Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2012-06

Add topic
Active discussions

Proposed additions

  This section is for completed requests that a website be blacklisted

Another domain used by the holidays-info spammer. Jafeluv (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

  Added. --Courcelles 20:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  Comment this is our infamous holiday spammer at work again. Was this one added somewhere? EdBever (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


New domains used on today (see SRG#Global lock for Nocmuzej). Please add to the blacklist. Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

  Added. I saw you adding them here earlier but didn't remember that you're not an admin here anymore. I can only reiterate that you totally should re-become one :) Snowolf How can I help? 02:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

More more

Snowolf How can I help? 10:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

  Added, tho the website looks just like a parked page. Snowolf How can I help? 10:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Yet more

Jafeluv (talk) 06:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

  Added. --Quentinv57 (talk) 07:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

More more more

Trijnsteltalk 10:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

  Added. --Trijnsteltalk 10:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

billinghurst sDrewth 10:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

  Addedbillinghurst sDrewth 11:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

See WikiProject Spam Item


Long term spamming and promotion, started up again. Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

  Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 11:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


See WikiProject Spam Item

Cross wiki Accounts

Thanks, --Hu12 (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

  Added. --EdBever (talk) 07:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

  Added. --MBisanz talk 01:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Continuing Adsense pub-4103081462180287 spam on Wikipedia

See w:MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May and Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/

Checkuser request filed at w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gluvmal. There may be more. MER-C (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Same guy on el.wikipedia. Jafeluv (talk) 11:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

  Added. --Trijnsteltalk 21:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

More from el.wikipedia and pt.wikipedia just now. Posting a note to SRG. Jafeluv (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

  Added. --Trijnsteltalk 21:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Continuing. Jafeluv (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

  Added with many thanks for your continuation on this saga. More power to your arm. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Fresh one from pt.wikipedia. (Please also note that some of the earlier domains above have not yet been added. It's easy to miss when one of them is marked {{added}} in the middle.) Jafeluv (talk) 09:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

  Added. --Trijnsteltalk 21:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Turkish credit card spam

Crosswiki userspace spam. They've spammed at least en.wikipedia, tr.wikipedia, uk.wikipedia and tr.wiktionary. Still checking for more. Reported earlier locally on tr.wikipedia and en.wikipedia. Jafeluv (talk) 13:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

  Added. --Trijnsteltalk 16:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

See diff Addihockey10 (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

  Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 09:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

See diff Addihockey10 (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

  Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 09:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

See --Addihockey10 (talk) 09:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 09:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

See --Addihockey10 (talk) 09:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 09:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

See --Addihockey10 (talk) 09:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 09:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed removals

  This section is for archiving proposals that a website be unlisted.

I would like to have removed from the banned list the Site because it gives excellent informations about our island Réunion, history of most cities/places, sights, nature, geography, wildlife, endemic species, etc. . Actually I don't even understand, why it was blacklisted - I know that site for years for trustworthy informations - it must have been a jealous competitor who put that site on the list. User:Tonton Bernardo 05/05/2012 user talk:Tonton Bernardo

It is an old, undocumented addition, which at this point means that presumably it was spammed across sites a while ago. Looking at the site shows a non-authoritative, compiled site with advertising. For the site to be linked, it should provide authoritative referenced material if it is being used to link to Wikipedia sites. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Every newspaper-website got as much or more advertisings. Re: Regarding: Presumly spammed: there is no other webside about Réunion who brings their infos ! Newspapers (JIR and Quotidien) have got 3 times as much advertisements - and are consultable for free only for 3 days after publishing of an article. Next to this: there is none !

Do, I don not really accept your arguments. Do you have better suggestions or informations on Réunion related sites that offer any info?

I would like to know (if somehow, or someone can ever tell me): 'who asked for banning it??? What reasons did he/she plain? I suppose (as it often happens in small places): pure jealousy ! Best regards User:Tonton Bernardo -- Tonton Bernardo (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a collection of links, links should only be used as references. Advertising is not the issue here, the issue is that the site does not provide authoritative referenced material. There is no record of when or why the site was blacklisted. This means it was listed a long time ago, when no records were kept. regarding your request for websites offering better info: Réunion seems to be very informative. EdBever (talk) 07:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  Declinedbillinghurst sDrewth 12:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

NASA ADS abstract service

To my surprise, all links containing "ads" are blocked, which results in blacklisting the NASA ADS abstract service, This is quite embarrassing since this is the major abstract service for astronomical and astrophysical journals. The same is true for and several mirror sites. Please remove them from the blacklist as soon as possible!--SiriusB (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

  Declined There is nothing here to do. The blacklist search does not show any p+ve hit to this url, and I can add the url at enWP.[1]billinghurst sDrewth 12:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


Lots of articles on wikipedia and other internet sites have this website as the source.

Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 11:03, 6 June 2012‎

  Declined This site was blacklisted after it was spammed at least 52 times in march 2011. As far as I can tell there are no pages on wikipedia linking to this site.[2]. I do not feel it is appropriate to delist this site. EdBever (talk) 09:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Victory ads

Blacklisted, see archive: Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2012-04 The owner of these websites requests delisting on my talk page on en.wp. He promises not to place any more links[3].

EdBever (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

  Removed. --EdBever (talk) 09:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

kontaktlinsen can not be linked in the German Wikipedia, because the word "kontaktlinsen" is in the meta blacklist. Request for release.Solvin (talk) 06:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I would recommend that you apply to deWP to get an exemption by having the domain name added to their local whitelist. The keyword is problematic for spam, and we would need to do some research on why it was added and when, and seek broad opinion about removing it. Quickest and probably most relevant is the clearance at deWP. billinghurst sDrewth 08:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree. I asked already at w:de for some additional opinions of our medical editorial staff (kontaktlinsen = contact lenses). If they say that that website is ok, I'll whitelist the deeplink locally. I don't think, there's reason for modifying the global sbl entry.
Btw. that pattern is on the sbl since 2004-12. -- seth (talk) 01:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  Comment We could delist that specific word seeing it has been on the list for 8 years now. With COIbot I am sure most spam will be reported. On the other hand there is no real reason why many sites with that word should be used on wikipedia. EdBever (talk) 12:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
The English term "contactlenses" is not blocked, just the domain "" is blocked. So this could be a hint that there wouldn't be much spamming with the German term, if it was unblocked.
I don't think unblocking is necessary. But I also think that blocking doesn't seem to be necessary, too. -- seth (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  Removed kontaktlinsen. We could always use a more specific term. de.wp has a very good team of RC patrollers so spamming of this german word will not be a big problem. --EdBever (talk) 07:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Third venue is the charm! Until a few days ago, Google Maps had been using Google's proprietary URL shortener,, which we allow on Wikipedia since only official Google websites can make use of that shortcut. However, in the last few days, Google Maps appears to have reverted to using the older Unfortunately we block because that service CAN be used for ANY internet site. However, only Google Maps makes use of To avoid having to make use of links that can spread across 5 or more lines in the edit window yet impart no useful information to a reader or editor, I think it makes perfect sense to whitelist this official Google service.
  Declined Whitelists are local to server only, there is no global whitelist. The whitelist'ing will need to take place at your wiki. See Blacklists for fuller detail. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I was deferred here from the Wikipedia whitelist since is on the meta blacklist and because this particular URL would be of use to ALL wikis. I've gotten support from the admins on both the white and black lists over there, but I seem to be caught in a bureaucratic tangle in terms of getting the block of this site removed/adjusted. Heck, I've even tried contacting Google (LOL) to get them to address the issue they've once again created through "fixing" what was already working well. - Floydian (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  Done. We don't need a global whitelist for this, we just need zero-width negative look-ahead assertions. should work now. -- seth (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Tried linking to an article with reference to Reformation to find the site is blacklisted. Not sure why it is as the site has been going for a long time. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk)

  Declined. This link is not globally blacklisted; it's locally blacklisted on enwiki, arwiki and glwiki. I assume you're from the English Wikipedia, so you may request removal on en:MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Good luck with it and if you still have any additional questions, feel free to ask of course. --Trijnsteltalk 14:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems this well used page was added after IP users linked to it in multiple koran articles. It's a valuable link, atleast in de-WP (and got added to the Spam Whitelist there, after an author complained about it being listed here (see de:Wikipedia:Administratoren/Anfragen/Archiv/2012/Juni#Koranseite)). Should be globally unblocked, because it gives valuable addition to those articles. --T3rminat0r (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  Done -- seth (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. :) --T3rminat0r (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

This is the official website of the w:en:Istanbul Naval Museum. I whitelisted it at w:de already. But the link in the English article should be replaced by the official (blacklisted) one, too. So I could whitelist the domain at w:en, but actually it would be more intelligent to remove the global blacklisting instead of whitelisting it in all projects successively. Any objections to that? -- seth (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  Done -- seth (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm the founder of Addinsoft, the company that develops XLSTAT, one of the main statistical software. Our url has been blacklisted. I don't know how to find out why this happened, but please feel free to contact me to let me know, and please remove us from your blacklist. All our competitors have their page and we don't. Thank you for your help. TFahmy (TFahmy) 16:08, 22 June 2012 (GMT+1)

You realise, that maybe your competitors did not spam the link to Wikipedia, using multiple IPs and accounts? If I see the history (e.g. old revisions of the abovelinked COIBot reports - this one) this was in the past spammed by a 'Marion Cuny' and two IPs, and there are more additions as late as the beginning of this year. Just to notice, Marion Cuny (according to LinkedIn) was the VP Business Development of Addinsoft which "develops the XLSTAT product suite, the most complete data analysis and statistical solution available for Microsoft Excel". As such,   Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 05:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
This user evaded the blacklist with:

Please add the new domain. MER-C (talk) 10:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Thierry Fahmy, the founder of the company that develops XLSTAT. I see there is a unacceptable campaign against us. Please contact me for any discussion. We have ABSOLUTELY no will to infringe ANY wikipedia rule, and if some people have infringed these rules, we want to know how <redacted> - I hope these pages are not indexed as the post above is not good for her privacy even if she broke your rules - The campaign against us is much more recent than that, and I do not know why. I have posted a message to Beestra on his talk page to discuss this further.
This is not a campaign against you, it is to protect Wikipedia from unwanted spamming. I hope you can explain why User:Christine14612 now suddenly comes to push the information, and why both you and Christine14612 found the need to circumvent the blacklist by adding another link that plainly redirects to the blacklisted domain. I understand your points, and they do make sense - but do stay at the side of discussion, strictly. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 06:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Both Christine and I have a real work and we cannot spend hours seeing the various editions of the wikipedia rules. I have read the information on conflict of interest. I think it would be totally hypocritical to ask one of our 30000 users to write something about XLSTAT that would of course be likely to be less neutral than we (hope we) are. We have written the text on XLSTAT so that it is totally factual. If you see anything that is not, please let me know and I will do the change. Almost anyone writing something on Wikipedia has in a way a conflict of interest. The important thing is to stick to the facts, and the Wikipedia guidelines say. Now, getting back to why we are on the spam list, though I know that someone from our company made something wrong last fall, this is now 8 months ago, and tis person left the company. I totally disagreed with her, as as I told to Mer-C I know the philosophy of Wikipedia, and know someone who is one of early founders and promoters. If we used it is because we believe that removing us is TOTALLY unfair and until yesterday I had not found how to discuss things + I am still afraid that the reason why we have been removed from the pages by HU12 is something organised by a competitor. I checked who is HU12 and his logo on his website does not show him as being a big democrat. If you know how to access the information why this campaign started in June, I would like to know. We are one of the major software companies in the stats world and removing us is just making Wikipedia less neutral as it should show all players. To show you how neutral I am, I had a page on statistics where all my competitors are listed (check that I did not touch since 1998).
Now there is also no reason why you should remove again us from [Statistical_software]. We are a statistcal software and a very respected software company all around the world. Please revert your last change.
Last, you mentioned the exact name of someone who worked in our company. I'm not sure if you have a mean to delete this information but this is infringing her privacy and might be escalated at a legal level.
To end the discussion, I do not want to infringe any rule. Your way to act by taking arbitrary decisions without contacting first the users to give advises and then threatening of blacklisting if necessary, does not make sense. We are a company, we can be contacted, we are rational and we can understand.
I hope this can all be solved today.Thierry Fahmy

Troubleshooting and problems

  This section is for archiving Troubleshooting and problems.


  This section is for archiving Discussions.
Return to "Spam blacklist/Archives/2012-06" page.