User talk:HJ Mitchell: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
HJ Mitchell (talk | contribs) (→Spammers: r) |
(wiki conference comments) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
I'm wondering if we ought to have a couple of standard templates and a space for discussing the approach for dealing with spammers and vandals. We seem in the habit of indef blocks as the first step and it might be an idea to move to at least one 24 hour block first with an associated template with a fair explanation of what this website is, where else they can try playing with wikis in general and a warning about why the next step could be an indef. We could even bundle these into a user script that any :wmuk admin could then reuse as a handy bust-vandals-but-be-nice tool. Cheers --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] 08:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC) | I'm wondering if we ought to have a couple of standard templates and a space for discussing the approach for dealing with spammers and vandals. We seem in the habit of indef blocks as the first step and it might be an idea to move to at least one 24 hour block first with an associated template with a fair explanation of what this website is, where else they can try playing with wikis in general and a warning about why the next step could be an indef. We could even bundle these into a user script that any :wmuk admin could then reuse as a handy bust-vandals-but-be-nice tool. Cheers --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] 08:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC) | ||
:Hey Fae. It might be worth discussing it at the water cooler if we ant to develop a standard approach, but personally I don't think we should give blatant spammers the time of day. If it's obviously in bad faith, and it's the kind of thing that would be deleted from just about any wiki, I would just block them. I take a similar approach on Wikipedia, though I might give them an "only warning" first, depending on the severity of the spamming. I might cut some slack for people who are trying to write encyclopaedia articles that are overly positive in tone, but most of the stuff we see here is pretty obviously in bad faith and a lot of it looks coordinated. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''Harry Mitchell'''</font>]] | [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </font>]] 18:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC) | :Hey Fae. It might be worth discussing it at the water cooler if we ant to develop a standard approach, but personally I don't think we should give blatant spammers the time of day. If it's obviously in bad faith, and it's the kind of thing that would be deleted from just about any wiki, I would just block them. I take a similar approach on Wikipedia, though I might give them an "only warning" first, depending on the severity of the spamming. I might cut some slack for people who are trying to write encyclopaedia articles that are overly positive in tone, but most of the stuff we see here is pretty obviously in bad faith and a lot of it looks coordinated. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''Harry Mitchell'''</font>]] | [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </font>]] 18:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC) | ||
== Wiki conference 2012 == | |||
Thanks for your changes on the page Harry. I have actually copied that over from 2011 one, but it is good that this year's version does not have the mistakes. [[User:Daria Cybulska|Daria Cybulska]] ([[User talk:Daria Cybulska|talk]]) 11:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:03, 29 March 2012
Hi!
Spammers
Hi,
I'm wondering if we ought to have a couple of standard templates and a space for discussing the approach for dealing with spammers and vandals. We seem in the habit of indef blocks as the first step and it might be an idea to move to at least one 24 hour block first with an associated template with a fair explanation of what this website is, where else they can try playing with wikis in general and a warning about why the next step could be an indef. We could even bundle these into a user script that any :wmuk admin could then reuse as a handy bust-vandals-but-be-nice tool. Cheers --Fæ 08:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hey Fae. It might be worth discussing it at the water cooler if we ant to develop a standard approach, but personally I don't think we should give blatant spammers the time of day. If it's obviously in bad faith, and it's the kind of thing that would be deleted from just about any wiki, I would just block them. I take a similar approach on Wikipedia, though I might give them an "only warning" first, depending on the severity of the spamming. I might cut some slack for people who are trying to write encyclopaedia articles that are overly positive in tone, but most of the stuff we see here is pretty obviously in bad faith and a lot of it looks coordinated. Harry Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Wiki conference 2012
Thanks for your changes on the page Harry. I have actually copied that over from 2011 one, but it is good that this year's version does not have the mistakes. Daria Cybulska (talk) 11:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)