This page is an
archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.
The user is introducing the link as a reference for area populations. I don't see the link as acceptable as a
reliable source...it does not appear to be from an authoritative source but it is second sourcing census.gov. In some cases, he is replacing the .gov source, changing the numbers, and loosely citing the .gov source while introducing the link (
example). I have attempted to stop him and discuss this on his talk page but he has not responded but instead continues to introduce these links which I now see as
RefSpam. I reverted him a couple of times so he might take notice but he is plodding on without responding. I will notify him of this discussion. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► (
(⊕))00:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the removal of the link where used for raw statistical data. The statistical data appears to be scraped from multiple sources - it would be better to use those originating sources as the refs. In a few cases, the site also performs some analysis of that data to generate rankings and similar derivative information. For that purpose, the site appears to be a reliable source ... however, those few uses could easilly be white-listed if the root domain were blacklisted due to the persistent abuse.
I'll look a bit closer at all of this when I have access to my primary computer again ... my current access is somewhat limited. ---
Barek (
talk) -
00:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
REFSPAM for this self-published website.
The material added, example
here in
Innovation, is often (I have not checked every one) taken word-for-word from the cited netvalley.com article.
Knff took exception
here at
Talk:Hewlett-Packard to my reversion of an edit by
Brigclark composed partly of a lengthy passage lifted directly from the New York Times, and partly of editorial opinion cited to netvalley.com. He is lobbying in that section and on his talk page
here for netvalley.com to be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia, due to its use as a reference elsewhere on the web. --
CliffC (
talk)
15:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Dear CliffC, you wrote: "He is lobbying in that section and on his talk page
here for netvalley.com to be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia, due to its use as a reference elsewhere on the web."
The last word - Web - looks like a typo. I provided you with a List of more then 100 printed books (the printed Encyclopedias including) that more then 12 years use netvalley as a reputable source. You've read the long list of these printed books and wrote in your complain that I tried to convince you that "netvalley.com to be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia, due to its use as a reference elsewhere on the web." .
I guess it was a typo, because ... printed books vs. Web references ... both of us understand the difference. Am I correct?--
Knff (
talk)
15:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Also, CliffC wrote: "lengthy passage lifted directly from the New York Times". What he called a "lengthy passage" is the following 3 short phrases:
On September 7, 2010 H.P. filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of California in Santa Clara against former CEO Mark Hurd. The suit accused Mr. Hurd of violating his severance agreement to protect H.P.’s confidential information by taking a job as co-president of Oracle, an H.P. rival and partner. H.P. filed its complaint less than a day after Mr. Hurd joined Oracle and gained a seat on the board.
This quotation was supported by references to the author, the link and detailed description of the source. I also provided CliffC -- see the discussion page of HP article -- with detailed clarification that this kind of short quotation can be consider as a
Fair use and he again do not mention this part of our discussion in his complain... --
Knff (
talk)
15:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Knff continues to add REFSPAM sourced to self-published website netvalley.com. I have removed the latest few and left a note on his talk page advising him of this discussion. --
CliffC (
talk)
04:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
__________________
Dear CliffC, if you prefer we can continue our discussion here. I still am not sure why you think that a couple of phrases from NY Times article needs to be rewritten to be included to the HP article. After all I doubt that many people can write better than NY Times authors. I also would like to bring to your attention that, unlike you, Enciclopedia Britanica and other reputable science and educational organizations consider netvalley.com a reputable source.
As I've wrote to you 18 February 2011 at the HP page discussion, Google's book section provides long List of more then 100 books that were printed during recent 14 years and used netvalley.com as one of the most reliable source.
For your convenience below please find a couple of the tittles of List of these books:
Encyclopedia of new media: an essential reference to communication ...
Encyclopedia of computer science and technology
Sergey Brin and Larry Page: the founders of Google
Statistics: the art and science of learning from data
Information resources management: global challenges
Roles and perspectives in the law: essays in honour of Sir Ivor ...
Innovation and the communications revolution: from the Victorian ...
Law, economics and cyberspace: the effects of cyberspace on the ...
Financing economic development in the 21st century
Politics on the Internet: a student guide
The Internet: a historical encyclopedia
Dictionary of media and communications
Science and Society
. . . . . . . . . .
You can get your own version of this List (that include the citation's page # and it's screen shot), if you will type "netvalley.com" at the Google search's book section.
If you don't rely on traditionally printed book and prefer online sources only, you can take a look for instance to the Encyclopedia Britannica that provide link to the "The Roads and Crossroads of Internet History" section of netvalley.com from the following page:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/291494/Internet
Let me remind to you again. that HURD part of HP history valuable one and concealing it would be a mistake and disservice to wikipedia users.
I guess you understand that just crying "spam" could not be consider as an answer to my question: why do you prefer to hide one of the most important fact of computer industry history?
PS. As I can see it now, you also removed my contribution to the
Browser wars article. It was a quotation from Jim Barksdale, President and CEO of Netscape Communications. The quotation was removed because it can be found - on the Web - at the netvalley.com only. So. now you consider the eBook "The Roads and Crossroads of Internet History" as a spam too ... Did you try at least to open the the page
http://www.netvalley.com/cgi-bin/intval/net_history.pl?chapter=4 that you decided to call a spam?
What else do you intend to do in order to hide the "Hurd Saga" at the HP page? I asked Google about it and now I can help you. There is a long quotation from netvalley.com at the
Bill Clinton article -- Section "First term, 1993–1997" -- too. Not enough? Go to Al Gore page and search for key-phrase "S 2594 Supercomputer Network Study Act of 1986". Please remove them first and I will provide you with some more tips ... — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Knff (
talk •
contribs)
13:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
PPS. I hope that respective team of wikipedia Editors will finally clarify you the difference between high quality content and spam. Perhaps someone even remind you the basic rule: 'every time when you block someone from an opportunity to contribute the high quality content, you rise the level of spam'. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Knff (
talk •
contribs)
14:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Netvalley is a
self-published source, Knff says so himself on his talk page. Second, the users listed above seem to take a casual view of copyright, that is, they think it's acceptable to use reporting from someone else's copyrighted material so long as it's put in a quote box and attributed. I don't think Wikipedia should be an collection of quotes taken directly from someone else's work.
I took exception to Knff'sBrigclark's addition
here to
Hewlett-Packard because in discussing former CEO
Mark Hurd it included editorial opinion about California employment law.
Knff defended Brigclark's edit, in what became an extended discussion at
Talk:Hewlett-Packard. That section deserves a full reading by anyone interested in this subject. Summing it up, I question whether netvalley is a reliable source, and why an editor would want to use a long string of reportage from the NY Times instead of simply paraphrasing it. I see that as a copyright violation. Knff says he wants to get material about what he calls the "Hurd Saga" into the HP article; I suggested a way to do it. He didn't answer my question "Is your goal at Wikipedia to improve the HP article by expanding on Hurd's career, or to get a link to netvalley.com installed?". Looking at the edits of the users listed above, it looks like the goal is to add links.
As to my reverting
this recent Knff edit to
Browser wars, I considered it
WP:REFSPAM, inserted to promote a site. Taking a second look at the text today, it doesn't seem like a Barksdale "quote" at all - the language seems clumsy and I can't find this quote or anything like it on the web, except at netvalley. --
CliffC (
talk)
20:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
__________
Thank you Binksternet. Unfortunately our opinions have no effect on CliffC position. He does not want or just can’t understand that netvalley.com that originally, in 1995, was a "self published site", since then has been evaluated and checked hundreds of times by dozens of leading world publishers and now is considered by educational and scientific publications as one of the most reliable sources of information.
On a number of occasions CliffC looked at the long list of printed books and magazines regularly quoting netvalley.com, but still he keeps repeating that it is a self published source and therefore he would continue removing it from articles. The arguments he uses to additionally justify his position are really impressive:
1) CliffC deleleted my contribution to HP related aricle in part because: 'there are probably few "important facts" (not opinions) about Hurd available at netvalley.com that have not already been published by mainstream media...'. --CliffC 14:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
2) CliffC deleleted my contribution to the "Browsers Wars" aricle in part because as he wrote, 'I can't find this quote or anything like it on the web, except at netvalley.' --CliffC 20:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
When there are other sources, CliffC insists that the source that I offered should not be used. In situations when he can’t find sources other than the ones I propose, CliffC suggest that using my sources is a bad idea because he found none.
Some of recent CliffC arguments became even more impressive: 'As to my reverting this recent Knff edit to Browser wars, ... it doesn't seem like a Barksdale "quote" at all - the language seems clumsy...' --CliffC 20:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
You might be sure that if somebody will bring an original transcript of the interview with Barksdale that contain the netvalley.com "quote", nothing will be changed for CliffC, because it looks like this is not about the facts at all...
--
Knff (
talk)
07:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
_________
Okay, I will concede that a search of the Google books section for netvalley.com shows that your online magazine has been mentioned as a reference on the Internet by scores of books, from Encyclopedia of computer science and technology, to Textbook of bladder cancer, to Demonology Revealed.
Moving on to
reference spam, the subject of this report, the editors listed above (whose writing style seems distinctly similar to your own) all cite netvalley.com, or they simply
defend a netvalley link whose removal has been threatened. There seems to be a
conflict of interest, defined as "contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups", in the edits these editors, including yourself, have made.
I have made a concession. Will you concede that you have a
conflict of interest when adding netvalley links to Wikipedia? Acknowledging a conflict of interest would mean that in future you would suggest updates on article talk pages rather than editing the articles directly. --
CliffC (
talk)
19:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
At the bottom of the wiki page for
Khoa Do, Australian of the Year, there seems to be spam at the bottom about "Ariveinthan Mageswaran". A quick google search confirms that he seems to have spammed his way onto multiple pages which he is not related to. I tried to edit but it doesn't seem to show up - any solutions guys? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
117.120.16.131 (
talk)
06:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I just got through removing about 15 external links to marvelousessays.com. Using the names of
Hey2man,
Jenny2jen and
So2so, someone appeared to be going alphabetically through the list a university articles insert spam links to this site.
For example, see
here,
here,
here or
here.
Isn't there a way to globally block external links to a site such as this? Justin W Smithtalk/stalk16:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether this one falls in the category spamming, but this user has added links to
this website to a number of articles in the last few days. Looking at the website, it is operated by a Christopher McLeod, which seems to me, that there is a possible conflict of interesst and a political agenda.
Calistemon (
talk)
03:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Besides the spamming behavior, the pages linked seem commercial in touting their "consultant surgeons" and "interdisciplinary team", as well as selling anatomy courses. --
CliffC (
talk)
21:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
This edit leaves me a little wary as to the unending list of signs I've seen in airports the last couple of days of "such and such company runs such and such software." The edit in question isn't really a concern, the user that added it is obviously not a SPA, but it still leaves me wary.
SDY (
talk)
15:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Today's edits by this user have been almost entirely citation spam adding the website www.pv-magazine.com.
The other major edit was making the request
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/pv magazine. This was declined, but the user subsequently showed bad faith by changing the decline message to a "Review pending" message with
this edit.
The user's apparent
linkedin page suggests the user is an online marketing specialist who works for pv magazine, so has COI issues: "I am currently living in Berlin and work in pv magazine, a monthly trade journal for the photovoltaics (PV) industry. I also run a small business with a partner that specialises in web design and online marketing".
Please consider reverting the rest of this user's edits made today, and possibly earlier. Does the user merit blocking? I have already hand reverted some changes that add implausible content citing www.pv-magazine.com, as it is not a WP:RS. Not all edits are clearly implausible though. Thanks.
Rwendland (
talk)
18:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Either a strange coincidence or they have decided to mix in citations of pv-magazine.com with innocuous edits. Paulzubrinich also seems to have a special dislike for pv-tech, removing links to their site and even non-link references to papers written by them. -
MrOllie (
talk)
19:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I would regard that as abusive sockpuppetry to evade scrutiny. I spam4im'ed the three other spammers two days ago, naturally they register another account on the same day.
MER-C09:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
This page is an
archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.
The user is introducing the link as a reference for area populations. I don't see the link as acceptable as a
reliable source...it does not appear to be from an authoritative source but it is second sourcing census.gov. In some cases, he is replacing the .gov source, changing the numbers, and loosely citing the .gov source while introducing the link (
example). I have attempted to stop him and discuss this on his talk page but he has not responded but instead continues to introduce these links which I now see as
RefSpam. I reverted him a couple of times so he might take notice but he is plodding on without responding. I will notify him of this discussion. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► (
(⊕))00:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the removal of the link where used for raw statistical data. The statistical data appears to be scraped from multiple sources - it would be better to use those originating sources as the refs. In a few cases, the site also performs some analysis of that data to generate rankings and similar derivative information. For that purpose, the site appears to be a reliable source ... however, those few uses could easilly be white-listed if the root domain were blacklisted due to the persistent abuse.
I'll look a bit closer at all of this when I have access to my primary computer again ... my current access is somewhat limited. ---
Barek (
talk) -
00:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
REFSPAM for this self-published website.
The material added, example
here in
Innovation, is often (I have not checked every one) taken word-for-word from the cited netvalley.com article.
Knff took exception
here at
Talk:Hewlett-Packard to my reversion of an edit by
Brigclark composed partly of a lengthy passage lifted directly from the New York Times, and partly of editorial opinion cited to netvalley.com. He is lobbying in that section and on his talk page
here for netvalley.com to be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia, due to its use as a reference elsewhere on the web. --
CliffC (
talk)
15:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Dear CliffC, you wrote: "He is lobbying in that section and on his talk page
here for netvalley.com to be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia, due to its use as a reference elsewhere on the web."
The last word - Web - looks like a typo. I provided you with a List of more then 100 printed books (the printed Encyclopedias including) that more then 12 years use netvalley as a reputable source. You've read the long list of these printed books and wrote in your complain that I tried to convince you that "netvalley.com to be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia, due to its use as a reference elsewhere on the web." .
I guess it was a typo, because ... printed books vs. Web references ... both of us understand the difference. Am I correct?--
Knff (
talk)
15:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Also, CliffC wrote: "lengthy passage lifted directly from the New York Times". What he called a "lengthy passage" is the following 3 short phrases:
On September 7, 2010 H.P. filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of California in Santa Clara against former CEO Mark Hurd. The suit accused Mr. Hurd of violating his severance agreement to protect H.P.’s confidential information by taking a job as co-president of Oracle, an H.P. rival and partner. H.P. filed its complaint less than a day after Mr. Hurd joined Oracle and gained a seat on the board.
This quotation was supported by references to the author, the link and detailed description of the source. I also provided CliffC -- see the discussion page of HP article -- with detailed clarification that this kind of short quotation can be consider as a
Fair use and he again do not mention this part of our discussion in his complain... --
Knff (
talk)
15:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Knff continues to add REFSPAM sourced to self-published website netvalley.com. I have removed the latest few and left a note on his talk page advising him of this discussion. --
CliffC (
talk)
04:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
__________________
Dear CliffC, if you prefer we can continue our discussion here. I still am not sure why you think that a couple of phrases from NY Times article needs to be rewritten to be included to the HP article. After all I doubt that many people can write better than NY Times authors. I also would like to bring to your attention that, unlike you, Enciclopedia Britanica and other reputable science and educational organizations consider netvalley.com a reputable source.
As I've wrote to you 18 February 2011 at the HP page discussion, Google's book section provides long List of more then 100 books that were printed during recent 14 years and used netvalley.com as one of the most reliable source.
For your convenience below please find a couple of the tittles of List of these books:
Encyclopedia of new media: an essential reference to communication ...
Encyclopedia of computer science and technology
Sergey Brin and Larry Page: the founders of Google
Statistics: the art and science of learning from data
Information resources management: global challenges
Roles and perspectives in the law: essays in honour of Sir Ivor ...
Innovation and the communications revolution: from the Victorian ...
Law, economics and cyberspace: the effects of cyberspace on the ...
Financing economic development in the 21st century
Politics on the Internet: a student guide
The Internet: a historical encyclopedia
Dictionary of media and communications
Science and Society
. . . . . . . . . .
You can get your own version of this List (that include the citation's page # and it's screen shot), if you will type "netvalley.com" at the Google search's book section.
If you don't rely on traditionally printed book and prefer online sources only, you can take a look for instance to the Encyclopedia Britannica that provide link to the "The Roads and Crossroads of Internet History" section of netvalley.com from the following page:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/291494/Internet
Let me remind to you again. that HURD part of HP history valuable one and concealing it would be a mistake and disservice to wikipedia users.
I guess you understand that just crying "spam" could not be consider as an answer to my question: why do you prefer to hide one of the most important fact of computer industry history?
PS. As I can see it now, you also removed my contribution to the
Browser wars article. It was a quotation from Jim Barksdale, President and CEO of Netscape Communications. The quotation was removed because it can be found - on the Web - at the netvalley.com only. So. now you consider the eBook "The Roads and Crossroads of Internet History" as a spam too ... Did you try at least to open the the page
http://www.netvalley.com/cgi-bin/intval/net_history.pl?chapter=4 that you decided to call a spam?
What else do you intend to do in order to hide the "Hurd Saga" at the HP page? I asked Google about it and now I can help you. There is a long quotation from netvalley.com at the
Bill Clinton article -- Section "First term, 1993–1997" -- too. Not enough? Go to Al Gore page and search for key-phrase "S 2594 Supercomputer Network Study Act of 1986". Please remove them first and I will provide you with some more tips ... — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Knff (
talk •
contribs)
13:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
PPS. I hope that respective team of wikipedia Editors will finally clarify you the difference between high quality content and spam. Perhaps someone even remind you the basic rule: 'every time when you block someone from an opportunity to contribute the high quality content, you rise the level of spam'. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Knff (
talk •
contribs)
14:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Netvalley is a
self-published source, Knff says so himself on his talk page. Second, the users listed above seem to take a casual view of copyright, that is, they think it's acceptable to use reporting from someone else's copyrighted material so long as it's put in a quote box and attributed. I don't think Wikipedia should be an collection of quotes taken directly from someone else's work.
I took exception to Knff'sBrigclark's addition
here to
Hewlett-Packard because in discussing former CEO
Mark Hurd it included editorial opinion about California employment law.
Knff defended Brigclark's edit, in what became an extended discussion at
Talk:Hewlett-Packard. That section deserves a full reading by anyone interested in this subject. Summing it up, I question whether netvalley is a reliable source, and why an editor would want to use a long string of reportage from the NY Times instead of simply paraphrasing it. I see that as a copyright violation. Knff says he wants to get material about what he calls the "Hurd Saga" into the HP article; I suggested a way to do it. He didn't answer my question "Is your goal at Wikipedia to improve the HP article by expanding on Hurd's career, or to get a link to netvalley.com installed?". Looking at the edits of the users listed above, it looks like the goal is to add links.
As to my reverting
this recent Knff edit to
Browser wars, I considered it
WP:REFSPAM, inserted to promote a site. Taking a second look at the text today, it doesn't seem like a Barksdale "quote" at all - the language seems clumsy and I can't find this quote or anything like it on the web, except at netvalley. --
CliffC (
talk)
20:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
__________
Thank you Binksternet. Unfortunately our opinions have no effect on CliffC position. He does not want or just can’t understand that netvalley.com that originally, in 1995, was a "self published site", since then has been evaluated and checked hundreds of times by dozens of leading world publishers and now is considered by educational and scientific publications as one of the most reliable sources of information.
On a number of occasions CliffC looked at the long list of printed books and magazines regularly quoting netvalley.com, but still he keeps repeating that it is a self published source and therefore he would continue removing it from articles. The arguments he uses to additionally justify his position are really impressive:
1) CliffC deleleted my contribution to HP related aricle in part because: 'there are probably few "important facts" (not opinions) about Hurd available at netvalley.com that have not already been published by mainstream media...'. --CliffC 14:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
2) CliffC deleleted my contribution to the "Browsers Wars" aricle in part because as he wrote, 'I can't find this quote or anything like it on the web, except at netvalley.' --CliffC 20:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
When there are other sources, CliffC insists that the source that I offered should not be used. In situations when he can’t find sources other than the ones I propose, CliffC suggest that using my sources is a bad idea because he found none.
Some of recent CliffC arguments became even more impressive: 'As to my reverting this recent Knff edit to Browser wars, ... it doesn't seem like a Barksdale "quote" at all - the language seems clumsy...' --CliffC 20:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
You might be sure that if somebody will bring an original transcript of the interview with Barksdale that contain the netvalley.com "quote", nothing will be changed for CliffC, because it looks like this is not about the facts at all...
--
Knff (
talk)
07:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
_________
Okay, I will concede that a search of the Google books section for netvalley.com shows that your online magazine has been mentioned as a reference on the Internet by scores of books, from Encyclopedia of computer science and technology, to Textbook of bladder cancer, to Demonology Revealed.
Moving on to
reference spam, the subject of this report, the editors listed above (whose writing style seems distinctly similar to your own) all cite netvalley.com, or they simply
defend a netvalley link whose removal has been threatened. There seems to be a
conflict of interest, defined as "contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups", in the edits these editors, including yourself, have made.
I have made a concession. Will you concede that you have a
conflict of interest when adding netvalley links to Wikipedia? Acknowledging a conflict of interest would mean that in future you would suggest updates on article talk pages rather than editing the articles directly. --
CliffC (
talk)
19:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
At the bottom of the wiki page for
Khoa Do, Australian of the Year, there seems to be spam at the bottom about "Ariveinthan Mageswaran". A quick google search confirms that he seems to have spammed his way onto multiple pages which he is not related to. I tried to edit but it doesn't seem to show up - any solutions guys? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
117.120.16.131 (
talk)
06:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I just got through removing about 15 external links to marvelousessays.com. Using the names of
Hey2man,
Jenny2jen and
So2so, someone appeared to be going alphabetically through the list a university articles insert spam links to this site.
For example, see
here,
here,
here or
here.
Isn't there a way to globally block external links to a site such as this? Justin W Smithtalk/stalk16:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether this one falls in the category spamming, but this user has added links to
this website to a number of articles in the last few days. Looking at the website, it is operated by a Christopher McLeod, which seems to me, that there is a possible conflict of interesst and a political agenda.
Calistemon (
talk)
03:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Besides the spamming behavior, the pages linked seem commercial in touting their "consultant surgeons" and "interdisciplinary team", as well as selling anatomy courses. --
CliffC (
talk)
21:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
This edit leaves me a little wary as to the unending list of signs I've seen in airports the last couple of days of "such and such company runs such and such software." The edit in question isn't really a concern, the user that added it is obviously not a SPA, but it still leaves me wary.
SDY (
talk)
15:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Today's edits by this user have been almost entirely citation spam adding the website www.pv-magazine.com.
The other major edit was making the request
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/pv magazine. This was declined, but the user subsequently showed bad faith by changing the decline message to a "Review pending" message with
this edit.
The user's apparent
linkedin page suggests the user is an online marketing specialist who works for pv magazine, so has COI issues: "I am currently living in Berlin and work in pv magazine, a monthly trade journal for the photovoltaics (PV) industry. I also run a small business with a partner that specialises in web design and online marketing".
Please consider reverting the rest of this user's edits made today, and possibly earlier. Does the user merit blocking? I have already hand reverted some changes that add implausible content citing www.pv-magazine.com, as it is not a WP:RS. Not all edits are clearly implausible though. Thanks.
Rwendland (
talk)
18:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Either a strange coincidence or they have decided to mix in citations of pv-magazine.com with innocuous edits. Paulzubrinich also seems to have a special dislike for pv-tech, removing links to their site and even non-link references to papers written by them. -
MrOllie (
talk)
19:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I would regard that as abusive sockpuppetry to evade scrutiny. I spam4im'ed the three other spammers two days ago, naturally they register another account on the same day.
MER-C09:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)