Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JJMC89 (talk | contribs) at 17:43, 22 April 2017 (→‎Osothecrew: unsigned). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

    When reporting spam, please use the appropriate template(s):
    As a courtesy, please consider informing other editors if their actions are being discussed.
    Shortcuts
    {{Link summary|example.com}} -- do not use "subst:" with this template - Do not include the "http://www." portion of the URL inside this template
    • {{IP summary}} - to report anonymous editors suspected of spamming:
    {{IP summary|127.0.0.1}} --- do not use "subst:" with this template
    • {{User summary}} - to report registered users suspected of spamming:
    {{User summary|Username}} -- do not use "subst:" with this template

    Also, please include links ("diffs") to sample spam edits.

    Click here to start a new report
    Indicators
    Reports completed:
     Done
    no No action
     Stale
    Defer discussion:
     Defer to XLinkBot
     Defer to Local blacklist
     Defer to Global blacklist
     Defer to Abuse filter
    Information:
     Additional information needed
    information Note:

    Osothecrew

    Osothecrew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) Hi, they are adding a spam link to multiple articles in the infoboxes Atlantic306 (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The user in question has since been blocked for spam links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlin8 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    economicsociology.org

    WP:CITESPAM (cleaned up). The website's author, Oleg Komlik, posts articles on his personal website where he is also "editor-in-chief". Shortly afterwards - often on the same day -, various links and mentions referring to these articles pop up at Wikipedia. Over 30 cases of clear cite spam. GermanJoe (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Recently recurring spam [1], which neatly summarizes the promotional intent here (with highly misleading numbers and no independent sources). Of course acknowledged academic works from this author in reliable reviewed publications could be used, but academics and their self-published Wordpress blogs are not exempt from our anti-spamming and anti-promotion policies. GermanJoe (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @GermanJoe: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 06:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    amazon.com

    I have recently been finding large numbers of inappropriate links to amazon.com in references, bibliographies, and the like. A good example is at Historiography of the British Empire, you can see what I removed here. Can this be blacklisted, and perhaps a bot made to remove such inappropriate links? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • I completely support this. The problem is huge. This may actually be the biggest link abuse problem on all of Wikipedia. There are well over 50,000 links to Amazon.com alone, most of them in mainspace, linking books to Amazon sales pages instead of using the ISBN magic syntax and Wikipedia:Book sources. I actually don't think we will stop this happening without blacklisting Amazon's domains. Guy (Help!) 23:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • i support this too. people will not like it but i think it is necessary. Jytdog (talk) 23:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • People will indeed not like it, 'we have to be able to link to a live copy of the reference'. No, you don't, you have ISBN and sites which are not aiming at selling the book. Support blacklisting this. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lots of problematic links, but I don't have a sense of how often an amazon link is used because it's the only practical way to verify some sources (without buying them). If it's a very small number, it could be whitelisted in those cases, but if it's common I can't see blacklisting it. "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" seems a little too generous; maybe "don't throw that halfway decent bar of soap out with the bathwater" is closer. Would also presumably mean removing the asin parameter from the citation templates that use it (presumably there was consensus to include it at some point). If we're talking about 50,000 links, this should really have wider input/notice. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rhododendrites:We could block down all of amazon, and then have a specific identifier system to allow through whitelisting (block \bamazon\.com\b; open up \bamazon\.com\?asin=<regex allowing identifier pattern>$ (I am a bit opposed to extensive blacklist rules that block all except, they tend to be difficult to read, even for regex-savvy editors). There are anyway going to be things that we (in this case) should preemptively whitelist, like their about-page and other parts that are referenced from their site. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The answer is: never. There is no time when an Amazon link is the only way to verify a fact. OK, that's a very broad statement, to be clear, I mean that I cannot think of one and have never seen one. I have seen a lot of affiliate codes and a vast number of links that should be to the ISBN. Guy (Help!) 06:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, after writing this I was looking into ASIN, and it looks like it can easily be assassinated (pun intended) by converting the majority to ISBNs in the citation templates (and the code that we use to display asin seems to be prepared for that). I do not know how widespread the use of asin is, though (and that could also be mitigated, disable the use of the asin parameter for amazon links and you eradicate most of the amazon links). Nuke it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that there are likely primary sources to parts of amazon.com on our articles related to the subject Amazon (similar to the link to their official homepage - I'll prepare for that). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, though many of those will be inappropriate per WP:PRIMARY/WP:SPS - self-sourced PR guff is a plague on Wikipedia as it is. Guy (Help!) 10:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but Amazon.com, Amazon Prime, Amazon Fresh and the same all reside as notable subjects on the amazon.com server, and on those article some data is better primary sourced. Outside of that by far most can be scrapped. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, ISBN & OCLC should do the job. Knock-on effect for {{ASIN}} (1049 transclusions). Cabayi (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cabayi: {{ASIN}} can be removed easily as many of them are just ISBNs, the rest can go into a maintenance category and cleared out. No need for the external link, so it can be easily blacklisted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    {{Cite book}} (866927 transclusions) will also need attention. {{ASIN}} is under discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 April 13#Template:ASIN. Cabayi (talk) 09:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    STRONGEST POSSIBLE OPPOSE to blacklisting. WP:V is to be encouraged, not discouraged. So what if someone posts an amazon link to a book instead of a properly formatted citation. By all means, cleanup such cases, but blacklisting (either the URL or the template) is way too drastic, especially since for rare books there is often no ISBN available. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Case in point, a 'bad' citations like
    • Misner, Charles W.; Thorne, Kip S.; Wheeler, John Archibald. Gravitation. W. H. Freeman. ISBN 9780716703440.
    was created by putting 'https://www.amazon.com/Gravitation-Charles-W-Misner/dp/0716703440' in the ref toolbar. This is completely fine to do, and blacklisting this is hugely detrimental to the encyclopedia. Yes there are other ways to do this, but the point is that this one is EASY and EDITOR-FRIENDLY. And there are citations like
    • Bozman, E. F. (ed.) (1967). Everyman's Encyclopedia: Anatomy. J. M. Dent & Sons. p. 272. ASIN B0066E44EC. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help)
    where no other identifiers are available. Does an OCLC or LCCN exist? Maybe. But in the meantime the ASIN is fine and very helpful.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. First of all, this is entirely the wrong forum for discussing something that will have a large impact on Wikipedia - if amazon.com gets blacklisted due to a local discussion here, the negative blowback toward this Wikiproject will be massive and may jeopardize the goals of this project. Even as someone who is actively involved in removing spam links from Wikipedia, I don't think blacklisting amazon.com is good idea at all. Before even considering blacklisting, there needs to be some kind of consensus determined about how the links should be used (what uses are appropriate, what uses are inappropriate, etc.). There needs to be some objective analysis of how often the link is used appropriately vs. inappropriately, and what the impact of blacklisting it will be, etc. The "people will not like it" comments above are spot on and should be a huge red flag that a decision to blacklist made here will not reflect consensus of Wikipedia editors as a whole. This kind of decision needs to be done as a widely-advertised RFC with input from users sitewide. Deli nk (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's probably obvious, but use of Amazon links seems reasonable as a source for fair use images of album covers (given that Template:Infobox_album#Cover explicitly mentions it) and so on. Of course, that's buried in the image summary, not used as a reference on main pages. --tronvillain (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Tronvillain: that application does not need a working link. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Beetstra: Linking to the actual source of a copyrighted image seems completely reasonable and appropriate to me, especially given the "website" field description: "If taken from the web, where?" It's substantially different than listing it in the reference or external links sections of an article. --tronvillain (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Though upon reflection, you're right that the link doesn't actually have to work as in "generate a link" - if someone really wants to check the source, they could just copy and paste it. --tronvillain (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support for Amazon links to be treated like blogspot links in XLinkBot, weak oppose outright blacklisting. While most Amazon links are "buy it here" pages, I have seem some that link to author profiles and other useful information that doesn't involve purchasing. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      @Anachronist: that could easily be solved with some whitelisting, though I doubt that the information is unique / not replaceable. --Dirk Beetstra T C 02:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I suppose so, but the same argument can be made for blogspot, and XLinkBot works just fine for that. My opposition to blacklisting is neutral-to-weak, so I changed my comment above. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      @Anachronist: also Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are on there. Nonetheless, I remove 60-70% of the twitter links I encounter on sight as failing our inclusion standards. They were very likely not added by newbies but by established editors. People like to ignore the problem. Amazon.com is in many cases easy to replace with something more neutral (i.e. less commercial in nature like our magic ISBN). The problem is somewhat akin examiner.com. Though quite some editors are inserting it in good faith, there is a plethora of editors who try to insert it for monetary gain - many editors use amazon.com as a quick place for books, and use that link (also because it has a high google ranking), and editors who want to promote their own books can, often rather undetected, add an amazon.com link to their book in the hope that s.o. will buy it when clicking on it. I guess that a bot could easily neutralize >90% of the currently available links. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC) (reping @Anachronist:, wrote the answer to the wrong person earlier --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)).[reply]
    • Switching to no opinion, based on the representations that 1) it is a problem, and 2) we have mechanisms in place to just mildly discourage use of the site without preventing it. Herostratus (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Opppose, but one question that comes right to mind is "who is spamming us with these links"? If Amazon or its agents are deliberately spamming us... first of all, I haven't seen a pattern of editing that indicates this, so let's see it. Second of all, we ought to be able to get Amazon to stop this -- it's a very large company with a large profile and this is such a silly and trivial thing to do, surely we can convince them that the potential bad publicity is not worth it.
    If its not Amazon or its agents, is it someone else? Who, and why? If its not someone else but just the accretion of links from editors acting individually, then its not spam, it's just editors being editors and voting with their feet that Amazon is a convenient source for reffing the existence and vital stats of a book.
    Amazon is a good source for showing the existence and vital stats of a book, such as in a section of a bio listing the books the person has written. I use it all the time for that, and if I couldn't I would probably just use Alibris or another commercial site, since it is convenient. Amazon pages are good in that they list the publisher and ISBN and date and author all in one place, just exactly the info we want in {{cite book}}. Also, Amazon is not likely to close soon, so the links are stable.
    If for some reason we do want to ban Amazon links, this is a big deal and we would probably want a WP:CENT discussion as the next step. Herostratus (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Herostratus: In my observation over the past decade or so, it isn't any one particular person or group. I see amazon links being added by anyone with a conflict of interest: a book author, an author's agent, a band member, a representative of a vanity publisher, and so on. As for existence and vital stats (metadata) of a book, Google Books usually works just as well. But book metadata doesn't require a source, it can be obtained easily from the book itself, and anyone can verify by going to a library or bookstore. There is zero requirement on Wikipedia to link to a metadata page, or even for metadata to be available online. Therefore, blacklisting (or XLinkBot-ing) amazon.com won't do any harm in that regard. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh. Well, I'm surprised that existence and vital stats of a book don't need verification. If not, doesn't it make it easier for someone could insert a bogus book into the text? And isn't "go to the library" kind of like reffing "Wichita is the capital of Kansas" to "just go there, you'll see the capitol building big as life"... it's more convenient if you have online proof to link to it. (And sure, a reader can go to Amazon or wherever herself, but then that's true of many of our sources; we provide the sources as a convenient link (when available).)
    I ref the existence of books, and records also, I just think it's good hygiene. I use Google Books all the time for content, but unless I'm missing it it doesn't show ISBN and so forth in a convenient easy-to-access form. Herostratus (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Herostratus: Wikipedia:Verifiability doesn't require that everything be available online. It requires that things be verifiable by an ordinary person with ordinary access to resources, such as libraries. Many reliable sources aren't online. If you can get an ISBN from Amazon, that's fine, but there's no reason for you to link a Wikipedia article to an amazon page for that purpose. Our citation templates include auto-magic links for ISBN number lookups. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are good points. You're right. With the auto-ISBN lookup, that's enough to establish the propers for a book. (Some, older, books don't have ISBN though.) OK... yeah, I can imagine a world where Amazon refs could be cut back quite a bit then.
    Still, I'm not sure Amazon links are an actual big problem. If a person links to their book on Amazon... so? What's the harm? It's not a SEO issue I don't think -- it's just, "you can get some info on the book here, and also buy it if you want". It doesn't excite me as much of a problem. And blacklisting Amazon is a big step... I'm confident there would be non-zero instances of good and reasonable uses of the site being frustrated (and yeah, you can ask for whitelisting, if you know how and can be bothered, but it's still a barrier to any reasonable use). Herostratus (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Herostratus: Well, what you just wrote is more or less why, in my !vote above, I supported listing amazon.com on XLinkBot but oppose outright blacklisting. XLinkBot works well for other non-blacklisted places that have mostly-undesirable but possibly-useful links, such as blogspot. It simply removes a link the first time it's added but leaves it alone afterward. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, OK. Sorry, was not aware of that device. Very well, I will redact my Oppose vote in that case, but only to switch to Neutral. I haven't been aware of this as a problem, but that doesn't mean it isn't a problem. But I don't know enough about it to have a useful opinion, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Oppose Doing this will have ramifications in many articles across Wikipedia. I also want to point out that some companies use amazon as their official distributers, as in there are no other reliable sources for release dates. When possible though, amazon.com should be used as a last resort. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      @Knowledgekid87: No, not really. When we blacklist a domain, it generally doesn't affect articles, even if an edit included the blacklisted domain from a previous revision unchanged. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Amazon is used for verifying existence and information that isn't self-pub (Amazon-originated material aside). If it's being banned because it's a retail side, are you going to ban Barnes and Noble or Google Books? Guidance can be given for better use of Amazon citations or its suggested replacements if someone thinks it's a problem. However, there shouldn't be any links to retail stores that would place the book in your shopping cart or assume you are buying it by clicking to it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also if it's Amazon.com agents or representatives spamming the links, that's a major conflict of interest. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that we shouldn't link to retail stores that would place a book in your shopping cart. There's no policy-based requirement to "verify existence". One can do that independently without sticking a link in a Wikipedia article. We have notability requirements for topics, and a topic meeting those requirements will be verified to exist anyway, and amazon links have zero relevance to that. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the Historiography of the British Empire removal of Amazon links from the book list, I agree with it. Amazon links are not necessary if it's just a book reference list where an ISBN would suffice. Just like cite book does not require url= to be filled out. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose blacklist While Amazon.com isn't the most desired reference, but in many cases, it is the only reference we have available. I've came across more than a few Japanese publishers who don't maintain their own information pages, but instead link to an Amazon storefront. Or they will remove the publication information from their website after a certain period. And while we may have the Media Arts Database from the Agency for Cultural Affairs, it is not up-to-date nor is it complete—often missing information for may older titles. Secondly, ISBNs are not a substitute for a proper reference, particularly with regard to publication dates. —Farix (t | c) 19:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I agree with using primary sources over amazon links but there are times the primary sources disappear and are not archived. If it weren't for amazon's link, I wouldn't have been able reference most of the article Scryed since most earlier sources (back from 2004 more or less) were never archived.Tintor2 (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a soft blacklist by way of consensus policy/guideline. Amazon.com is not a reliable source for most cases. The metadata is often crowd sourced, just like IMDB, you can submit changes to the metadata. Search for the words "Report incorrect product information". It's not difficult to punk Amazon. It's unclear why anyone would link to Amazon. To prove the mere existence of a book? Link to the Library of Congress page, or even better WorldCat or Open Library. The editorial reviews section should link to original source, otherwise how do we know the review exists. There's nothing at Amazon that can't be found at more reliable open source alternatives that are not trying to sell you something. -- GreenC 01:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it possible to use a bot to replace amazon links with ISBN links? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In many, but not all cases, yes. However, Amazon is used for more than just books, and old rare/books often don't have ISBNs. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It would then not be much of an effort to have the bot collect the ones where the amazon.com link does not provide an ISBN, and those could be whitelisted (maybe after a manual processing to double-check). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Or you could use a bot to remove amazon links for which ISBNs do exist, and tag or otherwise process those for which ISBNs do not exist. This would discourage spammers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Oppose the ability of our readers to read key passages without having to buy the book or get it through a library is a major advantage for them. They can validate a statement made by a Wiki article and explore further into the topic. As far as purchasing a book new, I think most readers know about Amazon. What they may not know is they can get an excerpt of this particular book here. Note that Amazon links small local used book dealers as well--this is their best access to potential book buyers and I think it's a good idea to support the used book-stores. If readers want to buy buy the book they can get a used copy MUCH cheaper using the Amazon link. Many used books there sell for under $5 (postage included). (Amazon itself only sells new copies of books--and that's how university presses stay alive.) the other major search system for used books is ABE.COM -- which is owned by Amazon.) ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjensen (talk • contribs)
    @Rjensen: You've summed it up quite nicely - that is exactly the reason why we should restrict the use of this spammy site. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose blacklisting, but by far the better choice is to change the links to go to WorldCat, if only because it has the official cataloging data and the identity links, and is much better proof that a book actually exists than Amazon, which will list pretty much anything someone is willing to sell, even if it's self-published print-on-demand. I would definitely support a project to change the links, and, when I revise an article, I usually do just that. But , as Rjensen says, Amazon has its purpose also (though there are also a many used book store which do not use it--in addition to those using ABE, some use eBay which amazon has not yet gotten around to swallowing). But I think anyone knows that if you want to buy a book instead of getting it in a library, Amazon is a first place to go, whether or not we link there. There's difference between non-preferred and blacklisted. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Self-published and/or print-on-demand titles may be legitimate sources. It all depends on the individual work and the context. These or similar generalizations are poor recommendations for restricting access. 72.43.99.138 (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose blacklisting (really not newbie friendly), but support replacing all links to books on Amazon by more generic links (be it Special:BookSources or WorldCat). I would support a systematic effort to search and convert Amazon links. —Kusma (t·c) 11:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't see blacklisting as gaining consensus given the above discussion. Meanwhile, there are many comments on alternatives that need to be collected for review. XLinkBot is mentioned multiple times, and it doesn't look like anyone opposes its use. I also think a new section in WP:ELPEREN should be created, for common online sales sites, including Amazon and iTunes.
    • Further Comment XLinkBot-ing this is also a bad idea. The proper solution is for a "de-Amazon" bot, which removes those links only when they can be converted to or are with ISBNs. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose blacklist but I would support any experienced editor who removes an obviously inappropriate Amazon link (and IMDB, e-Bay, etc.). Usage of such a link must be dependent on context and usefulness to the reader, so it should come down to plain WP:COMMONSENSE. Jack | talk page 18:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    unrelated reference link

    The page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vacuum_arc_remelting appears to have spam. Reference 4, to pool vacs, is completely unrelated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uberthin (talk • contribs) 18:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Uberthin: thanks for spotting that - I've removed it and will check if whoever added it made any similar additions. Ravensfire (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    icon change

    (copied from my talkpage): Hello, you reverted my flag edit on Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam. I would like to explain why I chose that and not the shutdown button. The flag is used almost everywhere as a method to report something. This is my argument for why we should use the flag. UpsandDowns1234 (Talk to me) (My Contribs) 03:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @UpsandDowns1234: I'll copy this discussion to the talkpage of the page in question. Can you provide me examples of where that is the case? --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Orangecones

    Orangecones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) Link spam; adding links to "autooverload.com", "saladandgo.com", "carophile.org" and other non-reliable sources. At least the last 20 edits by this editor consist of adding unnecessary links. John Nagle (talk) 05:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nagle: can you please list all their sources here, let's get LinkReports from COIBot and see how to proceed (likely: blackist). --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone put in "LinkSummary" templates above to do that. (I fixed the spelling of "autooverload"). "carophile.com" has clear linkspam behavior, but the other two have few hits. "carophile.com" is a site which consists almost entirely of lists of the form "10 hottest selling cars in the US". Blacklisting "carophile.com" would probably be sufficient. John Nagle (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nagle: I put them there, it gives us access to a lot of tools and searches, and to the the User:COIBot linkreports. Moreover, it shows us if someone already found this earlier.
    You were talking about 'other non-reliable sources', the behaviour of the editor certainly looks spammy (though they may have stopped after the last discussion). --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes it's rather blatant advertising. See [2]. ("Product is available at (company name, address, phone, URL, hours of business").) This editor mostly adds links, most of which are on the spammy side and some of which are obviously spam. It's not all spam for the same site, though; it's as if they have a task list. What to do? Would Orangecones like to comment? John Nagle (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Asking to be taken off your spam list

    Back in 2011, FoodFacts.com was blocked from Wikipedia.  An employee of ours, who is no longer with FoodFacts.com (and hasn’t been since the instance occurred) was actively editing other Wikipedia pages with information from FoodFacts.com.  These inappropriate actions caused our URL, www.foodfacts.com to be blocked from Wikipedia.

    On the advice and recommendation of of the employee who originally took inappropriate action with Wikipedia, I sent an email to your editors attempting to force the unblocking of our URL.  Unfortunately at the time, I did not have any understanding of the Wikipedia mission or your procedures.  Because of this, our URL was deemed as spam and has remained blacklisted.

    Since that time, FoodFacts.com has grown enormously.  Our mission, vision and goals align quite well with the Wikipedia mission of providing free and valuable information for our visitors.   Our staff includes highly experienced, committed web professionals with impeccable integrity.  

    The site’s following has grown to include numerous dieticians and nutritionists who have attempted to cite FoodFacts.com on Wikipedia and cannot do so.  The information our site provides is quite appropriate to the context of their efforts and would add credibility and respectability to their content.  

    So I am asking Wikipedia editors again, if we can be considered for removal from the blacklist.  I can assure Wikipedia, that if given another chance, FoodFacts.com will be a responsible member of the Wikipedia community and will abide by any and all Wikipedia rules.

    Thank you for your consideration.  I hopefully await your response.

    Stan4foodfacts (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC) Stan Rak[reply]

    I will let a Wikipedia administrator answer this one in full, but in the meantime I suggest reading WP:COI, and WP:NOTADVERTISING. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the site would be considered unreliable and self-published. Some of the information on the site is based upon fringe theories, falls within Wikipedia's guidelines for medical information, or is promotional. I don't see why it would be used in a Wikipedia article. --Ronz (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Stan4foodfacts: I would suggest that you find time to improve Wikipedia, writing content. If that content needs the reference to a document on foodfacts.com, you request an addition to our whitelist of that specific document on foodfacts.com, for the page where it is needed. The request will then be discussed and evaluated. Hence, no Declined and  Defer to Whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Rou albert

    Rou albert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)--John123521 (Talk-Contib.) RA 03:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Created Royal Oxford University which is advert content.--John123521 (Talk-Contib.) RA 03:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam&oldid=776693944"