User talk:A. B./December 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is a chronological archive of past discussions from User talk:A. B. for the month of December 2006. Exchanges spilling over into late November or early January may have been retained elsewhere to avoid breaking their continuity.

In order to preserve the record of past discussions, the contents of this page should be preserved in their current form.

Please do NOT make new edits to this page. If you wish to make new comments or re-open an old discussion thread, please do so on the User talk:A. B. page.

If necessary, copy the relevant discussion thread to the user talk:A. B. page and then add your comments there.


Contents

[edit] Inactive?

You're doing an excellent work with spam fighting. However, I have to say that you've been anything but inactive. You may need a new template for your user page. ScottW 04:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I put that up there because I'm supposed to be inactive and focus on catching up on some work. I suppose it's more a message to me than to the outside world. I actually did a little better (a very relative term in my case) in the last 36 hours.
Besides I find the ways the more competent "black hat" SEO folks work sort of fascinating. Probably we've really not spotted the really good ones yet. I know some black hats follow WT:WPSPAM and all our discussions with a degree of bemusement. If there were 53 weeks in a year, I'd love to spend a week with the anti-spam unit at Google -- they've probably got some good insights.
As for my Wikibreak, maybe I should ask you to watch my contributions page and pester me if I seem to be spending more than 45 minutes a day!! --A. B. 18:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Heh, I'll keep an eye out, but I'm trying to wean myself away from WP too (and somewhat successfully, at that).
I agree that the more complex SEO techniques are interesting. I'm amazed and troubled by some of them all at once. I'm glad you and a few others have the perseverance to deal with them. At your pace, I'd run out of patience right quick. ScottW 03:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
To ScottW:
Encouraging Wikipedians to give priority to their outside work is disruptive. Keeping them from editing will be considered vandalism. This is the only warning you'll receive. So don't you even think about it. This message won't self-destruct in 10 seconds. Femto 14:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Heh, I'll see what I can do to get my priorities straight. Must . . . give in . . . to the urge . . . to spend my entire Sunday on Wikipedia . . . But, alas, the dog needs walking. ScottW 15:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah the dog's my only weakness too. No good Wikipedian should be allowed to own a dog. Things that keep you from editing can be a real bitch sometimes. Femto 16:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedians Against Dogs. We can call it... WAD. --AbsolutDan (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] blacklist

This spammer [1], also known as EinsteinEdits, has tried for months to spam his links (www.tmx-elmo.org, www.cocaine-drink.com, www.nitrousdirect.com, www.nascarspace.com) recently targetting these articles with cocaine-drink.com; Cocaine (drink) and Energy drink. unfortunatly when its reverted he vandalizes contribs of any and all involved in its removal. a little history can be found here,[2], [3], [4] and here[5] and the initial threat [6]. EinsteinEdits won't spam or vanalize under his on account so he chooses aol proxies and various IP's for his dirty work. was wondering if its possible to finaly put a stop to this by blacklisting those URL's. Hu12 11:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

  • nitrousdirect.com
  • tmx-elmo.org
  • cocaine-drink.com
  • nascarspace.com
  • penny-stock.org
  • house-mortgage.org
  • dieselforums.net
  • DieselSmoke.com
  • dieselwholesale.com
  • donate-eggs.com
  • nitrous-oxide.net

Additional sites he owns and has campaign spammed in the past..Hu12 14:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:PEAR

Hmmm... that's pretty interesting, thanks for pointing out the connections. I'll certainly be keeping an eye on PEAR when his current block lifts. Thanks, Gwernol 01:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] University Stuff

Have you considered reporting him to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for his potential sockpuppets along with his spam? -WarthogDemon 06:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That IP just got blocked, however he just created a user account. This will likely go on and on. --A. B. (talk) 06:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I actually meant reporting to here Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets or even requesting the page itself be protected. -WarthogDemon 06:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MATSES

I AfD'd MATSES. Thanks for the heads-up on the Peru project page. --Descendall 06:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. I just left a note on the Peru project page about this AfD. I tried to make it as neutral as possible since canvassing AfD votes for one side or another is against the rules. I truly am indifferent one way or the other -- if notability is shown, I'd be happy to keep. So far that hasn't happened.
I'm also not qualified to Google (in Spanish) for MATSES, then assess the notability and reliability of the sources found, so I appreciate your help (and that of any other Wikiproject Peru folks). --A. B. (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re. University of Mary Washington semi-protection request

Thank you for contacting me. I have reviewed the article activity according to your information and semi-protected it for persistent spam. Regards.--Húsönd 00:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --A. B. (talk) 03:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan James Pantone

Can you take a look at this? I am very concerned about this AfD -- I think it's a mistake to proceed now and is only going to further aggravate folks after the whole MATSES AfD contretemps. You're a neutral, third party admin -- can you maybe step in as a grown-up and help us squabbling kids out? I'm concerned I'm no longer totally objective and even more concerned that some of the other parties may be even less objective. Thanks! --A. B. (talk) 04:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be anything wrong with the AfD nomination. Articles can be proposed for deletion at any time. There is no safe time for an article; it is either about a notable subject and has appropriate reliable sources that conforms to policies and guidelines or it doesn't. There's no requirement for a speedy keep, so the only way to close it early would be to get the nominator to withdraw it. (aeropagitica) 16:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much for looking at this and sharing your thoughts, (aeropagitica). Don't you think, however, that the opening language is a bit inflammatory and even bordering on WP:CIVIL concerns? A look at my talk page archives above or at some of the matses.org exchanges on the WikiProject Spam talk page will indicate that I'm not one normally prone to tender sensibilities, but this AfD did concern me.
Having said that, I've spent enough time on matses-related stuff, made my point at the AfD and it's time to move on. I'll leave it for others to sort out and try to get back to my partial Wikibreak.
Thanks again, --A. B. (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Note for the record: AfD discussion deleted for privacy

[edit] Thanks!

Peeking in on my own wikibreak, I noticed the barnstar. Thanks for that! I hope you're enjoying your own break. Best, William Pietri 04:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you very much. I will check if there is another reference for MIL standards, but for the moment i'll remove the link. Again thank you. :) Daniele.tampieri 22:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, you already did it! Thanks :) :) Daniele.tampieri 23:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You Image:WikiThanks.png

Hi A.B., I want to thank you so much for the award and your kind words! My life's been a wreck last few weeks, and you've really lifted me up. You do great work around here, and I hope you know that. Hope to see you around more often! —Pilotguy (push to talk) 23:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Texoma spam

These edits are not actually coming from accounts, they are coming from anonymous IPs. Though it is unlikely that these IPs are shared, I feel uncomfortable blocking an IP that has just made 2 edits. But if he comes back, I will definitely block it. Academic Challenger 01:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Try clicking on the Whois link at the bottom of an IP user's talk page -- that tells you the ISP. Then click on the traceroute link. The traceroute results show the route a packet takes to the customer; while you can't decode all the results, you can usually get useful info you can interpret:
  • 24.116.127.234 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log):
    • hop 10 is the last hop with an identifiable location: gbr1-p70.dlstx.ip.att.net. -- I figure that's Dallas, TX. The subsequent hops don't have geographic locations, but you can figure this person is in the Dallas region.
    • hop14 shows: 24-116-127-234.cpe.cableone.net. A quick trip to the cableone.net web site, http://www.cableone.net/about/locations.asp?STATE=TX, shows the company's Texas locations
    • Hop 14 + whois both confirm this is a cable modem customer. Those are not shared IPs (unless a neighbor's surfing on the subscriber's unsecured home Wi-fi!)
  • 71.96.181.77 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log):
    • Traceroute hop 13 was as far as the pings got before hitting a firewall -- probably the user's. "p9-0.dsl-06.dllstx.verizon-gni.net." can be interpreted to mean a DSL user in Verizon's Dallas region
    • Whois confirms it's a Verizon customer.
    • DSL accounts, like cable modem accounts, are almost never shared.
Traceroute and whois data requires some interpretation and common sense. For instance, some Verizon IP addresses are still registered to GTE, Nynex or Bell Atlantic, 3 predecessor companies merged to form Verizon years ago. Another example: frequently the last 5 to 10 traceroute hops for some ISPs pass through hops with gobbledy-gook nomenclature you can't get a location out of. Some companies may mean a very narrow area in Dallas proper when they use dlstx; others may mean Texas + surrounding states. I've never seen that there's any standard nomenclature ISPs use when responding to traceroute pings; one may use dlstx, another rcntx (Richardson, a suburb), another dfw-1, still another wyqz for the same town. Just the same, common sense will get you far enough to figure out what you need to know.
We already know this is almost certainly the webmaster for searchtexoma.com. Since their web site says they're based in Denison, Texas, about 65 miles northeast of Dallas, these results are no surprise. Had you seen, however, that the new IP address was in Singapore, or even just Atlanta, you'd want to check out the possibility it was an open proxy using a tool such as Completewhois. (Neither's an open proxy -- I already checked).
I hope this is helpful. Now that you know these IP addresses are not shared, I hope you will block them. It's what the policy calls for.
Thanks for your help! --A. B. (talk) 02:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that information. I have used information from WOIS before, but I am definitely not an expert at IP tracing, and I definitely learned a lot from what you wrote here. I have blocked the IP that you reported to AIV, for 31 hours. Academic Challenger 02:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

A little F.Y.I., A. B. [7] not sure what is to be accomplished by this.--Hu12 13:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out. This person is very troubled by my user page (I'm on an intermittent Wikibreak -- I come and go; that user happened to get me in a "here" phase instead of an "away" phase). Perhaps it's just one more way to criticize me. In any event, I appreciate your help in dealing with the person. I'm running out of ways to reword my earlier responses to address his subsequent repetitions of the same complaints and attacks. I find his theft of copyright accusation bizarre; anyone can compare those pages and see there's obviously no violation. Likewise, the furor over as-yet unnamed Texas towns (other than Quanah) I added that are supposed to be hundreds of miles from the Red River. His desperation to get a link searchtexoma.com is a commentary on the value search engines give it.
I actually wouldn't mind the person communicating on my talk page; it's semi-protected for the middlesell.com vandal, however, and I'd prefer to keep it that way for a while. I also think, as you observed, that it helps to keep the conversation centralized. --A. B. (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Innocent" Vandal

Rofl, guess I missed something along the way. Thanks for the info though. --Urzadek 07:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reply to your query on Appalachian English

I'm not sure if you saw it but I replied to your question on the talk page for Appalachian English.[8] ++ Arx Fortis 05:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks -- I look forward to reading the references you cited. It's an interesting question. --A. B. (talk) 13:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pacific Western University

Hi A. B. - In my research on this topic, I saw your name come up often. I think you will be happy to learn that I believe we finally came up with an article that may be ready for the main page. See proposal. I though that you might like to give your two cents. -- Jreferee 00:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say I thought your earlier efforts on this article were first-rate, and the problems lie with the WP:OFFICE process. It's a shame when a lot of hard work like yours goes away because of poorly defined policy and procedure. I'm participating in a discussion about this on the mailing list. The work you did helped a lot with the current version. Thanks for all your efforts! Jokestress 04:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind comment -- I put a lot of work into fixing the problem. Naturally, I was initially put out with what happened, but when I reflect on the whole OFFICE process, I think it could be much worse -- see the comment [9] I wrote earlier at WT:OFFICE. As well, read the two Danny e-mails I link to in my comment. Also, the article that was stubbed was not the article I had written -- see the chronology at User:A. B./Draft Articles. Mostly, I'm just glad to be done working with the PWU article. I never had any interest in the topic -- just a do-gooder impulse to fix a problem at the time.
I strongly encourage you to protect your work with page protection or the Foundation may be forced to stub it again if it drifts away from NPOV. I think page protection is a fair trade-off given the history of this article, both editorial and legal. --A. B. (talk) 04:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi A. B. - I also want to add that I really appreciate all the hard work you put in. I did read every one of your posts, which helped me a lot in creating a proposed article. I think you would enjoy reading the original version here. As I learned the hard way, these WP:OFFICE articles are tough nuts to crack. A key is to try to figure out why the article is on WP:OFFICE watch. I don't think the Foundation can give a reason or even respond to any inquiries because of legal liability, which means the rest of us are left guessing how to fix the problem. I think PWU was there because the cites for calling them unaccrediated were not authoritative enough. We solved that problem by using California's BPPVE to state that PWU has approval to operate from the State of California through the California Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education (BPPVE) as a California BPPVE Approved Institutions - Degree.[7] However, approval by the BPPVE is not the same as accreditation.[8] In order for a California institution to become accredited, they first must have California state approval,[8] which Pacific Western University does not. I do have an idea of what you went through because I went through something similar myself. About 2/3 of my work on the PWU article were politely attacked by a sock puppet, politely disparaged by others, and then improperly closed out. See Categories and List of PWU people. (You really would have appreciated my List of Pacific Western University people.) In the end, my goal is to get PWU off the WP:OFFICE watch and I think PWU is in condition to have that happen. The rest of the happenings related to PWU really do not matter.
"I don't think the Foundation can give a reason or even respond to any inquiries because of legal liability, which means the rest of us are left guessing how to fix the problem." ← I think you just hit the nail on the head.
"About 2/3 of my work on the PWU article were politely attacked by a sock puppet, politely disparaged by others, and then improperly closed out. See Categories and List of PWU people. (You really would have appreciated my List of Pacific Western University people.)" ← I saw your list. Yes, this AfD was handled unconventionally and I think the answer lies in the sensitivity of the topic (PWU), the seniority of the admin that closed it so quickly and, most of all, the nature of an AfD. AfDs remain searchable by Google.
Contested AfDs involve long, often heated arguments with some comments showing little regard for Wikipedia's "encyclopedic standards", yet from a legal point of view, they're still hosted on Wikipedia's servers the same as an article. Take a look at this recently closed AfD to see how potentially problematic an AfD could become in something like the PWU case:
The discussion spiralled way beyond what the editor who submitted them (possibly in violation of WP:COI) could ever have imagined or wanted.
I may be borderline notable myself if I really pushed it, but I would never, ever want an article about myself that wouldn't be a "speedy keep" because any heated AfD discussion would end up right near the top of Google's results.
If this is why the admin overrode both the developing consensus and the normal AfD process, he was right to do so. (Otherwise, I certainly can't imagine any other valid reason). --A. B. (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] spam proxies

A.B., I'm removing your AIV reports here (permanent link) that seem to be a complex case and don't require immediate admin attention. I'm not sure where you should report them, though Shadow seems to be getting you squared away. I'm sure a note dropped on WP:AN would yield some useful ideas of Shadowbot can't help. Good luck.--Kchase T 20:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the feedback. I've done WP:OP (big backlog), WP:AIV (declined), m:Talk:Spam blacklist + warnings + reversions + documenting on talk page. I guess I need to soldier on and go list this at WP:ANI and Shadowbot.
My last trip to ANI was a waste -- I'm not sure anyone even read my posting since no action was taken or reply posted.
This sure is time-consuming and confusing. After 5000 edits, it seems I still often can't figure out where to take things to get fixed.
Perhaps a bunch of ticketdepo.com, nutrition-malnutrition.org,101pharmacy.org, nevadamortgagedepo.com aren't such bad links after all!
Anyway, thanks for getting back to me. --A. B. (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I have made this request for someone to add domains to Shadowbot. (I don't have an IRC client).
WP:ANI will just have to slide -- I'm way behind on off-wiki tasks --A. B. (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, AIV is more for the rapid movers. I can't speak for the other admins who maintiain it, but I'm to incompetent with the specifics of spam and open proxy policy to know what to do. By all means, though, continue to report the rapid-moving spammers who have gotten appropriate warnings, etc. as outlined on AIV. We'll block the stuff where a quick response is required. It sounds like you've covered all the bases with this case. I hope the problem gets solved.--Kchase T 21:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Open proxies

I have checked through and blocked the first batch of open proxies. The vast majority were still open proxies and were blocked; a few were on less static IPs or otherwise no longer open. Thank you for getting this information together! A lot of vandalism will be prevented by this. —Centrx→talk • 07:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you:
  • For doing this.
  • For the feedback
I wondered whether perhaps I would just be considered a pest for dumping that many IPs on the list.
It was a lot of work to put this together and I'm glad to know it was worth it. I used a combination of Completewhois and web searches on the IP numbers. I wanted -- within my limited knowledge of the topic -- to "pre-digest" as much of the data as possible to avoid false positives.
I think what triggered it was stumbling across the John Lott (Econometricist) talk page while tracking a spammer IP's "contributions". I saw the havoc OPs were wreaking on that page (see the page's history):
  • Nobody, including admins, were really doing anything about it
  • When I raised the question why not? all I got was sort of this well-meaning, bullshit answer about how everything was under control: "Every time it happens it is quickly reverted, and the offending open proxy is reported and blocked indef." (By the way, I am not really criticizing that admin -- he's a good guy. I suppose I'm more critical of Wikipedia's strong values about AGF spreading inappropriately to our thinking about how well things are being handled. Our AGF policy is about other editors, not the effectiveness of our systems.).By now, I had already spot-checked some IPs and knew what he was saying was not the case.
  • I suppose if I have a skill on Wikipedia, it's digging. I should have been a terrier. After the above, I just started working through the list of vandals to compile a summary showing the real state of affairs.
  • As I researched that list, I became increasingly aware of just how much other damage was being done elsewhwere by people using these proxies (probably by many others besides the John Lott vandal).
  • That spurred me to go through my list of spammer IPs that I've warned to see how many of them were really open proxies.
  • Finally, by now thoroughly concerned by what I'd seen, I just pulled a list of open proxies off the web and as time allowed worked through them to see which had made edits to Wikipedia. It helps that I was downright curious -- and that I had a stack of paperwork from the office that I really was trying to put off.
In working with WikiProject Spam, I really see how much damage open proxies do. If there are things the other WPSPAM volunteers and I can do in the course of our work to pre-digest stuff for the WPOP folks, please let us know. I suspect that we could easily feed several a day to WPOP, making everyone's life easier in the long-term. --A. B. (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shadowbot blacklist

Done. All sites listed on the page have been added to Shadowbot's blacklist. Thanks! Shadow1 (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:OP

Perhaps you could maintain a seperate list for spammers rather than WP:OP, which is getting flooded with a lot of non-proxy IPs. Download nmap and scan any IP before posting it there. If something there actually has any open ports, then list it on WP:OP to be looked at. Thanks. Voice-of-All 07:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not list those IP addresses at WP:OP as some sort of spammer-tracking exercise. There are multiple lists for spammers already in existence. There's a long list programmed into Shadowbot. The really hard-core cases go to the meta blacklist. I have multiple user pages of my own where I track various spammers. Finally, the archives of WT:WPSPAM are full of them.
The IP addresses I listed at WP:OP I had all checked first using Completewhois, which indicated they were all blacklisted by one or more major list. I should add that looked at probably five times as many other problematic IPs that I did not list. I thought problematic behavior on Wikipedia plus blacklisting on one of the major lists Completewhois reports should constitute probable cause for investigating further at WP:OP. Somehow, I thought I was investing a many hours in doing a good thing. I see now this time was misspent and I will leave the WP:OP list alone in the future.
Thank you for the information about nmap and I will take a look at it as time permits in the future.
Seasons greetings,
--A. B. (talk) 08:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
PS I'm surprised the Talk:John Lott spambot in particular was not using abusable IP addresses according to your findings. I wonder how he does it. The same guy must have done a lot of world-traveling to get to so many computers in a week and make the same spam-edits. I wonder what his trick was. --A. B. (talk) 08:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
It's probably a botnet. MER-C 08:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
That's interesting. I thought WP:OP's charter was to block those too; why on earth wouldn't Wikipedia want to block those IPs? What good edits do we think we're going to get out of them? Will they send us an occasional good-bot once in a while? I doubt it. Those are compromised computers even if they're not technically "open proxies". I'd rather see us block those addresses than some of the national firewalls in the Middle East or the proxy servers like Ultrareach in China that we've blocked before. There really are some good people stuck in some tough places trying to use those systems to get to the outside world.
I'm not directing this at you personally, MER-C, and I appreciate your explanation. Maybe I'll understand the logic of these policies all a bit better when I get older. --A. B. (talk) 08:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately compromised computer != open proxy. There's no way to tell a computer is compromised externally without a) pwning the botnet, b) monitoring its behaviour or c) checking various blacklists. Compromised computers can take their orders via IRC, or a simple GET of a webpage every half hour or so. They do not need to have an open port to accept orders. As far as I'm concerned, WP:OP only looks for open proxies. MER-C 08:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Favor to ask of you

Hey A. B., if you get a few minutes, could I get you to look at the external links of bloodless bullfighting? I was browsing through the history before and noticed that a few weeks ago, Pebs96 (talk • contribs) removed the link to [10]. Pebs96 is the owner of this site which has an external link in the same article. It appears that the two may be competitors. I restored the first link today and, sure enough, Pebs96 removed it. You're a great investigator of link spam type abuse, so could I ask a favor of you and have you investigate it a little for me? It's my belief that both stay or both go (I lean towards the second one). Happy holidays, Metros232 02:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone explain to me how my site is less important than the other two sites. Who do you think the article came from???? This article would not exist if it was not for me. Since "technically" I hold the copyrights to this article, the reference should be to me and our website. It should give us the credit. Why aren't we properly given the credit?--Webmistress Diva 03:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Look very closely at the bottom of your edit window. You'll see "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL." That means that whatever you add there isn't yours necessarily. Metros232 04:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Pebs96 (Webmistress Diva), have responded in detail on your talk page talk page--A. B. (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
You agree to license what you write provided that you are given credit. The credit is given in the edit history for anyone to see. Metros, it is still her work. She maintains copyright but she license it to Wikipedia under a license giving Wikipedia the right to freely distribute it including altered versions as long as proper credit is given (on the history page) and a copy of the original license is included. If you look at any random source file from any randopm GPL project you will see a) a copy of the license terms and 2) proper credit given to those who contributed. Unfortunately Wikipedia does a very poor job of telling people what the GFDL is so they think it means that anything you write or upload is put in the public domain for anyone to (ab)use. With regard to the link I already explained to pebs earlier that the link is a bad idea. Not only did it lead to this whole drama, it is also waaaayyyy too easy for trolls to point fingers and scream original research if there is such a link. Citing oneself is asking for trouble. Pebs it is in your own best interest to remove the link. No one is saying you cannot mention the ranch on your user page so that people know that you run the ranch. MartinDK 11:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I looked at the http://www.coudelariaagualva.com/ site -- it's equally inappropriate. The list of articles with this link does not currently show any articles with this link. If any turn up, they should be deleted just the same as Pebs96's competing ranchcardoso.biz links. --A. B. (talk) 06:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Whoa, those other sites are not mine. I just happen to be messenger who put them on there for them because they did not know how. But I am sure they do now. If I wanted to put my businesses on here, that would be my site called "MAGKON Enterprises". These other sites as you claim them to be mine, just happen to be a site that I am a part of but do not own it.
  • I read those pages, and you are only bringing up what can be used against me.... which is all wrong!
  • Listen, I just write the stuff for people so that they can have a sense of importance in the world too. I add their links so that people know what the heck I'm talking about.
  • All this is really unfair... especially to someone who happens to have a lot to write about.
  • Here's a portion that you may have skipped while reading, which very much applies to what I'm doing while I add the links, whether it is a resource or external.
3.1 What should be linked
  • 1. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.
  • 2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.
  • 3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
  • 4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.
  • I will review everything, but this will have to wait until after the holidays as I have spent wasted hours on these issues and lost out on the opportunities to spend time with my children.
  • This is why I kept saying "disruptions" due to the disruptive behaviours of the contributors that I listed and now I'm adding Metros232 on the list.
  • Because rather than me fixing the article that I started, I now have to further investigate the problems caused by these users, which seems to be a waste of valuable time.
  • In the end, I will be Exonerated, not just because of my findings, but for my efforts as well.
  • I know for a fact that I am NOT the only one who has issues with this. When I share this situation with friends and colleagues, they're biggest question is this.... "what kind of an encyclopedia allows others to edit a credible article. The original encyclopedias themselves do not have over 1 million editors reviewing and editing the books. There's just a group of professionals, professors, and educators who contribute their knowledge..... and even they will attest to the fact that they themselves don't know everything.
  • On here, there should be a time period for someone to be able to sit down quietly and write an article without getting immediately bombarded by several "Wiki-KIA" users (KIA - Know it All) who will start removing and vandalising your page with globs of that junk they put. And the notices should be on the "talk page" rather than on the page itself so it does not look cluttered and ugly!
  • So, can we agree to put away the claws for now until after the new year? I have things to do and this Wiki stuff is interfering with my kids and their livelihood.
  • Thanks for your time!--Webmistress Diva 06:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] middlesell.com

Hrm -- I haven't looked things over too too closely, but it appears they were mainly targeting University of Mary Washington and the userpages of those who got in their way. I've re-protected UMW's article; have any other pages been targeted recently, that you can recall? Beyond that, feel free to let me know if you need any further assistance with this one. Luna Santin 11:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

middlesell.com was just added to the global spam blacklist -- this may help. Normally blacklisting is reserved for widespread spamming but I think the meta admins saw just how much disruption this one spammer was causing in addition to adding his one link. I think his use of multiple accounts and IP addresses was also a factor.
Thanks for the offer. I think the previously targetted user pages such as mine have all been semi-protected. --A. B. (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oak Ridge, Tennessee

No problem. Glad I could make someone smile even whilst WikiGnome-ing. ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pádraic MacUidhir (talk • contribs) 18:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/2E/_/User_talk%7EA._B._December_2006_0051.html"