I've been deleting user accounts that are spam (removed several thousand so far).

If you find more, post them here, and we will remove them!

http://userscripts.org/people/17703
http://userscripts.org/people/16750

Any user from http://userscripts.org/users?page=309 onwards.

You need to start blocking people with certain URLs - anything.trustguide.org should be blocked, for a start.
More's to come.

http://userscripts.org/users?q=ringtones&commit...
http://userscripts.org/users?q=www&commit=Search
http://userscripts.org/users?commit=Search&q=%40

we were thinking about putting a rel="nofollow" on anyone that hasn't commited a script/comment/forum post. but probably shouldn't say that aloud since now they would know how to get around that.

deleted the ring tones, trustguides, and the www(s).

Regarding the users that have no username, this is because of a migration issue which is in trac here: http://userscripts.devjavu.com/projects/userscr...

http://userscripts.org/users/12853;scripts is probably all spam (and that user)

Nah, it's just one of them myspace homepages scripts. And a clueless user too.

we need to do something about those type of scripts... make it hard to find useful ones

You should probably do a database search, something likes this:

var possiblySpammers = allUsers.filter(function(v, i, a) {
    if (v.website.match(/\.com\/[a-z]{4}\/[a-z]{4}\.html$/))
      return true;
    else
      return false;
});

(i don't know how express myself in ruby, but i hope you get the point.)

It would catch a lot of spammers like these.

Also, how come this works but not this (capital L in lionel)?

the Lionel wasn't working because we weren't downcasing the input, just what we were checking against. Fixed:

http://userscripts.devjavu.com/projects/userscr...

Also important to note is that we are doing soft deletes. So if we delete a false positive, when they log in they will be present with the ability to restore their account.

I usually add checks like for adding of url/sig during registration, then remove the ability to do those during registration (where applicable). That way, if they try to submit those, it's automated. Thus, spam bot etc, and then ban the ip/email.

http://userscripts.org/users/22577

Looks like there's a new batch of a few dozen "ringtones" spam addresses. You probably want to clear them out.

This should not be allowed: http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/5836

http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/5846
http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/5839
http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/5838

Well, I think pornographic scripts should be allowed, but they should be marked as such.

I think scripts that help users in their pornographic endeavours should certainly be allowed (to the extent that they're not illegal), but those scripts do seem like malware. That, we don't want.

The script is just to drive traffic to a porn site. I really don't thing that should be allowed.
It would be REALLY BAD for a site to suddenly display ads for a porn site that might easily be mistaken for site's own ads. The user might not realize that the ads are being added by userscripts, and that would reflect badly on the site.

Yeah. Seemed like the scripts are definitely malware, sneaking porn adds into what seems like themes. Deleted them.

Are these valid? Seem to sneak in links to some MySpace discussion group: http://userscripts.org/users/12853;scripts

Looks like those also insert banner ads, but they seem mostly harmless, just looks like its promoting a group rather than driving hits for revenue.
However, many sites might not take kindly to 3rd-party advertisements being inserted...

CoJaBo: Many sites probably don't take kindly to users modifying their sites at all ;) My concern here is scripts that do arguably bad things that the user didn't expect. Scripts containing porn and/or ads should be fine, but if the point of the script seems to be to sneak your own ads in without the user knowing, I'm not so sure we should allow it.

I think us.o should also remove scripts that have bad titles and bad descriptions like this: http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/8004

LouCypher: Hm, yes, that metadata is not very useful. I edited the script to use the info in the @name/@desc.