Bureaucrats, checkuser, Interface administrators, interwiki, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Editors (Semantic MediaWiki), staff, Suppressors, Administrators
83,693
edits
WikiIndex talk:Spam control policy: Difference between revisions
→spam - do you 'undo' or 'rollback' on existing valid articles: new section
(→What happens if spam slips through: reply with info) |
Hoof Hearted (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
Sysops can block the IP address of spammers, but is there any way that a user page could be marked as a suspected spammer, in order to get a sysop to come and check the account out? [[User:David Shepheard|David Shepheard]] 04:30, 27 October 2010 (PDT) | Sysops can block the IP address of spammers, but is there any way that a user page could be marked as a suspected spammer, in order to get a sysop to come and check the account out? [[User:David Shepheard|David Shepheard]] 04:30, 27 October 2010 (PDT) | ||
:The answer is found in the last section on the project page - [[WikiIndex:Spam Control Policy#What happens if spam slips through the automated systems|what happens if spam slips through the automated systems]] - basically just copy and paste '''<nowiki>{{spammer}}</nowiki>''' onto their user page and this will create an automated warning banner. [[Special:Contributions/78.32.143.113|78.32.143.113]] 01:13, 21 December 2011 (PST) | :The answer is found in the last section on the project page - [[WikiIndex:Spam Control Policy#What happens if spam slips through the automated systems|what happens if spam slips through the automated systems]] - basically just copy and paste '''<nowiki>{{spammer}}</nowiki>''' onto their user page and this will create an automated warning banner. [[Special:Contributions/78.32.143.113|78.32.143.113]] 01:13, 21 December 2011 (PST) | ||
== spam - do you 'undo' or 'rollback' on existing valid articles == | |||
An interesting consideration . . . looking at some edit histories of articles I update, I notice that when spam has been discovered, the edit gets reverted by using the 'undo' function. This can have a problem, in that the spam is still there in the article (by using either the 'diff' or the timestamp). This may not be a big problem to generic trivial spam, but for more contentious spam (such as illegal activities, child porn images, etc) this can be a real problem. So can I suggest that when spam is added to existing articles, the admins use the 'rollback' function instead - as this then permanently deletes the offending spam edit, and wont then show up in the articles edit history. --[[User:Hoof Hearted|Hoof Hearted]] • <small>[[User talk:Hoof Hearted|talk2HH]]</small> 01:39, 26 January 2012 (PST) | |||