GuildWiki talk:No Spam Crews

IDK, a lot of legit contributors only come here to spam (and then get sucked in to helping out) RT | Talk  20:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Cress Arvein(Talk) 20:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Possibly surprsiingly, i am NOT a spammer, and this should be moved to userspace, because its actually pointless and not an issue. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 20:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether you are or not, it is still an issue. -- Peej 20:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, its not, I'm pretty sure what your doing atm is what is called "Trolling". and its not an issue. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 20:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (EC)/agree, keep until an admin has looked and commented RT | Talk  20:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this is a little harsh. We don't have the same, no-nonsense policy that Wikipedia is because, frankly, this wiki doesn't get nearly as much vandalism, and it's easy to spot too. And also, you can change the RC so that it doesn't show any User talk: prefixed edits--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 20:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think its bs from a troll who doesnt like mondays.. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 20:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If you include just general talking in this you're out of your mind. If you take away the ability to talk freely you're murdering the half life this wiki still has. You might as well just ask wikia to shut it down. --Shadowcrest 20:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And warwick, calm down <font color="FF0099">RT </B>| <font color="Black">Talk</B>  20:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Idk why, but everyone is bitching today. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 20:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Calm down, and take a chill pill (no, not drugggs... although if your offering) <font color="FF0099">RT </B>| <font color="Black">Talk</B>  21:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * bad RT bad! --<font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="#FF6699">Shadowcrest 21:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this becoming the new spammer's zone? --Organism X 21:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like it. Cress Arvein(Talk) 21:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not amusing or funny. To continue my point, the original spam crew was made as a sort of gathering point for friends, and we occasionally spammed each others talk. As I note, the actual one-post-megaspamTM actually started when Firetock came into practise. This is actually somewhat stupid, since spamming can be repeated posting of each other. Hence if you do so, you will remove all ability to edit talk pages at all, as that could be seen as "spamming". And blame the guy who made it. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 21:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, did you really have to create all those talk pages only to make the wiki look more lively? --Organism X 21:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have Ereanor's girlfriend's picture saved to my PC for future usage. Zulu Inuoe 21:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup. Also, if this policy is enforced, this will be the one thing thats preventing me, shadow, mp47, RT.. Several others from leaving this wiki- The fact thats its not GWW. This will basically make this become GWW, since their policies prevent basically everything. What is this, a communist wiki? Do we really want it to become like GWW? Sure they have members, but so what? We have nice people (Or so it seemed), and our policies allow us to actually do things. Do we really want to become somthing we hate? and at zulu - LOLWUT? --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 21:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess Zulu's spamming a little bit too. --Organism X 21:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm actually making a point here, and wheres the guy who started all of this? He's made no edits whatsoever since making this, probably hes run and hidden. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 21:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Remember that one time we were talking about MP's girlfriend on somebody's userpage? Well Ereanor was trying to show off his unhappy girlfriend (Don't ask me why) and I managed to save a copy of the picture before he removed it from the wiki, I figure it'd be useful for future use, eh? Anyway, COMMY-WIKI = PHAIL! Zulu Inuoe 21:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Aha, i was in a communist alliance which was fail.. Also, lol. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 21:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Tbh, the random chat is fine. A small wiki doesn't need completely strict policies like wikipedia. Spam on a large scale is disruptive though, and we don't want to be encouraging it. Lord of all tyria 21:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (RI) @Warw, I wouldn't leave if this rule was inforced <font color="FF0099">RT </B>| <font color="Black">Talk</B>  21:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Policy
The general concept behind this policy is for something to refer to so that true spammers can't hide behind the argument that there is no policy against it. I personally enjoy the discussion on the talk pages here which is why I still with this wiki over the official GWW. But it is still a game wiki, not a chat room, so discussion pages should more or less stay relevant and on topic. I have no problem with people doing basically whatever they want on user pages, so long as it isn't disruptive and follows the other policies here.

Since this "Spam Crew", while not maliciously created, both claims to have official wiki support (and as User:Lord of all tyria says, we don't want to actively encourage disruption), and has gone farther than spamming user pages (which might be addressed separately), I figure dealing with it is good as a "test" for how a policy to prevent spamming would work and for revising this into the type of policy we can all agree on.

I've seen more than one site lose relevance because the admins didn't take spamming seriously, and I don't want that happening here.

-- Peej 21:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem with this policy is that this is an encyclopedia about a Game, which is for Entertainment. Yes, we need structural rules in order to have order, that should be obvious, we shouldn't have rules preventing interaction between players, and that is what this most likely cause. It's relatively simple to correctly label somebody an arse (What this policy would do), but I honestly don't believe a policy can correspond to all situations, so we would have people incorrectly calling this into use. *In a nutshell: You cannot correctly define what spam is, but it is easily identifiable by the people involved, so they can be reprimanded for it without need for a policy. Zulu Inuoe 21:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The Spam Krewe is a lie. Most of them don't spam anything except each other's talk pages, which have very little actual discussion anyway. Besides, even those don't get spammed much.[[Image:Entrea Sumatae.png|Entrea Sumatae]]<font color="#4682b4">Entrea Sumatae  <font color="#4682b4">[Talk]  00:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Tbh I don't spam at all, and the rest of the crew rarely does, save fire tock. Occasionally they'll write an epic on someone's talk page, but thats usually only one or two edits, and isn't really RC breaking. The other "spam" is almost always a conversation. --<font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="#FF6699">Shadowcrest 00:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hehe, I spammed. On GW2W. People made a big shit about it, too. EXTRA, EXTRA! Read all about it!--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 00:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Unique lulz. Maybe edits that are of very low change in bytes should be allowed to press a "This is spam" button that makes it not seeable in the recent edits page. Tee hee Zulu Inuoe 00:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That'd be pretty sweet. I bet there's a coding in some MediaWiki: namespace that could allow us to add that :P --[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 00:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you really not see the potential abuse that has? --<font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="#FF6699">Shadowcrest 00:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, people making 100 edits in order to create a gigantic spam sandwhich. Needs to be carefuly implimented, with other codes, such as allowing certian number of spams per day or whatnot. Also allowing the spam to be seen in recent changes as an OPTIONAL view, in order to moderate. Zulu Inuoe 00:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And what about the thousands of portals this opens up for vandals? Think of how many phrases could be added in articles using less then 20 characters. --<font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="#FF6699">Shadowcrest 00:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That was pretty much what I said. But understand that it was a joke idea, and I wouldn't expect it to be implimented. If it ever was, it'd have a far more complex structure than my simple sentence. Zulu Inuoe 00:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, missed the sentence about allowing it to be viewed. That would fix the problems, though yes, I don't think this would ever be implemented. --<font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="#FF6699">Shadowcrest 00:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As I was saying, this policy has no meaning whatsoever because it is not a problem. at all. Yes, the spam crew is a lie, it was originally made as a sort of meeting place. We've gone out of that, and with firetock we're sort of let go. I think that Fire should have his "Spam Permit" revoked, as this does seem to make him spam more. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 15:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

sooo
do you want this deleted or moved some place for your amusement? &mdash;<font color=#ff44aa>♥<font color=MAGENTA>Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 23:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, i was pissed off by the idiocy of the proposal and still think it should be removed. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 15:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

final cut
Upon a closer inspection of proposed policy and the relevant discussions, I've decided that this is most definitely not needed. It appears to be directed to a specific group of people who by and large have definitive positive contributions to this wiki that far outweigh a perceived problem they cause spamming (I say perceived because I don't see them as a problem. They add personality to the wiki). Problems with spamming are handled on an individual basis. This policy basically says that there can be no groups who communicate on the wiki about things not directly related to content. The fact that the "Spam Crew" chose that as a name for themselves doesn't mean that they are spamming per se or that it is harmful to this wiki. So I say that this policy fails. As for what to do with it, I don't think it should be deleted. Failed policies are useful in citing why we do not have a policy and that we have clearly decided that a policy was not needed. Therefore I won't delete this but I will stick it in the failed bin.&mdash;<font color=#ff44aa>♥<font color=MAGENTA>Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 18:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll move this to archived policies, then. I was the one who worked on the category ;) --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 18:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you overestimated my intentions with this policy. It was started to focus attention on the behaviour I saw yesterday: no less than 4 people commented on Warwick's discussion page about his spamming, to which his response was "No policy against me doing so. AND i have a spam permit."  He pointed out there was no policy, so I created one.  I meant for it to be revised into something much more general, or even just merged into a larger policy about dealing with vandals or whichever.  A lack of any spamming policy and the allowance of a "spam permit" gives the average user no confidence that a spammer will be dealt with or that spam is taken seriously.  -- Peej 19:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The "Spam Permit" is actually a joke, and that i said about the "spamming" that I did- It wasnt actually spamming, since it was on multiple pages. If I had been doing it on one page, which I never would have done, then I would have taken your side, but that I was doing it on multiple pages, Im against you. The name of this policy is childish and stupid, and as jedi said, it actually has no point whatsoever, since this is not a problem. Normally we only spam each others userpage, which you can set to be hidden anyway. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 19:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)