User talk:Shadow1/Oct2007

republika.pl
What is the current status of this site on WP? It appears in a number of malware warning sites, and has been blocked at WP before, but a link to it has been recently re-inserted into Jozef Pilsudski without consequences, altho the domain has a long history of problems. Sincerely, Novickas 16:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The domain is currently blacklisted on AntiSpamBot. Shadow1  (talk) 23:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your time and input, Novickas 00:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be some sort of misunderstanding. As I explained to Novickas several times, republika.pl is a Polish popular webhost (like Geocities), related to a major Polish portal (Onet.pl). Individual subpages, if spammed, may be blacklisted, but the domain should not be - it contains many more useful sites than any malware or other junk.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Only one subpage of republika.pl is currently blacklisted at []. The regexp is "republika\.pl\/stranasmer". The blacklisting seems to come and go; an unblock of the entire domain, requested by Piotrus at Wikimedia, was granted on 10/06 without discussion, but an entry in User talk:AntiSpamBot/Sep2007 notes that an edit referencing the domain was reverted as recently as September 2, 2007 |reverted.
 * On the other hand, I just made a test edit linking to the domain, which Spambot didn't object to. The black- and white-lists have long histories and it's hard to spot what happened when. But the discussion of whether or not it should be listed should, as it has in the past, take place at Wikimedia Spam blacklist. Thanks - Novickas 13:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * AntiSpamBot will only revert users whose accounts have been created less than one week prior to the edit. This helps to cut down on false positives. Since a good number of all republika.pl additions that have been reverted under this criteria have been spam, it seems to work nicely. Shadow1  (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you post the new-users-only rule at the FAQ page here? Also, could you possibly point me to the pages where this aspect of Spambot policy was created and discussed? Thanks, Novickas 00:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * To put it in a non-rouge manner, myself and several other editors decided that republika.pl domains were used to spam Wikipedia, and it was blacklisted. If this isn't the case now, I'd be happy to remove the rule. Most decisions on AntiSpamBot's operation are made by myself or other editors who have access to its list of blacklisted sites; almost no coordination is done on-wiki, but on IRC instead. Shadow1  (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess I didn't make myself clear; I wondered how and where the decision was made to allow "established" users to insert spamlisted links without being hindered by Spambot. That decision is probably buried deep in WP or IRC history, just hoping you would know where. This domain being on the blacklist doesn't surprise me at all. I may have gotten some malware from there, it's had malware problems in the past, that's why I was looking into it. Sincerely, Novickas 11:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Spamming of links is mainly performed by 'new' accounts (including non-registered users). There are not many cases of users who first are respected editors, and then turn to spamming.  And for many of the links on the blacklist there are exceptions where they should be used, and therefore established editors can still insert these links (links to porn sites generally should be reverted, but if the site is notable, it should have a link on its own page, which would be impossible if AntiSpamBot would revert always).
 * AntiSpamBot is to revert spam, so for that reason it is only reverting and warning new users and IPs (we can override this for certain links, but we do not have to use that functionality often). When the (new) user has read the warning, and still decides to add the link, AntiSpamBot will not revert a second time (but its operators will see warnings for any addition of the links, even for the established editors).  If a link is really not to be added to the wikipedia then we list it either on MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist or on Spam blacklist (which results in that pages with the link in it can simply not be saved).
 * I hope this explains (I leave to Shadow1 if there is some on-wiki information on this, IRC logs are probably (as usual) not saved). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks DB and S. So, correct my understanding of this if necessary, the policy balances WP openness with a spambot screening out most of the bad stuff by targeting new users. One problem with this policy: an editor may not be doing intentional spamming or malware-ing when inserting a WP link to a large, unsupervised domain, but spam or malware may be later be inserted at the link by someone else. And the spam or malware may not arise until after the link is inserted. (If you Google "wikipedia malware" you find a lot of analysts talking about WP being a malware disaster waiting to happen.) Where these policies are shaped/discussed, I still don't know, but I'm way more informed. Best wishes, Novickas 16:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess the same problem is true with any large webhosts - all of which hosts many spam/malware subpages. Targeting new users is probably a good idea, established users are unlikely to add bad pages.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 07:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

South Korean Hostage Page and Murder
Hi, this is the anon person. I feel that kill is not NPOV. The argument has been made that murder must be malicious and unjustified. The opposition believes that the killings were justified according to Islamic law and to say that the killings were un-justified shows bias and does not report the facts as should be reported in history. However, considering the fact that many Islamic nations have condemned these acts, it is clear that the majority of the Islamic community does not share the viewpoint that these people deserved to be killed (hence, lack of justification). The fact the people are saying that these killings were justified according to Islamic law is offensive to the Muslim community. These people are extremists who do not represent the view point of the majority. Furthermore, the South Korean government clearly did not think that this was a justified act nor did many other Western nations. To call these acts justified and killings or executions implies that these South Koreans committed crimes worthy of the punishment of death (by definition, execution is a punishment and killing does not completely and accurately describe the act of forcibly taking a human life against the victim's will). Killing is an all inclusive word to describe the two kinds of killing of a human being, murder (without justification) and execution (with justification). Again, to summarize, if one were to say execute, it implies they terrorists were justified and therefore represents the terrorist POV and not the majority's POV. To say killed is incomplete and dishonors the people who had their lives taken from them and reports to the world that this act may have been justified. Yes, this is a semantic thing, but in order to report the facts as they occurs while representing the POV of the majority and not the minority, murder is the only way to describe this act without being offensive to the general public and those who lost their lives. - Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.93.190.42 (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Response copied to Talk:2007 South Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan

Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 02:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Can I Use Shadowbot 3?
Can I have the bot put on my user page, on WikiProject UK Trams and WikiProject Derbyshire please? All really infrequent. Once a month or whatever will do! Thanks!  Bluegoblin  7   18:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 03, 2007


Automatically delivered by COBot 03:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Shadowbot3
At the Graphics Lab we've recently added a request template to the Images to Improve page, making it easier to submit requests for improvement. The template puts the tag in the section when "done=true" is put in the call to the template, but this doesn't seem to work. Is there any way to get Shadowbot3 to archive the section without having to put the tag manually after each heading? Thanks, Time3000 17:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Your Bot Is Archiving My Page Continually
My talk page has now been archived by your rogue bot more than once. I revert it, and it does it again not more than a couple of days later. Please fix your bot or deactivate it. You have no right to automatically archive someone's talk page. Especially when I already have an "older than 90 days" automated archival function on my page. Please cease with the Bot archiving. It is not helpful.K. Scott Bailey 01:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Shadowbot3 has taken over archiving jobs previously handled by Werdnabot, as Werdna has left Wikipedia. The bot is not "rogue;" it is following the instructions originally set out for Werdnabot. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 02:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is just not correct. I set Werdnabot to archive every 90 days. This thing is archiving at LEAST weekly, and my talk page is simply not active enough to warrant such frequent archiving.K. Scott Bailey 17:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, you set your template to 90 days. If you actually read the source of your talk page, you'll notice that the actual Shadowbot3 directive is set to 7 days. Oh, and for future reference, Shadowbot3 is an opt-in archiving bot. If you were the one to originally request the archivals, don't order me to shut it off.  Shadow1  (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I did NOT "opt-in" to Shadowbot3. I (unfortunately, it seems) decided to use Werdnabot, and Shadowbot took over the "duties" of that bot for some reason. I have deleted the Werdnabot code from my page, so Shadowbot should now end its reign of archiving terror over my talk page.K. Scott Bailey 02:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to continually argue about this, but Shadowbot3 IS Werdnabot. Same code, same run schedule, same everything. Werdna left the project, so I took over Werdnabot's archiving duties. The bot does what you tell it to do, so any problems with its archiving schedule are due to your actions. Shadow1  (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Argue about it or not, I attempted to change the "schedule" to 90 days, but the bot continually tried to archive nearly every day. I finally gave up and simply removed the code from my page, replacing it with a link to all of the PROPERLY archived talk. Problem solved, I guess.K. Scott Bailey 13:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if you ever decide to use it in the future, please note that you were editing the wrong template. isn't what controls the bot, the part between is.  Shadow1  (talk) 14:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop reverting good edits
In this edit, your bot reverted many small, useful changes by an anonymous user. Only the most recent of those changes contained an external link it didn't like, and that link was added in good faith. As the bot is approved only to remove links that you don't like, reverting other edits by the same user as well is destructive and unacceptable. Please stop this – Gurch 16:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * While I do not appreciate being ordered to change my bot's behavior based on a loosely-interpreted version of its task, I've changed the code to revert to the last edit before the user's edit. If the bot begins leaving spam in pages like it did last time I tried this, I'm changing it back. You may wish to examine admin rollback's behavior to see why this is a useful function. Shadow1  (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * While I haven't seen it leave spam yet, it certainly leaves vandalism. :( -- Versa geek  03:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Surely the bot would only leave spam in pages if previous edits also contained spam? I'm not suggesting you limit the bot to only reverting the last edit, merely that it only revert those that add spam. If a user adds two spam links in a row, then of course there is no harm in the bot removing both.
 * Use of the rollback feature is restricted to administrators so that it is not abused. Given that even experienced non-administrators aren't trusted with it, it certainly isn't suitable for use without human supervision. So there's no excuse to have a bot work the same way :) – Gurch 06:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It also takes more page loads to determine which edits to revert. If the bot sees that the user made 5 edits to the page, it would have to load all 5 revisions to check for spam.
 * Well, technically you can pull off admin rollback by using popups and performing a revert on a revision several edits back in the history. It's not particularly difficult to do, the Rollback button is just easier to use. Shadow1  (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thrash Magazine
Here is a link to the message I received from the AntiSpamBot http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:12.151.131.131&redirect=no Why is their a rule \bthrashmag\.com created? I have posted a few different sets of live photographs taken of the bands mentioned. This is not spam, it is live photographs of the bands on the wikipage. It is also a direct link to the photographs, not a link to the site, so the users do not need to "find" the photographs.
 * Thank you for your question. Your last edits were link additions only, which is considered spamming under the wikipedia guidelines (see our spam guideline).  We are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm.  Maybe some of the pictures are suitable for uploading, so that they can be incorporated in the documents?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 10:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

AntiSpamBot and photobucket
Is there any way to program AntiSpamBot to be a little nicer to people who are inadvertently adding photobucket links to articles without realizing they're violating policy. Take for instance who added a link to a picture of a bus to the article on Lothian Buses, and who received an automated warning threatening them with a block. Surely there's a world of difference between a malicious spammer and a good faith user trying to add a picture to an article, albeit in an incorrect way. -- VectorPotential Talk 16:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion pages automatically archived by...
A recent discussion at CFD centered on renaming the category Category:Discussion pages automatically archived by Werdnabot to Category:Discussion pages automatically archived by Shadowbot3. I was wondering how you wanted to handle this, if at all. I can just change Werdna's template to populate the Shadowbot3 category, but that leaves Werdna's template on all of the talk pages. I was thinking to complete the change, we should probably create a template for Shadowbot3 and just redirect Werdnabot's to Shadowbot3's, but I'm sure that will require some code fixing on your part. I'm not going to do anything at this point, lest I break the bot. Let me know what you want to do. Thanks. --Kbdank71 14:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, since the CFD closed before I even saw this message, I guess that I don't have any other choice, do I? Nevertheless, I'll see if I need to patch the bot and do it if required. Thanks for bringing this to my attention before 300 angry editors started emailing me when the bot broke. Shadow1  (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to keep things the way they are, as the owner of the bot, then I'm not going to make the change. I'm fairly certain that if you had chimed in and said "no, leave it as is", you'd have had enough backers to keep.  I'll change the outcome of the discussion based upon the fact that you knew nothing about it.  --Kbdank71 20:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I don't mind. That category is really just stylistic, I couldn't care less about it. What actually matters to the bot's operation is that all pages to be archived have a link to User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere. If the pages are all re-linked to another page besides that one, I need to know so that the bot can be adjusted accordingly. Shadow1  (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, the rename is in progress. You might want to give some thought to adjusting the bot at some point, as having the template at User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere and the directions at User talk:Werdnabot could be confusing.  Just my $0.02. --Kbdank71 20:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)