[wp-docs] Codex Spam

Arlen Beiler arlenbee at gmail.com
Tue Jun 22 16:17:02 UTC 2010

> This is from Wikibooks:
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Help:Revision_review#Editors_and_reviewers

 Automatic editor status criteria

You should *automatically* get editor tools when/if you meet the following

   - Have a registered account that is *at least* 30 days old, with an email
      set and confirmed in
      - Have never been blocked, and have never had the editor or reviewer
      tools removed (you can request the
tools<http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:RFP> in
      this case).
      - Have *at least* 100 edits since registration (excluding deleted
      edits), in which:
      - 50 or more edits are to pages other than discussion pages.
         - 50 or more edit
summaries<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/edit_summaries> are
         - 10 or more unique pages are edited *at least* once.
         - 10 edits are spaced 2 or more days apart from each other (which
         takes *at least* 18 days, if you edit every 2 days).
         - 10 or more edits are in recent
changes<http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges> at
         the time automatic editor promotion is checked.

I requested and got my editor privileges via the request page as I didn't
have enough edits yet and was making a wikibook. It was nothing special or
unusual, jus because I was a good contributor.

I suspect though that this works best were there are a lot of reviewers /
> editors.  On the codex there's a fairly small team of admins, and a few key
> contributors who may (or may not) desire to review other work.
> Also the concept of something being reviewed could discourage small, quick
> edits.

If you have editor or reviewer privileges, you can review your own edits,
and I believe it marks your own edits as reviewed by default anyway.
Besides, any contributors can easily get the privileges if they have a
reason. So, in reality, it is less restrictive than it sounds. I do agree
that if the team is too small, which I don't think it is, it could be a
progress blocker.

> Sufficient would, I suspect, be to limit the number of edits a normal user
> can make in a specified period.  Most spam attacks work because they blast a
> load of new pages out automatically in a short time. Normal users don't do
> this.  So all you really need is a limit on this sort of thing.  The admin
> team can easily handle small-scale spam.

This might be a good idea, but I don't think it would work very well, as
someone designing templates or something like that will run into drastic
problems if they use subpages and parser functions.

On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Arlen Beiler <arlenbee at gmail.com> wrote:

> Wikibooks has used reviewing with great success. If someone wants to review
> articles, they can request editor or reviewer status. Editor status can be
> given automatically or manually by an admin. Reviewer status is a
> higher privilege required only for giving pages featured book status and
> some other stuff. It is assumed that editors can be trusted as they have
> made many contributions. If someone is writing a wikibook, they can usually
> get editor status. I think some admins said once that it really cut down on
> drive-by spam and so forth. Something like this would give us the ability to
> control what visitors see when they visit. If a page is not reviewed the
> latest revision is shown. If a page is reviewed, the latest stable revision
> is shown.
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Gooitzen van der Ent <
> contact at ecodelphinus.com> wrote:
>>  Hello Lorelle,
>> Personally I favor the idea of approving accounts manually, and having a
>> select (international) doc team. Possibly covering the major languages in
>> any case.  How to do this for lesser used languages?
>> Another option could be to implement a WordPress article approval system,
>> where all changes/ additions to the codex for example in the form of new
>> articles must be approved for publishing by textmoderators.
>> Of course this raises the question whether or not the people approving
>> should (be able) to see if the information entered is valuable.
>> Might help if some regular meetings (video conferences) are set-up where
>> codex writers sit down with code developers in order to write things down.
>> Just a few ideas. Open for other suggestions by all means.
>> Hope it helps.
>> Kind regards,
>> Gooitzen van der Ent
>> On 06/22/2010 09:29 AM, Lorelle on WordPress wrote:
>> Matt says that now that logins are locked, new registrations to the Codex
>> are temporarily blocked. They are looking at how to resolve this issue to
>> permit "open" registration while controlling the level of spam and the work
>> volunteers need to do to deal with it.
>>  In the interim, that puts the action in the hands of those currently
>> with access. I'm very unhappy with this status, as I'm sure most of you are.
>> If there are any MediaWiki experts in our crowd that have some suggestions
>> on how to help with this issue, would love your input. Personally, I think
>> Akismet should be the first to embrace spam prevention on MediaWiki  - would
>> resolve a ton of issues for wiki fans, including Wikipedia. :D I ask so
>> much, don't I?
>>  Ideas?
>>  Lorelle
>> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Jane Wells <jane at automattic.com> wrote:
>>> On 6/21/10 1:38 PM, Lorelle on WordPress wrote:
>>>> Good questions. The logins, to the best of my understanding, were all
>>>> merged a long time ago. If you log into the wp.org <http://wp.org>, the
>>>> login takes you everywhere within the site. For spammers, especially bots,
>>>> they are focusing on mediawiki logins, not WordPress.org, so this stops
>>>> technical blocks them as they are bots. For the human spammers, it's another
>>>> hoop they have to jump through and they might not know to jump. So we can
>>>> only hope.
>>>> I just tested it and you're right. New registrants on WordPress.org
>>>> can't get access to the Codex. It's probably a permissions level issue. I've
>>>> let them know and we should have an answer shortly. Thanks for pointing it
>>>> out.
>>>> Lorelle
>>> I have different logins for the codex and for .org. I don't think the
>>> codex users have been merged yet.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> wp-docs mailing list
>>> wp-docs at lists.automattic.com
>>> http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-docs
>> _______________________________________________
>> wp-docs mailing listwp-docs at lists.automattic.comhttp://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-docs
>> _______________________________________________
>> wp-docs mailing list
>> wp-docs at lists.automattic.com
>> http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-docs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.automattic.com/pipermail/wp-docs/attachments/20100622/599c9f50/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the wp-docs mailing list