Wikipedia talk:Spam

WP:CANVASS

Does anyone object to moving the internal spamming part to a separate page? I notice that even somewhat experienced editors running for admin are unaware of the guidelines, part of the reason might be that it's tucked in amids the lengthy discussion on external spamming. They're also targeting very different audiences, so a WP:SPAM link in an AfD discussion might be ambiguous: It could mean that the article itself contains spam links or that a discussion participant engaged in canvassing. In short I see few reasons to keep them together but quite a couple to separate them. Comments? ~ trialsanderrors 21:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I concur. Canvassing seems to have support, but SPAM seems to be universally derided here as disruptive. The two are not the same, so a separation is natural. I will support your proposal. Morton devonshire 21:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

While I am always wary of the dreaded instruction creep, I agree with trialsanderrors on this one. Originally, the concept of Wikispam was meant to be all inclusive, but there are now significant differences in our policy on aggressive spamming by outside business entities and our policy on questionable talk page canvassing by internal editors. Covering both in one guideline is no longer warranted. I support the proposal to separate as well, as long as the new WP:CANVAS guideline is shown prominently here in a top-link disambig notice. -- Satori Son 22:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I also agree; I found it surprising that this policy covers both. Telling an editor that he/she has violated WP:SPAM seems a bit insulting if in fact it's a canvassing violation, something that even more experienced editors can be unaware of (as those who follow RfAs have seen recently). So it would be great to be able to cite a violation of Wikipedia:Canvassing instead [and, yes, that's a blue link, but it redirects to the canvassing section of the spam policy]. John Broughton | Talk 01:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I created a provisory version here. I reset to the redirect for now, but if it gains consensus we can just revert to this version and set the shortcut. ~ trialsanderrors 02:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, excellent. I am strongly in favor, I previously started Wikipedia:Canvassing and wanted consensus for splitting it off from here, see thread above titled "Factor canvassing"; unfortunately there was only 1 pro and 1 con opinion so no consensus to do anything was reached. External link spamming and canvassing are two separate concepts, the latter of which is sometimes (erroneously, IMO) also called "spamming", but that's a job for disambiguation, not putting them all on one page. It really deserves its own page as a guideline/policy, also for visibility. Thanks Trialsanderrors. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-31 02:27Z

I've done some copyediting of the new guideline, but, as far as I know, have changed nothing in its intent or details. After a few people have looked at that, I think it would be time to follow some of the steps (some don't apply) at Wikipedia:How to create policy. John Broughton | Talk 03:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've also made changes to Wikipedia:Canvassing, please see Wikipedia talk:Canvassing. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-31 09:06Z

By the way, I now realize that there is a slight nuance between "canvassing" and "internal spamming": the usual problem is the former, while the latter can also include for example telling lots of users about how great an article is -- something that isn't trying to influence a debate. I don't think it's nearly as much a problem as canvassing but it might deserve a paragraph still within the WP:SPAM guideline after Canvassing is officially split off. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-31 09:09Z

• Moved to Wikipedia talk:Canvassing

• As a sidenote, the correct spelling is "Canvass". I've created shortcuts for that and changed it on the proposal page (WP:CANVASS/WT:CANVASS). -- Renesis (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  They're both correct spellings. ~ trialsanderrors 06:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  trialsanderrors is right about both spellings being correct (I had to double-check mine originally). As long as we keep redirects from both WP:CANVAS and WP:CANVASS, no big deal. -- Satori Son 16:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  Where do you get this information? Only one in about 15 dictionaries seems to link the two together. -- Renesis (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

  Still not sure why this is a big deal, but here are links to Merriam-Webster OnLine, Dictionary.com, and Wiktionary. -- Satori Son 20:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) m-w.com:

  Main Entry: 1can·vass

  Variant(s): also can·vas /'kan-v&s/

  Function: verb

  Inflected Form(s): can·vassed; can·vas·sing

  transitive verb

  1 obsolete : to toss in a canvas sheet in sport or punishment

  2 a : to examine in detail; specifically : to examine (votes) officially for authenticity b : DISCUSS, DEBATE

  3 : to go through (a district) or go to (persons) in order to solicit orders or political support or to determine opinions or

  sentiments <canvass voters>

  intransitive verb : to seek orders or votes : SOLICIT

  - can·vass·er also can·vas·er noun

  I didn't check the others. You might be right and we should stick to canvass in the text, but it still makes sense to keep both shortcuts up. ~ trialsanderrors 20:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

  I totally agree with that. And to Satori Son, I didn't say it was a big deal. -- Renesis (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I never said that you said that it was a big deal. ;) -- Satori Son 21:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Official cutover

See Wikipedia talk:Canvassing#Reset.

There appears to already be consensus that this guideline should be split (and I'll add my strong support). But, we now have a large section of duplicated text, with both copies marked as official, and almost certain to diverge in content fairly rapidly. Not good.

My suggestion is that we need to either degrade the status of Wikipedia:Canvassing back to a proposed guideline, or replace the cut-and-pasted section in this guideline with a nutshell summary and a wikilink to the new guideline at Wikipedia:Canvassing. Other thoughts? Andrewa 00:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia talk:Canvassing#Reset:

Can't hurt, but the thread directly above, WT:SPAM#WP:CANVASS already expressed unanimous consensus to move, not to duplicate, and the Proposal to move tag in the actual text did not trigger any opposition in the last ten days. ~ trialsanderrors 00:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

So, can we now replace this section by a wikilink, and work on a nutshell summary to go there too? Andrewa 02:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I completed the move. ~ trialsanderrors 02:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Progress. Andrewa 03:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"How To Link Spam Wikipedia"

Take a look: http://www.lockergnome.com/nexus/search/2006/04/10/how-to-link-spam-wikipedia/ Be careful... --75.17.60.209 23:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's actually a link to a blog that links to a blog that links to the blog that actually has the post. That's not just quibbling - the original post has comments rebutting it, as well as a lot more (tedious, perhaps) details about the blogger and the Wikipedia editor he complained about (a rival, it turns out). And Peter T Davis, the blogger, appears not to even understand the difference between an editor and an admin.

If this is the most instructive set of info out there on how to spam Wikipedia, I don't think we have that much to worry about. John Broughton | Talk 14:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject External links - merger?

It is suggested on the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject External links, to merge that project with Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam, with the impression that the External links project is actually inactive, and the Spam project, as an active project, can handle its tasks to. I would like to know your points of view in this regard. - huji—TALK 20:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Those nifty human control images?

Couldn't this be used to reduce the problem of external link spamming with bots. Just require users that isn't logged in to enter a imagecode if thay have added an external link.

European Graduate School's spamming

This private school in Switzerland has been spamming Wikipedia by putting on the first line of famous philosophers and artists: "teach at the EGS", and also by uploading photos taken by User:Europeangraduateschool (I believe such names do not respect policies). Maybe someone would like to want to check what's going on there... A Google search on "European Graduate School" 's occurences on Wikipedia gives, as of January 2007, more than 80 occurences. See Talk:European Graduate School and contributions from very few users (you might notice that the EGS entry is in many languages, including Chinese, and were all created by Wikipedia:Single purpose account. Lapaz 02:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh God. I just recently took this off my watchlist after trying to keep it from turning into a gush piece for the last half year. Sadly the AfD closed as almost-unanimous keep despite a dearth of secondary sources, so that route is blocked (and I agree that they're probably notable, but clearly not as notable as they think they are). A note at WP:ANI might be in order if the article spamming has started over again. ~ trialsanderrors 02:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible Waterfall Spam

This user Jenny44 keeps reverting my reverts to what I think is spam. She keeps putting a link to a screensaver on the waterfall article. I tell her that Wikipedia shouldn't be used for promotional material and she says that the link isn't promotional and that its free. Is this still spam? She keeps putting back the link after I remove it...

• [[1]]
• [[2]]
• [[3]]
• Posted by User: Hdt83 | Talk/Chat 20:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's definitely spam. Hell, if we allow it, why not put desktop themes about oranges on Orange (fruit)? Why not candy cane cursors as well? It's impossible not to be spam. --Dayn 03:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sports Business News

User:Jason ilacqua has been adding commentary/blog links to a multitude of sports articles. Google the name and you will find him to be the senior editor of the site in question. I removed some, but he has been busy. ccwaters 17:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've posted a notice on his talk page regarding WP:COI. If you notice the problem continuing, you might want to post something at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam - they specialize in dealing with spam, including using semi-automated tools to clean up quicker. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree...

...that this is a "prime spam target". Of the external-to-WMF external links, all three of them use interwiki mappings and any real SPAM would be extremely easy to see. I also note that prior to this protection most reverted edits were either: Simple or silly vandalisms, or, edit warring over the now-moved "Canvassing" section. 68.39.174.238 23:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Radio stations

Is there a guideline for whether articles on radio stations should contain details of the wavelength? I am thinking that this may be a form of advertising, a little like giving the address of a corporation, but it seems quite prevalent. Any suggestions where I might look? Abtract 18:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You could check Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory to see if there is a project that covers radio stations; if so, ask there. My personal opinion is that giving the frequency is (a) factual, (b) useful, and (c) takes up little space, so my feeling is that the matter isn't worth pursuing, but YMMV. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have looked around a little at radio station articles and they all seem to have the frequencies shown so I guess you are right. Life's too short to worry anyway Abtract 23:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam fake customer sockpuppeteering to become criminal offence in Europe in 2008

The Men from the Ministère will be requiring that commercial spammers toe the line and refrain from posing as a consumer in sockpuppetry and fake bloggery stunts http://www.smartmobs.com/archive/2007/02/11/eu_makes_sock_p....html#comments

Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 21:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Spambots

Should I add a paragraph about spambots to the page, or should this be a separate article?? This is because of the Wikipedia talk:Spam/w/index.php (as an example, this using the {{PAGENAME}} variable to display it here) created by spambots, that are happening frequently.

On the Cornish Wiktionary, where I'm an admin (the only one), I've had to delete-protect spambot pages created. I'm in the process of writing guidelines there about spamming.

Advice is appreciated - I'm unsure about making changes to policy pages without consensus. --sunstar net^talk 11:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

A belated response - beware instruction creep. A policy or guideline exists to provide guidance to editors. A spambot is essentially vandalism; it's fairly pointless to say "don't use a spambot", not so much because dedicated spammers don't read (or follow) policy, but because to an editor reverting spam, it's not clear it makes any difference where it came from. (If it does make a difference - if a spambot should be handled differently than a human spammer - then post something on this page for discussion - a new paragraph for the guideline.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

sneaky spam?

I'm pretty sure this wouldn't have any effect, but check out this edit to a redirect last November... -- nae'blis 03:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam templates on talk page

I recently added two external links to Wikipedia, and then received three messages on my talk page (from the same user) about spam. I read the Guideline on Spam he/she linked for me, and this part is worrying me:

"Subsequent offences can be tagged with {{spam2}} or {{spam2a}}, then {{spam3}} (warning of possible block) and {{spam4}} (final warning). The template {{spam5}} indicates that the spammer has been blocked."

The templates used on my talk page were Welcomespam, Spam and Spam2. Should I have gotten three tags, or only two since there were two links, or only one since I added both links basically at the same time? Does this mean that I am now only three links away from being blocked? Playing the devil's advocate here, is it possible to get another user blocked simply by filling their talk page with spam templates? (mwahahaha) Is there a way to get the tags removed?

Does anyone else hear that Violent Femmes song in their heads ... "I hope you know that this will go down on your permanent record" ...? Yeah. It's probably just me. Fauxpaw 22:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Given the timestamps, I think one spam warning would have been sufficient; I'm not sure why there are three. Regardless, you shouldn't have anything to worry about as long as you stop adding commercial links. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Links to official book sites

I've seen publisher's book sites included in articles in many different ways, and always consider them linkspam because they are promotional in nature. However, in Wikinomics (book) I saw for the first time that an official site was included for the book in the External links section. I removed it, but with reluctance. It seems to be more just a way to get a promotional link into an article, rather than provide readers with useful additional information on the subject of the article. Given that more and more book sites, especially technical books, contain large amounts of useful information, it might be useful to clarify how to treat official book site links. (Related discussions: [4], [5]) --Ronz 23:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Changes to WP:COI

There have recently been edits to WP:COI changing the spam wording from always avoid linking to your own site to avoid or exercise great caution when linking to your own site. Additional opinions would be appreciated. --Milo H Minderbinder 12:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's practical if the external link expands significantly on an article's definition, or a subject of a biographical article wants himself to add some personal links. Caution, then, applies to concerns for WP:COI. Jrod2 (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Bandspam

On 26 February, User:Stevertigo added the following as a fourth type of spam:

bandspam (tangential references instead of disambiguation which promote some entity)

Perhaps it's just me, but I don't understand exactly what "bandspam" is, and, more importantly, see absolutely no discussion on this page about the change. Moreover, adding a fourth type breaks the relationship between types (four) and sections describing the spam in more detail (only three).

So I've reverted the change. An explanation of this addition to the guideline, here, would be appreciated. An example would be even more appreciated. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

SV

Bandspam is my term for the usage of links which appear to be promotional rather than informational. For example, if someone put a hatnote WP:HN on the God article: God Part II is also song by U2, that would be bandspam. Its an egregious example because

1. the song itself doesnt have an article and the link only references the band,

1. (actually, now that I check - there is an article for this song)

1. the title isnt exactly the name of the article,
2. the subject matter of the article has nothing to do with the song
3. the song reference is markedly more trivial than the article's subject

Hence my term "bandspam" addresses the trivial nature such links, which may or may not be music related. We could imagine cases where Pokemon or video games might tried to be linked from the top of other non-trivial articles. Of course most major articles wont be subject to this problem because there is often more than two terms to disambiguate, but Ive seen the problem come up enough to make a minor issue of it.

The solution to this (accepted and promoted on wikien) is simply to always use an {{otheruses}} tag, or some variant if the article name is not the same as the disambiguation. The argument against the removal of such notes appears to be promotional, or else it claims that disambiguation should only apply in cases where more than two different articles exist. I disagree, and apparently so do most of our policy wonks at wikien. "Always use the otheruses/disambig method" seems to be common enough to be a rule.

Ive never bothered to remake policy to reflect this view, and Ive for the most part only made it a personal policy to remove such bandspam or hatnotes or hatspam - whatever we want to call it - inappropriate or 'unencyclopedic disambiguation'. There are of course exceptions, and halo is one - where the game is claimed to be the more prominent search and therefore the article should link directly to the game. (Note: Halo now is a disambiguation rather than the article about the optical phenomenon with the video game and otheruses links at top) I might agree with such usage in a small number of cases, as long as the general understanding is that the disambig page method is almost always preferred. -Stevertigo 07:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this a disambiguation policy issue, then?

If the problem occurs with misuse of the hatnote, which is a disambiguation function, why put anything in the policy on spam? To me, and I think to others, the spam policy deals with high-volume postings. As an analogy, posting a single link to an advertising site, while typically reverted with an edit summary of "linkspam", is a violation of WP:EL, not of this policy. In other words, if someone saw a hatnote misused, I don't think they'd think to look at WP:SPAM for guidance, they'd look to Wikipedia:Disambiguation or Wikipedia:Hatnotes (if they knew what a "hatnote" was).

Also, as noted in the section on Spambots, above, it's not really necessary that a policy discuss each and every problem. If in fact editors are arguing over the misuse of hatnotes and similar "bandspam", then, yes, some policy should probably be changed to clarify this. Is this issue really being disputed? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Its a matter which crosses over from disambiguation, to define a type of spam which is strictly internal to Wikipedia, perhaps promotional, and always trivial.

Its not an issue which editors generally dispute, as much as it a habit that newbies have for assuming that otheruses notes are to be used in trivial ways. -Stevertigo 22:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, the "otheruses" template is part of the disambiguation policy; misuse of it should be covered there, if it's necessary at all. I continue to believe this is instruction creep; let's not put things into a guideline just because they might be needed. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Crossover is not "instruction creep" - I find that characterization to be a specious to be honest. Anytime were there are two related concepts there is bound to be some overlap. Likewise where there is some overlap, a little redundancy does not diminish either policy. -Stevertigo 04:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been using the term bandspam to mean bandwidth-spam where an editor floods a Wikipedia discussion page with an enormous volume of comment. This bandspam consumes all the talk bandwidth which suffocates any ongoing conversation. We had a problem a couple weeks ago with User:Noroton over at WP:WPSPAM. It was incredibly disruptive. At one point 75% of the WikiProject:Spam page was devoted to something Noroton related and all spam-teamwork-processing basically ground to a halt. You know the saying: "short and sweet." (Requestion 07:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC))

Conflict of interest related SPAM additions

I'm currently involved in a polite disagreement over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#DermAtlas, and I'd welcome feedback from this community.--Hu12 02:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

How does one get a site off the spam list?

this site: [www.filmfocus.nl] , is listed as spam and I am not allowed to use it as a reference. It is obviously not a spam site, but a serious site about what's happening in film in the Netherlands. I need to use an article there for a reference in an article here about European films/ What am I supposed to do? Jeffpw 13:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You can request a review at m:Spam blacklist. -- ReyBrujo 01:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Request For Clarification on External Links Policy

Though what follows flows from some particular issues I have encountered, I mean this as a more general inquiry, with what answers emerge of use, one hopes, to all. That is, while I present a very particular (and actual) case, I am not posting to argue that case or garner support for my position but because I feel it is quite representative of a large, general class of problem that should get some attention. The particularity is thus simply to have a clear, definite example for discussion.

Case 1: There exists a web site devoted to growing vegetables in the home garden. It seems to have a novel aspect, in that it focuses on the particular vegetable varieties that are reported to be the most flavorsome, a concern of much mores importance to home growers than to commercial growers. The site contains a number of pages, one per vegetable considered, each presenting a discussion about cultivar (variety) selection followed by usually extensive growing instructions plus some basic botany and history of that vegetable.

The individual vegetable pages each have a small text Adsense block on them. The block is small both absolutely and relative to the page length, and is not intrusive (matched background colors). The site also has an associated Amazon bookstore dealing only in books on vegetables. This appears only in the full site directory (which is shown on each page); there are no free-floating ads for it on the pages.

If it is proposed to add to the Wikipedia article on a given vegetable an External Link to the corresponding page of this site, what are the issues? WP:EL plainly says that what should be linked includes Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to . . . amount of detail . . . . The existing WP articles vary in their degree of detail, but though some mention cultivation they do not--and cannot, owing to length--include much detail.

The WP:EL lists 13 reasons why a given link should not be included. None seem to apply. The information provides a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article; it does not mislead the reader by use of factually inaccurate material; it does not require payment or registration; it does not only work with a specific browser; it does not require external applications . . . to view the relevant content; it is not search engine [or] aggregated results pages; it is not a social networking site; it is not an open wiki; and it is directly related to the subject of the article.

That leaves these possible objections: is the link mainly intended to promote a website? Does the site primarily exist to sell products or services? Does the site have objectionable amounts of advertising?

The web site itself is not that of a commercial service; the only thing it itself sells is Amazon books through a related but not integral bookshop (meaning that there are not ads for the bookshop all over the pages). The pages each have a small-type, relatively unobtrusive adsense text block. The pages are of some length and are informational and instructional.

Is that a reasonable link? Note that the question is not on whether it is a good link--if the link qua link is not of good quality, it will disappear in time and good riddance. The question is whether, on the facts as presented, it is automatically debarred.

Now Case #2: the same facts as in Case #1 above, except that the link poster maintains the site. This case presumes that the poster puts a note on the Talk page that discloses the relation.

WP:COI seems not to be much on point here, WP:EL seeming to be the governing policy set, inasmuch as there are no points of view involved.

I, for the life of me, cannot see why such a link would be considered automatically debarred from being a WP EL. Obviously, someone with questions as to how much and how blatant any advertising copy (though I daresay everyone knows what Adsense text looks like) would need to visit the page and see whether the page is "primarily" (or even largely) an advertising medium. But surely it cannot be that the mere presence of any ad whatever of any kind or size on a page automatically debars it from linkworthiness--else a large fraction of long-standing extant links of quality would have to be vanished.

Is that a reasonable view?

---

Let me say that there seems--to me, anyway--to be a general problem with External Links, with a few Wikipedians taking on what seems to me authority beyond what published WP policy states in deciding what will or will not be allowed to appear.

Now there is certainly a problem with spam, including link spam. But there is a reasonable reaction and there is an unreasonable reaction. A reasonable reaction will be founded in the policies set forth with some clarity in WP:EL. At the other extreme will be some self-appointed Guardian of Purity who simply deletes all new external links with the remark "Wikipedia is not a link farm". (That is not an exaggeration: I have seen it.) It is true that Wikipedia is not dmoz; but neither can it completely fulfill its task if it disdains all other sites. So what's needed is a simple way of deciding whether a given link augments the article, and that way is WP:EL, not someone's personal tastes.

The real problem is that there seems no simple way of handling those mavericks who feel that they are On a Mission From God. Endless rounds on the Talk page with most everyone on one side and the maverick alone on the other get nowhere. Yes, that is an extreme case, but there are many others less severe but still problematic.

Obviously, everyone, including me, will disagree with the person who alters or reverts an edit. But when some people's Talk pages are just long laundry lists of plaints about draconian reverts, the perceptive will see a clue. There is, of course, a grey area between the diligent pruner and the zealot. But usually a review of the posted complaints will be revealing: they will invariably include some number of semi-literate objurgations from actual spammers whining about their business site or whatever; but the clue will be the presence of a nontrivial number of different persons each presenting an obviously reasonable case that is not met with reasoned argument but with repetition of some favorite mantra about spam and spammers.

The one poor devil who seems always to get lost in conflicts on this matter is the user--the person who comes to Wikipedia looking for information on some subject. No WP article can cover, at great depth, everything there is to know about a subject, else WP would be the only site needed on the whole web. Obviously, WP itself has related articles for many topics, but even ensemble those cannot duplicate the sum of all information available elsewhere. That is why the very category External Links exists. But too often, WP editing, of external links and much else, seems to be more a tilting ground for 24/7 Wikipedians to joust in power games than to bear much connection to what one would think is the bedrock issue: the utility of Wikipedia to visitors. ("The perfect bureaucracy administers nothing but itself.")

The point is not whether this or that argument should be settled this or that way: the point is that there seems no clear mechanism for resolving these issues at a relatively low level, and few want to go on to higher levels. That is especially true when the would-be link poster is not a 24/7 Wikipedian, but simply a passing visitor with an idea.

Thoughts?

Eric Walker 10:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem not to understand that Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links. I looked at your contribution log and all those vegetable external links you added are clearly spam. The fact that those pages have ads just makes the situation worse. Ask yourself this question: "how do those external links improve Wikipedia?" The answer is that they don't. (Requestion 17:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC))

Yikes -- a lot of accounts have added these links and it looks like Requestion has been busy! Linking data:

• http://owlcroft.com
  • List of pages with these links
• http://theinductionsite.com
  • List of pages with these links
• http://greatsfandf.com
  • List of pages with these links
• http://growingtaste.com
  • List of pages with these links
• http://seo-toys.com
  • List of pages with these links
• http://highboskage.com
  • List of pages with these links
• http://matterscriminous.com
  • List of pages with these links
• http://mars-mars-mars.com
  • List of pages with these links
• http://adamscountywa.com
  • List of pages with these links
• http://ritzville-museums.org
  • List of pages with these links
• http://omniknow.com
  • List of pages with these links

--A. B. ^(talk) 21:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Owlcroft (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 63.174.56.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 130.232.213.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 63.174.56.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 205.246.30.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 205.246.30.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 205.246.30.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 205.246.30.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 205.246.30.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 205.246.30.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I am adding the IP addresses of this spamming so that the record is complete for future reference purposes. (Requestion 07:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC))

The growingtaste.com vegetable linkspam was just the tip of the iceberg. The greatsfandf.com domain is where the motherload was. User:Owlcroft has cleverly added a couple hundred external links into Wikipedia over the past 4 years. I have two big questions that are puzzling me. 1) How much AdSense money has Owlcroft made from these wiki links over the years? 2) Why did Owlcroft take his complaint to this WP:SPAM forum when he had so much linkspam still in hiding? I might never of uncovered this spam otherwise. (Requestion 23:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC))

Perhaps because he does not see it as link or any other kind of spam? I don't know how "clever" adding links is supposed to be--it is hardly a secret process; indeed, for the vegetable links, I posted a note on each Talk page. I still am not seeing anything that is responsive to the questions I have asked--questions I asked exactly because I encounter attitudes like this. Let's get back to basics: in what exact way do any of those links not comport with both the letter and the spirit of WP:EL? I keep asking, and--as I noted above--hear no answer save "It's spam, 'cause I said so."

Nor is it as if I have added no other links than to some pages I maintain--I have added numerous links to what I consider good sites, on many topics, as well as discussion here and there over the years. That initially impressive laundry list of "pages containing" includes an awful lot of Talk pages; when there is an article with a link, how 'bout saying what the article is, what the link is to, and then--this gets monotonous--some explanation of how or why it supposedly breaches WP:EL standards. Saying clearly spam is, to be frank, a rather playground sort of "analysis", rather on the "am not/are too" level.

The comments I see above encapsulate rather neatly the sort of attitude problems I see here. I quote: all those vegetable external links you added are clearly spam. The fact that those pages have ads just makes the situation worse. Ask yourself this question: "how do those external links improve Wikipedia?" The answer is that they augment the discussion of the individual vegetables by providing information on selecting cultivars especially valuable to the home gardener, and--in some detail--on growing those cultivars. The pages are not cut-and-paste jobs from a few other sites or pages--each is the result of long, tedious hours spent examining and assessing a horde of often-contradictory information in an attempt to distill it to useful material. I did this not for a site but to help me in my own garden; I then added the data to a site because I hoped others could find it useful. If I am a visitor to a Wikipedia article on beets, it is very possible, one might argue even probable, that what I am looking for is information on growing beets (gardening is America's #1 hobby). Wikipedia does not--and should not--have in that general article a lengthy procedural discussion on growing beets, much less on evaluating various varieties. A link to a page that does just those things improves Wikipedia by providing the visitor who comes here looking for information with the information he sought. Duh.

The same sorts of things apply to the various other categories of link: the pages are each a labor of love--knowledge acquired at some effort, which I try to share. I might also add that most of my sites were up for years before I thought to tack on adsense; for pity's sake, why don't you look at them? Do they look like commercial flytraps? I once experimented with one site, a blending of wp with dmoz, to see if it could generate a non-risible revenue stream; it did not. None of the others was purpose-built. Only one, on induction cooking--now apparently the web's prime resource on that topic--produces any nontrivial income at all, and it's still not much.

I have two big questions that are puzzling me. 1) How much AdSense money has Owlcroft made from these wiki links over the years? 2) Why did Owlcroft take his complaint to this WP:SPAM forum when he had so much linkspam still in hiding? Let's take them in turn. 1) On a good day, the vegetable-gardening site--one of the better performers--as a whole might make as much as 90 cents in gross revenue (before any offset for the domain costs and the not-negligible hosting costs on a good but not inexpensive host). With a cash flood like that, any day now I'm going to retire to my mansion in Brazil (I think people who are unfamiliar with the real world have strikingly exaggerated ideas of what adsense revenue is like). 2) In what way are the links "in hiding"? That's what I mean by attitude: to a policeman, no one ever states anything, they "admit" it; to a WP zealot, anything he hadn't happened to notice before was "hidden". I took my question--not complaint (read it, please)--to this forum because I was thoroughly puzzled about how and why the label "spam" can be so universally bandied about in what looks very clearly--to me, anyway--to be clear opposition to established, published Wikipedia policy. And guess what? I still don't see an answer.

You seem not to understand that Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links. I do not recall saying or implying that it is, and would be pleased if you would point out to me where you think I did. But that wp is not dmoz is not the same as saying that wp categorically has no use for links; the very reason that there is a standard "External Links" category, and a published WP policy page on them, is that they are an important and useful adjunct to wp article content. A hand is not merely a collection of fingers, but it does work better when it has some.

Anyway, you folks go right ahead and pull any and all links you like; it matters not to me. I think it's the height of rudeness to do so without engaging in some discussion on each of the corresponding Talk pages, but you seem to have somewhat different standards of civility than I do. In my opinion, the only loser will be the WP visitor who comes looking for information that he or she will then not find here.

What I consider defining is, to repeat myself, the absolute, utter, and continuing refusal of any of the supposedly outraged souls here to do exactly what I posted in request of in the first place: explain how and why any of the links breach the letter or the spirit of WP:EL, and, more generally, how or why they feel that what WP:EL says can be ignored at will--are there other policies that over-ride WP:EL? If so, which? Saying "it's spam" is not a magic spell that makes a thing so: precise quotation of and application of WP:EL is what does or does not identify spam. I quoted chapter and verse, and followed it with a question, and was throughout--I thought, anyway--passably civil about it all. In response, instead of a reasoned answer addressing the quoted text and its application, I find what I have to consider--to phrase it as genteely as possible--extremely rude character assassination (I certainly hope that none of you would ever say such things to anyone's face), and that same refusal to address the actual questions as asked.

Eric Walker 00:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that WP:NOT is official policy while WP:EL and WP:SPAM are guidelines. Policy trumps guideline so we ought to be discussing NOT issues before we get to the EL issues. The shear volume of external links that Owlcroft added implies a belief that Wikipedia is a mere directory of links, which it is NOT. I think the important question here is how many hundred external self-links to their own website should an individual be allowed to add to Wikipedia? (Requestion 02:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC))

Mmmm a suggestion (about the newer links anyway. If an editor asks you about them, that means it might be a good idea to ask about the potential usefulness of them on the article's talk page. That would be a better place then discussing it here. I really don't have an opinion in this matter yet though. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 01:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, members of this project might have concluded spam just because of the sheer number of link insertions that you made, its a hallmark of those that intend to use wikipedia to benifit themselves. I would suggest that all parties assume the assumption of good faith in each other :). If the links are deemed to be good by editors of the articles. (ask on the talk page), then it should be no problem with the members of this project, we are only there to stop spam. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 01:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

And a final note, I just now noticed this... do you own the sites in question? —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 01:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're not associated with the site in question, and other editors agree with the links (or at least don't contest them) then no problem. If these are your sites, then we have a WP:COI problem and you should lay off linking the sites - especially if you make money from the sites. RJASE1 ^Talk 01:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

First, it's nice to see some calm and reasonable answers.

Second, yes, I am the owner. I reviewed WP:COI rather carefully and was unable to find anything there that seemed to me to be controlling. Those policies seem chiefly aimed at the insertion of viewpoints, for which, quite obviously, the potential for COI is very high (the key word there seems to be neutrality, and I agree). I, at least, saw nothing there that seemed anything like as relevant as what's in WP:EL, where perhaps the most applicable remark is: If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. I will admit that in some cases I technically breached that suggestion, in that I posted on the Talk page simultaneously with putting the link in place; but I scarcely "hid" the posting or the relation. And at least in some cases (as with the speculative-fiction site) there was most extensive Talk-page debate on the entire matter of links, including mine.

The "money" I make from the sites is something that Google says we are not supposed to discuss, but I hope I made it plain that it is, in the best of cases, barely at the cost-recovery level. There is, quite reasonably (a word I am fond of), no blanket WP ban on pages with advertising; the restriction is, again reasonably, on pages with "objectionable amounts" of advertising. (Of course, that is subjective: to some, apparently, any amount = objectionable amount.)

I would also like to raise a perhaps larger question. In the Civil Code of the State of California, at Maxims of Jurisprudence, appears the statement When the reason for a rule ceases, so should the rule itself. The larger question I refer to is whether Wikipedia is a public resource or a private playground. By "private playground", I mean a place where the mindless application of principles is become a tourney ground, a sort of oneupsmanship game; by a "public resource" I mean a place where the goal everlastingly in mind is "What are users looking for and how can we help them?"

The rule says that we are to avoid links to sites "that primarily exist to sell products or services." As a guideline--something normally to be avoided--that is sensible. But consider: a link I thought of adding at the Asparagus WP article (and which I have on my own asparagus page) is to the "Asparagus Planting Guide for the Home Gardener" page at the Jersey Asparagus Farms, Inc. site; that particular page has no advertising, has not even a link back to anywhere else on the site, only mentions the company name twice, and delivers very good and useful expert information. But did I put it up on WP, a Richter-Scale 9.3 would follow as does the night the day.

Moreover, why does it matter who puts a comment in or a link up? The guideline is useful because it alerts us to a probable difficulty; but when guidelines become blindly followed rigid rules, the baby is out with the bathwater. If there is a question, the person or persons with concerns needs to follow the link in question and ask himself or herself (but notice how testosterone dominates these affairs) a simple question: If I am a typical WP visitor, come to this WP article seeking information, and based on the link description I follow it, am I going to feel a) offended and disappointed? or b) informed and pleased? Can there possibly be any other bottom line? The guidelines are to help honest, inquiring would-be editors spot potentially offensive links--period, the end.

If the WP page on asparagus gets an external link to a page selling asparagus seed or crowns, or selling fresh asparagus delivered to the home, or touting some grower's brand of store-bought asparagus, it is reasonable to say that that link is not materially augmenting the WP asparagus page, and might even be offensive. But if the link is to a page as I described, even though the site as a whole has a commercial purpose, is it reasonable--that word again--to condemn the link out of hand?

I myself have numerous diverse interests, and I make no secret of them: all my sites are listed on my Talk page. With one exception, the sites were established solely to try to help others (and I think that one does, too), and I feel that anyone with an open mind visiting any of them would agree. I am vain enough to think that some of those sites are fairly good, and some of their pages rightly deserving of a link on a closely relevant WP article page. Surely the utility of a link is independent of who posts it. If a site maintainer regularly posts poor-quality or irrelevant links, he or she deserves heavy criticism. But merely being prolific seems, to me, scarcely a ground for criticism. If my pages on certain speculative-fiction authors are useful augmentations of the WP article pages for those authors, does that make me a spammer if I also have pages on home-growing vegetables that are useful augmentations to their corresponding articles? What "rule" says so?

If someone feels that a page I link is a poor-quality link owing to poor writing or insufficient expertise or lack of depth or some like reason, I am disappointed, and would like to discuss the matter. But when some {bleeped} puppy calls me a mass stealth spammer solely on the ground than that I have a good number of links (many in place for quite some time with nobody objecting), I think I have a perfect right to consider myself gravely insulted. It's not as if I have willy-nilly linked every page I own: I have some sites that I think useful, but know are of lesser quality than some others available elsewhere, and I have not linked those. (My "Mars" site is an example: it appears nowhere on WP except on my personal page and on Talk pages--but it shows up in a laundry list of WP links as if I had pushed it on articles.)

This is long enough now. My point is that all aspects of a WP article, including External Links, should be judged on their merits (meaning their utility to WP users), not on whether they match someone's private ideas of The High And Noble.

As I said at the outset, I did not post here trying to win some local war; rather, I wanted to see what the prevailing mood was on what I consider out-of-control zealots twisting WP to their private ends, and perhaps even stimulate some thought on the issues. I myself am no longer really very interested in posting to WP, links or anything else, because it's just not worth the grief that the Boy Commandos ("Users, hell! This is my Wikipedia!") so often put one through. Illegitimi non carborundum goes the saying, but the illegitimi will always wear down those with other things to do in life besides defend what should need no defense.

Eric Walker 03:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered possibly adding more than just links to articles? Like actual content? I don't mean to sound snarky; apologies if it sounds that way. But folks here might be more apt to take you as a serious contributor, rather than a spammer, if you created a few articles, or expanded some existing ones. It's easy to add links, but my understanding is that Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia. As much information as possible should be here. Now, if you used your sites as references, along with other well-established sites that corroborate your info, than the links wouldn't be so spammy. They'd actually be enhancing and supporting the information in the articles.

I can recognize another idealist, and it's wonderful to work to make things they way you think they should be, and rage against the dying of the light. But if you ignore the way things actually are in the process... well, I've banged up my head against that wall in the real world, thank-you-very-much. But good luck, however things turn out. :) --Ebyabe 03:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Owlcroft. If you want to talk about the WP:EL guideline then you should do so on that talk page. This WP:SPAM page is for talking about spam. You claim that you didn't add any mars-mars-mars.com links to Wikipedia? What do you call this [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]? And that last Mars link is a readdition after some other editor deleted it [12], they even commented "rv linkspam." (Requestion 03:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC))

Clarification: This WP:SPAM talk page is for discussing spam policy details and specifically changes to the main WP:SPAM article. This entire Owlcroft conversation really should be on Owlcroft's talk page and not here. Back on topic. An important question of mine seems to have been lost in the above volume. Let me ask it again: "how many hundred external self-links to their own website should an individual be allowed to add to Wikipedia?" (Requestion 15:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC))

External Links Policy re Interviews

Just fyi: Somebody took it upon themselves to delete all the dozen or so links I'd put on Wiki to my site, citing spam policy. Here's the problem: I've got a podcast in which I interview, at length, without ads, people who are interesting. Many of them have entries on Wiki. I'm not adding an entry for somebody who doesn't have one and then adding external links. On an existing page I'm linking to a long interview -- for example, with a retired three star USMC general, or with a leading international anti-nuclear activist, or with a former UK cabinet minister -- with a person about whom there's no disagreement re their Wiki status. By definition, if that person gives an hour interview (and I repeat, no ads) -- the kind of interview that simply cannot be found elsewhere -- then that interview should be of interest also. These are one-line external links, saying essentially 'audio interview, name of site, date of interview, and length of interview.' What's wrong with that?

I understand the self-promotion questions, and the neutrality questions. But I have a neutrality question of my own: Can a person with a political axe to grind get rid of a batch of links under cover of 'spam policy'? With a fall-back, nonsense argument that no reputable sources have cited my site? (Citations for such external links as I've described should be irrelevant).

To be honest, the traffic from Wiki to my site is de minimis and I don't intend to try to work through this in a conflict resolution fashion. I merely pose the problem here, as it seems the abuse originates from an over-zealous application of an unclear policy. --Georgekenney 04:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Georgekenney (talk • contribs) 04:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

I have a feeling I am the person referred to - here is the conversation. My main concern was COI spamming by 72.75.93.168 (talk · contribs) - I've attempted to work with the user to cite material instead of adding simple links. RJASE1 ^Talk 04:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You are indeed the individual I referred to. By "attempted to work with the user" do you mean "just delete all the links without any explanation?"--Georgekenney 04:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless you should see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 05:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If you'd read what I wrote above you'd have seen I had read that. Have you decided to edit out its reference to "exceptions"? Go figure... My objection to this discussion is that it seems an all too convenient cover for political objections to my site -- perhaps I'm mistaken and if so, I'd be delighted to be corrected.--Georgekenney 05:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note the individual did not respond to talk page messages, and I really think I've done everything possible to avoid biting here. RJASE1 ^Talk 05:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, I don't like the veiled accusations of political bias on my part. RJASE1 ^Talk

As a self-professed "cold warrior" who seems to delight in warmaking (a cursory glance at your profile tells me that), I am skeptical about your claims to neutrality.--Georgekenney 05:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear: what in your mind constitutes a "response"? Something within two or three minutes?! I did respond, today, as you well know. So please don't misrepresent events!--Georgekenney 05:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, have you addressed your conflict of interest guidelines. It is best that you ask other editors of an article to review your link rather then inserting it... remember we all think our sites rock! Regards. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 05:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Eagle. I'm sorry but I don't have time to find somebody else to do these links for me. (Unless you want to do that yourself :) I'm a one-person shop, I produce a show once a week, it's high quality, and it takes a lot of time. If I don't fall within your understanding of Wiki guidelines, so be it. But I reiterate: the individual who deleted these links seems to me to have acted in an arbitrary, malicious fashion based on some antagonistic political ideology. Which is why I posted the above comment in the first place -- not to hash the issue out, which I honestly am not interested in doing -- but to alert other Wiki users that a potential for abuse exists within the vague nature of external link guidelines.--Georgekenney 05:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

ok, so let me ask it to you this way, you are here to help the encyclopedia right? Not to redirect traffic correct? If that is the case, you should have no problem submitting your links to review on the article's talk pages. I would refrain from adding any links from any sites that you are affiliated with, let others do that, if they find that your link is indeed worth it. These policies and guidelines are very clear as far as editing with a conflict of interest. Talk it over on the talk page of the articles, and allow other established editors working on those topics to add the links themselves. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 05:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, these policies and guidelines are not clear, I think. Anyhow, I sent a note, to start, to Helen Caldicott and if her anti-nuclear organization wants to ask her Wiki page editor(s) why they consider a link to an audio interview with her spam, then you'll have a chance to restore the link. Further, you haven't understood my point: I'm doing you a favor with the links. Not the other way around. I'm not so hot to have the links restored. What I'm saying is, you've perhaps got an anti-spam junior editor who's substituting his political opinions for good judgment about spam. THAT'S the problem you need to deal with.--Georgekenney 06:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No, if you added several links to your website then he was right to remove them, this is not the place to promote your site. Which other encyclopedias have you tried to advertise on? Good work RJASE1. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Given the conflict of interest issue, i would suggest that you add the links to teh talk page of the article(s) where you think they should go, along with an explanation of what issues or facts in the article they illustrate or source. Then allow other editors to add the links to the main article, or not. DES ^(talk) 14:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added a few back where the link is to an interview of the person mentioned in the article. As a non-affiliated editor I think the links are of high enough quality and live interviews provide an interesting resource. I was under the impression that interviews couldn't be cited as references anyway without a transcript per original research issues. (Disclaimer: I've just been adding interviews in a separate case - a link to Scott Turow reading from one of his novels is in my opinion a good link to add to his Wikipedia article, for example, as long as it doesn't contain advertising. Having said that you shouldn't add a link to your own site per WP:COI as mentioned above - let a neutral editor add the links. Graham87 14:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

An author reading his own work is different from "George Kenney's idiosyncratic political commentary" (Digg). I'd be happy if it was a major mainstream radio show, but how do we know what the bias being pushed might be? A lot of the areticles already have plenty of supporting links anyway. Guy (Help!) 15:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I defy you to find another hour-long interview with a former director of the NSA. There is nothing else like this out there. Before throwing my description of my site back in my face, why don't you actually look at the substance of what's being discussed? I would observe that several admins have joined this discussion without actually reading my posts, or familiarizing themselves in any way with the site involved. What I see is a knee-jerk reaction supporting an indefensible intellectual position.

It seems to me abundantly clear that a master sergeant in the US Air Force, currently serving if his Wiki bio is up-to-date, has no business doing wholesale deletions of audio links to an anti-war website -- particularly not when those interviews include, separately, two retired three star generals, three retired Ambassadors, two senior (serving) UN officials, two retired senior CIA analysts, one former UK cabinet minister (still an MP), one winner of the alternative Nobel Peace Prize, and a couple others. In terms of content having the external links is a no-brainer: Only a right-wing political zealot would attempt to delete them all under the guise of "spam guidelines".

I would note that I am not the only source of links to these interviews. Your spam master sergeant deleted others, not created by me, which have been up for more than a year. What's the excuse there?

To my mind this episode underscores flaws with the Wikipedia project: my view of Wikipedia has overnight gone from a "9.5" to a "4". I very much doubt whether I'll do any further linking here from my site, which I used to do routinely. And I'll advise those I talk with of my opinion, where appropriate.

Good work, master sergeant!--Georgekenney 16:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I myself am decidedly anti-war, and I agree wholeheartedly with RJASE1's decision. I also remind you to assume good faith; you have yet to prove that he is acting out of political motivations. And, as I see it, the content of the site is irrelevant to this discussion: the main point is that the site was added repeatedly to many different pages and that you have a conflict of interest. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

George, you are missing the point, which is that you should not be the one linking or agitating for links to your own site. Guy (Help!) 17:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You do not address my point that he's removed links to EP that were created by others than myself, links of long-standing, in some cases of over one year. Which merely confirms my new low opinion of your judgment.--Georgekenney 19:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You will not help your case by expressing your low opinion of people George. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If the person(s) who originally added the links want to add them back in the spirit of WP:BRD, that's fine. But undiscussed links are routinely cleaned out. I also want to emphasize that, despite the unfounded accusations above, my sole concern was with the COI issue and not with the content of the linked site, I couldn't care less about that. RJASE1 ^Talk 19:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I would not worry too much about this RJASE1, people want Wikipedia to link to their site, and they get upset when they cannot do it. No fault of yours. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Those who don't understand how the right-wing has been using censorship these past few years haven't been paying attention. Your repeated assertions are no substitute for intelligent discussion, as you amply demonstrate.--Georgekenney 20:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

George, please look at my user page and my contributions on both this wiki and on meta. I'm sure I have no political motivations. Please follow the advice of at least 4 other editors, and ask on the talk page about inclusion. Wikipedia is not the place to advertise your cause, whether it be right, left, or center. We are an encyclopedia, please keep that in mind. All we are asking that you do is request on the talk page of the articles. Thank you. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 23:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Eagle, I am sympathetic with your efforts to paper over a genuine problem on your side of things. But the fact is, neither you nor the other editors who chimed in in favor of deleting links to EP addressed my substantive points.

Let's enumerate:

(1) The external links themselves fall well within the guidelines "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews."

(2) You do not have a flat prohibition against people posting links to their own sites, though this is discouraged. If you believe you have such a prohibition, show me the exact language and where it may be found. Or explain why this instance is not a valid exception to the general practice.

(3) The individual who deleted all links to EP lied repeatedly about his actions. (a) He said that I did not respond to his comments requesting clarification. An outright lie. See the discussion he cites above with their time logs. (b) After deleting all links from Wikipedia to EP he claimed that those links he deleted which I had not created were inactive. Another lie, and I have the EP logs to prove it. (c) He then claims he is not interested in the content. A lie by his very own words (see discussion he cites), where he admits the content is relevant to the Wikipedia biographical entries. After this kind of a track record -- just in the course of two days (!) -- is it any wonder that I look at his profile and his actions and put two and two together to conclude that he's an ideological zealot hiding behind vague Wikipedia rules and a corrupted group-think process?

(4) The only Wikipedia person here who's shown any sense is a younger blind man in Australia. Wow! What does that tell you about your process?

(5) My site is fairly small. I get about 35,000 visitors per month, of whom fewer than 40 are referrals from Wikipedia. Do you think I care about that traffic? I really don't. What I'm concerned about, what I've pointed out in just about every comment I've added here, is that the Wikipedia editing process appears to me to be corrupt, not to be trusted. It's an insight I've not had previously, but now has become abundantly clear from this experience. Worse, the organization does not appear to have satisfactory self-correcting mechanisms in place; instead, its first, second, and third instinct is to protect a member of the 'group.' This is a farce, as anybody outside your group can plainly see.

(6) Ultimately, the question is whether the content deserves a link or not. In most of the above affirmation to delete these links the refrain seems to be "no advertising", "content is irrelevant", and "process is everything." I suggest to you in all seriousness that you reconsider, in a fundamental way, what you are doing. What you appear to be doing is engaging in an exercise involving kind caresses from one group member to another, not a realistic effort to improve the increase of general knowledge.

I'm not the only person who realizes that what you have done here stinks. But it's also clear to me that none of those full-throated supporters of your status quo understand or care about Wikipedia's public image, which speaks volumes about your claims to authenticity.--Georgekenney 00:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

George, the correct place for this discussion is on each of the talk pages you wish to add your link to. This is the place to discuss the policy itself. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the above accusations are a blatant mischaracterization of my actions and a personal attack. RJASE1 ^Talk 01:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

George, I can't help that you don't want to ask on the talk page, but you do have a conflict of interest. The idea is to ask others before adding something to the encyclopedia. You do have to admit that you have a vested interest in your websites succeeding. Allow unbaised eyes to see your proposed additions on the talk page, thats all I'm asking. We might have "holes" in our policy, but we are not a legal system. The spirit of the policy/guideline matters more then the letter of the policy/guideline. Lets not rules lawyer please. Thank you, and please take my advice ;) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 01:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Eagle here. (And for the record, my politics are consistantly liberal and anti-war, and i edit under my own name, so this could be verified, as i have been a candidate for local public office). I accept thqat you have been adding these links in good faith, but at the very least there is the apperance of a conflict of interest here. Moreover, even if you have no significant financial intest, people often ahve large emotional investments in their own projects. And, being typicly convinced that they projects they have spent time and effort on are highly worthwhile. This may make it hard for people to evaluate the contribution their projects can make to WP in an objective way.

Why do you object to adding the links and supporting comments to the appropriate talk pages, leaving to other editors the task of putting them into the actual articles? This wouldn't take you an more time or effort, and would make it celar to all that no conflict of interest was involved. DES ^(talk) 03:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

With the exception of one young man from Australia, none of you get it. I'm not asking about how to get the links put back: I've repeatedly said in the above discussion that that's not the point. Perhaps some don't believe me or are willfully disregarding what I say. Let me make it clear — the traffic Wikipedia sends my site is about 0.15% of my overall traffic. I just don't care about it. What bothers me, and to put this in as simple language as I can, is the question why I should link to you?

I've been in the habit of routinely linking to Wikipedia and I would estimate that in absolute numbers I've sent Wikipedia about 100 times the traffic that Wikipedia has sent me. Why should I continue to link to Wikipedia if I can't have confidence that its procedures protect against abuse by insiders? More generally, why should anybody link to Wikipedia? That's been my question all along.

Even Jimbo Wales, responding to my email to him, sent me five paragraphs on how to get the links restored, but nothing at all on fairness or neutrality. He doesn't get it, either. ...So, I suppose, why should I expect more from you?...

Which leaves me the one alternative of discontinuing my practice of linking to Wikipedia and taking a highly skeptical view of Wikipedia in any available, appropriate forum. I'm sorry you were — collectively — unable to even begin to resolve this problem.--Georgekenney 01:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well you have not made that point clear to us. In any case what is the problem, we won't allow folks that appear to have a conflict of interest to add links to wikipedia unchallenged? I'm a bit confused now :) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 01:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

People in general link to wikipedia because thy consider it useful and interesting, You should link if it will enhance your site, or assist your readers. You should not link in expectation of returned traffic, that is not wikipedia's purpose. Note that nothing that has been done here was, as far as i can see, an example of unfairness or non-neutrality. I see no indication that the links were removed for any reason having to do with your viewpoint or politics, or those expressed on your site. I would have made the same removals, and I have quite different political views than user:Eagle 101 does (according to his user page). Our general rule is that links that were added, or look like they were added, largely to draw traffic, or to popularize a site or a cause, or by someone with a conflict-of-interest, are removed, unless extra indication was made when the links were inserted that they are reliable and relevant and helpful to the articles in which they are inserted. You didn't do that (out of ignorance of this policy, I presume) and it surely looks as if you have a WP:COI, so links to your site were removed, including some you didn't actually insert. This is the normal and usual way such a situation is handled all the time here. Then if there is in fact reason to restore such links, that should be discussed on a case-by-case basis on the relevant talk pages. Anyone can do this, the process is the same for all. Since this is a judgment call i can't promise that outcomes will be perfectly consistent, but if there is a political bias on wikipedia my experience shows it to be more left-leaning than right-leaning. There is a sarong, sometimes excessively strong, feeling against commercial sites, because so many of them do try to exploit the traffic magnet that a link from wikipedia can be, and it is very hard to know when that is actually happening in a particular case. So people default to suspicious on this issue. That's really all that is going on here. DES ^(talk) 20:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

--71.111.109.225 01:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC) I am writing to support one point that George made. RJASE1 has been removing links, some more than 1 year old, indiscriminally. Case in point, the Chinese Astrology page. In the process of RJASE1 fighting a link spam back in April 4, he was tricked to removed all external links. However, when I repeatedly told him this couple days that he had made a mistake and he should put back all the links that were there for more than a year, he ignore my case and inserted another link which he thinks ACCEPTABLE by him. Check the history before April 4 and after April 4, and you will see what I meant about the external links. He repeatedly revert what I put back (the links before April 4) and warns that I am close to breaking the 3 reverts rule. He does not admit errors and pushes his own agenda.

I want to say that I like having SPAM police. They are like good gardener, pulling the weed and keep the grass (wikipedia) green.

However, I do not like careless, self-rightious SPAM police like RJASE1. He is like a lazy gardener, instead of pulling out the weeds, he decided to spray everything around it with Weed killer, killing all the good beautiful glass around it, and leaving patches of dying glasses all over the lawn. When someone wants to patch the lawn, he resort to putting his own "approved" version of syntetic lawn on the patches and refuse any replanting.

Update - the above editor (Georgekenney (talk · contribs)) took his complaint off-wiki; this, in turn, sparked a report by another online publication, though I am not an admin as the article states. RJASE1 ^Talk 02:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Be positive. The Register would support your nomination so that their article becomes correct. -- ReyBrujo 04:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Charity

Can i place an article of a CHARITY? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ancientneareast (talk • contribs) 18:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

If it follows the external link guidelines or you can give a very good reason why it shouldn't have to (being a charity doesn't count). Whether it's a charity or not doesn't really make a difference; I'd consider www.savethepuppies.com spam if it was added to Ethanol or Integral or something. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 18:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

We've recently dealt with a few charities spamming pages on Slavery and Child abuse related subjects. Just because an organization deals with issues of a particular type, doesn't mean it should be linked from the Wikipedia article(s) on the subject. Wikipedia is not a directory or collection of links. If your site isn't being used as a reference for material in the article(s), consider adding your organization to http://www.dmoz.org and other web directories instead of Wikipedia. If you are talking about creating an article for you organization, please determine first if the organization meets the Wikipedia notability guidelines. --Versageek 22:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, i understand i cannot put my site's link to an existing article, what i want to do is actually make an article about the charity, so when people look for "Hope for success charity" they can found some information about the charity itself. And at the end of the article put the link to the site but only from the article "Hope for success charity." Is that possible?Ancientneareast 15:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:ORG, if your organization meets those criteria - then it is acceptable to create an article about it. --Versageek 15:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Are there any neutral sources which demonstrate the charity's notability? Even if there are, you shouldn't write about the organization yourself because that would be a conflict of interest. I suggest requesting that an article be written by a neutral editor. RJASE1 ^Talk 15:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Chinese astrology

I am writing to support one point that George made. RJASE1 has been removing links, some more than 1 year old, indiscriminally. Case in point, the Chinese Astrology page. In the process of RJASE1 fighting a link spam back in April 4, he was tricked to removed all external links. However, when I repeatedly told him this couple days that he had made a mistake and he should put back all the links that were there for more than a year, he ignore my case and inserted another link which he thinks ACCEPTABLE by him. Check the history before April 4 and after April 4, and you will see what I meant about the external links. He repeatedly revert what I put back (the links before April 4) and warns that I am close to breaking the 3 reverts rule. He does not admit errors and pushes his own agenda.

Well, you are. If you revert his edits again, you will be blocked. Generally, DMOZ links are considered good, while linkfarms are considered bad. I agree with him on this one. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Come on, I suspect that you are the same person as RJASE1. How about letting others answer this post? Why moved my post away from Gearge's post when I was supporting his claim of RJASE1 removed links indiscriminally?

Anyway, using your logic, why don't you replace all external links on all wikii pages with DMOZ? How do you know which are link farm and which are not without you even looking at them or weeding through them? Have you even try check the links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.196.23.191 (talk • contribs) 23:35, April 12, 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have time to de-spam all the articles on Wikipedia with DMOZ but I do what I can. If you're legitimately concerned about this, we could always use more help. RJASE1 ^Talk 15:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

And accusing two experienced editors, one of whom is a site administrator, of sockpuppetry is inappropriate and uncivil (and also makes you look somewhat foolish). Please try not to take this so personally, but more importantly don't make it personal.

By the way, I agree with both of them. RJASE1 is not pushing his own personal "agenda", as you say. He is correctly applying Wikipedia guidelines. (And I am not a sockpuppet either.) -- Satori Son 16:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Spam?

When I first came to Wiki a little over a month ago, I made a mistake. Having looked at existing entries in various Torah related sections, I added links absolutely in line with what I saw in those sections, to related Torah commentaries at LearningTorah.org, a non-profit organization whose work is to spread Torah. As I understood from the Wiki moderators, there was no problem with the relevance of the links or the relevance of the commentaries, but the problem was the amount of links that were added at one time which made it appear that this was spam. In fact, this was just a desire to add to the list of commentaries that are included in Wiki, to help to further spread commentaries about the Torah. It is very similar in nature to other sites that are in fact listed as commentary under every single Weekly Torah Portion section. In fact, the relevance of these links and commentaries can be seen in Parsha Shemini or Tazria where for some reason, the LearningTorah commentary is still up.

Now I see that the site has been added to the Wiki spam list and this is very concerning. I request to please have this decision reversed and also to be treated as as the norm with other listed commentary sources that you can see under every section of the Weekly Torah Portions.

I appreciate Wiki very much and look forward to contributing in the future. Torahorg 06:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed removal of DMOZ mention in WP:EL

After being in WP:EL since October, there's a proposal (and revert war) at EL over the mention of substituting a link to open directory category to try and keep the number of external links down. Since this is a potential linkspam fighting tool, editors here should be aware of the proposed change. Feel free to weigh in there (EL talk page) if you have an opinion on the matter. Thanks. --Minderbinder 12:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Product promotion

I have encountered a problem where someone from an IP[13] is continually adding promotional language and POV statements[14] to an article making about a product (Questar telescopes) in what seems to be an atempt to turn the article into an "Advertisements masquerading as article" (and what do you know!!! They keep adding a link to a commercial distributor!!![15]). The guidelines on SPAM seem to cover just linkspamming and not this overall article skewing. Should I just ignore these edits for a wile and then delete all their stuff or should I bring them up for a block of their IP as a spammer? Halfblue 21:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Halfblue. That was quite a spamming. I gave User:69.255.120.20 a spam3 warning and removed the company7.com and bosendorferimperial.com external links they added that were still left in a couple articles. Did you know that both those domains are owned by "Company Seven Astro-Optics Division?" Pianos and optics seems kind of strange, are they even a real company? Keep your eye on this one because they will probably be back. Even though spam is bad it is always best to be aware of WP:3RR. No need to ever escalate a spam revert war since it is all about endurance. Once you spot the spam it is as good as gone, if not today then tomorrow. About article skewing, the WP:NPOV policy deals with that. I probably should note that this talk page is for discussing the WP:SPAM guideline and not actual spammings. The WT:WPSPAM page is a better place for reporting and asking for help with spam. Thank you for reporting this. (Requestion 22:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC))

External link to community event

OK, can you guys help me with this one.... I need some clarification on an external link. Should the link to the official Holmfirth Folk Festival site that I added in the arts section of the wikipedia:Holmfirth page have been inserted in the external links section of the page instead? The link was deleted as "business advertising spam" by 82.30.78.230, but I don't see the difference between this and the link to the websites of artists Ashley Jackson or Trevor Stubley that are also in the arts section. I was following the example set there by adding the festival link (possibly wrongly - hence this talk post).

The festival is a community event not a business (although it is supported by the Holme Valley Business Association), the website is relevant and on-topic (being about an annual event in Holmfirth and also being the official site), and contains informative detail (like dates and venues). It does contain links to accommodation, but these are for visitor info, rather than advertising. Having read Wikipedia:External_links and Wikipedia:Spam, the link seems to fulfill requirements. Obviously the site is an advertisement in itself (in terms of raising awareness for the festival), but then so are the abovementioned artist websites, and others on Wikipedia such as the Glastonbury official website.

Any advice/ideas? Tyke abroad 04:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Try asking over at WT:WPSPAM. This page if for discussing the WP:SPAM guideline. (Requestion 01:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

I looked at the page history for Holmfirth, and a link was added by User:Tyke abroad to a web-site which ended in ".co.uk". The web-site is owned by an individual (Peter Carr), who lists as an address a cinema in Holmfirth. That link was then deleted under this guideline, a proper use of the guideline based on the publicly available information. This issue should be considered resolved.--Chrisbak 17:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Overusage of term Spam and WP:SPAM at Wikipedia

Hi -- I'd just like to add a voice suggesting that the term WP:SPAM is often overused in discussions and talk pages. I keep seeing this guideline invoked to say why a certain external link shouldn't be included. Usually the removal of the link is correct, but Wikipedia:External Links is the more appropriate guideline for two reasons: (1) most of the time the links do not refer to the types of things we consider Spam in our inboxes (e.g., a link to a manufacturer of clarinet reeds on a clarinet reed page should probably be removed, but is not at all the type of thing my email spam filter is worried about) and (2) invoking this rule is a cross-purposes with Assuming Good Faith and civility unless you are absolutely sure that the editor didn't think that the link was improving the article--calling someone a spammer is not a light accusation and should only be used as a last resort (probably after you've already insulted their mothers :). Best, -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've not seen many examples of links being falsely labeled as spam. Calling spam spam does not violate Assume Good Faith, as someone who put spam in an article could have good faith that his link is really important and encyclopedic and just be blinded by their own self-interest and lack of understanding of how we do things here. I would guess about half of the spammers think this way (adding maybe 1 - 10 links). Hardcore spammers are way beyond good faith, though. Perhaps the problem comes from people assuming that spam means evil scammer sitting offshore with computer sending out millions of emails to random addresses to try to sell Viagra or something... individual links to one's own website are also spam. The problem is that people want to make a distinction when there isn't, other than scope. If more people were confronted with the idea that what they are doing with spam, and then realize they are doing what those other people they hate are doing, then if they really are acting in good faith they will stop. If they don't then we know that they aren;t acting in good faith. DreamGuy 03:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

re: your summary, "meh, probably uderused, if you know what the word means". Ah, well, I guess having a discussion about civility here was too much to ask. sigh. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 03:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"Spam" has a number of different meanings online. The original meaning (from MUDs, and then Usenet) was more or less "the same message sent many times over." Posting the same link to several articles, or adding lots of links to the same site as "references", is "spamming" in this sense.

A later meaning of "spam" is "unsolicited, bulk messages". This is just like the above, except with the qualification that it's possible for bulk messages to be solicited, which excludes them from being spam. But Wikipedia doesn't solicit multiply-posted links, so this distinction doesn't make a difference.

Yet another meaning is "unwanted advertising". This should be pretty obvious -- Wikipedia is not for advertising.

A latter-day and rather informal meaning of "spam" is "lots of junk I don't like, cluttering up a resource I like." In this sense, people may describe links they perceive as excessive as being "spam", even if they were not the result of a deliberate act of repeated posting.

Know what you mean by "spam"! The greatest commonality among different definitiona is that when something is unwanted, unsolicited, repetitious, valueless, (and usually promotional), it's spam. --FOo 04:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree with User:Mscuthbert that spammers don't like being accused of spamming. As descriptive as the term is, the spam word is a bit insulting. Since I liken my job as a spam fighter to that of a hostage negotiator I've decided to try a new tact. Instead of spammer I use the term exuberant linker and instead of "== Warnings ==" headers I use "== Courtesy messages ==". Unfortunately, this sugar coating of the spam word doesn't make swallowing the fact that one's external links are not welcome any easier. Spammed if do, spammed if don't. (Requestion 19:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

Thanks -- I didn't mean to imply that there are no true spammers working on wikipedia, and I hope that I didn't mean offense at DreamGuy and others' efforts to fight it. I just have seen now the fourth time that (1) someone added an external link that could be considered advertising, or publicity for their favorite blog, or a useful but not reliable or encyclopedic thing that they created, (2) all of which WP has guidelines and policies to remove, (3) someone removes it and says "see WP:SPAM" and (4) all hell breaks loose and a potentially useful editor is lost. Here's the most recent article I was working on where someone took offense at the "SPAM" designation [16], to give some context.

OK, I just took a look at Talk:Elliott_Carter#External_links and that article's history log. I see that someone added a {{cleanup-spam}} tag, someone else promptly removed the tag, and a civil discussion ensued. What's the problem? The whole point of the {{cleanup-spam}} tag is to encourage the article custodians to act. Discussion is good and clean up is better when done by those closer to the article. If the spam word is what's causing problems then try using the {{linkfarm}} or {{external-links}} tags. I find that they are less offensive but they are also less effective. (Requestion 23:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

I have to agree with Myke Cuthbert that the term "spam" is overused. Too often, it's used against well-meaning editors, perhaps novices, who don't understand what constitutes an appropriate link. For instance, they may add links similar to inappropriate ones that already exist in the article. So of course they get defensive when accused of spamming. This is how things escalate.

I think "violates WP:EL" would be a better approach unless the editor is adding the same link to multiple articles, and the link is clearly promotional rather than informational. To my mind, the term "spam" seems to suggest that the reverting editor presumes knowledge of what the posting editor's intentions were. Before doing that, reverting editors ought to make sure they have sufficient evidence to support that presumption. ThreeOfCups (talk) 01:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

New spam method

There's a new breed of spam evolving, that is the "box-it" method to make a link more prominent (possibly a violation of WP:NPOV). See for example this TfD: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 26#Template:FreeContentMeta. Matthew 09:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This regards the topic of interwiki maps (shortcuts to other non-Foundation wikis that bypass the normal "http://" linking system). For some background, see Wikipedia:Interwiki map; additional background can be found at:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Jan#External link formatting question
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Feb#Wikipedia:Interwiki map -- some spam on the list of interwiki links?
• Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 14#Meta "custom namespaces"

--A. B. ^(talk) 13:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a load of bollocks, Matthew. Please be more truthful in your public statements in future. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Langham Hotel - advertising masquerading as articles

I believe the articles contributed by user Lhinternational (Special:Contributions/Lhinternational) are all spam and look like a COI. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 09:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Help?

Yesterday I created my first Wikipedia page for the company I work for. It was quickly deleted. Can someone help me understand how to not be deleted for spam? I've a ton of stuff on Wikipedia, but I just didn't seem to get it right. I even copied the basic format of the page from another company that creates software in the same space as ours. The page was Infusion_Software. I used the Salesforce.com page as a basic template, plugged in our company info, and it was a no go. Any advice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgarns (talk • contribs)

I've left you a comment on your talk page - yours is a conflict of interest issue more than anything. JoeSmack ^Talk 20:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Domains for spam blacklist?

What level of spam is appropriate for getting domains added to the spam blacklist? I noticed additions of links to www.teomandogan.com from several IP addresses, e.g. Special:Contributions/85.101.243.47. Looking at the affected articles, there seem to be other domains being linked by the same folks (like www.burunestetik.com.tr, www.estetikcerrahi.biz, and www.psclinic.biz - see Special:Contributions/212.156.177.180). I can only presume these folks think they're increasing their Google rating or something. This is mostly just a pain to undo - if we add the domains to the blacklist I assume they'll get the message that adding these links is not OK. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Need help with spam review

I've tried removing the spam EL section on Japa mala, removing sites that sell various religious products or push religious groups, but another editor thinks my deletions were "too harsh" and has restored all of them. Can I get some of you to look at the article and assist with spam removal? Buddhipriya 09:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Need assistance with Inter-Asterisk eXchange‎ and YATE spammer

A new user is persistent in spamming her software project YATE on WP. (The YATE article has been removed multiple times and is now under a DRV). User has been warned and links removed from many articles under an IP user id 83.166.206.79. She now has created a user id User:Diana cionoiu. She has openly acknowledged that her job is to promote YATE and she has requested help on the YATE project talk page for others to assist her in promoting YATE on WP. Most of the EL's she's added have already been removed but on Inter-Asterisk eXchange‎, she has solicited another WP user User:Apankrat to assist her and we are currently at the 3RR level. The article lists groups and organizations that are related to the topic, none of which have ELs. These two insist upon listing YATE with an EL. This lady is persistent and now has requested this WP user to add links to her project on other articles as well User talk:Apankrat. Any assistance here would be appreciated. Calltech 03:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

To clarify - user Diana solicited help on my Talk page AFTER I linked Yate from IAX page. She did NOT solicit initial edit. It was my own decision based on notability and relevance of the link to the content of IAX page. Whoever is reviewing this case, please keep in mind that Calltech and Diana users were engaged in what appears to be a minor war editing and they are both naturally biased on the subject. I posted detailed rationale for my edits on Talk:Inter-Asterisk_eXchange, please consider reviewing them as well. Alex Pankratov 05:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Diana cionoiu openly solicited links on Talk:Inter-Asterisk eXchange‎ to her project's webpage and Alex Pankratov responded (inline comments on article talk page). His edits did not happen independent of Diana's action or request. She then proceeded to specifically solicit Alex Pankratov to add additional links on his talk page.

YATE is NOT notable by WP definition Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YATE, (which Alex Pankratov is aware) - the YATE article has been deleted 3 times!.

The article IAX has a history of collecting ELs and has been cleaned up since April 2007 by myself and other editors, long before these "edit wars" as described by Alex Pankratov occured. Alex Pankratov now appears to advocate the restoration of all of these external links Talk:Inter-Asterisk_eXchange. However, he made no comment when the article was cleaned up months ago, even though he has made edits since the cleanup. (See edit history). Now he is now selectively adding an EL to a specific website, claiming WP guidelines are secondary to the perceived special value that the YATE link offers, without offering any basis for this decision.

My "bias" is against users who insist upon promoting their projects using WP. Calltech 12:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have moved this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam where it belongs. This was my error because this discussion page is about the standard, not individual cases. Calltech 13:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Addition to Advertisements masquerading as articles

I added the suggestion to combine articles about competing products under a common topic. Things should not have their own articles unless they are notable. --216.49.181.128 22:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Request about cancel of banning

I was banned because of a lot of links to my works which are located on my site apocalyptism.ru.

My error was: I repeated the same links (English) in these articles on others languages.

I apologize and shall not to do it more.

All my links were strictly on the subject, and experts can confirm that my works are professional and contain the useful information for readers of Wiki.

I ask English Community of Wiki to pardon me and to cancel my banning.

Lregelson

Howdy, you're best bet is to log in under the account you are blocked and request to be unblocked using {{subst:unblock|reason}} (of course, replacing reason with your reason for wanting to be unblocked). Put this on your talk page (most people are permitted to post on their talk page, even when blocked). An admin will review the case once this is posted. I should not that if your username is Lregelson (talk · contribs), I don't see a block on your log. Perhaps something else is going on. I will crosspost to your IP talk and user talk. --TeaDrinker 06:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Spam / no original research tension

There seems to be a little bit of a tension between the need on the one hand to avoid giving uncited information, which is original research, and on the other hand to avoid seeming like you're spamming by including links. How do you avoid running afoul of this? Case in point was this version of conversation opener. See [17]. How could the source have been cited without seeming like it was spam? Or was that an inappropriate source? I just remember that in academic papers, we always used to say, "According to ..." the first time a source was referenced, rather than just putting a footnote. Captain Zyrain 19:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conversation_opener&oldid=156395614

Example of spam?

Just a question really, a new user has made his first edit in the Beith article and is nothing more than self promotion for his own books, none of which are seemingly used in the creation of the article. Would this constitute as spam? --Dreamer84 15:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Spamming wiki article links onto many other articles

Adding Wiki-links to one article on to many other articles seems to be another method of promotional spam and it seems there should be some sort of statement warning against such abuse. For example, in wandering around pages I was editing, I keep seeing the same things being listed under "See also" sections and/or superfluously embedded in articles ("such as ..."). Some entries were in more than a dozen additional articlea and seem designed to promote the main article, which in some cases is agenda-driven. I would refer to this as "wiki-link spam." Is there a rule or guideline against such a practice? The wiki-links I found to be most excessive spammed were Paleolithic diet, Low-carbohydrate diet and The Weston A. Price Foundation, but there were and still are several others that have some relationship to the WAPF or its agendas (milk issues, saturated fats, coconut oil, etc.). Numerous examplea of the wikilink spam can been seen by reviewing my edits in the last three days. It seems a group of people is using wikipedia to push an agenda through articles and article linking. Any thoughts? OccamzRazor 23:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Spam or not? (user:Nugget680)

Spam or not? Two edits by User:Nugget680 (Talk | contribs)

• diff1 added "A List Of Exemplary Schools in Texas" to Texas Education Agency accountability ratings system.
• diff2 added "DLP vs. LCD" to DLP

Both seem potentially helpful, but the sites don't seem to be known sources, have the same template with Google text ads, etc. --Hebisddave (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Both sites reside on the same server (IP 74.208.41.53), not sure if it is spam, or maybe COI. I made User:COIBot monitor both and the IP. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Spam on talk pages? Please advise.

Talk:PDS consists entirely of one long post which is obvious spam. Although this would be deleted if it had been put into the text of an article, I'm unsure what the policy is when spam is posted on a talk page, since in my experience content is never deleted from talk pages. Should this be deleted? Thanks. 152.130.6.130 (talk) 15:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

See WP:TALK. There are many cases where it's recommended that information be removed from talk pages. The page you refer too isn't too bad, but it certainly isn't a discussion with the intent of improving the article. --Ronz (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I see you have now --correctly-- removed it, Anon 152. DGG (talk) 00:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Spam or not? (user:SoonerDub)

Spam or not? Links to a py to download site by User:SoonerDub (Talk | contribs)

This user likes to link under http://www.dynamiclink.nl/ . This site appears top offers nothing but pay-to-download windows libraries -DLLs, INF files, etc. If they weren't pay-to-download, and there was some informative content alongside it, then the links could maybe be justified.

Some recent changes

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=INF_file&diff=prev&oldid=177119688
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=VxD&diff=prev&oldid=176648102
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Object_Linking_and_Embedding&curid=93500&diff=176648328&oldid=176580817

My question is, does the remote site and its content violate linking policy? Here are the destination URLs:

• http://www.dynamiclink.nl/frames/ocx.htm
• http://www.dynamiclink.nl/frames/dll.htm
• http://www.dynamiclink.nl/frames/inf.htm
• http://www.dynamiclink.nl/frames/vxd.htm

If they are felt to be legit, then I will leave the links alone. If not, then they should be dealt with by the 'bots. SteveLoughran (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Unjustified or unnecessary brief mentions of people or products

It would be nice to have a short section we could refer to as WP:PLUG for cases of abuse that don't rise to the level of blatant advertising or spam but are unnecessary or unjustified in the context of the article, or that simply repeat names or internal links already included in the article. I don't think there's a need for a new set of templates, but in the case of reverting edits like this, it would be nice to add an official-sounding phrase like "see WP:PLUG" to the edit summary. --CliffC (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

SPAM on the Book sources page

On the page Special: book sources, the link Learn how to bypass this page and go to the same book source every time, listed prominently in the article, goes to amazon.com as the default. I think it is totally wrong to give a reference to amazon as the default, Wikipedia credit or no--that is concealed spam, tho probably done innocently, for a commercial bookstore. The isbn page was designed to prevent this by getting people not to use amazon as a matter of course in doing references to books. A suitable neutral non-profit source should be used as the default, and the best is probably WorldCat. The script is at [18]. I have eft a note on the talk page there. DGG (talk) 00:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

In order for my script to be understandable, some url must be specified, even if the user ultimately will choose a different book source. The question then becomes what url?

When I first wrote the script, I chose Amazon, because that is the site that I found most useful. Of the roughly 700 people who are using this script on the English Wikipedia, about 60% agree with me that Amazon is the site they want ISBNs to redirect to. About 40% have followed my detailed instructions, and changed the destination url. Because of these numbers, I am not inclined to change the default url.

However, I would be happy to include a short disclaimer that inclusion of the Amazon url is not a endorsement by Wikipedia, and that the script is the work of an individual. Perhaps you have some language to that effect?

Lunchboxhero (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's enough. it should at the least be something non-commercial. I think the obvious one to change it to WorldCat., and then use an qualifier--because WorldCat is only really the most useful source in the US. I suppose a next step in sophistication would be a geographic selection, but most other english-speaking countries do not yet have an equivalent catalog that lists all public libraries. (I know for certain that Canada doesnt have one). There's also some possible feeling that whoever it be, it should not be Amazon, because amazon includes self-publishers and is widely misused in WP for all sorts of purposes.

I recognize that when you wrote the script, amazon probably seemed the most logical choice. DGG (talk) 09:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree.

This is a script to make Wikipedia more useful. When I wrote the script, I thought that Amazon was the most useful redirect url. I still do, and the majority of the users of this script agree with me. On the other hand, only about seven people have chosen worldcat as their redirect url, from the over 700 people who are currently using this script.

We may wish that more people used non-commercial book sources as their primary source of books, but that is not the preference that users have expressed. As there is no Wikipedia policy of generically favoring non-profit sources to commercial companies, I think we should take our cue from the users.

I agree with you that it would be nice if the script was more sophisticated and it was even easier to use. However, in my opinion, it is not possible to do that, elegantly, without integrating the script into the Mediawiki software. While I would be thrilled if that happened, and have even suggested it on the bug tracker, I do not have the time to write the software myself.

Lunchboxhero (talk)

The script at User:Lunchboxhero/monobook.js belongs to Lunchboxhero, and is in his user space. I and another person have contributed to it, but it is still in his space. It is not in mainspace, so it is not bound by WP:SPAM. Of course, other users are welcome to use it, modified or unmodified (GFDL); many already have. If someone wants, they can create a WorldCat version, and link that from Wikipedia:Book sources too. Obviously, though, we don't want to manually create a separate script for every Book source. It's already been made trivial to copy a different URL from Wikipedia:Book sources into the script. Superm401 - Talk 00:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently WP:SPAM has been extended to user space. Still, Lunchboxhero's script is not spam, because it wasn't created to promote Amazon. Again, a separate public script can be created to use WorldCat. That is no more or less spam, though, because the spam policy is not limited to commercial websites. Wikipedia is not anti-commercial. Superm401 - Talk 00:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely he can keep that script. But we should not use it as our example in WP space. Promotion of a commercial bookseller , directly or indirect, is spam,anda violation of the basic principles. WorldCat is not selling anything. DGG (talk) 05:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

From the policy page, it seems clear that the general view that a link or article is spam when the primary purpose of adding the link or article was to promote some third party, and when the link or article would not be reasonably included for any other reason besides promotion. It is certainly not policy that every reference to a commercial entity is spam.

In this particular instance, I have asserted that my reason for using Amazon as the default url is because I believe it is the most useful url based upon expressed user preference. You have accepted that my reasons for using Amazon were because I thought it "seemed [to me] the most logical choice."

The Amazon default may still not be acceptable because it violates "basic principles," but it is not spam, at least as spam is described on this policy page, and I would appreciate it if you stopped using such inflammatory language. Now, I have to admit I don't know what "basic principles" the Amazon url is violating. Would you please expand upon that, and please be so kind as to reference policy pages.

Lunchboxhero (talk) 14:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If we use WorldCat as a default, we're promoting WorldCat. That is no better or worse than promoting Amazon. Wikimedia is not anti-commercial. Superm401 - Talk 15:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

See WP:EL. we avoid such links, we should avoid this one; the entire books sources page was set up to avoid the links to Amazon; it may have seemed a logical choice initially, but we can do better. Whether technically Spam or not, the use of a script with the effect of promoting a commercial organization is a direct violation of the principles of WP, and a violation of the intent of WP:SPAM. DGG (talk) 01:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If I understand you, the basic contention is that there is a Wikipedia policy for generically preferring to link to non-commercial sites over commercial entities, and this policy overrides arguments over the usefulness over a link or content. I do not think that Wikipedia has any such policy. I quote the style guide at WP:EL, "Adding external links can be helpful to everyone, but they should be restricted to those that are most meritable, accessible and relevant to the article." On the merits of usefulness and expressed preferences, I think the Amazon being the default url in the script passes this test.

As far as early policy, this post by Jimbo may be very illuminating, a diversity of book sources were encouraged "so that we don't appear to be endorsing any specific merchant." The Book_sources page really didn't have anything to do with avoiding commercial links. In fact the earliest version of that page only included four book sources, all commercial.

Lunchboxhero (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

if you want to think of it that way, remove the default to any one specific merchant. We have no business here using a macro which defaults to amazon. DGG (talk) 07:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, the best thing would be for the Wikipedia:Book sources page to be a system page, Special:Book sources. Both there and at a special Preferences panel you'd be able to select a default source, and that would be it. Failing this, I love Lunchboxhero's script and, yes, I do use it to access Amazon (what doesn't mean I purchase there, there are cheaper places). WorldCat is a cool site and all, but it lacks a lot, and I mean A LOT, of he information one can get at Amazon, from the reviews onwards. It just isn't a worthwhile replacement. -- alexgieg (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Spam or not? (user:Dogsrock12)

Many edits by User:Dogsrock12 (Talk | contribs) sound like a 12-year-old ("EE Cummings is funny"), or are inappropriate links. Some edits have been undone and the user has been warned (according to the user page). I'm new to Wikipedia and fear retaliation if I undo or mark them as spam. Can someone undo the edits by User:Dogsrock12? On Wikipedia:Help desk I noticed a reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Username_policy#Using_multiple_accounts explaining that I can create a second account that I can use, for example, to handle spam that I find. [[[User:Daven brown|Daven brown]] (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)]

I would not recommending using a sockpuppet for this purpose. Wikipedia:Username policy says, "It is recommended that contributors do not use multiple accounts without good reason." and I don't see a good reason here. Superm401 - Talk 09:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Eight video lessons on how to spam Wikipedia

At http://www.mediabistro.com/courses/cache/crs2995.asp "It's only a matter of time before you or your business finds its way onto Wikipedia's pages." Price seems reasonable at $15 each, so I guess we should expect a fresh influx of spammers. Should someone sign up for these just to understand what they recommend?

FWIW, not really related, but Wikipedia now has 326 links to mediabstro.com
--CliffC (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

A proposed bot (SquelchBot) to automatically revert the addition of certain external links

Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SquelchBot if you have comments. Thank you, Iamunknown 01:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Orcas Island linkspam

I don't know if this is the right venue for this, but anon IPs keep adding http://orcasisland.mobi OrcasIsland.mobi to the Orcas Island article. It looks like spam to me, and other users have removed it as well. But I'm not super familiar with what exactly is gonna constitute linkspam, and how to get a link auto-banned from insertion if it becomes a problem. Murderbike (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Internal link spamming

There is something that is not completely clear to me (and maybe to others). How does WP:SPAM cover the mass addition of a sentence with an internal link. I mean examples like:

• Cookies are made by Cookie Company.
• People living in this area might want to ask the Somewhere City Council for more information
• The Somewhere Rail Commuter Council is a board created by the state to represent commuter's interests before Somewhere Rail and state officials.

I would consider them spam (the latter two rather innocent), but find it at this part difficult to explain how WP:SPAM covers this type of spam. Could someone please expand on this? Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear why the second and third examples would be spam, given that (as best I can tell) an editor wouldn't be adding the same link (to a specific city council or rail commuter council) to dozens or hundreds of articles.

In general, I think that this policy doesn't cover internal wikilinks, and I'm not sure that it needs to. In any case, if in the cookies article (for example), someone adds "Cookies are made by Minor cookie company which has its own Wikipedia article, it's sufficient to just delete the sentence as not adding value. If an editor is adding large numbers of such links (which, again, would seem difficult to me), then posting a note at WP:AN/I asking an admin to rollback them all, and posting a warning on the user's talk page that the editor is not only being disruptive but should read WP:COI, would be appropriate. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I followed the advice about Cookies are made by Cookie Company to report at ANI Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Self-cleaning_glass_spamming, as WP:SPAM is not clear about internal spam, the discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Self-cleaning_glass_spamming which is the result of internal spamming. Now it seems that ANI is not following the suggested advices on this talkpage, maybe its time to add a section about it on the article ? Mion (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If an editor is only making edits which primarily increase the number of wikilinks to a specific firm, that seems to me to be spamming. It's like search engine optimization for increased Wikipedia attention. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

on the other hand, if an impartial editor is adding links to articles major companies making a project, this is part of the WP organizational network, and should I think be encouraged. For a COI editor to add a company name in an obvious place on one or two appropriate articles is not necessarily spam. DGG (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Image spam

Ilovetechno.be is spamming numerous music articles (over a dozen so far), switching the image to a new one that includes an "I (heart) Techno" logo. I didn't check every one, but none appear to be an improved image, just different. Not sure what the procedure is here. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Update—Other editors reverted some of this user's (who is now blocked) work, so I reverted other instances where an acceptable image had been replaced. Currently, Goose (band)‎, Adam Beyer, DJ Rush, Tiefschwarz, and Tim Vanhamel still include the logo'd photos. Dunno if they should stay or not. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Spam?

Just checking Wikipedia:WikiProject Ski to see what the prescribed format was for a resort now that the article I was interested in has slid further into spam/pr. They did not seem to have a format. Worse, one article they pointed to and seemed to be proud of, Okemo Mountain, was nearly as bad as the one I was hoping to get guidelines on. I don't know what can be done to control this sort of thing. Seems quite our of hand when you have an entire Wikiproject established to do Wikitravel it would seem. I would appreciate ideas. Student7 (talk) 12:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

SPAM and WP:3RR

Over at Jonathan Sacks I have been trying to prevent User:homeofhope from advertising a CD Home of Hope to which Sacks has given his backing. I have now used up my 3 reverts. Is there a clear statement that fighting SPAM does not count towards my 3 reverts if said user strikes again?--Peter cohen (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Links to non-copyrighted game implementations

If a game is not copyrighted, and an implementation of that game exists, and the site has no advertising, no special plug-ins, no log-in required, is it acceptable to link to such a site, assuming no other violations of WP:EL exist. There is a fairly heated debate over at talk:Spider (solitaire) that needs more input. If it is determined that this is spam, the policies on this and the WP:EL pages need to be updated. But, I think we need a clear consensus, as there are opinions on both sides. Bytebear (talk) 05:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Self-promotion masquerading as a reference

Ariesubg (talk · contribs) works for a music website UrbanBridgez.com (UBG for short)—admittedly—and added a link to the site as a reference (I have brought up its dubious nature at the RS noticeboard) and is using his/her user page to promote the website. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 21:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Guideline should mention the local spam blacklist

I'd like to suggest that the local spam blacklist page (MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist) be mentioned somewhere in this guideline. I was looking for a way to report a spamlink that one user keeps adding, but the guideline only mentions the Meta blacklist, which (as I found out) is only used against multi-project spammers. I'm not sure where in the guideline it would be most appropriate to mention the blacklist, so I'd like to ask someone else to do it.--Father Goose (talk) 08:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright & spam

I'd like to ask about this diff – is it a spam or not? Both name and website should be removed from image caption at the article page since they are not notable, but the author of photo claims that then it will violate copyrights included in his image. A very sneaky way to self-promotion of his name and blogspam. What do you think? Are there any rules or guidelines on this case? Visor (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Attribution, as far as I understand it (IANAL), means the author name is acknowledged, not where this acknowledgment happens. Thus, Wikipedia being hypertext and all, the proper place for this acknowledgment would be the image page itself, as one interested in it will click it to get more information, not each and every article where it appears. In other words, the encyclopedia as a whole should acknowledge it, but once, not multiples times. So, if he insists on links appearing on the articles themselves, it seem to me his images aren't really free, as there are restrictions on how one can use them. I'm not a Wikipedia policy expert, far from it, but I think this calls for a good talk with him and, if he doesn't agree to re-license his images as (actually) free ones, for deleting them as non-free. -- alexgieg (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There has been debate about this - he has released the image under an attribution required license, and technically, the attribution is given on the image page itself. - However, many print publications give image credits in the caption (since that is the only way they can do it), and some people have come expect that. I've encountered users who want the full attribution info to actually display in the caption. I think, if we are going to allow other than image page attribution - the ref in the caption is less obtrusive. I do agree with alexgieg though.. specifying how we must provide attribution is putting restrictions on the use of the image --Versageek 19:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he can license it as CC with attribution and make the demands he makes in his license. It's not that great of a picture; my gut would be to avoid using photos with questionable licenses. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

One alternative would be to allow an "attribution" tag in the [[Image:...]] markup, say, "|attr=John Doe", or maybe some meta tag that should be added to the image page itself and would be parsed along the image, that would cause the author name to be shown over the image itself, in some non-intrusive way, on mouse-over, when JavaScript is enabled, or below the caption, in a small font (let's say, size 5), when JavaScript is disabled. In either case, if this were to be implemented I'd suggest not allowing links there, only plain text. This way, to obtain more information about the image than just its attribution, the user would still have to click the image to see its page. This would prevent the use of such clauses as a spam source, while reasonably fulfilling the request of those requiring a more "in your face" attribution than the one already provided by the image page, as the way to show it would still be ultimately determined by the WikiMedia software and by the skin the user selected/developed, not by the image author. -- alexgieg (talk) 12:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

POV

Can we add something to this that says:

"Additionally, advertising spam can be advertising or "selling" a Point-of-View (POV), either politically, philosophically, religiously, racially, sexually, or otherwise, pushing an decidedly one-sided opinion."

Ideas, comments, opinions? ~ WikiDon (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that's kind of implicit in the guidelines now, so adding it would just make the guideline needlessly long. Rray (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Rray, it is not explicit. See this User_talk:Hu12#Could_you_please_enlight_me.3F. Not everyone has English as the first language, and some that do, still need more guidance. And please, 250'ish bytes is not "needlessly long". An ounce of prevention....~ WikiDon (talk) 05:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I said it was "kind of implicit", not "explicit". There's a difference. You asked for opinions, and my opinion is that we should avoid instruction creep. WP:CREEP Some editors not having English as a first language seems like it could be used to justify almost any addition to the guidelines, but I think the Wikipedia is available in multiple languages. Rray (talk) 12:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Flawed policies

WP:SPAM and WP:COI would appear to be deeply flawed policies if they can be cited cogently to justify the warnings recently directed against James Franklin. Squaring the circle is on my watchlist and I came across this edit. In the edit summary, user:Hu12 called this edit "spam". That didn't make sense at all. It was a link to a lecture by a respected professor on the topic that the article was about! That's a valuable contribution. I restored the link.

Then I looked at Hu12's edits. He was systematically deleting external links to lectures at Gresham College. The edits were put there by James Franklin, who is employed by Gresham College. Apparently this raised two concerns: (1) that the purpose of the links was only to promote Gresham College's web site, and (2) that there was a conflict of interests of the sort treated at WP:COI. Understandable concerns, but there's a difference between valid grounds to suspect a problem, and valid grounds to conclude finally that there is. The latter requires more information than the former. One must look at, among other things, the nature and purpose of the links. They are a valuable contribution to Wikipedia. A neutral person with no such conflict could reasonably add them. Hu12 actually blocked the user, James Franklin. Maybe a dozen or so people stepped in and started saying the links are good and the user should not be blocked. I might have been the fourth or fifth one, and I unblocked the user and at the suggestion of one of the others I posted to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/incidents about it. Two views emerged: (1) That I was making far too much of the matter and I should apologize to Hu12; and (2) That Hu12 was vastly overreacting and should apologize for blocking the user.

Now the thing that really surprised me is that AFTER all this, user:BozMo, who was aware of all of this discussion, still posted a warning on James Franklin's user page telling him not to post links to lectures at Gresham College.

I think that is wrong. But he cited WP:SPAM and WP:COI in support of his position. If those policies can really justify his position, then those policies need to change. If someone who works for Encyclopædia Britannica starts posting large numbers of links to on-topic articles at Encyclopædia Britannica, it may be reasonable to suspect something amiss, but for that to be the bottom-line conclusion even AFTER the nature of the links is examined is wrong. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to worship rules and regulations. I'm going to post these comments at the COI talk page as well. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think what you're failing to appreciate is that spamming behavior can occur, and be disruptive, even if many of the links added are appropriate when looked at individually. We simply cannot allow mass additions of external links by persons who have a conflict of interest and are thus ill-suited to objectively determine whether each and every link should be added. — Satori Son 21:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think there is such a conflict of interests? The affiliation of the person with the organization is reason to INITIALLY SUSPECT such a thing. But now, AFTER you know the nature of the person's affiliation and his specific activities, do you STILL think there's a conflict of interests that prevents him from objectively judging THESE links? If so, WHY? Michael Hardy (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

...and if the links are appropriate when looked at individually, and you HAVE looked at them individually, would you still delete them? If so, I will argue that that is absurd. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

None of these links was appropriate. We get this all the time: an eager advocate of a magazine, company, organization, or whatever, starts going through Wikipedia "helpfully" adding links to something their boss/employer/alma mater/organization has put out. Part of the reason for the COI policy is the knowledge that nobody can be the best judge when they have a horse in the race. Such links are invariably violations of our guidelines on external links. Anybody who persists in linkspamming is going to get banned; that's as it should be. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they were appropriate.

And in what sense does this user "have a horse in the race"? I can understand why one would SUSPECT that, given that he's an employee of the maintainer of that web site, but give me the whole story. Why are you so sure of this?

And even if he's not the best judge, what's wrong with the links? Don't tell me what's wrong with having this particular person judging them; tell me what's wrong with the links when YOU judge them, independently of who it was that put them there? In particular, what is wrong with the one at squaring the circle? Michael Hardy (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I looked at quite a few of the links posted by JF and they all seemed germane to each topic. JF had started editing in, I think, July 2007 and only about two or three of his links had been removed by subsequent editors until Hu12 conducted his mass purge. I would generally encourage academic institutions, museums, galleries &c to set up links from Wikipedia. For example, I often link to people's portraits in the National Portrait Gallery (London) (NPG) as it gives people a way of seeing portraits of the page's subjects. No-one would criticise me for doing that but, according to some views, if an employee of the NPG made the same links, that would be COI and spamming. Each link should be considered on its own merits. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Michael, the problem is that JF mass added links in a situation where there is a clear COI; of course he thinks Gresham has the best resources. The COI guidelines allow him to propose such a link and if judged appropriate by independent people the links/references would be added. Hu12 wasn't making a judgment on the quality of the links, he removed them because they were added outside of policy which is an appropriate action. Sometimes legitimate links are added in illegitimate ways. The spam call was on the action, not the content. The call was valid. Apparently the content is too, and therefore if replaced legitimately and the community (who will be qualified to judge) agree the references relevant enough to stay, they will, but JF should not replace any links to Gresham because it is a clear COI. The policy does not prevent Gresham links completely, it just says that if JF feels the link useful he should suggest it so someone who can make a fair judgment without any COI. Caomhin (talk) 10:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The likely outcome of that is someone like JF would avoid a lot of hassle if he just edited anonymously at home from his IP address rather than editing under his own name at work. We shouldn't give editors perverse incentives. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 10:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(eC)Regaring 'what is wrong with these links': There are some things that need to be considered here. Mass addition of links is generally unwanted, especially with a COI. The question here is if the links are needed (we are not a linkfarm/directory), and if the user (with the COI) is the best user to decide that his link is needed (a link to a car-museum on the page automobile is appropriate, but that goes for (e.g.) every car-museum in the world, so every museum owner is doing appropriate edits if they are adding their links?). For libraries/musea/archives/universities/or whatever non-profit institute: if it is a person involved in the site, then if the contributions of that person is only/mainly adding (external) links (and even, references only on every place where it could be suitable), then that behaviour is spamming (and then 'spam' is defined as 'unwanted links', not 'bad links'; see also Spam (Monty Python), one or two of them may very well have wanted spam, it is just that the spam was virtually pushed down their throat in stead of giving a choice). Also, many institutions have links which are more appropriate as references, or can add content also (as argued often, they are specialists!), so just dumping it as an external links is IMHO inappropriate even if the link is on topic, etc. (see also the header of the external links guideline!). So, in every form, if a user is only/mainly adding links, of whatever kind, then that is spamming, and the user should be cautioned, invited to discuss (e.g. with a wikiproject), and I would suggest that if there are some questionable edits (including adding link number 20 on a page), that all should be reverted and that established editors after that should check if they would have been appropriate. If after discussion it is deemed that the user is careful enough in how his links are added (deciding if there are enough already, if his link can be used as a reference, or indeed makes an appropriate external link, and even, if there is a link to another institution that is even more appropriate, that this user does also consider that), then that is fine. But not before that. COI does not have to be a problem, as long as the editor is engaging in discussion.

Again: bad faith warning (I have followed this reasoning more often)! Link additions of non-profit institutions do not give revenue to the institution, there is not an obvious financial benefit for such organisations to have their links here (and indeed, there is other rubbish to follow, which is more urgent). Still, these organisations need money, either from governments, from other parts of the organisation, etc. And a way to measure a part of that efficiency of that organisation is to look at statistics on how many people visit your site. And a way to get people to go to your site is to link it from other websites. And the high traffic that Wikipedia offers may yield more people visiting your site. Now, we don't have to assume this is true for a specific editor, and it is probably not the aim of the editor (though I have run into cases where using wikipedia as a soapbox by people involved in a non-profit institution), and the effect is minimal, it still is better to warn these users that they are 'spamming', and to try them to get to stop for a moment, and discuss (the links are certainly not needed NOW, next week is also fine, and if you have one hour to add 30 links, you also had one hour to discuss for 15 minutes and add content to/reference 3 other articles). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(addition after ec) Re Nunquam Dormio, if the editor was editing anonymously from home, he would just have been reverted as a spammer, also those edits are (easily) detected. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The mass addition of external links to numerous articles in a short period of time is prohibited behavior. The blatant and obvious COI in this case was just icing. (And Dirk's other observations are spot on as well.) — Satori Son 17:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well now I've awarded him a barnstar for it. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

A tad WP:POINTy if you ask me. Trying to change this guideline is your right, and I respect your opinion even though I strongly disagree with it. But encouraging others to violate the guideline before you have established a consensus to change it does not seem entirely appropriate. — Satori Son 18:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Caomhin wrote:

The spam call was on the action, not the content.

But I think it should have been on the content, to the extent possible, and Hu12 should have assumed good faith. Caomhin further wrote:

it just says that if JF feels the link useful he should suggest it so someone who can make a fair judgment without any COI.

But Hu12 did not suggest that to JF. Hu12 blocked JF and accused him of bad-faith editing. Why must this policy be cited as justifying such a complete refusal to use any common sense?

I think JF in his editing has done little other than add these links characterized as "spam", and I'm going to award him a barnstar for it. He is certainly entitled to Wikipedia's gratitude for his addition of so much of this "spam". Michael Hardy (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed policy change

Someone wrote above "The spam call was on the action, not the content."

In this case the "spam call" consisted not of cautioning the user against creating an appearance of conflict, but of actually blocking the user in disregard of the content of the links.

I propose that such judgments based on "actions" disregarding content should be considered only grounds for suspicion, and one should be permitted to issue such a "spam call" ONLY after the content has been looked at, remembering that one must assume good faith.

The reason for this is to avoid situations like the one with user:jamesfranklingresham, who is certainly entitled to Wikipedia's gratitude for his mass addition of external links to his employer.

I'm surprised that some of the people above view it differently. They have forgotten that this is Wikipedia, where contributions from unqualified people are welcomed and judged on their content, not on the qualifications of the contributor. They propose to revert the excellent contributions of James Franklin on the grounds that he is seen as unqualified, where the exact same contributions from a qualified editor would have been welcomed. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that adding appropriate content might somehow excuse clearly inappropriate behavior (and I still don't agree that all the content added by jamesfranklingresham was appropriate). No policy change is needed. — Satori Son 18:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I just don't understand why people taking such positions as the one above are not simply embarrassed over this whole thing. I never proposed that appropriate content excuses inappropriate behavior. There's nothing inappropriate in the behavior, because the content added was appropriate. The warnings given to the user are what's inappropriate. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

A position was wrongly attributed to me:

"I strongly disagree that adding appropriate content might somehow excuse clearly inappropriate behavior"

I never thought appropriate content could or should excuse inappropriate behavior. What makes you think I ever thought or said anything like that? Adding appropriate context is NOT inappropriate behavior. There was no inappropriate behavior. There were only some grounds to SUSPECT inappropriate behavior. The suspicion should have vanished when the content, and therefore the behavior, was found to be appropriate.

Don't misrepresent my position. I did not say appropriate content could excuse clearly inappropriate behavior. Do not attribute that position to me. Do not put words in my mouth. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Mass posting of links to one's employer's web site

=  grounds to SUSPECT inappropriate behavior.

But only grounds to suspect. It's not inappropriate behavior if the CONTENT is then found appropriate.

That is the proposed policy. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The mass addition of external links, whether they are appropriate or not, is the inappropriate behavior. Period. This position has already been articulated by several editors above, so I thought Michael would understand my point. However, I am sincerely sorry for the perceived misrepresentation. That's what I get for trying to be overly-succinct.

Obviously, I still strongly disagree with his proposed change to this guideline. — Satori Son 20:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

And what I'm saying is that it is NOT INAPPROPRIATE behavior if the content is appropriate. It may be grounds to SUSPECT inappropriate behavior and therefore to investigate, but it's not conclusive.

Look: we have a guy who made valuable contributions to Wikipedia, for which we should be grateful, who got rebuked and blocked as if he were a vandal. Shouldn't that embarrass some people? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Link canvassing, regardless of the content of said links, should be discouraged most (if not all) of the time. If the link-canvassing user ignores warnings and/or fails to discuss the matter, a block is appropriate. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

But you can't know that it's "canvassing" until you look at the content. And who ignored warnings? There wasn't a warning; there was only a block. I've given the user a barnstar for the contributions for which he got blocked. He deserved it. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You gave a barnstar to a user for doing nothing but posting a bunch of links? Ok. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I vehemently disagree with the other Michael. Mass posting of links to one's employer's site, or one's own, that of one's own political or religious group, etc. is prima facie evidence of intention to advance the cause of the spammed-for entity over that of Wikipedia. If I add one link to a relevant article from somewhere I know about, that can be deemed to be a thoughtful contribution and stand on its own merits; but the wholesale addition of these links is only marginally better (and probably no better thought-out) than the guy whose spamlinks to a liquor store I just rolled back en masse. The poster of mass links is clearly not maintaining a neutral point of view about the excellence of the individual links they add over any of the other links which potentially could be added, aside from the issues raised in WP:EL about the adding of any external link. That's one reason for the COI policies. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"Prima facie" evidence creates a rebutable presumption, but it doesn't terminate the matter until the opportunity to rebut has been used. And that means: look at the content. If the content is then found appropriate, then the the presumption should be considered successfully rebuted. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Obviously you feel this guy was done badly to. But his remedy is with the ArbCom. Hard cases make bad law. I would hate to set WP's spam policy on its ear by tying the hands of dedicated editors, who, for the most part, make few mistakes and mostly remedy those when they do.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • So instead of tying the hands of its dedicated editors, you want to block them instead, because there's reason to suspect them of something, before you've investigated to see whether it's reason to do more than suspect? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposal is based on a single incident with a single editor. If Michael Hardy feels he has not yet taken his pound of flesh from Hu12, then he should go to ArbCom and get satisfaction. If such a policy were ever instituted, WP would be littered with SUSPECT tags all over the place that no one reviews, the way no one reviews 99% of the spam links that sit out there now. If an editor wants to add links en masse, especially links with which they may have a conflict of interest, they should go to the appropriate article talk page to discuss those links. If anyone were to actually take this route, this sort of thing would be far less likely to occur. As it is, editors work with what they have. Mistakes occur, but are rare and, as in this case, are corrected if the links are indeed legitimate. Montco (talk) 01:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Why would it be littered with "suspect" tags? The person who suspects would look at the content and then decide, after looking at the content rather than before. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. What Satori Son said above. MER-C 03:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose per Montco, Wehwalt, Satori Son, etc. and my own experience of dealing with hundreds of COI editors over the last 18 months.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Of course people should look at what's been added and make a considered judgement before taking action, whether that action be a message, a warning, or a block. Hu12 blocked someone indefinitely without any message or warning. None of the individual's edits were wildly inappropriate. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 05:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Strongest possible oppose, Spamming (I actually prefer the term pushing) is the action, not only what is being linked to. Having a conflict of interest is a real issue, the policy WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY have been agreed upon by many editors, and that is what these guidelines (WP:SPAM/WP:COI, also agreed upon by many users) is based upon. If someone with a coi decides to add their link everywhere, then a) they is not the best (though probably a good) editor to decide where their links are OK, b) we are not a linkfarm (all the thousands of car-musea in the world are appropriate on automobile, am I wrong to revert an addition of the next one?)!, and c) there still is a possibility that this user is not here to improve the encyclopedia, but just to add their links to get more hits on their website/to improve the chance of people visiting the site (and also for non-profit organisations there is a financial gain .. they still need money to run the webserver). We don't forbid the editor to add their links (and yes, there is now a single case where that happened, but that is not a reason to change this guideline), but encourage discussion first (and yes, if discussion is refused then blocks are allowed). Also, if the linking is excessive, reverting and then checking by regular editors makes more sense than letting the linkfarms stand, waiting for the same regular editors to clean up the ones that are not correct (been there, done that, nothing happened). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • You say "If someone with a coi...". Did this person REALLY have a "coi"? How do you know that? You may have grounds to SUSPECT that, but no more.

You wrote that someone is not the best (though probably a good) editor.

So what? When is any Wikipedia editor ever the BEST one to do any edit? Since when does Wikipedia insist on only the BEST people doing edits? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, right now you don't have a consensus for what you want. I would say that quoting peoples' stylistic mistakes is going to be seen as mocking them and not help you in your efforts. I'm sure you don't intend it that way, but I think that it's reducing your effectiveness in arguing your point on this page.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've removed the "sic" above. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

All due respect, but perhaps it would be better to paraphrase their remark!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, so now I've replaced the first two words of the quote with a paraphrase. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Dirk, I'm not sure we should get that hung up on the COI issue. Would you agree that this sort of mass link addition is unwanted whether there is a conflict or not? I believe that is the current consensus. — Satori Son 00:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Why? Are you saying that if I had added the same multiple links to lectures at Gresham College to articles to which particular lectures were relevant, that would have been a problem? What about the many hundreds of external links to MathWorld articles, encouraged and facilitated by that most successful of all WikiProjects, Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics? Is that what you consider "unwanted"? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This is unwanted. — Satori Son 01:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You're avoiding the question. You say that sort of addition of mass links to a site is unwanted even if the persons adding the links have no COI. That means

• • • • the thousands of external links to MathWorld,
      • the thousands of external links to Encyclopedia Britannica,
      • the (I suspect) hundreds of external links to the Catholic Encyclopedia,
      • the hundreds of external links to Cut-the-Knot,

and all the many external links to various other reference sources, are bad and we should get rid of them. So I'm asking why. Can you address that? Michael Hardy (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

PS to that last: You're also saying that if those links to Gresham College lectures had been installed by several dozen different Wikipedians with no affiliation with Gresham College, they would still be undesirable. Why? Michael Hardy (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Michael, NO, we don't have to get rid of all the links to MathWorld, Encyclopedia Bri.. etc., and that is not what anyone here suggests. If they are mass added by an editor, discussion is the way forward, and yes, that may result in all the links added by that editor to be removed (and yes, I think that in some cases some external links sections could need some cleaning, because even links to Encyclopedia Britannica can in some cases have nothing to add (see WP:EL; ".. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable. ..", if the article tells it all, remove it or use it as a reference). But lets analyse this situation:

• Possibility 1, the user who is only adding links to one domain HAS a COI, in that case, per WP:COI (guideline, agreed upon), caution the editor, and I would strongly consider reverting all additions (per WP:COI and link there to WP:SPAM), letting other, uninvolved editors add the links again where they are wanted (not removing them and asking someone to review generally does not help, I have had discussions with editors and wikiprojects, who then have adapted their guidelines, but the even the rubbish in violation of the guideline(s) did not get removed ..). It is better that the user discusses first, per WP:COI. After discussion (and maybe even some mentoring) the user can add his links, if it is done responsibly (not violating WP:NOT#REPOSITORY/WP:NOT#DIRECTORY etc.), using talkpages when there is doubt and actively discussing when someone is reverting an addition, not reinserting it without discussion.
• Possibility 2, the user does NOT have a COI, he is not involved with the links, in that case:
  • or the user is just adding this link. I still argue, that these links make in the most of the cases better references, they are to libraries/archives/musea/etc. They are linking to good sources which contain more info than what Wikipedia internally has (generally), if the info on the external site is already in the wiki document, it is a perfect reference here and there, if the info is not there, then after evaluation the link may indeed be a good external link. Again, ALL external links to automobile musea in the world are appropriate external links on Automobile, no question about it (on topic!), but we are not a linkfarm, so in that light, even the first one is a questionable addition (see WP:SPAMHOLE and several discussions in my past, e.g. avoiding this type of remarks (in this case a forum), that alone makes it better to even discuss the first one!)! And no, adding it to the external links as a suggestion for a reference is not the way, that should be done via the talkpage.
  • it is a Joe Job, in which case the user should be blocked immediately (either as an inappropriate username, or for the actions, or both), and the additions reverted.

So all I would suggest, and that is nicely worded in WP:EL, WP:COI, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM etc., that the editor in question is asked to discuss his edits, and to edit accordingly. If there is no discussion after the editor is being poked to do that (or poking does not work because of hopping IPs), then blocks are in my opinion in order. And therefore, there is no need to change these guidelines.

If I analyse the edits by User:Jamesfranklingresham, then I think that edits like diff, diff, diff, diff, diff are not perfectly appropriate (yes, they are on topic, relevant, but so will be many, many lectures about these subjects; see WP:NOT#REPOSITORY (... There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. ...), WP:EL ("... but Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic .."), see these two in the light of WP:SPAMHOLE and 'why their link, and not mine' type of thinking), and therefor I do believe that this editor is in need of some mentoring, and should discuss. And if I review the edits, ALL of these additions are of that type, and there are on many of the topics a plethora of lectures/papers/whatever available. So do the links that have been added/removed/readded here actually add something to the article? The edit-speed does suggest that Jamesfranklingresham does some research, but I see cases where two links are added within 2 minutes (diff, which seems ample time to evaluate if the external link actually adds something to the page (the page is actually quite big).

Concluding, mass additions of one user, without discussion is not wanted, and should be reverted or reviewed.

Re your last question, as long as the policies WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY are not violated, no, there is no problem. I think actually that you are going away from the subject, that one editor is adding links to one specific site en masse or other links, which may or may not have been added by one editor, and may even have been discussed to evaluate their inclusion are two different subjects. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Dirk is correct. We have an expression in legal academia: “Bad cases make bad case law.” Unfortunately for Michael Hardy, he has chosen a poor case to support his proposed change. Thus, he is forced to ask such questions as “What if there had not been a conflict of interest? What if the links had been added by an experienced user like myself? What if the editor had made other useful contributions besides solely adding external links to their organization? What if a Wikiproject had approved the links? What if the links had been added by more than one editor?”

Those hypothetical musings make for a prolonged and convoluted debate, and they are not particularly helpful in evaluating the edits that actually occurred. I have allowed myself to be drawn off-topic, so let me state my position one final time: User:Jamesfranklingresham’s edits were not appropriate, and clearly we should not be changing our guideline to further encourage such behavior. — Satori Son 13:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. (Actually, if you look above, I used the same adage, though terming it "Hard cases make bad law". It is why organizations seeking to change the law wait for the perfect plaintiff to come along. I don't think there is consensus for a change and Michael Hardy can argue til the cows come home and he may not get it. Perhaps the most effective route for him to take is to seek "better" guidelines, rather than a policy change, for editors in Hu12's position.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)