Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/Warnings review

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Intended to review warning & block templates currently in use

Suggestions for improvement

{{uw-spam1}}

Current wording

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Suggestions for improvement spam1

  • IMHO, this one is quite OK. It reflects what I generally say, we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm.
  • I'd like to see the 'Since Wikipedi auses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings' go; striktly, this is not true, since wikipedia pages do get copied to other sites, and then do alter the rankings of the site being linked to.
  • Bit further, can we suggest people that they can add content to the article, using the external link as a reference.
  • Maybe we should have two versions of these templates, one for true spam (I mean here, things like viagra links), and one for the links which are only spam because of the way they got added. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree in general. However for viagra type stuff I would probably go to a 4im warning straightaway I think --Herby talk thyme 11:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If an external site copies the HTML, that should also include the nofollows. If it copies the information into another copy of MediaWiki, I would hope that also generates nofollow tags (or is that a configuration parameter?). Anomie⚔ 14:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also, I'm not so sure suggesting using the link for a reference is such a good idea, considering WP:BEANS... Anomie⚔ 17:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Agree with Anomie--Hu12 18:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • My thoughts:
              1. I'm reluctant to go to spam4im on the first go -- even for viagra-spam -- unless I know for sure the spammer knows our rules. Using the warning grid's guidance on "faith", I'll assume no faith (level 2) or initial bad faith (level 3). I might make an exception for something really, really bad and probably non-commercial like a hate site. Spammers are people, too, and if I can get them to stop tactfully, I prefer to do that. Note that in ascertaining whether spammers "know our rules," I take into account things like warnings to other IPs, socks as well as any participation in off-Wikipedia discussions of how to spam Wikipedia. (I'm not out to penalize freedom of speech on message boards -- just assuming they must already know our rules.)
              2. Over the last year, I've seen that most spammers don't follow our hyperlinks. I think it helps to spell out and capitalize the names of the actual guidelines. I'd change this to:
                Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Relevant rules covering links:
                External Links Guideline
                Wikipedia is Not a Soapbox for promoting businesses, causes, websites, etc.
                Wikipedia is Not a Mirror or a Repository of Links, Images, or Media Files
                Spam Guideline
                Reliable Sources
                Please take a look at the Welcome Page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
              3. I'd leave the nofollow text as is. All major search engines but Yahoo say they respect nofollow tags. We don't control mirror sites and it gets convoluted to explain nofollow, Yahoo, mirror sites, HTML tags, etc. in a warning. Most of the mirror sites (except answers.com?) probably carry very little search engine "trust". They just need to know they'll get little or no search engine love for their efforts. If we really want to go into detail, then I'd link to a page in "Wikipedia:" space that explains it.
--A. B. (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another useful tidbit from EL... Advertising and conflicts of interest --Hu12 19:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With the list, IMO that's too long for a warning (it would be good for a welcome+warning, but that's not what uw-spam1 is for). We don't want to overwhelm the newbie's talk page with a huge wad of text. Anomie⚔ 14:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added a new section above.--Hu12 00:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See old section below --Versageek 00:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC) ;-)[reply]
LOL. oh yea..rmvd--Hu12 00:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{uw-spam2}}

Current wording

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policy for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you.

Suggestions for improvement spam2

  • This template uses the word 'spam', IMHO that is technically correct (it is something that may not be wanted, but pushed without choice, it does not say anything about the content, though that is the general misconception'. At this point, an editor is already adding the links to more pages, and has had a chance to read warning one. I guess 'spam policy' (which is, by the way, a content guideline, certainly not a policy), could be reworded to reflect 'link pushing'
  • Again the nofollow argument .. can be removed, I think. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • SEO/PR value is almost null for links, the nofollow should be reoved. IMHO, after this nofollow implement, links are mainly added for traffic purposes, and wikipedia provides much.--Hu12 (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The wording, "inappropriate", only creates an argument. Every strawman argument by those seeking the link for inclusion, says the link is appropriate. Some rewording may be needed.--Hu12 14:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • In the opinion of the person removing the link it is inappropriate, and the intention of the level-2 warning is supposed to be neither assuming good nor bad faith. BTW, I've changed "spam policy" to "spam guideline", but I don't think we need to euphemize it. Anomie⚔ 14:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is usualy the fork in the road warning level. Either the spammer will continue, stop or confront. The confrontors are almost always associated somehow to the link being spammed. At least from my experience. They have a dog in the fight and want the links to stay. The strawman argument presented for the links inclusion is based on the warnings given up to this point (which the've read). the most common response is arguing that the link is appropriate. The Euphemism change is for the benifit of those who issue the warning and to curtail attempts of the spammer to impose his own view of "standards to apply", rather than those of the community.--Hu12 18:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I agree about the fork in the road. After this one, they're pushing it. --A. B. (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • If they're reading the links trying to get offended about something, they'll get offended by the big "Wikipedia:Spam" at the top of the page after clicking the link anyway. The appropriate response if someone comes to argue with the issuer is to reiterate "If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page". Anomie⚔ 14:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{uw-spam3}}

Current wording

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Suggestions for improvement spam3

  • Hmm .. here we actually start to get to someone who is actually spamming .. and has had at least a spam1-warning. Again reword to 'pushing of an external link' ??
    • Kill the nofollow argument. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is where I'd like to see the "no external link that editors feel is not required" (sure that can be worded better though). To me the issue is it doesn't matter how great/non commercial etc the site is - it just isn't required by the community? --Herby talk thyme 11:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agree that the "no follow" issue is moot at this point, but keep the "inappropriate" term (a link is inappropriate if it is not supported by the community). — Satori Son 13:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • even at this stage wether the link is appropriate or inappropriate is irrelevant to the fact that the behavior is becomming tendentious. A contentious action does not become uncontentious by virtue of repetition. Agree with removing the "no follow", as links are added for traffic, not page rank--Hu12 14:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'd raise the issue of blacklisting at this level rather than wait for level 4. I've seen few spammers care about being "blocked" -- they just get another IP or account. Threatening a spammer with a block is sort of like Dr. Evil demanding $1 million ransom for the entire planet. I'm not saying we shouldn't raise the issue -- just that blacklisting hits them in the pocketbook. --A. B. (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Suggestion; curently reads; "Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. " to;
  1. "If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia and may have your website blacklisted as well, preventing hyperlinking from any of Wikimedia projects.."
--Hu12 03:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the better way would be to say:
"If you continue to keep pushing your link without discussing first, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia and the website may be blacklisted as well, preventing hyperlinking from any of Wikimedia projects.."
(noting, to spamming they will respond 'I am not adding a spam link, my link is useful', and it may not be their website, eventhough that is most of the time true). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Version .1

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. If you continue to push your link without discussing first, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia and the website may be blacklisted as well, preventing hyperlinking from any of Wikimedia projects.

Suggestions for improvement spam3 - 2

{{uw-spam4}}

Current wording

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing anyone from linking to them from all of Wikipedia.

Suggestions for improvement spam4

  • Here it is actually wrong, the link does not have to be a spam link, it is the action of the editor which is under question. The rest of the text is OK, I think. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - "any further links"? --Herby talk thyme 11:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, it's a behavior problen at this stage.
  1. "If your tendentious behavior continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia." or,
  2. "Continued linking will result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia."
  3. "Further disruptive edits will result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia."
My preference is # 3 It helps define the behavior, an hopefuly the user recieving the warning will read and understand what is ment by it.--Hu12 14:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about "The next time you insert an inappropriate link"? The problem I have with #1 and #3 above is that they don't actually mention that the warning is for inserting bad links, and #2 is misleading as appropriate links won't result in a block. Anomie⚔ 14:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Anomie. We dealing with people who have potentially failed to "understand" three previous warnings. It needs to be simple & direct? --Herby talk thyme 14:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At this stage wether the link is appropriate or inappropriate may be irrelevant. Spamming is a behavior, the link is no longer the issue. thoughts?--Hu12 16:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless an arbcom decision says the user is not allowed to insert any external links, if the spammer suddenly reforms and only inserts links that are completely in compliance with the guidelines then there is no reason for a block. Sure, that's extremely unlikely to happen, and they might get blocked for even a marginal link, but there's no particular reason to assume it's impossible for that to happen. Anomie⚔ 17:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need for an Arbcom ruling, WP:DISRUPT (Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption) allows for the blocking of persistent spamming. The thought process at this level of of the warnings, regardless of compliance with WP:EL guidelines, the behavior is prohibited. Since previous warnings were ignored(or not understood), a concise warning incorporating educational links such as WP:TE and WP:DISRUPT to illustrate the importance of this and previous warnings. Many times, as seen often, hundreds of compliant links are added by an overzelous contributor with the ratioanal the links are relevant, EL guidelines don't prohibit adding them and they continue. I understand whats being said, but not sure if what i'm saying makes any sense. Trying to cover both as the link does not have to be a spam(bad) link.--Hu12 18:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're talking about if they keep adding the same links (which must be inappropriate, or else someone else is edit warring and misusing these warnings), which is certainly WP:TE and possibly WP:DISRUPT. I'm talking about if they realize the errors of their ways and give up on the troublesome link. And if they've ignored previous warnings, it doesn't much matter what this one says as they'll probably ignore it too ;)
If the hundreds of links are compliant with the EL guidelines in each individual instance, what is the problem with their being added? I don't understand what you're getting at here. Anomie⚔ 14:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • note, I Wiki-linked disruptive edits on the template--Hu12 18:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think I've ever seen someone add an appropriate link after a level 4 spam warning. I suggest telling them not to add any links. --A. B. (talk) 19:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just because no one has yet reformed doesn't mean we should assume no one can ever reform. Anomie⚔ 14:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I tend to agree with A. B., as has been the case in my experience also. At this point, for all intents and purposes, the account is a WP:SPA spam only account. While reform is always welcome, it is probably unlikely at this stage and under the offending account. I say this as the account is either a "bad hand" spam account of another user, or a "hit a run" spammer, with no intention in "wasting" his/her time editing to improve an encyclopedia. but, anythings possible.--Hu12 01:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I presently track about 1700 IPs and user accounts that I've warned for spamming; feel free to browse the accounts I've warned for spamming. Spamming has a different set of motivations from other forms of vandalism; spammers have got a business to run. Spammers aren't kids that get a little more maturity, settle down and then become productive editors. Spammers are adults and they spam to either make money or in a few cases, push an agenda. Some folks at level 1 or 2 may also be making useful edits, but I know of only three editors in 18 months that I've given 4th level warnings to that had every made any other real additions to Wikipedia and on balance, their total positive contributions weren't worth all the cleanup and aggravation necessitated by their spamming. --A. B. (talk) 02:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{uw-spam4im}}

Current wording

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing their websites from appearing on Wikipedia.

Suggestions for improvement spam4im

  • Again the term spam link, what about 'Please stop insisting to add the links without discussion'. Rest is OK. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - kind of "no more links or else" --Herby talk thyme 11:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cohesion with "disruption".
  1. "If tendentious linking continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia." or,
  2. "Continued linking will result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia."
  3. "Continued disruption will result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia."
The rest seems fine. Also suggest linking disruptive edits in the first line.--Hu12 14:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remember that the intention of this warning is that the person is blatantly spamming (or has continued their behavior after a block); if it's not bleeding obvious then one of the normal series should be used instead. #1 here is ok, but I have the same problems with #2 and #3 as above. Anomie⚔ 14:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • note, I Wiki-linked disruptive edits on the template--Hu12 18:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{uw-sblock}}

Current wording

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continuing to add spam links. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Suggestions for improvement sblock

  • Also here, remove the term 'spam link' (and the designation 'spammers'), see above in uw-spam4 and uw-spam4im. Rest is OK. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something to the effect that "You were asked nicely, now your blocked. Agents are now on their way to disable your computer and kick your dog."..LOL--Hu12 (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To stay in spam-terms, should that not be 'roast your parrot'?? --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, this is a resut of behavior. it reads currently.."...for continuing to add spam links.", perhaps it should be stated;
  1. "You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continued spamming of links."
  2. "In accordance with Wikipedia's policy Your parrot has been roasted for persistantly adding links."
--Hu12 15:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be specific, it's a pornographic fire parrot. --A. B. (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{welcomespam}}

Current wording

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising in articles. For more information on this, see

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome!

Current wording - Versageek version

Hello WikiProject Spam! Welcome to Wikipedia! We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, some of your recent contributions do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. For more information on this, see:

If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your constructive involvement. Happy editing! Dirk Beetstra T C 20:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous


Suggestions for improvement welcomespam

  • Personally I like the Versageek one. The border makes it stand out rather more from the conventional welcome? --Herby talk thyme 11:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with herby -- I like Versageek's version very much.--A. B. (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General suggestions/improvements

  • Request, it would be nice to have two optional parameters, 'link' and 'reason', which could result in something like "... However, the external link 'link' you added to 'page' does not comply with our guidelines for external links because 'reason' and has been removed. ..." I am not sure if the link should result in a working link (which would for the spam-fighters make it more easy to actually trace the people adding the link). Any thoughts? --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very much would like to have the optionl "link" feature. yup--Hu12 (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Instead of link, add a diff parameter with the intention of containing the link to the diff in which the link was added. This also avoids the problem where a link that is later blacklisted will have to be removed before further edits to the talk page section can be made.
      In most uw-templates, the second unnamed parameter is used to add additional text or explanations, which IMO should cover the "reason". Anomie⚔ 15:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The option 'header', to make the template start a new section as well (==Your edits to a.o. [[{{{1}}}]] on <data>==). I use that quite often, but now have to type it by hand. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a feature of the larger system of uw-templates. Anomie⚔ 15:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/Warnings_review"