalised the spam blacklist talk page earlier and I noticed it was an open proxy. I did not check the block log, just the talk page. My mistake.--A. B. (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Local blacklistings[edit]

I'm reviewing some of the spam reqs. However I don't have that much time today but what strikes me as obvious is the need to get the local blacklist going on en wp. Are there no half decent admins there (!!) that will do it? I'd block quite a few of the ones you've listed on any wiki I was an admin without blinking. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 11:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply


Re-reading it I see what you mean so no problem. I've cleared a few today - some awaiting more comments. I'll do what I can be I think I'd be at some risk if I start globally blacklisting sites that are strictly an en wp problem. If there were evidence of spam on other wikis that would be different... Some of the domains listed look rather high level (the france one for example) and I can see trouble if I block at that level. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 12:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Mail --Herby talk thyme 07:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply


Thanks for the help & guidance. I'll take your advice about biblewalks tomorrow almost certainly. Then I'll try and get the page a bit clearer for folks to read. If you do come across cross wiki spam you can be sure I will deal with it as quickly as I can if I am around. It is a while back but I do remember my frustration at getting it dealt with.

I have started a discussion on the Meta mailing list about the use of Meta's blacklist and I think I will do the same on the Foundation list shortly. I am certain that there are some sites it would be desirable to block at Meta level even if currently they only affect one wiki and I'll look for clarification/support on that. Finally if you are mad enough to put a request in for something on en wp I'd like to know! Cheers --Herby talk thyme 18:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sticky carpet?[edit]

Any update on this? Also I have now posted to the Foundation mailing list seeking views on blocking some spam at Meta level even if only one wiki may be currently affected (depending on the type of spam). Cheers --Herby talk thyme 08:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

As far as I'm concerned, this stickycarpet's been ready and waiting for blacklisting here for a while.
Other comments:
  1. For interesting reading: en:WP:ANI#Hijack an article .. then hijack an entire wikipedia for yourself? (permanent link) -- damnedest thing I've seen in quite a while. If you get the chance, can you block meta User:Tutunsuz for vandalism? Thanks.
  2. independencia.net: I suspect indignant removal requests will come around periodically in the future and it might be helpful to whoever handles to have the sockpuppetry on this round definitively proven for the record. You can leave it open or, if you archive it now, we can always update the archive entry.
  3. Meta mailing list exchange: I'm not a subscriber, but your note flagged me to check the archive. I saw Versageek's response to your post. No consensus was ever really reached but things are rolling along anyway. Like so many things around the hive, a couple of bees started doing things one way on en.wikipedia and another one or two started something congruent on meta leading to a de facto arrangement where en.wikipedia-only spam gets blacklisted there only. I think any cross-wiki spam should be blacklisted here.
    1. We should bear in mind that sometimes links appear on other wikipedias when editors import whole chunks of text and link from larger articles on the big wikipedias for translation; this passive addition of links should not be interpreted as proof either way: it's not proof of spamming nor does it reflect any real good faith endorsement of a domain's value.
    2. I think URL redirects should continue to be preemptively blacklisted on sight.
    3. Cross-wiki or not, we should globally blacklist stuff from really egregious, long-term spammers and POV-pushers like anyone listed at en:Wikipedia:Long term abuse#Entries or that list's equivalent on other projects. Those guys are just so sneaky and persistent they have to be shut down everywhere whenever someone sees them anywhere. The Wikislavia crowd on ru.wikipedia are probably another example.
    4. Finally, I think once a spammer has spammed cross-wiki and had a domain blocked here, any subsequent domains he spams should be blocked cross-wiki as a matter of course, even if they're only seen initially on one project. The spammer's already demonstrated he ignores warnings and that he has a taste for cross-wiki spamming so there's no point in waiting for more trouble.
That's my 2 pence for the day. --A. B. (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Also posted to foundation-l - not dissimilar results! I'm in broad agreement with you - I guess in the end we could work at "being bold" together on it! --Herby talk thyme 16:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Link shorteners[edit]

? tinyurl.com - should it be there? (and then went and looked!). Maybe run your eye over the actual blacklist if you have time - tinyurl\.com (& similar) is there but not \btinyurl\.com\b  ! Did someone mess up? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 16:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Did you get a chance to look at this? Certainly blacklist is not working at present - cheers --Herby talk thyme 11:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Sorry to be slow -- I'm on the road. tinyurl.com should not be anywhere within Wikipedia (unless some project has ill-advisedly whitelisted it locally). As for how to list it on the actual blacklist, I don't understand how all the slashes and b's work, so I can't help you there.
Thanks for catching this. --A. B. (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
No problem - I'll get to it as soon as I can - time short here too! Cheers --Herby talk thyme 15:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Non foundation spam[edit]

Placed this & will probably put it on Talk:Spam blacklist/About. I'll put the link on "requests for admin assistance" maybe too? Any other thoughts? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 11:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

External links policy/guidelines[edit]

Hum - do we (you & I) need to get one of these started - extension of Spam blacklist/About maybe or similar? We could use it to retrospectively validate (!!) the blacklisting of link shorteners for example. We could make it clear we are on about External Links not Spam (so often used on appeal). Make it clear there is no right to have the particular link that seems so vital to you. Make a statement that it is the community consensus that determines the acceptability (?) in that if different members of the community keep removing it their actions are saying that they do not require the link. We could "define" cross wiki spam. It would also allow us to deal with the aspect of non Foundation use of the blacklist.

Load of rubbish. idea or ? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 08:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like a good idea!
--A. B. (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
PS -- I got your e-mail -- thanks!

Now then[edit]

I am a bit unreasonable - but I could block that IP for a bit? Can't see it is an open proxy but the spam blacklistings are there - I'd likely do a month based on that & your links? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 12:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Go for it. --A. B. (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'd be useless on en wp - doing enough wrong for long enough and maybe we'll do a little block. they know what they are doing (& of course I assume good faith, never preemptively block ....) --Herby talk thyme 14:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Squidoo req[edit]

Just reading the remove req - as it is clickable it ain't blacklisted - en wp? And should it be - cheers --Herby talk thyme 18:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's blacklisted only on en.wikipedia. See:
See also:
I've never really understood squidoo enough to know whether the whole thing is a mess or just individual subdomains ("lenses"). Hu12 (en.wikipedia's spam guru) has tracked the heck out of it and knows a lot about it. Let me get him/her into the discussion. I know it should be blacklisted on en.wikipedia but I'm not sure that many of the links on other projects were really spam. Hu12 should know. --A. B. (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
Its a social marketing site, primarily exists to generate income and traffic. Squidoo is essentialy an made for adsense site, where users signup and add content in order to generate affiliate sales. Unlike days of old when SEO was about ranking high in the search engines, this site thrives on traffic, which Wikipedia can provide extremely well. The links above sum the problem up fairly well. 17 other wikis are afflicted (not counting wikia sites), but it is primarily a major problem on en.wikipedia. I've been tracking these just short of a year, and very few have content fit for inclusion to an encyclopedia, black listing globaly might not seem necessary, but surely wouldn't hurt wikipedia, or its sister sites.--Hu12 21:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply


On this if you have the time, looks cross wiki, not had time to check whether en wp is aware (& kept meaning to say - thanks for the contribution to my talk on en wp!) --Herby talk thyme 10:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm traveling -- just a quick once-over: this is plain-old spam +copyright violation + hot-linking.
Edit histories (partial sample):
  1. ar:Special:Contributions/
  2. bat-smg:Special:Contributions/
  3. br:Special:Contributions/
  4. bs:Special:Contributions/
  5. ca:Special:Contributions/
  6. co:Special:Contributions/
  7. cs:Special:Contributions/
  8. da:Special:Contributions/
  9. de:Special:Contributions/
  10. eo:Special:Contributions/
  11. es:Special:Contributions/
  12. et:Special:Contributions/
  13. fa:Special:Contributions/
  14. fi:Special:Contributions/
  15. fr:Special:Contributions/
  16. fy:Special:Contributions/
  17. ga:Special:Contributions/
  18. gl:Special:Contributions/
  19. he:Special:Contributions/
  20. hr:Special:Contributions/
  21. hu:Special:Contributions/
  22. id:Special:Contributions/
  23. it:Special:Contributions/
  24. ja:Special:Contributions/
  25. ka:Special:Contributions/
  26. ko:Special:Contributions/
  27. ku:Special:Contributions/
  28. la:Special:Contributions/
  29. lad:Special:Contributions/
  30. lt:Special:Contributions/
  31. mk:Special:Contributions/
  32. ms:Special:Contributions/
  33. nah:Special:Contributions/
  34. nl:Special:Contributions/
  35. no:Special:Contributions/
  36. os:Special:Contributions/
  37. pl:Special:Contributions/
  38. pt:Special:Contributions/
  39. ru:Special:Contributions/
  40. sh:Special:Contributions/
  41. simple:Special:Contributions/
  42. sk:Special:Contributions/
  43. sl:Special:Contributions/
  44. sv:Special:Contributions/
  45. ta:Special:Contributions/
  46. tr:Special:Contributions/
  47. uk:Special:Contributions/
  48. vi:Special:Contributions/
  49. zh:Special:Contributions/
--A. B. (talk) 02:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for taking the time - appreciated (& listed obviously!), catch you when I'm back --Herby talk thyme 07:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply


Thanks for blacklisting Mr. Kreiger--I was looking at the French page for Oregon and saw he had been there, then I checked several other wikis and started doing some cleanup, but some of the search results returned all of the efn.org links so I didn't check them all. I was going to mention it at WP:WPSPAM on English Wikipedia but I got sidetracked... Thanks again. You can reply at en.wikipedia if you like. Katr67 15:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply


Well it was the first day back & I might have messed up something of yours under the heading of the "smartdots" ones. I moved it from the bottom to within this section but there seems to be some duplication? Apologies. Views on Beatbox obviously welcome, doesn't seem like a big problem? I see some "bubbling under" on en wp that may get here soon! Hope things are good - cheers --Herby talk thyme 10:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Nice posting on the tenerife one thanks - they all help in my learning process. I'll get beatbox done next (extra domains too?) and then MER-C's ones, cheers --Herby talk thyme 11:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks; I put a lot of time into the tenerife one, so I very much appreciate your comment!. --A. B. (talk) 11:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply


Appreciated as usual, thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

A view?[edit]

On whether pocketpcaddict should really be listed here or whether it got in by accident. No rush as I know you are busy, cheers --Herby talk thyme 14:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'd remove it from the blacklist --A. B. (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks - done --Herby talk thyme 10:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Wolof Wikiquote[edit]

Please judge this proposal. SF-Language 17:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just thinking[edit]

Any particular reason the en wp blacklist is sooo far behind? There are some there that seem (to me) obvious for listing and the quicker it gets done the quicker folk can move on. Nothing urgent, just wondering (& if you & Siobhan won't....) --Herby talk thyme 08:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I need to get into gear and stand for admin on en.wikipedia. --A. B. (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
You'll have mail in the next 24 hours with some thoughts of mine. If you are going to do it not allowing the offer on your page the opportunity would be a bit silly tho (& I still think Siobhan would be a good idea too). --Herby talk thyme 16:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'd be eager to consider supporting new candidates for admin on en.wp who have spam credentials and >3000 en.wp edits. RfAs have been getting approved in busloads lately, and (IMHO) our faithful anti-spam troops deserve the recognition and the extra tools. Please suggest other names if I can't spark your own interest. EdJohnston 16:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

French wikipedia for kids[edit]

You wanted a Simple French wikipedia. There's a French wiki encyclopedia ("Vikidia") for kids, which is a similar idea. See discussion at Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Simple English Wikiquote. --Coppertwig 18:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Mare See Bow Koo --A. B. (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Good to see you back[edit]

Catch up with you soon - cheers --Herby talk thyme 19:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

My steward election[edit]

Thank you for supporting my steward election having passed with 72-1-4-99%.--Jusjih 23:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I was happy to support you and I wish you a Happy New year. --A. B. (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your comment[edit]

Thanks for your strong support, and sorry for rubbing you, if any. I realized I have taken sometimes a strong attitude - specially when I feel a strong urgency something ought to be done in a certain fashion, in particular under a time-consumed circumstance - and perhaps some think it unnecessarily strong, and that there might be a different and better approach. I appreciate your understanding and moreover, that you haven't taken it wrong at last. However still I'm ashamed you felt rubbed, not just agree to disagreed in a rational way.

And last not but least, thank you for your indication as well as effort to dig that issue.

Cheers, --Aphaia 00:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Don't worry about -- heck, I'm from en.wikipedia, the Wild West of Wikimedia. You've never shot anybody around here, have you? Well, that's more than I can say about a lot of en.wikipedia admins!
We're just happy to have you around. --A. B. (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

My successful request for adminship[edit]

Thank you for supporting my request for adminship with 28 supports unopposed.--Jusjih 01:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I was glad to support you -- thanks for serving. --A. B. (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply


Nice to have something to read when I come on line :) Any chance you can look at this and give any input? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 08:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sure. You asked earlier and I spent about an hour on it, then I got interrupted and lost all my notes. --A. B. (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply


OK I'll get that done. Probably time you did something with this though! I'll not nom - I think Meta is grown up enough for people to make their own requests but I will support strongly of course. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 08:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Done -- and I got my first samþykkt comment too. --A. B. (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations, Dear Administrator![edit]

Deutsch | English | español | français | italiano | 한국어 | Nederlands | português | Türkçe | русский | العربية | Tiếng Việt | edit

An offering for our new administrator from your comrades... (our budget is smaller than Commons)

A. B., congratulations! You now have the rights of administrator on Meta. Please take a moment to read the Meta:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat, and Meta:Requests_for_deletion, but also Talk:Spam_blacklist and Talk:Interwiki_map), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings, or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care.

A tip: add this page Meta:Administrators' discussion index to your watchlist, it tracks the latest activity to various sections of many of the important pages.

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-admin @ irc.freenode.net. You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading although it doesn't always completely apply here at Meta.

Please also check or add your entry to Meta:Administrators#List_of_administrators and the Template:List of administrators.

This one gives me quite a bit of satisfaction. Thanks for all the help in the past and I hope that you will be able to work as part of this community for a long time, regards --Herby talk thyme 19:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! --A. B. (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Welcome aboard! :D ~Kylu (u|t) 03:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! --A. B. (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Congratulations, A. B.!!--Hu12 08:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
... and while our budget is tight, a hard worker need a special nourishment.

Congrats for joining the team. Wow I can hardly imagine who have cared blacklist until now. --Aphaia 09:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Reply


I already did clickbank......:) --Herby talk thyme 16:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

That was fast! Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

re:Meta:Administrators/confirm protection[edit]

Hey A. B. :) thanks for being here, (it was just a few seconds :)), also it is much better with expiration, then we don't have to think about unprotecting it afterwards :) Kind regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 00:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply


I keep seeing you all over Wikispace! This is Awiseman from the Tennessee articles. --AAwiseman 16:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

FYI: I went ahead blacklisted that domain for you on en.wikipedia. --A. B. (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply


Created Template:WPSPAM for adding en reports here, I was wondering if it could be protected?. I've already used it once, so feel free to tweak ect... Left the same on Herby's page --Hu12 20:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Done, --A. B. (talk) 02:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

summary templates[edit]

A. B., you are an admin here, could you make local clones of {{UserSummary}}, {{IPSummary}} and {{LinkSummary}} here (and probably redirecting {{Spamlink}} to the latter), I guess they would be useful here as well. Would be helpful for some of my reports as well. Thanks. --Beetstra 17:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Reply


It looks like someone beat me to this. I'm sorry to be slow in following up on this.
--A. B. (talk)
Heh, yes, I made them, thought I needed them. I think they were also protected. Thanks anyway! --Beetstra 09:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Archiving and going through bot reports[edit]

Sorry and thanks respectively :). I'll look closely at the ones you decline and work up ways to reduce false hits. —— nixeagle 02:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Logging links[edit]

All links for the bots ones need to be permanent links really so that folk can find them in time to come (I see some of yours are & some aren't). Cheers --Herby talk thyme 11:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Herby, you're quite right about the need to log with permalinks.
I'm surprised, though, because I thought I did this, {although I'm not sure why I put in those colons when I was adding extra spaces).
By the way, I've said it before but I'll say it again -- I very much appreciate all you do around here and en.wikipedia and the way you do it in such an unruffled way. --A. B. (talk) 12:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Aaah - re-reading. Some were permanent links (with "OLDID" type stuff), the others are to the individual page which equally is fine - apologies (these new fangled things :)).
Thanks for the thought - will not be around anything like as much now onwards (& may well be dropping more rights). Cheers --Herby talk thyme 12:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply


if you could, please help out on the bot reported items. change the template to close when you deal with it and the bot will automatically archive the item. —— nixeagle 00:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Poking around some[edit]

Led me to this? Seems like quite a lot but I know some of these sites are legit (?!) cheers --Herby talk thyme 13:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Findagrave is legit -- I've used their links for basic biographical information on less famous historical figures. 2 to 3 years ago, there was some sort of "missing articles" WikiProject that created hundreds of stubs using findagrave information to start filling in holes in Wikipedia coverage of historical figures. If you search on the phrase "findagrave.com" in en.wikipedia's Wikipedia and Wikipedia Talk spaces, you'll find various discussions of the domain. --A. B. (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

BL backlog[edit]

If you have the time can you take a look at this - thanks --Herby talk thyme 07:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm hitting the road. I've sent you an e-mail; I think we've got two urgent problems with the en.wikipedia blacklist today. Gotta run. --A. B. (talk) 13:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply


Thought you might like to give some input here and Template talk:UserSummary. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply


It's already on the blacklist as \.on\.nimp\.org added by Raul654 on Jan 25 2006. Sadly, the blacklist doesn't affect summaries. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

yeah weird and no one wants to fix that Bug :( ...--Cometstyles 04:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for letting me know. This is actually the first time I've seen this trolling tactic in two years of editing, so I can see how it would be a low priority. --A. B. (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

BL req[edit]

I really am short of time at present - there is a stack of stuff I should be doing on Commons.

In the time I had I really don't see listing the one you asked me to look at as something I am happy to do. I stress I don't have time to dig deep enough but the "spamming" other than en wp look pretty old. The IPs are very limited, personally I would have blocked the en wp one for longer than a week, so can be controlled that way. Equally I am not a fan of blocking related domains - to me the blacklist is for dealing with current disruption when there are no other possibilities - I just don't see that in the time I have in this case --Herby talk thyme 10:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks; I appreciate your advice which is what I really wanted. As a sort of "junior" admin, I'd prefer to get advice rather than overrule another admin. --A. B. (talk) 13:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
You can always bold of overruling me. If I disagree, I'll start discussion of it. (Why? Well, we have small community, where everybody trusts each other) — VasilievVV 14:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! --A. B. (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Could this get logged?[edit]

Could this get logged? Many thanks, --Hu12 05:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply


I suggest you to join #wikimedia IRC channel, so we can discuss spam blacklist problems in real time — VasilievV 2 17:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Erm, don't we use #wikipedia-spam-t for that? – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
I hate to disappoint both of you but I don't really use IRC -- mostly just talk pages and e-mails. --A. B. (talk) 00:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply


When you say "done" on things like this - what have you done? If you've added it would you use {{subst:added}} instead please? If it's something else that you've done then let us know what it was :) Perhaps foggy ATM, but clarity is always nice. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK. I did not know we had that template. --A. B. (talk) 00:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

XWiki reports[edit]

Hi, thanks for the analysis of the tool, if you encounter good links, just change the linkstatus to 'ignore', COIBot will not reopen these reports (maybe update, not sure actually), when the spamming is not too bad, but the link questionable, just close with a remark. The bots threshold is low, which is good for real spam (less to cleanup, and you can catch the spammer red-handed, which may help as well, especially when we get global-blocking or global messaging), but for the others we just have to be careful. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 15:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Masterpiece2000 from the English Wikipedia[edit]

Hello A.B.! How are you? I have noticed you on en:wiki. You are also active here. I am mostly active on en:wiki. I am new on meta. Can you explain me few things about meta? Regards, Masterpiece2000 09:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sure. What would you like to know. --A. B. (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
First of all, please welcome me on Meta! :) Regards, Masterpiece2000 05:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for welcoming me. :) Regards, Masterpiece2000 08:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Sure thing. Let me know if you have any questions. --A. B. (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply


I have generated linkreports for the two links, only here on meta, and deleted immediately to prevent google indexing. If you need them, they are there, in the deleted revisions. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 17:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Hopefully that whole situation has sorted itself out. --A. B. (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
They are still arguing, I gave up. They want both a ref to the original document ánd an external link to the online copy .. silly IMHO. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 14:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Misuse of global blacklist[edit]

[8] es:Drini 16:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply


I didn't remove it again anyway es:Drini 02:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I created some linkreports:

    • 6 wikis

    • IP of suite101.com, 7 wikis


    • on same server as the .com, mainly used on de, but still also on another wiki.

Hope this helps in assess these links and their use. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 14:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Dirk!
Here are additional related domains; we did not have the tools or know-how to find them when we originally blacklisted suite101.com:

More about suite101.de and related spam[edit]

Here are suite101.de spammers:

A bit more about de:Benutzer:Gorillamoon:

  • Also links to his own domain as well as Suite101.de:



None of this appears to be a cross-wiki so I think perhaps a de.wikipedia sysop should look at this. I'll leave note for Spacebirdy. --A. B. (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC) --A. B. (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

re:2 de.wikipedia spam issues: suite101.de and Benutzer:Prinz Rupi[edit]

Hello A. B., I am sorry, but I am no member of the de.wiki community, I would suggest You try to contact User:Thogo or User:DerHexer, both are admins there, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 20:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks. --A. B. (talk) 21:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

BL logging[edit]

We instituted a slightly more complicated method for logging - there's now a link in the log to the diff of the edit to the blacklist. Basically you take the logging snippet from the blacklist after your edit and the snippet from the talk page after your edit plus the regexes etc to make the log entry. There are instructions that should be fairly straightforward.

Thanks.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 21:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Cross-wiki monitoring[edit]

Do you use IRC? The only method I know of adding things to the monitor list is with an IRC command. If not, I can add them for you.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, I don't have IRC but I'll get put the list here in about 5 minutes. --A. B. (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Here's the list of additional pdesigner.net clients to monitor:

  • official web site of the Azeri football club, which has an article

  • www.pdesigner.net/testimonials.html
  • www.pdesigner.net/portfolio.html
Thanks! --A. B. (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Done — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! --A. B. (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

COIBot automonitors:

  • pokepages=User:COIBot\/Poke$@en.wikipedia.org|User:COIBot\/Poke$@meta.wikimedia.org|User talk:XLinkBot\/RevertList$@en.wikipedia.org|MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist|Talk:Spam blacklist$@meta.wikimedia.org
    • Putting a linksummary template on these pages results in a report being saved.
  • linksummarypages=User talk:XLinkBot\/RevertList$@en.wikipedia.org|MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist$|Talk:Spam blacklist$@meta.wikimedia.org|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam$@en.wikipedia.org|User:COIBot\/XWiki\/.*@meta.wikimedia.org|User:SpamReportBot\/cw\/.*@meta.wikimedia.org
    • Putting a linksummary template on these pages results in the domain being monitored (with link to the respective diff)
  • regexpages=MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist$|User:Beetstra\/Spam-blacklist$@en.wikipedia.org|User:XLinkBot\/RevertList$@en.wikipedia.org
    • Adding a regex to these pages results in the regex being monitored.

(for the pages which don't end in @(wiki) it oes for ALL wikis). If there are pages that have to be added, poke me. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 00:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dirk, thanks. I'm going to have to sit down and try to figure out what some of this means. Basically, I need to learn regex -- any suggestions on resources for doing this? --A. B. (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Hmmm, not really. You can split the above at the | , that gives you the separate pages. If there is an @, split there, the pagename part is a 'simple' regex, the right part the wikidomain.
Learning regex, err .. hmm .. Regular expression examples gives some examples, and there are several sites online.
Simple things: Alphanumerical characters are treated normally, but a lot of the other characters are 'special'. These special characters need to be escaped, which is done by putting a \ before it. so the regex 'example' would match a part in 'somestrangeexampleofatext'. A '.' matches any character, so 'exa.ple' would match 'somestrangeexampleofatext' but also 'somestrangeexaQpleofatext' and 'somestrangeexa1pleofatext'. If you want to match a literal . then that is done by '\.'. So 'example.com' would match 'http://example.com', but also 'http://example1com.org', however only the former is matched by 'example\.com'. 'word boundaries' are indicated by '\b' .. so 'example\.com' would match 'http://example.com' and 'http://someexample.com', however, only the former would be matched by '\bexample\.com\b' (since the \b before the 'example' should be a word-boundary in the matched string, and 'someexample' has the word-boundary before the 's'. With that you can match the simple stuff.
In the above examples, '$' is a 'end of the whole string boundary', and a '^' would be used for the 'beginning of the whole string boundary' (i.e. '^example' would match 'example.com', but not 'http://example.com', since the latter does not start with 'example'. I don't think we use these on-wiki.
After that, there is much more complex stuff, but I think that would be for later. If you encounter difficult stuff to block, poke us. Or cover it with a handful of simple regexes, and poke us and we will convert it into on difficult one. Hope this gives a beginning. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 19:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply


Thanks for helping out with the XWiki reports! --Erwin(85) 20:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! --A. B. (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

User:COIBot/XWiki/mountainzones.com etc[edit]

Are you reverting the link additions? warning the users? If not, best to leave them open so someone will do it. If so, please note it when closing the report. Otherwise, people have to go searching for what you've done, which could be avoided. Thanks a bunch.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks. I have not warned any users yet. --A. B. (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
There was a template for that kicking around, in case you can't find the local wiki's version (or they don't have one)... not sure where it is though :(  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
As a side-remark, not being warned is not always a reason for not blacklisting the site. XWiki spammers who hop wikis are very difficult to warn, and warnings are sometimes even likely not to be read. If the site is rubbish, warned or not, we will have to add it to the blacklist and wait for the spammer to come to us... --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 19:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I agree, but in general, I prefer to see people warned first. Blacklisting on meta has potentially severe consequences for site owners since they're blocked out of 1000s non-Wikimedia wikis. Also, they may draw the scrutiny of search engine linkspam fighters. If someone thinks they're adding links in good faith and they don't know our rules, I feel bad about sticking it to them.
Compared to other admins, I'm probably more lenient than most when it comes to first time spammers. On the other hand, I'm probably stricter when it comes to unrepentant recidivists -- for instance, blocking all their domains rather than waiting for more spam.
Most of the spam stuff I do is based on others' complaints or on spammers hitting certain "honeypots" such as en:Search engine optimization or en:Mesothelioma. (Mesothelioma-related Google ads can yield $50+ per click-through.) The folks that hit my honeypots are usually pros that are already hitting us elsewhere with junk. I'll also periodically check en:Special:BlockList for accounts that were persistent enough to rate blocking; they should probably also get their domains blocked. So I'm not used to evaluating Bot reports on Meta; the majority of the offenders I see in these bot reports are not too offensive or persistent compared to some of the others I turn up the old-fashioned way.
I also spend some time on "black hat" SEO boards monitoring comments about Wikipedia. Over time, we've slowly built a reputation as difficult "link-nazis" among the most prolific professional spammers; many are now saying we're not worth the hassle and risks. I think this helps prevent spam. I've also noticed that when someone brags about spamming Wikipedia in those forums, they often get all their stuff blacklisted soon afterward -- an interesting coincidence, isn't it?
Anyway, thanks for all you two do (Mike and Dirk) -- along with Herby, you guys are the backbone of our spam-fighting. --A. B. (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
True. What we see here is the stuff that is not done by specialists, generally. We could discuss if there are ways of improving our detection. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 18:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
I think in many cases, the "worst" spam is on en-wikipedia or at least is single-wiki. On en.wikipedia, very little spam gets reported to en:WT:WPSPAM or en:WP:SBL. Most editors and admins think of spam in vandalism terms -- revert and warn or block. They don't know that if a spammer ignores 2 warnings, subsequent warnings and blocks will likely have little effect other than moving them to new IPs or user accounts. For this reason, looking at historical data is useful.
  1. It would be interesting and potentially useful to turn the bots loose to find links added by accounts listed in en:Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for spamming. That category includes many, many "spam-usernames" that have added only one link or article before being blocked based on their user name, so you'd want to sort results based on the number of links added. Most persistent spammers tend to use multiple IPs or accounts; this is especially true of spammers in less developed countries who may be using Internet cafes or dial-up modems.
    1. If you could count and list the number of edits made by all editors to the associated talk pages for these domains, that would also be interesting (it might approximate the number of warnings, except for heavily used, very dynamic IPs).
    2. If you could also tentatively link related domains by finding commonality in user edits, that would be useful. For example, user:A adds links to www.xxx.com and www.yyy.com. User:B adds links to www.aaa.com and www.yyy.com. You could tentatively say that all three are connected. (I say "tentative" because of the dynamic IP issue, although most indefinitely blocked accounts are users, not IPs.
    3. Likewise link together accounts (that would probably be a by-product of the above).
  2. Even more useful would be to turn your bots loose on en:Special:BlockList looking for spam blocks, once again prioritizing by severity and finding related accounts and spam domains.
  3. It's also useful to see the country of origin for accounts. Our worst spammers seem to be from India, Southeast Asia and the U.S. (in no particular order). I never see New Zealanders spam. Most x-wiki stuff seems to come from Europe (except the U.K.); my theory is that folks there are just more comfortable with multiple languages. It's also interesting to see if more than one country is involved -- that can sometimes indicate a benign site with lots of fans or, at the other extreme, someone using open proxies. I remember a tiny few top level domains (i.e., 4.x.x.x = North America, 59.x.x.x = Asia, 200.x.x.x = Latin America, etc.) that helps scanning your bot list at Talk:Spam blacklist, but even if I knew them all, country data would be more helpful. I have no idea how you'd do this technically and if it's not easy, I suggest not worrying about it.
  4. I believe spam added with an open proxy indicates clear intent to abuse us by someone familiar with our rules. I'm inclined to blacklist on sight or after perhaps one warning based on how egregious the domain is. It would also be interesting to turn the bots loose on en:Category:Open proxies blocked on Wikipedia, en:Category:Tor exit nodes and en:Category:Zombie proxies blocked on Wikipedia looking for link additions. Note that perhaps only 5% of open proxy IPs, zombies and Tor nodes are associated with spam, based on my having blocked 100 to 200 over time.
That's my two cents for now. --A. B. (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

TORBlock has cut back on vandalism, but probably hasn't impacted spam much at all, due to the nature of the restrictions. It'd be interesting to see if my hunch is backed up by the data, but I'm not sure if that can be done.

Your imput on User talk:Mike.lifeguard#gadgets! would be welcome.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Some of this is certainly possible to find. Part of this I could incorporate in the IRC functions (I have to ask Versageek and Nixeagle to see how they get on with a webserver .. and then I have to polish up my php ..), some of it needs an external parser with access to the database (I could write that easily). It might however give us an immense s**tload of data. I'll have a go at some of it. (Heh, again .. I really have to invite you again to join us on links the external links IRC channel.... I still believe that access there would make your life in some cases so much easier! --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply


Still looks incomplete?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I copied this and pasted it from my text editor. I think maybe there's a bad character in that document. Thanks for pointing this out. --A. B. (talk) 01:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply


Hi A. B., I would appreciate your comment here (leaving you a notification since you probably have a lot of COIBotreports on your watchlist). Re your comment here, a brief look at this category showed me that the article was clearly within scope as per inclusion policy at English wikipedia ;) Finn Rindahl 12:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I always get burned when I get into spam issues on en.wikipedia involving games or popular culture. Call me a curmudgeon; I take an old fashioned view of the word "encyclopaedia".
See this conversation:
I'll leave the guy a note on en.wikipedia about conflicts of interest. --A. B. (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I would never call you a "curmudgeon", (I had to look that term up in a dictionary where I learned that it meant "cantankerous person" (had to look that one up to)). My own contributions to Wikipedia has mainly been in medieval Irish history, whether that's within the "Actually useful stuff" here I'm not sure... :) Finn Rindahl 15:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Finn, there's been more discussion there -- you may want to give your opinion. --A. B. (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Hi again, I think you made the relevant points very clearly. If you want me to I could go over your reverts and check, but I don't think I have anything to add (except for moral support) right now. Finn Rindahl 20:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
A different thing, could you look at this one. You've commented previously on this at the blacklistdiscussion over at en: (link in report). Regards, Finn Rindahl 09:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
I will a little bit later today. -- 11:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Request for Comment[edit]

I'm trying to learn the Xwiki spam business, and in particular I find inappropriate linkpushing of valid links difficult to deal with. I gathered some link-/ip summaries here User:Finnrind/tatry (for lack of a better place, I'm not proposing to add this to BL), and would appreciate your comment on it at your convenience. It's not an urgent matter. (crossposting at A.B. and Mike.L, anyone else who gets curious feel free to comment too...) Regards, Finn Rindahl 13:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply


Could you look at this request?. It is not the first time they request the removal and a comment from an experienced user is always welcome :). Kind regards, —Dferg (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply


hi A. B., fyi: you are an editor on de.wp. thank you for your work on the global spam blacklist, best regards --Jan eissfeldt 04:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! --A. B. (talk) 06:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

is there a bot to change a link on multiple articles[edit]

I hope you can help me, please, even if it is just to redirect me to some other forum where I can find help. According to Yahoo, their Geocities websites are closing down later this year. On various Wikipedia pages that relate to Friedrich Kellner, in English Wiki and in several languages, I have used this link to a Geocities page that has excerpts from the Friedrich Kellner diary.


Because Geocities is closing, I have now created a new page for those entries, and I would like to be able to substitute this new link for the old Geocities link.


Is there a "bot" of some sort on Wikipedia that would automatically make this substitution, or must I go to each of the Wikipedia pages and make them by hand? I don't mind doing it by hand, but I'll be marked as a spammer, I'm afraid, if I do too many changes at once. There are Friedrich Kellner pages in Wikiquote, as well, and also in Wikimedia Commons. I do appreciate your help in this matter. Thank you. Scott Rskellner 04:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Several points:
  1. You can raise this issue at en:Wikipedia:Bot requests.
  2. The general geocities issue was raised (but not resolved as far as I know) at en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive191#GeoCities is shutting down. My general sense is that the community is ill-prepared to address this; most editors aren't aware of the issue and the rest see it as overwhelmingly big. Also, we're just not organizationally well-prepared to deal with this sort of problem like we are with some others (vandalism, typos, etc.)
    • Given our decentralized nature, it's also possible that something's being done but I just don't know about it.
  3. You have a conflict of interest and may not edit articles connected with Friedrich Kellner; see en:Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest
    • You are allowed, however, to post notes on the articles' associated talk pages noting the issue so other, noninvolved editors can address it.
  4. I suggest also leaving a note at:
I hope this helps. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the other projects to be able to answer. If there's going to be cross-wiki work done by someone, I'd first leave a note at Talk:Spam blacklist#Discussion; they'll trigger a spam flags of the sort described at Spam blacklist/Help#COIBot reports. --A. B. (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

You have been very helpful, and I appreciate your suggestions. Thank you also for responding so quickly. Scott Rskellner 14:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Spamming about arranging a wedding[edit]

I'm not sure what format to report in, but perhaps you will know better. I notice that today a user named GabyOscar is spamming several wikipedias with sub-English text about arranging a wedding: see for example the last item on [11]. Some similar text has already appeared twice before on the Latin Wikipedia and has been deleted (but it didn't previously have a link embedded). A string search on Google showed that the previous text had been widely spammed to blogs etc.; it seemed to emanate from Japan. Today's text hardly shows up on Google as yet.

Hope this is useful. Andrew Dalby 13:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Long time no see :). Throw in FredAbraham & Amyhenry too for good measure. Regards --Herby talk thyme 13:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Notice of review of adminship[edit]


In accordance with Meta:Administrators/Removal and because you have made fewer than ten logged actions over the past six months, your adminship is under review at Meta:Administrators/Removal/April 2010. If you would like to retain your adminship, please sign there before 2010-04-11. Kind regards, Ottava Rima (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

June 20 20xx??[edit]

Hi, the disclaimer on top of this page has been there for a while, hasn't it? ;) Came here just to say I'm very glad to see you're back in action, you are more qualified than most in dealing with those spam-reports. Finn Rindahl 18:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for reminding me. And thanks for the nice comments! --A. B. (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply


Whi did you leave this one User:COIBot/XWiki/sleepapneasymptoms.info open, do you want a second opinion re possible BL or did you just forget to close? I just closed User:COIBot/XWiki/vitaminefacts.info as all the links had been removed. Best regards, Finn Rindahl 23:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I had to stop what I was doing for a while. I was going to come back to it, finish investigating and then blacklist it. --A. B. (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
OK, thanks. I'll leave those to you then :) Finn Rindahl 23:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply


Some notes for your sandbox stats:

  • Thekohser is currently indefinitely blocked on Wikiversity.
  • Jimbo Wales has Founder status and this is recognized on Wikiversity.
  • Drini has Steward status and this is recognized on Wikiversity (there are also some other stewards in the active user list).

You should probably separate out (or make a separate list) of those who are currently still blocked elsewhere.

Is there any way to get the numbers of how many active users made more than 1 edit in the past month? More than 2? More than 10? Those numbers may help. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

As a note, could you also put up the list of editors who were blocked at both Wikipedia and Wikiversity minus those who were spammers or similar things? Moulton, Thekohser and a few others are at the top of my head. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
I didn't follow up since the RfC was quickly becoming a moot issue. --A. B. (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Reply


Hi A. B., I sent you an e-mail via special:email user here yesterday. You do of course not have to answer that mail, but it would be good to know that you actually received it - could you please acknowledge. Best regards, Finn Rindahl 17:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'll check my e-mail account now. --A. B. (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

larger cases in progress on talk:SBL[edit]

It might be a good idea to add some kind of "work in progress" message top&bottom when your working on giant cases like this Ukrainian one - stops other from inadvertedly messing up your work, as well as makes it clearer for the rest of us whenif you need more feedback or help from others. Just a suggestion, keep up the good work. Best regards, Finn Rindahl 20:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Good idea -- thanks for the suggestion. --A. B. (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Deleting spam pages at small project[edit]

You probably knew this already, but just in case: {{delete}} works at most projects, and helps local admins as well as stewards/global admins identify pages proposed deleted by "outsiders" like us, see for example [12] . Also Steward_requests/Speedy_deletions. Of course, spam user pages like the one in the example above is of no harm whatsoever so long as the spam has been removed :) Best regards, Finn Rindahl 20:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thx! --A. B. (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Good message from Theodore[edit]