UDWiki:Moderation/Policy Discussion/Talk Page Spamming

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

There is already an informal precedent for dealing with talk page spam. This policy is an attempt to codify the various decisions that have been made on M/VB into a unified statement that judgements can be derived from.

• 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.

-- Alan Watson ^{Talk · MalTel} 23:27, 12 September 2006 (BST)

Voting Section

Voting Rules

Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms: # comments ~~~~ or # ~~~~ Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a sysop.

The only valid voting sections are For and Against. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

For

1. -- Alan Watson ^{Talk · MalTel} 23:29, 12 September 2006 (BST)

   I dont find any problems with this. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 23:39, 12 September 2006 (BST)

2. Max Grivas ^{JG,T,Max4Mod,F!} 23:53, 12 September 2006 (BST)
3. Coldflame 03:21, 13 September 2006 (BST)
4. I shall vote For, although I have my reservations they are far outweighed by my approvals. Pillsy ^F! 16:05, 13 September 2006 (BST)
5. --Jattern3434 16:12, 16 September 2006 (BST)
6. ALACE 03:03, 17 September 2006 (BST)

Against

1. I am not in favor of defining a specific number of edits as crossing the line into spam, or defining "similar" messages of that number as spam. If I welcome 13 new members in, does that mean I'm a vandal? If I urgently need to get all of my fellow moderators attention, and I leave a note on each of their pages, does that mean I'm a vandal? This policy goes too far. The precedent we have is enough to rule on cases for vandalism or innocence. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 05:07, 13 September 2006 (BST)

   I'm sort of against leaving so much policy off the books. For one thing, it means that newbies need to look through countless vandal banning cases to be aware of all the rules. It's fair if you think this particular policy is going too far, but I would like to get at least some rule in writing about it. It's time we made the written rules of the wiki reflect the actual reality of what the mods are doing. Also, in the original draft I believe I exluded moderator and wiki maintenance messages from the vandal banning definition, but I just forgot to carry it over. Oops. -- Alan Watson ^{Talk · MalTel} 07:04, 13 September 2006 (BST)

2. I'm with Bob on this one.--The Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Talk | CC CPFOAS DOЯIS Judge LOE ZHU} 05:15, 13 September 2006 (BST)
3. I think limiting how much someone can advertise is more problematic than the advertisement- at least from what I've seen on the wiki. Besides, the effect of spamming is spread out over how many people get and send the message. If 100 people read about 1 thing, it's no big deal. If 1 person reads about 100 things, it becomes a problem. Should the latter become the status quo on the wiki, we might have to do something about it. As things stand, I don't think that we do. Ron Burgundy 05:22, 13 September 2006 (BST)
4. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 05:33, 13 September 2006 (BST)
5. As above. - Jedaz 05:48, 13 September 2006 (BST)
6. Case by case basis. This is draconian.--Gage 20:12, 13 September 2006 (BST)
7. Agree Case by Case --Rogue 04:53, 14 September 2006 (BST)
8. Case by case can work too. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 06:18, 14 September 2006 (BST)
9. Rewrite needed. There are cases (as noted above) where multiple users may will be needed to be notified of something...for example, users participating in an event that is coordinated via a wiki --Sirens^{T RR} 16:44, 14 September 2006 (BST)
10. We probably should just create a policy page that links to precedent setting cases with their summaries. That might work ok. --Darth Sensitive ^W! 22:30, 14 September 2006 (BST)
11. We all know spam when we see it. It's a wiki, just delete it. --ERNesbitt^P·T·MalTel 15:43, 15 September 2006 (BST)

    As a side note... why make more work for the mods? --ERNesbitt^P·T·MalTel 15:45, 15 September 2006 (BST)

12. --Amanofpower ^CFT 05:21, 16 September 2006 (BST)
13. What ERNesbitt said. Bubba 11:32, 16 September 2006 (BST)
14. Neurotrashed 12:28, 16 September 2006 (BST)
15. Last I heard, comments on discussion pages can be removed easily.--Cartoonlad 18:09, 17 September 2006 (BST)
16. --Some guy 20:27, 17 September 2006 (BST)
17. It's a talk page, just remove the spam and be done with it. --CaptainM 06:51, 18 September 2006 (BST)
18. Doesn't Vandal Banning cover this? --Akule 00:28, 19 September 2006 (BST)
19. Against. By the way, the Christian Decency Foundation is looking for recruits in its war against perversion and sin.Jjames 21:53, 19 September 2006 (BST)
20. Against - No.--Canuhearmenow ^Hunt! 00:14, 20 September 2006 (BST)