MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/August 2012

= Proposed Additions =

www.pacbi.com
www.pacbi.org is the URL for Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel. www.pacbi.com is an anti-pacbi attack site. Replacing the official URL with the attack site's URL has been going on for months (see, , , , , , , ). There isn't any reason to believe it is going to stop.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February_2011
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

✅--Hu12 (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

nowpublic.com
Sister site to the blacklisted Examiner.com. (same owner and cross promotion) "Crowd sourced" news outlet that, according to their FAQ's, doesn't even require an application for their "reporters"[http: //www.nowpublic.com/newsroom/community/faq#faq-01]. Makes little sense to allow it, while the sister site that does require applications is blacklisted. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * . Will also add this as an example alongside examiner.com to the whitelist common requests page. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

airtet.in





 * Spammers

MER-C 10:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Continued:
 * MER-C 09:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 12:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Report vandalism account. --Hu12 (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * MER-C 09:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 12:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Report vandalism account. --Hu12 (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Report vandalism account. --Hu12 (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

sinelog.net


MER-C 11:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 12:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

inlineAdmedialink
This is a rather odd case of spamming, because it is merely insertion of extraneous HTML code. I am not quite sure whether this is the right spot to report it, but I felt it had to be reported somewhere. Over the past couple of days, countless IPs (and even newly registered users) added the following to Wikipedia articles of all topics:

Examples:, , , ,, ,

It can also be found on basically every other language version of Wikipedia: German, Italian, Spanish, Portugese, Finnish, ... the list is endless.

What is this? Where is it coming from? Is there some spammer behind all these different IPs and accounts? Or is there some webbrowser plugin going crazy? I have no idea. --bender235 (talk) 12:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Googling for "inlineadmedialink" turns up almost nothing but pages infected with this. But I found this Turkish article that explains when translated to English, "Google Chrome Program Special produced Admedialink virus, Chrome has been plaguing users." So maybe these edits are caused by a virus and not intentional on the part of the users who add it.


 * Other information I found suggests (not conclusively) that this is also related to Google Analytics somehow.


 * Unfortunately, the blacklist can't deal with this unless actual URLs are being inserted.


 * I suggest Bot requests as a place to ask about cleaning up the mess. There may be a bot already out there that can remove strings matching a specific pattern from articles. It would be good if a bot existed that worked like XLinkBot to revert edits that add this string. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Special:AbuseFilter/345 watches for this, but it only warns. Special:AbuseFilter/440 could be reactivated and take a firmer response, but it would need to be fixed to deal with the archival bots first. See this discussion and those linked from there for more info. It is important to note that this is not intentional spamming, just a badly behaved browser addin. --Tgeairn (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

2012-london-olympics-news.com


MER-C 11:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 12:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

affiliatefuture.com



 * Spammers

MER-C 10:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

latestmoviez.com




More blacklist evasion. MER-C 11:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

seeraa.com


MER-C 12:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

cloudreviews.com
Joja lozzo  14:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * insidiously nested inside the title of a reference
 * 
 * 
 * --Hu12 (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

moviemator.tk


Resolves to a website already on the blacklist. Mephistophelian (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC).
 * . It doesn't resolve to anything anymore. Looks like the hosting service suspended it. Which site was already on the blacklist? ~Amatulić (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

leasingacar.biz
Joja lozzo  21:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ,
 * ,
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

thelittlerugshop.com
IP hopping UK spammer or meatpuppets. Given good warning two weeks ago. Both Ips are also major forum spammers. Joja lozzo  15:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ,
 * ,, , , ,
 * ,, , , ,

japan-best.com
spams articles with this site in May, stopped after a few warnings but back today with actual links to specific products with little relation(from same franchise but different show). —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 17:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be anyone else trying to promote the site, so no need to add it to the blacklist at this time. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

www.billevans.nl
It's a fan site. Since the Bill Evans article is growing, such kind of links should be avoided. Policy is against fansites: WP:EL. Thanks-- Fauban  17:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Has there been any recent abuse associated with this domain, since COIbot's last report in 2008? If there has been none, we shouldn't need to blacklist something pre-emptively, and there is no policy requiring automatic blacklisting of any fansite. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)
 * cs:Special:Contributions/62.131.9.193
 * da:Special:Contributions/62.131.9.193
 * it:Special:Contributions/62.131.9.193
 * no:Special:Contributions/62.131.9.193
 * pt:Special:Contributions/62.131.9.193
 * es:Special:Contributions/62.131.9.193
 * Blacklisted back in 2008.✔️--Hu12 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Blacklisted back in 2008.✔️--Hu12 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I'm new to this and I don't know the exact policies. The thing is that the owner of the website has put his url on the article again, and we have had to remove it again. Thank you, and sorry if I'm not doing the right thing.-- Fauban  09:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You haven't provided any diffs, so it's hard to determine what is going on. I see it was [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Evans&diff=506543914&oldid=506530026 removed recently] from Bill Evans, but that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=213557571 seems to have been there for a while] . Anomie⚔ 11:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

= Proposed Removals =

galatta.com
I would like to ask for the removal of this website from the blacklist.

This was blocked in 2008. See "Adsense spammer" at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2008-03

I wanted to expand the Jose Thomas Performing Arts Centre article with http://www.galatta.com/malayalam/news/Mohanlal_begins_arts_centre/21413/ and http://www.galatta.com/malayalam/news/Mohanlal_as_Prospero/21812/, but found that the galatta site was blocked. I saw the same AdSense code ("ca-pub-4598819753511212") mentioned in the 2008 reference in the source for these pages, but the galatta articles themselves seem reliable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I would suggest to request whitelisting for the specific links, if the site has really widescale use then it could be de-blacklisted. Therefore, .  As you may have noted, this site is meta-blacklisted, so it can not be deblacklisted here anyway (for a global request, ).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Those cannot be the only references for the arts centre. I visited galatta.com and the first thing it did was pop up a spam window to another website selling property. That sort of thing is exactly why the spam blacklist exists, and this site should stay well and truly blocked. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

sedena.gob.mx
I would like to ask for the removal of this website from the blacklist because it is a Mexican Government website, with information provided by the Mexican government, therefore all information included in that website is legitime and should be accepted. I am also concerned that other Mexican government pages are allowed and this one is not, such as sagarpa.gob.mx. As an editor of Mexican Government articles I can tell you it is legitime. Emilianogarciag, talk
 * . Unless I am mistaken, I see no evidence that this site is blacklisted, either on en-Wikipedia or on the meta blacklist. Even the parent domain gob.mx is not listed, nor is gov.mx. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

echoview.com


This was blacklisted in 2009 on account of overzealous marketing activities by Brad Juhasz. I filed a proposal to remove it in July and at end of July it was archived without being marked done, not done or any otehr status applied, so I am forced to assume this was an oversight and hence draw your attention to the proposal again.

Two things worth noting with regards to the blacklisting:


 * 1) Yes it was overzealous and probably even Brad would have apologized at a guess for misunderstanding (failing to observe that Wikipedia is not a marketing tool). Still, letting him know rather than blacklisitng the domain would have seemed more appropriate. Never mind.
 * 2) In the interim Brad no longer works for or with Echoview anyhow, and frankly any effort to makret through Wikipedia would be disapproved of by current staff. In other words they do not labor under the same misunderstanding.

Now I don't personally care whether echoview.com is blacklisted or not I'll admit. But I do care about consistency and the reason I even notice is that it was brought to my attention by a scientist inthe field of fisheries acoustics that on the page Fisheries acoustics at the bottom tehre are links to key hardware and software providers in the field, Simrad, BioSonics and HTI. This is not an exhaustive list but I could understand either view that a) it's useful information to readers on fisheries acoustics to know who the community players are and to benefit form the support materials they publish or b) they are commercial entities selling acoustic equipment and listing them amounts to advertising.

Either view sits fine by me, but if you apply a) to Simrad, BioSonics and HTI and b) to Echoview, I find this inconsistent.

I request that constency and clarity be applied and either unlist echoview.com permitting an entry on this page along with pother key players (not least because Echoview is in fact the glue in some sense that brings these three competing manufacturers and others together and also publishes pertinent materials to hydroacoustics and used by the fisheries acoustics community and developed with them and hosts the fisheriesacoustics.com forum that is not black listed and is llisted on the Fisheries acoustics page).

In short the inconsistency is noticed by acoustics professionals, fed back to me (as Echoview's sales manager) and in turn I to you, and request your consideration of a consistent approach to listing of fisheries acoustics community players. It's a small global community, and newcomers to it know about Echoview one way or the other and I don't care one jot in the long run whether we're listed on Wikipedia or not, but I do care that we have a professional Fisheries acoustics page on Wikipedia and we are integral to the community of fisheries acoustics scientists (have worked with, employed or provided software and services to, most people who are likely to contribute to that page or have done in past). --Bwechner (talk) 05:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * for two reasons:
 * Wikipedia's consistent approach would not require de-listing Echoview, but rather would require removing the commercial links to other companies from the article. Links to those other companies do not appear in that article. Those other companies don't seem to share Echoview's history of spamming, so there is no reason to blacklist them for the sake of consistency, either.
 * We do not remove a company from the blacklist at the request of a company representative or anyone else with a conflict of interest. If a trusted, high-volume editor regards a link to Echoview as a reliable source for linking in an article, we would consider a de-listing request, but it would probably be more appropriate to use MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist instead to allow a specific link rather than a blanket de-listing.
 * Apologies for not responding to your July request. There was already a request a year ago to remove echoview.com from the blacklist, and it was denied for the second reason I list above. See MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/August 2011. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

eastside.sbac.edu
Please remove eastside.sbac.edu from your blacklist. This server was taken down about 4 years ago, but now the school's website address is again the above. The pages are now part of Edline, and the change is recent so some addresses are not resolving correctly. The old site, www.sbac.edu/~ehs has been taken down but it is still showing up on Google searches and confusing users.I am trying to edit the Wikipedia entry to indicate the new URL, but I receive the error message the URL is blacklisted, perhaps because of multiple error messages when the original server was taken down about 4 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coralantony (talk • contribs) 15:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * because there is nothing to do. The domain does not seem to be blacklisted, neither here nor on meta. As you can see, I can type the full url http://eastside.sbac.edu without any problem. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

examiner.com

 * Actually, just http://www.examiner.com/article/100-photographs-that-changed-the-world . I just uploaded File:100 Photographs That Changed the World front cover.jpg, which should preferably have a web link to the source. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Plain text URLs are sufficient for sourcing files. (MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist deals with individual pages). MER-C 04:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree, hyper-linking is not needed or required to source a file. --Hu12 (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

How about http://www.examiner.com/article/zeitgeist-media-festival-challenges-the-world-to-be-positive Can this article be used in support of the following statement in The Zeitgeist Movement: The movement also holds an annual event called the Zeitgeist Media Festival (ZMF), featuring artists such as The Lost Children of Babylon, Marianne Williamson, Lili Haydn,  Cofield Mundi, James Cromwell, Rutger Hauer, Peter Joseph, Rick Overton and Katie Goodman. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * for discussion of specific links, but I'd say no, that reference is redundant because the other references adequately support that statement. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Amatulić for your most helpful response. Best wishes, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

latestmoviez.com.

 * for a full listing of all spammed domains, and all spamming accounts see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam.
 * for a full listing of all spammed domains, and all spamming accounts see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam.

The domain was blacklisted around a month ago following spam links being posted on wikipedia by a unprofessional SEO firm we had employed. We were not aware of the situation until we were notified about it in the final report from the firm. So, hereby i request reconsideration of latestmoviez.com as it serves as a reliable source of information about the Indian Cinema. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.129.12 (talk) 04:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Law of unintended consequences. You paid an SEO to promote your domain, take it up with the SEO.  'You' were warned enough, and enough attempts to circumvent the blacklisting have been performed.  until an consensus from multiple uninvolved editors shows that this domain is useful somewhere.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A significant number of IP in the spam case clearly originate from the requestors IP range. --Hu12 (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I represent the SEO firm in question, well we weren't aware that the customer would have any issues with us using this as a promotion. The customer reached me yesterday and ordered us to get it whitelisted back again. I can assure that the domain provides a valuable source of information about the Indian cinema and no more acts of promotion or spam would be evidenced from the aforesaid domain. Rest assured, it will just be used to refer to genuine and useful information. How will that be possible, as the domain is banned, why would someone be able to add it ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.131.146 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 12 August 2012‎
 * Rest assured, it will just be used to refer to genuine and useful information..
 * Don't think so. Massive brute force spamming, intentional IP hopping, block evasion and multiple attempts to circumvent blacklisting. All are clear and obvious signs of bad faith, deception and abuse. Clearly the intent of this request is to continue spamming. Closed. --Hu12 (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, it is irrelevant whether your customer objects to using Wikipedia for promotion. You already knew that Wikipedia objects, and that all that matters. It is a well known fact world-wide that Wikipedia is not to be used as a promotion channel, so it should come as no surprise that your willful, repeated violations of Wikipedia's policies resulted in your customer's domains being blacklisted. You dug your grave, now lie in it. Any further requests for de-listing will not be entertained unless they originate from trusted, well-established Wikipedia editors. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

three sites
I was given a flag that these sites were blacklisted:



I don't see any reason why. Babhum (talk) 08:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Helium.com is a site that fails our inclusions standards, ánd it was plainly spammed throughout Wikipedia. For that site, there may be some specific links which are suitable, and those may be whitelisted (requests: ).  Note that the bar will be quite high for that (sites that advertise with "What is Helium? Write. Get Published. Get Paid" typically do not carry a lot of high-quality material, and are a huge spam-magnet; I would really consider whether the information is not available elsewhere on other sites which do generally meet our inclusion standards).
 * The other two are not blacklisted. I hope this helps.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

removal of leasingacar.biz
Without prior reason this link was blacklisted. It's providing information only on leasing a car. Please reconsider the link reviewing the reason of blacklisting. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prano1989 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 16 August 2012
 * There is a very good reason for it's proposed addition to the blacklist; see the item above. The link would serve no useful purpose on Wikipedia. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

= Troubleshooting and problems =

Indicators moved into editnotice
I have always been bothered by the fact that the table of convenience indicators like ✅,, etc. can't be viewed when editing a section. Therefore, to be consistent with other administration pages such as WP:AIV, WP:UAA, and WP:RFPP, I have improved the formatting of our indicators, removed it from the header of this talk page, and transcluded it into the edit notice that appears whenever you try to edit this page. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC) = Discussion =