Forum:Spamming other clan chats

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Spamming other clan chats
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 7 April 2010 by Stelercus.

As much as I hate to propose new rules, I think we need something to prevent wikians from harassing other clan chats, especially those pertaining to other RuneScape fan sites. It reflects extremely badly on us, and only encourages other people to troll our clan chat in a retaliatory manner. Today's example is not the first, but I hope it will be the last. I am not trying to turn this into a witch hunt against any particular person, but to demonstrate the problem, it is necessary to name the specific user. It is CH I P PY (formerly called Get Soakd).

2010-02-28confession.png

Although he did not say he was from the RuneScape wiki, it is ridiculously easy to find out. For example, try putting his user name into Google, and his user page is the very first result.

2010-02-28Googleresults.png

Now, from one point of view we cannot control what our users do in other clan chats (hence this cannot form part of our cc rules), but users must be held accountable under wiki rules if they bring our reputation into ignominy. Possibly this could be incorporated into RS:UTP, expanding the policy to include expectations of respect and courtesy for people who are not wikians. However, any new guidelines must not be too broad - for example, if someone in RuneScape (or even in another clan chat) gets my back up I should not have to be polite to them for the wiki's sake. Our users must be free to enter other sites' clan chats, but not for the purpose of trolling. I think this must stop now. Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 23:03, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Support - Per Lee. --LiquidTalk 23:06, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I agree. This is not okay.  Panjy16  23:09, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - This also occurred at some point last night, with a user using multiple accounts to spam Rune HQ's clan chat. This is unacceptable. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 23:16, February 28, 2010 (UTC) 

Support - Per everyone else. --Iiii I I I 23:17, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose I fully agree it is childish, stupid, and a waste of time. It reflects poorly upon the individual. But I really wonder where anyone gets off thinking they can tell anyone else what they can do out side the wiki. Because you can't. Of course, this does tell us a lot about the person, and so we would hopefully never trust them with any sort of tools that are given to trusted users as they have demonstrated not just poor but idiotic judgement. But that is as far as we can take it.--Degenret01 01:47, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support - No wonder we've been getting spammed in the Wiki's clan chat, what with the aforementioned user spamming other clan chats and all, not to mention the possibility of other users wreaking havoc as well. I think Lee hit the nail on the head when he said that these users must be held accountable for their actions under Wiki rules if they're going to do anything that ruins the Wiki's reputation. At the very least, they should have to apologize to the people whose clan chats they've caused trouble in. [1] N7 Elite (Ready to talk now?) 02:09, March 1, 2010 (UTC)


Support - Per everybody. Third age robe top.png 3rd age farcaster Third age druidic robe top.png 02:13, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Degen. Ruud (talk)(Suggest me naems) 02:23, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Strong support - This is getting extremely out of hand. It seemed to have became popular when that Rune HQ war was proposed. Many of our users liked to go in there are yell random crap, or in other words, spam. Them shutting down the idea of a war just encouraged these users. It was only last night that I was the only rank in the cc when pretty much all of the 4 or 5 other users decided to go into the RuneHQ cc and spam, then complaining when I told them to get out. It's getting out of hand, as most of these users do mention our wiki. They also see it as fun, but I don't think the rankless RuneHQ cc did last night. Something needs to be done. Chicken7 >talk 06:30, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I think we don't have the right to force users not to spam other clan chats. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 06:34, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

They go there and spam it saying "rswiki rulz!" and sometimes say to come to our own clan chat! If they want to be part of our community, whether on the wiki or in the clan chat, they have to respect it by not ruining our good name among the wider community. If they can't respect us, and go out of their way to not respect us, are they users we want in our community? Chicken7 >talk 06:39, March 1, 2010 (UTC)
True. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 06:42, March 1, 2010 (UTC)
Changed to sort of Conditional Support - But only when they spam saying things like "rswiki rulz" and stuff. Not if they just spam in the normal way (@$%&@$*@$%^#$^@#$^@#$%^&@$%& and crap like that). Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 06:42, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support - When a user spams the cc in any shape or form, they make an idiot of themself and after doing it a few times they get banned. When a user spams another cc with wiki supremacy messages, they not only make an idiot of themself but also the wiki as a whole in extension. Because of that, it is much much worse than anything someone can do in the R S Wikia cc. Maybe we should ask someone from the RHQ cc to report anyone who spams RSW prejudice since it would be unlikely for us to know if someone spams the cc unless they brag about it on our cc. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 07:25, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support- I know i have done this before but it is childish and hurts the rs wikia's reputation and users should be disciplined if they are caught. I am sorry for when i did it. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 07:43, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Essay?

Weakish oppose to original proposal Degen makes a very good point, and actually I am persuaded that we should not attempt to control people's behaviour unduly. After all, the practice in question (whilst detestable in this editor's opinion) does not take place on the wiki or in the wiki clan chat. So I think it should not be directly punishable, and therefore we can't have a fixed policy against it. However, it could reflect badly on our wiki, and therefore as a community we should discourage it. It should be accepted as a valid reason for opposing an RfA for example, since admins are supposed to be ambassadors for the wiki, and I can't imagine anyone worthy of that position indulging in this kind of pettiness. Whatever happened to friendly rivalry with other fan sites anyway?  :-| So would guidelines in the form of an essay be a better idea? Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 23:00, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Regulating user behavior outside the Wiki isn't really our job. He has knocked four times. 23:08, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Degen is right for the most part. There's no true way we can "enforce" this rule should it come to pass. Hell, we shouldn't even be having this topic, since nobody should be a dick to others to begin with. Honestly, we are not Chip's keepers, and his own actions are his own fault. If he wants to be (in my opinion) a stupid child, no rule we lay down can truly stop him. He'll get his just desserts from whichever site he offended, and if he does it here, we'll treat him all the same. Perhaps a punishable offense should be thrown in somewhere, but this can all be summarized into a long forgotten phrase that was once here but thrown aside "Don't Be A Dick". Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 23:21, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately we could all suffer if people from other fan sites troll our clan chat in retaliation. I don't want other fan sites to think that this is how we do things here, that's all. Even if we can't stop our users from doing it, we should be seen not to condone it. Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 23:55, March 1, 2010 (UTC)
How can you oppose the proposal, Lee? Didn't you make the original proposal in the first place? --LiquidTalk 02:06, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
Just because I proposed it, that doesn't necessarily mean I support it. After all, when I make a proposal, I haven't heard any arguments against.  :-) In any case, I'm entitled to change my mind if someone persuades me, and Degen makes a compelling case. Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 05:39, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

Weak support+Comment - While we can't control what people do I find the treatment policy should apply for wiki users or not (spamming is bad treatment frankly), even more so due to not being able to confirm some of the people in the other chats are or are not wikians. I do have a question however, would DBAD[2] apply or would another essay be needed? Korasi's sword.png Archmage Elune  TalkHS Void knight deflector.png fetus is my son and I love him. 06:10, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support essay While DBAD should encompass the terms we wish to express, it could be expounded upon a bit for specific situations. Since apparently we need them. Yea, I am rolling my eyes quite a bit that we feel it is needed but so it goes eh? Feel free to use some really expressive language in this essay. Words such as moronic, childish, and blithering idiot might help emphasize just how we as a community feel about this behavior.--Degenret01 09:59, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

DBAD is not a policy or even an essay of the RuneScape wiki, but it sounds like we need it (or something like it) for the edification of the community here. I think it should be broad enough to encompass the behaviour detailed above, as well as other situations where DBAD is a good guideline. Whilst it seems like a waste of time to basically copy something from Wiki Media to our wiki (especially as it should be common sense anyway), I think it will help our users to think about their behaviour in broader terms than what is or is not against specific rules, and encourage them to take a greater pride in their own efforts instead of disparaging others. I agree it is disheartening to see that its necessity is greater than it perhaps should be. Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 16:07, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support the creation of RS:DBAD - We've needed it for awhile, and even though I have a post up the page, I'm still making this one. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 21:36, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Do you think the essay should be more "G-rated" then the Metawiki version?? I don't think it is a good idea to redirect people of an unspecified age to a page which has a name 10 times worse then anything that could be said on RuneScape and can't have a warning. I mean like replacing "dick" with "noob", or something of similar effect?? I was going to say it should be called "Don't be a Chicken7", but then I realised that that would probably mentally scar anyone who is compared to him. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 23:53, March 5, 2010 (UTC)
Maybe. But it must be realized that the harshness of the language really helps drives the point home of just what a **** someone has been. Theres really nothing quite like it in comparison to make one consider that their behavior is that unbecoming. Telling some one they are being a noob or a troll or a Chicken7 or a degenerate really wouldn't make some one stop and reconsider their actions. Thats my 23 cents anyhows.--Degenret01 00:26, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
OMG!OMG!OMG!OMG!OMG!OMG!OMG!OMG!OMG!OMG!OMG!OMG! Chicken7 >talk 11:06, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
For my part, I would not like to see any more censorship on this wiki than is absolutely necessary. Degen also makes a very good point, that being called a "noob" or some variation thereof has nothing like the same impact (especially as we hear it all the time). That said, a proposed policy on profanity is underway now at Forum:Proposal for RuneScape:Profanity, and its application to the RuneScape name space has not even been discussed in any detail yet. So if you have an argument to make either way, let it be known there.  :-) In any case, this seems like a detail that can be discussed separately, and should not make much of an impact on this proposal. Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 18:14, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
Name changes would be fine. I just wanted to broadcast the general term we've known it as, to be honest. Don't Be a Noob is actually great, since a lot of younger players take it the same way as the former word. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 00:15, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Weak Support - I don't really think that it shines well on the wiki, but how much can we enforce without it getting silly? Farxodor Magic cape (t).png 04:31, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I think it is not appropriate, but ultimately, we can only enforce this so much as others have mentioned. If only everyone could get along... HaloTalk 16:49, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Late comment - This spamming is quite a bit more than just being immature for the users and reflecting badly on the wiki's policies. It is an embarrassment to the community as a whole.

In fact, I'm sick of the drama and crap that occurs here on the wiki...so much so that I joined RHQ in an attempt to find a community that DOESN'T have so many elitest users who think that playing a not-so-harmless prank is fun. Yes, there are users here who I respect and look up to, but those spammers are not any of them. Quite frankly, if I see that users mock me for joining RHQ at all, I will be even MORE sickened. We are so elitest in the RS fansite communit that it's no longer humorous.

Let me give you an example: When I first registered on RHQ's forums, I was having trouble getting the account activation link in my e-mail. When I went into the CC for RHQ (Terr002), I explained my problem, and happened to mention that I was from RSQ. Then, not surprisingly, one of their users started to flame me because he thought ALL wikians were good-for-nothing time-wasters and spammers. The ranked users managed to shut him up and apologize for his actions, but the damage was done. I was quite frankly insulted by the facts that not only was he rude to me as a person, but because I was from a certain community. This is insane.

Yes, I will still be editing here; I'm not quitting. Just don't expect me to be on as much as I once was. This incident shows me what our community as a whole has become. 7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH (Actually Stinko) 21:29, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - We cannot control from the Wiki what our users do in-game. However, we can do in-game things like kicking them from the R S Wiki cc, reporting them in-game for encouraging others to break rules, etc. --MarkGyver 00:52, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Copied from User's talk page - For the "spamming other clan chats" thread:

Comment I have no right to support or oppose, but I'd just like to put an analysis in, the spammers invading other clan chats are from this wiki, thus if they'd know where they come from, that would practically unleash the Pandora's box of flaming on this site (as an act of revenge), if the spammers are editors from the wiki, then the editors who abide by the rules should sanction them with what is in their power. Adopting a "they're not our problem" attitude will be very unhelpful to the wiki's image, the wiki's editors are responsible for the site as a whole, and thus how it looks to an outsider.

Letting the spammer be, and not doing anything about it is like a kid being beaten up by someone else's, then his/her parents going to the other parents and only to hear that "He/She didn't do it at home, so we can't be responsible for it." the impression would a RHQ user get from finding that no action will be taken will be no doubt negative, and the wiki would lose potential users. I know well that the user's actions cannot be controlled beyond the wiki or its cc; they should be entitled to sanctions, (e.g. minor blocks) on the wiki and the wiki's clan chat. Explorer's ring 3.pngBtzkillerv has entered the building! Cape (blue).png 15:36, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Karlis (talk) (contribs) 17:16, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
Interesting analogy, but we are not mummies and daddies to every wiki-dwelling moron who wants to act like an idiot, and I for one am not going to baby them or take responsibility for their bad behaviour. I have a feeling that we are wasting an awful lot of time on this discussion when the real issue is a few individuals who think they can do what they like without having to worry about what the consequences for other people might be. Clearly these people do not care about their own reputations, so the DBAD principle will likely be ineffective anyway. Stinko has already documented above an occasion on which he was judged negatively for being involved with the wiki, which may or may not be attributable to cc trolling/spamming incidents (which he himself had no part in). We need to put in place a policy or something similar that says we do not condone or tolerate behaviour like this, even if disciplinary action cannot be taken for infractions. We must be seen to take a stand against this sort of nonsense, to make it clear to our users and to other fan sites that if a wikian behaves badly, we should not all be tarred with the same brush. Achieving that is in all our interests. Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 19:01, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
Additional Comment - I know that the spammers cannot have a leash attached onto them everywhere, but having the RHQ users relating the spammer to here is enough to release a flood of attacks, even through the spammers cannot be controlled all the time, I think that the spammer can be given blocks here or kicks/ignores from the cc if necessary with enough evidence, they can't be punished there, but they can be punished for what they did in RHQ's cc here.

Explorer's ring 3.pngBtzkillerv has entered the building! Cape (blue).png 16:59, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - While I understand your intentions, there isn't really anything we can do to stop others from Spamming. Only people in the other clan chats can do that, really. --

Water Wave icon.png
Captain Sciz
TalkEditsHiscores File:Runecrafter hat.png|link=

17:31, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose rule - Having another rule that essentially say what our don't be a dick and common sense essays say will not curb any users behavior. Do you see Jagex saying things like "Fighting with World Of Warcraft players about whether or not Runescape is cool is a bannable offense, because the retaliation and bad press from those encounters is bad for all of Runescape"? If someone breaks a rule in our cc or on the wiki itself, lets take action. If not, it is none of our concern and we have plenty of volunteers on hand at all times to handle spammers and vandalism. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 11:10, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

It may or may not stop any one from being an idiot, but it will show these other sites that we have asked our people not to participate in such behavior.--Degenret01 09:47, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem with adding an essay or a guideline somewhere. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 20:52, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

Support Agree in the intention, disagree of making it a policy. More of a guideline, I think. Balance iz powa!4ndrepd TalkContribsStupid monkeys actually have a use...Jump to the God Wars II! 22:41, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Request for closure - topic has died out, the sooner we get this over with the better Explorer's ring 3.pngBtzkillerv has entered the building! Cape (blue).png 16:01, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Discussion appears to be finished, therefore RuneScape:Don't be a Noob will be created based on the Wikipedia page on the topic and changed to fit the change made to the title. A subsection of that particular essay or an essay all to itself may also be written on the topic of spamming other clan chats, though there will be no official rule on the matter at this time. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 19:47, April 7, 2010 (UTC)