Are we not blocking spammers now? -- 14:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- They seem to be hit-and-run, one-edit accounts. And besides, even if we block a few, there will be others. --Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 15:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ling123 has appeared as a particularly vicious spammer, creating pages with Tolkien-like titles but putting in spam.
- I don't know how to affect spamming; the following are random ideas:
- Enforce a delay between signing up and getting editing privileges.
- Require those who want to edit to fill in a talk page.
- Require ID approval.
- -- Gamling 06:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I have only been on this site for a few days but I have noticed how bad the spamming is. Setting up user rights so that new members can only edit after filling out their respective talk page is a good idea (and something I would like to implement on my wiki), however, this might deter genuine members who only want to make minor edits to existing pages and not want to bother with their own user and user talk pages.
Certainly, spam image uploads are a problem too. Uploads can be blocked until a member has reached say 10 edits; this would cut down on spamming images uploads and save the admins a little time having to delete everything that is 'not related'.
I recently installed the recaptcha extension, which is quite useful because it can be used for triggers such as page creation and edits, however, this does not stop spammers if they are persistent and the downside is that unless you add a member to say a 'trusted' usergroup, they will get the captcha box every time they make an edit. I am still exploring this and even though my site is nowhere near as busy as this one I hardly ever get spammers.
The only decent way to stop spammers is for people to require a membership from the admins (after their details have been scrutinised) but this also takes a lot of time. --Kerchi talk | contribs | edits 09:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)