Difference between revisions of "Talk:Main Page/Discussion"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(delivery different drug floating gastric oral system female masturbation blog) |
m (Reverted edits by AcbozElbob (Talk); changed back to last version by John Rumm) |
||
| (89 intermediate revisions by 34 users not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
* [[Talk:Main Page/Archive 20070630|30th June 2007]] | * [[Talk:Main Page/Archive 20070630|30th June 2007]] | ||
* [[Talk:Main Page/Archive 20070815|15th August 2007]] | * [[Talk:Main Page/Archive 20070815|15th August 2007]] | ||
| + | * [[Talk:Main Page/Archive 20080229|29th February 2008]] | ||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | == Time to protect pages from spam? == | ||
| − | + | Following up from discussion of spam in [[Talk:Main_Page/Archive_20080229]] and looking at the current level of spamming I think it's time we protected all the wiki so that only registered users can edit pages. | |
| − | |||
| − | ' | + | Earlier I had hoped/suggested that keeping the wiki open would encourage casual visitors to start contributing with little edits such as typos, clarifications etc, and maybe move on to becoming more heavyweight contributors. However this doesn't seem to be happening anyway, and the quantity of spam is getting unmanageable. |
| − | + | The quality of the wiki would probably be improved more by having less spam and less work for regulars to do patrolling it, than any notional contribution from unregistered users. Also when/if unregistered users do contribute there's a danger their input may be mistaken for spam and their IP get blocked. | |
| − | |||
| − | -- | + | A wiki-wide change is probably a Grunff-config thing. If others (NT, JR) agree I'll ask him to do it. |
| − | + | --[[User:John Stumbles|John Stumbles]] 20:37, 29 February 2008 (GMT) | |
| − | --[[User:John | + | OK by me --[[User:John Rumm|John Rumm]] 23:01, 29 February 2008 (GMT) |
| − | + | ==Mass block== | |
| + | Is there any way to block IPs en masse? Any way at all would be a big help here. | ||
| + | [[User:NT|NT]] 10:36, 9 April 2008 (BST) | ||
| − | + | Alas not that I am aware of. | |
| − | + | We could also do with a global config file change to disable anonymous edits altogether. The policy of setting protection on individual articles to limit edits to registered users only, seems to have worked reasonably well[1] - but it is a bit slow to work through them all. Also it does not stop them creating new articles. | |
| + | I am tempted to protect the talk main page and see what happens. It will probably cause them to look for new articles to spam - but we can revert and protect any they find as it happens, so the workload may not be too much. It would certainly cut down the noise and leave them an ever decreasing pool of articles to fiddle with. | ||
| + | [1] I have only seen one edit to a protected file - and that was from a user that we had pre-emptively banned anyway. I am not sure how that happened - but it may have been because the user had tried it once before and got a limited duration ban which expired after my permanent ban was set. Perhaps the expiration of the temporary one overrode the permanent one? | ||
| − | + | --[[User:John Rumm|John Rumm]] 13:24, 9 April 2008 (BST) | |
| − | + | <!-- ATTENTION! real contributors - add your contribution before this anti-spam device ... | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | - | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Latest revision as of 03:14, 3 January 2009
This page is for discussion of the DIY Wiki main page, and the Wiki as a whole.
It also seems to be a favoured place for spammers advertising dodgy pharmaceuticals, fakereplica Rolexes and so on <sigh>
Previous discussions on this page have been Archived
Time to protect pages from spam?
Following up from discussion of spam in Talk:Main_Page/Archive_20080229 and looking at the current level of spamming I think it's time we protected all the wiki so that only registered users can edit pages.
Earlier I had hoped/suggested that keeping the wiki open would encourage casual visitors to start contributing with little edits such as typos, clarifications etc, and maybe move on to becoming more heavyweight contributors. However this doesn't seem to be happening anyway, and the quantity of spam is getting unmanageable.
The quality of the wiki would probably be improved more by having less spam and less work for regulars to do patrolling it, than any notional contribution from unregistered users. Also when/if unregistered users do contribute there's a danger their input may be mistaken for spam and their IP get blocked.
A wiki-wide change is probably a Grunff-config thing. If others (NT, JR) agree I'll ask him to do it.
--John Stumbles 20:37, 29 February 2008 (GMT)
OK by me --John Rumm 23:01, 29 February 2008 (GMT)
Mass block
Is there any way to block IPs en masse? Any way at all would be a big help here. NT 10:36, 9 April 2008 (BST)
Alas not that I am aware of.
We could also do with a global config file change to disable anonymous edits altogether. The policy of setting protection on individual articles to limit edits to registered users only, seems to have worked reasonably well[1] - but it is a bit slow to work through them all. Also it does not stop them creating new articles.
I am tempted to protect the talk main page and see what happens. It will probably cause them to look for new articles to spam - but we can revert and protect any they find as it happens, so the workload may not be too much. It would certainly cut down the noise and leave them an ever decreasing pool of articles to fiddle with.
[1] I have only seen one edit to a protected file - and that was from a user that we had pre-emptively banned anyway. I am not sure how that happened - but it may have been because the user had tried it once before and got a limited duration ban which expired after my permanent ban was set. Perhaps the expiration of the temporary one overrode the permanent one?
--John Rumm 13:24, 9 April 2008 (BST)