Talk:Spam blacklist

←Requests and proposals

Spam blacklist

Archives (current)→

The associated page is used by the Mediawiki SpamBlacklist extension, and lists strings of text that may not be used in URLs in any page in Wikimedia Foundation projects (as well as many external wikis). Any meta administrator can edit the spam blacklist. Please post comments to the appropriate section below: Proposed additions, Proposed removals, Troubleshooting and problems, or Other discussions; read the messageboxes at the top of each section for an explanation. Also, please check back some time after submitting, there could be questions regarding your request. Per-project whitelists are discussed at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist.

Completed requests are archived.

snippet for logging: {{/request|444610#section_name}}

Proposed additions

This section is for proposing that a website be blacklisted; add new entries at the bottom of the section, using the basic URL so that there is no link (google.ca, not http://www.google.ca). Provide links demonstrating widespread spamming by multiple users. Completed requests will be marked as done or denied and archived.

Universe Daily

jerrypournelle.org lochnessmonster.name monsternews.org --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  08:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Done Korg + ⁺ 12:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Other good Lists

http://spammers.chongqed.org

Not done; the spam blacklist should only be used for widespread spam that is difficult to manage with conventional tools, not for all spam. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 04:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Universe Daily again

Hi again, could you please sychronise the blacklist against the 65+1 domains currently listed at en:Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/Universe_Daily. From now on, we'll be adding newly discovered domains to his long term abuse report by date to help you guys update this list in future. Thanks --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  22:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

For archival purposes, please list the domains on this page. Thanks Naconkantari 22:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

projectorion.proboards28.com alienlife.info amandavanstone.com amandawiklund.com amateurspaceflight.com artofwar.name atomicrockets.com badastronomer.com badastronomer.net badastronomer.org badastronomy.info bindiirwin.com bindisueirwin.com carlsagan.info dalek.name dinosaurs.name everythingscience.org everythingspace.com fuckamerica.info fuckisrael.org garyhardgrave.com georgebrandis.com jannstuckey.com jeeperscreepers3.net jerrypournelle.net jonathanbreck.com lawrencespringborg.com lynnejennings.com markvaile.com michaelcaltabiano.com nuclearaustralia.com nuclearspace.org philipruddock.com projectorion.info projectorion.net projectorion.org robertzubrin.com rosbates.com russelltrood.com sciencegeek.info sciencenews.name sciencenews.ws scienceweekly.info sciforums.info space4peace.com spacedaily.info spaceforums.info spaceforums.net spaceforums.org spaceonion.com stephenhawkingsuniverse.com terriirwin.org universedaily.com universedaily.info universedaily.org universetoday.info universetoday.net wikipediac.info wikipediac.net wikipedial.info wikipedial.net wikipediam.info wikipediam.net wikipedian.info yales.info yowiehunter.com --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  22:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

added by Naconkantari. Korg + ⁺ 12:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

bindiirwin.com

Used by persistent linkspammer on en-Wikipedia - en:user:Universe Daily. See en:Talk:Bindi Irwin, en:Steve Irwin, en:Terri Irwin, en:Bob Irwin, en:Australia Zoo. Please blacklist. -- I@n 15:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, please expand that request to these also: amateurspaceflight.com

artofwar.name atomicrockets.com badastronomer.com badastronomer.org badastronomy.info carlsagan.info dinosaurs.name everythingscience.org everythingspace.com fuckisrael.org jerrypournelle.net jonathanbreck.com nuclearaustralia.com nuclearspace.org projectorion.info projectorion.net robertzubrin.com sciencegeek.info sciencenews.ws scienceweekly.info sciforums.info spacedaily.info spaceforums.info spaceforums.org stephenhawkingsuniverse.com universedaily.info universedaily.org universetoday.info wikipediac.info wikipediac.net wikipedial.info wikipedial.net wikipediam.info wikipediam.net wikipedian.info yales.info yowiehunter.com

as all are regularly added by the same listspammer. -- I@n 00:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• • And some more: terriirwin.org bindisueirwin.com markvaile.com dinosuars.name atomicsecrets.com markvaile.com. Thanks -- I@n 03:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Done Naconkantari 03:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record, here is his admission of his intent to vandalise wikipedia. -- I@n 03:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

ytmnd

Is it possible to restrict *.ytmnd.com with an exception for www.ytmnd.com? I am removing YTMNDs from articles on a daily basis, almost always containing copyvio soundtracks and having no actual relevance to the subject. See this example: [1]. If this is not possible I will keep scanning. Just zis Guy, you know? 08:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

In that case www.ytmnd.com must be added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. For en-wp you can request it here. Of course if all subdomains really should be blacklisted and are blacklisted. MaxSem 09:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

We currently have only two YTMNDs blacklisted, unfunnytruth and unfunnysequel. The two problems I'm having right now are (a) insertion of YTMND links into mainstream articles, often these have copyvio soundtracks and in any case it's not like YTMND is Saturday Night Live; and (b) the use of individual YTMNDs as cited sources in articles such as ebaumsworld - these are not admissible as sources, but no matter how often they get removed someone puts them back. Just zis Guy, you know? 10:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, since there are several highly notable YTMNDs that should be linked to from the YTMND article because of their relevant history to the site as a whole. These include the original YTMND, the Picard YTMND, any YTMND referenced mentioned in the media (and several reliable sources, including CNN and the New York Times, have brought up YTMNDs) and maybe the Bauman Letters Dramatic Reading YTMND. Although I agree that random YTMND insertion into articles is vandalism. Crazyswordsman.

We already link to the YTMND wiki. Just zis Guy, you know? 09:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Why block theunfunnytruth? I don't understand what would be wrong with it...65.27.211.52 21:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The theunfunnytruth (I believe) would be a most beneficial lnk for the Scientology article. You can clearly see the refrences for the information at the end and it does not "make up" information to criticize the Sci Church.

This is a view which has been robustly rejected by editors of that article. 62.73.137.190 13:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of putting a new section in Scientology_controversy after 'External Links', called 'External Links which reference this Wikipedia article', and putting the unfunnytruth ytmnd in there. It would be a reciprocal link because unfunnytruth references that specific Wikipedia entry. It would also be appropriate because most of the page views coming to that page are from presumably previous viewers of that ytmnd because of its popularity. Fame begets fame. Actual link would be titled 'Unfunny[sic] Truth' and description would say 'Major contributor to the current controversy'. Sounds good, no?

Based on ongoing difficulties with YTMND sites, I would suggest wikis who need to link to such a site add that site to their whitelist, and the complete *.ytmnd.com be added to Spam blacklist. - Amgine / ^{m | n} 03:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, we'll have to do some work[2] before blacklisting. MaxSem 06:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't mind doing it, either. I think that www. is OK for the site and a few related articles, but any other YTMND added is almost invariably spam. Another ten out of mainspace today, including the Unfunny Truth, which appears to have been linked despite being blacklisted. Just zis Guy, you know? 09:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• As of today there are four links to ytmnds other than www. or wiki. [3]. Of those only one is in main space, and the source for its inclusion is too blurred to be readable (although it's repeated in text on one of the two linked sources). Just zis Guy, you know? 13:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support, we need an en.wp sysop to whitelist www.ytmnd.com and wiki.ytmnd.com. BTW, is there a way to redirect a user to subdomains from www.ytmnd.com? MaxSem 07:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

After a lot of work and some lengthy discussions on the en:YTMND talk page I think we have reached the point where I can bring a proposal here. As you know, YTMND is a popular website and we have an article on it which discusses some of the "fads" it generates. There is, however a problem with linking direct to YTMNDs as (a) they often use a Flash preloader (contrary to external link guidelines on active content requiring external players); (b) many of the soundtracks are copyright violations (contrary to external link guidelines on copyrighted content) and (c) they are constantly added to mainspace by fans, despite often being of little or no importance (e.g. en:Pi, [4]).

There appears to be a consensus at en:Talk:YTMND that in discussing fads we should link to the YTMND wiki article on the fad (which avoids both the active content and the copyright issue). We have already blocked two YTMNDs for being spammed to the project, and what I'd like to suggest, to save the daily lnksearch and prune tedium, is to blacklist *.ytmnd.com and whitelist wiki.ytmnd.com and www.ytmnd.com. This will prevent the prolific spamming of YTMNDs either by good faith but misguided fans, or by those aiming to promote fads for googlebombing purposes (as we saw with the unfunny truth fad), it will prevent things like the problems we had with en:safety when the Safety Not Guaranteed fad was doing the rounds (or at least mitigate the problem), it might help to avert another en:Brian Peppers fiasco and I think will improve the project and also the image of the many good YTMND members who are editors here, since all YTMNDers tend to get tarred with the same brush as each new fad is spammed. Just zis Guy, you know? 08:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Added to the EN Wikipedia white-list at [5]. Zscout370 02:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. So, can we add the balance to the blacklist now? I rmoeved another four YTMNDs from mainspace articles today. Just zis Guy, you know? 12:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Done you're the dog now, man! MaxSem 12:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

www.mkmaritimoberge.es

Please add this URL. On es.wiktionary a user created entries containing this URL. Those were deleted es:wikt:Especial:Log/delete
In these entries he added also:

• www.mkmaritimoberge.es
• www.lasemana.es
• www.interactivadigital.com
• www.nightology.tv
• www.fondear.com

Many thanks in advance, greetings --birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} 13:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Not done; the spam blacklist should only be used for widespread spam that is difficult to manage with conventional tools. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 04:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

rasikas.org/forums.php

A persistent user from a pool of IPs has been inserting this link to numerous pages relating to Indian classical music [6], [7]. This is a forum website with Google adsense and does not offer anything pertinent to the articles. I have waned the user to stop this activity, but the insertion is still going on. I have spent most of themorning rolling back these inserts. I have no other option but to request blacklisting this website. - Venu62 03:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a site that is very pertinent to Carnatic Music. My only mistake was that I gave the link to the homepage instead of to the exact page that contained the relevant information. Since I dont have much experience with wikipedia's conventions I was not aware that my actions constituted spam. I have now started giving the exact page-links that pertain to the topic. Hope I am not penalized for this.

Not done; the user's comment indicates good faith, and there has been no followup to demonstrate otherwise. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 04:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

britney-spears-bikini-photo-nude.blogspot.com

A spambot clean some articles in es.wikipedia and add spam, example: [8] --Taichi - (あ！) 06:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Not done; the spam blacklist should only be used for widespread spam that is difficult to manage with conventional tools. Please resubmit your request if reversion and blocking are insufficient. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 04:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

succodimelone.it

spam, spam and spam again of a website vaguely related to creativity, offering a commercial service of ideas protection. User is in write-only mode --Jollyroger 09:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 04:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

mortgage-refinancing-refinance-loan.blogspot.com and debt-consolidation-loan-c.blogspot.com

Spamvertised by zombies.[9] It may be prudent to add some more regexps for debt consolidation spam, at least for related terms under Blogspot, as it seems to be emerging as a host of choice for zombie spammers. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Done as (debt|financ|loan|morgage).*\.blogspot.com. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 04:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

rosnersquared.com

Continued spamming of posts from this "blog" by various IPs (their only edits): [10], [11], [12], [13]. Trying to keep up with switching IPs, starting to block them, and there might be more... --24.29.141.11 13:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 04:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

essentialbritneyspears.com

Continued spamming on the dutch wikipedia on Britney Spears by various IPs. FANSTAR 11:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Not done; the spam blacklist should only be used for widespread spam that is difficult to manage with conventional tools. Please resubmit your request if reversion, protection, and blocking are insufficient. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 05:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

hometown.aol.com

Continued spamming in the spanish wikipedia on es:RSS and another articles by various IPs. Example: http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RSS&diff=4838636&oldid=4838630, always this spambot add in the Resume "Unknown".

Not done; both the English Wikipedia and the Spanish Wikipedia cite a number of sites hosted on that domain. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 05:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

www.kasur.20fr.com

This was previously declined, but the roving IP spammer is back and spamming Kasur. See [14]]. Since the IP spammer appears to ignore all warnings, I request the blacklisting of his/her site. Range block is not practical due to collateral damage. Similarly, IPs make productive edits to article, so semi-protection would not be a good thing. --Nlu 07:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Not done; the spam blacklist should only be used for widespread spam that is difficult to manage with conventional tools. Please resubmit your request if reversion, protection, and blocking are insufficient. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 05:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

www.code-interactive.com

Repeated spamming on en-wiki by users Jsmorse47, Cochese8 and of course many anons leading to a couple of ugly edit wars and clashes with the spam patrols. For a quick overview see [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] Jsmorse in fact admits he is Joe Morse the co-owner of the website and all links introduced either relate to Joe Morse's book on dieting or his business as a logo creator. Pascal.Tesson 03:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

In addition to the accounts Pascal mentioned above (Jsmorse47, Cochese8, 66.91.227.161, and 68.107.52.12), I would add 66.27.121.200 and 71.136.110.46. The IPs appear to be around the San Diego area, and the website is registered to a "Morse, Joseph cochese8@[removed].com" at a San Diego address. A couple of the links have been the subject of extensive discussion with no significant support for the links aside from Cochese8 and Jsmorse47; see w:en:Talk:Basal metabolic rate and w:en:Talk:Logo. Wmahan 03:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 05:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

plone.akl.lt

Again in es.wikipedia the spambot attacked RSS and anothers articles of links from plone [22]. Please. --Taichi - (あ！) 05:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. MaxSem 15:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

ideamappingsuccess.com

Repeated, persistent linkspamming on en:Brainstorming, en:Idea, en:Creativity techniques, en:Inspiration Software, en:Personal knowledge management, well, you get the idea. Fan-1967 15:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 05:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

lochnessmonster.name, jerrypournelle.org, monsternews.org, and minotaur.name

Further domains used by link spamming vandal, Universe Daily. See en:Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Universe Daily. -- Longhair 07:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Added one to Longhair's request. -- Wmahan 14:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 05:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

yaldex.com

A page about JavaScript has been created on Jmol wiki (http://wiki.jmol.org/index.php?title=With_and_switch_statements_of_JavaScript), so totally unrelated to the wiki with links to a site about a commercial JavaScript editor, yaldex.com. I deleted the page. -- NicoV 09:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Not done; the spam blacklist should only be used for widespread spam that is difficult to manage with conventional tools. Please resubmit your request if reversion, protection, and blocking are insufficient. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 05:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

medved.rootg.org, medved.rubite.org

and probably others, for example: [*].comlive.biz (subdomains), porn.bapki.com. IP fr:Special:Contributions:213.219.194.68 has added, today, hundreds of links to medved.rootg.org in two pages, see [23], [24], [25] and [26]. After searching on WP-EN, same IP en:Special:Contributions:213.219.194.68 has also added wonderful spamlinks in the same manner, for example [27]. Spambot also seems to work on WP-DE (de:Special:Contributions/213.219.194.68), WP-ES (es:Special:Contributions/213.219.194.68), WP-NL (nl:Special:Contributions/213.219.194.68) and probably many others. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 14:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

please, blacklist them. Phe 15:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Done Naconkantari 13:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

*years.com

facupyears.com
leaguecupyears.com
championsleagueyears.com
worldfootballyears.com
WayneRooneyyears.com
englandfootballyears.com
premiershipyears.com
manchesterunitedyears.com
stevengerrardyears.com
liverpoolfootballyears.com
scotlandfootballyears.com
worldcupyears.com
newcastleunitedyears.com

Spammed by 88.110.142.156 (and on sv) and 217.207.122.138 (sv). —LX (talk, contribs) 16:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Continues to be spammed, most recently from 195.93.21.65.[28] Block these, please? —LX (talk, contribs) 19:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

195.93.21.98.[29] —LX (talk, contribs) 19:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

195.93.21.38. Add newcastleunitedyears.com to the list as well. Please let me know what I can do to speed up action being taken on this. It's causing a lot of unnecessary work. —LX (talk, contribs) 04:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Done as (?:cup|league|football|wayne|premiership|steven|united).*years\.com. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 05:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

www.memorial-niten-ichy-ryu.com

Some users added multiple links to this site on fr.wikipedia in the beginning of year 2006, in multiple articles that had basically nothing to do with the content of the site (a local martial arts dojo, absolutely not notorious). We reverted them and they were quiet for some time, but apparently they just restarted their spams... before I become crazy reverting them, please add www.memorial-niten-ichy-ryu.com to the spam blacklist. -Ash Crow 17:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I see that they also sometimes use another address with links to same website, www.ecole-miyamoto-musashi.com... Thanks to blakclist both. -Ash Crow 17:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

And another one: www.dojo-miyamoto-musashi.com... -Ash Crow 08:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Done by Eloquence. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 20:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

nationalparksgallery.com

A user keeps switching IP addresses to add spam links to www.nationalparksgallery.com (full of ads and low quality pictures) to the English Wikipedia, most recently to en:Rocky Mountain National Park. See this village pump entry. Also see this, this, this, and this for more of the back story. This has been happening since February. We removed the links after a debate. But now the person has given up his username in exchange for a seemingly unlimited supply of IP addresses. Nationalparks 23:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes please add this. It is pure advertising spam with some pictures so it looks like it isn't. Fighting hundreds of these since Feb. is getting tiresome. Pschemp 19:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 00:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

http://i10.tinypic.com/2yke0qr.jpg

This link has been spammed on the English Wikipedia by sockpuppets of a banned vandal. Its only contents are a request that the user's original account, "Trouserwonky" be unblocked and that users stating on their pages that they also want the account unblocked.--71.155.170.160 23:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Not done; the spam blacklist should only be used for widespread spam that is difficult to manage with conventional tools. Please resubmit your request if reversion, protection, and blocking are insufficient. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 05:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

xoomer.alice.it and yearlykos.org

xoomer.alice.it and yearlykos.org have spammed the sonikmatter wiki.

Revision history can be seen here

The Puppeteer 11:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Done Naconkantari 13:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

http://es.geocities.com/tododeporte100

This link is being spammed on the Spanish Wikipedia since june aprox. but nowadays is getting worse, and every day it's added on several pages. Gothmog 15:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

anyboard.net, hometown.aol.com, tabulas.com, urlcutter.com

Spamming on Jmol wiki, on the Talk:Main_Page. -- NicoV 07:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Done, except for hometown.aol.com Naconkantari 01:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

go2santorini.com

Roving IPs from the 62.74.48.x range (registered to Greek ISP Panafonet) constantly bombards en:Santorini with spam links to the site. Warnings were of no help, and the spammer either seems to not "get it" or is doing it despite the constant removal of the spam link. (See [30].) Request a blacklisting. --Nlu 15:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy spammers

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

realestate.pl

The title sais it all. Example of spam.--Piotrus 01:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

darksiren.co.uk and sirensynthetics.com

Spam links repeatedly added to multiple en: articles over the span of many months, e.g. [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] --Stormie 06:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

histoire-fr.com

The webmaster of this website has been linking to it from more than 50 wikipedia pages since September 28. What's more, the website displays ads and is Google monetized... fr:Utilisateur:Enro 10:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This won't probably be necessary. The spammer is new here and seems reasonable. A little chat should enough. Thanks. Eden2004 12:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC) Sysop on :fr

OK, I agree. Sorry for having reacted so abruptly but it seems that the intimidation had some effect... Thanks. fr:Utilisateur:Enro 12:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

From Global Voices wiki

The following links have been integrated into the Spam blacklist log. These were spammed to the Global Voices wiki.

\.go\.to
\.connect\.to
\.drive\.to
\.run\.to
\.surf\.to

Already done, just listed here for the record. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 01:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed removals

This section is for proposing that a website be unlisted; please add new entries at the bottom of the section. Remember to provide the specific URL blacklisted, links to the articles they are used in or useful to, and arguments in favour of unlisting. Completed requests will be marked as done or denied and archived. See also /recurring requests for repeatedly proposed (and refused) removals.

republika.pl

Per various requests on in this section and troubleshooting, I would like to request the unblocking of the entire host 'republika.pl'. Just today it prevented me from adding the generalogy tree (akromer.republika.pl/poczet_slask01.html) to a related article. Thank you, --Piotrus 22:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

neucyo(dot)home4u(dot)china(dot)com(slash)index(dot)htm

This is a website containing useful information on the Chinese dialect called Wu dialect. Its website name is "Jiangnan Yayin Hua Wuyu" (江南雅音话吴语) (translated as "The Speech of South of Yangtze River called Wu Dialect"). Please remove the link under the name home4u\.china\.com in the spam blacklist so I can modify the information on "Wu dialect" on Wikipedia. Thank You.

www.alphaworks.ibm.com

This is IBM's website for under development stuff. Currently referenced, for example, by the Cell microprocessor entry. How did this website end up on the blacklist?

Please see section below requesting the same information. 128.83.103.55 03:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

adsense-wissen(dot)de

This is a very good site containing information about Google AdSense. I really don't know why this site was added to the spam blacklist. It is for free an really helpful for all thoose, who need information about the topic. I found it to be the best website on this topic.

It was added because it was being used to replace valid links [37], [38]. Naconkantari 16:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Fish Eaters(dot)com

Would you please remove Fish Eaters from the blacklist? It's an extremely informative website on traditional Catholicism, and it has a lot of credibility, considering it's advertised on New Advent, for example. Thank you.

Already reviewed and declined multiple times. See en:User:JzG/Fisheaters. Just zis Guy, you know? 22:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It's never been "reviewed" once. What happens is someone requests de-listing and you repeat your same fallacious arguments which get soundly defeated by me. The defeats are ignored because you are an Admin and I am not. Even though you pretty much admitted to being someone who has a s*** list and rarely changes his mind about it [39], even though you actually call Catholics "papists" [40], your word is gold and my arguments are ignored because Admins don't usually have the time to investigate every little argument at Wiki, esp. ones that run on as ours do.

Naconkantari asked us to "Please continue discussions elsewhere and return with a final resolution." [41] I attempted to do this on your Talk Page and we failed, once again going through the same old litany of arguments (which I won in the objective order). I said to you:

"I think it would be a good thing if an objective, fresh-to-this-issue third party were to look at the site and consider whether a few links ("Further Reading," not "Resources" -- labeled "traditional" or "traditionalist" or whatever) on relevant pages would be a helpful thing or not. Maybe Naconkantari herself could look into it if she has the time. But as it is, you repeat your same old arguments, and I rebut with my same old arguments, and on we go for endless paragraphs that only the intrepid and exceedingly patient would want to wade through. You're an Admin; I am not. She will naturally and understandably listen to you over me, not having the time, I'm sure, to investigate every quibble that comes her way, esp. when such a row involves the pages of arguments that we produce and comes down to such things as debating what "traditional" vs. "traditionalist" mean and how Ecclesia Dei (What??) plays into it all. A simple, "This woman and I have bad blood between us and want an objective third party to investigate and decide what, if anything, should be done with regard to removing the site from the blacklist" -- all without year-old stuff about "spamming" and "edit wars" and what rules were in place at the time links were added, and with no talk of ex post facto judgments and Dominick and blah blah blah, etc., ad nauseum. This would be an easy thing to ask for, and fair all around. At least it could be if it were handled in a "This is Day One. Here's a site. Is it an OK site to link as "further reading" on relevant pages? If so, in what manner should any links be added, how should any links be labeled so they are not misleading, and how many links are 'too many'?" way -- and with no behind-the-scenes monkey-business. I don't see why this is too much to ask."

Your response was to call me a "spamming troll" or "trolling spammer" or what not and remove the exchange from your Talk Page. [42]. I repeat the quoted request here and ask that a person who doesn't call Catholics "papists," who doesn't have personal issues with me, who doesn't have ego invested in a s*** list, etc., forget almost year-old charges and counter-charges, look at the website objectively, and decide: "Is it an OK site to link as 'further reading' on relevant pages? If so, in what manner should any links be added, how should any links be labeled so they are not misleading, and how many links are 'too many'?"

(BTW, the person who made the initial request above erred; the site isn't "advertised" at the Catholic Encyclopedia; it is simply linked to from it, as it is from Latin Mass Magazine, NYU's The Revealer, ReligiousTolerance.org, parishes, chapels, etc.). -- A Stranger, 11 Sep 2006 by my computer's clock

Per multiple previous discussions, it is abundantly clear that your principal aim is to add links to your site, not information. Since the last conversation on my Talk ended up with blatant trolling from you, and several previous discussions have gone the same way, I do not propose to discuss this any further. Just zis Guy, you know? 10:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Here [43] is the exchange you are referring to as "blatant trolling," even after Naconkantari requested that we resolve the matter elsewhere and come back with a resolution [44]-- an impossibility, as it turns out, since you are clearly not open to discussion or reason.

I am tired of discussing my "principal aims" with you, as they are totally irrelevant to the questions: "Is it an OK site to link as 'further reading' on relevant pages? If so, in what manner should any links be added, how should any links be labeled so they are not misleading, and how many links are 'too many'?" Those questions are the issue, JzG, but you can't leave personalities, ego, and suspicions of hidden "principal aims" out of it. I repeat the request that an objective third party look at the site and answer the above questions without our continual sniping getting in the way. -- A Stranger

Note to Meta sysops: MacGyverMagic appears to concur with this blacklisting. No other third-party responses yet. Just zis Guy, you know? 13:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Please answer the following questions. I apologize if these have been discussed before; there is simply too much previous discussion in this case to read over, considering the large number of other requests to consider.

1. Does the link provide useful information, either complementing a Wikipedia article or for another wiki using this blacklist?
2. Has it been demonstrably spammed, except in a possible good-faith attempt to add a useful website to many relevant articles?
3. If it has been spammed, was it in a widespread manner by a large number of users? Can you provide any examples of this?

Thank you. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 03:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Answers in order:

1. Some of the links provide useful information, but others provide a minority point of view - it's not always easy to tell. There is subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) bias throughout the site, and the site has been used to encourage the insertion of minority POV into articles, e.g. fisheaters.com/evangelize.html. Some of the useful information is also available at other, more authoritative sites. Unlike, for example, en:chabad.org, we have no idea what the purported authority of this site is, and it does appear to be essentially a monograph. Ican't recall a case where similar information could not be sourced from groups with a provable authority, or from sites which do not display the underlying bias (e.g. a document was linked which was also available from the Vatican website, which is not only more authoritative and neutral, in terms of global Catholicism, but is also the original source of the document).
2. Yes. The edit war last December (documented at en:User:JzG/Fisheaters) showed a fierce determination on the part of the site owner to add links to her site, which is one of the no-nos in en:WP:EL. Since that time the site owner has returned many times to argue for links to her site to be allowed, but has not produced any evidence of intent to add content, only links. Which for my money is covered by en:WP:SPAM. For example, a link was added to en:bell "by mistake" ([45]). If you are selectively adding links to articles where you wish to support the article content, you don't accidentally add them to disambiguation pages. If you look at the linksearch [46] you'll see, for example, [47] where U2BA, the site owner, is arguing over lniks to her site.
3. Yes. Over a hundred articles on en: on subjects which vary from the site's own subject matter (en:Traditionalist Catholicism) to the bell disambiguation page, and a fair number of links on other language versions as well (I removed I think about 40 outside of en:). There is a list at en:User:JzG/Fisheaters. Addition of these links will split into a number of categories: (a) good-faith additions by editors who like the site, there are several Traditionalist Catholic editors of whom some are I believe members of the site's forums; (b) additions by the site owner under her username en:User:Used2BAnonymous; (c) during the December 2005 edit war the site's forums contained discussions which encouraged users to revert the removal of links ands provided instructions on how to quickly become a "historied" user to make these harder to spot; (d) additions by the site owner using dynamic IP addresses. It is this last which makes it difficult to use tools other than the blacklist to regulate the issue. The major source of agitation to add the site is the site owner herself, and a page is maintained at www.fisheaters.com/wikipedia2.html attacking me and others for requesting blacklisting in the first place (per recent ArbCom thinking this alone would be sufficient to have all links to the site banned from en:), and asserting that this is on the basis of religious bias rather than spamming.

en:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dominick and en:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Used2BAnonymous are also relevant, as are some discussions on the FE forums, e.g. [48], [49] and www.fisheaters.com/wikipedia.html (which, it suddenly strikes me, is remarkably similar in tone and content to one of the pages set up by banned en:User:Jason Gastrich in pursuing his POV war). Note the instructions to set up a user page so your account name is not redlinked, thus reducing your chances of being spotted by RC patrollers, and how to rack up an edit history so you can participate in discussions.

In short, then, this is a website which has some good content and some biased content, and tends to editorialise around issues (although not as badly as whale.to, for example), but this content, and any involvement with Wikipedia, is fundamentally based on the pursuit of an agenda. In this regard it is indistinguishable from a million other private websites. It is nicelyt laid out and decently written, not openmly polemical for the most part, but in some cases that simply serves to conceal the underlying bias. Above all, this is not a website about Catholicism, it's a website promoting and supporting a dissenting subset of Catholicism. Just zis Guy, you know? 11:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: "per recent ArbCom thinking this alone would be sufficient to have all links to the site banned": that explanation of why Wikipedia bans this site wasn't there until you banned it, JzG, and it was added because a) I get asked about it and am sick of explaining it, and b) the ban and the accompanying accusations affect how people view my site. One example of how your calling me a "spammer" and such negatively affects my site -- http://www.haloscan.com/comments/danforallseasons/115325965728280448/ That is a comment box at one of the most popular Catholic blogs out there. I have asked you to stop slandering me and my site, but you won't. I have said to you, in effect, "Ban all you want, but stop slandering me in the Talk Pages" -- but you wouldn't. I would hate to think that Wiki expects me to do nothing while you call me a "spammer" and such for adding "too many" (perfectly relevant) links to my site when there were no rules against such when I did so.

And, once again: 1) I did not use my forum to get people to revert links, and 2) the wikipedia2.html page is an adjunct to and is only linked to from the page evangelize.html. Unless you think Catholics should be forbidden from using the Net or editing Wiki, perhaps you'd like to explain what is wrong with those two pages. -- A Stranger 152.163.100.13 13:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

God help me, I was goign to avoid getting drawn into yet another battle here, but since you have made this comment I would point out that when new policies are introduced to control abuses of the project, it is pointless to pretend that because your particular abuses predate the formal policy they are somehow alright. Wikipedia is not and never has been a link farm. Guideliens on precisely how we interpret that long-standing policy are just that: guidelines on interpretation.

I offer the following simple solution to your problems:

1. Register an account

2. Make verifiably neutral main-space edits using that account without adding links to your site

3. Repeat. Many times.

Until then, I and several others will continue to view you as being here to promote your site and your beliefs rather than build an encyclopaedia. What is more than obvious is that you have total commitment to your site and your beliefs, and that commitment is far greater than any evident commitment you have to Wikipedia, which you seem to think has only two uses for you: to present your particular minority perspective on Catholicism (as evidence your instructions on how to avoid edits being spotted on recent changes - something which no good-faith contributor of verifiably neutral content would need to know), and to provide links to your site.

I have said this before and I will say it again: linking to your site is no substitute for adding verifiable and neutral content to Wikipedia articles and in the end you appear to be arguing primarily from the basis that it is up to those who want the link excluded to justify its exclusion, whereas in fact it is the other way round, and it is your job to justify inclusion. The reasons for including links are:

• If they are a reliable authority used as a source in the article. I'm sorry but your site does not represent an organisation of any known authority, so can't be represented as the view of x named authority on a subject. I appreciate that you have put a lot of work into it, but people put a lot of work into blogs and other monographs. Sure, your opinion may well be well-informewd, but we don't know that because we don't know who you are and we don't know your credentials, nor do you have an identified editorial board or stated connection to any known body of verifiable authority. Why should we take your word for anything? And if you are mirroring content from a provable authority then the authority, not your site, should be referenced; this was the problem with the encyclical linked from your site instead of the Vatican.
• If they contain content which would, in an ideal world, be contained in a Great Article, but the article has not got there yet. These are almost all mature articles of at least good quality and often featured quality, little is missing apart from (in some cases and according to the arguments on your site) a certain minority point of view. Undue weight applies - and I don't mean correcting the pressing problem of giving "undue weight" to the majority or establishment perspective. If what is on your site can't go in the article because it is not verifiable and verifiably neutral, then adding a link simply moves the POV fork offsite, which is unacceptable.
• Links which go into a level of detail which is inappropriate for an article in a general encyclopaedia. Most of these are large and detailed articles, with historical context and an active WikiProject striving to give the most comprenhensive and authoritative coverage to the subject. Detail is there in abundance. We have an article on the purported Papal oath, for example, which goes into vastly more detail than is really justified by its global significance. And a lot of the links that get added there seem to be to trad sites explaining in essence how, yes, we know there's no credible evidence that any Pope ever swore not to make any changes to the liturgy, but really, honestly, it is true, honest.

Nowhere on the list do we find "links which should be included because someone else has a link", which is a common justification offered where articles are passing the Spam Event Horizon, and one you yourself have used. Nor is correcting a bias towards the mainstream an acceptable reason. And there is absolutely no kind of "right" to include a link. Above all to my mind it is your fierce and single-minded determination to have links which has let you down every time so far. Just zis Guy, you know? 11:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

---

God help you, you were going to avoid getting drawn into yet another battle? Then why did you start in again at 09:35 and 09:42 on 20 September? Is the game that you get to say anything about my site and any setting of the record straight on my part is against some WP:SOMETHING-OR-OTHER?

I'd already registered an account, made verifiably neutral main-space edits using that account without linking to my site, and repeated many times. I didn't like it, thanks. Dealing with the Dominicks of the world makes me mean and sarcastic, as does dealing with you. It is bad for my soul and, so, I prefer to stay away as much as possible. (Does the official, authoritative, verifiable head of the official Chabad organization -- an "official organization" being recognizable by its paperwork -- whose authority and verifiability derives from Schneerson himself who gets his authority straight from God, have an account and make edits? Just curious.)

My commitment to my site and my beliefs is far greater" than any evident commitment you have to Wikipedia? Chyeah, damn straight! Is Wikipedia a new religion or something? What kind of odd-ball statement is that for you to make? Do you think the average Lubavitcher's interests in Wiki are "far greater" than his interests in Chabad? That is utter silliness, JzG, and if your interests in Wiki are "far greater" than your religious beliefs and your real life -- well, I just don't know what to say about that other than I feel sorry for you. As to Wiki's uses in my mind, it seems to be good for finding pop culture references and possible associations between things (it is indispensible for this, though anything found needs to be verified elsewhere, as Jim Wales himself would tell you), to use as a starting point for further information, for overtaking Google, for slamming my site and slandering me, and for insulting traditional/ist Catholics.

I have no idea what you are talking about when you refer to avoiding "edits being spotted on recent changes," sorry (though you might ask Dominick about his techniques). I think you are muddying waters again, throwing stuff about and hoping something sticks. My page on the matter, once again, is here: evangelize.html.

The information at my site is verifiable. Go look it up. And if it is up to those who want to add links to justify each and every addition, then why not blacklist all sites (calling them all "spam" in the process -- always a nice thing for good will and Wikipedia PR) and have any link discussed on this page? How come Chabad doesn't have to go through this nonsense? (I just checked; they still have their Waldorf Salad page link [50]).

I have no problems with encyclicals being linked to at the Vatican instead of my site and have said so repeatedly (I think you only bring this up to lead others to think I think otherwise, as in you are muddying the waters yet again; it's the only logical explanation since I have said it repeatedly). The Vatican's archives, however, only go back to Leo XIII and aren't complete even for those Popes. Go look it up. [51] Try to find Pius XII's "Address to Midwives," for ex.

I don't know what your trip is about some trads and the alleged papal oath, but you can read what my site says about it at papaloath.html.

You say links can be added

"If they contain content which would, in an ideal world, be contained in a Great Article, but the article has not got there yet. These are almost all mature articles of at least good quality and often featured quality, little is missing apart from (in some cases and according to the arguments on your site) a certain minority point of view."

Well, your use of the word "minority" is telling. "Minority" how? Numerically? Then eliminate links to any website about religious practices because all religious are "minorities" relative to the number of human beings on the earth. Or do you mean "minority" as in "not mainstream" relative to the Holy See? Then tell that to the FSSP and Benedict XVI. [52] You keep going on about "POV forks" and such, but the deal is this: there are TWO Missae and TWO liturgical calendars in use in the Latin Church. That's a fact, that's mainstream, that's not a secret. You are the one with the POV who sees Vatican-condoned trad practices as some "not mainstream" weirdness that doesn't deserve mention lest it constitute a "POV fork." And as to the "little is missing" part, how funny that Father Jim Tucker JUST wrote in his blog a few days ago [53] "See Fish Eaters for the history of the Feast and all the interesting tidbits you wouldn't come across elsewhere."

I never said there was a "right" to include a link (though Chabad gets the mighty privilege -- 437 times, last I looked). I do have a moral right not to be slandered by you on Talk Pages -- or, at least, you have a moral duty to cut it out. -- A Stranger 152.163.100.13 14:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Pathoschild, hi. My responses to those questions: I believe the links definitely provided not only useful, but one-of-a-kind information. A sampling of the sorts of links added:

• Link to a page on Twelfthnight [www.fisheaters.com/epiphanyeve.html] from the entry "Twelfth Night".
• Link to Epiphany customs [www.fisheaters.com/customschristmas8.html] from the entry "Epiphany."
• Link to site's index page [www.fisheaters.com] from the entry "Traditionalist Catholics"
• Link to page on Candlemas [www.fisheaters.com/customstimeafterepiphany3.html] from the entry "Candlemas."
• Link to page on the Feast of St. Martha on the entry Martha [www.fisheaters.com/customstimeafterpentecost5a.html]
• Link to page on the Feast of St. Brigid [www.fisheaters.com/customstimeafterepiphany2a.html] from the entry "Saint Brigid". Two links were used to replace [54] mine -- this site and this one Dig the embedded midi file!
• Link to a page on the Rosary [www.fisheaters.com/rosary.html] from the entry "Rosary" -- a link which was replaced by Dominick with this page [55] because my link was "linkspam." He later added [56] a link to this page. Makes no sense to me, either.
• Link to page called "Votive Offerings" [www.fisheaters.com/votiveofferings.html] from the entry "Ex-voto."
• Links to the page "Seasonal Customs" [www.fisheaters.com/customs.html] on the entries for Advent, Lent, Christmas, Easter
• Link to page on the Day of the Dead [www.fisheaters.com/customstimeafterpentecost12ac.html] from the entry "Day of the Dead."
• Link to a page on traditional Catholic funerals [www.fisheaters.com/funerals.html] from an entry called "Requiem."
• Link to a page on Holy Water from the entry "Holy Water" [www.fisheaters.com/water.html]
• Link to the page "Religious Life" [www.fisheaters.com/religiouslife.html] from the entry "Nuns."

There were many such links as Catholicism is a HUGE topic and the site is quite large; it's been my life's work for a number of years now, which is part of why seeing it called "spam" and a "blog" and such is so maddening to me. See the pages "Being Catholic" [www.fisheaters.com/beingcatholic.html] and "Seasonal Customs" [www.fisheaters.com/customs.html] for the sources of most of the links. I, myself -- the site owner -- added probably 100 or so links (almost all were links to specific pages, as in the above examples, and not to the index page). But this is key: When I added the links, there were no rules in place at the time (the year 2005) against adding links to one's own site (other than those added "to promote a site"), and there was no rule against having "too many links" (I don't think there is a rule now against the latter, at least not for some people). Further, I did not add links to "spam," or to "increase traffic" to my non-commercial, ad-free site (most of my traffic isn't recorded as belonging to Fish Eaters anyway since the majority of the traffic goes to the site's discussion forum, which sits on a different server). I added the links because I believed them (and do believe them) to be relevant with regard to the entries to which they were added, and to be of interest to those looking up the mentioned entries -- not only for the traditional/ist Catholics, but for non-trad Catholics (who share in many of the customs), the merely curious, and those who need to know about historical Catholic practices -- such practices constituting what Western Christendom did for 2,000 years and being of interest to historians, writers, and artists also.

I have no idea how many links were added by other people, but others who added links did so of their own volition and not at my request. That others still want to add links is evident by the periodic requests here at this Spam Talk page (and, to me, from people who ask me about it).

The site is a traditional Catholic site -- or "traditionalist," if JzG prefers, though the former term is most commonly used by such Catholics (see [www.fisheaters.com/contact.html this page] for the site's stance, and [www.fisheaters.com/traditionalcatholicism.html this page] for what is meant by "traditional Catholicism" and to get a sense of the objectivity of the site with regard to SSPX vs. FSSP vs. sedevacantist type issues). The links were almost always labeled "traditional," at least when such a label was necessary, because of calendar dates, Missal references, etc., in order to differentiate between traditional and majority styles of Catholicism. (I've told JzG numerous times that I personally wouldn't care whether any links were labelled "traditional" or "traditionalist," though I have no control over how people label links they add. He seems to think that their being labeled "traditional" is "misleading." He could add an "ist" rather than stripping away the link and blaming me, however). The links were added by hand and were fewer in number than links to other websites (chabad.org, a numerically very small Jewish religion -- their number is much smaller than the number of traditional/ist Catholics -- now has 432 search returns from Wiki [57], with many of those links not labeled "Lubavitcher" -- and appearing on entries as disparate as "Waldorf Salad" and "Witchcraft." On 8 August when this matter was brought up here on this Spam page, they had 254 links.). IMO, Judaism is a huge subject, too, so why not "a lot" of links if they're helpful, on relevant entries, clearly labeled, the best of their kind, etc.? What's the big problem? If you ask me, each link should be looked at on its own in the context of the entry at which it's found, without obssessing that somehow, somewhere, some webmaster might be "benefiting" by having to pay for more bandwidth to his non-commercial site. "Too many links" is like the "too many notes" line in Amadeus. Makes no sense. Links are either helpful and relevant on a given entry, or they're not. And the double standard with regard to the FEW/chabad issue is killing me, esp. when coupled with talk of "papists" and such and when the offered excuses for the disparate treatment don't hold water at all.

The links to the F.E.W. were added as "External Links" or "Further Reading," not "Sources" or "References," except for links to papal encyclicals such as were linked to in the body of the entry "Traditionalist Catholics" (and I, of course, agree with JzG that when those encyclicals are available at, for ex., the Vatican's website, they should be linked to there).

Finally, I thank you for asking the right questions. Whew! -- A Stranger

To respond to JzG:

* He says that the site provides a "minority point of view": yes, traditional Catholics are a minority, as are Hindus, Jews, Anglicans, and atheists. I'm not sure what your point is about that.

* The Vatican Archive goes back to Leo XIII. Doesn't do much for us in the way of linking to, for ex., Pope Paul III's Sublimus Dei. But I agree with you that when an encyclical is available at the Vatican, it should be linked there.

* The "edit war" showed a "fierce determination" on my part to stop being punked on by Dominick and to get fair treatment, at a time when there was no rule against adding links to one's own site. Pathoschild was there monitoring the "Traditionalist Catholic" entry and knows some of what went on there and what things were like.

* The disambig link was added by mistake. Sorry. Kill me now.

* The page which you mention and decry but don't link to is here: www.fisheaters.com/wikipedia.html and is an adjunct of this page: www.fisheaters.com/evangelize.html I can't see a thing wrong with either.

* I can't see a thing wrong with my telling my friends at my forum what was being done to the FE site by Dominick and you. I didn't encourage anyone to revert, though some took it upon themselves to do so. (Note, though, that Dominick and you -- who weren't an admin at the time -- could revert all you wanted)

* You are not "attacked" at www.fisheaters.com/wikipedia2.html . The situation is simply described as it happened and is happening. Your calling Catholics "papist" is proof enough of your religious bias, and your insistence that "traditional" rather than "traditionalist" is "misleading" is the same.

* I don't know anything about "Jason Gastrich," but whoever he is, I hope you're not going to start accusing me of being him, too. The advice given at the two links in the above item make sense to me.

* My "underlying" bias is clear from the site's title: "Fish Eaters: The Whys and Hows of Traditional Catholicism." I am not sure what you are intimating with this "hidden bias" talk, but what I and other trads believe is all over the site, clearly labeled, for all to see. Perhaps you can read the [www.fisheaters.com/contact.html All About this Site] page and find the "dissent" from the "majority opinion" with regard to Vatican II, Benedict XVI, etc. On your Talk Page, you wrote, [58] "A Traditionalist Catholic follows a partticular version of the Catholic tradition, with an arbitrarily declared break which is not recognised as such by the mainstream Catholic church." This is just proof of your lack of information as to what "traditionalist Catholicism" necessarily entails, what my site is about, and what I believe. I attend a regular old parish with a regular old Bishop appointed by John Paul II, with a regular old FSSP priest who was likely ordained at the Vatican itself. You either just don't know what you are talking about, JzG, or you have a serious problem with Catholicism or with me and won't let it go. -- A Stranger

Not done. Given the unusual complexity of this particular case, I reviewed all archived discussions and most of the external links. In addition to this discussion, the site was discussed here in May 2006, June 2006, and August 2006. It was proposed for addition in May 2006, but was already blacklist; the other discussions concerned removal. In both removal discussions, Naconkantari denied the requests based on JzG's arguments and evidence.

The Spam blacklist is used by a large number of websites, not the least of which are every Wikimedia project. Small-scale spam or minor violations of one project's rules are insufficient cause for blacklisting, even if the violation occurs on the largest site using the blacklist. Specific violations of Wikipedia's external links guidelines are thus largely irrelevant here. However, links were added to a very large number of Wikipedia articles, and several editors overrode consensus and dispute resolution processes to keep them there.

Many arguments for blacklisting refer to fisheaters.com/evangelize.html, fisheaters.com/wikipedia.html, and fisheaters.com/wikipedia2.html. I can understand the frustration which often leads to pages such as the last, and I do not consider it to be evidence of any bad faith or ill intent on the webmistress' part. The Wikipedia how-to page is more ambivalent: on the one hand, it preaches civility, understanding, and honesty, and discourages sockpuppetry and revert warring. However, it also explains how to circumvent editcount limits, fool other editors into thinking that the user is established, encourages the placement of links for the sake of placing links (rather than to improve the content), and incites the circumvention of consensus through astroturfing techniques. The goal in this case seems to be to spread a message, rather than attract visitors to any one site; however, these techniques are nonetheless harmful to the sites affected.

The site seems to be of an overall high quality and contain useful information, and the information therein does complement encyclopedic articles. Unfortunately, the priority placed on placement, rather than improvement of the affected pages, seems to be similar in spirit to spamdexing, defined as "deliberately creating web pages which will be indexed by search engines in order to increase the chance of a website or page being placed close to the beginning of search engine results". This is notably shown through the placements of links on largely irrelevant articles, which increases exposure to the link while providing no useful complementary benefit to the article.

For these reasons I'm closing this discussion and leaving the site on the blacklist. Should editors wish to remove it in the future, they should consider improving on the concerns I've explained here. They should remember that although they may not place high priority on the affected project, administrators must do so in the course of administration. Although this decision is not final, it is authoritative; future requests may be refused out of hand if there is no reason to reconsider. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 00:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The suggestion on evangelize.html/wikipedia.html to get a history of editing came directly from Wiki help pages as I found them when I first got to Wiki. I don't know the exact URL and don't know if that page is the same at this point in time, but it said that the best way to get an edit history is to use the random page feature. The suggestion is also born out of experience: to vote for consensus, you can't have edited just 20 times. I am not sure why telling people that is wrong, and am not sure where you are seeing on either of those pages any advice to place links for the sake of links (in fact, as you say, I don't tell people to add links to my site at all). As to astroturfing, I am unclear as to why, for ex., Dominick's involvement with "WikiProject Catholicism/Collaboration" is any different from the single, small thread (old and now dead) at my forum in which I talked to my friends about what was going on here (and in any case, my attempts to get Catholics involved with Wiki failed anyway). But if it's against the rules, I would have no problem adding that rule to that page and warning people about discussing such matters in the forum. The goal of evangelize.html/wikipedia.html is to ensure that Catholics let their voices be heard like others do, plain and simple, and I tell Catholics to be balanced and fair and all that good stuff, as you admit.

I have never created a page simply for search engine rank and there is nothing on my site that resembles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spamdexing I am extremely curious as to what you mean by this and if you could point out an example. Since you follow that statement with "the placements of links on largely irrelevant articles," I can only guess that you are not talking about my site itself, but about the bell disambiguation page incident, which was a mistake that happened when I moved to the new domain and admittedly added a couple of links far too carelessly when updating old ones; I was in "rote mode" doing all those updates). Other than that, I don't think there were any links added to "irrelevant articles." The only article that could possibly come close is when I added a link to the page on Mel Gibson, who is a trad Catholic, at the height of the "Mel Gibson/The Passion of the Christ vs. The World" debacle, when traditional Catholicism was a "hot topic" with regard to Gibson, and the media were full of articles full of misconceptions about what trad. Catholicism is.

As you know, and as can be seen in my edit history, I did work on lots of articles -- esp. the "Traditionalist Catholic" entry (I spent months working on that, all for mostly nothing) -- and I also worked on articles before I even registered an account.

While I obviously disagree with your decision and question your reasoning on the above issues (well, not the reasoning, but the premises), I thank you for at least trying to LOOK and LISTEN, Pathos (and also for having a clue as to the reasons for wikipedia2.html and not jumping on what I see as self-defense as a sign of malice -- that page being one that would be unecessary and gone anyway if the site were de-listed). Because you say, and I and many agree, that "the site seems to be of an overall high quality and contain useful information, and the information therein does complement encyclopedic articles," and because of the above, I hope you reconsider, but until and unless, I wish you peace and thank you for your attitude of fairness. --- A Stranger 64.12.116.69 16:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I am amending the wikipedia.html page now. --- A Stranger 64.12.116.69 16:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

piranho(dot)com

piranho seems to be a free webspace provider. Please either unblock piranho.com or add walberberg.piranho.com to the white list. Regards, 80.128.182.45 10:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Not done; please request whitelisting on the local project where you wish to use it. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 19:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

As I see it piranho(dot)com is a free webspace provider. This means the majority of websites hosted on piranho.com will be decent sites. Also the bad site was already removed I suppose according to the rules of this provider.

Please remove piranho.com from the blacklist!

Otherwise you'd have to add geocities, yahoo, ... for I'm sure there are ab-users on that providers, too.

BTW, where is the reason to blacklist piranho.com anyway?! Regarding the discussion on "ytmnd" on top of this site I would think there's need for more than one SPAM-Subdomain/Website on a webspace provider to justify blacklisting the whole domain?!

also see [59]!

--Nicetry 22:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

alexachung(dot)awardspace(dot)com

Deleted and blacklisted for being a dead url on entry for Alexa Chung, but now back up and the most comprehensive site of its kind so deserves unblacklisting and reinclusion.

clantemplates.com

Not a spam website and was possibly added by the webmasters from ClanTemplates.de (Which should be added!), an imitator site.

ClanTemplates.de is known for stealing and redistributing the web templates from ClanTemplates(.com), despite the fact it is against ToS/U.

--68.119.120.218 05:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

ADDITION: ClanTemplates.com is not a spam website and the article for the website has been edited by ClanTemplates.de. ClanTemplates.de has stolen the works of the designers at clantemplates.com and refuses to remove them. This additional action on WiKi, of removing the links and editing the article, and reporting ClanTemplates.com as spam is extremely disturbing and proposterous. If you have any questions regarding the validity of these claims, please feel free to ask the 100,000 members at ClanTemplates.com on where the templates come from. In addition, please see the following page on clantemplates.com where every single template is released one by one by the original author. forums.clantemplates.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13

The article has also always stated that the website is owned by Zesix Interactive. http://www.zesix.com/thenetwork.htm specifically states that the real website is clantemplates.com and not clantemplates.de.

Please remove clantemplates.com from the spam block. We are also requesting the banning of clantemplates.de from WiKi due to the reasons stated above.

Thank you, Vineet C. Founder / General Manager Zesix Interactive

e-dsp.com

Hi, e-dsp.com is in the external links section of Digital Signal Processor. I believe at it was not listed when it was added, but now, it is impossible to add other links. I visited e-dsp.com and cannot see any raison why it is blacklisted. It have tutor and links to free ebooks. I really want to be able to keep this link and add other relevant links.--85.218.2.215 11:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I modified the link to be able to edit the page in the maintime, but it will be great if I can put it back someday.--85.218.2.215 15:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

(www.)e-dsp.com is not a spam link, but http://www.edsp.com is! --Glenn 16:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I am talking about www.e-dsp.com not http://www.edsp.com. So, please remove e-dsp.com and add edsp.com--85.218.2.215 00:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you fix those links please ! --85.218.2.215 21:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree that e-dsp.com is not a spam page, it has links to free books, good tutorials and projects to learn from! I reviewed the site, it has basic tutorials to Fourier series which are elementary for Digital Signal Processing. Thank you, I hope you will remove it from the spam list and I even don't know why it was blacklisted!

Tarzan link

The following link comes up as blocked

www.angelfire.com/trek/erbzine3/erbmot14.html

As far as I know the above is an innocuous and useful link about Tarzan.

The blacklist has angelfire.com/trek listed, but in looking through the archives I could not find out why. —MJBurrage • TALK • 21:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Another site:

www.angelfire.com/trek/proutsy/

also came up as blocked, though it is a useful site for List of television programs by episode count. I'd like to request that "angelfire.com/trek" be removed, or narrowed down to the specific user in the "trek" neighborhood who was causing problems. --Psiphiorg 21:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

alphaworks.ibm.com

This page is a portal to many very useful free downloads. --Gerry Ashton 19:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't get this block. IBM is a legitimate site with legitimate articles on it. I'm trying to fix the links at the bottom of the Cell_microprocessor article but I can't because of this. --213.79.40.56 14:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Really not understanding this one: elucidation please. —Phil | Talk 22:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand that there were some issues with this previously, but I would echo the above; this is a portal to IBM's emerging technology offerings. There is a lot in there which is of compelling interest to developers and others. 62.73.137.190 13:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

kristina-jurcevic.piranho.com

While brh1.piranho.com/pussy-eat-out.html might be a SPAM site, kristina-jurcevic.piranho.com is not. This is the personal website of a young German actress named Kristian Jurcevic which you'll easily find out by visiting the site. So: Please unlock piranho.com and just lock brh1.piranho.com, or, at least, whitelist kristina-jurcevic.piranho.com! Thanks a lot, -- Nicetry 02:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Which Wikimedia site are you trying to include the link on? Naconkantari 20:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't check back earlier ... I need the link in article Fabrixx on German Wikipedia.

And please don't just put it on a local whitelist. Piranho.com is a free webspace provider which can be abused by anyone, but will also be used by lots of decent users. Wiki shouldn't lock a whole webspace provider just because a single user created a SPAM website there (which was already removed). Thanks! -- Ciao, Nicetry 21:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is this site back on the blacklist????

Please: Don't blacklist a whole free website provider for a few abusing users!!!

--Nicetry 21:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

ssfics.forum.ijijiji.com

I'm one of the administators who creatd the forum "Hermandad del Yaoi" with the link: ssfics.forum.ijijiji.com is a yaoi community forum with reviews of the most popular yaoi series and with image galeries, it's an spanish forum, it's not an spam site, we have really good reviews of the series on their respective sections of the forum, we also have yaoi/slash fanfiction and fanart, and we're not a hosting provider. Not every forum is an spam site, this is not, we have several kinds of topics but the main one is yaoi, I tried to put it on: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaoi because its related to the spanish section of yaoi and slash.

Please remove the forum from the blacklist. Thanks a lot for your attention.--gemininosaga 17:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Not done, added to local whitelist. Naconkantari 20:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, but I really don't understand about "local white list" , Does it mean I can use it in the section it goes? because I'm trying to use the link in the "yaoi" spanish article, or, What else do I need to do the linking? Thanks.

Please ask an administrator from es.wiki to add the site to the spam whitelist. Naconkantari 16:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Wroclaw article links

The en:Wroclaw article is ineditable due to the spam filter now forbidding these links, which have been on there for a long time and are very helpful information:

• 1997 - THISISAURL,,,miasta.gazeta.pl/wroclaw/5,44548,1501462.html 1997 great flood of Oder River - photo galler

Please put all these links on a safe list, so the site can be edited once again. The spam filter is annoying in this case!82.72.147.31 09:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

herhairlosshelp.com

Request to remove from blacklist. Person that added the external links was not aware that it was considered "spamming" and has since learned how to "discuss" the addition rather than editing it directly. Please remove. MMoyer 13:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Discussion ensued only after the site was blacklisted here. Even still, there really hasn't been any discussion other than the above user stating "Hey, I really need to add this link, I think it would be helpful" on one article's talk page. Prior to that, the user had spammed the link 21 times and kept re-adding the link via anonymous IP addresses without discussion after multiple people had been removing it from 7 different articles. The site was blacklisted appropriately and does not add appropriate content to Wikipedia per en:Wikipedia:External links. (And although MMoyer is now claiming it was a different user who originally spammed those links, his original request to be removed from this list had a different spin on it [60]) Neil916 19:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I am really sorry for this. Like I stated before, I had no idea that it was considered spam. I did "talk about" adding it to the article like it is SUPPOSED to be done. I am WikiDumb and still learning... made a mistake and trying to learn. I have no hidden agenda other than awareness of support for people who suffer from this disease. I was not aware that links to forums and such were not allowed since other articles have them. Case in point - en:Wikipedia:Alopecia totalis. When I brought this up in the "talk" page, he suggested "If you think they're inappropriate, then by all means remove them with an edit summary referring to Wikipedia's policy." Okay... so why didn't you Neil? Why do I feel like this editor has a vendetta against herhairlosshelp.com? My request is for the removal of the site from the blacklist... NOT so that it can be spammed all over wikipedia, but because it is showing up on Google as a spammer, which it is NOT... MMoyer 13:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

In a way, I guess you can say that I did have a vendetta against herhairlosshelp.com after it was spammed so many times. After we removed it, you kept adding it back in. That's why I took the time to collect the sumbission history, monitor it, and submit it here to be blacklisted. You were using anonymous IP's and weren't responding to any of the messages we were sending you [61] [62] [63] [64]. I'm happy to see the spamming stop and strenuously oppose removing that link from the blacklist. Neil916 07:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Update: September 4, 2006 - this site herhairlosshelp has been caught spamming multiple websites. I found this blacklist ban through google and I am not surprised. MMoyer and her sidekick Dee have spammed our site multiple times. Theyve been removed from multiple websites as well. The comcast IP address is Dee's IP address. They have blatantly violated our posting policies on our community websites countless times and have been banned elsewhere. The decision Wikipedia has made is completely justified in our opinion. These two are masters of manipulation. To claim that they did not know what they were doing when they saw their link removed nearly TWENTY ONE TIMES, is just plain dishonest. Im glad you see it as such. We have a vendetta against them as well for the same reason you stated above: Their conduct created it. Just putting in our request that you not reconsider their ban from this site. It is well deserved.

• • • This man is out of control, and preys on womens hair loss as an oppurnity to make money. The real truth is all his users left him and hes upset.

I take great offense to his statements, where I have NOTHING to do with him problem! i posted the link on this site, because i was looking information up and seen others posted. Why is it ok to have one but not the other?

• Not done, there's strong evidence of spamming, and no legitimate uses for links to this site. MaxSem 06:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• And you know what? That's okay. The links were done not in accordance with wiki and I already apologized for that and all my future edits will be done according to wikipedia standards as I stated before. We were not being dishonest, just "wikidumb"... heck, I didn't even know about talk pages until a few weeks ago!! Neil, be sure to add the other sites that are "spamming" your hair loss articles, otherwise you are just being a poor editor.MMoyer 13:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please go to the talk pages of those articles, propose addition, and when consensus reached, resubmit your request here. According to English Wikipedia's policy, you should not add links to your sites. MaxSem 18:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You claim you were just being "wikidumb" when you were apparently "wikidumb" nearly 21 times. People would have to be extremely "dumb" to believe that story. Your manipulation is not going to work here MMoyer. HerHairlossHelp.com has been been banned from multiple websites for spamming. That is a fact. Everything you've done here matches the same pattern you've established elsewhere, perfectly. The only "preying" going on here is from you two and your dishonest methods for trying to steal free advertising and members frm other sites. I am not the least bit surprised you've done the same here *and* got caught. Your true colors shine in your further insults of the Wikipedia editor "Neil" by calling him a "poor editor". You guys are a piece of work.

LostLiners\.de

Requesting to remove. A good website with lot of photos and tech data of sunken ships. I happened to need that for it:Andrea Doria (nave) and it:Achille Lauro (nave). Useful as reference or external link on pages specific about sea transport. Don't know why it was blocked, maybe there is a good reason, but it seems to me an honest information site. --Jollyroger 15:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

queensmuseum.netfirms.com

The spam filter is blocking the link

http://www.queensmuseum.netfirms.com/archives.html

. The site appears to be legitimate, and is directly related to the article in which it's used (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Raddall). Somebody with the power: please remove this from the blacklist.

wikipedia en user 'Ultra megatron' posting as 70.48.40.183 14:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

ajackiefeast.netfirms.com

I tried to add my web site to the Jackie Chan page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Chan), but due to the Spam blocking of Netfirms it won't take it.

My web site is legitimate and has been for many years. It has relevant information about Jackie that many fans find informative and fun.

Could you please remove my web site URL from the spam blocker? Thanks.

http : //hometown.aol.co.uk

My link, http : //hometown.aol.co.uk/bevinsoc/BevinSocHub.html, has been there for ages but got rejected while I was updating something else. It seems http : // ometown.aol.co.uk is what it objects to, or rather this text without the spaces, and it will not let me add

--172.207.136.250 15:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Why was this URL blacklisted? While it is, it is not possible to edit the Wikipedia Devolution article without removing a link to the site of an English regionalist party. The party is very minor, and pretty silly, but I'll be damned if that's sufficient reason to remove its link. Countersubject 22:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

lclabs\.com

This was probably added during a spat regarding external links that took place at Tacrolimus among other places. I believe that has been resolved see my talk page. There is still no reason for it to appear in most links, but there's no longer a reason to block it, either. If nothing else, it should be possible to add it to [[65]]. --67.177.235.1 05:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Muzeum i Instytut Zoologii

hi, the link http://www.miiz.waw.pl/salticid/diagnost/hasarius/adans-he.htm is being blocked. The message is that http://www.miiz.waw.pl triggered the spam filter. any explanation why a polish institute of zoology is in the spam blacklist? --en:User:Sarefo 05:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Tuath na Gaoth Aneas

For some reason, the website of Tuath na Gaoth Aneas (tuathnagaothaneas.awardspace. com) is being blocked from addition to Wikipedia. Can this URL please be removed from the blacklist as it is a religious site, not spam?--209.169.86.214 21:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

www.logos.com

www.logos.com is the website for the company Logos Bible Software, a well-known and widely-respected Bible study software for Windows. I see no reason why it should be blacklisted in the first place. Would someone mind filling me in? -- Canar 23:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC) (Resigning after anonymous vandalism.

viartis.net/parkinsons.disease/famous.people.htm

Just tried adding *ttp://viartis.net/parkinsons.disease/famous.people.htm but it says check spam list. However, can't see any problem with it - no adverts etc.. Any chance of it being removed from the spam list. Thank you --213.42.2.22 12:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see discussion above. Naconkantari 23:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Viartis is an international medical research organisation. So is it possible that the former banned member is merely responsible for adding the web site, as the web page itself appears to be quite harmless ? --Tracer 11:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You're probably thinking of viartis.com. Viartis.net's homepage has a hit counter that is at 130, definately not a professional organization's site. Naconkantari 21:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It appears that you have referred to the core domain name web page (www.viartis.net). However, that does not appear to be used by them. The web page that is the basis for their detailed information and that is referred to on various medical web sites all begins with www.viartis.net/parkinsons.disease. That information site has a much higher hit counter. --Tracer 14:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was mistaken. Thanks for showing me the actual page on the site. Naconkantari 16:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Keith, you're not fooling anyone. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  22:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

But I am not "Keith". So please explain what is offensive about *ttp://viartis.net/parkinsons.disease/famous.people.htm. Isn't a web site supposed to be blacklisted because it is an advert or contains pornography, or racism and the like. Or does your personal grievance against "Keith" take precedence over providing useful information for Wikipedia readers ? Precisiely where are the rules concerning which sites should be blacklisted because in this case they appear to have been disregarded. --Tracer 11:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The contributions history make it very apparent that this block is based entirely on personal grievance rather than the content of the web pages. The person that implemented the block asked considered whether the block should be maintained : "So do you think viartis.net should continue to be blacklisted? -- Netsnipe (Talk) 16:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)" The person he asked was Dan Strickland (Profsnow)who is known to have a long standing grievance against the first person to add a link to this web site : "Yes, I do - it's nothing unique and is indeed a slanted presentation. --Dan 16:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)" NOt only did the content of the web site not support what he had written in the slightest, but Dan Strickland (Profsnow) has continuously added abusive remarks about the original contributor and has been totally obstructive towards him, due to what he perceived as an insulting remark he made against Dan Strickland's mother. The web page itself contains no adverts or offensive content, and is highly relevant to the subject. This is something that nobody here has been able to contradict. Completely in breach of Wikipedia guidelines, the web page is blocked solely due to the personal grievance of one of the editors against the first person to add a link to another page on that web site. It consequently has no justification or rationale in being blocked. --Tracer 12:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

funpic(dot)de

Hi! I was just trying to provide a useful link from http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weddeler_Schleife to http://jm.jm.funpic(dot)de/Weddel.htm, a private web page containing a number of pictures of the train line described in the article. Any chance to get that URL off the list? --85.25.121.60 19:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Not done, please have an administrator from de.wiki add the site to the spam whitelist. Naconkantari 21:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I tried to edit http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Meyrink but it blocks saving due to a link to http://literatten.li.funpic(dot)de/ap/meyrink.php This site is not spam but useful information. Please remove it from the Blacklist.

ogulin.blog.hr

This is a blog about town of Ogulin, Croatia. It provide useful information and also some comments about economical and political situation in Ogulin and Croatia. It is not a self-promoting or SPAM site.

I've tried to put it as a external link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogulin

www.ricepaper1.netfirms.com

Used as an external link in Summer roll. See the history here. Not spam. Please add to external links section. I must say it's stupid that I can't put the exact link here because the spam filter stops it! - User:Peregrinefisher

stikipadcom

This is a legitimate wiki provider.

www.pomaranczowa-alternatywa.republika.pl

This is official page of Orange Alternative movement and as such should be available on links regarding Orange Alternative.

earthsuit.awardspace.com

I see nothing wrong with this site. It is the new incarnation of one of (if not the oldest) Earthsuit and Earthsuit legacy bands (Mute Math, Macrosick, Club of the Sons) message boards out there with current and future news updates.

Should be removed

These sites are no longe redirecting, and keeping them on the spam blacklist only serves to frustrate any editors trying to improve the pages that link to these sites: namebase.org, wikipedia-watch.org, google-watch.org, cia-on-campus.org, scroogle.org, yahoo-watch.org 69.149.107.54 05:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, please remove them. -128.189.174.66 04:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Etienne.navarro)

proposed removal of blacklist

The web-site www.sokolztg.prv.pl has been blocked and prevents the article Sokół from being edited. I have checked and this is a legitimate web-site of the Polish organization Sokół (Sokol} Syrenab 10:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Which Wikimedia site are you trying to include the link on? Naconkantari 01:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.apollonia.3x\.ro

This is the website of a university. Maybe the 2nd level domain 3x.ro has been used for spam. Please allow this full address. Thanks. Defrenrokorit 89.217.134.123 15:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

www.fortykrakow.prv.pl

Please whitelisted this address - this is a nonprofit site about Cracow with pictures. Thanks! - 86.101.167.253 21:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC) (Gaja from Hungarian Wikipedia)

Despite the site claiming to be "non-profit," it still has lots of ads. Ohnoitsjamie 09:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Please remove waw.pl

kik.waw.pl is listed as spam, it is in fact a Polish scholary organisation, of catholic intelectuals. Molobo

Correction-all sites with this extension w a w. pl are blocked. This will mean blocking many sites of organisations and historic sites. W a w. pl is the internet domain of Poland's capitol Warsaw (Warszawa-in short waw). Please correct this mistake(already three Polish related articles are being blocked due to this as seen above)

Hugh Hopper Archive Needs To Be Removed From Blacklist

http://(remove)hhopparchive.freewebspace.com - Added (remove) to generate post. Thank you. from Wikipedia User:Tvccs

accept.hopto.org/smod/

This is the official (Japanese) website of a popular Half-Life 2 modification. The related articles are Wikipedia:Smod and Wikipedia:List of Half-Life 2 mods.

Added to spam whitelist Naconkantari 04:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

sytes.net

Is there anything wrong with links to domains inside "sytes .net"? It's in the blacklist, under the section "#urlredir", but I see nothing wrong with sites such as redplanet .sytes.net. I was trying to edit this article and I can't because of the filter.

please remove carsonnewman.free-forums.org

Can you remove the spam block for http://carsonnewman(dot)free-forums(dot)org. This is a ligit and honest forum.

Troubleshooting and problems

This section is for comments related to problems with the blacklist (such as incorrect syntax or entries not being blocked), or problems saving a page because of a blacklisted link. This is not the section to request that an entry be unlisted (see Proposed removals above).

h||p://hometown.aol.co.uk

I tried to add a wikiqoute to an Charles Baudelaire article in russian (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Бодлер%2C_Шарль) and got a message that a page I'm trying to edit is blocked by Spam Filter. The message it is shows: "h||p://hometown.aol.co.uk". I don`t know what's the problerm is. Is anybody does?

www.flatoutvideos.prv.pl

I tried to add www.flatoutvideos.prv.pl to link list at the Flatout page, but get a blacklist error. I did a search of the blacklist and did not find www.flatoutvideos.prv.pl in list. I do not know why my site is being block. If this could be fix, it would be great.

Bad parsing of URLs causing trouble

It appears that URLs like "x-y.com.au" are being suppressed when only "x-y.com" is on the blacklist. At least that seems to be what is happening when saving an edit to en:Typewriter, which has a link to "ht...p://www.precision-dynamics.com.au/typewriters/history.html" but gets a spam prot filter msg citing the site "ht...p://www.precision-dynamics.com". -67.171.156.160 23:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

flatoutjoint.com

I tried to add flatoutjoint.com to link list at the Flatout page, but get a blacklist error. I did a search of the blacklist and did not find flatoutjoint.com in list. So I do not know why flatoutjoint.com is being block. If this could be fix, would be much appreciated.

Was trying to add * http://flatoutjoint.com/ - Home to the modders of Flatout 1 & 2

Purple44 master track maker for FOv3 mod

I just read error again and Flatoutjoint.com is being backlisted because of this site flatoutvideo

rfcoins.awardspace.com

Please add rfcoins.awardspace.com to the while list. I'm aware that there are previous requests on other *.awardspace.com domains. rfcoins.awardspace.com is currently linked from en:Russian ruble --Chochopk 09:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Problem adding to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_12

When I try to add an afd3 to the log, I get a spam protection filter for scroogle.org. I don't see that in the text and I really doubt any virus has managed to attach itself to the prerelease version of Mac OS X Safari I'm running, especially since the afd1 and afd2 worked fine. --70.231.248.129 19:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• ok, how do I put my wp signature here? Over there I'm Jamoche --70.231.248.129 19:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• It's working now --70.231.248.129 22:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

www.telogis.com

This is a corporate web site that was high-jacked a number of years ago. Product GeoBase is listed here as is word geofence.

republika.pl

Minor-editing en:Lemniscate of Bernoulli to add inter-wikies I've got spam warning. The link to the polish site is fairly legitimate in that context. Similarly I would expect the reason to include the site in the BL was legitimate too. It might be that the site it some sort of portal where everyone can upload whatever (s)he wants (dunno, just guessing - I do not know Polish). I saved the page commenting the link but it is a good-to-have. -- Goldie ± ^(talk) 15:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Support, this issue has surfaced in few other articles. Republika.pl is like Polish geocities - a fairly popular webhosting services. It should be removed from spamlist.--Piotrus 23:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

www DOT elohim1 DOT republika DOT pl

Copyediting of szczebrzeszyn caused spam warning to pop up due to this an external link to this site. Probably caused by the same thing as in the previous post (republika.pl). I'm not sure if the site should be removed from the blacklist or from the wikipedia listing.

derela.republika.pl

w:Józef Piłsudski includes a reference citation to a web page from this blacklisted domain. I have no idea what the site is, but I don't want to remove a legitimate citation. What now? -- JHunterJ 00:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Nový Bor

Spam filter preventing edit because 'www.mujweb.cz'. I think exception should be made for that specific url in the article, as it is relevant to it. --89.176.12.140 04:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Please list the full domain so it can be added to the spam whitelist. Naconkantari 01:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It is most likely http://www.mujweb.cz/cestovani/novy-bor/, some texts and photo gallery from Novy Bor and the area around. Pavel Vozenilek 14:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"mujweb\.cz" was already twice removed from the blacklist (see /Archives). Why was it reincluded (currently listed by Amgine)? Is there a general rule for free webhosting that it should be blacklisted? ~~helix84 13:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"mujweb.cz" is a domain that is unfortunately frequently used by spammers. As a result, the domain has been blacklisted. We can, however, add specific subdomains to the whitelist so they are not blocked. 128.83.120.167 16:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

de:Schokolade

I can't edit this article because of a "spam-filter". --84.174.168.48 21:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Please petition an administrator to add the domain mujweb.cz to your local whitelist. More information can be found at en:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Naconkantari 04:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Link on en: Vila Tugendhat

A link to website of Slovak architects http://architect.architecture.sk/ludwig-mies-van-der-rohe-architect/ludwig-mies-van-der-rohe-architect.php got caught by the filter. The content is likely placed on a hosting site, blocked here. I am noit able to determine which one. The link (and the site) is quite valuable. Pavel Vozenilek 14:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

More specifically the http://architect.architecture.sk is the problem. Pavel Vozenilek 23:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, right...

On Wikipedia. I'm trying to edit w:Lex Luthor. Right. And then it tells me ... spam protection bla bla bla.... "The following text is what triggered our spam filter: [www.dccomics.com]" Naturally, since Lex is a DC comics character, the link is in there a couple billion times. I checked the blacklist though, and I couldn't find it. I tried to say the link with an http:// here but got the same error. What gives? Thanks. Zythe 22:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The same problem with w:Batman. I'd say that a link to DC Comics would be appropriate there... —Josiah Rowe 23:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Same thing, only Chrono Cross and Gamecritics.com. --139.95.251.9 22:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, having the same problem with en:Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater and Gamecritics (which is being used in a ref). A Man In Black 00:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Turns out the issue is a blacklist on cs\.com. This is a legit blacklist, but it's blocking any URL that includes cs.com, including gamecritiCS.COM. Can this blacklist be changed to "\.cs\.com", to prevent cs.com's various subdomains but nothing else? A Man In Black 00:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Naconkantari 00:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

21publish.de and amnesty.21publish.de

amnesty.21publish.de (from amnesty international) is blocked, because 21publish.de is in the blacklist. Can we change that, for it should be possible to insert weblinks from amnesty.21publish.de That's an information site, not spam. Hagupe 08:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

datasheet4u.com

datasheet4u.com is on the blacklist, but somehow en:User:125.190.226.25 continued to add it to en:Datasheet. That IP is now blocked, but somebody ought to check to see how the blacklist is being evaded. —Josiah Rowe 00:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont even see the purpose of this blacklist, it doesnt seem to work. There are additions that have been added for over a week now. MatthewFenton 09:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Edits like this one will not be filtered as it is not a link, but plain text. The blacklist only works on links between [ ]'s. Naconkantari 21:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Minor edit blocked for no reason

When I try to remove the template in w:en:Talk:Katakana, it says I've added the site http://tinyurl.com. What? I can't even find that site on the talkpage. The ikiroid 22:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I've edited that page to remove the tinyurl.com link, so you should be able to edit it now. I found it (with Internet Explorer) by clicking in the edit box, hitting CTRL-F to pull up the search dialog, and searching for "tinyurl". Neil916 15:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Weblinkchecker.py

Hello

I'm triying post the list of broken links on ESwiki , but i can't because a broken lin is in the blacklist. The list is generated by a bot called Weblinkchecker.py. Thanks and sorry for my poor english. --Jorgechp 23:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

RPG XP

akxiv.funpic.de is a German Ressource and Script site for the RPG Maker XP

Please ask an administrator on the project you are trying to place the link to add it to the spam blacklist. Naconkantari 21:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

hyacinthus.hy.funpic.de

This site doesn't contain spam. Instead it's a very very useful source for additional information to some articels in the German Wikipedia. Could you please remove it from the blacklist? User:Eribula 87.139.20.116 17:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Please ask an administrator on de.wiki to add the site to the spam whitelist. Naconkantari 21:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

http://hometown (dot) aol.de - legit

Carrying out a minor edit to Renault 5 and was greeted by the message The following text is what triggered our spam filter: http://hometown (dot) aol.de but the URL it's detecting, http://hometown (dot) aol.de/tmirabeau/TA_11C.html, is legitimate. Is there any way the blacklist can accommodate this sort of page but disallow spamming of the sort seen above from hometown.aol.de? 81.105.18.173 22:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Other discussions

• Spam blacklist policy discussion

Installation on third party sites

I realize nobody here is responsible for troubleshooting Spam blacklist installation on other sites. But can someone point me in the right direction? I can't seem to figure out what's going wrong and the documentation page isn't any help. I've described my problem on its talk page. Thanks for any help. --Sam Odio 00:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Please make sure you have the most recent version, as the old version didn't like long lists. Naconkantari 00:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It should be the most recent version, I downloaded last week from the sourceforge cvs. Does anyone know of an appropriate mailing list / IRC channel where I can ask for spamlist troubleshooting advice? Thanks, --Sam Odio 22:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Feedback wanted before I add a number of links to this list

I'm fairly new to the English-language Wikipedia. I found someone in a block of Canadian IP addresses adding seemingly benign links to Wikipedia, however, when I checked them out, they all had the same links to the same commercial sites at the bottom of the pages. It looks like spamdexing to me. I made a list of the offending IP addresses and affected sites, but did not bother recording the links themselves. Someone just made me aware of this site -- before I spend an hour or two adding these links, I'd like to know that I'm not doing something that will get reversed. For more background information, see:

• en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive117#Link-spamming from someone in the IP address block 64.228.225.xxx
• en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive118#Update -- now using Borgengruft?
• en:User:A. B./To do list#Abusers

Is this an appropriate use of this list? Thanks, --A. B. 14:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Polish Navy

For the Article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORP_Orze%C5%82, there is an external link to 'Association of the "ORZEŁ" submarine search group'[66]. The spam blocker likes it not, although the external site content appears to be appropriate. Also there is a misspelling of "teritory" in the article. --192.45.72.28 00:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

www.repubblica.it

Why is this on the blacklist? As far as I know (but that's not much), this is an ordinary Italian newspaper. Not prime quality, but not a likely spam host, I think. It interferes with editing International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. 85.178.122.223 23:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC) Looked into the why a bit, and this should be replaced with a filter for *.blog.espresso.repubblica.it. 85.178.122.223 23:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I had to remove a link to repubblica.it whilst reverting vandalism on Pope Benedict XVI's article. It's a very well known Italian newspaper. 67.68.1.150 00:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Changed to "espresso.repubblica.it". Naconkantari 00:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Espresso is one of the most important magazines in Italy. Please, remove from balcklist. I think this was some kind of joke or vandalism. --Jollyroger 14:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Understood part of the problem. Block [was requested] because an user found the site spammed on an article. The spam was from ***.blog.espresso.repubblica.it. Note, *BLOG*. The Espresso blog are of two kinds: one open to public, and one used by famous journalists of the magazine. So, you should block the domain blog.espresso.repubblica.it instead espresso.repubblica.it (the magazine website).

But, sometimes the journalists blogs are considered a good source (or these journalists have a article themselves). And the IP after that request gave others related to the same article, spammed with totally different links. So I think it is simply a vandalism made using a random link, not related to Repubblica or Espresso. Maybe, we could even completely lift the block on that domain. --Jollyroger 14:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

# republika\.pl -- too broad, popular free host in Poland

This is currently blocking many non spam sites.... ...

I agree. It's blocking the non-spam, non-advertising, site of a programmer I referenced with no connection to spam at all. What exactly was the problem? 216.49.75.179 16:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC) PS: I did not write the text above "I agree," that looks like an unsigned comment. 216.49.75.179 16:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The Steampunk entry has some valid and useful links pointing to republika.pl/steampunk/ and sub-pages. Thus the spam filter is preventing lossless updates. 24.20.134.105 04:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Polish articles

Karol Świerczewski on wikiedpia << i cannot make minor wiki adjustments on this article. there are external links.. but mostly historical/governmental.. can't edit page please help!! --86.14.226.71 10:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC) (user max rspct)

tgmedia.enacre.net

This page is maintained by Lorna Lynn. She has interviews and biogrpahies of prominent TS personalities. I have Kelly's profile page which also has one interview with her on her article on English wikipedia. But I cannot make further changes to the page because this link has been included in spam blacklist. Please ,. the admins her, take a look at the URL yourself, you will see it's no spam. Unitedroad 06:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sacmun page is blocked

The URL http:/ /sacmun.awardspace.com is being blocked by the spam blacklist. This page is an exclusively informative one designed for a United Nations Model which will take place in Bogotá, Colombia, and which is organized by high school students from Colegio San Carlos. Your help would be appreciated.

www.links-eintragen.de

www.links-eintragen.de Spamsite, Linkfarm e.g. misused in de:Taschentuchbaum --Seewolf 15:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

kapitalism.net

Why is this on the spam blacklist when in the archives it is only listed as uncertain results or not done. If it has something to do with the critical article on Wikipedia that is served from that domain, it certainly looks more like censorship than spam filtering. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add a link to this site from my meta page, as I have an account there. Anthony DiPierro 18:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I now request this domain to be removed from the list, because 1) it is not a source of spam as is suggested on the list and 2) it appears to have been added for reasons censorship --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Request denied. Raul654 01:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

publicacionescsc.awardspace.com

The URL http:/ /publicacionescsc.awardspace.com is being blocked by the spam blacklist. This page is an exclusively informative one designed to publish internal information from Colegio San Carlos, a high school located in Bogotá, Colombia. Your help would be appreciated.

Fremder Freiheitsschacht

why is

www.fremderfreiheitsschacht.de

on the list. the link is good for a lot of diffrend artikels, like:

tippelei, walz, schacht, gesellenbruderschaft, fremdgeschriebener, charlottenburger, cceg, herbergsmuseum, zimmerer, maurer, dachdecker, tischler, stenz, gesellen, zunft and allso for fremder freiheitsschacht. why not one linke to all this artikels? Fremder 07:47, 21. Sep. 2006 (CEST)

surfbirds.com

The article surfbirds.com/phorum/read.php?f=51&i=5332&t=5332 is vital to the explanation of new insight into the taxonomy of the Western Reef-Heron, and therefore, I request it to be unblocked. Thank you.

surgery-images.com

Hello , I am the owner of this site and I believe that my site was banned for no reason,or if there is a reason I would like to know it...The interesting thing is that although I was banned ,in all wikipedia articles (for example the one's about vaginectomy and ACL reconstruction) my external links remain,so I guess I was banned by accident or something... Thanks in advance

edit after a few days:an answer is always welcome even if it is negative

I originally requested the block due to violations of WP:EL, mainly linkspamming and self-linking. The site owner has since cleaned up the site significantly and provides images that are hard to locate from other sources. The user in question has been familiarized with WP:EL, has added a username (Nfostiras) and I think it is probably safe to remove this site from the blocklist. --Mdwyer 00:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

muslima.mu.funpic.de

htt*://muslima.mu.funpic.de remove that from blacklist, that not a site to spam that a site with islamic fatwas, that was uses as Source!84.155.127.117 09:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

www.wasaib.com

http:/*www.wasaib.com - Hi, Can I know why this site has been blocked. This is the most extenstive resource on Seraiki language available on internet and I would really like to know the reason for blocking an academic site.

Hi again - Waiting for reasonable answer from any editors around.

Another gentle reminder to the editors (if there are any human editors around)

RiverStone Books

www.riverstonebooks.netfirms.com/ Not sure why this publishers website is blocked - can you explain please and unblock if this has been done in error.

Spam

Sorry, i'm "En-0" ... but if you could see that [[67]] ...

I do not have time to destroy that 10 times per day :

• Mouche-Fr, pêche à la mouche
• Pêche de la truite
• WikiMouche, encyclopédie collaborative sur la pêche à la mouche
• Gobages, pêche à la mouche
• Carnavenir, pêche du carnassier
• [http://www.http://www.pecheaubar.com Pêche au bar, pêche de loisir en mer

Can you do something for me and "fr.wikipedia" ? --84.101.128.209 07:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Any other articles affected? Probably, semiprotection could help? MaxSem 07:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

In particular fr:Pêche à la mouche (flyfishing) ... but what is "semiprotection" ? --84.101.128.209 07:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The answer is yes, that could help. --84.101.128.209 01:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

http://www.medicinese.be/

A spambot keeps adding links to this website on the dutch wikipedia, could it be put on the spam blacklist? Thanks, SanderK 08:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

pl.wikipedia.org 2 & 3

Hi. I was blocked in pages Coat of arms of Korwin and List of Polish coat of arms images when I was doing an edition. Thank you to fix them both and also to fix pl.wikipedia.org. User:Gustavo Szwedowski de Korwin.

Be more careful

I would like to request more carefulness when adding patterns to the black list. As we merge those blacklists between multiple wikis, it does not only harm wikimedia based stuff if you put wrong stuff here, but also moin and twiki based wikis all over the world (that use the merged lists).

For example, a recent addition was "cs\.com". Well, that matches comics.com, lyrics.com, physics.com, and maybe some thousands other non-spam domains.

The spam merging process is automatic btw, but removal of wrong patterns there currently is manually done by me (even if you remove them again from your list), so please: first think, then add!

-- ThomasWaldmann, you can reach me on IRC freenode #moin or #wiki

Blocked

Hi, I try to place this link alice.it/francescoraf/hesyra/Sneferka.htm (URL now broken) in an German article, but was blocked. The website is highly academic, so I assume there is no spam problem from them. Udimu

h t t p : / / r o b e r t i c o . r o . f u n p i c . d e

That's no spam. The site is an excellent brief tutorial on the Lua programming language.

bloopdiary.com

Please remove www.bloopdiary.com from the banned list. The site does not spam, and has never spammed.

Still blocked

The page Polish coat of arms images is still blocked. Please help me. Gustavo Szwedowski de Korwin 04:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)