UDWiki talk:Moderation/Policy Discussion/Talk Page Spamming

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

13 messages. Any group that has more than 12 members should get a forum instead. There should be exceptions for people notifying others about maintenance type happenings, like their user page being moved due to conflicting with criterion 9. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 05:15, 1 September 2006 (BST)

I meant to put in an exception for moderator or wiki business (obviously vandalism warnings and such would not be counted as spam) but it somehow slipped my mind. I'm not sure entirely what you meant by "13 messages", however. Spamming messages across twelve pages seems like far too much to be able to get away with it, or are we taking about a single talk page? -- Alan Watson ^{Talk · MalTel} 05:37, 1 September 2006 (BST)

He was saying if you had a group and you had to tell everyone in the group something, then you should only be able to tell 13 people.--∴Gage 07:36, 1 September 2006 (BST)

You spelled "spat" wrong. --∴Gage 07:34, 1 September 2006 (BST)

Did you have anything constructive to say, Gage, or were you just leaving? Cyberbob  Talk  07:41, 1 September 2006 (BST)

Contents 1 Time Frame 2 Revision 3 Revision #2 4 Moved Comments

Time Frame

I like using 13 as the line. I think otherwise an expression of the time frame might be a good idea. Example 12 near similar messages in 7 days. This would allow such things as a group occasionaly extending a personal invitation to join to a user or two each week without it being considered spam.

A group, even a new group extending more than a dozen invitations a week seems spammy to me. 1 or 2 per week seems ok but they would add up over time. If it was not clearly expressed after six or ten weeks it might look like spam. --Max Grivas ^{JG,T,Max4Mod,F!} 07:52, 1 September 2006 (BST)

I would be a little hesitant about using a time frame for that reason. Is it that hard to post messages on the main group page for everyone to read? It seems to be that group spam has pretty limited legitimate applications with the Recruitment page and all. -- Alan Watson ^{Talk · MalTel} 02:27, 2 September 2006 (BST)

I don't find the recruitment page, with fewer than 100 link backs, to be that popular a resource to be the end all be all form of extending invitations. It simply does not have a large enough presence to cause any other form of recruitment to be labeled vandalism. Updates to any particular group page are likely to go unnoticed by most users unless there has been some form of previous conatact or expression of intrest. Without some expression of time frame, 12 contacts, is far too few impressions to be considered vandalism over the lifetime of a group. --Max Grivas ^{JG,T,Max4Mod,F!} 03:30, 2 September 2006 (BST)

Revision

First, thank you guys for the input. I knew it would be difficult to fine tune, and I think you guys provided me with some things I hadn't considered before. Here's a rough revision, let me know if it's too confusing or complex.

Talk page spam is defined as the placement of identical or similar messages across multiple user or group talk pages. Depending on the content of the message, it could be treated as vandalism.

• Unsolicited talk page spam is defined as being talk page spam that is off-topic, uninvited or unrelated to the talk page's adjoining main page. This could include recruitment messages from other groups, event messages or other messages that are not related to the group or user in question. A single user is allowed to post three (3) such messages of similar content before it is considered vandalism and an appropriate measure is taken.
• Group spam is defined as being related to the group or user in question. This could be notices of in-game events that effect the user or groups, group correspondence, or other messages that are topical to the group talk page or user talk page. Essentially, this means that the users in question belong to the group or organization that is placing the message. Each user is allowed to post thirteen (13) such messages of similar content before it is considered vandalism. Large groups are advised to create off-site forums for coordinating their activities.
• Vandal warnings or other wiki maintenance messages are not considered talk page spam.

A few things I'm worried about in this revision is if thirteen messages is too many to allow, and also if the singular user bit is too much of a loophole. Having each member of a group place twelve spams would be highly irritating. The current quotas are basically infinitely timed, since I can't really think of a workable time frame. Two weeks to a month might work, but I'm still sort of hardpressed to imagine why someone would need more than thirteen messages to get the word out to his group. Anyways, please review this at your convenience. I'd especially like to hear from the mods on this, since they're the ones that really have to live with it and enforce it. Also, if one of them could modify the community announcement box on the front page to add the new policy discussions I would appreciate it. -- Alan Watson ^{Talk · MalTel} 02:59, 2 September 2006 (BST)

A majority of talk page content is unsolicited. A majority of users edits should be on talk pages. That is the entire point of talk pages. Check out a few other wiki's policies concerning talk pages. Three contacts is quite unprecedented and seems to completely violate the spirit of wiki altogether. off-topic, uninvited or unrelated is far to subjective to form accurate rulings. --Max Grivas ^{JG,T,Max4Mod,F!} 03:58, 2 September 2006 (BST)

A messages saying the same thing across three different talk pages? That doesn't seem to be too unprecedented to me. I realize that most if not all talk page posts are unsolicited; the entire point of the "spam" section is that it is both unsolicited and repeated, which is the problem. Wikipedia's talk pages don't tend to share this problem since there's no groups or anything else that tends to slant wiki usage here towards being forum-like. I suppose three is a little low of a number but I think that we should be encouraging usage of the Recruitment board, or create some other community sounding board rather than bend policy to allow people to conduct talk page campaigns. It's not that harmful now but if everyone did it then it could become unbearable. -- Alan Watson ^{Talk · MalTel} 04:48, 2 September 2006 (BST)

I have found no precedent whatsoever for limiting posting to talk pages to three contacts. That is about as unprecedented as it gets. If you could point out some precedents so that we may review how well those policies have served their communities it would be helpful. I completely agree we should be encouraging usage of the recruitment page. I don't feel warning/banning users for directing people there is the way to go about it. --Max Grivas ^{JG,T,Max4Mod,F!} 13:24, 2 September 2006 (BST)

You make a good point. Obviously I wasn't thinking things through to the proper extent. I'll raise the roof on the allowed quota. -- Alan Watson ^{Talk · MalTel} 19:00, 2 September 2006 (BST)

Change three identical posts to, say, twelve, and you've got yourself a deal. Cyberbob  Talk  13:31, 2 September 2006 (BST)

How about ten? I believe that was the number of spam posts A1CJerry got in trouble for in the last talk page spam incident. -- Alan Watson ^{Talk · MalTel} 19:00, 2 September 2006 (BST)

But he wasn't actually warned for it. Sure, he got told off, but no real trouble. Cyberbob  Talk  19:02, 2 September 2006 (BST)

Okay, a dozen it is. I figure we'll remove the whole "unsolicited" criteria, since Max has basically pointed out why that was such a bad idea, and there's really not appreciable difference between 12 and 13 anyways. 12 messages in two weeks sound like a good finalized form for the definition of spamming? -- Alan Watson ^{Talk · MalTel} 21:40, 2 September 2006 (BST)

That sounds great to me as well. I look forward to seeing your draft. I will vote For considering anything beyond 12 similar talk messages in two weeks vandalism. You might consider including a grandfather clause if you don't expressly want folks rummaging through the archives to bring up frivolous cases. --Max Grivas ^{JG,T,Max4Mod,F!} 22:25, 2 September 2006 (BST)

Revision #2

Taking into consideration all your input, here's the next revision. Short and sweet:

• Talk Page Spam is defined as the placement of identical or similar messages across multiple user or group talk pages. Due to its potentially disruptive nature, users are restricted to making twelve such posts in any two week period. Spamming talk pages in excess of this is considered vandalism and will be treated as such. Groups wishing to coordinate their activities or recruit beyond this restriction are advised to use off-site forums or the Recruitment page.

The primary concern here is whether it's clear enough to make accurate and consistent rulings on. Comment? -- Alan Watson ^{Talk · MalTel} 05:09, 7 September 2006 (BST)

Moved Comments

Sounds fair. - David Malfisto 16:40, 9 September 2006 (BST)