Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
University spammer - newmedia.ufm.edu (pulled from archive)
Line 594: Line 594:
:IN
:IN
--<font face="Futura">[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] [[User talk:A. B.|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] </font> 22:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
--<font face="Futura">[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] [[User talk:A. B.|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] </font> 22:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

== University spammer - newmedia.ufm.edu (pulled from archive) ==

Some accounts have a single purpose to add links to a university site. Has been noted on AN/I ([[WP:ANI#Possible spam]] - now [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive265#Possible_spam|here in the archive]])
* {{spamlink|newmedia.ufm.edu}} (site of [[Universidad Francisco Marroquín]])
Accounts:
* {{Vandal|lvmtridas}}
* {{Vandal|lvmxavis}}
* {{Vandal|ivanmorales}}
* {{IPvandal|200.0.176.17}} (range 200.0.176.0/23 = Universidad Francisco Marroquín).

The link may be good, but the way of adding is [[WP:SPAM|spam]], and at least the IP (and I suspect the accounts as well) have a [[WP:COI]]. Time to clean? --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 18:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
:I am going to add, some pages created by one of these users contain large linkfarms to this site (added by the same, or other users in this list). --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 19:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
::Ivanmorales contacted me, I left a message on the talkpage, it seems (also from the contributions, that this user is not the same as the other three. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 17:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:11, 4 July 2007

Shortcut
Archive

Archives

List of archives (with sections)

Unusual university spam

Mdazey (talk · contribs · count) has been adding links to various collections at the University of Washington library to numerous articles (129 at last count). I was somewhat concerned that this was spam (the user has made little effort to create content except for direct copy and paste and slightly changed but still copyvio biographies), but was hesistant to have y'all check it out, until today. Please review the link, Using Wikipedia to Extend Digital Collections, Mdazey has provided on his/her userpage. Apparently this is a spam effort sanctioned by the UW library. Please advise or let me know in what other venue I should ask my question: Is this spam? Thanks. Katr67 18:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. SMA archivist (talk · contribs · count) has made a similar effort. Katr67 06:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also Jatharchive (talk · contribs · count) Katr67 07:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to spam Wikipedia. There has been discussion lately in library university circles on how to enhance Wikipedia, and to provide more sourced materials to Wikipedia pages. The feeling is that this will help the users of Wikipedia gain more information, and better sourced information. There is no ill intent here. I have been given permission by the University of Oregon to directly use the information content on the "finding aid" pages on Wikipedia. I have been trying to find out how to word this permission on the Wikipedia pages, but have yet to hear back after I emailed 'en-wikipedia.' I was going to add more than links after I heard back from them. I would be more than happy to create pages and enhance articles if I knew what I was allowed to say. Many professors do not believe that Wikipedia is a legitimate source because of the lack of sourced materials. All I have been doing is trying to make Wikipedia a more legitimate source for Universities and students. If anyone has any additional questions, please feel free to ask me on my user page. Mdazey

It seems like many of the links lead to descriptions of archives. These do not really provide "sourcing" for the information in the article or provide an accessible source of additional information for Wikipedia users. "Sources" should not be placed in the "external link" section (even if it was a "source".) "Sources" (which support facts within the article) should be referenced according to the citation guidelines WP:CITE. External links (WP:EL) should provide a useful source of additional and encyclopedic information. A list of archive materials is not really useful for the average encyclopedia user. Unless the archive material is digitized and accessible, I see no reason to link it. Also, the methods discussed in the article you linked will probably not provide good results for linking this archive material since links are determined on a one-by-one basis based on the quality of the material linked. Nposs 15:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on your comment "External links (WP:EL) should provide a useful source of additional and encyclopedic information", I think that these links do fall under the guidelines for external links. The links I have been adding are more than just a list of items held in an archive, they also include a biography of the individual, almost always far more information than is on the Wikipedia page, and more information than I'd add to the Wikipedia page. I do feel that these links are useful to the users of Wikipedia. Other universities, such as UCLA have been adding the same types of links. If it is felt that my contributions are not useful or contributing to the development of Wikipedia, then these other links should also be looked at. Archives and libraries provide an enormous amount of information for users, once they are able to find it. Using Wikipedia, I would hope, would help these users to find this rich source of information.Mdazey
First, there is a major problem of "conflict of interest" WP:COI - being associated with the website, you are not in the best position whether it is a good addition or not. Best to propose the link on the talk page of the article and let other editors decide. Second, many of the pages you edited already contained biographies equal in scope to the biography on the archive page you linked. In instances where biography is lacking, it might be worth linking, but as a reference. Better yet, add some of the content (in a non-copyvio way) and link the reference. That is how Wikipedia gets better - through the addition of well-referenced content (not linking to external websites). Take for example your last link (diff). The article already contains even more bibliographic info than your link (and the external link section already has link to his congressional bio. Linking the archive for the bio doesn't make sense here. The only other info on the linked page that has to do with the subject of the article is the description of one box of photographs - a small amount of highly specialized information of little use to most readers. I do believe that your heart is in the right place - you want to share the excellent resources of your library with the world. But, external links need to be kept to a minimum and your links (for the most part - I certainly haven't checked them all) don't meet the requirements. You want the link? Add content and link the page in a reference. I would also agree that the contributions of other libraries need to be watched as well. This shouldn't be a discouragement to libraries, but rather an encouragement to engage Wikipedia constructively - with an emphasis on improving the quality of the articles rather than driving traffic to library websites. Nposs 20:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nposs - I see what you're saying, but I disagree about the conflict of interest. As librarians, we are information professionals, very well versed in determining the value of various information sources just as doctors are professionals who determine the appropriateness of various drugs. And after all, if we can link to an imdb page for someone, why not also to a professionally-processed collection of original material which is far more likely to be accurate and to lead the user to additional resources? (See also my additional comment below.) --Bookgrrl holler/lookee here 17:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The links are useful contributions and in no way spam. Hinting to quality (non-commercial) sources is always a welcome enrichment --Historiograf 17:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as both a librarian and a Wiki editor with more than 1000 edits under my belt, I agree that such links should not be considered spam. While *in general* it's preferable to have editors add content rather than links to external sites, seeing this type of link appear thrills me! It's a sign that librarians are treating Wikipedia as a useful gateway source, and that we want to participate in making it a richer, better, more complete repository of information. Given that Wikipedia wants to be a good solid people-built source of quality information, connecting new (or old) researchers with traditional research material is an excellent feature that can only enhance the user's experience. So I vote to encourage this convergence in which two information communities -- one new and one old -- can enrich each other :) --Bookgrrl holler/lookee here 17:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the edits are sensitive to wiki style, I think it's a great idea for libraries and archives to link to original sources in wikipedia. If someone looking for information on William Faulkner were provided with links to where his his papers are located, for instance, you're directing someone to great resources. Although it appears that universities are jumping on this bandwagon first, I would love to see more links provided to collections at the National Archives - they've scanned a *lot* of things, from Lewis Carroll's scrapbook to government records - and all those things are in public domain, waiting for users. The more redirects to original sources, the better information wikipedia provides.Efkeathley 17:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As both a professional archivist and a Wiki editor, I also agree that links of this type should not be considered spam. Links to high-quality external sources (especially primary sources) are an improvement to Wikipedia, not spam, for the reasons already stated above. Archivizt 17:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This topic has been raised on the Foundation-l mailing list .--Versageek 18:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that these links do not qualify as "spam" in the sense of "commercial links added across multiple articles." The links added by the editor (which was the impetus for this conversation), however, are inappropriate. Perhaps the discussion should be moved to the talk page of the external link guidelines - WP:EL. In Wikipedia circles, "spam" has also come to mean the addition of the same inappropriate link to multiple articles. Perhaps this is because the spam fighting tools often end up being used to fix these problems, as well. Someone above mentioned that linking to an archive is similar to linking to IMDB for an actor. Actually, most editors here would suggest that it is not always appropriate to link to IMDB, especially in instances where the linked page contains almost no additional information than the article already contains. The point is, don't link indiscriminately. One library might have a great online repository of Faulkner's letters. Great - it might make for a good link. The links to a sparse, text only description of an archive folder? Not such a good link. I hope it is also remembered that Wikipedia is not a directory of links - WP:NOT - which means that even "good" links won't be appropriate to add in every instance. Best option, add content to the article that is referenced by your outstanding library pages. Then, the link the page with the appropriate citation format - WP:CITE. Nposs 18:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has also been posted on the official listserv of the Society of American Archivists, but I won't direct there as you need a password to get in. Anyhow, we have discussed wikipedia issues on our listserv in the past. I think part of the problem here is that some of the contribs from libraries and archives look like spam because the professionals adding in links are new to wikipedia and not familiar with all the rules, or (possibly) with digital culture. We should help new contributors learn wiki style and rules so that they can continue to contribute without adding too much noise to signal. Although it's off-topic, I'd like to point to Preservation: Library and Archival Science as an article in this area that contains a lot of good information completely out of wiki style. I've been cleaning up a bit over there, but wow, do I need some help with formating.Efkeathley 19:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome the efforts of the Librarians. They should be reminded that Nposs represents a minority for whom rules are more important than any philosophical appreciation of Wikipedia. For others of us making knowledge broadly available to as many people as possible matters far more than bureaucratic trivia about where to put external links or about citation formats. For so many years the material that has been locked away is academic facilities has given the impression (rightly or wrongly) that it was not available to the general public. There is also an unfortunately ignorant tendency among some denizens of the internet to believe that what cannot be digitized must have no value. There may be good reasons for not digitizing Faulkner's letters, so there is absolutely nothing wrong with linking to a text only description of an archive folder. Keep up the good work, and I would hope that other libraries and librarians will be inspired to do just as you have done. Eclecticology 21:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One issue that I don't think has been addressed here is the various purposes for which people turn to Wikipedia. Some of the arguments given against linking to archival sources - especially ones that are not digitized - seem to assume that everyone uses the site strictly as a one-stop shop to learn facts or to answer a question. However, quite a few users, especially students, are using Wikipedia as the first step in their research process. Students often go to Wikipedia to get a good overview of a topic, as well as to get ideas of where they can find additional sources. History students especially need to base their research papers on primary sources (like archival material), going beyond secondary sources like encyclopedias. Given this fact, it seems helpful to these users to let them know where they may find related sources to aid their research. The point about adding content and not just links is well taken, and this is something I’ve been doing when I can add substantively to an article. However, some entries are already quite complete, and any additions I would make wouldn’t really improve the quality of the information presented.SMA archivist 16:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the interesting debate so far. I agree that this topic should be moved to a larger forum. I first brought up the issue here because I figured members of this project would have previously encountered similar good faith efforts on the part of libraries. I certainly don't have anything against libraries, archives or the availability of more information, and in fact FWIW I'm thinking about going to school for a library science degree myself. But as an experienced editor with over 18,000 edits, I am also very interested in helping to uphold Wikipedia policy and guidelines in the areas in which I edit. This is why I wanted to make sure the sorts of link additions we are discussing are legit. That does not mean the policy cannot be changed, and I think this is a very important topic that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. No, per Nposs's posts above, the links aren't "spam" in terms of them being commercial links or even their primary purpose being to drive traffic to library websites (I hope). But in terms of the current external link guidelines, they set off my spam radar. Yes, the archivists are very knowledgeable about research, but long-time Wikipedia editors are very knowledgeable about the wiki, and we need learn how to not only coexist, but collaborate effectively. It would be nice to be able to point people who wish to link their excellent library databases to a distinct Wikipedia guideline rather than the usual COI, SPAM and NOT links. I would also recommend that these same editors would do well to not only pursue their linking projects but to also become active members of the Wikipedia community in other ways, such as helping with the general wiki chores--in this way, as Efkeathley suggested, they will become familiar with our style and rules. BTW, I just noticed there is a Librarian WikiProject--it would be excellent to include them in the process of developing any new guidelines. Latr, Katr 19:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just received a note [1] about the D-Lib Magazine article as well, concerning an editor that was spamming links that I guessed (correctly) might be coi violations as well (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Jun#http:.2F.2Fspam.sil.si.edu). I think this needs to be addressed at other levels. I'm going to check COIN and post there if it hasn't been discussed yet. --Ronz 20:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No response yet to my comment: Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#D-Lib_Magazine_article --Ronz 01:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asked to provide links to similar discussions and as I am going on a trip soon (so will be less available), I will give my 2p to this discussion. First of all I want to say (and I have said that in other discussions as well), if you are working for an organisation/company/whatever which maintains a website, then you have a possible conflict of interest when adding links to that website, and I think that should be addressed. per WP:COI (point 3 is of interest here; my underline):

Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," but if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when:

  1. Editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
  2. Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
  3. Linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
    and you must always:
  4. Avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, attribution, and autobiography.

If your main target is to provide content to the wikipedia, which have, where appropriate, links (as references) to your website, as well as to other sites which provide information (see WP:NPOV), noone will have a problem. If your action is mainly adding links/references only (especially to external links sections, or to references sections) without providing content then I do believe that should be addressed as 'spamming' (under the wikipedia definition).

Why do I think that Wikipedia should address that under WP:COI and WP:SPAM: Note, that non-profit organisations often receive funding from government, from a larger part of an organisation, or from benefit (simply, they need to get their money somewhere). Although I know it is assuming bad faith that the link additions are to attract people to your website (the more links to your website, the more people know you, or the higher the government will esteem the efficiency of your organisation. So the (number of) weblinks are a measure of your efficiency, and hence you do get more money, or only, a better recognition), but for all the cases I have seen so far I argue (as per all the applicable guidelines and policies - WP:SPAM, WP:EL, WP:COI, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV etc. etc.) just discuss the linkadditions on the talkpages, and let uninvolved editors make the decision, if only to avoid such things. Also note that WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:EL both say that a few external links are OK, but external links are not the purpose of the wikipedia, it is the contents. A good article does not need external links, and I do think that often one is doing a disservice to the value of the data on a site (especially libraries and musea) to just add it as an external link, is there really nothing to tell in the wiki page about the subject as it is discussed, so that it can be used as a reference? Thát shows value of a link. I know it is more work to actually write information, but again, just adding the link triggers quite a number of alarms (especially with the bots that I and some other users are running on Wikipedia).

For libraries and musea also, there is much information which is not unique, so there it may be unfair to link to your specific copy of something. That would only be good when the copy is really unique (or extremely rare), and then for sure there is more to tell about that object, so it is again better used as a reference. Otherwise, linking to a linkfarm (for books e.g. special:booksources) is more appropriate)).

Also, I do strongly support removal of all the links added in these cases (WP:SPAM: "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."), after which uninvolved, established editors can re-add the links where they think they are appropriate (or better, use the information from the links to write contents and use it as a reference).

The cases (four as far as I know, but there are probably more):

In conclusion, I think that librarians and people working for a museum should, early on, be notified of WP:COI (and all other policies and guidelines that apply). They are very valuable as wikipedians, they have direct access to much information and as such can contribute a great deal to this encyclopedia, but it is better to discuss first, then to get into these situations. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the similar discussions (referencing the D-Lib article) concerning the Smithsonian Institution:
Katr 17:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz's post at the conflict of interest noticeboard talk page led me to this discussion. As a Wikipedia administrator with over 15,000 edits who specializes in complex investigations, I agree there is both a potential for great benefit and legitimate cause for concern in this discussion. In particular, the journal article's main focus appeared to be the value of Wikipedia links in driving traffic to the University of Washington libraries website. That article also undervalued the most articulate portion of the concerns voiced at this thread: low quality outside links that provide minimal additional value to a Wikipedia article do not serve Wikipedia or its readership. That kind of editing is barely disginguishable from spam (if at all) and - assurances of professionalism notwithstanding - I would place myself in a perilous position if I endorsed it uncritically. Wikipedia does have a large and serious problem with profit driven and ideologically motivated abuse.

Librarians are welcome editors and university libraries are welcome reference sources. Yet I must temper that welcome - in this thread at least - with an earnest request to maintain a primary goal of disseminating accurate and well-referenced information when contributing to this website. As educated people I trust you'll respect this administrative dilemma: it's a step on the slippery slope to countenance the situation when any contributor's primary goal is to drive traffic to an outside website. DurovaCharge! 19:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found another discussion that also references the Using Wikipedia to Extend Digital Collections article:

User talk:Jmabel/Archive 53#Univ_of_Washington_project_to_add_photographs_to_Wikipedia_--_WP:EL_policy_concerns.3F

Latr, Katr 19:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am putting this back, as I think it is still not resolved, and another editor is adding links to this site.
Tobie Garrick is a member of the staff of the Idaho State Historical Society. I do not see a direct link to the site we are discussing here, but Tgarrick is adding links only to the site under discussion here (I will open another case for that site, since it seems to be related - case: WT:WPSPAM#Idaho State Historical Society). Maybe it is time to address these situations more broadly? --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologize for not more fully understanding the process of contributing to Wikipedia before adding the links discussed above. They were links to topic relevant finding aids to an archival collection that can assist users in gaining further understanding of said topics through primary resources. As has been discussed by others above, I believe that links to legitimate finding aids do offer an additional level of knowledge acquisition to users of Wikipedia articles. I do understand that such links pose issues for Wikipedia and its editors. However, I do hope that serious consideration is given to allowing such links in the future, as they serve the purpose of expanding knowledge networks and offering excellent opportunities for Wikipedia users to access reliable information. Thank you. --TGarrick

    • General comment

I was asked to comment, based on my own experience as an academic research librarian (and on WP). I'm giving my own views, which are probably not really universal in any detail, but are a result of the give-and-take here with publishers and generally interested editors, and with the specifically interested eds. at AfD. My overall orientation is compromise--I'm generally an inclusionist, but only up to a point.

These links are of many different sorts, and this needs to be sorted out more carefully than a blanket ban or acceptance. Links to external resources are subject to a variety of sometimes contradictory guidelines at WP:EL. As I see it, the basic principle is that the links must be useful to the readers of the encyclopedia, in providing access to material that will support the article in ways that simple references do not. They are not added to show off the resources of a publisher or library; the special collections at a library, or the journals of a publisher, are listed or discussed at their appropriate articles.

Beyond a certain number, these links are not helpful to the users--the list is supposed to be focused on the most important, relevant, and distinctive. It's appropriate for example to have an external link to the Fowler for the article on Shakespeare, and probably for the one on Renaissance drama, because of the unsurpassed and famous special collection, and the resources of its website. It is not helpful to add such a link to the articles on each Renaissance writer, even the the Fowler has major holdings of most or all of them--but so do many other libraries. It's expected that users will use existing web directories--and even that they would realize that major research collections generally have major comprehensive holdings.

For publishers likewise--a general article on chemistry might appropriate give an external links to the American Chemical Society--but not each of the thousands of articles on individual chemical compounds. And the slightly less important chemical societies should many of them have an article, but not an external link every time. This is a general encyclopedia, and selectivity is important. (Most of my career has been at Princeton where the greatest attainable comprehensiveness was the goal, but I've worked with undergraduates as well. For WP articles, we are mostly talking about undergraduate-appropriate material.)

There are special articles to illuminate this. For general groups of sources on a general subject, there are lists and categories and particular articles, such as Chemical literature: For scientific journals especially, there are "Lists of journals in X" articles, and categories for the different subjects. This isn't as developed in most other fields, but people are working on it--and a few dozen more people would help.

There are also articles on specific publications. There is a coordinated effort to add articles for every peer-reviewed academic journal of importance; based on the Web of Science lists, its about 1/3 of the way. Many subject people in some subjects like law and Mathematics have done this very well, but in most fields it depends on the people interested in journals and libraries. (The coverage of non-academic magazines is even more erratic) There are articles on some major reference tools, such as Ulrich's, or Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Of the more academically oriented, perhaps 10% of the number is necessary--Chemical Abstracts is there, but nobody has gotten to Biological Abstracts yet.

For archives and manuscripts and primary sources, the same rule has . it should go to the best sources, from the most appropriate articles. The great expansion of American Memory has made it a very important link, but it does not have to go from every town represented in their Sanford Maps collection. Hundreds of libraries have some primary documents on various American presidents, but I wouldn't link to all of them. This is not a universal compendium of human knowledge, just a general encyclopedia.
I've been talking about external links. There are also references within the articles and in the bibliographies. (There are a few subject articles where the editors have thought it appropriate to give a full research-level sourcing--I think this is wholly inappropriate, but I certainly haven't been bothering them about it). It is the internal references that are the opportunity to supplement the external links. from those journals with WP articles, some have been systematically adding links when they are referred to in an article; I'm not sure this is generally helpful, but it's sometimes been critical to demonstrate that the work someone published is in significant places. For biology, there's now the convention of supplying the PMID links whenever possible, for it always leads to at least an abstract. for books, there's a special standard--we do not link to the publisher, though we certainly list the publisher, we link to the ISBN, and there's an excellent automatic system of linking from there to Worldcat and to bookdealers.
Enough for tonight. I will give my take on the specifics raised above tomorrow or this weekend.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk • contribs) 02:56, 29 June 2007.
Here are my issues with the library SPAM, and what they can do to meet their objective:
  • Students should not be using Wikipedia as the key ingredient to their papers.
  • It is SPAM
  • Work around
My experience is being a trained historian that has written over 100 bios on Wiki so far, and I am also a current graduate student. Now, I am not trying to brag, just trying to demonstrate my level of experience and familiarity with the topic as most of the library/university links are about the papers of people. I have used some of the WSU pages as references and even once put one in the external links. But my goal was to add content, or in the case of the EL to leave a link to some additional info I had not integrated into the article. It was not to allow the reader to be able to find the person’s personal papers so they can do an in depth paper for school. Any student who uses Wikipedia to write their papers should be flunked out and banned from academia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. And like all encyclopedias it is only a starting point to familiarize the person with the topic. I remember in high school we were told we could not use the encyclopedias as references. No researcher of any acumen should be using Wikipedia for serious academic research. Period. Now if students at UW are using Wikipedia, well that makes me lose a whole lot of respect for what I felt was the top large school in the Northwest. If I were to cite Wikipedia in a law brief in my law school on a legal topic I would be laughed out of the room. Now some judges have referenced articles from Wikipedia, but they are not writing an entire paper just based on that article and they certainly are not using them for legal reasoning. Just a quick reference point for a non-legal item. I would hope other people do the same. I had a fellow student ask me one day what I was doing as I was editing on Wikipedia. This perplexed her, and made her remark that she uses Wikipedia all the time and made her trust the content less (though she clarified that she trusted my work). I explained to her about the same as above, that you should only use WP as a starting point and she then realized that indeed WP is good for that, but not the end all to everything. People have come to over rely on the internet for information, but as someone above has pointed out not everything is digitized and serious research means going to a physical library/museum/archive. Any theory of helping students by adding links like this to allow them to better research is seriously misguided. Students using Wikipedia as their main source (besides a need to flunk them) need better professors and teachers to teach them how to properly research a topic. Or maybe better librarians as I recall numerous classes where we were sent to the library and had librarians teach us how to find items, and there was even a 1 credit class where that was all the students did was learn how to use the library. Wikipeida is the starting point, not the ending point and adding these links should not effect that.
My second and more important point, as the above is more of a disgust for the librarian’s stated motive, is that these are SPAM. I know you people are librarians and work for public universities. Well, universities are pretty much businesses these days. That’s why many have had state laws changed to allow them to better profit off the work they do in the form of patents and copyrights, that they can use to further research/pay better salaries. So what makes the library any different? Nothing. The more use a library gets the better funding it gets. Plain and simple. If you check out the website for the Oregon State Library you will find links to their performance report which looks a lot like the documents I used to work with in the private sector. It doesn’t cost people any money to go to that library, but they have key performance factors in order to push their case for their funding from the state legislature. Libraries, museums, and archives all need revenues, just like any other business. This comes from increased traffic and usage of their materials. These links are as stated meant to do this. I may sound cynical, but if these organizations were truly being benevolent they would scan these documents and make them available free of charge and be adding images left and right. Instead places like the Oregon Historical Society and other places I have been researching at would not be charging admission and strictly guarding the copyrights to items that were most likely donated to them in the first place. A copy of a letter from 1850 I got from OHS clearly lays out the policy. They were there to help, but it was all business. And that is what these links are about. My god these employees are being paid to add these links. That in and of itself should be enough of a red flag to have these stopped as it is rather similar to the brouhaha that came about the Microsoft article late last year when the company offered to pay someone to improve their article. Jimbo didn’t take too kindly to that.
My solution is that the librarians write articles about these people and use the links as references, just as everyone else. Then a good student reading the article will click on the footnote and discover the wonder land o’ old dusty documents and microfilm available at a library near him or her. If they still object to that, well that just bears out the business argument. Otherwise adding it is SPAM and goes against much of WP:WWIN. Aboutmovies 05:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS The below related discussion about the Idaho place, further hurts the librarians with comments like “This is absolutely ridiculous.” From Avecchione who says they are a librarian. Aboutmovies 05:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The quality varies by subject and by article, and the most important part of library instruction is teaching users how to evaluate sources. In my exprience, they are usually much better at doing this with Wikipedia than with print. With web sources, they know to be suspicious. Librarians need to show their resources are used, but the purpose of libraries is to provide resources to be used. (as distinct from archives, where the primary purpose is preservation for possible future use) Librarians also know how infrequently people consult them in person, and have consequently regarded their function as providing tools for the users to help themselves tofind the material they need--all library cataloging has always been for this purpose. To the extent we can use any available medium for library guidance, we should. But one of the key functions of guidance is to lead to the appropriate number and type of resources, and so we should here. Frankly, no opportunity for teaching people how to find material should be lost--or misused. If any libraries are putting in excessive links to show themselves off, of course it is spam. But unique library resources are as appropriate to include as any other kind of resource.
That said, I agree with aboutmovies that the main link to resources should be the references. 02:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Idaho State Historical Society

Partially COI, partially spamming. The article Idaho State Historical Society was created and mainly edited by user:Avecchione.

Who also adds links to the site she works for to some articles.

Making it a the top link on [2], and I am not sure why this page needs to have this specific external link. Having a look around the site reveals that Amy Vecchione is working for the organisation, as is user:Tgarrick (mentioned above in WT:WPSPAM#Unusual university spam). Tgarrick is also editing this page, but adding links to the university site (nwda-db.wsulibs.wsu.edu: 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 )

Related seems to be:

The bots keep an eye open. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't my site. This is an archive of a state agency which has real historical information. What can I do to prevent this, and how can my contributions be valued?
Avecchione 21:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Amy[reply]
Thanks for your remark. It does not say it is your site, the staff list suggest you are working for that site and hence are involved in this organisation. I am not sure what you mean by 'how can my contributions be valued?'. I hope you can clarify. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

to Dirk Beetstra - I work on articles relating to Idaho through the Idaho Wikiproject. I will state that I work (in my day job) at another academic research library that is part of the Northwest Digital Archives, although I rarely add to articles on Washington. (except for articles on Native American Tribes in the region) I have contacted Tgarrick and Avecchione both in hopes that we can add value to Idaho related articles by incorporating information from the Idaho State Historical Society. While I understand your concern about Conflict of Interest, it is clear to me that these individuals and their employing organization have a great deal to offer to the Idaho project. I have invited them to talk about this at the Talk:Old Idaho State Penitentiary page. While we may add links to specific collections in the archives, there will be also be information added to the body of the article when it is appropriate. Research collections at libraries in the United States are a very valuable cultural resource. Librarians want people to know about the resources as part of an ethic of service, as a major part of library activities are geared towards outreach. Please be cognizant of that fact and not penalize the users of Wikipedia in a misguided attempt to fit libraries and musea into a commercial model. As an editor, I expect my judgment about what is appropriate to an article to be respected. Please do not automatically reject any further submissions on Idaho related articles by these two as spam. Thanks in advance. --Robbie Giles 01:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated in other discussions as well, when the target is to provide content, then I understand that, as a librarian, you also add links to the organisation you work for. When the contributions are mainly/only linkadditions, then it is better to first discuss that on talkpages (and it is best to let uninvolved editors make the link-addition in that case). Libraries/musea etc. have a wealth of information, and Wikipedia can certainly use that to its advantage (though I don't think that external links generally improve the articles, a few are enough, and much of the links to libraries/musea are better as references .. is there really nothing to tell in the wikipedia article about the material covered in a library/museum?). Also, although libraries/musea do not fit into a commercial model, it is better to avoid the suggestion that link additions are to promote the organisation (as in, and I know that I am assuming bad faith here, but the more people know about my museum/library, the more people will visit me, the more money I get; all organisations still have to get their money somewhere). Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my case, the link alerted me to a specific resource in the historical society's collection. I am reviewing the other links from these two, to add info to specific articles when time permits. (Rats, only 24 hours in a day and I have to be out earning money for a good portion of that.) I understand this may press your buttons, but if you look, these folks added links from pages within the ISHS Reference series. As specialists, they were making a link to a specific resource, not the front page of the organization. In my estimation, this is adding content to the articles. I will be working with them to add references which are linked through the citations, rather than an external link. Hopefully, the same type of thing can be done with other organizations.
Yes, there is a thin link between recognition of the organization and its ability to fund raise. Mostly what it does is attract other collection donors. Then the libraries have to raise monies to process the new collection. In the US (and many developed countries with a large number of libraries and museums) the focus of the organization and its people is on outreach and directing users to resources. You have probably seen the bewildered reactions of librarians to the concept of spamming articles by adding links. I was stunned by the suggestion. I will be reading the article by the University of Washington librarian to see exactly what she says before I make comments or judgments about it. Librarians in general have a very strong service ethic. It is all about access for the users. There are many initiatives in different regions to make access to at least the finding aids, if not documents or photographs for the collection. Northwest Digital Archives is one such. The larger overarching parent is the American Memory project through the Library of Congress.
Many educators and librarians view Wikipedia as a specious source for student research. Perhaps a guideline can be created to point them to rather than saying they are violating guidelines on spam. I would be happy to contribute if you decide to do so. Notify me on my talk page. Anything we can do to strengthen the link between the academic community and Wikipedia community is a good thing. I encourage you to assume good faith and look for ways to welcome and channel the activities of well-meaning newcomers. Perhaps we can find mentor librarians among more experienced editors who would be willing to partner with some of the people or organizations reaching out to Wikipedia. I would certainly be happy to participate. Feel free to copy these comments to anyplace similar discussions are taking place.
Sorry for the long-winded discussion, but like many librarians, I am passionate about what I do and get great pleasure from working with patrons. They come looking for help and I get to help them. Man, does it get any better than that? So enjoy the rest of your day and I look forward to seeing the outcome of this and similar discussions on this subject. --Robbie Giles 13:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your remark. I have, already for quite a long time, said that librarians (or people working in musea, etc.) are welcome editors. I fully agree on that. They have hands on access to information. But indeed that thin line between 'spamming' (wikipedia definition, adding external links only) and actually adding contents. I agree that now you know that the link is there, it can be used. But that communication can also go via the talkpage. Many, many of these links are way better served as a reference, and links to these domains should not even be in the external links sections (as I described it earlier, I think it is often a disservice to what you are linking!). The museum/library has that object for a reason, it is interesting, then write about it, and otherwise consider not adding the link (what would it add .. just another object?). There are many musea that have a plane, should every museum have a link to their plane in the external links section on the page plane? No, but if one of them has a special/unique plane, then that plane can be described on the page, and a reference to that page on their site is really appropriate.
Early on in one of the discussions (not this one) someone said to me, 'but project Gutenberg has a link there, so why not my library' .. well, the answer is WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, but that already goes for the first link ..
I am sorry if I not first wait until an account has made 100 link additions, but that I address the user early that his linkadditions may be explained as spam (see WP:SPAM#How not to be a spammer). If I do not get a response on that, I open an item here (or on WP:COIN) and invite involved editors.
So again (see also other discussions here), spam on wikipedia is not defined by what links get added, but by the way links get added. I am assuming good faith in warning an editor early on, and hope for discussion, but if there is no respons and the account keeps adding external links only, then on which side of the thin line are we? In this case I think all is resolved, the editors in question have engaged in discussion, and I am confident that we can now proceed. I am sorry for my somewhat frustrated tone, but after the response of the editors I already found this item closed. Hope this explains, happy editing. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is absolutely ridiculous.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Avecchione (talk • contribs).

Spamming of http://spam.vdoogle.com

→ See also: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Vdoogle.2F_Nickboyett
Vdoogle

Articles Spammed
Spam sock accounts

67.182.4.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
67.182.36.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Nickboyett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
67.182.36.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
12.44.170.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
67.181.201.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
67.182.36.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
67.182.0.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 19:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A breif discussion has been taking place on my talk page relevent to this case and can be referenced under Complaints.--Hu12 20:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.livingsurvey.com

livingsurvey.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

Likely COI as well due to username. MER-C 10:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.writeaway.org.uk

writeaway.org.uk: 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

Another case of COI spam. MER-C 10:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI http://spam.aabaig.com

A A Baig & Co., Chartered Accountants

Spam sock accounts

Aabaig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
124.29.203.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
124.29.197.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Ahson Tariq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
124.29.196.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 13:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See this AfD. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.investingforeclosures.com http://spam.debtornator.com http://spam.cuddlykittens.com

Adsense pub-7747011832210093

Spam sock accounts

Icobi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
--Hu12 20:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


http://spam.theforeclosuresinfo.com http://spam.Stateof-California.com

Adsense pub-8212111836103385

Spam sock accounts

Kthor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
67.169.3.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 20:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion on Userpage

Not sure what to make of User:Hholt01 user page. Any thougnts?--Hu12 02:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like he's using it as a scratchpad/notepad, for everyday life things in addition to wikipedia related things.. very strange - I don't think I'd want my life on my userpage like that.. --Versageek 03:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
scratchpad is right, makes no sense to me..?!--Hu12 18:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.filmimusic.com

Adsense pub-0862355341573567

Spam sock accounts

122.167.221.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 09:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.iananews.com

accounts

Aref1364 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
85.15.18.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
85.15.31.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
85.15.26.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 14:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.ehlinelaw.com

Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Rejected/14#State_Bar_of_California

Spam sock accounts

71.106.121.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
71.106.83.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Issuethewrit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
--Hu12 15:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.jobklub.com

Looks like this might be a bot. --Ronz 16:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.careers.org

Adsense pub-1242636737414377 (from User_talk:Wiki_marcds. have not confirmed this)

Looks like a sock. --Ronz 16:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats the correct adsense publisher # ;--Hu12 18:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.engineerskit.com http://spam.testing-post.com http://spam.geoonweb.com http://spam.technology-updates.com

All Adsense pub-2492273361112371

Other adsense sites spammed

http://spam.noblesayings.com pub-7394747287277221

Spam sock accounts

203.82.48.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
203.82.48.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
58.65.132.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 18:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

testing-post.com seems to be the most widespread of the links spammed, however they are all cleaned up (for now)--Hu12 18:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.yogainformer.com http://spam.cruiseshipssite.com http://spam.greatfelines.com

Adsense pub-0482569841778695

Other sites spammed

http://spam.hbbeerfest.com
http://spam.nineinchnailsforums.com
http://spam.incubusforum.com

Spam sock accounts

24.30.185.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
24.30.186.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
24.30.189.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 21:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keris Inc. spam on Wikipedia

Spammed domains:

Affiliated domains:


Accounts:

  1. 24.162.76.235 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • noticeboards • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google)
    es:Especial:Contributions/24.162.76.235
  2. Ethanhawke (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
  3. 69.180.68.140 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • noticeboards • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google)
  4. 69.180.68.30 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • noticeboards • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google)

Whois info:

  • Keris, Inc.
8812 Hare Avenue
Jacksonville, Florida 32211
  • spoken wordz publications
6205 Pattingham Dr
Roswell, GA 30075
  • Keris, Kem
P.O. Box 390
Owerri, Nigeria

Adsense IDs:

  • 1280054044894037
  • 7940428168834626


Blacklist request:

--A. B. (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.southwestrefrigerantsales.com

Sock accounts:

--Dirk Beetstra T C 13:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam linksearch tools down

Eagle's tools aren't loading. Have they moved to a different address or is something else wrong? Nposs 14:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing it's because the Toolserver's MySQL server is acting a bit wonky at the moment. The problems should be resolved within a day or two. Shadow1 (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.coreap.com

CoReap

Spam sock accounts

Nickrice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
59.176.73.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 18:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

genuinekansas.com

genuinekansas.com, thetalkoflawrence.com and theinfidels.org

Adsense pub-9072380075206857

✤ JonHarder talk 20:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Domain:

Accounts adding these links:

  1. 70.55.91.222 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • noticeboards • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google)
  2. 70.55.88.174 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • noticeboards • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google)
  3. 70.51.11.90 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • noticeboards • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google)
  4. 70.51.11.225 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • noticeboards • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google)
  5. 70.51.11.163 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • noticeboards • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google)
  6. 70.51.9.134 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • noticeboards • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google)

All are BellCanada DSL IPs used for one edit only.

Google Adsense ID: 9660963598420301
--A. B. (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google Adsense ID: 8474617293475865

Links added to Wikipedia:


Affiliated domains:

Client sites:

Accounts:

Whois -- some, but not all, sites are registered to:

  • Trade India Services
Vijayendra Thapliyal
86/C Pocket 4
Mayur Vihar Vihar Phase-1
Delhi
Delhi,110091
IN

--A. B. (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University spammer - newmedia.ufm.edu (pulled from archive)

Some accounts have a single purpose to add links to a university site. Has been noted on AN/I (WP:ANI#Possible spam - now here in the archive)

Accounts:

The link may be good, but the way of adding is spam, and at least the IP (and I suspect the accounts as well) have a WP:COI. Time to clean? --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to add, some pages created by one of these users contain large linkfarms to this site (added by the same, or other users in this list). --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ivanmorales contacted me, I left a message on the talkpage, it seems (also from the contributions, that this user is not the same as the other three. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam&oldid=142490168"