Talk:XRumer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Should this page link to the XRumer web site? The application itself is certainly obnoxious, and it's use is potentially illegal, so I'm concerned that we're funnelling unsuspecting users to them. Hacknsplat 23:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
This software itself is an abusive software that effects many websites by filling database with spam IDs and postings. I wonder how did wikipedia allow article promoting such software!
- I believe that linking to the software's website is allowed according to our external links policy, because the website is the main home page of the software discussed in the article. Flyingtoaster1337 23:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that the author of the software has extensively link spammed web forums with postings promoting XRumer that are structurally similar to this wikipedia article and I wouldn't want to see him getting similar benefit from Wikipedia. The software is purely for bulk posting - it has no innocent purpose. That said, I agree with you that the article doesn't violate the external links policy (although I see the situation as somewhat similar to the policy wrt to linking to copyright-violating material).--Hacknsplat 00:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- It somewhat helps that Wikipedia has the nofollow attribute activated for external links in articles so we will not bee boosting their page rank. When I made the article I was fully aware of the spam generated by the software, some of which has reached even this site. But I saw that this software had a mention in the Washington Post so it could be made into a referenced stub. And that's now what we have here. Flyingtoaster1337 16:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Okay - using nofollow sets my mind at rest somewhat and I agree that the article is worthwhile.--Hacknsplat 22:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- It somewhat helps that Wikipedia has the nofollow attribute activated for external links in articles so we will not bee boosting their page rank. When I made the article I was fully aware of the spam generated by the software, some of which has reached even this site. But I saw that this software had a mention in the Washington Post so it could be made into a referenced stub. And that's now what we have here. Flyingtoaster1337 16:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that the author of the software has extensively link spammed web forums with postings promoting XRumer that are structurally similar to this wikipedia article and I wouldn't want to see him getting similar benefit from Wikipedia. The software is purely for bulk posting - it has no innocent purpose. That said, I agree with you that the article doesn't violate the external links policy (although I see the situation as somewhat similar to the policy wrt to linking to copyright-violating material).--Hacknsplat 00:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to introduce about such software that irritates webmasters? Lot of spam IDs were created in my website stalinism.org Deleting all those spam IDs was really tedious for me. Please delete this topic. Promoting such spam generator softwares is insulting webmasters.
XRumer is even used for link spamming websites that promote drugs. Links of drugs promoting websites were even spammed in my forum. This article must be deleted. XRumer is big headache for forum webmasters.
- While I have some sympathy for the users asking for the page to be deleted, I think it serves a real purpose: when I forum I admin for was spammed by the XRumer author, I went googling and, at the time, all I found was the author's web site - I would much rather have had an impartial wikipedia page that gave me a clue what I was dealing with. I think the bottom line is "does the page do more harm than good" - in other words, is it creating new XRumer purchasers? Hard to know, but I think not. --Hacknsplat 03:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- that won't ever happen since so many people get duped by it's announcements, that wikipedia could never rank above the official website: [1] Family Guy Guy 04:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- That may be true. I can only speak for myself, but I usually choose the wikipedia article over some random web link in this context. Gawd only knows what mischief the author's site might do, and even if it's innocent, visiting only confirms to him that his "marketing" has worked. --Hacknsplat 01:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- that won't ever happen since so many people get duped by it's announcements, that wikipedia could never rank above the official website: [1] Family Guy Guy 04:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Xrumer is not being introduced to any spammer on wikipedia, as wikipedia is the last place that spammers come to find a link spam engine. It serves as a helpful reference to those dealing with the problem. Nodekeeper 07:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, this article was helpful to me as a forum manager. I didn't realize until I saw it that image based CAPTCHA has been cracked. Now I've switched to a different system (that asks users custom questions) which should stop all bots, including XRumer. Python (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] xgmx
I do not believe this page should be deleted. It clearly states on the XRumer website that it will not be used in anyway that is illegal. It also has a thing for reporting members who misuse it. Xgmx 01:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Odds are, they're saying that just to cover themselves... basically a boldfaced lie. Posting robot linkspam to sites which explicitly disallow robots or linkspam is theft of computer time and theft of telecommunication services. We should not be linking to this site; the rest of the page, however, should be kept much as we keep pages about other notorious outlaws. --carlb (talk) 17:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that this page should not be deleted. I despise the software in question, and am not going to discuss what I'd like to do to its authors, but it is useful information. I do not agree with including links to the software's homepage, and have removed them. In this case, a description of the malware is sufficient, but linking to its homepage is effectively free advertising for a spammer. Ugh! Just wanted to add that, given the obvious lack of ethics on the part of the malware author, linking to his homepage may well expose readers to attempted browser vulnerability attacks, etc. Please do not restore the links. 75.142.5.126 (talk) 03:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia hosting spam
I found Wikipedia's screenshot being used in spam promoting this software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.70.200.181 (talk) 10:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I also just received a forum spam with the following content:
xrumer is the BEST! <img>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/6b/XRumer_screenshot.gif/200px-XRumer_screenshot.gif</img> ;)
The post originated from 85.140.23.229. I recommend that Wikipedia remove it rather than use themselves as free hosting for a spammer. --130.207.87.166 (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that the image is replaced with a PNG version. It will be smaller and will break existing links (yes, it's a cat and mouse game, but at least thousands of Xrumer ads will break).
