Summary

Administrators' noticeboard/Archives…

“ Spam that requires a block is already covered under things like Vandalism and Bots, and the rare spam that isn't covered this way should be handled more gently. That being said, WS:BP also supports this perspective ("polite communication with the user should be the first action, and blocking a last resort") , and it would not hurt to clearly identify Spam in our policy, whether as part of our definition of Vandalism or as its own heading. ”
Source: Wikisource

Administrators' noticeboard/Archives…

“ When something goes wrong you generally want either calling code or the invoking user to be made aware of that fact immediately so that they can fix it. Returning some seemingly valid output is directly contrary to this goal: it obfuscates the fact that we are in an error situation and thus makes it harder to fix. ”
Source: Wikisource

Administrators' noticeboard/Archives…

“ I classify spam as vandalism. HARD SPAM block, includes machine-generated / bot spam which has zero place here and those accounts should be totally infinitely blocked. Real person-generated spam has a broader range, and as BWC says there can be a range of responses, from HARD SPAM blocks, and SOFT SPAM deletion and warnings, etc. If you can capture that into some words, then go for it. I don't block talk pages typically so they can always appeal a block, knowing that spambot-generated won't appeal, and is usually main or user: ns, though very occasionally user talk: ns. ”
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature