Skip to main content

This site requires you to update your browser. Your browsing experience maybe affected by not having the most up to date version.

We're retiring the forums!

The SilverStripe forums have passed their heyday. They'll stick around, but will be read only. We'd encourage you to get involved in the community via the following channels instead:

Releases and Announcements /

Latest news about the SilverStripe software.

Moderators: martimiz, Sean, Ed, biapar, assertchris, Willr, Ingo, swaiba, Graves

Suspended forum accounts (with suspicious/spammy activity)

Go to End

109 Posts   24530 Views


Forum Moderator, 1391 Posts

13 March 2013 at 9:18am

Nuked :-)

I had't been around for a week or so, I'll check more often from now, take some of the load of your back :-)


Forum Moderator, 1899 Posts

13 March 2013 at 10:49pm

Thanks martimiz!


Forum Moderator, 1899 Posts

14 March 2013 at 7:33am


Forum Moderator, 1899 Posts

17 March 2013 at 9:20pm


Forum Moderator, 1391 Posts

22 March 2013 at 3:11am

Edited: 22/03/2013 3:12am

I recall suggesting to ban posts with more then 4 consecutive links...

Probably checking first posts only won't work, people would simply start with a dummy if they found out. - especially since we're discussing it here!!

But we must be careful not to mark you as a spammer as well :-) so we'd need to check for external links. OK, 4 external links (= 4 times http(s):// ?) That would probably be more then enough, but still it might ban valid users.

So - create exceptions for github, gist, eh... wow!

not so easy :(



Community Member, 69 Posts

22 March 2013 at 6:06am


Thanks for the link "Martimiz's suggestion"

but your suggestion posted here in detail, is also in this case stale...

My first suggestions is :
- The system accepts a new user without problem ...
- As that user has not posted one or two (or more, up to you determine)
messages that have been verified by a moderator,
Its posts will be published after validation by a moderator on a case by case
then passed the withdrawal phase (1, 2 or more messages checked)
its following messages are issued without restriction, as at present.

If in this period of probation, a message is clearly a spam,
this message and the following (or all) and the user are manually deleted.
It takes work, but unless hunting spam automatically published, as actually ...

Then, the idea of ​​limiting the number of link is very interesting...

My second suggestions is :
You may be able to reconcile the two formulas,
because my suggestion would be filtered messages on the PPK
while external links were only 1 or 2 unless I'm mistaken.

My third suggestions is :
The idea of ​​Martimiz (testing the links) to be safe for users 'normal'
must unpublish the doubtful message,
pending its manualy approval by a moderator,
(which will be very soon, viewing your reactivity ...)

Excuse me for taking up space,
although a newcomer, with little or no experience.

Excuse my bad english
and thanks for your understanding.



Community Member, 69 Posts

29 March 2013 at 8:47am

Edited: 29/03/2013 8:48am

Hi Martimiz,

this is why I think my suggestion is the only option.
Unfortunately it requires that the moderators manually validate messages first new users, before they leave the flange on the spot.

Spammers and other parasites,
will quickly tire of having to leave 1, 2, 3, 4 (or more) messages about Silverstripe before being automatically validated.

You must create a status of "guess" quarantined ...

Unfortunately I can not help you because I am a "beginner webmaster apprentice."
Too bad, because I learn a lot with all your messages ...

Good luck.


Forum Moderator, 1391 Posts

30 March 2013 at 2:06am

Point is - I'd rather have good people be able to ask questions right away then having them wait just to discourage the bad ones. Especially since moderation is voluntary work - and moderators do go on vacation, have weekends, sleep while others are awake, maybe even get sick once in a while...

That's why I 'm not sure the system you propose would really work :)