User talk:AntiSpamBot/Feb2007

Using bot to remove useful links to Flickr

1. The links to related galleries at Flickr are useful links to the Vulcan statue and Heaviest Corner on Earth articles.
2. Your bot's edit summary indicated that it was following the policy at Wikipedia:External links. I have read the policy, and the closest thing to a restriction on Flickr is the recommendation not to link to search engine results. I think it is reasonable for editors to have a say when the policy is not specific.
3. When I restored the link, I was reverted by another bot that accused me of spamming Wikipedia. I do not appreciate the personal attack, especially the automated personal attack.

--Dystopos 23:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey! on the Heaviest Corner on Earth article, the flickr page seems to show that most of the images are yours. (they are under the same username). Perhaps upload them? You can do so vie Special:Upload. The images in the article would be much better then on flickr. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 00:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The same seems to be true for Vulcan statue, it looks like you were the uploader to flickr. Uploading these images to wikipedia under a free license would be very helpful. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 00:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what would be most helpful, I retain a non-commercial license on the photographs I have uploaded at Flickr. The links in question point to entire galleries of photographs uploaded by multiple users and presenting a resource which can not and should not be reproduced in Wikipedia. Hence the external link. --Dystopos 00:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Regardless it is a conflict of interest for you to be adding that link. Why don't you try requesting on the talk page to see if it really is a good idea. If some of the images can still be uploaded under a Fair use rational, at the very least. I am also going to note that it looks like our page on Heaviest Corner on Earth is a direct copy right violation of http://www.bhamwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Heaviest_Corner_on_Earth . Just compare the page histories. of bhamwiki and wikipedia. It seems like there are issues here no matter how we look at this... —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 00:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have tagged it as such ;) —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 00:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact, if I was aware of the specific guideline about WP:COI I would not have added the external link to BhamWiki (which I founded) to this article. Under the guideline the link should be removed. Some other editor should, I would think, consider restoring it. BhamWiki is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license that is compatible with Wikipedia's, so copyright is not an issue. Regarding Flickr, I still believe the external link should be preserved. The encyclopedia article should not be burdened with numerous photographs. People interested in the subject should be able to find the photographs, though. I do NOT consider it a conflict of interest to link to Flickr's photographs regardless of how many of them are my own work. Flickr has numerous contributors who control their own licensing. --Dystopos 00:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• After a good night's sleep:

The inclusion of Flickr.com on Shadowbot's spam blacklist may have merit, but it is not currently supported by the cited policy (WP:EL). The result is that the bot is enforcing "secret rules" and overturning, in this case, good faith edits by an experienced Wikipedia editor. In reverting my attempts to reverse its actions, the bot also assumes that I am editing in bad faith, a judgment no editor should take lightly, especially a bot. --Dystopos 14:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

EL may not directly state in explicit context but WP:COPYRIGHT WP:COI and others are incorporated into the policy Thus the point of the bot to quote general policy since the bot has no brain it cannot quote specific policy it points to the general policy. As for bad faith the bot cannot assume any faith, so your assumption about it assuming bad faith is incorrect. If you want to use pictures upload them to wikipedia or commons and avoid the whole issue. Cheers Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:COPYRIGHT is the policy that requires external links to Flickr rather than uploading photos from Flickr. The bot did not evaluate the possibility of WP:COI, but assumed, in an operative sense, that links to Flickr might violate some interpretation of the policies which you say are incorporated into WP:EL. Since the policy itself is not explicit, I believe that editors (and I am an editor) -- not bots -- should take responsbility for the judgment call. Therefore, I believe that if the bot reverts the good faith edits of editors who believe that they are operating under approprate guidelines, that the bot is, in an operational sense, acting inappropriately on the assumption of bad faith. --Dystopos 16:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Flickr pictures should be uploaded to Commons. If they do not have copyright status to be uploaded to Commons, we should not be linking to them per WP:EL and WP:COPYRIGHT. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• There is no policy against linking to external media under copyright. An external link is the absolutely correct way to point Wikipedia users toward additional useful information per WP:EL. --Dystopos 17:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually there is, here: WP:COPYVIO. Copyvio is the number one reason why we don't permit Youtube links, in general. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • From WP:EL "There is no ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by these guidelines. From Wikipedia:Copyright: If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." The caution applies to making links to work which is published in violation of copyright, not to making links to works which are published under copyright. --Dystopos 18:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Incomplete vandalism revert

See [1] - why the bot reverted only the second edit and not the first one, or even both in one instance? The vandal just have to do a first edit below the threshold, a second above, and then the first vandalism will stay for long time as noone checks whether the bot reversion where complete. andy 17:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Shadowbot is NOT a vandalism bot, he is a SPAM bot. He only reverted the most recent edit, because a blacklisted link (example.com) was added. ST47Talk 01:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Example.com

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, 0dd1! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but please note that the link you added in is on my spam blacklist and should not be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an Imageshack or Photobucket image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was genuine spam, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 17:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This was not spam; all I did was add the site's actual address! - Noone 17:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I undid the bot, it is watching example.com as it tends to be used by new users as a test. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 00:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Example.com may be a problematic address to revert automatically, because it is used a lot. This behaviour should be watched over more carefully. Shadowbot made an unintelligent revert here that I had to correct. Wipe 20:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There should be a specific {{test1}} through {{test3}} type warning for example.com More often than not, it's people struggling to use the code addition tools in the edit window. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Bad Revert

A user put an improper external link on Faceparty and then quickly changed it. Shadowbot only recognized the second link as spam and reverted to his original link rather than reverting both edits. Revision is here [2].--Crossmr 23:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Good catch. This should be looked at. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

unremoving vandalism

diff — I am guessing this is a mistake. Jesus still loves you, though. 66.92.170.227 03:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

looks like the bot reverted to an unclean version, thanks for telling! ST47Talk 01:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edit entirely removed the definition I added, which was sourced. Feel free to concede censorship or bad faith, or in fact restore the text added. Have a nice day. 66.92.170.227 03:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Please take this matter to the individual involved, Shadowbot doesn't have anything to do with this problem anymore. Shadow1 (talk) 13:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Regarding edits made to Bugs Bunny in Double Trouble

Hello Shadowbot, I believe you or your bot reverted my edits to Bugs Bunny in Double Trouble, because of spam the first time, for the link right here. I've fixed it to look like this. I hope that the link is not considered spam now.

--Wikipedier 19:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Wikipedier

If it is still considered spam or violates any other policies, then you can remove the link. I added this link to help Wikipedia, and if it's hurting it, it shouldn't be on the article. I'm sorry if it caused harm to the encyclopedia.--Wikipedier 19:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Wikipedier

Bad revert

Shadowbot reverted my addition of a speedy deletion tag here. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 02:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thats odd. That will need to be looked at. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 02:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Bot bug

this bot is bugged and keeps reverting telling this site: http://www.metal-observer.com is black listed... --Dexter_prog (talk • contribs • count) @ 19:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

MP-25 Revert

Hi I added a external link to the Raven arms MP-25 article and this bot reverted the edit because it thought it was spam , this[3] was the website I added it has very important information on the gun and I see nothing bad about it. I think someone (human) needs to look at the website and if there is nothing wrong with it remove the address from the bot's spam blocking list.--DanMP5 ^Talk | ^Contribs 04:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all the website is very helpfull to someone just getting one of these guns because it has instructions on dissasembly & assembly. Secondly it's the only site I can find on the mp-25 that is helpfull, plus the MP-25 article has no external links.--DanMP5 ^Talk | ^Contribs 13:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Shadowbot should take into account that Wikipedia still has a few well-intentioned human editors that haven't been completely driven away by over-active bots and bureaucrats. DanMP5 has no responsibility to satisfy your personal dislike of hometown.aol.com sites. You need to stop making up rules about what is spam and intimidating editors. The guidelines on external links clearly allow editors to make links to sites that offer more information which cannot, for whatever reason, by incorporated into the article itself. --Dystopos 13:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no personal dislike of hometown.aol.com. I placed that rule into the blacklist in order to stop a spambot attacking several articles, and I've since removed the rule. I don't put links onto the blacklist at my own whim, they each have a reason that they are there, and, as far as I can tell, I'm not intimidating editors. Shadow1 (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

When you identify a domain that is being used by a spambot, but that might also have perfectly useful pages that good human editors might in good faith have created links to, there is a problem. The bot calls the link "spam". Attempts to correct its mistake are reverted with a warning against "spamming wikipedia". Shadowbots edit summaries and talk page messages refer to policies which may or may not prohibit the editorial decisions being auto-reverted. And the blacklist you maintain to the best of your conscience is not published. The effect is a private set of rules, enforced by automated processes, which have the intended effect of cleaning up spam. But when the link is not spam, there is an unintended consequence of misusing policy, presuming bad faith and causing intimidation. I take issue with that. --Dystopos 15:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Blacklist is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shadowbot/Blacklist (there will naturally be some links added and others removed). Sadly, when a spambot strikes, there's no way any human editor can revert quickly enough (I'd be happy to show you logs of how quickly spam comes in during such an attack) and whilst it's really unfortunate that one or two good links will be reverted, it's nothing that cannot be quickly sorted out with a quick explanation here or on Shadow's talk page and the bots own safety will stop it reverting the link again. I know Shadow is as careful as possible when adding rules to the bot and it's evidenced by 6000 edits with only a very small number of complaints. -- Heligoland 15:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've seen about a dozen complaints this week alone. I think its worth considering the behavior of the bot when reverting people who restore links it has deleted. Should it be quicker to assume that anonymous users are restoring them in bad faith? Should it assume that if the human editor provides an edit summary explaining why he is overturning the bots decision that maybe there's a good reason? Should the bot refer to policies to which it doesn't strictly adhere instead of the the blacklist to which it does adhere? Wouldn't that help the good-faith human editor respond more productively than having his or her intentions maligned? I'm not saying that Shadowbot hasn't done any good. I'm saying that it is behaving improperly in a significant minority of instances and that changes should be considered. I myself have performed over 3,000 positive edits, but that hasn't stopped Shadowbot from complaining about me. --Dystopos 17:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

And what would you suggest I do to alter the bot's behavior? Shadow1 (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's guidelines on bots can be found at WP:BOT, particularly the requirements that the bot be "harmless" and "abide by all guidelines, policies and common practices." and the sections on "good form" and "repairing damage". My specific suggestions would be (as noted directly above your question) to (A) avoid reverting the actions of editors who restore links deleted by Shadowbot unless the question of spamming is incontrovertible, (B) explain the action of the bot in the edit summary or talk page with reference to its actual parameters (the blacklist) rather than to a policy which it is incapable of interpreting on its own, and (C) the message "Please stop adding inappropriate links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and will be removed. Thanks" assumes bad faith, and should be changed to something like "The link you have added points to a site identified as a possible source of spam by User:Shadow1. If the link meets the requirements of WP:External links, contact an administrator to shut off the bot and leave a message at User Talk:Shadowbot to alert me to the error." --Dystopos 18:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, to get to my original complaint, I believe Flickr.com should be removed from the blacklist because it is, in fact, permissible to make external links to Flickr. (It is also possible to conclude that external links to Flickr are a bad idea, but that conclusion should be brought to WP:SPAM and WP:EL before it is given to Shadowbot to enforce without sanction). --Dystopos 18:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Flickr is on the blacklist as the vast majority of links to Flickr added are direct links to images, and simply don't work. The blacklist isn't solely the work of Shadow, people request links be added and they are looked at by not only Shadow, but some administrators too. An administrator can only block the bot, not turn it on or off, and that's simply not practical, there's no administrators out there who would be willing to do this. What can be done is a user can contact one of the bot operators and we'll review the link and if it's appropriate, we'll ensure it's not reverted. This can be done by one of the bot operators actually reverting Shadowbot as it knows not to revert us, or we can add an exemption for the specific URL. I know it's not ideal, but we're dealing with 9-10,000 external links every day and Shadowbot is automatically reverting a few hundred, so it's only natural one or two links a day will be caught up, we're only trying to keep Wikipedia from being buried under spam, not prevent a specific URL from being added because we're mean or anything, which is why there's always someone who can help on IRC (irc://irc.freenode.net/wikipedia-spam-t) and why we all monitor Shadowbot's talk page. The list of bot operators is available over at WP:WPSPAM.-- Heligoland 19:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Like Douglas Adams, I distinguish between "harmless" and "mostly harmless". If Shadowbot's heroism is going to continue producing collateral damage, then all I can insist on is the above requests that it report what it is actually doing (enforcing a blacklist) instead of what we would like to imagine it is doing (enforcing Wikipedia policy) and that it comply with the policy of assuming good faith instead of calling anyone who crosses it a spammer. --Dystopos 17:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Where in Shadowbot's usual spam1 warning do you see it calling a user a spammer? I have "spam" in the warning to give users a link to the policy, not to insult them. In all honesty, I think Shadowbot's accuracy rate is pretty good, considering it gets over one hundred reversions per day. I believe that User:AntiVandalBot makes occasional false positives and also has the word "vandalism" in its warnings. Shadow1 (talk) 02:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• The spam1 warning asks me to forgive it for undoing my work. When I attempt to correct its error, it tells me that what I am doing is considered spamming. I think it should be more specific about what it is doing and more careful about what it assumes of other editors. With all due respect to its accuracy rate, mine is better, and I have not actually been given an apology to accept. Furthermore, now that I have had the opportunity to observe the bot in action, to review the policy under which it has permission to operate, and to see some of its other collateral damage, I feel justified in making this small request not only on my own behalf, but on behalf of Wikipedia's founding principles. --Dystopos 04:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

So is it Okay if I put the link back into the MP-25 article. --DanMP5 (Talk | Contribs) 04:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The team behind shadowbot has established, that a link to certain external sites is not a link that should appear in the external links sections of documents, and therefore addition of that link is automatically reverted by shadowbot. The first revert gives a message to the policies and guidelines. After that reversion, the person who added the link should read WP:EL and WP:SPAM. I think, in 99.9% of the cases should conclude that, apparently, the link is not appropriate as an external link (hence, consider other options, discuss on the talkpage of the article, etc.). Readdition may indeed result in a stronger warning from shadowbot. WP:EL does already say, that addition should be discussed on the talkpage (I did not check whether that has been done), and after that addition can be considered (a message here, with answer from one of shadowbots operaters before addition, should resolve the reversion-problem).

Now, this seems to be one of those cases, where one of the blacklisted links might be added, it indeed seems to be a unique source (my first 100 Google hits did not really result in a better source). But we can also consider other options.

As established, links on the blacklist are not a reliable source, although the information on such sites may (and in this case probably is) reliable, we can not exclude author error, or worse. And we are not talking about a manual to bake chocolate chip cookies here.

A point in this question is, can this material be included, or is this material suitable for inclusion, in wikipedia. I think that this is the case. One could upload the pictures to the commons, and write the steps out (one might have to make new pictures, I don't know if it is allowed to upload these pictures). The only thing is, wikipedia is not a manual, so that material should be stored somewhere else. WP:NOT gives as an alternative Wikibooks (I think that is the place where manuals should appear). In that case, the manual can be accessed by everyone, can be edited by anyone (which should result in a correct, checked version, and on wikibooks the external link is a reference, not an external link), and the article on wikipedia can contain a link to that manual using e.g. the {{wikibooks}}-template. Hope this helps! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• The practice of shooting first and asking questions later does not, in my opinion, provide for the assumption of good faith that is due to Wikipedia's human editors. I really don't believe Shadowbot should be reverting registered users who reverse its decisions. But if you feel it must, I do believe it should explain itself in terms of its actual behavior and not assert that it is able to interpret Wikipedia policy. The recommendation to discuss disputed links on the talk page is moot as long as the bot will continue to revert whatever consensus develops there. --Dystopos 16:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Readding a link is also not a way to reach consensus, and we do see spamming by registered users also. If Shadowbot reverts the addition, the addition is already controversial, and should be discussed (is the link necessary, are there really no alternatives?). When consensus is that there is really no alternative, a message to shadowbot can result in whitelisting. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

To use a specific example, links to Flickr.com may often be inappropriate, but it is easily possible to create absolutely appropriate links to sets or galleries which satisfy the guideline at WP:EL. (If you disagree with that, it is a matter for discussion at Wikipedia Talk:External links, not here.) For Shadowbot to enforce a blacklisting of the domain casts every link into the realm of controversy and swings the burden onto the person adding the link. This action is acceptable in a case where a human editor has evaluated the specific link with regard to the article and Wikipedia policy, but it becomes an unjustified assumption of bad faith when it is deployed across the article space without reviewing individual cases. If, because of the sheer number of suspect links, there is a use in having bots tend to these broader matters, then at least it needs to be more open to the prospect that the "controversy" is unfounded and the readdition, therefore, uncontroversial. --Dystopos 16:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The burden is on the person adding the link. WP:EL states 'links can be added', not 'links must be added'.. so proof that the link is appropriate should be given. Certain sites have been evaluated, and deemed inappropriate across article space. We'd like to see why flickr sites could be appropriate, could you add a specific example to WT:EL? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this is what I don't understand: If linking to Flickr is often inappropriate, then why not revert Flickr additions? But wait, there's more. What's to say that the Flickr site is actually valid and shouldn't be removed? 'Spam' isn't as defined a word as 'vandalism.' If you want a bot that is able to automatically scan the context in which the link was added, the site that was added, and the user's history that added the link, then determine from those factors whether a link is spam or not, then that's one heck of a bot. Removing spam isn't like removing vandalism, I can't just say "Remove the link if the page that was linked to has characteristics found in spam sites" like I can with vandalism. The only way that I'm aware of to combat wiki spam, at this moment, is to do blanket domain-blacklists, however, I'm working on a way to fix that. Shadow1 (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

(Re: Beetstra) WP:EL states 'links can be added', not 'links should not be added'. The editor who adds the link has taken a considered action. In the absence of a policy that clearly disfavors the editor's action, the burden is on Shadowbot to justify its reversal of an editorial decision. If the blacklist were maintained as an open collaboration with the full weight and standing of WP policy, then fine. But the current situation requires individual editors who may have acted in good faith to justify their actions not only under Wikipedia policy, but to the satisfaction of Shadowbot's cabal of caretakers. The overarching philosophy regarding edits is that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit." Policies are developed carefully and openly to preserve that ideal. The suggestion that editors must first seek explicit permission before making a contribution is quite backwards. Tell me, who has evaluated flickr and deemed it inappropriate across article space? --Dystopos 20:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

(Re: Shadow1) If the bot cannot be made to operate without doing harm or assuming bad faith, then it is in plain violation of WP:BOT ("The burden of proof is on the bot-maker to demonstrate that the bot: (1) is harmless, (2) is useful, (3) is not a server hog, (4) has been approved, and (5) abides by all guidelines, policies and common practices.") It's not a matter of "how much good can we do with a minimum of damage" it's "how can we do good without causing damage at all". --Dystopos 20:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break

Dystopos, you do know that even User:AntiVandalBot has a small amount of error. Cheers —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 22:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• No I was not aware of that. Are you suggesting that the requirements of WP:BOT have been rendered obsolete by the actual performance of bots or merely presenting a red herring ? --Dystopos 23:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the requirements are not obsolete, the bot should be as good as possible. But no bot can be made completely failsafe; find-and-replace-bots make mistakes, interwikibots make mistakes. Bots are only human. The list compiled for shadowbot is good, sites like Flickr, members.aol.com are hardly ever (if ever) appropriate, and should not appear as external links, and in many cases also not as a reference. Including the link in question here, all should either just not be linked, or alternatives should be found. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 00:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"Bots are only human"? It would seem they are something less, and also held to a lesser standard. Let us compromise. We can agree that Shadowbot removes far more spam than it does valid links. We can agree, then, that its effect on Wikipedia is a net positive. We disagree, I think, on a few small points: (1) Regarding the blacklist: I suggest that the bot's edit summary should link to the list as well as refer to the policy on SPAM which it is trying to enforce by using the list. I also suggest that the process of developing the blacklist be made more transparent to users. This will give those negatively affected by the bot's activity a better opportunity to understand what has happened and, if so moved, a better opportunity to participate in reaching consensus on what sites should be on the list. (2) Regarding reverts: I believe Shadowbot is too unforgiving when a human editor reverts its work. Surely the vast majority of spam links are not immediately re-added. Perhaps the bot could be programmed to use more discretion regarding reverts (if the same link is restored to a great number of articles, that's more suspicious than if an experienced editor reverts a link deletion on a single article, for example.) If that is too complex, I suggest that reverts be limited to one and that the bot generate a list of suspect edits when it is reverted twice. That list can be dealt with by human editors. (3) Lastly, where a conflict arises, the user and the bots caretakers should work it out under regular Wikipedia policy without continued automated reverts and without adding an artificial burden of proof. The blacklist is not a policy, it is a sweeping judgment. We should recognize that sweeping judgments are likely to cause unintended damage. --Dystopos 00:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The bot is programmed by a human, and the list is compiled by humans. But indeed, lets try and get constructive:

1) I can agree to that, there is no harm in the bot being as clear as possible. Though a link to WP:EL should already trigger the question 'is my site admittable via WP:EL' I think the process is transparent enough, there are fierce discussions on WT:EL on some subjects, and also on wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam

2) No, the fast majority of links is reverted immediately by the user, most don't take the time to read WP:EL and reconsider if their site, though it might contain the appropriate information, is really allowed. 'Why is my flickr-site-addition reverted by someone, it contains pictures of my holiday in that area', yes, it contains the right information, but it fails some things in WP:EL, pictures can be uploaded to wikipedia, especially when they are your own, external links should be kept to a minimum (one link to your pictures gives other people the right to add their pictures to), it is not an established site, will the link likely be stable, etc. etc.). Similar for the site in question here (members.aol.com), see my alternative higher, and how these points are addressed in WP:EL ('can it be incorporated?'). I would even argue that an experienced user would first rethink .. is my link really allowed? Did I oversee an alternative? Flicker sites are hardly ever, if ever, allowed. And the same goes for the pages on the blacklist.

3) Discussion, getting to consensus can be done at the talkpage of the page in question, WT:EL, wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam, in IRC. When there is a consensus, and shadowbot reverts, then indeed ask shadowbot why the link is still reverted, and ask for whitelisting (it then costs a day, maybe two, but at least you don't get warnings, and when a link is allowed, it does not mean that that link had to be on that page yesterday, it can wait a couple of days). In the meantime, the link should not be in mainspace. The first burden of proof is with the person adding the link, 'is it allowed to have this link?'

By the way, I think in normal mode, shadowbot only reverts once in a row, and alerts us for second additions, except when it is momentarely in 'angry' mode (during a spam-attack), or when a link is on override (example.com comes to mind, that link should never, no exceptions, be in mainspace). Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding Point 1: The question "Is my site admittable via WP:EL" should be asked. But WP:EL describes guidelines that en editor should consider in making external links, it does not draw a specific line, as does the enforcement of a blacklist. It is thus, a step removed from the actions of the bot and so not providing a direct link to the specific list frustrates those who feel they have complied with the policy.

Regarding Point 2: I believe you overstate the policy. When a Flickr link meets the policy requirements, it is an allowed link under that policy. End of story. If most Flickr links don't meet the policy, then the policy should do a much better job of explaining the issue, because right now whatever issues Shadowbot's team has with flickr links are documented in discussions and not in the policy page. (And we're only singling out Flickr because I was asked for an example.) The difference between "what is allowed" and "what makes for the best article" should be handled by editors carrying out improvements, not by bots removing allowed links in order to force someone to do something else. Perhaps if you want the bot to operate in that gray area, its task should be to alert a group of interested editors about opportunities to replace imperfect links by incorporating information from them (fully cited, of course) rather than to merely remove them.

Regarding Point 3: That is incorrect. Links are part of the content of the encyclopedia and there is no burden of proof except what is described in Wikipedia policy (See WP:OWN). The policy does not include a blacklist. Since Shadowbot is subject to the rule that it must not cause harm and must abide by normal Wikipedia policy on content disbutes, the burden is on it to make a case for removing the work of other editors. --Dystopos 14:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Another Bad Revert

Shadowbot reverted it when I put a speedy deletion template for db attack look here Warlordwolf 23:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

blocked

See the AN the bot is misbehaving. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 07:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You over-reverted on the Mansfield article

Because you deleted not only the anonymous IP editor's dubious edit, you also edited out my own SUBSTATIATED edit from the edit list. The members.tripod.com URL linked to in that edit goes back to a fansite that managed to elicit official cooperation for a portion of the website, a page of which I linked to right after I typed up my own edit. Now if you don't raise up any objections of your own, I'd like to reinstate my own edit, please. Also, you didn't touch some other bits of trivia on that page that were a lot more on shaky ground than my little bit. You might want to see about fixing that. (Krushsister 05:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC))

Please realize this is a bot, and it is unable to determine the editorial quality of any part of a page. It is going by blacklisted URL recognition only. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 06:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I was under the impression my feedback would still be read by a human being, the person whose bot this is, and that any feedback given would be used to fine-tune the bot. So I completely understand it's a bot who did the reverting, but I also understood the messages would still need to be directed to a human (the bot's creator). As for "blacklisted URL" -- I was simply trying to substantiate what I had put on the article to show that I wasn't just making up something. I guess this means I'd better try to put back up what I had edited in, though I'll have to search online for another source. (Krushsister 00:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC))

I am the owner of Shadowbot. For future reference, you can always re-add the link. Shadowbot is programmed, by default, to leave you alone if it's removed your edits before, to make sure that non-spam links can still be added. The reason that Shadowbot removed your edits is because you added a members.tripod.com link, which I have Shadowbot remove out of WP:RS concerns. Shadowbot isn't capable of doing anything but removing individual edits, it doesn't pay attention to the rest of the article. Shadow1 (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

that's ok

I am a very new user. And at this stage not really conversant with all the guidelines - though I have read through a lot of them - guess it will take some getting used to. Removing the Flickr link is OK as long as the main article is left alone. the fickr one was a ref I came across as it is while surfing for someting relevant. I plan to put in a picture to support the article as it is and more varied stuff on the subject. If this was not the best way to write to you, its bcoz i could not gather another way. thanksRumytime 07:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

SPAM

please do not accuse me of spam when I am actually doing good for wikipedia by flagging a page for speedy deletion. Nenyedi 23:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears that you also added in example.com. The bot reverts this link because it is often a test edit. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 23:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Just an idea ...

71.115.116.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) made a test edit, [4], which I reverted [5]. Your bot posted [6], when (a) I had reverted the edit, not the bot, and (b) the edit was not spam.

Cheers! Yuser31415 05:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough, Shadowbot was in the middle of reverting when you reverted the edit. It looks like you edit-conflicted Shadowbot, who went on to post the spam warning as it usually does when it reverts an editor. As for the warning, yes, I'm aware that a spam1 warning doesn't apply to vandals, and I'm working on a system to set up different warnings depending on why it reverts the user. Shadow1 (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe it caught the 'example.com' part of the edit. JoeSmack ^Talk 15:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah. No problems ... one of these ugly revert-conflicts again. Cheers! Yuser31415 19:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a automated to all bot operators

Please take a few moments and fill in the data for your bot on Wikipedia:Bots/Status Thank you Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Please remove us from the blacklist

I tried posting a link to a legitimate interview and it wouldn't let me here. Our site is a blog that offers original content, which we own the rights to. I've tried multiple times to post other interviews, but I still keep experiencing the same problem. Please remove us from the list. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.5.40.204 (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Inserting links to a site that you own or are affiliated with is a conflict of interest. Shadow1 (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Also see Advertising and conflicts of interest and note #11 in Links normally to be avoided--Hu12 21:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It was driving me crazy. So if a user not associated with our site decides to post the link, it will be fine?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Preppypunk (talk • contribs) 01:45, 14 February 2007.

I would consider adding cited text in the article if its encyclopedic and apropriate. ie. "cited text" <ref>Written by TV with MeeVee Published November 17, 2006</ref> . Lets not forget Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto your site, right?--Hu12 02:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that I should post a fact from our article and offer simple attribution or write the entry entirely? Sorry to keep bugging you. I am new to all of this.

Gary Coleman

Shadowbot reverted a link that I inserted to a page at members.tripod.com. Tripod may be a generally poor source, but in this instance it is "Former Child Star Central," a news site whose home page is registed as www.formerchildstar.net and www.fcscentral.com. It is particularly relevant for the article in question, Gary Coleman. Malik Shabazz 21:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Incomplete reversions

See Mogollon where the bot reverted one edit because it contained example.com - which however left the first part of the editing experiments in place. If there are more than one edit from the same IP/user in a row chances are high all the edits are of same quality. By a partial revert the first vandalism/experimental edit can easier slip through, I only found it because I manually check the links to example.jpg. andy

This functionality will be included in my rewrite of Shadowbot. This used to be Shadowbot's default behavior, until it encountered problems leading to a temporary block. Shadow1 (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

dnL soda reverted

dnL is my all time favorite soda. I miss it so much that I started a petition online to get dnL back on the market. This bot of yours took out the link I added to the dnL page. I switched it back, but I hope it stays that way. I respect what you are trying to do here, but I just thought I should tell you about this because I wouldn't want the bot to go into angry mode on me. Thanks, -Scott (DJAikou)

This has been sorted out on my talk page. In the end it turned out the link was not needed to the article. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 15:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverting the reversion of vandalism?

Yeah, stuff like this [7] just can't happen.--Crossmr 00:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

In a perfect world, it wouldn't. Take a look at Antivandalbot; it does the same thing on occasion. Shadow1 (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The Technology Barnstar

		The Technology Barnstar
		This Barnstar is awarded to Shadowbot for reverting Spam vandalism On Wikipedia! --Hu12 01:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

'Cause in a perfect world bots need awards too. Great bot Shadow1--Hu12 01:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks mate! Shadow1 (talk) 13:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

photobucket

that is my souce of proof cos they vandalize my comment about Rosay smoking. Lilyfan87 10:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Photobucket is not a WP:RS. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is look at the photo. Lilyfan87 12:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you read this link you were given? WP:RS C2r 12:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the link what you were given?????!!!!

Photobucket is a picture site, picture sites are not reliable sources, they contain pictures. Everybody can upload pictures to that site. The picture may be correct (and in this case, it is correct), but they are not acceptable, not by WP:RS, not by WP:EL, not by WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. If this is a picture that is suitable, you can upload the picture. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

reverted edit

I accept your apologies in advance and I suppose your hyper-sensitivity is due to previous negative experiences, but surely in these times of advanced technology, a bot can distinguish the edit of one single letter from spam or whay-have-you. All I did was to change a header to lowercase in accordance with wikipedia header policy. I have now been branded, unjustly, for life as a spammer. --Technopat 14:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You have not been branded as a spammer, this first message is a pure good-faith remark, not a warning. When I see your edit here you indeed did a good-faith edit to change the capitalisation of the header, but also, purely accidental I am sure, added a link to example dot com. The addition of the latter is reverted, along with all other edits. Sorry for the inconvenience. See you around, happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Murder

• This section "does not cite its sources", so I added one (the link to the Swiss Penal Code) and there was 1 typo (2000 (!) years in prison: 20 years).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder&diff=97257406&oldid=97232305 I'm not putting it back in, though, so if you like it, leave it, or else don't. Sincerely R.

You added a link to example.com, a link on shadowbot's blacklist. Don't add the link and the bot won't revert ;) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 21:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Bad revert

Hi Shadow- I made this edit which reverted a vandal's garbage. Part of my edit was to re-instate an angelfire link (which isn't spam), so the bot caught me, and reverted back to the garbage version. Thought you might like to know. Staecker 12:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the revert. Shadowbot should leave reversions alone, I need to investigate that. Shadow1 (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the FAQ, but I need someone to upload the logo for me.

If you look on the Talk Page of the Ambrella (Marigul) article, you'll see that I've been requesting for someone to upload the image or to make sure that uploading the specific image was alright!

As I said in the said talk page, I ripped the logo out of a video on IGN, and I quadrupled it's size, and cleaned it up, which took numerous hours to do. XD

But for some odd reason, I can't upload the image!

The logo was cleaned and such using MS Paint, which makes the file a .bmp, Which doesn't seem to be a compatible format with Wikipedia.

I tried uploading the Imageshack link, but Wikipedia claims that the file is empty, so I'm out of luck!

Can you help me out please?

I assume that saving the file in Animation Shop, which is in the .gif format would work, but I already used my trial time and I can't buy it.

If you can, please upload the logo. Hero of legend 00:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You might want to look into The GIMP, a free image editor. Shadow1 (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Automated message to bot owners

As a result of discussion on the village pump and mailing list, bots are now allowed to edit up to 15 times per minute. The following is the new text regarding bot edit rates from Wikipedia:Bot Policy:

Until new bots are accepted they should wait 30-60 seconds between edits, so as to not clog the recent changes list and user watchlists. After being accepted and a bureaucrat has marked them as a bot, they can edit at a much faster pace. Bots doing non-urgent tasks should edit approximately once every ten seconds, while bots who would benefit from faster editing may edit approximately once every every four seconds.

Also, to eliminate the need to spam the bot talk pages, please add Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard to your watchlist. Future messages which affect bot owners will be posted there. Thank you. --Mets501 05:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)