User talk:Spamreporter1/Archive re Cable TV spam/Archive Cable TV discussions

This is an archive of the Cable TV discussions, to make them available for future use by any interested user.

Northland Communications cable possible spamming
User:Bill_Clark appears to be engaging in spamming on behalf of "Northland Communications."

See for example this change.

There may be hundreds of these in the last few days. See this list.

Would you be kind enough to look into this? Spamreporter1 02:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, sorry if I've violated some policy. I'm not partial to Northland Communications, it's just that they were first on my list.  I've just recently compiled the list of cities serviced by Mediacom and was planning to add Public utilities sections to each of the pages for those cities.  I'll probably end up doing some smaller cable companies as well, before I finish with Mediacom (it's a huge list).  I've also restructured the templates for Cable Television companies in the US (see  ).  My interest is in cable companies in the United States, in general. --Bill Clark 03:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: I'm going to begin removing the external links on city pages, since I think that will resolve this issue. I'm announcing this here so that I can refer to this message in my edit summaries. This issue has also been discussed here, here, here, here and here. --Bill Clark 19:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC) UPDATE: I'm done removing the external links. I'm going to continue creating new articles for US cable companies that are missing from WP, but will wait a while before editing any articles on cities, to give enough time to make sure everyone's objections have been addressed. --Bill Clark 20:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I have left a note for Bill Clark on his talk page thanking him for starting the removal of the commercial links. However, there remain a number of commercial links, and I have asked Bill Clark to please continue with the removal of all the commercial information. Spamreporter1 07:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the discussion from my talk page to the discussion page for WikiProject Cities. --Bill Clark 15:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Bill_Clark and cable spam
Saw this over at the village pump where the concerned editor was directed to COI. User:Bill_Clark has been a busy boy and I bet some industrious spam watchers here might be able to take some of the load. Not me, though. It's already past my bed time. Nposs 02:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm holding off on editing any more articles on cities until I've gotten more feedback on how to proceed, and am currently focusing on starting some of the missing articles on US cable companies, instead. As I mentioned at the pump and elsewhere, my interest here is in cable companies in the US in general, not any cable company in particular (I just happened to start with Northland, which made it look like I was spamming for them, but have since moved on to several others). I'm still not entirely clear on whether the objection is to the adding of wikilinks to city pages (indicating which company or municipal department acts as the local cable utility) or just to the adding of cable-company-sponsored community website links to "External links" sections. If it's the latter, then that's easy enough to leave out of my future edits, but I want to clear things up before proceeding. --Bill Clark 17:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC) NOTE: Please see the main discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(assistance)#Northland_Communications_cable_possible_spamming VP/A and post any follow-ups there. --Bill Clark 19:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI
Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#Northland Communications cable possible spamming. Thanks/wangi 02:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Links to commercial sites
Bill-

The problem is that Wikipedia's policy is to disfavor links to commercial websites. If these kinds of links were generally allowed, as you can imagine, Wikipedia would quickly be overrun with advertising.

I have asked an admin to contact you to assist you in removing all the links to commercial sites that you have so carefully added over the last few days. They have speedy ways to assist you remove them. Spamreporter1 05:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You will find a primary guideline to review at External_links Spamreporter1 12:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

If you are still unclear why these "community pages" violate the guidelines, I strongly suggest that you join the discussion at the WikiProject Spam page. In my view, these "community pages" are simply commercial sites which violate the guidelines. Please get additional input and guidance from others in the in Spam WikiProject by joining the discussion about your intended plan there, before adding any more "community pages" Spamreporter1 15:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for holding off on further edits. It looks like it may take a couple of days for enough people to check in for consensus to form. I understand what you're trying to do, and I'm certainly understanding that you're acting in good faith. Again, while yoy appear well-intended, all these additions of information about what is strictly a commercial for-profit enterprise, including citations to their commercial websites certainly appears to me to be beyond the bounds of what is permitted in Wikipedia. In addition, those community pages appear to be simply portals to commercial sites. Wikipedia is not really a shopper's guide, nor a place where people come to learn about how to sign up with the local cable company. Thanks for understanding, and your patience. Spamreporter1 18:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your courtesy, which is appreciated in removing links to commercial sites. I did double-check a few to see if I could lend a hand with some of this tedious task. I noticed that there are still some references left to cable companies under a "Pubic utility" heading, with a link to a commercial site as a "reference." I assume that you're still getting around to removing these.

I don't believe that cable companies qualify as "public utilities" in the ordinary sense of that phrase - that is, they are not owned by the public, nor operated in a non-profit manner. Instead, they are a privately-owned for-profit businesses. You will notice on the pages where you have listed these businesses, that there are no other businesses listed, and certainly no links to commercial sites listed as "references" for these businesses. I see you have put lot of work into adding these "Public utility" headings, but they are, in my opinion, again, just commercial information about a for-profit business, that is non-encyclopedic content. Spamreporter1 07:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Public Utility links
I notice that you've started removing the public utility links from pages I've added them to. Please hold off on doing that until we get more feedback from any of the various locations this is being discussed. I understand that you disagree with me regarding the appropriateness of these links, which is why it's important for us to get feedback first. Thanks, --Bill Clark 15:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"Public utility" sections
I have stopped for the moment once I realized that there were so many of them (I removed a few thinking you had simply missed them).

Perhaps here's an analogy I can give you - What would be your reaction if a video tape store enthusiast were to go through all the cities, and add a section entitled "Entertainment" and then add the following text: "There are three Blockbuster stores in this town" and add as a "reference" a link to Blockbuster's website. Would you agree with me that is plainly commercial spam that does not belong in an encyclopedia?

This cable project, while well-intended, is just adding information on where local residents can buy a local commercial service. Who the cable provider is in a particular town is not really bona fide encyclopedic content, any more than listing where to rent video tapes would be acceptable. Plus, adding a link to a website (as a reference) where to sign up for cable service simply compounds the commercial nature of this project.

Please understand that I understand you disagree, and I believe that you are operating in good faith. However, please be aware that spam is subject to immediate removal without further discussion, and sometimes the consensus process within WikiProject Spam stalls, and it becomes necessary to involve more senior admins directly. Finally, please be assured that I am patient and prepared to give this process some time. Spamreporter1 16:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bill_Clark"

Commercial spam issue
The views of the editors in this project are being sought on the following topic:

When is it appropriate to list a local commercial service which is available in a city/town? User:Bill Clark has undertaken an effort to add the name of the cable television provider in a large number of cities and towns (see his post above).

My concerns are these. Cable TV service is simply an ordinary commercial service available to local residents, and the name of a particular cable TV service is not especially interesting and does not qualify as bona fide encyclopedic content. In my view, listing the name of a local cable TV provider is simply commercial spam which generally does not belong on city/town pages.

My concern is compounded by User:Bill Clark's practice of helpfully adding a link to an external commercial site where the reader can sign up for the local cable TV service that he has listed. User:Bill Clark has adopted the practice of adding this external link as a "reference."

Finally, User:Bill Clark has indicated that he intends to add this information to a large number of city/town sites, and has indicated that he does not see anything wrong with it (please see his defense of his actions here).

These actions appear to simply add non-encyclopedic commercial information (that is, spam) to a large number of sites, and are therefore subject to removal.

Your comments are requested, please. Spamreporter1 16:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If Cable TV service is "simply an ordinary commercial service available to local residents" then the same is true of electricity, gas, water, waste disposal, etc. My interest happens to be with US cable companies, but I'm curious as to whether you'd raise similar objections to adding links to these other kinds of public utilities?  It would mean a lot more work for me, but I'd be willing to expand on the "Economy/Utility" section on pages I edit to include ALL varieties of public utility, if you think that would make the contributions more balanced.  --Bill Clark 16:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

My view is that User:Bill Clark's comment is illuminating of the problem. I believe that one good way to see what qualifies as encyclopedic content is the following question: "If I were an interested reader from Johannesburg or Sydney, what would I want to know about, say, Statesboro, Georgia?" I would find the history, geography, demographics of the town of value--but the names of the local water company, gas company, and other bona fide public utilities are of strictly local interest. This type of local consumer information is not really encyclopedic.

Again, this concern about non-encyclopedic content is amplified by User:Bill Clark's practice of linking to an external commercial site, plus the intended scale of adding commercial links to hundreds of city sites. Spamreporter1 19:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Exclude I would prefer to exclude the specific name of any utility or local business. However, in the economy section of Hamilton, Ontario, the specific names of the steel companies are used, but that is because they represent over 50% of the local economy.  The question for me:  How does naming the cable company enhance a foreign visitors understanding of that community?  You may want to get some feedback from WP:WPSPAM Alan.ca 19:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I generally agree with Alan.ca. However, I think that there actually are many instances in which the names of major local businesses (with links to Wikipedia articles about those businesses) are very relevant to understanding the community. Also, occasionally the name of a public utility or cable company may be relevant to understanding the history, geography, and economy of a community. For example, if a town was established at the site of a hydroelectric dam, it would be very important to tell about the company that operates the dam. Similarly, if the town has historically had problems with the lack of or unreliability of public water supply, electricity, or telephone service, the name of the company that fixed that situation could be an important part of the town's history. In yet another example, I know of one city where the municipality's contracts with cable companies have been chronic political issues that could warrant discussion in an encyclopedia article. --orlady 19:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The important questions here seem to be:


 * 1) Should public utilities be included on city pages (under the "Economy" section) ?
 * 2) Should cable providers be considered public utilities (they are according to the definition on public utility) ?
 * 3) Should there be a difference between mentioning of privately owned (though publicly contracted) utilities, and municipal ones ?
 * 4) What references should be used to establish facts regarding which companies (public or private) act as utilities for each locale ?


 * User:Spamreporter1 and User:Alan.ca seem to be answering "no" to even the first (most general) question, which I find puzzling. Before I proceed with any more edits to city pages, I'll likely finish off with creating all of the missing article pages for the US cable companies that I know of.  At that point, I'll be able to more readily generate a list of cities to edit, and can look over the list to determine which articles already have Economy and/or Public utility sections, and what kinds of companies are listed.  That at least should help us to get a better feel for existing precedent.  --Bill Clark 19:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I would not list cable companies under economy or with utilities-- they are utilities only because they contract to use public rights-of-way and utility easements.


 * Interjection: That's not true. Cable companies are utilities in the same sense as power companies, water companies, gas companies, etc. – in many cases, they are one in the same entity (e.g. Alameda Power and Telecom, Muscatine Power and Water). --Bill Clark 20:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree. Legally they may be utilties, but the reason for so  characterizing is to take advantage of pre-existing utilty easements.  Otherwise they would not have been able to obtain the rights to run their cables through already-dedicated utility easments.  But are cable companies regulated by state public utility commissions?   And if we provide description of cable services should we also, in the interests of equity, provide a listing of satellite services available?  That is why I think we should focus on which media provide local content, and deal with cable companies there.  Kablammo 21:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Cable companies are media, and in fact usually have to provide local access and some local programming in order to use obtain the rights to use the municipal rights-of-way. I think cable companies should be listed in media, with no greater prominence than given to the local broadcast and print stations, and without links to subscription pages. It is because they provide local programming that they should be listed under media; otherwise a local broadcast station could be listed, but a cable provider with local programming would not be. Kablammo 20:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Policy WP:NOT I agree with Orlady, there may be a rare case where a cable company would be mentioned in a City article. In a case where that corporation is a large part of the identity of that locale, it may make sense.  However, in general, I don't see cable companies as a key component of a City economy.  Wp:not seems to apply to the blanket inclusion of cable companies to City Articles. Alan.ca 20:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand the point, but I think my point above still applies. Are we to mention local television stations under media, but refuse to mention a cable provider which provides local content?  It's not an issue of the local economy (and I agree it should not be mentioned there), it's an issue of treating media the same.  Kablammo 21:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to be answering "No" to question #2 above ("Should cable providers be considered public utilities?") and I'd like to point out that in many cases, the cable utility provider is the same as the power utility, water utility, etc. It's not a simple matter to separate them, and listing companies that provide more than one utility but not listing ones that provide a single utility seems arbitrary.  Would you also answer "No" to question #1 (Should public utilities be included on city pages?) and why? --Bill Clark 21:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have done some work on an article which has a section on power supply (Duluth, Minnesota). I formatted it to follow the template and did some copyediting, but did not do much in the way of substantive contributions.  (I did not write the section, but if memory serves, I moved it to Economy.)   But it does not bother me that the section is there, nor would it bother me if utility suppliers are listed in other articles.  (I don't think the point is all that important.)  I think however that cable companies differ from energy suppliers, which is why I would handle them under media.  Kablammo 22:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Folks, as the originator of this thread, just to stay focused, there are three issues here; most of the comment are only on the first issue below (and subparts of that first issue).


 * (A) Is the name of the local cable TV provider sufficiently encyclopedic that it can/should be listed on city pages?
 * My own answer - only in rare cases, where there is something unusual about the provider. We don't normally name local businesses unless there is something quite unusual.


 * (B) Should the name of the local cable TV provider be connected to an external link which is the commercial website of that provider?
 * My own answer - almost never; sending our readers to a commercial site where they can sign up for the service listed, to me, is to me clearly the sign of spam. If there is no other site available for the information (except the cable TV company's own site), that to me is also a signal that the information is not encyclopedic.


 * (C) Should this cable TV information with external commercial link be placed on hundreds of city sites around the country? (which is the user's intent)
 * Again, my own answer is no, and again, placing commercial sites on hundreds of sites is a disturbing signal of spam.

So, again, the comments above have focused mainly on Question (A) above, but it's really the whole campaign here (all three steps above) which I believe are impermissible, in addition to Question (A) alone.

It would be useful to hear your comments as well on Question B and Question C please. Spamreporter1 22:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

(A) The unusual feature of the cable providers in this case is that they are public utilities. As such, they are fundamentally different from other businesses in a given locale, and typically have a special legal relationship to the municipal government (either because they are an entity created and managed by that government, or because they have been granted exclusive rights-of-way for operating on municipal infrastructure). This is why I ask questions #1 and #2 above, as they pertain directly to the issue of whether public utilities (including cable utilities) should be mentioned on city pages.

(B) The only such links in place are either on the article page for the cable provider itself (which are clearly appropriate) or as references to support the claim that a particular company provides service in a particular location. I'm not sure how else to source the second kind of link, except by linking to a webpage maintained by the cable provider in question. Perhaps some local government websites would also list such information, and I'll check on that and give preference to such links whenever possible. (Addition: I have re-edited the articles for cities serviced by Northland and replaced the citations of the Northland website with citations of the official city webpages, whenever I could find such information – see Kosciusko, Mississippi and Mount Shasta, California for examples) I don't think adding unsourced material to webpages is a good alternative to providing a reference that links to a commercial page. As to whether this is spam, I ask you: what could I possibly be trying to promote? Cable in general? This whole thread started because my initial edits were for Northland Communications Corporation and I was accused of spamming for them, but since that time it's been made clear (both by later edits, and by the discussion in general) that I was simply using them as the first among many in my list, and have no interest in any particular cable company.

(C) My (eventual) intention is to add such information to every page for every US city. Clearly that's a long-term goal. It's also something that I'm delaying any further work on, pending the outcome of this discussion.

--Bill Clark 22:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please also see Amarillo, Texas. Somebody has added public utilities (including the local cable utility) under an "Infrastructure" section.  Does this make more sense than under the "Economy" section?  --Bill Clark 01:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The following is my summary of the reactions thus far (as near as I can understand them):
 * (A) Is the name of the local cable TV provider sufficiently encyclopedic that it can/should be listed on city pages?
 * EXCLUDE Alan.ca
 * EXCLUDE orlady (unless unusual circumstances are present, such as significant history of problems)
 * EXCLUDE Kablammo (unless cable company is a significant provider of local content, and then list under media, with other content providers)
 * EXCLUDE Spamreporter1 (my own vote)
 * (These respondents cited Wp:not and WP:NOT as assisting their thinking.)


 * (B) Should the name of the local cable TV provider be connected to an external link which is the commercial website of that provider?
 * EXCLUDE Kablammo
 * EXCLUDE Spamreporter1 (my own vote)


 * (C) Should this cable TV information with external commercial link be placed on hundreds of city sites around the country? (which is the user's intent)
 * EXCLUDE Alan.ca (not appropriate for wide-scale routine inclusion on city sites)
 * EXCLUDE orlady (not appropriate for wide-scale routine inclusion on city sites)
 * EXCLUDE Kablammo (not appropriate for wide-scale routine inclusion on city sites; need to make case-by-case assessment of amount of local content actually provided)
 * EXCLUDE Spamreporter1 (not appropriate for wide-scale routine inclusion on city sites -my own vote)

Responders, please make corrections if you believe that I have mis-summarized your response.

Any other responses? Spamreporter1 07:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * On question B, list me as "EXCLUDE." The summary of my other (previously stated) views is OK.--orlady 15:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Public Utilities on City pages
I'm moving this to a new section so that it's easier to follow. Once these discussions are complete, I'll archive this page and clean it up.

In light of the concerns outlined in sections above, I'm proposing to do the following:


 * 1) Add an "Economy" section with a "Public utilities" sub-section to pages that do not already have one.


 * 2) Add a "References" section to pages that do not already have one.


 * 3) Add a listing of ALL public utilities (including water, wastewater/sewage, electric, natural gas, telephone, and cable utilities) in the "Public utilities" subsection, to pages that do not already list such utilities. I will add missing utilities to pages that include some, but not all, utilities.


 * 4) Provide references in the form of links to appropriate pages. Whenever available, these links will be to a page on the official website for the city in question, or some similar official (and non-commercial) webpage.  If no non-commercial page is available as a reliable reference, then I will provide a link to an appropriate page on the website of the utility itself, which might be commercial.

Please see the following examples of previously edited pages that I've updated: Mount Shasta, California, Kosciusko, Mississippi

Here are some examples of cities that already listed public utilities, before I began this project: Roseville, California, Gold Coast, Queensland, East Peoria, Illinois, Novato, California, Santa Clara, California, Snyder County, Pennsylvania, Schertz, Texas, ...

If you have specific complaints with regards to any points of this plan, please be explicit. I feel that the above plan is a reasonable modification to the original, and would appreciate any feedback before proceeding.

--Bill Clark 17:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose in strongest terms - Your plan makes things even worse than before, albeit less blatantly commercial. Wiki is not a collection of links. This is not encyclopedic information. You are cluttering up the articles with useless information available on dozens of sites throughout the Net. If I had the time, I would be going around deleting this sort of cruft from pages that are already cluttered with it. Please cease and desist, for the reasons explained by almost every single person posting to this discussion.-- Orange Mike 18:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In my view, User:Bill Clark's latest proposal makes matters worse. First, the names of local utilities is not encyclopedic content.


 * Second, the argument that this type of information may be found in some other articles is the type of argument disapproved of as a "common spammer strawman." The correct response (adapted from WikiProject_Spam) is "Simply because some other articles contain non-encyclopedic information does not mean that this type of information must be allowed everywhere."


 * Third, the one common theme in all of User:Bill Clark's proposals is contained again in the most recent posting (above): seeking to link "to an appropriate page on the website of the utility itself, which might be commercial." This persistent effort to include an external link to a commercial website where the reader can buy the product discussed is highly indicative of spamming behavior.


 * Strongly Oppose - please see Wp:not and WP:SPAM.


 * Other responses, please. Spamreporter1 18:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

User discloses he is not a newcomer
The following was deleted by the user from his own talk page shortly after he posted it.

I've issued a short block (24 hr) of your account. I realize you are in the process of leaving the project and I sincerely hope you don't see this as insult to injury, but the blanking of your contributions and nomination of the articles you've created for speedy deletion is doing more harm then good here, thus I've issued a block to stop this from occuring. Please understand that this is preventative, not punative and not in anyway a judgement of you or your contributions here.. I understand if you want to blank this comment, but I just wanted you to know why this block was issued. Regards,--Isotope23 20:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your tone, but I do have to say I'm not happy with the timing. I was in the process of posting a comment to your talk page, explaining that I was through removing my edits, when I found out about the block.


 * I really don't care about the extra work I've created. I spent a few hours this weekend adding some content to articles, and then the next three days debating them on various talk pages. I've contributed more than my fair share of work adding good content to this site (see all the various articles on philosophers that I started or contributed to), so tough luck if people now have to do some work in response.


 * The whole problem with Wikipedia is the "community" and its hostility toward people. This is the second time in as many years that I've decided to quit wikipedia (I've been an editor since 2002, under another account and anonymous edits, and have started well over 100 "good" articles and edited thousands more) and this time I won't be coming back. I'm also a sysadmin and mediawiki hacker (I've contributed to the source) and will simply set up my own mirror site for personal use, and will never visit wikipedia again.

The above taken from this page before user blanked his own talk page

Further personal attacks on other editors who disagreed with him
I am leaving Wikipedia because it is a waste of time. People here are more interested in arguing than actually contributing to articles.

'''I AM LEAVING WIKIPEDIA PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF User:Spamreporter1 WHO HAS REPEATEDLY (AND UNFOUNDEDLY) ACCUSED ME OF BEING A SPAMMER. I HAVE DELETED ALL TRACES OF THIS SUPPOSED SPAM, AS WELL AS ANY OTHER EDIT I HAVE MADE. OTHER PEOPLE CAN FEEL FREE TO ADD MY CONTRIBUTIONS BACK VIA THE EDIT HISTORY (THEY ARE LICENSED UNDER THE GFDL AFTER ALL) BUT I WILL NOT HAVE THEM CONTRIBUTED UNDER MY OWN NAME.'''

Other people who have made my wikipedia experience unpleasant:


 * User:Orlady
 * User:Orangemike – this guy actually had the gall to demand that I "cease and desist" with adding public utilities to city pages, and that if he "had the time" he would remove them from the multitudes of other pages that already included them. STOP BEING LAZY, AND STOP PREVENTING OTHER PEOPLE FROM MAKING CONTRIBUTIONS
 * User:Kablammo

Retrieved from here before user blanked page.

Further dialogue by user
Actually, just go ahead and leave the discussions, whatever, they prove my point that I made extensive efforts to accommodate the wishes of User:Spamreporter1, and that his calling me a spammer (which he continues to do) is an unfair attack. I have contributed to many different articles, and tried my best to meet him partway, but he is completely irrational. He apparently created that account just so he could attack me, since it was the very first thing he did. I'll leave the discussions alone, but am going to follow through with removing every article edit I have ever made, and requesting the deletion of the articles I've started. Other people can add them back, but I do not want them contributed under my name. I do not think that Wikipedia is a very good community, if they're so intent on driving people away like this. --Bill Clark 20:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you've been driven away. But your actions are decidedly childish and unproductive. -- Scientizzle 20:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Fuck you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bill Clark (talk • contribs) 20:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC).


 * I rest my case. -- Scientizzle 22:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from here.