Looks like another case of an editor spamming what could be useful links. I've not looked carefully through all this editors contributions, nor looked for similar editors. --
Editors whose sole contributions to Wikipedia are nothing but the same link are spammers. 24.148.22.105 is one such editor. The quality of the link is not in question, it is the manner in which it is being spammed across Wikipedia. --
Rather then blindly revert why not judge the links on their merits? If the link qualifies under WP:EL it's not spam. I'm not going to revert you (as I don't really care that much either way) but I think your rather missing the point. Linking to reliable sources = adding value to the article. ---
No, the same editor adding nothing but a long list of external links is spamming. Editors should just revert them en masse, not look at every single one for merit. Spam cleaning is a different process than editorial improvements. An editor CAN leave spammed links if they are excellent ones, but there is no need for an editor cleaning blatant spam to 100% time make their own judgment as to the merit of every spammed link. 2005 23:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the site from the monitorlist of COIBot, and whitelisted it against automonitoring. Please let me know if there are more accounts, I will blacklist the seperate editors (like this one). COIBot will of course still report authors with large overlaps or in close IP proximity. --Dirk BeetstraTC 11:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cross-posted from the local blacklist. So that's what happens when you spend the night programming instead of spam patrolling. MER-C 09:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spamming 'See alsos' to the Wikipedia article . He is adding them to articles that have something to with art, but have no earthly reason to link to this particular museum. He also adds external links to the same museum. I reverted two of the 'See alsos'. Not asking for any special help here, except if anyone would like to help revert, that would be welcome. One of his links appears actually appropriate. EdJohnston 18:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking for advice: I am new to this process, and also I am not sure if what I am seeing is considered WPSpam or not. Above, I see a lot of instances of a single user, or single IP, blatantly spamming. Yet, what I see with www.constitution.org is more subtle and complex.
WikiUser Jon Roland, for many years, has kept a blog where he has assembled a collection mix of his political commentary combined with a repository of public domain text. It appears that many users, including Jon Roland, take advantage of his repository while editing Wikipedia. This has an effect, (deliberate or unintentional), of creating a lot of Wiki links to his website raising both the traffic to his political blog, but also raising the tendency of Wiki editors to find his website ranked high on Google when they do a web search. (A self reinforcing loop)
I have checked about twenty of the six hundred links and typically I found that the public domain texts in his self published repository/political blog were all also available on non-self published websites. Clearly, this is an issue of
WP:SPS. But, also, I am curious if other editors consider this a variant 'loop' type of WIKI spam? SaltyBoatr 16:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
I am putting it on COIBot's monitor list, lets see how this gets used. Such self-publication sites may indeed be a problem. --Dirk BeetstraTC 16:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Situations that involve good, long-standing editors are tricky to deal with. And good sites that are also promoted by their owners are also problematic from a spam fighting perspective. In part this is because Wikipedia has raised its standards over the last few years and behavior was tolerated, even welcomed and encouraged when the project was younger, that does not meet our current expectations. Making texts available online was (and is) a public service. Especially before other Foundation projects came along, this was work above and beyond most editors' contributions. The self published issue is much more widely recognized now than it was initially - but it's not an absolute violation of verifiability, especially when you're talking about republishing texts which are themselves established. The question becomes more a case of whether the site has a reputation for providing trustworthy texts, and it sounds like by now it may well have.
It doesn't sound like other editors finding Roland's site and using it as a link is necessarily a violation of any of our guidelines or policies. He's provided content people want and built a reputation, and now he's found more easily. That's pretty much exactly what's supposed to happen, and it generally works in our favor, penalizing him because he did it at a time Wikipedia didn't take such a hard line on links doesn't seem fair. Also we should remember it's not as though getting a benefit from providing good content is unacceptable - we link to newspapers all the time whose good content means they get more eyes to look at their advertising. The question should be about whether the content linked to is good for our readers and whether there are better sources for that content.
However our standards have changed and we need to deal with improving our content - If he's still doing it, Jon Roland should be politely reminded that he should not add links to his own site directly to article pages. And if there are better links available with the same content we should replace the ones on our articles. -- SiobhanHansa 17:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I missed something, I don't think Roland is being accused of spamming in the normal sense. There appears to be no real commercial intent here. His site is ancient by internet standards, dating back to at least 1996. I wouldn't be surprised if he was the first person to make some of these documents available online. -
Roland's site does solicit money contributions, so I don't see how you can claim it has no commercial intent. I do agree that the primary intent appears to be pushing his politics. SaltyBoatr 14:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this isn't a standard case, but I would point out that
opinions, or simply trying to make their own sites more popular or pushing their favorite fansites, as well as nonprofit orgs promoting their sites in order to further their own missions. Revenue generation is far from the only driver for spam. -- SiobhanHansa 04:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I also agree this isn't a standard case. For the additional reason: It appears to me that the repository of text maintained by Roland serves as a tool for, not an individual person, but also a like minded pool of 'people spamming their personal
Another suite101 type of site - authors can pretty much write what they like and they get a share of the revenue generated by the advertising on their article pages. Little apparent editorial control in terms of fact checking and writers do not need to be subject experts - most seem to cover broad ranges of subjects and use screen names. This makes it inappropriate as a reliable source and unlikely to be appropriate as an external link. It's not that big an issue yet, but a couple of authors appear to have just started trying to get their articles on Wikipedia so it may be the beginning of a push.
I just discovered that Shadowbot3 lost one of the sections when archiving earliear this month (see [1] and [2]) I think this was because there were links in the section that had been blacklisted. We should try to be more careful about this (and I'm sure I'm as forgetful as anyone else). Losing details on why a URL was blacklisted makes it much harder to make an informed decision if there is a request to remove or locally whtelist.
spamlink}} template to search for *.evilurl.com.wps as well as the actual link - that way we could leave the appended blacklisted urls in spam discussions and use the link search feature to find them easily. -- SiobhanHansa 15:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Your idea is good, but I think those links would still trigger the blacklist. ---
If that's the case then it's not so good! I thought the blacklist distinguished between top level domains (i.e. you can blacklist .com and leave .org available) so I thought this might work. I've never looked at the mechanics of how blacklisting works - is there a page somewhere describing it? -- SiobhanHansa 18:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google Books
Hello. May I ask please why links to Google Books (books.google.com) show up in a spam report dated 28 October in "What links here" for
That report is generated by a bot that monitors external link additions and records some whose circumstances trigger rules that are sometimes indicators of spam - it in no way means that the links mentioned are spam. The links are either simply collected or reported to the spam IRC channel so a human editor can evaluate properly. Google.books.com is not thought to be a spam domain - but it is monitored (I believe) because people pushing a particular author (for instance) sometimes use works on the site. -- SiobhanHansa 13:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ehow
A 'manual site', much self published I think.
wikipedia would also be catagorized as a 'manual self published' site. what is the standard here. any one can put anything in it from cyber space. who are your experts??? no one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahbasharat (talk • contribs) 16:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WHO CARES! YOU JUST OWN A ZENITH OF THIS CYBERSPACE. STAY IN YOUR CORNER. IT MAKES ME LAUGH WHEN YOU WARN AGAINST THINGS (WITH ALL YOUR STOP AND YEILD SIGNS). I HAD NO INTENSIONS OF SPAMMING YOUR SITE. I EVEN DONT KNOW THIS SITE VERY WELL. HERE IS A GOOD ONE: ‘This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits’.........‘The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to Cholesterol, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia'. CAN YOU GO FURTHER THAN THAT? LOOKS LIKE YOU ARE DYING TO SAY, 'YOU ARE FIRED’. KNOW YOUR LIMITS YOU SHOULD BE BEGGING FOR USERS FOR YOUR SITE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahbasharat (talk • contribs) 17:48, 26 Oct 2007
Well I was only passing by but it is odd how you get to make your mind up about some contributions so quickly - could even be one for Meta, given the approach --Herbytalk thyme 17:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See the eHow article. The spam attack was confined to just those eHow articles written by this [http:// www.ehow.com/members/shahbasharat-articles.html one particular eHow editor]. If any blacklisting is done, it should be confined to those pages. --A. B.(talk) 04:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IP registered to an outfit called "Hot Gigs" that builds career search websites. Not a prolific spam campaign but apparently adding links to their clients' articles. I've removed all the ones spammed by this IP. Further research turned up
Yes, Newsday is a legitimate newspaper here, they don't have to spam Wikipedia. As you say, looks like a cover-up for the genuine spam. --CliffC 03:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting observation. Since it appears he's in real estate business, it's possible newsday.com is where he advertises his listing so linking to that site would serve a double purpose - more traffic to a portal where his ads are (apart from the purpose mentioned above). MarkMarek 03:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is weird. Shows up fine in preview, and cutting and pasting to my sandbox they worked fine. No idea what's going on. -- SiobhanHansa 00:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be the
transclusion limit. I guess we are being spammed enough to warrant three archives a month. MER-C 02:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Looking at the
Wikipedia:Template limits
, I wonder if we want to adjust the documentation embedded in the noinclude sections of the new templates we're using:
{{
spamlink
}}
{{
UserSummary
}}
{{
IPSummary
}}
either by putting the documentation on the template's talk page or by transcluding the documentation from a /doc subpage per
Wikipedia:Template doc page pattern
.
I'd do this myself right away, but after reading those two
There's no need to. Noinclude means that whatever's in between the tags is not part of the template itself. As I said, we're being spammed enough to warrant three archives per month (and it's that time of the day again). MER-C 08:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has value, but all of the IP's contributions (53) have been adding this link. MER-C 12:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We presently have 744 of these links and there are a number on other wikis as well. I looked at link additions documented on Veinor's link pages earlier this year and found 23 of the links were added by this IP; another 44 were added by 38 other accounts, none of which appeared to be spamming.
If you want to follow up further, I've found sometimes that with "gray-area" sites, it helps to post a note on the relevant WikiProject asking about the domain. --A. B.(talk) 02:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I expect the latter to be socks of oksana160773/TVDATAOX/TVDATARU. In these I hardly see any use where it was added in a genuine way. The links may be of some interest, though they only get added as external links. Blacklist material? --Dirk BeetstraTC 10:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blacklistable certainly, equally on Commons or the like the rather obvious puppet accounts would be blocked very quickly? --Herbytalk thyme 10:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have indef blocked the obvious socks (as suspected socks of TVDATARU, as that seems to be the first account), and marked the three accounts of which the names are less obvious as suspected socks (see Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_TVDATARU. Added two more links --Dirk BeetstraTC 11:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slow but persistent. Probably not appropriate to block IP as can go 6 months between adding, would local blacklisting be appropriate, or is that overkill? -- SiobhanHansa 13:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Continued this morning [4]. user did not respond to talk page message about this discussion. -- SiobhanHansa 13:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see it is blocked for now but given that the only contribution to Wikipedia is external links I'd talk nicely to an admin I think. The ip looks like one provided to a business by a UK provider - working on "voice overs" I guess --Herbytalk thyme 15:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reported at WP:AIAV this morning. admins there seem to have become more responsive to spammers over the last 6 months (or I've learned how to make my case better). I'll see what happens after the block expires - it's not so aggressive that it can't be dealt with once s/he returns. How do you recognize that the IP is provided to a business? -- SiobhanHansa 16:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google'd EACS Ltd - the providers, looks like they supply business (& I've not heard of them in the domestic market) so it is may well be static. I think I might look at at least a month with a "special" message along the lines of "come back if you want to contribute something other than links" (were I'm an admin!). The problem is they will probably not be back in that week. The earlier edits puzzled me but IPs do change --Herbytalk thyme 16:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's been a static IP since someone started using it to edit Wikipedia in 2006. If you look at those seemingly unrelated domains added early on, they also feature the same face and name that's on the overvoice.co.uk page. Furthermore they share common registration. The registrant is apparently a distributor for a multi-level marketing scheme and these are his pages which ultimately link to the scheme's site with his referral code.
These are not owned by this spammer but rather by the multi-level marketing company he's a "distributor"; they're worth monitoring for referral spam in the future:
"Sniff, sniff" - almost smells like a meta one if there is any evidence - multi-level marketing company would always be worth an eye? --Herbytalk thyme 14:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I really didn't look into this one hard enough. Thanks A.B. I'll start working on a blacklist request. -- SiobhanHansa 14:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Local blacklist request submitted - if there are any administrators around - there's a big backlog here would be great to get some attention. Let me know if there's anything a non-admin like me can do to make it faster/easier for an admin to work on this.
A. B. - What's the full domain for logicalchoices? You didn't list a TLD and I don't know who's added it to look through their edit history. Thanks. -- SiobhanHansa 12:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it gets to be a real problem I am prepared to list it on Meta - I am actively seeking assistance on the admin side (but "volunteers" for mopping up are always welcome, the backlog has even made me wonder....!). I'll help were I can --Herbytalk thyme 12:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Siobhan, I goofed and used the wrong template -- sorry. Logicalchoices is a user, not a domain:
The user appears to have some constructive contributions on it.wiki. It is not a coincidence that there are 98 spamlinks there. Most of his cross-wiki contribs are adding links to this website. MER-C 10:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
local blacklist is backlogged by one month. Please go over there and clear the backlog. Thanks. MER-C 04:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Agreed (& PLEASE log requests, it is set up now). I am looking for solutions but in the mean time I am prepared to list any real problems on Meta short term. I'm around today but away for the weekend then. However Nick is very helpful --Herbytalk thyme 09:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bump. Still a problem, despite BozMo's efforts (thanks). MER-C 07:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
famousamericans.net
This site has been spammed in the past by IP users - it's part of the "Virtualology" project, and while I believe this site may eventually prove to be a decent source for some articles, it is currently being spammed.. starting with last names beginning in "A".
Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography, edited by James Grant Wilson, John Fiske and Stanley L. Klos Six volumes, New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1887-1889 is not spam. We went through this before in May and it passed the muster. Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography and its edits are a legitament reference for many of the bio's on Wikipedia (quite a few of them taken directly from the Virtualology Project itself as evidenced by the pages including Virtualology Edits to the original work). So could you please explain what the problem is now referencing this historic biographical work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damslerset (talk • contribs)
(from my talk page) Yes, it's a fine reference when used as such. I'm not arguing it's value as a reference, but rather that you seem to be adding it (mainly as an external link) to most if not every article that Wikipedia has in common with Appleton's. That is considered spamming. It would be better to enhance the quality/content of the Wikipedia articles using the content from the Virtualology project and reference that material with a link. In cases where the content is largely from Virtualology already, then using it as a reference for that content is fine. If you don't have time to make the article improvements yourself, then offer the link on the article talk page, or perhaps on the WikiProject Biography page as a source for additional information. --Versageek 23:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop copying/pasting directly from that site. You're introducing typos and unclear writing to these articles. Please rewrite your additions, checking the spelling and clarity. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-11-07 15:21Z
OK, will re-write thought historic text was more value to improve content
Someone should define "Spam" concisely, and add it to this page, and also to the update page that permits a person to edit a page. Adding a link to an article one has written or has an interest in that is located on another site is not normally thought of as by the casual "editor" as "spamming" Wikipedia; thus, the person doesn't know what they are doing could be considered "malicious". Please clarify and define the policy and post it!Robt.dalziel 02:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See
WP:LINKSPAM --Versageek 02:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
at article lampara this writer has made a bunch of spam articles. he made one at Lampara and made many other articles for his albums. he doesnt say that he is famous or anything with links to newspapers or anything. also i think that they might be written by the man himself as they both have the same birthday september 28 on his personal page and on the article box. i would delete them but i dont know how to. thank you i love wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.52.228.107 (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
[reply]
Yet another user-created content site much like associatedcontent.com. MER-C 09:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Am I out of line if I would suggest that user-created content sites should be blacklisted on sight? They fail almost everything here (
spam-sensitive (and for the smarter spammer it takes us time before we actually notice). If specific documents are of interest, they can be whitelisted afterwards? --Dirk BeetstraTC 10:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Given this I don't see the need to blacklist in this case. ---
I am more concerned with the type of site, not that it actually gets spammed at the very moment. The pages contain much self-published material/original research. And we quite often see people link to their own pages on wikipedia. Sometimes they even get plainly spammed. Generally, these sites should not be here at all. Except for some single exceptions for which the spam-whitelist is an option. --Dirk BeetstraTC 11:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now blacklisted on shadowbot, though I tend to local blacklisting. User:Comedybox got a warning and a block early on, looks to me like he is now editing using his IP. --Dirk BeetstraTC 12:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Odd WikiProject Spam pages linked in "What links here pages"
(crossposting from a whitelisting request to get the links into coibot and the links properly logged)
www.bestmusic.ro
I`ve posted some informations about different bands(concerts in different cities). See Deep Purple, Pink Martini. Anyway, those dates (people attended at the concert, date, lcoation) were taken from this site: bestmusic.ro. I`ve use (as I was supposed to do) notes to indicate my source by posting the link in the note section. Also there are some interviews (video or audio) usefull for those who are looking new informations about their favourite artists. here are some links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_M._Lauderdalehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Martini
I`ve noticed that this site: bestmusic.ro was blacklisted after I`ve tried to post some information about the band Outlandish and its concert in Bucharest. Check out this link, pls: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlandish —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.88.148.1 (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
You (and some editors with a clear conflict of interest) were spamming this particular link (and, seen your edit history, another link as well), and I strongly suspect that you have a
conflict of interest
as well (your IP is close to the IP of the site). See the COIBot reports in these two link-templates:
I recommend we have bots monitor the addition of links to these related domains. It's not clear they are all spam, so I am reluctant to recommend blacklisting.
I noticed that this article was beginning to accumulate a lot of commercial "info" links (advertising-heavy or immigration lawyer links). Though nearly all were commercial in some way, I tried to prune them down, leaving a few that seemed to be the most comprehensive (though those were arguably in violation of
WP:EL as well. Another editor disagrees with their removal. Here's a diff showing the links I've removed. Any input would be appreciated. OhNoitsJamieTalk 17:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Nonsense. Lets not overreact. "...accumulating a lot of commercial 'info' links"? These links were there since Febraury 2007. Is 8 a lot? Only 1 link is commercial (and yes, it is a lawyer firm, discussing the topic of the article instead of selling their services). None of the links is advertising-heavy. Absolutely no grounds to discuss it here: not even a molecule of spam in the article or external links. Violation of
WP:EL
? Even if some links qualify as purely commercial or "with heavy advertisement" (for some editors), link usage will not "violate" the policy per se as the policy is not set in stone. Policy should be applied with common sense which I am advocating here.
As a contributing editor I have personally reviewed each website and found them all extremely useful in further expanding article's topic. Reasonable number of external links that are comprehensive, legit, known, reputable and recognized by the immigration community is absolutely necessary to accompany this article. Yes, Wikipedia is not a link directory but again, we are talking about only 8 links, not a hundred or a thousand. Otherwise, lets ban all external links at once. Wikipedia is not a paper book and it is the 21st century. Article HAS to have external website links.
This all is very subjective: advertising-heavy or not, commercial info or not, do we leave 2 links or 8 - so lets have editors familiar with the subject of this article make this judgement call. Maksdo 18:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User talk:Ohnoitsjamie's link removals. US immigration is one of those topics where it is easy to find advice on the web. A Google for 'US immigration' gets 90 million hits. Consider the six particular links whose fate is being discussed here. None of the six is mentioned in the article, and it's unclear why they should be preferred above the other 90 million Google hits by giving them inclusion in Wikipedia. Adding referenced information is a whole other question, and it is conceivable that some important fact (not noted elsewhere) could be attested by one of those links. If that happened, then including that link as a reference might be justified. EdJohnston 19:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in support of link removal. Not so for the sake of being commercial, but because they don't seem to offer any extra information that wouldn't have already be covered, whether it is covered within the article itself, or within government sites or within remaining links. Why confuse readers with multitudes of links offering same type of information. It seems more logical to offer one or two links to website that cover the topic thoroughly. Let's keep the confusion to minimum. MarkMarek 19:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, each of these links DOES add something extra that's not covered within the article. I guess, one has to be familiar with the topic to make this judgement. Why these sites over other 90 million? Same answer: you just have to know this immigration topic to make this call. As far as confusion, it comes from the government websites and documents. The sole purpose of these links was to further expand the topic and decipher all mumble-jumble thrown out on .gov. If encyclopedia isn't capable to (isn't supposed to) provide all the details it ought to give the readers some "further reading" choices. Maksdo 20:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not have a look, but forget the 'commercial' argument. Often, links to established, commercial sites are better than to anything else (sites of established companies and peer-reviewed sites at least make sure that the information is correct). If I read the above discussions, then this cries out for a (couple of) linkfarm links ({{
dmoz}}, e.g.), in stead of some selection of links ('random', if there are 90 million to choose from). Hope this helps. --Dirk BeetstraTC 19:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
As an aside, while I tend to agree with the assessment that these links are not particularly appropriate for the article, I'm a little concerned that the matter is being brought to editors' attention here rather than at the
WikiProject External links or better yet, a subject area wikiproject (Wikipedia:WikiProject United States?). I don't see anything that indicates the addition of the links was spamming. -- SiobhanHansa 22:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, at least something we would agree on: it is not a spam. I wasn't quite sure what prompted OhNoitsJamie to start discussion here. I tried to ask him but... This is what I referred to as an "overreaction". As I noted earlier: "Absolutely no grounds to discuss it here: not even a molecule of spam in the article or external links". Maksdo 22:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of what you call it, the consensus so far is that the article does not need those links. OhNoitsJamieTalk 22:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus, right... Barely scratching surface of the subject - that's what it is. Maksdo 20:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add more content to the article if you feel it's lacking. It doesn't need more links. OhNoitsJamieTalk 20:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Persistent editor, first with an account on de (where COIBot picked him up; de:user:Bürgervereinigung). Now here as a number of IPs. Link may be of interest on German wiki, but is only adding external links on wikis.
User 201.204.15.30 posted external links to a number of articles on anatomy of female body. The link seems to have related information (even though not really much outside of the scope of wiki articles). I would leave the links untouched, if it wasn't all this user have contributed. Every single contribution from this user was an external link to illustratedvagina.com - what is the right thing to do in such instances?
The manner of addition does look spammish, but they also look like potentially excellent links. When I come across a link I think may be useful but seems to have been spammed I normally move it to the talk page and ask for input. If it's an article I work on a lot and I really like the content I might leave it on the article and still ask for other opinions on the talk page - other editors may know of a better page that hasn't been spammed. -- SiobhanHansa 12:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does bug me when the only contribution is links, however valid they may be. Something that says "We welcome actual content rather than merely external links however relevant they maybe" might be worth a try? --Herbytalk thyme 13:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This spammer's previous domains, bapua.com and becomingapua.com were blacklisted the other day on MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. It looks like he registered a new domain name, which redirects to becomingapua.com, to keep external link spamming! The spam has primarily been on The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists, but there have been about a dozen articles spammed previously. I'd appreciate it if some other admins could watchlist this article and revert/block/and or blacklist if warranted, as I don't have alot of time to keep up with this vandalism. dissolvetalk 08:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COIBot is now watching that IP, if they persist we can blacklist it on AntiSpamBot, but that may also depend on collateral damage. --Dirk BeetstraTC 11:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's still being added ([8]). Has a request gone in to have it locally blacklisted? I couldn't see one. -- SiobhanHansa 17:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The edits would still be in the databases (in the edit histories of the pages e.g.). The page is bot-created, and would be recreated when a user would insert the link again. I am sorry, deletion would not help much. Hope this explains. --Dirk BeetstraTC 16:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The accounts marked (c) received a user warning. The account marked (t) posted the message User talk:SebastianHelm#Beijing National Aquatics Centre on my page as IP, but signed as "shuilifang". In addition, there are pertinent discussions on
Disclaimer: It is possible that have made a mistake at some time during the process; not all of the text that I deleted is currently on chrisbosse.com. I don't know if that website has changed since then or if it was my mistake. I apparently did make a mistake when I pasted the wrong URL in the edit summary of 01:10, October 16.
I have not added links to this discussion on the user pages since the inserter(s) use a different account each time. Maybe we should add such links on the article talk pages instead? — Sebastian 05:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might be time to meta-blacklist cmsarticles.awardspace.com, coibot picked up spamming on de.wp and tr.wp recently. Not sure about the others. --Versageek 03:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are localy Bl'd for now, maby Herbythyme can take care of it on meta?? :)--Hu12 04:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - if it's cross wiki dump it on Meta and we'll take a look --Herbytalk thyme 09:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
)
No doubt this is huge. External links, citations and reference are being abused on a wide scale. --Hu12 04:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd hate to say this because of the legitimacy of the content, but I'd say the only way to deal with these spammers is to blacklist the whole lot. MER-C 05:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have chosen the bit softer approach. This will result in all IP edits to be reverted, as for new accounts. Please block any spam-only sock accounts (which exist a bit longer already; AntiSpamBot will not revert 'established' accounts). This should keep much of it out, but established editors are capable of adding the links without any problem. What are the IPs of these sites, I see that at least 4 share the IP 194.70.234.209? We can arrange to block the IP(s) of the sites on shadowbotAntiSpamBot, if that does not result in collateral damage. --Dirk BeetstraTC 12:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Originally adding links to multiple articles, the spammer is trying to replace an official link in a footnote with a link to their commercial website (diff). I'm out of reverts and not sure if it should be taken up with the Shadowbot blacklist. (Previous IPs have added the link to several articles). Thanks for any help.
This is precisely what the global spam blacklist is for. You'll also need to have a diff of the zh addition. (I had a previous case back in October, you'll need to edit the section and click preview to see the templates). MER-C 06:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done on Meta, a request would be good for logging, thanks --Herbytalk thyme 14:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spamming template used to generate external links to German website (that are mostly dead anyway). I tried to prod, but template didn't work. Johnbod 11:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He looks to be a genuine editor on de.wp, but a large chunk of his recent contribs there and x-wiki contribs are spamming this particular link. If these link additions are not genuine, then the global blacklist is waiting.
By the way,
templates for deletion is that way. MER-C 12:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Ah, thanks! Now added Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_November_13#Template:Zeno_author I would not say the links were totally useless - one was actually rather good - but we don't need these, and certainly not by template - a very bad precedent. Anyway, most don't seem to work. All are to sets of pictures by various (old) artists on a large German site. Some links to the site might well be ok. Johnbod 13:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
   (I may not be watching this page anymore. If you would like to continue the conversation, please do so here and let me know.) — Sebastian 02:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another returning spammer, blocked twice in August for adding the same spamlink. Blacklisting requested. MER-C 11:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Spam Event Horizon
The external links section of this article has well over 80 links! There are so many they've had to divide it into nine sections. The links include commercial sites, forums, foreign language sites, and spam for non-notable groups. Can someone from this project take a look at this? I usually remove linkspam when I see it but this is so excessive I think it needs an expert. Masaruemoto 20:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reduced to .. 3. Quite easy, most did not directly link to the subject of the page, but to specific subparts. Maybe a {{
dmoz}} could help a bit further? --Dirk BeetstraTC 22:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
Given this spammer's history, this should be BL'ed. MER-C 08:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. However due to the months of my involvmet tracking this publishers spam, another admin may want to handle the Blacklisting. --Hu12 08:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with blacklisting - if no one does it before the 14th.... :) --Herbytalk thyme 08:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
database. As a side-effect, the subproject page also reccommends that we add a link to find-a-grave from each of these Wikipedia articles. We are even encouraged to use a template: [[template:Find A Grave]].
I personally find these links useful, but Find-a-grave is right next to being "too commercial" for the
WP:SPAM
rules.
I work a lot on fixing DABs and adding Project Gutenberg Author links. As part of this, I often add a find-a-grave link.
Question: Is Wikiproject Spam OK with all of this? I don't want to add the links if they are going to be removed. So far, I have not seen any such removal, but I'm not watching all of these pages and I might not notice. If the links are objectionable, the Spam project should work with the find-a-grave project. If the links are not objectionable, may I please add a statement to that effect to the find-a-grave project page? If the spam project has a list of "approved" projects, just point me to it. Note that I have no connection with find-a-grave or with the find-a-grave wikiproject. Thanks.
I would forsee some controversy in this. The plus would be that there is a WikiProject involved for some oversight. The minus could be
WP:NOT. Some may feel linking to every page at Find-a-grave more a benifit to Find-a-grave than Wikipedia. I for one am interested to hear dialogue from others here who might be able to add more guidance. --Hu12 23:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The Find a Grave project is basically a spam project. There is no other way to put it since we aren't here to make articles based on what some other website does. We are here to make bios of notable people who deserve articles, and NOT make articles for people who don't qualify, regardless of whether they are listed on some commercial site. Find a Grave spam is some of the worst of the encylopedia. Sometimes links to the site will be approriate, but often will not. It is certainly NOT okay to say such links are in general encouraged. 2005 00:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though I'm adamantly against linkspam, I've personally added a link to Find-A-Grave here and there using the template. I think it's an OK resource for the history-related articles I work on, especially if there are images, though I wouldn't trust it as a reference since there's no oversight as to what biographical info gets added by the users there. I'm not too familiar with the Find-A-Grave project, but I'm hoping that their identifying possible candidates for having articles is driven by the need to improve coverage of historic people, and not by a need to drive traffic to the Find-A-Grave site. On the other hand, if anybody starts going around spamming links to Find-A-Grave, of course they should be stopped. I don't think this has happened yet, but in that case I think the spammer should be penalized, but not the links.
Tfd's for the find a grave template showed definite widespread conflict of interest spamming regarding find a grave. 2005 00:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would
Wikipedia:Find-A-Grave famous people be a candidate for deletion, being the nature of its fuction?--Hu12 01:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I guess somebody better block me because I've added multiple find-a-grave links! For some background, see
Wikipedia:Find-A-Grave famous people
-- lots of admins and very respected editors. By using Find-A-Grave's records of famous people, we've been able to identify 1000s of missing articles which have since been written. Finally, from my own article-writing experience, nothing beats a photograph of a granite tombstone as a reliable source for basic biographical stats.
Months ago, we had over 3 million links in this Wikipedia. I submit that there are 100,000s of truly spammy, wretched ones that await our attention; find-a-grave is not among them.--A. B.(talk) 01:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't the slightest reason we need to use Find a grave photos of graves as opposed to any other. Let's not be silly about this. As stated before, sometimes the links are fine. Sometimes they are totally useless. Other times it isn't as clear cut. However, the owners of a company adding thousands of links to their own website is COI spam, period. 2005 02:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2005 - Do you have any diffs that show this has actually been happening? I was under the impression this was one of those sites that gets mainly added by lots of unconnected editors. -- SiobhanHansa 16:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The owners of the Find-A-Grave site were approached by Wikipedians about sharing their lists of notable people, and did so in a generous and friendly spirit of cooperation. These lists have been very helpful in filling in our biographical coverage, and WP editors working on the Missing Articles project have been adding the links as they judge necessary. It would be very ungrateful to label the Find-A-Grave people "spammers" now. While I don't feel the Find-A-Grave link template is necessary on every single article that has a counterpart on their site, more often than not it is a useful addition. I would suggest evaluating on a case-by-case basis and generally giving them the benefit of the doubt. — Catherine\talk 17:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BozMo brought up mongabay almost a year ago.[17] Since then the number of links to this site has grown to 367. It is an adsense site, 5245765661961302, 5292544863418232 and perhaps others. I haven't looked to see if someone is consistently adding links, but I think investigation is in order if someone has time.
Yes, earlier, they were simply changing the wording of the existing links (probably added in good faith by other users), but it appears that now they are actively spamming the links as well.
For the record, I blocked an IP after a spam1 and a message to join the discussion here (though the editor persisted in adding more). I would like to suggest to run AWB on the list of pages these editors (or maybe only one) have been hitting and convert them into a (for now disabled) template. Someone know a suitable wikiproject to bring up the rest of the issue? In that time we can (working together with the wikiproject) decide what to do. --Dirk BeetstraTC 10:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created the template {{WiredForBooks}}, and will start on cleaning the 465 pages in my sandbox here. --Dirk BeetstraTC 10:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see a problem with these external links. wiredforbooks appears to be a university-based non-profit with an archive of author interviews. It seems like just the thing to put in external links for a notable author. If there is any change necessary, it might be to eliminate links to their home page, if there are any, rather than to their WP article, but the link directly to the archived interviews seems like a good thing. BTW, I had never seen their site before--I just saw this because I was watching one of the articles you edited.--Hjal 17:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, this is a case of heavy spamming (under wikipedia definition). Massive violation of
WP:EL (in row, the 5 accounts only add links to one site, quite singular in point of view; we are not a linkfarm (as some pages contain quite some links already ); the accounts mainly add external links; they seem quite involved in the link (especially the IPs); and I have encountered in my latest work quite some pages where the links are not appropriate (on the page of a book, a link with 'an interview with the editor of the book' is certainly 'links to avoid; example). I will strongly suggest that the link-additions in this way stop, and that these editors contact appropriate wikiprojects or start discussing on talkpages (which would also have attracted this attention). --Dirk BeetstraTC 19:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
By the way, I am currently only changing the links these accounts have added into a template which can be disabled and removed, but that is after it is decided that it should be done. The links may indeed be useful, BUT I do believe that they serve better as references, we are, after all,
I am new to this issue, and don't have the expertise or time to really dig in. I want to point out, though, that separate from the origin of the links, some of them may be perfectly legitimate. In other words, the behavior of propagating links may be a violation of policy, but some of the links may still constitute a valuable addition to the encyclopedia. The only one I'm aware of is the link at Katherine Dunn. This is an extensive interview with an important literary figure, that may be a great help in expanding that stub. Whatever the outcome of this debate, I hope that this particular interview will remain linked from this particular article. -Pete 21:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no problem if established editors endorse certain links. There have already been quite some cases where removals of links have been reversed. For now, I am putting them in a template. Maybe a wikiproject (question is which) can ge through the transclusions later and check appropriateness? --Dirk BeetstraTC 22:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't chime in earlier. As one of the suspected spammers, allow me to explain. Wired for Books is indeed a non-profit project. I work for the project under Federal Work Study, and I was asked to update the links (I don't know when the links were originally added or by whom; I only added a small minority of them) to ensure (1) interviews are linked to on appropriate articles, (2) links are consistently worded, and (3) Don Swaim is credited and his article linked to. I believe the vast majority, if not all, of the links are appropriately placed, and I think, for credibility purposes, altering the wording to include links to the Wikipedia articles of Don Swaim and Wired for Books is also appropriate. I'll certainly discontinue and inform the head of Wired for Books if it is decided that the links are inappropriate. I'll review the policies in the mean time regarding exactly what should or should not be linked to, but as far as single-purpose accounts go, I don't believe mine falls into the illegitimate category. The information I link to does not push a single point-of-view when taken as a whole. I'll continue to participate in this discussion as desired, and I will cease editing the links until this is resolved. --Michael Blohm 02:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Michael for your post. Let me clarify, the links are quite often appropriate (and thats why I did not just remove them), but the way they have been added is a problem. As far as I can see is about 90% of the links added/changed by these 5 accounts. Often only as external links (I think on the 300 pages I have seen only 3 or 4 use the link as a reference). At least the three IP's have a conflict of interest, and I think it is better that all these people contact an appropriate wikiproject before continuing. About the being non-commercial, that does not matter at all here, it is the way links are added. Often commercial links are even more appropriate than non-commercial.
About the appropriateness. I have indeed seen many links which are certainly appropriate (but sometimes there are already a lot of links on the pages, see
WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, we are not a linkfarm). But I have also encountered many links where I think they are not appropriate. One example I gave above, on the page John Steinbeck
. There is a link to an interview there "1989 Audio Interview with Elaine Steinbeck talking to Don Swaim about John Steinbeck, RealAudio at Wired for Books." I would call at least this link excessive (not directly linked, and seen there are already quite some links there).
I started updating the links into an own template. I indeed did not want to clean as some do add to pages (though sometimes they could also be used as references, as to add information to the page).
May I ask you to (help me) put the links into the template as defined above ({{WiredForBooks}}; to get all into a standard format), and to assess where the links may be excessive, or where they could be used better as references (you can use this list: special:whatlinkshere/Template:WiredForBooks. I also would urge the other people who are mentioned above to join that operation (and at least stop adding links only). --Dirk BeetstraTC 10:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have indef blocked Bono06. I have left several warnings, and left twice an invitation to join the discussion here (the second time together with a {{uw-spam4im}}), but to no avail. --Dirk BeetstraTC 21:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I emailed the head the project about the situation, instructing him to tell anyone else who is contributing here to discontinue. From here on out, it should be just you and I. I will help as you ask. Is it fair to say that any links that do not fit the template (i.e., the interviewee is not the subject of the article) should merely be deleted? I will most likely begin work this weekend. Thank you for your civility. --Michael Blohm 05:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Off course other editors are allowed to help with this, you might want to point them to the policies and guidelines (
WP:NPOV are the policies and guidelines related to the situation). For further question, please don't hesitate to contact me (on my talk page, e.g.). Thanks again, and I hope (and I am sure) we can resolve this in a positive way. --Dirk BeetstraTC 09:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi, This is David Kurz, producer of Wired for Books. I think part of the problem here is an emabarassment of riches. Don Swaim produced nearly 700 radio interviews of famous authors when he worked at CBS Radio in New York. Although Don had to edit the interviews down to a two-minute radio show, Wired for Books has made available the entire audio interview, usually lasting 30 to 60 minutes. Check out the current issue (November 20, 2007) of PC Magazine in the "Best of the Internet" column for a feature about Don Swaim. As an example of continued relevance, Doris Lessing just won the Nobel Prize for Literature and you can go to Wired for Books to listen to two interviews of Doris Lessing by Don Swaim. Thousands of Wikepedia users come to Wired for Books every week through these links, so we know many people appreciate the links to the audio. I hope this helps. Please write to me directly at [email protected] if need be. Wired for Books is a nonprofit, educational project of the WOUB Center for Public Media at Ohio University. --Dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkurz (talk • contribs) 21:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, This is David Kurz again. Wikipedia really needs to re-examine its definition of "conflict of interest." The current system primarily punishes honest people who are upfront about who they are and what they are writing about. The less-than-honest Wikipedia authors simply have anonymous cronies write their articles, while hiding behind the pretense of having an independent point of view. Of course, the more money and power one has, the easier it is to find a willing puppet. Wikipedia articles should be judged on accuracy and relevance, not an unfair or even malicious definition of conflict of interest. --Dave—
few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 20:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC).[reply
]
Hi David, Thanks for your posts. No, there is no need to re-examine our
dmoz}}. Indeed, the links which are about the subject are very permittable (though still, they could better be used as a reference to add content), but otherwise, no, these links are not wanted. By the way, the nature of the site linked to does not matter, e.g. often commercial sites are even more appropriate than free content sites .. commercial sites make sure that information is correct (a.o. for legal reasons), that is more than one can say from a self-published site (where no control whatsoever exists). If your site would have been close to the latter, we would have plainly removed all of them. That we discuss it here already shows that we do see that the site does contain proper information. That still does not mean that we should plainly allow these links to be added en masse to external links sections. I hope this explains. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraTC on public computers) 22:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
well hang on a minute...the warnings for spam came AFTER the links had been placed. The link os not a spam link and you haven't explained how I can verify this and make it a legitimate link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyriclounge (talk • contribs) 13:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In passing you were first warned on the 15th and you continued to place links ignoring warnings as far as I can see. Equally it is looked on as wrong to place links to a website that a user is associated with which would seem to be the case with you? Just my 0.02 --Herbytalk thyme 13:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we do not blacklist before the links get placed. Wikipedia is an
spamming here. The links are now on autorevert, since you continued adding the link after being warned (in good faith) by me (welcome and warnings at 14:20 yesterday, you continued at 8:00 this morning. Again, the content of your site may not be the problem, the way you are adding it is. Hope this explains. --Dirk BeetstraTC 13:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The warning I received yesterday referred to a .co.nr site, which i assumed may be considered spam, it is after all, a masking domain name. I should point out however that the warning yesterday stating if any more were added i would be blocked came after i had edited 2 more pages, once the warning was received, i did not edit anything. I assume there was a time difference between my editing and the time i actually received the warning; obviously you understand that if i am in the process of editing when the warning is received, i am unable to actually view it - i cant be in 2 places at once.
Likewise, the same happened today, I (wrongly) assumed there was no issue in the original domain name instead of the masking domain which i assumed the problem was with, after all, no one had actually explained what the problem was.
Still now, you say it is the way in which it is done, and yet you still havent offered any idea of how i should be doingthings to comply with your rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyriclounge (talk • contribs) 13:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually read the warnings I left you after I noticed your edits (the 14:20, UK time post on your talkpage) you see:
... For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see
Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest
.... </blockquote
and
...If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it....
Hence, it was told early on how you can contribute links to the wikipedia. As further hints, as we are writing an encyclopedia here, you can also contribute content to the pages (as you may know more to tell about the subjects of the pages where you add the link to), or you can contact an appropriate wikiproject. I hope this helps. --Dirk BeetstraTC 13:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
despite that, the warnings could not have been read whilst i was editing, as im sure you can see, it is simple common sense. so what am i supposed to do now? both links are blocked as spam, so can i still discuss it on the relevant talk pages, or will i just get another warning for typing in the address?
When you are editing (even if you are only browsing) the first thing that happens when there is a post on your talkpage is that you get a big orange 'You have new messages banner' (that should have attracted your attention), hence you have had all chance to read them. Also you say that you read the initial messages before you changed your IPlink to your page, so apparently you had already seen it. The links have been blacklisted on User:AntiSpamBot, which only reverts on content pages, not on talk/project pages. --Dirk BeetstraTC 14:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying, but when you are editing, the warning for new messages appears after you have already posted. So, chronoligcally, I posted and went on to post on another page, whilst i was on that other page about to edit, the warning was sent, i then posted the new post, then received the warning that if i posted any more etc etc, but by that point i had already posted again.
So what happens after i have added it to a discussion - can it then be linked within an article? or is it forever blacklisted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyriclounge (talk • contribs) 14:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For that, you are right, still you continued adding links after the first set of additions and accompanying warning. This bot only reverts IPs and new accounts, established editors can add the link. When there is appropriate use links will be removed from the blacklist on
assume good faith, and remove them now). The linkadditions are still monitored, though. I hope this explains. --Dirk BeetstraTC 14:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I did add new links today, yes, but as I said, i assumed the problem was simply the extension of the domain used, so that's why i didnt forsee any problems with its original format.
Thank you for your help, I will ensure links are used in discussion before adding to a main page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyriclounge (talk • contribs) 14:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's bad enough that my name shows up on some faulty COI list, but I'm starting to steam about how hard it is to get to the bottom of this. Can anyone here help? User talk:Beetstra#COISandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, that's a bot generated page that simply lists occasions when a monitored link is added. It is not intended to imply that every addition is a conflict of interest. The lists simply help a human editor to review additions of monitored links to see who is adding them and in what circumstances. A reviewer would see an addition by a user like yourself and see that the link is used in good faith by a an editor improving the encyclopedia, while multiple additions by a range of IPs would likely draw scrutiny. Use of the bot helps us monitor links where blacklisting is not ideal for whatever reason. I am myself on several of the COI report pages (e.g.:Oct 6th) as are most active users. Does that explain it and relieve your concerns? -- SiobhanHansa 14:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, I have given a similar explanation on my talkpage, I hope that helps. If you have further questions, don't hesitate to either ask me, or another regular here.
To give a better explanation on the records, I have created for templates in COIBot's userspace (which, if all is correct, should now appear on top of every report). I'd like some help with the wording/layout of the templates:
I guess these boxes should provide enough information to a) answer any questions that frequently occur and b) bring people to someone who can answer their questions (me, this project, or wherever). --Dirk BeetstraTC 13:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia articles.Hu12 23:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All deleted now. — Coren (talk) 04:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts!
Firstly thanks a lot for all who supported my RfA (I'll get around to spamming talk pages later!) - appreciated and hopefully now I can help more here.
Generally speaking blacklisting sites doesn't worry me however I've learnt a bit more from time on Meta so a couple of points.
A frequently comment is that they weren't warned. I know they probably have been however I'd like to see a block on an account/ip before listing the site. Comes under the heading of "brick between the eyes" form of warning which it is quite hard to ignore:) I have no problems placing such blocks and don't see it needs listing elsewhere - here will be fine if I'm around. That way they cannot say they didn't know.
That kinda takes me to the second point. When I was here last (early stone age) we revised the spam warning templates. These are now far more extensive than they were then and seem fine for purpose. The issue is the "spam" word - for quite a proportion of what we refer to as spammers they really do not see themselves as that. They are providing information, allowing citations, have no advertising, it's only a hobby, they do good works by helping rehome teenagers who are no longer required by their families or provide secure home for fluffy animals who have run away (might have got something wrong there!). However the block template (
Template:Tl
) still uses the spam word when in practice we mean "the excessive placement of external links deemed unecessary by the community". How do folk feel about rewording that one slightly?
If I make mistakes, point them out, if I can help, ask. Cheers --Herbytalk thyme 15:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re 1, that is fine, though not always applicable (IP-changing spammers don't feel blocks too much (except if they get range-blocked). Warnings on their talkpage which can be linked to them should be enough, though.
Re 2, People doing link-additions indeed misinterpret the word 'spam', spam is not 'adding a link to a bad site', it is adding links which are (probably) unwanted, or adding them in a way that is unwanted. Also, being free is more a problem (as in, probably unchecked/reviewed) than being commercial (established companies/organisations make sure the information they provide is OK, e.g. not wanting to risk legal actions against information they provide, or because they want to get a good reputation!). IMHO, that is the wording as it should be in
1) Sounds reasonable in general - how do you see that working when there are multiple accounts involved?
2) I'd like to see us change our language in general away from using the word "spam". In my experience it just doesn't help the conversation much and seems to put people immediately on the defensive. With those who spend their whole time doing SEO spamming, or who really don't care what guidelines Wikipedia has, it won't matter what words we use. But with the people who genuinely think what they are doing is helpful, our language could make a big difference. I'd like to see almost all our messaging changed to talk to the latter group rather than the former. I don't think even the uw-spam1 template is very good at telling someone who thinks they are adding value with their many links to their organization's great new resource on recipes involving fair trade peanut oil that actually it's not the way to improve our articles. It would be nice to see more of an emphasis on what they can do to help (like adding well sourced NPOV content). -- SiobhanHansa 17:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like working on some of the wording of templates might be helpful. Last time I was here we set up a sub page here for discussion - worthwhile? Thanks --Herbytalk thyme 09:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) I think that contributions of several IPs should be enough reason to blacklist, even if none of them gets blocked for it. If they complain that they did not know, then I am sorry, but I do not believe it is our task to tell them that the link-additions are not wanted (it is not like we did not try to tell them if there are warning on talkpages).
2) I can agree with that we could make the templates reflect those thoughts.
Review page now here, please contribute if you would like to see changes, thanks --Herbytalk thyme 11:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can we review the welcomespam template as well? I made my own copy at here because I got the feeling that people skimmed over the warning part - or just ignored it entirely, thinking it was a standard welcome. Not that the colorful red box at the top helps that much, but it does draw some attention. --Versageek 12:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops new since I was last active. Feel free to put it on there and yours is waay better than the default one, thanks --Herbytalk thyme 12:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
121.246.26.90 was blocked on Friday for spamming this link, but the spammer has returned with the IP 121.246.25.140 today. Blacklisting requested. MER-C 08:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
[reply]
lulu.com
Template:Spamlink
After examination of the coibot LinkReport on lulu.com I see quite some single purpose accounts. The link has now been blacklisted on User:AntiSpamBot, guess it is better that the addition is examined by established editors. --Dirk BeetstraTC 11:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping this link bot monitored rather than
actually blacklisted may be useful for editors watching for COI and promotional articles. A very brief look through brought up several articles to self-published authors and books that appear to have had no significant impact on the world. Could be a useful way to track down some of those articles. -- SiobhanHansa 13:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
COIBot will monitor until an operator decides to remove the rules. It does not matter if it is blacklisted (here, on another language wiki or on meta; in the latter case only if certain parts are whitelisted somewhere), on User:AntiSpamBot's autorevert, or just being monitored. So they will still show up, though hopefully some will decide not to add the link again after being reverted. --Dirk BeetstraTC 13:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
[reply]
485 edits within 216.25.150.128-135[22] since November 2005 --Hu12 05:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting BL[23]--Hu12 09:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting removal from blacklist. this is a major organization of international repute. Adding a few of their publications to WP is not long term spamming. Looking at the articles edited, putting in links to their role in the Councle was probably reasonable about half the time. Over-reaction by Hu12. DGG (talk) 02:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very few if any edits by those accounts were outside "Carnegie Council" infact, since November 2005 all seem to be "Carnegie Council" related only. I removed Over 250 links just last night that were directly deposited by Rushaine McKenzie, IP 216.25.150.134(Carnegie Council NETBLK-CAR123-NET1) and the other
WP:NOT a vehicle for propaganda and advertising, repository of external links or for Self-promotion. Uniformed assertion by DGG.--Hu12 05:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
the articles you put AfD on were examples of an over-expansive view of what spam and COI is. The spirit of the project is to provide encyclopedic information. the prohibition about spam is that the information is often not appropriate. the way to deal with it is to examine the individual edits, and, as i said, about half were clearly inappropriate. When I remove spam, I do it link by link, considering each of them. As for COI, there is, rightly, no prohibition against COI--we just scrutinize such efforts carefully. I think you may wish otherwise, but such is the established policy. DGG (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement is contrary to fact as I've outlined above. The evidence is clear and dates back to late 2005. When I remove spam or research an organizations spam capaign, I do it edit by edit (all edits). This is how I find sock accounts, IP's, existing articles, deleted articles and every other web site an organization is or has been spamming. The method, although time consuming, is extremly effective. In being so, I can find every existing link added by each account within each article. As for the AFD, consensus by others will determine that. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean the above is not true.--Hu12 (talk) 06:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with DGG - I think putting this organization on the spam blacklist is an overreaction, and quite a few of the links I looked at appeared to be valid additions to the articles on which they were added (although the RMckenzie account, as mentioned, appeared to be overzealous) JavaTenor (talk) 08:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with DGG and JavaTenor. I think this could be handled differently then banning an entire website, especially since the organization is so world famous and does so much beneficial work.
If banning a site because of spammers was the norm, then people opposing a site could start spamming wikipedia to get that site banned.
RMckenzie appears to be more than overzealous as JavaTenor states, he is violating
WP:ANI
would suffice.
I would happily help you in policing these links and asking ANI to ban these users User:Hu12. I strongly respect your work on COI and spamming.
User:DGG, you stated that you are Requesting removal from blacklist, have you done this already?
I notice that some of these anon spammers are from the Carnegie council itself. Maybe the Carnegy council should be punished for a month or so for spamming. Travb (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The statement "..people opposing a site could start spamming wikipedia.". Asserting that theory of spam is inaccurate. Manipulation to that effect is easily transparent and identifyable. This spam in fact origionates from an IP associated to this organization and spam accounts were created in order to deceive editors in order to promote Carnegie Council. This organization knew what it was doing.--Hu12 (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Surely Hu12 and I aren't the only people who perceive some irony in the fact that an ethics organization violated multiple site policies for two years. If someone who opposes this blacklisting takes it upon himself or herself to do outreach to this organization and obtain a pledge from them to abide by
WP:SPAM in the future, then go ahead. Short of that, this blacklisting is the most effective preventive measure against a PR debacle for them. DurovaCharge! 00:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I was struck by the ethics aspect too! Carnegie Council's actions are problematic and hurt Wikipedia's ability to be NPOV and relevant for readers. But I do think it's problematic to have to blacklist a link that is also used in hundreds(?) of instances in good faith to improve the encyclopedia. If we can come up with a way to resolve the spam/POV issues and get the link off the black list I think Wikipedia will be better off. A prominent note on the talk pages of the editors listed above inviting them to this discussion could be a start in better communicating with them. On most of those talk pages there have been no indications for the editors that their behavior is inappropriate until now (and at an organization like that I doubt it's a case of one person editing under all those accounts). Sometimes black listing a link is a great way to get the editors involved to realize this is a serious issue they need to escalate within their own organization, and it can help get them to agree not to engage in such editing.-- SiobhanHansa 02:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rushaine McKenzie was mentioned above as one of the editors adding links. A web search indicates she is likely an undergraduate working part time for the Carnegie Council, and has not been on Wikiipedia since July. From the cceia.org website, you can find the email address of the president of the Carnegie Council. Wouldn't it make sense to address a high official with the problem, and see if we can get a response? EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am very glad Hu12 finally caught up with them--and most of the links did need to be removed. If the principal spammer has left, then perhaps there is no immediate problem but cleaning up after her. In my experience, people like the president of the Council is not a reasonable approach--we want to identify the head of Public Relations. But at most such organisations, people like summer interns can pretty much do what they feel like regardless of policies--we will have to watch for it next summer also. DGG (talk) 05:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am a program director at the Carnegie Council and editor of the Carnegie Council's online magazine Policy Innovations. We just became aware of this COI issue last week. We will not post links to our content going forward. Please understand that from our perspective the content seemed legitimate, for example audio or text interviews with experts that had Wikipedia entries. Sorry for any inconvenience this episode may have caused. I can be reached at dstewart at cceia.org.Devintstewart (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In view of the above, I think it is now time to remove from the blacklist. DGG (talk) 05:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The item \bcceia\.org has been removed from the blacklist. --Dirk BeetstraTC 17:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
taopage.org fruedfile.org carl-jung.net
Template:Spamlink
Template:Spamlink
Template:Spamlink
The 3 sites are linked from the below ips and date back to 2004. The sites are posted in several articles from tao related to psychology related articles. This is similar to thedaoculture.com as the taoism articles are particular vunerable to these types of links but this website is the oldest and persistantly added if removed.
external link. Many of the links being added were to empty debate pages. About a month ago I had a conversation with User:Debaterx
about her promotion of the website (which she admitted to being involved with). I assumed good faith on her part and didn't follow up, but it seems that wasn't so well founded. Since then it has been added to a bunch of articles and spammed to talk pages by Debaterx, a bunch of closely related IPs, and another single purpose account.
User Lmnopsic is also adding links to the Association's main website, www.idebate.org, in articles where they seem to be appropriate, though the wiki ones still aren't. -- SiobhanHansa 03:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
added two more--Hu12 (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
added three more--Hu12 (talk) 01:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template:IPvandal. User:Debaterx has been banned[31] as a result of using the Wikipedia email tool as a method to promote his spam. Adding the url to the blacklist.--Hu12 (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
→International Labour Office, Bureau International du Travail (range 193.134.192.0-255)
Site redirects to ilo.org. Cross wiki additions.--Hu12 (talk) 10:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not consider the majority of the ilo links spam. This is the major UN specialised agency, and its publications are standards. They belong in a number of articles. I see a tendency to remove links to appropriate major non profit international organisations. Those are the sort of links WP should have, not the sort we should be removing. And I do not see any spam from microinsurance. Neither are appropriate for the blacklist. DGG (talk) 05:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, I am sorry if I am sounding a bit critical here (my apologies), but I see you reacting quite often with "I don't consider this link spam". Maybe we should clarify, we do not consider the link spam, where a link is leading to is is not our prime reason to call something spam (OK, if the site is advertising, single purpose to sell, we also call it spam for that reason). In my opinion, spam is the way the link gets presented. If someone performing mainly/only link additions to one singular domain, that is in violation of
an encyclopedia
here, not a linkfarm.
Now I am not sure if this site is added in the way I describe here, though if an account is mainly adding links to one domain, however appropriate, it is worth discussing that, per cited policies and guidelines. If this is a link to a major specialised agency whose publications are standards, then they are much better used to retrieve information from, and to use them then as a reference. If they are only added to external links 'because they are suitable', then they can a) also be suggested on the talkpage with the same effort, or b) there are many more of such links to other sites which would also serve the same purpose. --Dirk BeetstraTC 10:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The edits to microinsurance were spam, or at least NPOV, and the ed. involved clearly a spa.
But in the case of the ILO there was neither spam nor spammer. First of all, national or international organisations of high repute are often the preferred ELs, not just an alternative one. More specifically: Of the anon editors from ILO listed, they appear to be various edits by various people there, a few of them inappropriate nationalistic edits, but none of them spam links. Essentially all the ELs for ILO seem totally appropriate. The great majority were added in 06 by an established ed. interested generally in organized labor, adding all the international treaties and conventions, and the link to the site for them is essential. Another large group are safety standards for individual chemicals--an authoritative source for an international standard. They were added by a very established chemistry editor as part of an upgrade of many such articles--and they were not added alone--a group of the key national & international standards including the ILO ones was added to each article. The remainder seem to be miscellaneous appropriate sources used for data by various people. Neither of the eds adding large numbers of links were in any sense spammers, but exactly the sort of subject-oriented independent editor who can and should judge, established & respected subject editors looking for appropriate sources. The miscellaneous links similarly, no apparent campaign at all. Hu12 clearly did not examine the contents or the purported spam before he listed it, and neither did you before you criticised me for objecting to it.
I do not tolerate spam, commercial or uncommercial--I follow several hundred susceptible pages and remove as I see it, and warn the spammer. I have sometimes followed up even outside WP--and once or twice, even reformed the person involved. But before I do this I examine the actual content being added and the pattern of the individual adding it. I do not rely solely on automated tools, and i would never list anything on any notice board without being sure of the details. DGG (talk) 14:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The links just provided by Hu12 (I've checked the fr & es ones) look like the IP beginning to publicise the organisation on other wikis. Having been on the website I am unsure exactly what value it is to the project. It seems possible if this continues that Meta may be considered? Just my 0.02 --Herbytalk thyme 15:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think here indeed, that microinsurance was spam, but that site does directly redirect to ilo.org, and was added by an editor who is part of ilo.org. So I think it is certainly appropriate to monitor/discuss the use of both links. Although ilo.org was not spammed directly, it surely looks it was/is the intended target (and I am sure that is why Hu12 listed both domains).
About that all the external links to ilo.org are appropriate, there are many links to the domain itself. Per
the external links guideline
, we are supposed to link the subject page directly linked to the subject. If I examine them, the subjects where they appear on is not about the organisation, it is about a document from the organisation (contained on this site; this link is another link on each wikipedia page). Though not spam (the editor adding them has actually provided a lot of referenced content!!!), I would not call them apropriate.
I have removed ilo.org from the monitoring of COIBot, though the redirect site may indeed be considered blacklistable. --Dirk BeetstraTC 15:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all the duplicative ILO links were added a good while ago, when standards were lower; there are probably half a million pages on WP with duplicate general and specific links. I do not see where WP:EL says to always use the specific link, and certainly we leave the general, rather than multiple specific ones: "Try to avoid linking to multiple pages from the same website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site" The links from the chemicals go not to the main site in any case, but to the specific pages. The bad examples mentioned seem not to be on enWP, and WP:EL says we block bots in such cases; it says nothing about individuals, though I agree it can serve as a warning. DGG (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As both Dirk and Herby have stated, those are the reasons this is here. It's absoluty appropriate to both monitor and discuss these links. Its even appropriate over on
WP:DUCK. Not sure what your opposing interest is in this project, DGG, but its clear you make it a point to have one.--Hu12 (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
What makes you think I have an opposing interest? I have been a member of the project since June to show support, although this is not my main interest & I mainly confine myself to removing what I find incidentally, or on the pages I monitor. My interest in ILO links or other non-profits is only that of maintaining appropriate ELs at appropriate pages. My coming here more often recently?--because I see more that looks like spam paranoia. Like many projects, this sometimes needs a look from a relative outsider. My approach to COI content is that expressed in the remarkably effective
WP:BFAQ, prepared by the most effective of all WP Spam, COI, and sock fighters: even COIs can contribute useful content. For the only previous time my good faith was challenged in public, see [33]. DGG (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I have added some blacklisting rules to User:COIBot regarding this account and these IPs to extend the profile when necessary. --Dirk BeetstraTC 16:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SIGNS). I HAD NO INTENSIONS OF SPAMMING YOUR SITE. I EVEN DONT KNOW THIS SITE VERY WELL. HERE IS A GOOD ONE: ‘This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits’.........‘The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to Cholesterol, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia'. CAN YOU GO FURTHER THAN THAT? LOOKS LIKE YOU ARE DYING TO SAY, 'YOU ARE FIRED’. KNOW YOUR LIMITS YOU SHOULD BE BEGGING FOR USERS FOR YOUR SITE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahbasharat (talk • contribs) 17:48, 26 Oct 2007
 Not done
 Done on Meta, a request would be good for logging, thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 Done --Herby talk thyme 10:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
![[26]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image_talk:WikiWed.jpg&oldid=170821288){kind=link}