Wikipedia talk:Spam-blacklisting

Order of sections

Hi Hu12. I think the section order needs be rearranged. There are two types of user who will seek Spam-blacklisting help. Firstly the average user placing a request for an admin to consider adding the link to the black list. Secondly an admin who seeks to carryout the blacklisting.

However an admin might not be sweeping through the proposal list, but rather as in my case trying to do the whole thing myself and at a loss as to which page to look at or what comes first (i.e. I was not responding to another editor's proposal). Therefore on trying to add to the backlist, as per your kind details, I realised that I would need add a log and that in turn required a link to a full explanation, but there was no request by anyone else... hence I ended up with 3 simultaneously open edit screens at once. In otherwords one can't file a log entry unless there is a request section in existance (as the log needs to link to the evidence), and one can't go blacklisting unless one can also add a log entry - hence the request comes first ! Seems obvious to me now (doh!), but not to an unfamilar admin (i.e. me) who locates the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist and vaguely notes they will need to also add a log entry later...

So I propose this outline of a sequence in the guide for unfamiliar admins:

Admins, if you seek to blacklist an external link then please ensure you proceed in the following order (full details of each step given in the rest of this help page):

There needs to be a clear request already in existance that describes the situation. If this has not yet been created by another editor (eg at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed additions), then you will need to create your own full description that shows persistant spaming and the involved registered or IP-anon users. This is required so that others may later review the reasons for the blacklisting. So please add a request to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed additions. (Then click on the "History" tab as you will later need the version number of the article as evidence - see part 3)
Add the external link to the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist
Finally add a log of this action to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/log. You will need in this log entry to link to the original request details (i.e. link to request of part 1 above).

David Ruben ^Talk 13:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've so rearrange sequence order, hope your approve :-)

I also added both the intro paragraph and a few section headers.

Correction need: whilst {{WPSPAM}} is fine in first exmple of location to link to, it is not the right template to use for the User:Hu12/Spam-blacklisting#Linking_to_MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist_requests section. David Ruben ^Talk 14:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reads better rearanged. If there is not evidence already in existance to link to(at ANI, WPSPAM, userpages ect.), other admins in the past just post it in the request section and tag a {{done}} to it. This is a quick and easy way to consolidate newly aquired evidence or alot of evidence spread out over several pages.--Hu12 (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added (somewhat awkwardly) possible places a request may be encountered, also copied&pasted over the {{Spam-blacklist proposed additions}} info on what to include in a request (heavily abreviated down). The examples of linking to a request needs

Switch to giving WP:SBL as primary excample and then WT:WPSPAM as second example seems the better location ?
Hu12, as mentioned above what is template for providing a historical section link for WP:SBL ? {{WPSPAM}} is for WT:WPSPAM, but what is used for WP:SBL ? David Ruben ^Talk 00:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no template for historical linking just a regular full link like this will suffice (archives are fixed sections). I've uniformed/expanded the logging instuction a bit more.--Hu12 (talk) 07:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plan a move to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklisting shortly, so add to your watchlist. --Hu12 (talk) 08:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requests only?

I may be too harsh sometimes, but I do not only blacklist because there is a request or an item on WT:WPSPAM. I think this document should also provide the possibility of blacklisting with just providing proof. I add some links where I have someone adding complete rubbish. E.g. with viagra spam I don't bother warning, that stuff just can't be added in good faith, and has no place here. In that case, I just add an appropriate rule, and link to a Special:Contributions, a COIBot report or similar. No need to discuss the real rubbish IMHO, as long as you have proof that it has been pushed (and blacklisting just stops disruption in that case, right?). Comments? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other possible proof:

Special contributions of a user
COIBot report
OTRS ticket
Mail to the foundation (extreme case ..)

More? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Some work still needs to done here. All those scenarios (IMHO) need to be included. Proposal? --Hu12 (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I have linked to user contributions & to COIBot reports. For other than contributions a "permanent" link is important even for apparently static pages - in time they may change.

Certainly I agree with Dirk a request is certainly not the only way to get something on the list (I listed a collection of porn spam that an IP placed on Meta a while back for example) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page name

Good job Hu12 !

I think though having this as MediaWiki:Spam-blacklisting is a confusing name to describe similarly looking/sounding MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, given that other admin action pages are named for the action (ie "MediaWiki" just scares me :-) and is not where I would intuitively look). I've just located Wikipedia:Spam blacklist which is but a very brief description, so would it not be better to replace that page by this far more comprehensive hand-holding-through-the-process guide for admins who are likely to be unfamiliar with this aspect of their mop? Also that page has, I think, a better shortcut option of WP:BLACKLIST than just WP:BLACK :-)

This topic needs to be added as a brief section (with links) to the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide. I'm not sure about also adding to Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list.

Anyway I'm away for next 4+ days, so will catch up next week :-) David Ruben ^Talk 11:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removals?

I think this also needs dealing with. I certainly know of one instance where a removal was made on Meta with no rationale at all which is as bad (worse) than listing with no rationale. Transparency/process whatever needs to be there & clear. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]