Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Wuhwuzdat

I agree with Themfromspace's view that a discussion at the external links noticeboard would help to establish the acceptability or otherwise of external links to the AIP repository, and I am disappointed that the discussion did not occur before these events.

Nevertheless, there are important considerations to be made concerning the making of links to a new repository. These are the points that I made to Wuhwuzdat that I feel Themfromspace has not addressed:

1. This was not a case of multiple external links being added to one article, but of deep links being added to individual articles - each of which met WP:ELYES #3: Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons (my emphasis).
2. The WP:SPAM guideline is not prescriptive, and it is clear to me that the assumption that the user was adding links in order to promote the American Institute of Physics website is a violation of WP:AGF. Links to these interviews improves wikipedia and WP:IAR certainly trumps any narrow reading of a guideline.
3. The purpose of escalating levels of warnings is to ensure that the (new) user is given an opportunity to understand any problems and modify behaviour. Jumping in with a threat of blocking so rapidly is very much a violation of WP:BITE in this case.
   • This additional question also remains:
4. Wikipedia makes extensive use of well-established repositories, but how does any newly-created repository make editors of an article aware of that resource? We know the answer is to post on each relevant article's talk page, but how is a new user supposed to guess that?

I fully accept that WP:ELNO#1 prohibits [a]ny site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article, but even a featured article cannot contain those transcripts and WP:ELYES#3 clearly states the exception from that guidance: copyright issues, amount of detail, interview transcripts. Given that, can anyone disagree that the links posted were within our policy? --RexxS (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

From my point of view, the problem isn't the fact the user was warned, it's the fact that they were given an "Only Warning", which the template documentation states is only to be used if the contributions are obviously bad faith. In this situation, a level 1 or level 2 warning would have achieved the same thing, but without biting the new user. --Taelus (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Rexxs: The intro of WP:EL states: "If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it.". This is reference material, the editor only states that it is not their responsibility to do that work. But the links do fail the intro of WP:EL, so, yes, I disagree that the links were posted within our guideline (it is not a policy). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr Beetstra: That's not the point. The point is his ill-mannered behaviour over a period of time. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Tealus: Please note that two other editors already showed concerns about the link additions, and no other users did comment that they did disagree with those. The user did not respond to the initial two comments (they did change their edit behaviour a little), so good faith was already assumed. For how long do editors have to assume good faith, would a level-3 warning have been appropriate? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"For how long do editors have to assume good faith," - With newbies, "longer than normal".

"would a level-3 warning have been appropriate?" - With a newby, a level-1 warning on the user's talk page would have been a good start. To have a level-4 warning as the first warning on anybody's page is completely inappropriate. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said, there are two others giving concerns. I agree with you that the 'spam4im' may have been too harsh, but the editor did not react to the first two remarks only reacted to the edit summary and no-userpage concerns, but not to their style of link additions. Would I have done things different, yes .. but do I think that Wuhwuzdat dit things so badly wrong here .. NO. I do not really believe that Amanda would have stopped after a level-1 or level-2, or more other worded concerns, I do believe that the links fail our policies and guidelines, so I am afraid that we would have ended up with a level-3 or 4 in the end, I would have.

I have been through such situations, some time ago there was a museum adding their links in a bit less appropriate way then here (failing multiple parts of ELNO). Still, it is a museum. The editor got first warned friendly, and again, ended up with a handful of warnings, but did not stop. The editor got blocked as there were too many inappropriate additions (most) of a good link. Good faith stops somewhere. Good links can be spammed. Some editors 'need' to be stopped, asking them friendly does sometimes not help (true spammers don't stop even after that .. and though I do not believe that is the case here, (bad faith warning): archives still need money, links mean incoming traffic, incoming traffic means showing that you are effective, showing that you are effective means money to buy a new webserver or hire new personnel) -> take care saying that it can't possibly be spam, I've already seen it with a major library that it can be). So yes, Wuhwuzdat was a bit fast here, but I do think that this situation is ripped out of proportion, and then it indeed falls in line with the other things Wuhwuzdat is accused of. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)(redacted, true, I said it differently everywhere else --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC))

I'm sorry Dirk but it is simply untrue to claim that Amanda did not respond to the earlier concerns. She did, by following the suggestion that she post on her userpage about who she is, who she works for and what she was doing. I also believe that you are wrong about the links failing the guidelines. They are obviously of use for readers wishing to follow up on the subjects, they are obviously of use to editors wishing to improve the articles, they contain material that cannot be directly incorporated into the articles, and they are to a reputable expert organization relevant to the subject. I will add again, that editors and admins who antagonize organizations such as the AIP are damaging Wikipedia by giving us a bad reputation in academe, and undermining the possibility of future help or support from them. DuncanHill (talk) 13:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have redacted the first part, you are right.

I think that is a matter of opinion, but as there were 2 editors before the 'Wuhwuzdat' who had similar concerns, I don't think that 'wrong' is the right term. And about bad name, see Wikipedia:General disclaimer, and follow my edits. I do what I proclaim, get external information and use it, not just link to it (which I could do just as well). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

And regarding external links for later use. Yes, certainly that is possible, but I don't think that that happens all too often (though I don't know about actual numbers, we would have to dig up some old examples and see), and that is what talkpages are for (although there the issue of 'being suggested and not being used' is probably the same as with link in an external links section. And by saying that these links are suitable for later use, you actually disqualify your argument that they are not failing WP:EL's statement 'If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it.', so you cán use it? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Dirk, by adding the links Amanda is helping all future editors of the page. I think that is a good thing. Everyone contributes in different ways, and providing resources which help future editors is supportive of Wikipedia. Denying editors of access to resources damages Wikipedia. I think Wuhwuzdat was over the top in his warning, and his refusal to discuss and dismissive attitude to non-admins unacceptable. That said, I know from experience that EL patrollers in general are reluctant to listen to outside comment, and so it is little surprize that he should have picked up this behaviour. I think it is time that EL patrollers started asking "do these links help editors and readers" instead of "can we read this policy to allow us to delete and block". Helping other editors and readers to improve the encyclopaedia is to be encouraged, not jumped on. Damaging the name of Wikipedia has nothing to do with the disclaimer - it's to do with driving away potential contributors. DuncanHill (talk) 13:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

By saying that links are suitable for future use I do not at all disqualify them - "consider using it as a source" does not mean "you must only add it if you are using it as a source". DuncanHill (talk) 13:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that I was also more subtle somewhere else, Duncan. I indeed would have urged more towards discussion, tried to get more out of the editor (though I do not exclude that I would not have ended up at a level 4 in the end if discussion would not have commenced!), and I indeed would probably not have reverted (except if I would have had found several mistakes and/or 'real' problems, but not on basis of my argument of 'fail intro' alone; note, I have not found any of those 'problems').

I meant 'disqualify the argument', the area is more grey then the 'wrong' you mention first. There are several editors who agree that there is better use for the links, and though I agree that links in external links sections cán help other editors, unfortunately that is seldomly the faith of them (as the example I showed you yesterday). However, they do on several occasions lead on to more (direction WP:SPAMHOLE), and then get deleted. It is why I urge such editors strongly to join a suitable wikiproject and make their contributions shown, otherwise most of these simply get ignored.

Many academics dismiss Wikipedia because it is not reliable, not because they can't contribute. That is why I linked to the general disclaimer, and here we did have an editor who could improve the reliability (though here edits certainly did not make it less reliable). Get the information we have correct and sourced, or get more sourced information, only linking to it is making us more a {{dmoz}}.

All in all, it seems that this whole situation did not only cost us Amanda, but also Wuhwuzdat, and while I doubt if there was more support or collaboration coming than only this (seen the statements of Amanda), Wuhwuzdat is certainly a loss. And I am sorry, but I don't think that only Wuhwuzdat is to blame for that, especially since we know that there were, and are 'concerns' with the edits. As I state on the RfC itself. It could have been so much better ... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr Beetstra, I neither disagree nor agree with what you are saying about process, because as you are aware, I (and others) believe that this matter is about inappropriate behaviour, not process.

Hence, I will only address your comments about behaviour, as I believe comments about process are, on this page, somewhat peripheral and/or irrelevant to the matter under discussion.

"I agree with you that the 'spam4im' may have been too harsh" - Actually, I believe, and have stated that, it is/was too harsh, not that it "may have been" too harsh.

So which do you believe? That it "may have been", or that it is/was?

If you agree that it is/was, then what are we discussing, and why are we discussing it?

If it "may have been", what do you mean?

"Would I have done things different, yes .. " - Given that everybody seems to agree that they would have, or that WWD should have, "done things differently", there seems to be a very large amount of other "stuff" on this page that seems, to me, irrelevant.

"but do I think that Wuhwuzdat dit things so badly wrong here .. NO." - Nobody is saying he did things "so badly wrong". They are saying he has a history of being rude, arrogant, confrontative, doesn't assume good faith, etc. etc.

The rest of your comments seem to address other issues.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I am doubting about the 'may have been'. I could call the Themfromspace remark a first warning, Katr a second warning .. in normal process one would already be at level 3, which is beyond good faith. I can't say 'is' or 'may have been' precisely without knowing exactly why Wuhwuzdat did the level 4im. It is his choice, but what I did see was that everybody jumped on Wuhwuzdat. Now that may have been tainted by earlier things (which I did not review), but I fail to see why it is so extremely rude to issue a 4im after two other editors also had the same concern. If he indeed was the very, very first editor on that talkpage, and did not give a welcome template, sure, that would be far out of line, but after two other editors with concerns? Yes, I know, we have to assume good faith, but that ends somewhere, I would have left a {{uw-spam2}} and a {{uw-coi}} with explanation, and after that gone on with 3 and 4. Yes, it is a non-profit organisation, but I have seen several of them who are NOT here to improve, share or help, they are here because they need the incoming traffic. Or those who blindly link, with many mistakes. I am all for assuming good faith, but I know that they are not all here in good faith, réally. Everybody is critisising Wuhwuzdat's choice of warning, but I don't think anyone asked Wuhwuzdat 'why did you give a spam4im immediately, not first something else?'. But most reacted with 'object' and 'retract now' .. I'm not surprised that Wuhwuzdat is not awaiting the end of this. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Dirk, Amanda responded to earlier concerns. Both Wuhwuzdat and you seem intent on ignoring that. You both also appear intent on ignoring the concerns of other editors. To say "sometimes other editors have acted in bad faith therefore Amanda is" is downright rude, and I have to say my regard for you has declined sharply because of your attitude in this case. You are misinterpretating guidelines and policies, and refusing to acknowledge the concerns of other editors, and in doing so supporting someone who has deprived Wikipedia of a potentially very valuable contributor. DuncanHill (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not ignoring that she responded on some parts (I redacted my post, read other posts), but not on the linking part which was part of the 2 first posts to her talkpage (or did I miss that? She stopped for some time, but then went on). I am not sure which other concerns of which other editors I am ignoring? I did not suggest that Amanda was acting in bad faith, I don't understand how you read that from my remarks (I say I would have warned (level-1, level-2) and explained, and tried to get into discussion, that is something completely different then assuming bad faith, and I am disappointed that you think I would have). And what exactly am I misinterpreting? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You have repeatedly said words to the effect that "assuming good faith has to stop somewhere" which implies that you are assuming bad faith of Amanda. You have repeatedly drawn parallels with unspecified cases when editors acted in bad-faith, again implying that you think Amanda was acting in bad faith. You have not acknowledged Amanda's responses in your statement on the actual case page. To quote "consider adding content" to try to negate an argument that the links are valid and acceptable makes no sense at all. And, as you have yourself acknowledged, the links themselves are valid and beneficial. You just seem to prefer that 500 editors add them one at a time than one editor adds them all. DuncanHill (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Those words do not imply that, and I think the rest of my posts (or my normal edits) clearly shows that. The parallels do not imply that I think that Amanda is acting in bad faith (not at all, see rest of my posts or edits regarding such situations), but just that I do not exclude bad faith just on the basis 'that it is a good link' (and as Wuhwuzdat was not asked why he gave a 4im immediately could suggest that he had a reason to not start with a level-1/level-2 or a custom remark). I do question if the spam4im was a bad-faith warning per sé, seen there are two other remarks to that effect on the talkpage already (concerning the link additions to which, as far as I can see, Amanda did not react (she reacted to other parts of the remarks, stopped adding for some time, but proceeded). Amanda has her hands on a good resource, and she could consider adding content, in stead of links only (the links are 'valid' but could be better used, it is not the best place for them). Their use as references would be more benificial then links only, and there they would be more valid, and actually help us directly in getting this encyclopedia closer to being a reliable source itself. And no, I don't seem to prefer 500 editors adding one at a time, I don't see where I suggest that.

In my timeline I go until Wuhwuzdat's warning, I do not talk about Amanda's later responses, neither about Wuhwuzdat's responses to the remarks left to him after the 4im. But until Wuhwuzdat's level 4im warning I only see, as I state "The editor largely ignored the remarks and concerns by Themfromspace and Katr, only starting to use edit summaries and creating a userpage.". Largely, not completely. Are you talking about Amanda's responses after the 4im warning? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Wuhwuzdat made it clear when questioned that he takes a "zero-tolerance" approach, and would not reconsider the warning. He also baldly stated that only admins were allowed to ask him to change or retract it. You have said that the links aren't spam, are useful, just shouldn't be added all at once by one editor. This is senseless. An editor has a resource to share, and perhaps doesn't have the years it takes to familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's byzantine rules. To say then that their resource is not allowed, or to threaten them with a block for adding it, well words fail me. An editor who responds to concerns, even partially, is shewing good faith. To say "this editor has started to respond, so I'll give her a Level 4 and revert all her edits" is bullying, clear as day. Wuhwuzdat could have said "that's better, but you still need to improve", but chose not to. I agree that their use as references would be more beneficial than as links ony (and I don't see anyone disagreeing with that), but to jump from "there is a better way to use these links" to "do not add them, we'll block you and blacklist your site" is irrational. If you don't intent to imply bad faith, why are you repeatedly drawing parallels with alleged bad faith cases? And I'll add, to restrict yourself to the time up to the warning makes no sense, when much of the RfCU concerns Wuhwuzdat's response to the objections raised. DuncanHill (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Wuhwuzdat made it clear he regarded the links spam. And when he was questioned about the level-4im warning, both the questioning and the responses were quite harsh (and the warning itself as well). The .. surrounding atmosphere was all quite harsh.

As I mentioned, I think the warning was too harsh and too fast, but I don't find it an 'out of the blue' type of remark (as I said earlier, if it would have the very, very first remark, then I would describe it differently). Wuhwuzdat was a bit .. without tact here (but I'd still like to hear his reasoning .. though I think we know). I use the parallels because sometimes people know things from other sources (as may be the case with Wuhwuzdat) which are not shown to us, and which have lead to this warning (though I don't believe it here, nor do I see it here, and have no reason to assume it). E.g. (stressing that this is an example) Wuhwuzdat MAY have seen earlier editors who have been warned for this. We don't know (and I don't see them), but if Wuhwuzdat knew, then that could be enough to issue a level 4im without other remarks. It now seems that Wuhwuzdat assumes bad faith on Amanda, IF there were earlier editors (socks) doing the same who have been sufficiently warned, then Wuhwuzdat would be right to issue such a warning, and suddenly we are the ones who have assumed bad faith on Wuhwuzdat ... it are all big 'may's', but the early remarks to Wuhwuzdat regarding Amanda did exclude this assumption. Thát is (a.o.) why I am careful (which is different than assuming bad faith) with my remarks, and why I would still like Wuhwuzdat to respond. But we are now on a hypothetical level which has nothing to do with Amanda's edits. I have reverted Wuhwuzdat's edits, and hope that Amanda will proceed, and that we will help her or follow up on the additions. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

My view (Taelus)

(Response to Dirk Beetstra)

I think my main, personal challenge here, is that yes whilst I agree (and did agree with you previous to this RFC/U) that the manner in which the links were added was not correct, I cannot bring myself to the point where I can see this user as a bad-faith spammer. Maybe this is just a personal thing, but a brief summary of what I saw was: 1) The user contributes, 2) Some concerns are raised. Some are addressed, such as edit summaries, user page explaining intentions etc. 3) "Only Warning" given, can be interpreted as a final warning if you wish.

I don't actually think any warning was appropriate here, but I will not debate this since I know that our warning system is there by consensus. My key issue is that, to me, good faith was clear, the user was just slightly misguised, and probably in a hurry because her organisation simply tasked her with giving usage of their hard-work to a good cause. Wuhwuzdat didn't really attempt to help the user further, he slapped the warning on, and stated when challenged by other editors that he would report the user to AIV if any further links were added. This does not help discussions.

I also want to echo something I feel has dropped here, although again this is just me personally: I certified this because I think that Wuhwuzdat needs to discuss more, accept comments/criticism rather than fight against it, and drop the attitude of "Get Admin status, then I will discuss with you."

This RFC has naturally become a referenda on the single incident which brought us here, but I want to make clear that I certified this because I have long-term concerns about this user. But I also want to give credit where credit is due. Wuhwuzdat is a good, hard working editor, and since the WQA has made some improvements. My only issue is the unwillingness to discuss issues further, after all the previous WQA discussion eventually ended as stale as Wuhwuzdat declined to reply further, thus not all issues were addressed.

I also want to point out that I did ask amanda for a list of the links, although I will admit not as promptly as I possibly should have done. At the time my initial intention was to not scare the user away, especially as there was some policy debate erupting on the usertalk page. --Taelus (talk) 11:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I know that this RfC is also about earlier concerns, but I feel that this situation is not represented totally correct (there were 2 editors showing concerns, this was the third 'attempt' at communication. As I say above, I have already encountered an editor who was misguided and therefore, still in good faith, was 'disrupting'; good faith bad edits are still bad edits, and sometimes that needs to be stopped), and although I also believe that these additions were in good faith, I want to urge care with that as well (good links can be spammed, non-profit organisations need money as well). Wuhwuzdat may have been fast with the 'only warning' (it was in fact not the only warning, it was the third), and I don't know how much experience Wuhwuzdat has with this type of situations, but I do know that they sometimes get to spam4, even the good ones. I therefore think that while Wuhwuzdat may have been fast with the '4im', many editors were fast in saying 'that was wrong'/'[I] have objected', in stead of asking for explanations and getting to '4im was maybe a bit fast'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

@Dirk (partly in reply to your reply to me above): An editor who considers using an EL as a source for an article, but does not (because of unfamiliarity with citing, time constraints, etc.) is not breaching that part of the guideline, so no, I find your conclusion flawed. If a violation of WP:EL is to be claimed, then the policy as a whole must be considered. I have found no-one refuting the fact that WP:ELYES #3 specifically addresses Amanda's actions and justifies each one.

If you want to argue a breach of WP:LINKSPAM, then I have to remind you that the entire guideline is based on the assumption that spam links added en masse are "for the purpose of promoting a website", and Amanda specifically denied that. Other editors should not be allowed to dismiss AGF in these sort of cases, simply as a matter of their own opinion and without evidence of bad faith. I hope you can see the fallacy in suggesting that adding numerous links is, in itself, evidence of bad faith. That would lead to the nonsensical situation that it would be impossible for any librarian to make a good faith addition of a different deep link (to a newly-established online archive) to a large number of articles, simply because of the number.

We need to be able to deal with the fact that the best we can do for wikipedia is to allow editors in Amanda's position to add numerous external links, without being chased away by over-jealous application of the linkspam guidance, which was never intended to apply to editors acting in good faith. Attempting to justify the actions of an editor who jumps from (at most) a level 2 warning to a level 4 spam warning in such a case takes us farther away from meeting that need. --RexxS (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I do agree in general, though I don't think that jumping to WP:ELYES as a reason to include an external link, ignoring the intro or the policies it is based on is a good reasoning either. If we would include all external links which are allowed per WP:ELYES and which are not questionable under WP:ELNO we would quickly violate WP:NOT#REPOSITORY/WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, and if all what one wants is to 'suggest' a link which is suitable to use as a reference, but for which one does not have the time to do that .. a) that is what talkpages are for, and b) if you have half an hour to add 20 external links, you also have half an hour to actually read and add it as a reference to an article, or to expand the article and use the information. And I am already afraid that some of the additions (which I have re-added), who pass WP:ELYES fail WP:ELNO #1 here and there. It is all about using a bit of common sense, it is not 'Amanda's edits were all perfect', and it is not 'Amanda's edits were all wrong'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Dirk, for that well-considered reply. What you say makes eminent sense and I think it goes to the nub of the problem. It is that very tension between ELYES#3 and NOTDIR that we haven't spelt out well enough for folks like Amanda. As articles improve towards FA, many (if not all, perhaps?) of the good external links will be removed as they become converted into references – the spam ones will simply be removed because they have no value. The point is that in the meantime, the addition of good quality external links ought really to be accepted as a welcome first step in that process, rather than treated as an offence. As you say, half an hour could add ELs to 20 articles or expand 1 (maybe 2) article(s) by adding text and referencing. For a new editor who has limited time and a lot of potential ELs, I think the former is arguably the best use of their time. That makes the assumption, of course, that someone else will come along and convert them to cites. This is a collaborative project and we have the right to hope that will eventually happen, even if reality has shown that it does not occur often enough. We must be careful not to criticise Amanda, et al, because of a weakness in our own collaborative process. It is because the situation is so far from clear-cut - as the kilobytes of debate have demonstrated - that I found the threat of a block so objectionable.

I think we all appreciate the work of those who try to keep the ratio between good external links and bad ones as high as possible. Wuhwuzdat was in some ways in an analogous position to Amanda - 500+ spammers to deal with and only so many hours in the day to do it! As such, I do not find it reprehensible to make a mistake: errare humanum est. I don't even think that the jump from an unclear level 2 warning to a level 4 warning was a big mistake - even though the consequences could have been significant in this case. After all, mistakes can be corrected quickly and easily, when one recognises that they have made a mistake. It was however Wuhwuzdat's refusal to consider the objections made that led me to post on his talk page a request to amend his actions, and the manner of his dismissal of that, which precipitated this RfC/U.

I wish I could persuade you to join me in saying to Wuhwuzdat: "You made a mistake; just fix it and move on. You don't lose face; you just show that you're reasonable." - rather than defending his actions so fully, which reinforces his tendency to brush aside criticism as if he were infallible. Wuhwuzdat has the potential to be a big asset to the project in the work he does. He needs folks like you to help him achieve that potential. --RexxS (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I said most in the bottom post, but some points. Yes, there is 'tension' between WP:ELYES and WP:NOTDIR, but one thing that both WP:EL(YES) and WP:NOT(DIR) have in common, is that both spell out, that when one is in doubt, one has to go to the talkpage. The first 2-3 interviews in the external links section of a stub/start/A class article don't fail WP:NOTDIR, agree with WP:ELYES and don't fail WP:ELNO (generally), but then it quickly starts failing WP:NOTDIR and WP:ELNO, they don't add anything more (and for B/GA/FA class probably even faster). I am going to add one example to my quilting/John Doe examples, 'no, your interview on Mister X does not add anything that is not yet covered in our Wikipedia article of 64k textual content.'. Not too long ago, we had the discussions on WP:GLAM, where we had similar discussions. All I am asking is for the editor who adds the links to be considerate, read through our policies and guidelines, and not just add everything they have. One example was worked out on the talkpage, where I wrote 11 'concerns' with the edits of a specific archivist, where the editor made real mistakes (the your John Doe is not our John Doe, e.g.), and where the editor was 'blindly' linking; a typical example of someone who was not considerate in additions (3-4 additions a minute, typically working from a list without looking!), and who I would have treated with a strict forcing warning, and reverted all (it is not my/our task to check behind the editor to see which ones were correct and which ones not, and I/we am/are protecting the Wikipedia more by removing all, including the good ones, then by leaving the numerous mistaken/superfluous ones there), and another one who was way more considerate (and now Amanda, I would say). The first one got reverted (and complaints came), the second one not.

One small note, yes, when articles approach FA status, or even GA status, then most external links tend to get absorbed by the content of the article as references, or deleted as superfluous. However, I don't think that the majority of our 'Physisist X' is ever going to get to GA/FA status. If you look at the remarks that Wuhwuzdat got on his link removals ('why exactly is this spam?'), those are the big-name-physisist, who are on people's watchlists, not the small ones. I get the feeling most reacted on seeing a single reversion, and did not look at the wider picture (that that one reversion was in a set of 60), before asking Wuhwuzdat why they considered that edit spam. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a very steep learning curve when it comes to wikipedia. When the first two editors messaged me, I did not understand how to respond until the level 4 warning was given to me and editors began posting onto my page. I did not realize that the first two editor comments would be considered "warnings" as they were in very formal polite tones with words such as "may" instead of stating it will happen. I also read all of the pages linked to in these first 2 comments and felt that the links I was posting would not be considered spam because they are copyrighted materials and transcripts were mentioned as an example of linking possibilities. If I had been told in any more official language than "some of our spam conscious editors may not like your linking" then I would have stopped immediately and tried to find out why this was. I think it is a slippery slope when you begin assuming things about people that you have no idea who they are. Instead I think it may have been helpful if editors concerned with my postings attempted to get to know me first through my talk page and find out what my intentions are and that they were only pure and did not intend to harm. I'm not saying this was all the editors fault and I do take some of the blame in not understanding how to respond to people's concerns because otherwise this hopefully would never have gotten so far. I understand you can't always assume the best in people, but you also shouldn't assume the worst especially when since this has happened some editors have still not tried to ask me any direct questions regarding my intentions and simply assumed that everything I am saying is some sort of lie. AIP really wanted to post these links so that the information we have painstakingly worked on putting online for the past 3 years reaches as many people and researchers as possible. We were not looking for how many people would link to our site or for any sort of money that might come with it. We have multiple digitization projects along with this one that we feel are beneficial to the public and we felt that wikipedia would be a good platform to put them on. Amanda.nelson12 (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Amanda, that's very helpful feedback. A lot of what's going on here is that people are debating how our tagging processes work, and should work ... they're using what happened in this incident as a springboard for the discussion, but I don't think anyone here thinks that you've done something horrible or that the AIP's contributions aren't welcome. Wikipedia is huge, and procedures can be poorly defined and confusing, but you'll find a lot of nice people here. - Dank (push to talk) 16:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Amanda, thanks for posting here. As I stated elsewhere, you have a great resource on your hands, and I think it would be great if you would stick around, and help us use it. I am sorry that this situation evolved in this way, and I hope it does not put us in a bad light.

Would you mind, and do you have time, to spend a bit of time on every edit, seeing whether the link could be used to reference something already (sentences in the Wikipedia document which are confirmed by the text on the AIP-server). In all other cases I would just suggest to add it as an external link (except if there are already a lot, in which case a post on the talkpage may be better). I think we would also like to know if there are people of who you have interviews, but for which you can't find a corresponding Wikipedia page (of those we might want to create a page based on your data).

I will already rollback the edits (where possible) by Wuhwuzdat, and hope that others will evaluate those links where they are.

Hope to see you around, and again, welcome. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Most links you added are restored, Amanda. Some pages have been edited since or have been reverted already. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Amanda, you clearly came to Wikipedia with both an honest desire to help and a great and useful resource to share. I wish there were more like you, and that more organizations like the AIP would also make there valuable archives available in this way. Sadly, Wikipedia is very confusing for new editors, and as you have found out, sometimes editors are much less welcoming and helpful than they could (or should) be. I don't think you have done anything wrong, quite the contrary. DuncanHill (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a link on my talk page to the full list of oral history transcripts online. The list has all the physicists, not just those on wikipedia. As I had posted on my talk page, I personally am not able to go through every individual interview and cross-reference what is in the wikipedia articles as I am a full time graduate student also working full time which doesn't leave much free time. However, those wikipedia users who want to are more than welcome to go through the interviews as they are very interesting and full of useful information and as long as AIP or the transcript is cited you may use them as you will. Hope you are all able to come up with some sort of solution so that this type of incident hopefully doesn't happen again. Amanda.nelson12 (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Although interpretation of WP policy seems to be dominating this discussion, I don't think that is the point.

I believe the point is the way Wuhwuzdat has chosen to interpret and implement his interpretation.

It is my opinion that, at best, Wuhwuzdat's behaviour is rude, arrogant, thoughtless and inconsiderate. Further, Wuhwuzdat's responses to people politely questioning him and politely attempting to discuss the matter with him, seem to be even ruder, and even more arrogant.
My interpretation is that Wuhwuzdat believes he has "done the right thing". I believe that is a matter of opinion, and that the opinion is under some dispute. I also think whether or not it is "right" is not particularly important.
In my opinion, what IS important is his modus operandi, which, in my opinion, (and the opinion of a number of others), is VERY embarassing for WP, and is completely unacceptable in almost any circumstance, much less the circumstance of dealing with an editor acting in good faith, (be they new or experienced).

Disecting the "View by Themfromspace", to which Wuhwuzdat has said: I believe that Thefromspace has summarized this situation quite admirably below, and have nothing else to add.

• "I'm suprized to see this here, because I endorse Wuhwuzdat's actions of issuing a warning and reverting the edits, although next time a scenario like this happens I would recommend bringing the situation up for discussion first at a discussion board such as at the external links noticeboard." - Pardon? Do you endorse the actions? Or do you recommend bringing the situation up for discussion first? The two seem to be contradictory; I don't understand how you can support both at the same time.
• "I do not believe that any of the external links placed meet WP:EL" - Well, that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. But there are many others who don't share it with you.
• "I also believe that there is a consensus in favor of removing mass-posted links, for the very reason that they are mass-posted." - "One size fits all" situations and solutions rarely solve problems particularly well. In the last 24 hours it has been argued by a number of people in a number of places that this situation does NOT fit into "the norm" and that WP does NOT have a policy to specifically address this situation.
• "that we do not encourage mass-linking" - Again, that's your interpretation and opinion - an interpretation and opinion that I, and others, don't share. I am unhappy with your mis-use of the word "we" to mis-represent my opinion.
• "I do not think that this RfC will accomplish much" - That would be sad. I would rather hope that Wuhwuzdat will rethink his modus operandi and start exercising WP:AGF.
• "because the actions are already in the past" - The actions are ALWAYS in the past. I don't understand what point you are trying to make here.
• "and (in my opinion) there isn't much to apologize for" - Sigh. (I and others disagree.)
• "Instead we should ... " - I disagree. Such an approach is an enormous waste of time. I would draw an analogy to removing red links - It would be FAR more useful to restore the ELs and start incorporating their content into the articles. (I expect that each interview will supply supporting evidence for at least one statement in each article, so I expect that the ELs will be easily able to be turned into <ref>Insert footnote text here</ref>.)
• "This whole situation is indeed unfortunate" - Indeed! And completely avoidable if WP editors AGF, think before they act, and exercise good manners.
• "and Amanda.nelson12 should be encouraged ... " - She should not need to be encouraged - She should never have been treated so rudely in the first place.

My 2 cents worth. Pdfpdf (talk) 08:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Additionally I think there are long-term concerns that need to be addressed here, thus we shouldn't just say: "Ah well, too late, the problem is over" and dismiss it. I would also be happy if Wuhwuzdat would respond to the longer-term concerns. --Taelus (talk) 09:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Wuhwuzdat has based his response on the view expressed by Themfromspace, but I find that unsatisfactory because Themfromspace was in fact wrong to issue warnings based on WP:LINKSPAM and WP:ELNO (points 1 and 4). There are two sections of WP:COI that specifically address this situation:

• WP:COI#Subject and culture sector professionals - Museum curators, librarians, archivists, art historians, heritage interpreters, conservators, documentation managers, subject specialists, and managers of a special collection (or similar profession) are encouraged to use their knowledge to help improve Wikipedia, or to share their information with Wikipedia in the form of links to their resources. - If a link cannot be used to expand an article, the link may be placed under further reading or external links providing the link complies with the external links guideline and is not covered by any of the points under links to avoid. (my emphasis);
• WP:COI#Declaring an interest - Some editors declare an interest in a particular topic area. They do this in various ways. Many Wikipedians show their allegiances and affiliations on their user pages. Reasons to declare an interest: You will benefit from the assumption of good faith.

This is a direct invitation to editors in Amanda.nelson12's position to:

1. Declare her potential CoI openly;
   • which she did on her user page;
2. Make external links to the special collection, as long as she was unable to use them to expand the article, and the links comply with WP:ELNO
   • - the website states that the oral transcripts are copyright and reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited, so verbatim use is not allowed.

So the grounds for objection are WP:LINKSPAM and WP:ELNO #1 (since WP:ELNO #4 directs us to WP:LINKSPAM).

1. WP:ELNO #1 states: Links normally to be avoided ... Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article.
   • But this site is a unique resource, and it contains much more material relevant to the subject's biography than even a featured article would contain.
   • In fact, this very situation is expressly mentioned in WP:ELYES #3: What should be linked ... Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons. I do not believe anyone can be in doubt that Amanda.nelson12's situation is exactly what the external links guidelines had in mind here – interview transcripts are specifically given as an example.
2. WP:LINKSPAM opens with: Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. – that's the definition.
   • So the grounds for warnings come down to this: the editors giving the warning believed that Amanda.nelson12's purpose in making the links was that of "promoting a website". And yet, she had openly stated her purpose on her user page: "I am hoping to spread this knowledge to the wikipedia community by posting links to these oral histories on the pages for the physicists being interviewed." She had declared her potential conflict of interest and was entitled to an expectation of WP:AGF (see WP:COI#Declaring an interest above). No such good faith was assumed when these warnings were issued, particularly when the justification for the second warning {{uw-spam4im}} is given at WP:COI#Blocks (... in apparent violation of this guideline ...) and Amanda.nelson12's edits were clearly allowed by that guideline at WP:COI#Subject and culture sector professionals. The warnings were not compliant with policy. At the very least, Wuhwuzdat needs to reflect on the policies and guidelines I have drawn his attention to above, before finalising his response to this RfC/U. --RexxS (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

This is intended primarily as a response to Dirk, some of the threads above are getting too long.

Dirk has criticised the tone of the comments made to Wuhwuzdat after his issue of a 4im. I would suggest (and it is certainly true in my case) that the responses were so strong because the follow up to a 4im is a report to AIV and then a block - in such a situation, particularly with a new good-faith editor unfamiliar with our strange working practises, it is vital that objections are made clearly and immediately. One cannot rely on a busy admin looking at AIV to always investigate before blocking. By wording an objection strongly and clearly, both on Amanda's talk page and on Wuhwuzdat's talk page, one is able to alert any admin coming to AIV that there are concerns about the legitimacy of the warning. 4im does not leave other editors the time to hone a gentle and reflective enquiry.

Blocks, once issued, are hard to overturn - while no consensus is required to make a block, it is required to overturn one, and while some admins do not object to there actions being overturned, many will object strenuously.

To have blocked someone at the AIP in this situation would have created far more drama and damage to Wikipedia than this RfCU has done or will do.

Therefor, the strong objections served to protect both a new editor and to protect the Wikipedia, and I believe were justified. Any editors familiar with the history of Wuhwuzdat's talk page (as I was not before this incident) would also have been justified (in my opinion) in assuming that anything less than a strong objection would be brushed aside, as so many had been before. I think it is also legitimate to have concerns about an editor who appears to communicate almost entirely through automated tools like Twinkle, which is known to produce inappropriate messages from time to time. DuncanHill (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I do agree to this mainly, but I have a big 'but'. This is a general behaviour/response that spam fighters sometimes get, I've had it myself, and I know it of others. This type of issue goes to AN/I sometimes.

I am going to say first, this has nothing to do with the AIP/Amanda/Wuhwuzdat situation, but just to clarify why that type of response may be assuming bad faith on the spam-fighter, even if the spam fighter seems to assume bad faith on a new editor. I therefore don't agree that that should be a first approach, never!

Some of the following examples I have seen with 'GLAMs', some I did not. All examples are 'real' These examples don't mean 'assume bad faith from all until proven different':

1. Good organisations do hire companies to optimise their 'being known' on the web. A spam fighter might notice the beginning of that with one webpage, and blacklist a whole set which are all related to the first. That may include a good one, but if the SEO is starting with one, they will continue, they were paid to do that, and it may stop a lot of disruption. Those SEO's know how to work, they will create one sock here, one sock there, try to stay under the radar. Hence, other socks may have been blocked already, pattern is not really obvious. Note here, that it may not even be the organisation itself, but a higher organisation, who wants their own organisation and the underlying organisations to be known.
2. From the name it is not always clear who is behind the account, is it the Public Relations Officer, is it the web-manager, or is it an intern. For all three the type of editing is the same, but their goal is totally different. As I have said earlier, also non-profit organisations need money, and incoming links (i.e., incoming visitors) can be a measure for the granting organisations to measure their efficiency, or the web-manager can show that their equipment is not efficient or that they is doing their job properly.
3. Editors who simply do not get it. They link completely inappropriate, get warned, edits reverted, warned again, but no reaction from their side. In the end, to stop the (albeit good faith) disruption, they end up blocked, start new accounts and continue. Maybe one only sees the 5th account, who indeed just gets a spam4im or something similar, or gets blocked for one, seemingly 'fine' link addition. Well, one did not see the 4 other accounts and the tens or hundreds of other links already. A good faith bad edit is still a bad edit .. No, in 99.95% of the cases, we don't need a link to the quilt in your collection on our quilting page, and no, your John Doe is not the same one as our John_Doe_(disambiguation), and no your interview on Mister X does not add anything that is not yet covered in our (featured) Wikipedia article of 64k textual content.
4. en.wikipedia is not the only wiki. Editors cross boundaries, and en.wikipedia may be wiki #15. One edit, reverted, warned or blocked .. seems harsh, yes.
5. Sometimes one checks a handful, and runs into real mistakes. Links that are really wrong, or which violate WP:ELNO quite strong. One can then say 'go check all of them and revert the ones which are wrong', or one can ask the editor strongly to stop, force them to do their work better, and revert all additions done until that point. I don't believe that it is 'my' task to walk behind a link-adder to check every addition and revert or repair those which are wrong. It has been tried to put WikiProjects to it, but it just means that a, sometimes significant, number of links is plainly wrong. Yes, it is better to revert all, and get a flood of 'Why did you revert this edit, it is a good addition? I've reverted you - Fine with me'.
6. First accounts with username issues and a history with bad behaviour on that account.

And there are more scenario's possible, or combinations of the above.

So do we have to assume bad faith on everyone who adds links only, NO. But also do not assume bad faith on the one who is reverting it, there may be reasons that you did not see. On the other hand, even if the additions are bad faith, but are all correct, to the point, nothing to complain about, then most spam-fighters would not have reverted. WP:COI does not forbid someone with a conflict of interest to edit (well, but that is a different story).

This is why I react to given spam4im rather with a 'eh, why?', and not with a 'bad boy, you have no reason for that!' or a 'how do you dare give a spam4im'. Probably even for an editor who has a history of being harsh or too fast.

Now here, I don't think that this was the case, none of these examples seem to apply. And I have not seen 'obvious mistakes' by Amanda, the additions were careful, and (for as far as I saw) correct, maybe they could be used better, or maybe some which are superfluous, but if that is all, no reason to revert or stop this editor, maybe, maybe only to try and 'push' this editor to adapt their edits, and to get more out of it. And for as far as I can see, the people questioning Wuhwuzdat are correct. But I still haven't heard from Wuhwuzdat. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. The oral histories collected by the AIP are of inestimable value to the history of physics and Wikipedia is greatly enhanced by being allowed to use them, Xxanthippe (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC).
  • Hmm .. who exactly is disallowing the use of these resources? I have, throughout, strongly encouraged their proper use, and I hope they are being properly used. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The recent event which sparked this RFC/U has been resolved now after much discussion, and I don't think there is much more to gain from discussing here. User Wuhwuzdat is taking a break from editing, possibly indefinately, so there is also little point continuing to discuss long-term issues. I believe that the user has taken these comments on board now, and I hope he will rejoin us after a Wikibreak as he is an excellent user, and will be even better taking on the suggestions to discuss more, and possibly the offering of mentorship/guidance from another editor. Anyone disagree, or agree with a motion to close here? I simply don't think more can be gained here in the short term. --Taelus (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I haven't heard from him, btw. - Dank (push to talk) 00:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I would have no objection to closure following the removal of a couple of inaccurate and smearing comments recently made by one editor. DuncanHill (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I would have had no objection until one commentator decided to use this RfC/U as a platform to cast unfounded aspersions on the very editor whose unwarranted treatment brought us here. The lack of good faith displayed and ignorance of WP:GLAM & WP:COI#Subject and culture sector professionals is staggering. --RexxS (talk) 01:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a more general Request for Comment should be filed if there are further disputes/concerns on policy etc. I believe that all the policy has been quoted here in discussions already, and we risk getting into the cyclical stage of repeating arguments. --Taelus (talk) 01:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I can see that the issue I referred to above is merely one of misunderstanding, and I retract my objection, which I have struck. You are quite right about repetition of arguments, although I think that airing of the policy issues will have been beneficial for all of us. We do need to spell out much more clearly how we should approach the situation when a large new resource becomes available. I hope we don't have to go through all this again when the American Chemical Society puts online their oral transcripts of interviews of notable chemists, and so on. --RexxS (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest to close this as well. We run into cyclic arguments, and Wuhwuzdat seems to have, at least for now, left the project. It is a bit useless to comment when the person under comment if the editor is not here to defend/explain. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if this is important, but WWD just changed his status to "semi-retired". - Dank (push to talk) 02:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have asked an uninvolved admin to review this discussion, and close the RfC if this is enough consensus to do so, since it has seemed to go stale anyway. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This view now contains an extended threaded discussion which really belongs on the talk page. If no-one objects, I'll move it to this section of the talk page in the near future. --RexxS (talk) 12:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes please, especially as it contains irrelevant comments about sockpuppets which have nothing whatsoever to do with Wuhwuzdat or Amanda.nelson12. DuncanHill (talk) 12:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion moved from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wuhwuzdat

In response to Pharaoh of the Wizards

At no point has Amanda.nelson12 suggested she just intended to add the links and leave. Nor has she suggested anyone else would use the account. --RexxS (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read her userpage that the project is over and she has come to post the links and here in the RFC talk page She states AIP really wanted to post these links and further we felt that wikipedia would be a good platform to put them on and she is editing at the bidding of AIP management.It is group promotion and posting on Wikipedia is merely part of it.This is a General Comment about role account and again I apologise if appears directed to a specific editor.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

In response to Outside view by Beetstra

we need not be considered with multiple other organizations trying to add similar links, as the AIP is the acknowledged leader in the field & there is no serious competitor or alternative. We need people doing similarly in other subjects, and the sooner we can get the material here, the better DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

True, DGG, which does not mean that every article that corresponds with one of their articles has to have the link. I have always argued that editors should be considerate when adding (and here, I think, that is what mainly happened). But that is not why we are here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

there may conceivably be some exceptions, for I have only spot-checked, but I would say that every instance I've seen in their list seems to be a suitable EL for the person concerned; I would go further, and say that inclusion there is a sufficient criterion for notability, and that the ones without articles should get articles. All in all, I consider their work of higher quality than ours, and their criteria for notability much more likely to be reliable. DGG ( talk ) 20:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I endorse the comment above of DGG. All the links added by the AIP that I have looked at have substantially enhanced the relevant article. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC).

I endorse what is written here even major institutions and libraries do spam and need to discuss first and contact off Wiki and all the rest Now 98% of Mass Linking done by new users in Wikipedia is spam and a newbie will never engage in Mass Linking ,reporting in ANI , etc from there first edit now this Clearly Fails the Duck Test and hence Wuhwuzdat issued the 4 level warning.Users being blocked for edits like filing Reports in the ANI/Arbcom etc in there first edit and WP:AGF and WP:BITE does not apply if you fail the Fail the Duck Test .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

And there's the problem in a nutshell. Blind application of the essay WP:DUCK lead to the abandonment of the guideline WP:AGF. An editor who adds a different link to 60 different articles looks like a spammer, so therefore the assumption is made that they must be a spammer. But we've seen that each link, once examined, is a valid edit, and Amanda.nelson12 is not a spammer. Can the failure to AGF in any specific case be justifiable? Of course it can. Can the failure to discuss such an abandonment of AGF be justifiable? Never. --RexxS (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but in doing that, you also fail to assume good faith on Wuhwuzdat; The first editors to object only objected or yelled at Wuhwuzdat, no one of you asked Wuhwuzdat if they had a reason. You are all right, I don't see the reason, and a reason has not been presented, but you all simply assume that there is no reason. This may be sock #15, or see all the other scenario's I have drafted on the talkpage. No one of you considered that. And now we are here to discuss Wuhwuzdat's edits. True, some 'newbie' spam fighters are sometimes too aggressive, and sometimes should take more care (I know I should have in the beginning), but these assumptions are often put onto the regular spam-fighters here (how often have I seen Hu12 on AN/I, how often did I get yelled at, name them, we've have all heard it). It is simply true that people tend to first yell at the spam-fighter, until they are presented with the proof of wide scale - multi wiki spammers with massive errors in their linking and being here for the wrong reasons though with a good link. We are requesting a comment on Wuhwuzdat, I agree with seeing what I see that you are right, and that the spam4im and the reverting are too fast, but shooting first, then being surprised that you get a 'rude' response upon which a RfC/U is filed .. hmm, well, I know the feeling.

DGG, the links added were practically all fine, only minimal 'concerns', and certainly no concerns for as far as I could see to warrant mass reversion (I have explained when I would have; and I actually reverted all of Wuhwuzdat's removals except for a few which I actually used). The question if we want these links is not the question that we ask here, and I hardly think that anyone here will actively disagree with the fact that we want the info or links. We are merely discussing 'how the links were added', 'how Wuhwuzdat reacted to that', 'how editors reacted to Wuhwuzdat's warning/reverting', and 'how Wuhwuzdat reacted to the reaction of the editors who reacted to Wuhwuzdat's warning/reverting'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Dirk, but I simply cannot agree that when I posted the Request to reconsider, I failed to assume the good faith of WWD. I outlined the reasons why I considered WWD was wrong in this case as politely as I could, and drew his attention to the developing consensus. If he wanted to supply a reason for his actions, that was the invitation. Instead he chose to reply in this fashion. I'd appreciate it if you read those two diffs, and then consider the seriousness of accusing me of failing to AGF. You really need to be addressing the reason why I started this RfC/U, not attempting to validate WWD's actions by smearing me, which in my humble opinion will simply lead him to believe that he can continue to behave in the manner he did. --RexxS (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

What I see are objections and a request to withdraw. There is no 'why did you issue the spam4im, did we miss something'? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(I must say, RexxS, yours were not the first remarks, so at that point the situation was already aggravated). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

And as you all insisted, there have in the past been two other single purpose accounts, whose only edits were adding links to aip.org to external links sections (42 and 41 recorded additions each; one in early 2008, one in late 2008/early 2009). However, as far as I can see have there been no interactions between these two users and Wuhwuzdat (nor tried anyone to get more out of these two editors, there are only welcome templates on their talkpages, nor did these editors try to do so). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Dirk, for future reference, if I see a 4im that I believe to be improper and which is likely to lead to an improper block, you're saying I shouldn't object to it, just try to engage the issuer in conversation? DuncanHill (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No. What I believe is that the {{uw-spam4im}} was, for all of us in retrospect, a too strong a warning. What I do think is that Wuhwuzdat should have been more careful there. However, I think that many people who reacted on Wuhwuzdat's actions could have said something along the lines of 'I think that that {{uw-spam4im}} that you issued is a very strong warning, and that you give it very fast after minimal attempts to communicate with the editor. I do see that the editor does react to some of the concerns earlier editors have issued, and the edits that the editor is performing is not run-of-the-mill spam (but actually a good link, and I believe it is a useful resource for us to expand articles), could you explain to me why you jumped to a {{uw-spam4im}} immediately, and could you explain why you reverted all edits?'. If that does not give a satisfying answer, then indeed we would arrive here anyway. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Meantime, good faith editor adding useful links is blocked because the warner has gone to AIV or to a friendly admin on the "anti-spam team". There's a reason editors get upset with the "spam-fighters" and in part it's because you (as a group) operate like a closed-shop, dismissive of outside concerns and owning policy and practice. Threads I've seen on AN or ANI have come about after refusal to discuss with outside editors, and as I said before, anyone familiar with Wuhwuzdat's history would be justified in assuming that he doesn't respond to requests to debate or reconsider. DuncanHill (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, that sometimes it looks like just a good faith editor who is adding good links, but as I explained above, there may be much behind it. Many of us on the "anti-spam team" first try, I'd like to see where I have ever assumed bad faith without proper concerns, or where I have blocked a good-link-spammer who did absolutely nothing wrong. As far as I can recall, if I use the block tool on such editors, then there is a reason to stop them as they generate cleanup work. I don't think it is a refusal to discuss, but remarks are often of the type that implies (or just says) "we do not want links to useful, reliable resources such as yours.", yes, we do, but if we revert good additions then there is a reason.

That he does not respond to requests to debate or reconsider should not be a reason to not try again, I think. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to respond without pointing fingers, but at least one admin previously mentioned by you has blocked and explicitly refused to discuss, his "colleagues" engaging in personal attacks on me when I questioned his behaviour. Even though it was established in that case that the links were good and should remain, and the block was bad and was undone, we lost the cooperation and goodwill of a good academic source. If you revert good additions - you are doing something wrong. Revert bad additions all you like, you'll get nothing but praise. When editors start questioning specific "spam fightin" you (the group) need to stop and ask yourselves if you are actually benefitting the encyclopaedia, or just removing links because "that's what we do". DuncanHill (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I knew we were going to get there (I hoped we could avoid that, and I am sorry that it has to come to this), the quote in the previous post is practically a phrase from you, quite some time ago. The editor in question started multiple socks, added some good links and quite some in places where they did not belong, etc. etc. In other words, it needed to be cleaned. As far as I can see, it was your first post to that editor. However, after a couple of blocked accounts and a handful of warnings, the editor realised what went wrong. However, there were more editors complaining that 'we' did wrong, than editors trying to rescue the situation. First shoot. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said earlier, Duncan, we are not here to walk behind others cleaning up their mess, if there are several mistakes, then it is simply better to revert all and do a thoughtfull re-insertion of the good ones, leaving the mess is what everyone wants to do, and I do see where it brings us. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I've probably said that to more than one editor - in fact I'm sure I have. The case I had in mind was an admin who said they were unavailable for discussions, yet continued admin actions in the face of objections from several editors. I do not recall any allegations of sockpuppetry in that case, indeed the alleged "spammer" was editing under their real name, as could easily be verified. If you're thinking of the Alabama encyclopaedia case, yes I think the initial blcks were wrong, and your team could and should have done more to engage constructively rather than the standard "you are wrong and we are right" welcome that goes out. DuncanHill (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Mwaagh, I do think that I have been at the basis of quite some proper collaborations. But feel free to walk behind me when I try to contact editors and improve me where I can. I'll go on using one of the external databases (a commercial one, even) to improve some articles) by linking to it. Much needed, I am afraid. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

As I tried to make clear, it wasn't you but another admin I was referring to, and to the responses I have had from "anti spammers" generally. We should be welcoming with open arms bodies like the AIP or Gresham College or regional encyclopaedias written by experts, instead of greeting them with suspicion, templated warnings and blocks. DuncanHill (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I know, Duncan, and I think we are looking at the same issue from two different sides. From my view, I do get attacks, insults, direct questions, &c. tossed at me from people who I reverted (real spammers), and when I get that sort of questions, I am not always friendly, tactical and giving a complete or proper response. Unfortunately, I do sometimes also get such responses from others, and the one I quoted of you above is, in my feeling, one of that type of responses. However, I do not believe that we think 'we don't want your link here' (for sure not me). However (and now we get to a similar discussion I had earlier), generally I get more feedback on concerns from real spammers then what I get from genuine good-link 'spammers'. If I say to a GLAM 'hey, nice work, that is really a link that we can use. However, e.g. with [this] edit you include a link here, and I believe that that is wrongly placed' .. I get, often, no response. If those link additions include plain mistakes (e.g. of the type 'your John Doe is not our John Doe'), and I tell that, then often what do you get .. no response .. they tend to just continue, sometimes making more of those mistakes. I put it in a previous discussion, that they portray themselves there as sitting in a dusty archive, behind an old green-on-black CRT monitor, editing Wikipedia in silence, and they do try to avoid any form of contact. Sometimes you have to poke really hard.

Now, I don't expect GLAM's to become fully socially active on Wikipedia. I can live with them adding links only (though I do hope that I can persuade them to become socially active, or to really use their info, and to submit a list so we can find missing ones .. but they don't have to). However, when I poke such an editor, pointing them to mistakes in their edits, or asking them other questions, or whatever, then I do expect them to respond. I don't know anymore how to get the word out to them, but please, please, when someone talks to you, respond to them. Not just adjust a bit and go on .. is it me, or are so many GLAMs like this? Are we really doing something wrong with asking them questions, expressing concerns with some things, trying to get into contact. Is the system so un-transparant here? It sometimes leaves me discouraged, without solution. It may be that we 'anti-spammers' notice earlier that we have another account 'spamming' their links (well, sometimes I can do it automated .. so that is easy), and if I click random 5-6 out of their 50 additions, and find 2 with a mistake, then OK, I am wrong in extrapolating that then in total 20-30 are wrong, but do I really have to check them all (I am happy to do that, and to remark to the editor) .. and when I did and tried to contact the editor and they did not respond but just proceeds with the next 50 (maybe, or probably, with some errors), do I then still have to do that .. and other questions I may have to them ..

I would be really grateful if one of those in-the-field would also post such things on blog posts that GLAMs read. I know we have the name of being hostile to such editors, but for now, many of them have the name of being otherworldly for me. Is there something I missed there? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)(expanded a bit --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC))

(ec x2) So, simply because I didn't specifically request a reason, you conclude that I failed to AGF? I emphatically refute that conclusion. I assumed that the editor had a good reason for their actions, and I also assumed that they had the best of intentions. That's the assumption of good faith. But even an editor with good reasons and good intentions can be mistaken. When that happens in a collaborative environment, the editor has a duty to consider reasonable criticism, and to respond constructively. You are quite correct that I was not asking WWD to supply a reason for his actions, but I was asking him to think again about his actions in the light of the criticism and consensus – that's as clear an invitation to discuss as can be, and is one of the purposes of a talk page (where it was posted). I remain offended that you can construe my invitation to discussion as a failure to assume good faith. --RexxS (talk) 14:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Rexxs, as I mentioned, the situation was already heated at that point, I think that it was more the earlier reactions that aggravated the situation, not your post. You are right, your post did not assume that, but I think that Wuhwuzdat was already in a position where everyone seemed to be thinking that he did wrong. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Expanding on this, Rexxs, I am not pointing fingers to anyone in specific. All I want to say there, is that Wuhwuzdat was at that moment told by several people that he was wrong, while they was doing what they thought what was right. It does not excuse a rude answer back to any of you, and they could have explained even without being asked, but the total sets an atmosphere under which I don't think it is strange that they reacted as they reacted (and yes, I have felt similarly, as have many spam fighters, as we do tend to get such reactions first). I don't feel that that was a good moment to also start an RfC/U. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and let me say that I understand and empathise with the obvious dismay that respected spam fighters such as yourself must feel when you receive unjustified criticism. I also respect your opinion that it was not a good moment to also start an RfC/U, although I have to disagree with it. Look at this diff – which I feel is very politely worded – and follow it forward. You'll see that WWD uses your post to Amanda Nelson to justify the warning and then repeat the accusation of spamming (even though your post states "Amanda, your links are not spam"). He next replies to a third editor – who actually does ask "why is it linkspam?" – with an edit summary of spam spam eggs bacon and spam. His next contribution to the thread makes an explanation of sorts: "I have a ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY towards all spammers..I treat em all the same." and adds "Further discussion, short of a direct order from an admin, aimed at attempting to persuade me to remove this well deserved warning from the spammers talk page, is pointless.".

I'm not willing to be treated as a second class citizen because I'm not an admin; so I believe I was justified when I then made my request to reconsider, as I do not accept that WWD had even come close to addressing the valid points being made. At that point I was met with the proverbial "brick wall" – and not a particularly politely constructed one, at that.[1][2]

So tell me, what was my correct course of action at that point? - Forget it and accept that I can't question another editor's actions because I don't have a block button? - Bang my head against the brick wall again at his talk page? - or follow our dispute resolution procedure? Examine that section: I moved to the first stage applicable (RfC/U) "the main avenue for disputes about user conduct". As far as this RfC/U goes, it's a pity that WWD isn't prepared to engage in examining the issues raised, as I believe that very little effort on his part would be required to resolve the dispute between us. If he actually accepts that he should discuss criticism constructively in future, then why not say so? If he still believes he can "blow off" criticism in the way he has done so far, then I have little doubt that we will soon arrive at RfArb. --RexxS (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I answer to a lot above in the answers to Duncan. I believe that the atmosphere there was direct, hard (and apparently justified to be that), however, I can't expect Wuhwuzdat, who at that time believes that he is right, to then not answer also a bit harsh. I appreciate that it was followed by friendlier posts, and I tried later as well, but the atmosphere was already .. polluted.

Now, of course I don't know if that would have helped, and there are other issues here as well in this RfC/U, on which I have not commented. That may, overall, indeed be enough reason to start this RfC/U .. But if I see the situation which made people initiate this RfC/U, then I do believe that that was not optimally handled, and my disagreement with that is expressed in my posts to Duncan. I do hope with you that they mellowed out a bit, and will react with a bit more concern. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, after two years of active editing, this is the first time I've felt that only course left was to start an RfC/U. I did so in the hope that I could go back to Amanda Nelson and say that her warning was a mistake, and that Wikipedia actually does value her contributions. I also hoped sincerely that Wuhwuzdat would be able to see that there was a problem with his responses to other editors and make a resolution to handle those better in future. When I look at WWD's contributions, I see a prolific and hard-working editor who has made 39,000 edits in twelve months. Of those, 11,000+ are deleted edits, which tells me he has accurately prodded a huge number of poor articles (mainly using twinkle). I see 1,700+ UAA reports. Looking at his awards, I also see a lot of anti-vandalism and anti-spam work as well as RPP. I have no doubt that he has been a great asset to the project. But looking at his talk page archives (User talk:Wuhwuzdat/Archive 1, etc.), I see an editor who has gradually grown less inclined to discuss his edits. I do understand that it must be more than annoying to politely explain to the complainants that they have breached our policies 99.9% of the time – he is indeed remarkably accurate in his work. A degree of bitterness is understandable. But compare his responses at User talk:Wuhwuzdat/Archive 1#User:NMS Publishing and the next one (CSD on J. Ledbetter) with his responses to Taleus and me. I'd love to be able to approach User:The ed17 and ask him to reconsider his removal of twinkle from WWD, and see WWD go back to his prolific work. But I can't at present, because I have no confidence that the next time he makes a one-in-a-thousand mistake, he won't "blow-up" on his critics in the way he did here. I find it deeply discouraging that the RfC process, entered into with the best of intentions, can fail so badly to bring us any closer to a resolution. I hope that whoever closes this will accept my comments in the spirit in which they were intended, and reflect in the summary my deep disappointment. --RexxS (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it is often the case with this type of discussions. AN/I, AN, RfC .. they sometimes work, and sometimes they utterly fail. In the end, all you can do is to hope that the editor in question is collaborating. If that is not the case, then chances are that everything escalates. I hope that Wuhwuzdat has now reconsidered after this, and that it has an effect, even if this RfC does not come to a conclusion. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Pharoah, please re-read the page histories. She declared who she is and what she was doing at 14:03 on the 13th[3]. The "Final Warning" was made at 16:04 on the 15th [4] (that's two days later if you are having difficulties)> There is no suggestion of a role account, so please remove your unfounded implication of one. DuncanHill (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
• Thanks for pointing this out removed it mixed up the dates sorry.Just to clariy on the role account issue,this archives are being put up on Here on facebook ,maintaining there website, and posting it on Wikipedia is merely part of this.GLAM staff are a team trying to promote there resources on the internet not an individual and this is done as part of there work and from the office in office hours.I know this personally.This is done through many websites,Facebook and other areas now entering Wikipedia and it is just one and the decision to post the links here was taken by AIP.She writes AIP really wanted to post these links and another comment is we felt that wikipedia would be a good platform to put them and this clearly shows she is editing as a staff of AIP and not independently.This is a general comment about role Account not a specfic one my unconditional apologies if it appeared to this specific Editor Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

but she is right, that they do improve the encyclopedia. There is nothing wrong with her taking advice from colleagues. I'm not a heavy user of IAR, but if we need that to get the links we should do so, and we should consider more generally the possible need for role accounts in such cases, so we won;t have to use it regularly. The only relevant question is whether the links are appropriate, not the technicalities of who is an appropriate user. DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Can this be closed now? Amanda is no longer contributing, Wuhwuzdat is editing locomotive articles, all that could usefully be said has been said, and this can be added to the long list of RfCUs which achieved nothing at all. DuncanHill (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Support closure, this has been pretty much stale for some time now, and there is nothing more that can really be achieved. --Taelus (talk) 08:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)