but looking at it closer yah its definitely a suspicious store with super low
prices for rare new items and feedback for not shipping. ill see if i can find
the page back to report the seller to bricklink
You would think with that feedback that would be enough alarm bells to close
it until those NSS's went through! I think at least 3 current NSS's against
a store should warrant closure until further notice.
In Problem, Nubs_Select writes:
NSS's have not had time to complete yet but it will likely close soon
You would think with that feedback that would be enough alarm bells to close
it until those NSS's went through! I think at least 3 current NSS's against
a store should warrant closure until further notice.
the side effect of that is that could then make it super easy to sabotage stores.
just often 3 random accounts place orders and file an nss. the nss's might
get closed fast but would temporarily close the store
the side effect of that is that could then make it super easy to sabotage stores.
just often 3 random accounts place orders and file an nss. the nss's might
get closed fast but would temporarily close the store
the side effect of that is that could then make it super easy to sabotage stores.
just often 3 random accounts place orders and file an nss. the nss's might
get closed fast but would temporarily close the store
you can create a modified version of the store link so that the store shows as
suspended even when it’s not (only shows that way when accessed from that specific
modified link and dosnt effect anything)
you can create a modified version of the store link so that the store shows as
suspended even when it’s not (only shows that way when accessed from that specific
modified link and dosnt effect anything)
I'm imagining a pizza gang/mustard gang war in which the parties are constantly
suspending each others' stores.
you can create a modified version of the store link so that the store shows as
suspended even when it’s not (only shows that way when accessed from that specific
modified link and dosnt effect anything)
I'm imagining a pizza gang/mustard gang war in which the parties are constantly
suspending each others' stores.
And then sending out advertisements for opponents stores using the specialized
links
the side effect of that is that could then make it super easy to sabotage stores.
just often 3 random accounts place orders and file an nss. the nss's might
get closed fast but would temporarily close the store
the side effect of that is that could then make it super easy to sabotage stores.
just often 3 random accounts place orders and file an nss. the nss's might
get closed fast but would temporarily close the store
But if they don't count on "closed stores", then 809/17970 stores
= approx 4.5%
just suspended
Ah yes, I did that but for other searches, very fine!
🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕
Some aren't anymore since Google browsed... I'd say max 500/17970, that's
less than 3%.
still a surprising amount, i did scroll down a while and click on some at random
and even after a while of scrolling all the results were still suspended stores
still a surprising amount, i did scroll down a while and click on some at random
and even after a while of scrolling all the results were still suspended stores
One of the reasons this number is so high is because currently BrickLink does
not purge accounts that owe even 1 cent of a balance. So other accounts are purged,
but suspended accounts remain.
still a surprising amount, i did scroll down a while and click on some at random
and even after a while of scrolling all the results were still suspended stores
One of the reasons this number is so high is because currently BrickLink does
not purge accounts that owe even 1 cent of a balance. So other accounts are purged,
but suspended accounts remain.
still a surprising amount, i did scroll down a while and click on some at random
and even after a while of scrolling all the results were still suspended stores
One of the reasons this number is so high is because currently BrickLink does
not purge accounts that owe even 1 cent of a balance. So other accounts are purged,
but suspended accounts remain.
that makes sense
odd question. does that mean this would be a potential "workaround" so
that submitters could stay on bricklink for credits? say someone who submitted
a whole bunch of stuff was leaving bricklink what if they left a 1-cent balance
when they left? their selling privileges would be revoked but then they could
still be credited for all of their hard work
still a surprising amount, i did scroll down a while and click on some at random
and even after a while of scrolling all the results were still suspended stores
One of the reasons this number is so high is because currently BrickLink does
not purge accounts that owe even 1 cent of a balance. So other accounts are purged,
but suspended accounts remain.
that makes sense
odd question. does that mean this would be a potential "workaround" so
that submitters could stay on bricklink for credits? say someone who submitted
a whole bunch of stuff was leaving bricklink what if they left a 1-cent balance
when they left? their selling privileges would be revoked but then they could
still be credited for all of their hard work
We were planning on writing off all the old debt this year, but in the wake of
other projects it didn't get done. So that is a workaround that shouldn't
last for too much longer.
But we are working on the other issue as well. The problem is that usernames
are generally considered Personally Identifiable Information (PII). We'd
have to get an exception for certain BrickLink usernames to keep them from getting
anonymized.
still a surprising amount, i did scroll down a while and click on some at random
and even after a while of scrolling all the results were still suspended stores
One of the reasons this number is so high is because currently BrickLink does
not purge accounts that owe even 1 cent of a balance. So other accounts are purged,
but suspended accounts remain.
that makes sense
odd question. does that mean this would be a potential "workaround" so
that submitters could stay on bricklink for credits? say someone who submitted
a whole bunch of stuff was leaving bricklink what if they left a 1-cent balance
when they left? their selling privileges would be revoked but then they could
still be credited for all of their hard work
We were planning on writing off all the old debt this year, but in the wake of
other projects it didn't get done. So that is a workaround that shouldn't
last for too much longer.
ah ok that's for the update
But we are working on the other issue as well. The problem is that usernames
are generally considered Personally Identifiable Information (PII). We'd
have to get an exception for certain BrickLink usernames to keep them from getting
anonymized.
You would think with that feedback that would be enough alarm bells to close
it until those NSS's went through! I think at least 3 current NSS's against
a store should warrant closure until further notice.
Russell mentioned some time ago that there are big stores on BL with many more
current NSSs (incomplete, of course) than that.
You would think with that feedback that would be enough alarm bells to close
it until those NSS's went through! I think at least 3 current NSS's against
a store should warrant closure until further notice.
You would think with that feedback that would be enough alarm bells to close
it until those NSS's went through! I think at least 3 current NSS's against
a store should warrant closure until further notice.
All his feedback appears to be from buyers with only 1 feedback. And he gave
all the buyers their one feedback. All those buyer accounts need to be shut down
immediately too.
All his feedback appears to be from buyers with only 1 feedback. And he gave
all the buyers their one feedback. All those buyer accounts need to be shut down
immediately too.
Judging by this store's feedback. Get the feeling it was also a hacked account.
The second "member" with 1 feedback to leave this store recent feedback
is a member called bennettforbrick. I assume all the people with 1 feedback are
all fraudulent accounts in an effort to make it look like this store has recent
feedback. And apparently that worked. All these accounts signed up for Bricklink
on December 6th. However, this member "bennettforbrick" also now has
selling privileges. How can someone who just became a member on December 6th
already have selling privileges? And shouldn't this account be looked at
very closely, and at a very minimum suspended pending further documents, since
it is 100% obvious that it is associated with L and N Bricks?
The second "member" with 1 feedback to leave this store recent feedback
is a member called bennettforbrick. I assume all the people with 1 feedback are
all fraudulent accounts in an effort to make it look like this store has recent
feedback. And apparently that worked. All these accounts signed up for Bricklink
on December 6th. However, this member "bennettforbrick" also now has
selling privileges. How can someone who just became a member on December 6th
already have selling privileges? And shouldn't this account be looked at
very closely, and at a very minimum suspended pending further documents, since
it is 100% obvious that it is associated with L and N Bricks?
Agreed it's not a coincidence.
Some even have the same name with just a little difference:
james.patri.766
james.patric00
However, this member "bennettforbrick" also now has
selling privileges. How can someone who just became a member on December 6th
already have selling privileges? And shouldn't this account be looked at
very closely, and at a very minimum suspended pending further documents, since
it is 100% obvious that it is associated with L and N Bricks?
Of course the account should be looked at closely, but just because that square
is green doesn't mean you can open the store. There's a hidden flag that
has to be turned on as well.
However, this member "bennettforbrick" also now has
selling privileges. How can someone who just became a member on December 6th
already have selling privileges? And shouldn't this account be looked at
very closely, and at a very minimum suspended pending further documents, since
it is 100% obvious that it is associated with L and N Bricks?
Of course the account should be looked at closely, but just because that square
is green doesn't mean you can open the store. There's a hidden flag that
has to be turned on as well.
One of the people who got taken by L and N had posted to reddit, maybe 3-4 days
back. That buyer mentioned their order had been a big Star Wars set for $500.
If that was typical of each of those negatives, then I'll let you do the
math.
Any other new seller's seeded from this seller breach, need to be made to
wait until 30 days have passed before listing/selling high ticket items. The
timing of this is classic holiday scamming.
The problem being described here, goes way beyond how/why the LukasandNate account
has been compromised/used.
There are an unusual number of buyers, who received/posted positive feedback,
and now have a FB rating of one. Looking at the last one ( https://www.bricklink.com/feedback.asp?u=gsshr.BOKAR.766
) the order number came on or after 6 Dec. My last order number, prior to closing,
was 23770643 on 6 Dec. There is no way anything sent by LukasandNate could have
been fulfilled, packed, transited and delivered (California to New Jersey) in
less than 24 hours. If you click thru, this buyer account left positive FB on
6 Dec, even before the LukasandNate account left it for them. While technically
possible, it has a rather odd odor about it.
This suggests that the LukasandNate was being used to run scams on existing buyers,
and to assist in seeding more seller accounts, to cause more chaos. All those
single (or very low digit accounts) should be investigated for similar nonsense.
Especially if they are using the single feedback to request selling privs.
How and why the LukasandNate account got into this state is one issue. Who is
using it, and the damage being caused is quite another.
This suggests that the LukasandNate was being used to run scams on existing buyers,
and to assist in seeding more seller accounts, to cause more chaos. All those
single (or very low digit accounts) should be investigated for similar nonsense.
Especially if they are using the single feedback to request selling privs.
I think it is more than a suggestion! BL needs to ban the seller and all the
new accounts that left instant feedback. No doubt all those new accounts have
false details and fake email addresses anyway.
yes but if they were inactive and never updated their account and they used the
same password for their email then the hacker could have simply done the normal
password change
Australia, New South Wales
Canada, Ontario
USA, Illinois
France, Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur
United Kingdom, England