Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hipal (talk | contribs) at 00:25, 9 August 2007 (→‎http://dent.info.md/). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
Archive

Archives

List of archives (with sections)

Long term COI Spamming of related sites by Toughpigs

→ See also: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Long_term_COI_Spamming_by_Toughpigs
 Adsense pub-4086838842346968

Spam sock accounts

Toughpigs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
208.240.243.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Additions such as this, this, this(jfc.wikia.com) and this to muppet.wikia.com, by Toughpigs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who actualy is the founder of http://muppet.wikia.com and all the other related above[1] are of particular concern.--Hu12 04:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Additions of flashgordon.wikia.com or {{wikia|flashgordon|Flash Gordon}}
Flash Gordon (2007 TV series) [2][3]
Flash Gordon (serial) [4][5]
Flash Gordon (film) [6]
Flash Gordon Conquers the Universe [7][8]
Flash Gordon [9][10][11]
Flash Gordon (1954 TV series) [12]
Flash Gordon's Trip to Mars [13][14]
Flash Gordon (TV series) [15][16]
Alex Raymond [17][18]

Additions of jfc.wikia.com or {{wikia|jfc|John From Cincinnati}}
John From Cincinnati [19][20]
David Milch [21][22][23]


Additions of toughpigs.com by "Toughpigs (talk · contribs)" ref [24] dating back from 2005 - june 2006

[25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]

Additions of muppet.wikia.com or {{wikia|muppet|The Muppets}} ref [34]
[35][36][37][38] [39] [40] [41][42] [43][44] [45][46][47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52][53][54][55] [56][57][58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114][115][116][117][118][119][120] had to stop, way too much. this is just a sample dating back from 2005 - june 2006--Hu12 07:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a user, let me say that I find the Muppet wiki a very useful and impressive resource. It doesn't appear to me to be an inappropriate spamming; someone should be adding links to the wiki (as long as it's to appropriate articles), and why not the person who created it? It qualifies under WP:EL. I don't have an opinion on the other wikis being linked. THF 13:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception of the first one, all of these links point to Wikia wikis. Since Wikia and Wikipedia are somewhat related (they're both founded by Jimbo Wales), I don't think that these links qualify as "spam." --Ixfd64 21:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are a bunch of those links still around:
Are these old spam? new spam? old good faith edits? Should I be worried about any of these or has this situation been resolved.? --A. B. (talk) 02:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fireworks links

This seemed like a pretty straightforward case to me, but another user has gone to bat for the sites inclusion; see discussion here. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, I see the user uses a <span class="plainlinks"> in his remark to remove the 'external link' sign from the external links. In any way, were these links added to the wikipedia in a 'spammy' way, or in good faith by many different editors? If they give extra information, their inclusion may be OK. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit troubling also "Why Wikipedia doesn't want you to know about this site" posted on the root domain linking to his → www.fireworksland.com/html/wikipedia.html.
Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment Harassment of other Wikipedians through the use of external links is considered equivalent to the posting of personal attacks on Wikipedia...off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. see also WP:NPA#Off-wiki_personal_attacks. We need no longer believe that these individuals on-wiki actions in adding these sites was in good faith--Hu12 23:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The (local) spam blacklist beckons... MER-C 10:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. I removed the remaining links to the aforementioned site. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its now localy blacklisted.--Hu12 05:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm somewhat disappointed that the Wikipedia community has decided against the inclusion of these links and even went as far as blacklisting one of them, I don't think I should get any further involved in this debate, as it's obviously a conflict of interest for me.

However, whether or not I'm affiliated with these sites, I do feel that they contain much more information than what our articles (firework, fireworks, and consumer fireworks) currently have.

Other editions of Wikipedia may have different policies on external links, but I won't pursue that avenue since that will only make me look like a spammer. I'll let other users decide whether these links should be added to other Wikipedias.

One thing I could do is to ask the webmasters to release some of their sites' content under the GFDL, or better yet, public domain. Even then, much of the content (such as product reviews and forum posts) would be unencyclopedic and thus inappropriate for Wikipedia. --Ixfd64 22:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.wikivorce.com

Spam sock accounts

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

bellazon.org spam on Wikipedia

Partial list of cross-wiki spam accounts:

  • Cross-wiki edits: 172.173.217.219
    • ar, cs, da, fa, he, id, ja, nl, no, pl, ro, ru, sk, sl, sr, sv, th, tr, yi, zh

Spammed domains:

Related sites:

Google Adsense #: 3888230977488499

Reference:

--A. B. (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More IP accounts (some were used on en.wikipedia, some only on other wikipedias):
--A. B. (talk) 04:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assorted spamming (2)

Sites spammed

http://spam.knuru.com

knuru.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

http://spam.businesssrilanka.com

businesssrilanka.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

http://spam.weeenetwork.com

weeenetwork.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

http://spam.midnimo.com

midnimo.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
Spammers

See WP:ANI#Spammer. MER-C 02:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3rd opinion request

User Michael Pocock (talk · contribs) seems to exaggerate a bit in adding EL’s to his website (www.maritimequest.com), 513 now in total. Though there’s some clear WP:COI, most of the links seem to be on topic and the site doesn’t carry adverts. What would be the appropriate action here? Leave it be, inform the user about our policies and guidelines or cleanup? --Van helsing 06:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{uw-coi}} may be appropriate here. MER-C 08:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
heh, I used a {{uw-spam1}} and a further explanation. Guess this needs cleaning
--Dirk Beetstra T C 08:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since the user has only added the external links I am cleaning these. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it’s the only thing he has done since June 2005, coinciding with the moment upon which his page view stats start to grow rapidly. He has also added links to websites of people mentioned on his website contributions list, to a lesser extent though, 46 EL's for bismarck-class.dk for example. --Van helsing 09:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

by:

--Dirk Beetstra T C 10:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waded through the websites mentioned on maritimequest.com, none of them comes over a count of 11 on en.wiki (apart from the Bismarck one). I noticed there is some one protest on 87.60.236.175’s talk page in considering these links spammy though. Thanks for taking this up. --Van helsing 10:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still cleaning the additions of the last IP, after that I will be better able to see whether there are more accounts. Regarding the remark on User talk:87.60.236.175#Moral support, the site itself appears not to be spam, but it is the way it is added to the wikipedia ([[WP:WPSPAM: "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed"). Adding links only is not improving the wikipedia, if the link needs to be mentioned on the page, it can also be mentioned on the talkpage. See also WP:WPSPAM#How not to be a spammer. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --Van helsing 10:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. I think where these links go to a photo-gallery which constitutes an otherwise unique online resource they do indeed add to Wikipedia. Where they go to an index page, or a class information page, I don't think they do. However, deleting them indiscriminately is making hundreds of our warship pages less informative. Plase stop it! The Land 11:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) If this page is about spam to WikiProjects, it might also have been worth asking the people who work on these articles at WP:MILHIST whether they think the external links are useful. It might have been a good idea to do it before going on a deletion spree, not after, but I have asked for such a discussion here. The Land 11:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These links were spammed to the wikipedia (wikipedia definition - WP:SPAM). It would be the wrong way around to leave them there and discuss individually if they should be removed. All the guidelines and policies suggest to first discuss, and then add the link. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The normal principle is to discuss before making radical changes, like deleting 500-odd external links, regardless of whether they should be there in the first place or not... The Land 11:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think that uploading the images would make the article even more informative. It even gives a possibility to discuss certain aspects on the images. I don't believe that external links make an article more informative. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The images may not have an appropriate copyright status to be uploaded here. The Land 11:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so WP:COPYRIGHT may also be of interest here. We may also not be able to link to the image galleries then, because we might be linking to a site that in itself is already violating copyright status. We may have to look into that as well. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with The Land. While the method of adding links might have triggered alarm bells in anti-spam patrols, the links I've seen go directly to relevant pages with photographs of the vessels in question. The MaritimeQuest site invites contributions of photos, but that doesn't mean that the the contributor would necessarily want to make that contribution GPL - licensing images to WP means they end up getting copied all over the internet and a quick scan shows that many of them seem to have been added as part of a family history quest. The ability to see photographs of the ships is very valuable - embedded image makes the article look pretty but let's remember that we are building an encyclopaedia for researchers to use, and whether they get to the image via a link or embedded in the article makes little difference. The correct place for determination of the relevance or otherwise of these links is the WP:MILHIST, and a consensus should have been agreed there before there was wholesale amendments to articles in its scope. I've noted that other MILHIST editors have reverted some of the link removals so it looks like the consensus is likely to be against removal Viv Hamilton 14:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop deleting links to the very valuable maritimequest.com site. You are debasing our encyclopedia. Lou Sander 14:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a WP:SHIPS member I'd like to agree with the above editors and ask you to quit removing links to a valuable resource. "They were added in a spammy way!" is not an adequate justification; what's relevant is if the links improve the encyclopedia. TomTheHand 15:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The link provides valuable extra information, there is no obvious intent to extract money from people who follow the maritimequest link. Please stop deleting these links and restore those which have been removed. Martin Cordon 15:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Observations and suggestions from a WPSPAM regular and nautical history buff:
  1. MaritimeQuest is a useful site. It's one I would have linked to for some maritime articles I've worked on had I known of it. There's a shortage of photos on the Internet for most ships. Not every ship has been in the news widely like HMCS Chicoutimi and it's hard to find photos of older ships such as HMS Rorqual.
  2. The site-owner's link additions definitely violate WP:COI and WP:SPAM.
  3. maritimequest.com appears to be more a labour of love than a money-making scheme for Mr. Pocock, notwithstanding the site's tiny store.
  4. I see Mr. Pocock is still adding these links today[121]. That's unhelpful and he may have to be briefly blocked if he persists; hopefully he'll engage here instead.
  5. Removal of links the owner added is entirely appropriate and Van helsing, Beetstra and others are just doing their job. Like Viv Hamilton, Lou Sander, and The Land, they are valued, long-time contributors.
  6. MILHIST does not own these links. WPSPAM doesn't exclusively own this issue either now that we've gotten pushback from non-COI editors.
  7. However ... given concerns of MILHIST editors, I suggest suspending the removal immediately until we reach consensus here. In effect, these other editors are ratifying some of Pocock's additions.
  8. I believe our mission at WPSPAM is to uphold the encyclopedia's integrity vis-å-vis spam campaigns while minimizing disruption and aggravation for regular long-time, good faith editors such as Viv Hamilton, Lou Sander, and The Land.
  9. As for copyright issues, a photo can be released to Pocock's site for that site's use and still not be released to Wikipedia's and its very, very broad GFDL license. So Pocock's site is not necessarily a copyright violator.
  10. As a general rule, we want to minimize external links where not absolutely necessary; see the phenomenon described at WP:SPAMHOLE -- it's very real and we see it all the time. I suggest not linking to sites like maritimequest.com for ships (such as HMS Ark Royal) where there are lots of pictures in the public domain that can be added to Commons
  11. Possible ways to move forward consistent with Wikipedia guidelines and policies:
    1. Remove each link Pocock added (leaving any links added by others)
    2. At the same time, post a brief neutral, note on each article talk page as this is done, explaining the removal and welcoming others without a COI to add the link back
    3. Post a neutral notice at WT:MILHIST as to what's going on
    4. Non-COI editors should feel free to add links back.
    5. We all try to do this without getting "pointy" about how we do it.
What do others think about ways to move forward?
--A. B. (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds quite sensible to me. Though I would prefer, given the large number of useful links, that the deletion were done on a case-by-case basis rather than the restoration. The links I would like to see retained are the ones where the link is to images which are not currently on Wikipedia and where there is a shortage of images both here and elsewhere on the internet. That represents the vast bulk of the pre-World War II warship articles. The Land 17:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestions A.B., and apologies to the guys of WP:MILHIST for not taking this up with them as well, that would have been the courteous thing to do. --Van helsing 17:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed one of these links on Kiev class aircraft carrier without realizing this conversation was going on. The Land, this isn't a pre-WWII ship and there appear to be some public domain images for it, but if you think this is a link that should stay please let me know and I'll happily revert my edit. I think A.B.'s suggestion is reasonable. The Land's approach would also work if editors who can make the determination are prepared to review all the links soonish. I would also suggest a note on the talk page letting editors know that the link was reviewed by a non-COI editor. -- SiobhanHansa 17:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's Michael Pocock's response to our invitation to engage in this discussion. Any suggestions? --A. B. (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have just responded on Pocock's talk page. The Land 17:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for trying. --A. B. (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's come back again - seems like he'll give up adding his links, though he's miffed about it. The Land 18:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This does not seem to me to be a reasonable solution at all. We should not remove each link that Pocock added. We should only delete links which do not enhance the articles on which they are posted. TomTheHand 18:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well how do we go about working through the list with some consensus? --A. B. (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To facilitate reviewing this, I created a subpage listing articles Michael Pocock edited: User:A. B./Sandbox15. See what you think. --A. B. (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just come here through noticing several of the articles on my watchlist have been affected by this. I add my voice to those editors above who have urged a stop to the removal of these links. All the links I have examined have been to very relevant galleries of pictures of the ships concerned, and there is no obvious attempt to use the link for commercial gain. If I read the comments above correctly, it appears that there is no objection to the links provided that the link is not coded by Mr Pocock. This strikes me as a particularly egregious waste of the time of all concerned, and a classic opportunity to invoke WP:IAR. I am reinstating the links in all the articles which appear on my watchlist. -- Arwel (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I, like Arwel, have had my watchlist with WP:SPAM links. I do think that they are a valuable resource and that they should be kept. They are not spam, they are a link to a specific page with photos of a specific ship that are very hard to find. I will be following Arwel in reverting the deletions in my watchlist. I think having to avoid the COI seems to be a laborious waste of time. Woodym555 20:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Michael Pocock MaritimeQuest.com owner, First please excuse my lack of response on this page as I was unaware of it but, now that I have found it I will give my response. I see there is a very lively debate pro and con for leaving the links added by myself. I would state first that I have used wikipedia for years and found it most helpful in many respects but I have not until today involved myself in the politics of the site.

The links I have added were added to enhance wikipedia for the user but, of course this promotes my site, I can't see any way around that unless I close my site and just edit wikipedia. I have always found the links to other sites useful because they don't always come up on a search and I know there is one place to go to find them, wikipedia.

I have added links ONLY to the individual page for each vessel listed and yes, have added links to a friends site bismarck-class.dk. He did not know how to add them himself. To remove any links to his site would be a travesty as it is a site built by someone who HAS BEEN TO THE WRECK OF THE BISMARCK itself. I think that is useful don't you?

The links to my site as I have said, and has been pointed out by others, link directly to that vessel. I have worked very hard to collect the best photos of these ships and I believe this has value for the users of wikipedia. I have received many notes from people who found their ship on my site and have credited this from the wikipedia link (such as "I found your site through wikipedia etc.). While this can be seen as promotion of my site they KNOW how they found it.

It has been pointed out that many vessels are not featured as famous and therefore it is difficult to find photos or info on them. They are not glamorous so nobody cares much. There are many not even on wikipedia but if someone can find another site they can and do ask for help, which I always provide. I have made it a point to answer EVERY email no matter how silly and have done so for many people who just can't fine the info any other way and many of them have come through wikipedia I am sure.

I must say before today I have never received a complaint, or at least I have never noticed the note at the top of my screen saying "new message" so I was really unaware of all this going on behind the scene. I had not even read the spam notice before so I can somewhat understand the concern. However wholesale deletion of these links seems to harm the wikipedia pages as it intentionally hides information from users, I would think you would want more links to quality sites not fewer.

I will now address the copyright issue. Many of the photos (especially USN ships) are public domain and therefore can be used by anyone. Since I started the site I have had to remove only 1 picture due to copyright problems and I was offered one to replace it which had a copyright and a watermark on it which I declined. I also receive dozens of photos from contributors from around the world for which they hold the copyright. So to date there has been no copyright problem. Some of them true enough end up on other sites without my permission but, that is one of the hazards on posting them in the first place. I do request them removed from time to time and so far all but one has complied with my request.

I have not posted any of them to wikipedia but I have had requests from others to do so which I agreed to. However I know your primary design is to provide information not photos where is mine is both.

MaritimeQuest will go on and grow no matter your decision however I believe it is a good partnership. I have no adverts on my site, no pop up's, no BS at all. I do have a store but as one of you said it is very small. I am interested in making money because we all have to live but I have not put the time into development of the store because I find it dull. I work for a living my living is not my website, my site is my tribute to all those who sailed, served, built and died on these ships.

I will add no further links because it is a waste of my time to just have them deleted but I say again, it is a loss to wikipedia and it's users. History hidden is history forgotten. Regards, Michael Pocock (PS) Thanks to all who have been standing up for the links, I am very happy you find them of use.)

I have said early on "Although the site may be of good interest to the wikipedia, it should be used as a reference, not as an external link only; The way you are adding the link appears spammy, wikipedia is not a linkfarm". In this case, there were 4 accounts whose only contributions were to add the links. I have removed the links these 4 accounts (most by 2, 2 others did not add many links) have added (and I have not removed them if they were used as a reference), since our spam guideline says, even if the link may be useful, if you add massive amounts of links, all of them may be reverted. I could indeed have ignored all rules and let the links stay, but then, 450 of the links may have been OK, but who is to check which ones should be removed (I see this does not work either, I now see people revert without considering if a link is worthy). IMHO, these 4 accounts were spamming, and the additions by these 4 accounts should be cleaned, not only the ones that were added by Michael Pocock, after which uninvolved, established editors are off course free to re-add the link, if they think the link is of interest as an external link (of course obeying our policy what Wikipedia is not and our external links guideline. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it my understanding that you and you alone are the arbiter of what is useful to wikipedia? If so than have a crack at this. Youhave deleted a link added by me to the German Battleship Bismarck page. A link to www.bismarck-class.dk, a friends website. The reason you give is it is because I (Michael Pocock) posted it. You obviously did not bother to check the site to see if it was useful because if you had you would know the site was built by a guy that has been to the Bismarck. However, the K Bismarck site link is still there. The guy that runs this site is not reputible to say the least and has not been to the wreck so, which one is more valuable? You deleted it because I posted it and for no other reason. From reading the discussions most people agree ther MaritimeQuest links should remain as they are of value to that community yet you presist in wanting them removed along with other links I posted. Perhaps you should actually check the site (s) before you delete the link and not take some kind of vendetta against others because of me.

You should also note that I never posted a link above an exhisting link so mine would be first. If it was last than so be it, if people click on it fine, if they like my site then they will come back, if they don't they won't. Nobody was forcing them to click on the link. Furthermore, I think you will find my site has some of the best photos on the internet, especially of some vessels. I don't know why you don't think this is of any value. BTW the Russian carriers which seems to have sparked this whole problem. The photos are all public domain USDOD photos. Michael Pocock

No, I am not judging the usefulness of the link (I said that it may be useful, I have never said that the site was rubbish, useless, or whatever), I have judged the way these links were added. We are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's been established that these links were added in good faith and then removed in good faith.
I wonder if there's a way we can move past rancour and recriminations and move forward? --A. B. (talk) 23:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is all fine with me. I hope we can move on! --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK then, how would you have them posted?
Just stick them on the article talk page and let someone else add them (they probably will in your case). That's the preferred way of doing this. --A. B. (talk) 00:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That said, would I be correct in assuming that nobody is going to have any heartburn with it if I re-add a link to maritimequest on one of the pages I have been editing?CruiserBob 04:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, CruiserBob. All of the discussion here about maritimequest is about the appropriateness of maritimequest's owner, Michael Pocock, adding links to his own site, given his conflict of interest. Assuming you don't also have a personal stake in the maritimequest site, you can add these links as you see appropriate. --A. B. (talk) 04:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might be more sensible to work directly with a wikiproject - WP:MILHIST or WP:SHIPS - rather than leaving notes on talk pages and waiting for someone to find them. You seem a bit mystified by the behind-the-scenes stuff here; I'd be happy to talk with you and try to help come up with a good way to handle this in the future. You can reach me via email by clicking this link: Special:Emailuser/Maralia. Maralia 01:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, having an excellent EL to add on a low traffic wiki article, but not being allowed to add it because of COI concerns, and having to wait till somebody replies to the talkpage, is going to be frustrating. Collaboration between the above projects and Mr. Pockock seems to me to be a good way to go further. --Van helsing 07:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would much, much rather Mr. Pocock add the links himself than post them on the talk page or just tell WP:SHIPS/WP:MILHIST that they're free to link to his site. He does a good job of it and spends a considerable amount of time; this effort improves articles and helps WP:SHIPS and WP:MILHIST. Beetstra, please leave him alone. The people who actually care about the articles that Mr. Pocock edits are very happy that he takes the time to help us improve them. I see no conflict of interest. Per WP:COI, COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote yourself or the interests of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where an editor must forego advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests, he stands in a conflict of interest. I think accusing Mr. Pocock of contributing just to promote himself is assuming bad faith, and accusing him of attempting to advance his outside interests at Wikipedia's expense is absurd. TomTheHand 14:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have thought about this for a moment, but I want to respond to these remarks. TomTheHand, I am just afraid that with that remark you are opening a huge spamhole. In allowing accounts to massively add links because they are deemed OK, and perform only such edits, there is no way other accounts can't do that as well. If next libraries and musea follow and do the same, then the only thing we can say is 'well, we allow Michael Pocock to do it, so please go forward', and then people who have pictures on facebook ... and there is no reason to let all these articles to become a linkfarm. I have removed the links these 4 single purpose accounts have added with that in mind. I believe that we should never allow that. I hope that people will give this a second thought as well. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "slippery slope" at work here. I feel the criteria for whether or not a link should be present on an article is whether the link improves the article, and it is irrelevant who adds them. If an organization begins adding links to articles which do not improve them, have no doubt that I'll be on your side in removing the links. I've cleaned up linkspam many times myself, and I came down on the side of link removal for the issue of Hullnumber.com. When you noticed these links to his external site, you should have tried to determine if the links were (per WP:EL) "meritable, accessible and appropriate," and if you were unsure, you should have discussed the merit of the links with WikiProjects which are interested in the topics, rather than removed the links simply because of who added them. TomTheHand 17:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Michael Pocock may well have been acting in a self-interested manner, but in this particular case I think the conflict of interest was limited. I don't think every link he added was within the boundaries of WP:EL but the bulk were, and the remainder (photo galleries where there are readily-available free photos, description pages which duplicate information from authoritative print sources) did not overstep it much - which is why I was surprised to see a mass removal! There are some instances where very usually an external link is appropriate (look at the Star Wars or Star Trek articles, almost all of which link to the wikis dedicated those respective universes) and this is one of them. And, of course, we don't work by precedent here, so this discussion isn't setting one. The Land 19:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.secstate.wa.gov/history/publications

Another librarian. See here for previous library/archive discussions (nothing has been resolved as of yet regarding this type of thing).

Katr67 20:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lets monitor. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broader implications of librarians' linking campaigns

I suggest taking this whole topic to a broader audience such as the administrators' noticeboard and/or the village pump and/or the discussion pages for one of the relevant guidelines (WP:COI, WP:EL, WP:SPAM). From looking at the prior discussion (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Jul#Library links discussions) it looks like this is an issue that will only grow and fester until the broader community reaches some consensus. I'm biased towards being fairly receptive to these links submitted from librarians, but I see several problems from prior link cleanup:

  1. If every librarian gets in on the act, they will create spam holes that attract real spam. The spam hole phenomenon is very real and we see it every day. Our Great Depression article just can't sustain links to the Depression-era collections of every university, museum and historical society in the English-speaking world.
  2. Frequently these links refer to the existence of some document while not providing much actual content -- just a sort of indexing page. I saw that with many of the links cleaned out of the Appalachia article earlier this year.
  3. Sometimes, librarians link to a nice university page that goes into way too much detail; one (fictitious) example would be a page about "Hybrid crabapple trees in Tasmania" linked from the main Tasmania article.
  4. Alternately, they may link to something too shallow; for example, a page about "World War II in the Pacific" linked from our Battle of Midway article.

I noted some of the librarians that posted in the previous discussion were dismissive towards regular Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia can really use the expertise of good professional librarians helping here, but from the sorts of thing I've seen, there remains confusion about what we do and how we do it. Some librarians may be confusing us with DMOZ, WikiSource or Commons.

Librarians, as well, really are people, too, and they can get just as excited and enthusiastic about what they've got as anyone else. Promoting their collections may interfere with our goals even if when not motivated by greed.

Perhaps a working group of librarians and editors could start by putting together an essay on the topic.--A. B. (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some other editor communities that may have some insights:
These projects don't exactly deal with the issue we're discussing, but they likely draw some editors that are librarians or otherwise have some insights on this issue. --A. B. (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to point out that, in my opinion, it's not necessarily the links themselves that are a problem, but the way they are being added to articles as a sort of "campaign" as A.B. calls it. In the above case, I especially object to the phrase "Available online through the Washington State Library's Classics in Washington History collection", which seems unnecessarily like an ad for that library's services. I actually used one of the previously discussed links as a citation recently, however. I do think people mean well, but we need to reach consensus on this matter. Katr67 22:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These discussions (as many discussions here) often become heated, with arguments like 'but we have information that wikipedia does not have', and 'we link to reliable, on topic, information'. So I just want to say here: we do want the links. Really! But we are more interested in the information that can be provided. And what we want even more, is the information, with the link as a reference. Because a link without the information is just a tunnel away from this encyclopedia, which does not necessarily improve the article where the link is on. As said, it tunnels to the site, people do not stay on the Wikipedia article, and may not return unless they use the back-button. IMHO, the wikipedia article should be totally stand-alone, containing all the information that one could possibly want (or on more wikipedia articles linked together) with references to reliable sources (as many libraries and other archives are!) which back up that information. And I do understand, there are some things that simply can not be incorporated, but that is not very often the case! And I also do understand that people do not always have time to edit articles, but if one has time to add 10 external links to 10 articles, one also has time to add 2 sentences of information and 1 reference to one article, both should take about 5 minutes.

In that process of adding links, it is best not to set of our spam radar, or our conflict of interest radar. Concerning these 'spam' or 'conflicts of interest', indeed, many of these organisations are not commercial, they do not actively sell something. Still (and I know that what I suggest here is in violation of 'assume good faith'), the efficiency of the organisation is often measured by the number of visitors (which may for higher organisations be a measure for the influx of money to the library/archive; such organisations still do need the money to pay their employees, the building and the heating). Though the linkadditions are meant to improve the Wikipedia, in that process people are invited to visit the linked site, and I think it is in both our interest to try and avoid such implications (even if they are totally untrue and not meant that way). --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bestofjdm.com

Pulled from the archive:

Commercial site, selling engines for cars. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still spamming.[122][123][124][125]
--A. B. (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blacklisting requested:
--A. B. (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need more Meta admins

Some pending requests at meta:Talk:Spam blacklist are up to 10 days old.

Can I interest any admins here into standing for admin at meta?
--A. B. (talk) 00:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing, my WMF admin bit is on en.Wiktionary - but it still counts :) .. and I have the anti-spam & regex experience for the job. --Versageek 01:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated archiving request

Is there a way we can let things sit here for a week or so before they get put away? Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 00:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more in favour of the system like on WP:COIN, items sit here until we define them as resolved, and then they get archived. Many of the issues are not closed, but still get archived. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having seen how WP:COIN does archiving, I like this automated system better. Some problems are never 100% resolved and it may be better to take them away on a schedule. However the Werdnabot template on this page (which instructs Shadowbot3) is set to archive any thread that is inactive for 3 days. I think that's very fast. The size of this page is only 70kb at present, which is not very big. (Talk:Evolution has been as large as 300 kb and it didn't fall over). How about doubling the archive time, from 3 to 6 days? That would result in a Talk page no bigger than 140 kb, which is still tolerable.
Please leave a comment here on your preference for the archiving delay (number of days). EdJohnston 01:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My 2 cents: at least 6 days. --A. B. (talk) 02:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.stickycarpet.com

stickycarpet.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Spammers

MER-C 12:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter spam

I just cleaned up 17 high-traffic Harry Potter articles. All had referral links to an Amazon store, disguised as the official Amazon Harry Potter Store. Example diff: [126]

Please keep an eye on Harry Potter articles for affiliate spam, and please be careful of all Amazon links. Rhobite 23:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please linksearch for astore.amazon.com regularly, as nearly all of these links are spam except for the one from AStore (which needs cleanup). Rhobite 23:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lets make COIBot do his job from now on, as most, if not all, should be monitored:
--Dirk Beetstra T C 23:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More spammers

MER-C 12:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CA Technologies LLC spam on Wikipedia

Tracked down and warned by Pharmboy repeatedly:

Accounts:

Domains spammed:

Related domains:

Google Adsense ID: 2009488938765698

Blacklisting request:

--A. B. (talk) 02:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.dent.info.md/

I'd like others' opinions on this site as an external link. --Ronz 21:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This site is published as a blog, loaded with google ads before and after each post, does not cite sources for medical information, and is barely even english (see http://dent.info.md/about/). I would fail it on many accounts. Maralia 21:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Ronz 21:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Ronz 21:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far, all the links I've examined were added by Alesnormales. --Ronz 23:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam&oldid=150085011"