Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/Judi

For some reason a few with bad titles have got through the last bot run. See List of Wansapanataym episodes for example Lyndaship (talk) 09:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense, the bot wasn't programmed for those key words. Just fixed, in three articles. If you see anything else missed let me know, thanks. -- GreenC 10:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Complete to 22 Oct

Looking through the last lot I'm not sure if the output generated by the bot is what you desire see Rob Bonta. Unfortunately an editor (User:Johnj1995) on 17/18 Oct tried to sort out a lot of these title insertions by removing the title completely and marking the link dead leaving the bot with no title to replace resulting in a rather mangled output. I don't know if you consider this a problem, if you don't fine but otherwise if the bot can't be amended I wonder if a rollback of all his edits will let the bot sort it. The problem exists with a number from the last batch (due to the difference between when I added them to the list and the bot running) and a condsiderable number from this batch Lyndaship (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Removed the entire {{cite web}} and left a bare URL, not good. My bot responded with a {{usurped}} which is OK, but obviously not as good as cite web woud have been; the bot has no way of restoring the original cite. My bot also didn't remove the {{dead link}} when converting to {{usurped}}, that could be fixed. -- GreenC 15:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I think there's about 120 edits with about half having no subsequent edits. I could revert those so the bot would work normally, the ones which the bot has actioned I could revert both edits and the others I would have to restore the bad title and add any subsequent good edits manually. I only see the 17/18 Oct edits - I hope there are no earlier edits doing the same Lyndaship (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

It's up to you if you want that would be ideal. If you do, I can rerun the bot no problem. If you don't no problem but let me know I will remove those redundant {{dead link}} tags. Also I'd be curious to see an example of "half having no subsequent edits" as that sounds like an oversight in the bot or my process flow. -- GreenC 16:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok I'll do it. No oversight in your bot or process flow - only about 30 of the articles had domains which were on the last bot run, the vast majority only feature on the latest list which is awaiting processing by your bot Lyndaship (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm done them all. Run the bot when you like Lyndaship (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok, it's done. Stats are posted. Thanks for identifying the domains, and correcting the Johnj edits! -- GreenC 00:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Wow that was a lot. Few domains appear not to have run, I've added them to the new list together with a few fresh ones. I've dealt with a few odd exceptions, see my contribution history if you think it's worth investigating Lyndaship (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes the bot has a few gaps from exceptions. The bot checks the title string for keywords to determine if the title itself is usurped so like in this case I'll add some of those keywords so the bot can recognize it. In this case recommend retaining {{usurped}} so other bots don't convert the square-links into {{cite web}} thus re-opening the usurpation problem. {{usurped}} is sort of like a flag telling other bots (and people) the underlying URL has been usurped! I'll add erugbynews.com, alamedan.org, officialisaaccarree.com (no longer usurped), and pakiscorner.com to the new list. -- GreenC 18:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Another site?

Please check if http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org is related to this problem, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:44, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Looks like it and will be added. Good spot. Do you have an example of some Indonesian gambling spam being inserted into the title field of the ref? Lyndaship (talk) 08:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Batch 8

User:Lyndaship, there are 28 domains in the waiting list, enough for batch 8. I will wait until you say ready to run. -- GreenC 23:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok to run now - I've finished on the Turkish for the present Lyndaship (talk) 10:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

It's done. -- GreenC 19:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

slotmpoo

Someone was thoughtful to spam WP:URLREQ with a JUDI domain: Special:Diff/1121212361/1121222360 -- GreenC 05:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Classlessactions

I have updated some references to the classlessactions.com website, such as on the Commonwealth Bank (diff), Aveo Group (diff), and 7-Eleven (diff) webpages, marking the url-status as dead and (in some cases) adding archive links that were missing. I think that the classlessactions.com site now looks like something related to gambling, and nothing like the site seen in the archive links.

Earlier today, I saw this addition to the 7-Eleven article. It contains an article text hyperlink to the ibonmobile.com.tw website, which seemed inappropriate to me. Reviewing Wiki policy and guidelines on external links leads me to think that including the ibonmobile website in the EL section of the 7-Eleven article is not justified as it is too tangential to the main topic of the page. I was considering whether to add the ibonmobile.com.tw site as a reference, or simply remove what I think is an inappropriate external link. While looking into these policies / guidelines, I came across this page, and wondered whether the classlessactions.com references that I changed a while back are an example of the website usurption that this page describes? Advice please. Thanks, 1.141.198.161 (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

You are correct classlessactions.com is a JUDI site. I'll add it to the queue for usurpation. ibonmobile.com.tw looks like a commercial web site, there's no reason to link to it in the 7-11 article. Thank you. -- GreenC 03:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Some keyword related to "judi"

• keyword 1 (almost all of them are spam-link)
• keyword 2 (some of them are spam-link)
• keyword 3 (some of them are spam-link)
• keyword 4 (be careful, not everything is spam-link)

Veracious ^(•‿•)^ 05:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Double checking nonleaguedaily.com is usurped?

It redirects to betting.co.uk, which has usurp-ish vibes, but I'm not positive that it is one, so I figured I'd ask you, User:GreenC, here. An example link from the domain would be http://www.nonleaguedaily.com/news/index.php?&newsmode=FULL&nid=41052, from Ian Wright. GrapesRock (talk) 03:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks usurped. Original site had legitimate sports news.

Amazing how many usurped domains you are finding. Very important list. -- GreenC 04:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

ukrinform.ua/rus

This redirects to gambling (since it redirects to ukrinform.ru, which is in the process of being gone through). Not sure that I can just add it to the list like that so figured I'd add it to the talk-page instead :-) GrapesRock (talk) 02:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

A rare case of |url-status=unfit. When the entire domain is hijacked it's usurped. When only some URLs within an otherwise legitimate domain, unfit. Are there more than one, or just this URL? -- GreenC 03:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Only one that I know of GrapesRock (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

emetprize.org

Don't know how to add this one to the list. It seems like www.emetprize.org (e.g. this) is usurped, but en.emetprize.org (e.g. this) and www.emetprize.org.il (e.g. this) are both 404s GrapesRock (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

GrapesRock, I've seen this before, where only some subdomains are usurped. My solution has been to usurp them all, because if the squatters have control of the domain's zone file, they can freely usurp any subdomain - the entire domain is compromised. The case of .il is a different domain name. It is related to the same site, maybe an argument can be made, depends what you think is best. -- GreenC 05:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the .il one it's also usurped (though it doesn't seem like a super malicious site). Knowing that, it seems reasonable to treat them all as usurped GrapesRock (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)