Anonymous user
Rosetta Code:Village Pump/Acceptable usernames: Difference between revisions
Rosetta Code:Village Pump/Acceptable usernames (view source)
Revision as of 13:28, 12 August 2015
, 8 years agoUndo revision 209700 by 188.143.232.11 (talk)
m (Title) |
(Undo revision 209700 by 188.143.232.11 (talk)) |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 11:
P.S. I had done similar for someone using profanity in their username in the week before, but I was more sure of myself on that one. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 07:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
: Seems reasonable to me; a genuine contributor can just pick another user name (though if there's a way to send them a message explaining what you did and why, that perhaps ought to be used). I just wish that there was some way to stop the large-scale creation of usernames that is going on. Trouble is, I don't know how to do it without making things awkward for new contributors too. –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 10:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
:: Rather than simply lock down users, perhaps we could lock down new user privileges? Since task creation requires some expertise (I am uncomfortable doing it myself) and some familiarity with the site, perhaps new page creation can be restricted until after the user has shown their capabilities in other contexts? This relates to the difficulty that a non-admin user has for deleting page titles (and, also changes to an existing page can be easily reverted). --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 15:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
:::I like the idea of not allowing a new user to create new pages until after some time, but could it be done without too much effort and what aboutthe creation of users pages? Hmmm, maybe it would not work as a new legitimate user would want to create his user page and these could be spammed by idiots. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 16:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
:::: Maybe the user creation process itself can create the user page. Sure, it can be spammed, but then we're talking about ordinary spam rather than page-creation spam. [[User:CRGreathouse|CRGreathouse]] 17:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
::::: Yes, creating the user page (or making an explicit exception for it) should be fine. A problem with existing page spam is that the page title itself -- a part of the url of the page -- is spam. And correcting that takes admin privilege. So giving each user permission to create their user page, or a talk page on an existing page, should be fine -- or at least, that's not what current spammers are doing. And it's easier to clean up spam that fits into an existing url scheme than it is to clean up spam that has spam in the url. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 17:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::: That said... if someone goes to the effort of designing a language which is programmed using spam? And if the spammers cared enough to (a) provide a working (and safe to use) implementation, and (b) posted advertising spam in existing entries? That would almost be legitimate... Not sure how I would feel about that. So far, however, no spammers have been motivated to go to that kind of effort. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 17:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
| |||