Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2006-08

Add topic
Active discussions

Proposed additions and

Have both been spammed on Wikipedia by a vandal who refers to himself as "Bobby Boulders", and who claims to be the head of an "international society of constructive vandals" who are dedicated to destroying Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects and overthrowing the "fascist admins".--Conrad Devonshire Talk 07:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried to block the IP address? --M/ 22:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, so I can't do it personally, but there isn't really any reason not to blacklist these links, as they would never have legitimate use.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 08:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  Done, no legitimate use for the links anywhere. Naconkantari 21:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)



Major spamming at Dutch wiki [1] from different adresses--Tuvic 10:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks to have stopped now. Created multiple pages with that kind of links from various ip's, all over the world. --Tuvic 11:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  Done Naconkantari 21:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Multiple spams by anonymous IPs to irrelevant pages (example). This porn site is clearly not appropriate to be linked from any Wikimedia site, so there is no risk involved. Dmcdevit 07:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 21:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

A viagra spambot is hitting enwiki currently, with many dynamic IPs adding this link in edits like this: [2]. It's coming in from lots of IPs and using multiple spam links, causing page protections. Dmcdevit 07:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 21:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

More from the viagra spambot listed above, see [3]. Dmcdevit 08:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  Not done, added "viagracheap" instead. Naconkantari 21:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Many links

Also the viagra spambot using many links ending in, like,, ,,,,, etc. See the history of this article: [4]. Dmcdevit 08:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  Not done, added phrases instead. Naconkantari 21:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Also links ending in, see [5] [6]. Dmcdevit 08:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  Not done per above section. Naconkantari 21:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Same viagra spammer. [7] [8] Dmcdevit 08:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  Not done per above section. Naconkantari 21:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Viagra spambot, see for example [9] and [10]. Dmcdevit 08:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  Not done per above section. Naconkantari 21:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Viagra spambot, see for example [11], [12], and [13]. Dmcdevit 08:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  Not done per above section. Naconkantari 21:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Viagra spambot, see for example [14], [15], and [16]. Dmcdevit 08:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  Not done per above section. Naconkantari 21:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Viagra spambot, see for example [17]. Dmcdevit 08:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  Not done per above section. Naconkantari 21:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Viagra spambot, see for example [18]. Dmcdevit 08:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 21:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Viagra spambot, see for example [19]. Dmcdevit 08:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  Not done per above section. Naconkantari 21:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Again the spambot, it create articles with spamlinks of cellphones, schoolgirls, etc. that end with Example: --Taichi - (あ!) 08:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a link to a page this bot has spammed. Thanks Naconkantari 21:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Here just an example, this article was created 4 times for the spambot. --Taichi - (あ!) 21:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Also won a spam run with that site. Thanks to Civvì for alerting. --M/
  Done --M/ 22:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

persistent spammer on en-wiki, please see here. en:User:Dbachmann 09:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

that's a throwaway redirecting subdomain; maybe blacklist all of 09:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I accidentally screwed up the most recent edit here in some sort of edit conflict; I think I have subsequently reverted my mistake here corrrectly. Ironically, I was raising a question about the same issue in the "Other discussions" section below. --A. B. 14:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
A linksearch on for * returns seven possibly valid hits. Please check these before blacklisting. Thanks Naconkantari 15:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
that's why I changed the subject line to the subdomain. is a redirect service, so if we decide to block the entire domain, we can replace the legitimate links with their actual urls. 17:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I ever got my question raised below answered. If all new links get blocked, does that affect the handful of existing legitimate (actually, most are just semi-legitimate) links I have not deleted? Does link blocking automatically delete existing links?--A. B. 18:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
The blacklist will not delete existing links. If a blacklisted link is already in article, it will have to be removed before the article can be edited further. Naconkantari 16:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I've replaced all links to *, so probably we should blacklist it just like tinyurl? MaxSem 15:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Eh,   Done - since nobody minds. Added the whole \.ipfox\.com. MaxSem 07:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC) and

Both websites belonging to independant distributers of the MLM programm en:Kleeneze keep getting added to the article about Kleeneze for recruitment and more importantly searchengine rankings. Semiprotection would only be a temporary measure as these links keep getting added over a long period.-- Agathoclea 08:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Is any other article involved? --M/ 13:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
No but it is a longterm linkspammer. Agathoclea 08:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  Done Naconkantari 20:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Now he uses his other domain: KLEENEZE-INFORMATION.COM possible to add that? Agathoclea 10:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  Done Naconkantari 11:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

From Serbian Wikipedia [20]. --Millosh 22:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 20:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

A persistent spammer who uses many different accounts, with one edit per account: CameronJK, LucyK1, LorrieL, LisaJK, RubyJ, LouisJ, to name only a few. Links are added to artices about famous people; the site contains only lists of quotes with ads. I removed all the links once before, but they are being re-added. Wmahan 04:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 18:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Spammers from this site have been link spamming every article that has a connection with what they sell including: Microscope, Night vision, Binoculars, Streamlight, Surefire, EOTech, Bifocals, Progressive lenses, Pelican (disambiguation), Radar gun, Amateur astronomy, Amateur telescope making. I went on a hunter/killer mission but they will be back. Halfblue

  Done per this and this. Next time please provide diffs or links to contributions. MaxSem 18:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Spam on en from on odd pages (talkpages for pages like en:Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/W/index.php. We've salted some of the pages we've come across but might as well wipe out the spammers. Thx! Syrthiss 13:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

  Done --M/ 14:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

"Casino" spam, several times on it wiki. --M/ 14:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

  Done (I could not deny to myself) --M/ 14:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Repeated linkspamming on wiki (ex: this -- Fan-1967 18:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

  Done. Checked en:, removed one more link. Nasty spam from several accounts. MaxSem 18:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Persistent anonymous spammer keeps adding links to this company in electronic-test-equipment-related articles such as en:Oscilloscope. No point in blocking IP or placing a warning template, because IP keeps changing. --Heron 18:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide some diffs? MaxSem 19:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  Not done, no occurrence of spamming after this listing. Please relist if spamming continues. Naconkantari 20:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Linkspamming on en - see [21]. This is a duplicate of, which is already blacklisted. See Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2006/ Rhobite 23:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 01:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

linkspamming on en - see this set of edits and these, for example. Fan-1967 00:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't en:Pennock's Fiero Forum be AfD'd first? MaxSem 06:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Gee, good idea. What a dreadful article. AFD'ed. I'll wait till the AFD concludes, may resubmit this then. Fan-1967 14:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  •   Done, article didn't survive AfD. MaxSem 13:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow, you're on top of it. I was just coming back to resubmit the request after the AFD closed. Thanks Fan-1967 13:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


Link spamming at Sonikmatter Wiki (Link shows the diffs)

ZOMG!   Done. MaxSem 18:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Linkspamming the following English wikipedia articles: en:Androgenetic alopecia, en:Baldness, en:Ludwig scale, en:Baldness treatments, en:Hair care, en:Alopecia universalis, and en:Alopecia totalis using dynamic AOL addresses so blocking the spammer is ineffective and impossible. User contributions consist solely of adding the link to the articles.

List of diffs: [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]

Please block. Neil916 17:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

  Done. MaxSem 17:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Request to be removed from blacklist. MMoyer August 20, 2006. This site should not be blocked! When I placed the link on these pages, I was not aware that it was considered spam, I really thought it was a place to add a reference for a support community for those afflicted with this disease or hair loss.

Vanity-Linkspamming several English wikipedia articles, concerned with cars. All (afaik) links were added by User contributions consist solely of adding the link to the articles. Additionaly those links are placed in front of the respective company's official product websites (like here and here, which I think is a very importunately way to improve their search engine rankings.

  Not done, spam by a single IP, you didn't even warned him (I gave him {{spam}}). Please resubmit if blocks wouldn't help. MaxSem 05:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Spam from a long series of spam accounts on en (en:User:BERNE, en:User:LEBANON). Syrthiss 13:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This is already present in the blacklist, links added to the Sandbox are being rejected. It may be that on one own user page the check is not done. --M/ 13:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, could be. Thanks, I didn't find it in the list when I searched for some reason. :/ Syrthiss 14:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  Not done, already in blacklist. Naconkantari 20:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC) and

Repeatedly added to many articles at the english wikipedia by multiple IPs and mulitple usernames who do nothing but add these links. A few examples from today: [43] [44] [45] [46] [47]. Also see discussion at WikiProject Spam The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deli nk (talk • contribs) .

  Done. MaxSem 21:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Another link into content from (listed above). Repeated linkspamming into en:Webcam (hist). Also, is it possible to block a specific page? They've also been using (which redirects to the same content) but we do have other, legitimate links from Fan-1967 04:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 01:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Per discussion on en at WikiProject Spam [48], this one seems to be added by many IP different addresses. AbsolutDan 01:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

  Done. MaxSem 14:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Spambot using numerous open proxies (en:User:Syrthiss blocked 14 before running out of time) [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64]. Plenty more where they came from. Just zis Guy, you know? 14:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 17:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Per discussion on de Link spamming (Results of Spezial:Linksearch). --Achates 22:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

undone due further discussion on -- Achates 22:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

this is a advertising-company there the person who make the link get money for eack using the link. It was used e.g. in [65] and [66] in de.wikipedia -- 09:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 15:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Similar to above. Per discussion on en at WikiProject Spam [67], this one is being added by many separate (but related) IP addresses. AbsolutDan 20:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 01:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This site is spammed everywhere, hundreds of times, on entries as varied as "witchcraft" and "Waldorf Salad." See relevant Google search returns here.

This is complicated, that organization seems to have spammed hundreds of Judiasm-related articles (maybe using a bot to crawl/spam an appropriate category), but some of the links are legitimate as cited references to wikipedia articles, or as the main link to a legit article ( and maybe some Lubavitch-related articles or even Rabbi Schneerson's (the movement founder's) biography). Suggest trying to have a polite conversation with whoever is adding the links, asking them to follow WP:EL and add links only at the prescribed places. Phr 07:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  Not done, legitimate uses. Please talk to the editor adding the links and relist if spamming continues. Naconkantari 20:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Gee, what a surprise.

Now they're up to 319 Google returns. And just to think it was only 265 a brief 5 days ago... Sigh! Our little spamster is growing up... Must be nice to be a Lubavitcher! Sure beats being Catholic as far as Wiki goes!

338 now. 19 more in 3 days. Golly, that's a lot. Lessee, at an average of 9 new links a day, how long before this tiny Chabad group (which, among other things, teaches, for ex., that "Gentiles" who study the Talmud or parts of Torah are liable to get the death penalty [68]) has a link on every Wiki entry?
354 links now. Just a few days ago there were 338. Not that admins would be interested, of course, but those who'd like to compare how the various religions are treated by Wikipedia might be.
Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Just zis Guy, you know? 16:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

See for relevant discussion. --PinchasC 20:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This outfit keeps spamming the en:Solenoid article and related articles. When one login or URL is blocked, they pop under under a new one. They have never made any constructive edits. --Heron 09:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 01:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Added this site because of heavy spam on ru: such as [69] and [70],   Done. MaxSem 16:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC),

After eliminating (above), these two have showed up to try to take its place at en:Pontiac Fiero, posted by multiple users and anon IP's. Fan-1967 00:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 01:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's fair to say there is a difference to including a link website that has a depth of information far more detailed and correct then a Wikipedia entry then to make an entire page celebrating ones' web forum. In deleting links to and the action is harsh and unrealistic. The internet, and especially Wiki, is built on links. To throw out a whole catagory of valuble information due to one person's pompous behaviour punishes an entire community of hobbyist. (jstillwell.)

Constantly being reinserted into Parkinson's disease and in fork attempts to circumvent protection by the banned sock-puppeteer General Tojo on Wikipedia. Examples: [71] [72] -- Netsnipe 19:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 20:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Zombie Spam

These sites are being zombie spammed

  Done. MaxSem 08:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I would like http://codesyntax dot netfirms dot com/ to be remove from spam filter. It is a good web site and would like to link on the Python syntax article. Thx. (replace dot by . because this stupid talk page block the web site we are suppose to discuss here.) JeDi 06:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Spammed by South Korean open proxies to an article titled[73] (which is the same as the xdesign spammer above). LX (talk, contribs) 03:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 12:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC) (CNAME

Spammed by the folowing IPs that I've found so far:,,,,,,, It looks like they hit the German Wikipedia as well. Wmahan 16:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 00:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Requesting that be blacklisted it is a advertising site that is being used by a zombie net on wikipedia. Since we can't really block the vandles since they keep coming from different IPs and zombie computers we are trying to block the advertising websites they keep spamming in a hope they run out here is an example.

example 23:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 23:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Linkspam in de:Edom and en:Edom and other. --Seewolf 11:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 15:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC) again was previously requested to be added to the spam blacklist because it was repeatedly spammed all over the English Wikipedia. I thought it was blacklisted, but apparently it's not because the linkspammer (using different IPs each time) is back repeatedly adding it. Here are a few of the many, many examples: [74][75][76][77]. Thanks. 02:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 02:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Only one found (with several directories), on French Wikipedia: page can't be seen without being sysop on FR, because it was deleted and then protected with no real content (see fr:Special:Undelete/Discuter:W/index.php for those who can). Maybe (or not), same actions will start on other wikis. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 04:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

  Done, I've found this spambot crap at en:Talk:Comparison_of_Internet_forum_software/w/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_Internet_forum_software/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_Internet_forum_software/w/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_Internet_forum_software/ too, worth blacklisting. MaxSem 10:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Being used by spambots here is an example [78]

Fixed. Naconkantari 16:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Many links spammed by en:User:Bigbear590 and the following IPs:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, I went through every link on the English Wikipedia and it looks like they were all spam. Wmahan 00:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

  Done. MaxSem 09:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Spamming on Dutch wiki, mostly creating articles, but also adding to pages: example --Tuvic 09:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

  Done. MaxSem 09:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC) (

Some of thouse is nothing but some database dump of airports data. Linked multiple times in different wikipedias as part of Search Engine Optimisation. See and and well others wikis

  Done Naconkantari 21:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC) and

All those links are poor Polish fansites about Grand Theft Auto video game series. Sites above are too bad to be in Wikipedia. Everytime I was looking at pl:Grand Theft Auto (seria) article, i had to revert those spammers... Heh, let me just give you link to old version of this article: [79]

BTW: There are other sites listed, but I do not listed them here, because I think those sites are good sits about this video game series. Hołek ҉ 10:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

They're spamming only a single article? Have you tried to semi-protect it? MaxSem 11:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Not single they are spamming it in every article which is related to GTA (also in developer and distributor articles). Of course semi-protection works, but somebody after copule of days is taking out blockade, and spammers again are adding their sites. Anyway, this would be positive action for those IPs, who wants to add some text to articles without adding links, because then we would not need to use protection of page (yep, I now my English is bad ;)). Hołek ҉ 10:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Appendix 1: yesterday's spam: [80]... Hołek ҉ 14:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
So? Will somebode add those links? Hołek ҉ 10:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  Not done, not enough activity to require blacklisting. Naconkantari 21:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC),

Sorry, it's me again. en:User:Sam Sloan is a person with some particularly trenchant opinons, many of which are highly uncomplimentary to various living individuals. More about him at en:Sam Sloan. Following a recent Usenet posting in which Sloan makes clear his intent to push a POV campaign on en:, I reviewed links to his websites and found something over 100. Some were to pages offering his opinion on chess players (which opinions are not always flattering, and are in any case of no proven or widely-acknowledged authority); some were linguistic commentaries, although no evidence is presented that he is considered an authority on these subjects; and a good number were verbatim copies of newspaper reports which should be linked direct to the paper in question or not at all (linking to external copyright violations is not allowed, from my understanding of the relevant policies). A fair example is this: - the lniked page is a straight copy & paste from the Wall Street Journal, including the copyright statement which it violates. Also the midi file used on many pages is incredibly annoying :o) Just zis Guy, you know? 10:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

-- 18:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  Not done:, no evidence of spamming. Naconkantari 21:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The address of a french shop is added on multiple articles on fr:wikipédia whereas it has not a encyclopaedic value. See for exemple here or here or here. Thank You. 10:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC) (fr:user:Markadet)

Have you tried a temporarily semiprotection of these articles? --M/ 13:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  Not done, not enough activity to require blacklisting. Naconkantari 21:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Anon User: added this to about a dozen articles with the text:

There is a small U.S. label which has been reissuing out-of-print albums from the 70s and 80s (and in some cases 90s) -

Obviously, if he brings gum for himself, he must bring enough for everyone... BD2412 T 19:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Please provide some diff links to the spamming. Thanks Naconkantari 21:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  Not done, no evidence given. Naconkantari 21:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Spam on French Wikipedia by this user, now blocked with "indefinite" delay. The problem is that, for the French users, there is a legal risk to edit and save any page containing a link to a revisionist/negationist site, because of a law (existing since 1990). Giving any link to this site could be seen, in a country where the American First amendment doesn't exist, as being promotion of what the site contains. The question is not to know if has any historical sense or not, but if the French Wikipedians (some of them having no knowledge of the legal risks) have to risk anything when they edit any page where this link can be found. Never forget that Yahoo had, for a few years, a trial in France because of images of Nazis insignias and was condamned... Hégésippe | ±Θ± 01:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

So far there's no evidence of spamming outside his account. If other users/IPs start adding it, we'll blacklist this site. MaxSem 06:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  Not done, not enough activity to require blacklisting. Naconkantari 21:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Persistent commercial-website linkspamming to article “de:Interkulturelle Kompetenz:
22. Apr 2006 (see bottom of diff)22. Jun 200627. Jun 200611. Jul 20069. Aug 2006. -- ParaDox 00:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I did put the link to (german page) as the definition of the topic "intercultural competence" (in German: "Interkulturelle Kompetenz"), as it is mentioned here in Wikipedia, comes from this website (source), as well as from the german "Handbuch Interkulturelle Kompetenz". I'm the author of "Handbuch Interkulturelle Kompetenz" (both volumes) and the founder of the institute "CICB Center of Intercultural Competence". As the external weblink is only mentioned at the Wikipedia-page ("Interkulturelle Kompetenz") and detailed further information to this topic is mentioned at the website ( - commercial offers are only there at the sub-page "services"), I thought that this information is in the interest of the readers of Wikipedia and would not be perceived as intrusive. If the information which I provided under GDFL here in Wikipedia should not be wished or would be perceived as scientifically not sufficiently researched and as well the link to the sources would not be welcome, it is absolutely ok with me to delete the information to this topic. However, I'm interested in further opinions. Contact: Name: Thomas Baumer. Wikipedia Username: Mike2000. (10 August 2006)

  Not done, try semiprotection instead. Naconkantari 21:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Multiple ips spamming this site to en:Solenoid. Article is semiprotected so they may move on elsewhere. Syrthiss 14:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Some issues arose, waiting for the end of a discussion here. MaxSem 15:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  Not done, not enough activity to require blacklisting. Naconkantari 21:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

List of de:User:Fab

I compiled this list about 2 or 3 years ago when i was hunting a notorious link spamer. All these links look like a bit of content, but none of them are really informative (at least last when i checked them). They are all associated to a group of two or three persons which seem to work together. Main purpose of these sites seem to be the referral links at the bottom of the pages. -- fab 10:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide one or two diffs of these sites being spammed on a wiki? Naconkantari 01:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  Not done, please relist with evidence to at least one or two instances of linkspamming. Naconkantari 21:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Previous domain used by General Tojo. Examples: [81] [82] -- Netsnipe 20:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Please go through and remove the link from the articles listed here and then reply here. Naconkantari 20:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  Not done, no reply from User:Netsnipe. Naconkantari 22:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The University of California at San Diego is hosting counterfeit Xanax spam under*, and links to these pages are then spammed to (at least Swedish) Wikipedia by South Korean spam proxies with "None" given as the edit summary. LX (talk, contribs) 07:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a diff link of the spamming. Naconkantari 20:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, it was spammed to a new article with a nonsense name, and admins deleted it. I'll keep a lookout for it, and if it happens again, blank the page with a notice to postpone deletion for evidentiary purposes. LX (talk, contribs) 05:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  Not done, please provide evidence the next time this happens. Naconkantari 22:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

A discussion board site. I am in the process of removing 50 links to, plus there is a request at en:WP:ANI: en:WP:ANI#Universe_Daily.2FToday.2FBad_Astronomy_spam_again with a different subnet off the same domain. Since discussion boards are never reliable sources and the former were added by User:AbaSite and the latter by a vandal I see no doo reason for having links to this site. JzG 19:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

  Not done, please give confirmation when the links have been removed. Naconkantari 22:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

en:Jason Bennett, an acting teacher, became notorious this spring for the self-promotion by him or his followers [83], principally en:user:Sgactorny and recently en:user: but also en:user: and en:user:Ucprof. They have repeatedly added links to to about eleven articles on acting and acting coaches, have used misleading labels for the links, and have deleted the links of other acting schools. I propose that the site be added to the blacklist due to the repetive spam problem. -Will Beback 23:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC) Still an ongoing problem. The links have been re-added twice since I posted this. -Will Beback 19:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Examples of the spamming can be found at en:Acting, [84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93]. Other affected articles include: en:Uta Hagen, en:Viola Spolin, en:Actor, en:Sanford Meisner, en:Konstantin Stanislavski, en:Stella Adler, en:Lee Strasberg, en:Method acting, en:Meisner technique, en:Michael Chekhov. -Will Beback 01:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This spammer is back under than name en:user:ActorScholar. Would you please blacklist this site so that this cat and mouse game will end? Thank you. -Tree Trimer 23:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 22:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Link spam in en:Grey's Anatomy, user has been adding link since March 2006 and it has been removed over 10 times. Account registerd to add spam links has done only that add spam to 2 articles. -- MatthewFenton 10:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 22:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

example see two things above in it is being used by the spambots need it blocked. 21:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 22:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Please, excuse my bad english!

Please add "" to the spam blacklist because it was repeatedly spammed in many handicraft-related article on de.wikipedia. The spammer is using different IPs to post this URL, so a entry in the blacklist would be a great help. Here are a few examples: [94] [95] [96] Thanks in advance. Achates 08:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 22:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Only one (with several subdomains) found, on French Wikipedia, see [97]. Maybe (or not), same actions will start on other wikis. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 23:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 22:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Domain used by the following three accounts to spam Pakistani related articles on August 26, 2006:

--  Netsnipe  (Talk)  20:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 22:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

example reposting since it got skipped over and a few more incidents have happened. Here are the examples. example2example3example4 thanks 05:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh also is supposed to already be on the blacklist but it isn't working. It was spammed again here: example 19:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  Done, working on Naconkantari 22:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This link is added several times a day, it is done in several manners:

It is done several times a day at en:Prison Break. MatthewFenton 11:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Could somebody add this as it is pretty annoying having to remove it daily. MatthewFenton 11:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  Done Naconkantari 22:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Spammed by South Korean spam proxies.[98] Probably worthwhile blocking all subdomains of (domain registered in China under a Russian name, and the base domain, running on a Canadian IP address, shows a blank page). LX (talk, contribs) 13:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 22:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Three anonymous commentless non-specific link-spams on Due South. There's an allegation at that tvmilk is a pirated DVD site, and a brief web-search turned up some other web site additions that looked to me like link-spam.

FlashSheridan 17:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  Not done, not enough activity to require blacklisting. Naconkantari 22:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This is being spammed on the english wikipedia. A messageboard under this domain keeps getting posted here are 3 examples [99] [100] [101]

Even after mentioning in the rever description that it does not fit under wikipedia policy of no forums under external links [102] 02:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  Not done, not enough activity to require blacklisting. Naconkantari 22:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Periodical spam on ru:Википедия:Подстраницы

MaxiMaxiMax 05:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 22:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

While I do not know how hard it would be to blacklist this portion of the url, it would certainly help prevent Neopets users from spamming their referral sites onto the articles. Ryulong 06:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 22:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Spam on en on a number of pages (e.g. en:Webcam). Don't really see that selling alleged penis growth pills is terribly relevant to webcams. Fan-1967 14:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 22:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Incorrigible spamming at en:Magic: The Gathering Online across two IPs (, ) and one account (Blackangel63). The spammers also like to shift links within articles to imply they are the main/only website that sells on Magic Online (diff) (also false). This has included modifying valid links to official news releases to go to their site instead (see example diff).

Shamefully, the only reason that there haven't been more edits over this three-month period is that the spammers won in the past. They have out-reverted the previous editors (who in no way showed approval of this result; check the edit summaries). I only noticed recently, and have had to revert 4 times in 3 days- and it would be 5, except I've used my 3 for today. (SnowFire on en) 18:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 22:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Example:[103] 21:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 22:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC) and

Here are the examples [104] and [105] 19:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 22:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Persistant linkspammer operating out of various dynamic IPs in Greece. Site appears to just be a adwords collection. No content there. Example of abuse is, though there are a number of ips in that netblock being used. Currently being battled by User:AED and User:mdwyer (me). -- 01:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 22:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Another linkspammer operating out of various dynamic IPs. The pages *look* like they might be good, but they're actually just copies of other content, with drug sales info attached. That makes them non-notable, in addition to the spammer-tactics used to add this link to pages. Example of abuse is and Requested by User:mdwyer (me). -- 14:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 22:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Persistant linkspam at en:The Smurfs by a blocked user and his sockpuppets. Ryulong 08:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 22:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Spambot on en-wp constantly using these links to spam. Ryulong 08:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 22:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Is a silly browsergame where people gets points when other non-players click on a link. You register, get a daily link and spam it around. The more you spam, the more points you get. Obviously, we periodically meet that sh*t on wikipedia, so why not block it once and for all?
Note that the link architecture is something like


caps may vary.

the latest example [106] --Jollyroger 15:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 22:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Spam in ru:Google AdSense, ru:AdWords and ru:Mozilla Firefox (also in en:, de:).,, [107]. --Куллер 16:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This spammer has been hitting en:AdSense too. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  20:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  Done Naconkantari 22:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Regular spam on the spanish wikipedia, for example on es:Sócrates and es:Platón originating from dynamic IP's. Zanaq 07:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 22:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

constant spamming in en:Opel Astra. Added by dynamic IPs only. Has been reverted about a dozen times (here are some examples: [108] [109] [110] [111]). Since the last person who reverted the link added the comment "this is starting to get annoying...", I thought it might be a good idea to request it to be blacklisted.-- 11:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

  Not done, please try semi-protection first. Naconkantari 22:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed removals

The following link has been put on the spam list. The reason I have been given is that the web site is commercial. Fair point, but the page I have put in the external links is my most popular and most visited page in the site, making the site also non commercial, very much like a mini resource. I don't agree with this action and would am hoping for it to be over-turned. Many thanks.

  Not done. It's still a commercial website. If you have some good information, then integrate it into the article rather than linking to the site. Naconkantari 21:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)0

I don't think w4t3r should be banned, it is a good site and when I put the link in on certain articles it was always very relevent. I have written some really good articles and would like to link to them, as they are helpful to users. I also edit articles content, mainly on articles about Stephen King books, since I like him a lot. Please unblock! 20:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  Not done per above Naconkantari 21:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


Link messing(dot)ho(dot)com(dot)ua/pub/index.shtml used in ru:Мессинг, Вольф Григорьевич but ho(dot)com(dot)ua is banned in spam blacklist. So is only hosting domain and difrent users XXXXX(dot)ho(dot)com(dot)ua needed in different policy of blocking. --Morpheios Melas 11:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

  Not done, added to the local whitelist. MaxSem 12:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC) is Google ads-supported hosting. Links to wikipedia added intentionaly - and very often to content that can be added at some other location. Strongly support blocking it.

The domain "" is a free web hosting site that supports a wide variety of personal web sites. I operate an innocent and quite useful web site on rodents, lizards, and other pet animals at It was previously called The Maximum Almond Rodentry, but is now called The Maximum Almond Menagerie.

I believe that the entire domain ( was put on the black list because of one site at that domain. According to the black list, this site is ["alanburn.awardspace .com/shemales.html shemale porn"]. That was taken directly from the black list itself, but a space was put in between "awardspace" and ".com/" to allow me to show this link...otherwise it was being blocked by the spam filter).

I was trying to edit the name of my site under the following articles, for informational purposes:

I was also planning on listing my site under other articles which pertain to the information that will later be contained in my web site.

Can we please make the inappropriate site specifically on the black list and not the entire domain? Thank you.

  Not done. A google search for "awardspace\.com" returns 90% spam domains. Please provide specific domains to whitelist. Naconkantari 01:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Please remove these site from the black list. They are not spamers. They are a serious association with excellent papers to read. How and why as blacklisted this site ???

  Not done, this site was spammed back on 10 July 2006 :'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive120#New_York_City_blackout_of_1977 Naconkantari 01:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


Please remove this site from the black list. It is a trial Microsoft Powered Hosting. It is the one of the few without a mandatary banner for free hosting. By means of the site the many can create his own web page. If someone used it for malicious purposes this is IMHO not the MS fault.

  Not done, this site is abused by spammers. Please provide specific legitimate links that are being blocked so they can be whitelisted. Naconkantari 01:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Site doesn't spam. It's the official site behind wikipedia:PPStream, one of several growing wikipedia:P2PTV applications. Please remove from the list, thank you. Alons 10:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

  Not done, article is currently up for deletion. Please come back if the article is kept. Naconkantari 17:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  Not done, article deleted. Naconkantari 18:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


I don't see any reason to block this site. One of it's page should be referenced on fr:Joseph Napoléon Sébastien Sarda Garriga Thx for removing :) --Chouchoupette 12:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

No one wants to remove this domain ? --Chouchoupette 02:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  Not done, domain used for spam here. Please ask an administrator to add the domain to the spam whitelist. Naconkantari 01:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC) and

This site is not spam. It's a traditional Catholic site, criticised by some people here as schismatic, although given Wikipedia's NPOV policy, that's not a judgment for Wikipedia to make. If some people disagree with its content, fine, but that doesn't make it spam.

Previously denied per evidence at en:User:JzG/Fisheaters. Just zis Guy, you know? 14:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
See Fish Eaters Website's "About This Site" page for their version of the story.
I'm sure they have a take on it. I was there back in December when the site owner edit-warred prolifically over the removal of the links. Spammer is as spammer does, I say. Also, your request highlights precisely the problem: it is not a traditional Catholic site, it's a Traditionalist Catholic site, representing a minority view within the Catholic Church. And not being SSPX it's a minority of a minority view.
I also recall them soliciting people on their forum to join the fray - I think /wikipedia.html is a hangover from that time. /wikipedia2.html contains personal attacks and would likely be removed if posted to Wikipedia. Just zis Guy, you know? 13:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
"Edit-warred prolifically"? You mean for that hour in December of 2005 when an editor who did the things described at the URL above did what he did? Personal attacks? It isn't a "personal attack" to call someone a "spammer" because she added "too many" links to her own site back when there was no rule against adding links to one's own site, no rule against the still undefined "too many links," and all while the person linking was trying to have things clarified by administrators? And what's this?: First you bash the site because you believe, wrongly, that it presents a "Vatican II-dissenting view of foo" [112] -- and now you bash it because it isn't SSPX (a priestly fraternity that dissents from Vatican II), but instead, avoids the "politiciking" and is pan-trad and inclusive, which makes its scope larger than that of the SSPX? And what is the problem with wikipedia.html? Are Catholics not supposed to edit Wiki?

Face it; you have a hard-on against this site. Or maybe it's against "papists" in general. [113] Whatever the case, you should step back from this situation and let another admin look at it without you muddying the waters.

Yes, I mean edit-warred prolifically (for several hours, not one hour) and no, I do not have any more animosity to this site than to any other which has been linkspammed to a hundred or more articles. The site owner was repeatedly informed by several users including admins that what she was doing was wrong, and she continued to do it anyway and she solicited her forum members to come along and join the fray. There is no possibility whatsoever that she was unaware of the problem, as she claims, by the time she was finally blocked, the en:WP:EL and en:WP:SPAM guidelines had been notified more than once in the mean time. I was there at the time, but I was far from being the only one and I was not then an admin so did not block her myself. I am not bashing the site, I am re-stating my settled view that the owner and supporters of this site cannot be trusted not to spam it across the project. It is a personal site, there is no contention that the site is other than a monograph from a person with no objectively verifiable authority as a scholar of Catholicism, and it is my strong opinion that inclusion is more of a problem to the project than exclusion based on many months of removing it from various articles of differing degrees of inappropriateness and with various misleading edit and link summaries. As to asking other people, I am sure you would prefer that we keep asking other people until we get a different answer, but my answer is unlikely to change. Just zis Guy, you know? 10:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The site owner (me) was told by Dominick, the same editor who'd remove links, calling the site a blog in his edit summaries. Now, does that site look like a blog to you? Why should a site owner respect his opinion when he'd lie like that? I could tell you a few other things about a certain editor's dishonesty, but will refrain unless I must.
I'd asked repeatedly for clarification as to the rules (WP:EL, WP:SPAM), which were QUITE different in December, 2005 than they are now -- there having been no rule against linking to one's own site other than one prohibiting linking "to promote a site" (which wasn't the case here. I pay when people visit my non-com site. There is no personal gain for me here; my goal then, as it is now, is to explain traditional Catholicism to people who want to read about it.). Nor were (are?) there any rules about "too many links" -- besides which, after you'd agreed (not citing any rules) that seven links would not be too many (though far more are OK for EWTN or Catholic Answers, etc.), and that the site could be added to 7 pages, you reneged and blacklisted instead.
Further, not all the links that were added were added by me. The person who initiated this exchange (pbuh - ha!) is not me, but he obviously wanted to add a link. I have seen this a few times on this page because I check it every other day or so, knowing that you will slander my site if the topic is raised. You won't allow any links to the site? Fine. But I will defend the site if it is lied about.
The "edit war" you speak of was one night on 21 December 2005 when Dominick, whose level of honesty has already been established, got people to purge the site -- all during Requests for Comment and Arbitration about the very topic. Yes, I "edit-warred" for an angry hour, frustrated with that guy (but why wasn't he accused of "edit-warring" when he'd delete a link, I'd add it back, and he'd remove it again? He wasn't an Admin, and neither were you at the time. From my perspective, a bunch of editors just like me were going after my site, with no rules to back them up.)
Finally, the site is no more personal than other sites that get linked to all over the place -- but this one is linked to by Latin Mass Magazine, the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales, the Revealer, Catholic parishes, Catholic chapels, etc., and so on. Why Dominick can add links to sites like this , replacing a link to my site's page on the Rosary with it, and you say nothing -- it's crazy, JzG. Seriously, if you look at the entry for "Rosary" now, you will find the following external links:
Article "Rosary" in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica
Etymology Online's entry for "rosary"
Lutheran views on the rosary
Anglican Franciscan Brothers Anglican Rosary
Eastern Orthodox liturgical practice including repeated prayers
Hindu Rosary Rudraksha
How to pray the Rosary from * Legion of Mary website
Mary of Nazareth in Catholic theology Blog by two rosary collectors about the many forms of the rosary as both a physical and a religious object
-- and nothing about the traditional Catholic view. Nothing -- on a page about the ROSARY. Hindus and Anglicans and Lutherans can go on, other people's "personal sites" are fair game, but when it comes to traditional Catholics, different rules are in play. Explain to me just how this is fair. How is having "The Rosary: Mary's Psalter - traditional Catholic view of the Rosary" "POV" while those other links aren't? I can ask this same sort of question for any of the links I added, whether there were "too many" of them or not (a different issue).
I'd ask again for a fresh-to-this-matter Admin to look into this, and for you and me to forgive, forget, kiss, make up, and start over, but I gave up on that long ago and don't care too much any more (though, sure, it'd be nice). 'Til next time someone tries to add a link and cares enough to mention it at this page, starting the slander anew, take care.
If you find spam links, then remove them - it's a Wiki, the whole point is that you can edit it. I don't think you have any idea how much time and effort I put into removing spam links from articles - if I saw a blog linked from any article, unless it was the official blog of a person well known for running a blog, then I'd remove it. I do it all the time. But this is missing the point: just as the existence of one bad article doers not justify not deleting another, the existence of one link does not justify the inclusion of another. There is no possible doubt whatsoever that you continued adding links to your site into articles long after you had been warned not to, and why, and more to the point there is no evidence that you have ever contributed content to the encyclopaedia, only links.
Incidentally, I just visited the en:Rosary article and - surprise, surprise - found that actually your comment above is grossly inaccurate. The links you quote are from the other sites of interest section; we have no less that seventeen links to sites of varying authority describing the Catholic rosary tradition, divided into those with and without the luminous mysteries, including SSPX, who represent the traditionalist Catholic view. This kind of dishonesty, along with your failure to be upfront about being the site owner when making the request, is why I have no confidence that you will not abuse the project if the site is removed from the blacklist. Just zis Guy, you know? 17:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
1) "The existence of one bad article doesn't justify the inclusion of another" -- obviously. But the pages I linked to aren't bad articles, and the fact is you would, for ex., delete pages like this (/customstimeafterepiphany2a.html) while leaving pages like this [114].
2) I did not link to anything after I had been warned not to by an Admin because Admins didn't warn me not to; Dominick and you did, and you were not an Admin at the time -- and your "purge" came even as I was seeking clarification from Admins as to what the rules actually were.
3) The comment I made above with regard to the Rosary entry was grossly inaccurate, but it was made because I loaded the page, hit "END" on the keyboard to take me to the bottom of it, and copied "links of interest," thinking that was all there was, not scrolling up to see what was above the bottom fold. I was obviously wrong (though it is nice how you'd prefer to chalk it up to "dishonesty" given Wiki's "assume good faith" rule. I assure you, though, that though I may have been careless there, I am not stupid and wouldn't try to pull a fast one like that on ole JzG). I could, though, prove my point elsewhere, such as at the following entries, for ex.:
Can you tell, by looking at those links, how Western Christendom celerated these times for hundreds and hundreds of years and how traditional Catholics celebrate them now? Is there something about this page (/customs.html) that just doesn't fit in somehow? That detracts from the fine Wiki dining experience? That doesn't give people seeking information about those topics what they want? Does that page contain material that is relevant and of interest but doesn't belong in the actual articles or not?
4) When you say that the SSPX represents "the traditionalist Catholic view," you may be incorrect unless you mean only to say that, with regard to the Rosary, their views are representative of those of traditionalist Catholics. That is, the SSPX doesn't "represent 'the' traditionalist Catholic view" of Vatican II, the nature of Christian obedience, etc., as different traditional Catholics have different views of these things. Their view of the Rosary is pretty standard -- as is everything at my site, BTW, the only exception being that I (like the SSPX) am not sedevacantist and some trads are. But even for them, the practices (which is what the links I added were about) are the same, give or take a few changed dates and Missal details.
5) I made no request of you, sorry. I didn't add the site to this list, am not adding the site to this list, and will never add the site to this list. My days of trying to work things out are over. I do and will, though, check this page periodically, and will defend my work and myself against slander aimed in our direction.
You have come here to request the removal of your own site without making it clear up fornt that it is your own site. And you wonder why people don't take your word on trust? I don't know if you've noticed, but I have registered an account, made contributions to the encyclopaedia, gained the trust of the community, been promoted sysop and all without linking my website. Just zis Guy, you know? 23:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I did not make a request (note that now you are calling me a liar in addition to calling me a spammer). I am happy for you that you registered an account. I used to have an account, too, and also made lots of contributions to this encyclopedia. But after spending two months debating a certain editor over two sentences, I found the Wiki-editing experience not to my liking, and left. Chacun a son gout. --- A Stranger

Seems like you did, otherwise why is this in the requests for removal section? Just zis Guy, you know? 08:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Apparently someone tried to add the link but couldn't, and cared enough to bring it up on this page. Not the first time it's happened here. I get asked about it often enough, too, hence the mention on the FAQ. Or maybe he read about it at the blog "The Shrine of the Holy Whapping." Or maybe he saw my FAQ. You'd have to ask him (or her). --- A Stranger
I'm guessing the original requester, if it was not you, was one of the usual suspects (otherwise why both domains?). It's so hard to tell who you're dealing with when people don't register or give any point of reference. Just zis Guy, you know? 13:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
There are no "usual suspects"; there is only me. As to why both domains, I don't know, because the Kensmen website isn't blocked, to my knowledge (only the sub-directory /catholic/ with its redirect to Fish Eaters is, if I am thinking right). The Kensmen website is the website of the 43rd Bomb Group and is linked to from the page on General George Kenney, commander of the 5th Army-Air Force in WWII; people have since edited that page, so I am presuming that isn't blocked. The Fish Eaters Website used to sit in a sub-directory of the kensmen webspace. I'd just moved it to its own domain and (in all innocence) spent hours updating alllllllll those links (yes, there were a lot!) when that "purge" came. Perhaps the kind soul who wants Fish Eaters unblocked (and to whom I say, thank you -- but flee! save yourself!) looked through some of the old arbitration pages or some such, where, I am pretty sure, both domains were mentioned. Or maybe both domains are blocked and he/she read the block list. Or maybe he followed an old link from a website or blog to that kensmen/catholic subdirectory, got redirected, thought the page he found himself at was cool, tried to add it to Wiki under both URLs, and found he couldn't.
Anyway, I don't think that registering matters in a case such as mine; accusations of "sock-puppetry" and such all amount to the same thing, especially if one accesses the Net through AOL as I do, with its non-static IPs (I have banned myself at least three times from my own forum because a troll with the same temporary IP as me decided to endow us with posts beseeching us all to praise Satan and such). I think if I ran Wiki, and thank God I don't or I'd be much more insane than I already am, I'd have an e-mail confirmation system in place so crap like this would be at least partly nipped from the get-go. Alas.
The chances that the anon who made the request just happened to want to add the old domain as well are pretty remote. Just zis Guy, you know? 14:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
In that it happened, it seems to me that the probability is exactly 1. Maybe the person who made the request will read all this and set the record straight. -- Though come to think of it, what would have been wrong if it had been me (which it wasn't)? Don't webmasters have the "right" (as it were) to ask that their sites be reviewed and de-listed? --- A Stranger
Not without saying who they are, no. It's slyness and half-truths which caused the problem in the first place. Just zis Guy, you know? 15:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Whatever. Makes one wonder why anonymous editing is allowed in the first place. But I am still not the person who made the request. --- A Stranger

Alas, the person who made this request (I mean, one of those "usual suspects") seems to have disappeared. Another lucky break for the F.E. Website! But I, the site owner, will return to defend my site when someone tries to add a link and is told half-truths or (undoubtedly inadvertent) untruths -- whether that happens here, on this Spam Blacklist page (as has happened a few times before), or on Talk Pages (e.g., [115] [116], etc.). And it will happen again, because contrary to JzG's opinions, the site is informative, useful, well-liked by trads and non-trads alike, and relevant to scores of Wiki entries.

P.S. JzG, just to clarify something: in order to get an accurate account of site traffic, you'd have to factor in the forum, which sits on its own server. Stats for the last few months:

Month Views/Day Views
April 16,136 484,101
May 14,412 446,791
June 13,627 408,811
July 14,381 445,823

Yeah, it's not as big as, for example, Catholic Answer's forum -- not even close (and probably never will be if any time someone Googles "F*** E*****" he finds out, via Wiki, how spammy and awful my site is [117], and hears the lie from DMoz how my site is "SSPX" and "Not in Communion with Rome" [118]. The "Internet Gatekeepers" just luv me! And, no, DMoz won't fix their error either. And you want to know the kicker? After politely asking them twice to move the site into a proper category and being refused, I kvetch about the problem at my forum -- and a LOT of people wrote to them, so I get accused of -- wait for it: SPAMMING! It's about hilarious, really.). But, anyway, it only makes sense that a forum for a trad site wouldn't be as large as one that is more "mainstream," has tons of money behind it, and has no problems from "the Gatekeepers." I'd make a temporary password and allow you to look for yourself since you apparently don't believe anything I say, but I tried that before when you publicly accused the site of getting most of its referrals from Wikipedia. When I said you were wrong and that I would allow a Wiki Admin to log in to the site's control panel and see for himself, there was no response. It's always nice when all means of defense are shot down.

P.P.S. Also, just for the record, with regard to this "traditional" vs. "traditionalist" thing: I said to you months ago that I didn't care if the site were labelled "traditionalist" (even though most trads much more commonly use the word "traditional").

P.P.P.S. Also note that User Clinkophonist in the second example above of Talk Page dissing of this site mentions only the domain, and long after the move to the new domain, which happened just at the time of "the purge." Maybe that is the explanation: someone came across an old diff, went to that URL to see what was removed, got redirected to the FE site, liked what he saw, and tried to add either URL back in only to find he couldn't.

At any rate, to paraphrase Capra, the above sort of frustrating madness is "Why I Fight." I've worked too hard to have it all flushed away by a handful of powerful people who can't be bothered to give a damn enough to slow down and LOOK. Man, I am sick of being on the defensive and sounding like a whiny baby. Oh well. Until the next time this topic pops up around here... Pax Christi. --- A Stranger

So what you're saying is that you are absolutely determined that Wikipedia should play a part in promoting your site. Thanks for clearing that up. Just zis Guy, you know? 10:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't care too much whether Wiki unblocks or not. I mean, I do care, but am sure as heck not going to fight for it; I gave up long ago on the idea of someone actually reading and "getting" my side of the story about the "too many links" and brief "edit war," and then allowing things to start fresh. What I DO care about is not having Wiki SLAM my site. You want to deprive readers of links to some of the best, balanced, non-politicized information about traditional Catholicism -- such information having historical value even aside from its value in explaining one religious group's approach to things? Even if such a "voice" is given to other religious groups? Even if any such link is, per your opinion, labelled "traditionalist" (in spite of the fact that most trads use the word "traditional")? Fine, and, frankly, probably for the best in that if the site were unblocked and anyone were to add a link and call it "traditional" it'd come down on me anyway. But there's no need to go on about this "spammer" stuff, those accusations of "dissenting from Vatican II," and other such things in the process. People read those remarks, JzG, and it hurts my site and "forces" me (as it were) to spend time defending myself rather than doing what I love to do: teach and write and post at my forum and drink gin fizzes while listening to Beethoven with my most lovely cat. I hear about this matter in e-mail, I've seen it here and in Talk Pages, the matter was blogged about at one of THE most popular Catholic blogs out there [119] -- and it just sucks. --- A Stranger
Your judgment on the issue of whether these are the best links is not impartial. Blogs are not sources. And so on. For somoene who is not going to fight, you sure do fight... Just zis Guy, you know? 14:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't think your judgment is impartial, as far as that goes. Now, blogs aren't sources of what? My site isn't a blog (the URL just above is to the blog "The Shrine of the Holy Whapping," and was offered as an example of how the sorts of accusations mentioned above negatively affect my site). As to fighting, what I've said (at least twice now) is that I won't fight to get the site de-listed. I will most definitely fight slander hurled against it and me when the topic is brought up by others, such as it was here. --- A Stranger
I have been told many times by people I have prevented form violating policy thatg I bear irrational grudges against them. The fact of not having previously encountered them seems to be unpersuasive as far as they are concerned... I think the fundamental problem here is that you have never actually accpeted that (a) what you did was problematic or (b) you or your site have any bias whatsoever. 20:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Then perhaps you can explain what rules were in place in 2005 which I went on to "problematically" break, 'cause the Admins at the time couldn't seem to find any. Are there rules now in place that would make doing what I did against the rules? Yes, there are. But any sane rule of law doesn't operate on an ex post facto basis. "Biased"? Of course my site is biased; it's a Catholic site, and if one wants to read about traditional Catholic practices, it's the place to go. With no apologies whatsoever, I fail to give equal time to Muslim, Jewish, Wiccan, or Satanist practices, just as Muslim, Jewish, Wiccan, or Satanist sites don't give equal time to what traditional Catholics do. If I were to do otherwise, I'd have a "Religions Of the World" site, and not a Catholic site, and, as a Catholic, I don't want to have a "Religions of the World" site. I am sure this is still legal. Now, if there is a rule against linking to clearly labeled "biased sites," you might want to visit the entry for "Chabad" [120]: I don't see any links to traditional Catholic sites there. I don't even see any Muslim links there, and there are a lot more Muslims than there are traditional Catholics. I do see plenty of links to biased Chabad sites. If you go to the entry "Niddah," [121] you can find a link to Chabad opinion there (not clearly labeled Chabad, BTW, which is a minority Jewish approach), and even a link to "women's reflections" on the topic. Hey, there's another unmarked link to that Chabad site at the entry "Mikvah" [122], and another one at B'Nai Mitzvah (this one has "" listed after it, though) [123]. Here's another similar entry [124], and another [125], and another [126], and another [127], and another [128], and another [129], and another [130]. I could go on for a while. See Google 254 returns for "site:" [131]. Now, what is wrong with those links, on those pages, to that Chabad site (other than that they should be clearly labeled "Lubavitcher" or "Chabad" or some such)? Are they irrelevant? "Biased"? Is that "too many links"? Will Chabad be publicly accused of "spamming"? Maybe of being a "prolific spammer"? Will Chabad be blacklisted? --- A Stranger
Once again, you were told repeatedly that linking to your own site should be avoided, but even after being told this you edit-warred using your own account at the time, using anonymous addresses, and by proxy through solicitations in your forum. The historical position has nothing to do with it, your behaviour in edit-warring over links to your own site is what is relevant. You claim to have added content, but there is no evidence of your ever having added anythign of substance beyond links to your own site. You appear to be arguing that because some linkspam exists, no linkspam may be removed - the fallacy of this argument is self evident. Finally, you assert once again the term traditional Catholic. Actually by strong consensus we use the term traditionalist Catholic because the word traditional is potentially misleading, implying as it does the continuing tradition of Catholicism rather than the actuality, which is a small splinter group. Just zis Guy, you know? 09:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I was told by Dominick, whom I don't trust as far as I can throw him, and, after being told such by this abuser of the truth -- rather, after I was accused of being a "linkspammer" -- I asked Admins repeatedly for clarification about the rules, only to not receive any. Clue #1 that I had no idea I was breaking any rules is that I filed an RfC against Dominick, listing allllllll the "too many" links he'd removed. If I'd thought I had been breaking any rules, would I have done that -- producing the evidence of my great crime for all to see (they really should bring back the firing squads)? Man!

I didn't ask anyone at my forum to "edit war," said "war" lasting for an hour or so on 21 December 2005 and having been started by Dominick (who'd remove links to my site and call it a "blog" in the edit summaries), and said "war" coming just after I'd spent hours innocently updating all the links following the move to a new domain. I was extremely frustrated, if you couldn't tell, at having those hours of work wasted (almost ALL of them being links to individual, relevant pages of my site, not to the index page), of being accused of "linkspamming" when no one could tell me what rules were being broken, and of having Dominick, of all people, initiating it all. I did invite trads at my forum to help write the "Traditionalist Catholic" entry, way before any of this "spam" stuff came up, and I also have a page on my site called "Trads! Take Back the Net!" which encourages Catholics to let their voices be heard on the internet, including Wikipedia (/evangelize.html -- the "rules" of which I break around here since Wiki brings out the ugly side of me, another reason for me to stay away from editing). It is a sub-page off of THAT page whence wikipedia.html comes, BTW. But there was no "Hey, Traddie Cabal and Gang of Usual Suspects, let's linkspam Wiki! Let's edit war and stuff! Today, Wiki; tomorrow, the world!" nonsense.

If you think I added no content, then you haven't gone through the entry "Traditionalist Catholic," nor have you looked through its associated Talk Pages. Adding content -- rather, trying to add content but having to debate with Dominick instead about what the meaning of "is" is -- is pretty much all I did for a few months of my life which I will never get back. Months debating a person who wrote such gems as "One definition is best without referral to a yet unwritten article is required." But then, what can one expect from someone who'd say proudly on his user page: "I often like to look at NPOV-challenged articles, where secondary activist sources imagine they are primary players, to make pronouncements which are not factual"? It's been changed, finally, but that Freudian admission sat there for months -- even after I put a little "And how!" after it to bring its non-sensical nature to his attention. What a sad waste of my time and, to use a Catholic expression, an "occasion of sin" to have gotten involved in editing; I am way too much of a smart-mouth when irritated by sheer stupidity to deal with the Wiki M.O. That's just me, to each his own.

I am not making the argument that because some linkspam exists, no linkspam may be removed; that would be fallacious. I am pointing out that enforcement of the rules are not consistent, and I do believe my site is being treated especially badly: because JzG doesn't like it; because he doesn't seem to "get" the initial premise that I did not know I was breaking any rules -- a premise from which everything else follows with regard to my actions; because he, admittedly, rarely changes his mind once someone is on his Bad Guy List; and, because he works hard around here and does much good, his opinion is often taken as holy writ in this place. Frankly, I don't see what is wrong with the links on relevant entries; people who want to read about the laws of Niddah would quite likely be interested in what the Lubavitchers have to say about it. I think if Wiki Admins worried more about relevancy and information rather than numbers of links, it would be a better encyclopedia and undoubtedly easier to administrate. IMO, each entry should stand by itself: do the links at a given entry make sense? Do they add or detract? Are any redundant? If so, which is the better/best? Are they helpful? Are they properly labelled? Do they contain information that is useful but which doesn't belong in the article itself? If the information belongs in the article but is presently lacking, should the links stand until such information is added? And so on. The obssession about some webmaster somewhere benefitting seems pretty childish -- no, very petty -- to me.

And, finally, "traditional Catholic" is the term most trads use. That's just the way it is, though, once again, I'd also said a number of times that I wouldn't care if the links were labeled "traditionalist" with that -ist ending since your opinion is that using "traditional" rather than "traditionalist" is "misleading" somehow, even in spite of Google search returns that indicate "traditional" is much more common. --- A Stranger

As ever, this is a partial version of the truth. You were told be Dominick and by other editors and by adnmins, and you kept doing it after you were blocked. Small wonder I won't take your word. The consensus re traditional/traditionalist is not from me, it's from the relevant article. Just zis Guy, you know? 13:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

By other editors who were brought in by Dominick, yes. No Admins -- until the block came, at least not that I was aware of (Admins should have something indicating their status next to their names so one can know when one is being told something by an admin rather than by "mere users").

Yes, sad to say, during the brief "edit war" of 21 December 2005, I did continue on reverting despite a block (brought on how and why? Because I was being accused of breaking the 3-Revert rule while Dominick, who was reverting all over the place wasn't?). Quite frankly, I was half-nuts that night seeing what was going on, watching hours of work being stripped away, and not having any one at all listen to what I had to say or even have the decency to point out the rule that I allegedly broke in the first place (which they couldn't do because it didn't exist at the time). Proud of my frustration that led a loss of control culminating in the infamous "edit war" during that hour or so on 21 December 2005? No. It's quite embarrassing, in fact. But in that the average felon in the U.S. serves 2 1/4 years, the continued going-on about it and beating me up over a frantic hour or so, born of frustration and fatigue, is rather vicious.

The consensus -- consisting of the opinions of non-trads who outnumber trads (many of whom are excluded from such consensus-building anyway since any trad who is a memmber of my site's forum is considered one of the "usual suspects," a "meat-puppet," a "sock-puppet," or some other sort of eeeevil minion under my control -- ha!) -- about "traditional" vs. "traditionalist" with regard to an entry that was first named "traditional Catholic" and which retained that name for a few years until about the time Dominick came along -- is neither here nor there with regard to any links to my site. I'd already said that I wouldn't have cared if they were labelled "traditionalist." I do resent the implication that labelling any link to my site as "traditional" is "misleading" when "traditional" is the most commonly used word among trads and acc. to Google (in fact, the full name of my site is, in fact, F*** E*****: The Whys and Hows of Traditional Catholicism." The people who show up know what they're looking for. --- A Stranger

In terms of informing you of policy there is no difference between admins and any other editor. Admins can block and protect, but if you are told by any number of editors that somethign is wrong the best course is to at least acknowledge the possibility they are right. What you are suggesting is that you will only accept informaiton from those who have the power to block you if you don't listen - this is probably another reason you ended up in trouble. The issue of traditional / traditionalist is dealt with in en:Traditionalist Catholic and its talk page; of course trads portray themselves as followers of the true Catholic tradition, it would be remarkable if they didn't, but that doesn't mean that they re right to assert that traditional Catholic menas traditinalist Catholic, as there are plenty of small-t traditional Catholics who are not dissenters. Not that this is the place to rehash that debate, but it does once again illustrate that you are coming at this from a particular (minority) point of view. Just zis Guy, you know? 10:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I am a traditional Catholic (or "traditionalist Catholic" if you prefer); our views are minority views, just as the views of Lubavitchers and Anglicans and Muslims are minority views. Nonetheless, the views and practices of traditional Catholics are just as relevant as those of Chabad or Anglicans or Muslims or other religious groups which have links everywhere. The question of "traditional" vs. "traditionalist" with regard to links to my site is entirely moot, as I've already said (four times during the course of this little exchange alone, neverminding my having said it numerous times months ago) that I wouldn't have cared whether the links were labelled "traditionalist." I sought clarification from Admins as to what the rules were; I got no answers. If I hadn't considered the possibility that what Dominick (who proved himself to be, er, careless with the truth) said was accurate, I wouldn't have asked. --- A Stranger

  Not done per [[132]]. Naconkantari 01:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The site is very much reliable as to what I have seen. It seems people blocking this site are just doing so over personal preferences for a less traditionalist view of Catholicism. But at least in feasts etc. they just represent the Roman Catholic view point. Why block? The site contains loads of encyclicals and other helpful information not (yet) to be found at the site. Those who blocked and removed this site, are engaging in POV. You may link to a link of your own persuasion too, in as much as it is on-topic. The links were on topic. I request them to be re-allowed once again. This [[133]] discussion is not an objective one. Rather one of censorship and forcing upon a theme only one (non-traditionalist) view, while we should include all. As to what I know, represents many conservative and traditionalist Catholic views. There is no such thing as a "minority view" being per se incorrect, as the historians' view upon history is shared by a minority too, while the general population is totally ignorant of the real nuances in historical facts. Please take notice of that. This site should be re-allowed. It fits the of websites under patronage of St. Isidore and of spreading the "gospel message for the new Evangelization". Polemics etc. do not have to be referred to, but very much to their descriptions of feasts and "traditional" Roman Rite liturgy etc. The site is Roman Catholic and the owner is in full communion with the Catholic Church. Come on, guys, I read she's Italian! Or do we want the American Catholic view to prevail over the continental Catholic view? What kind of superiorism is that. Re-allow this site. 09:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
As has been made abundantly clear before, the problem is not doctrinal. This site was linkspammed prolifically by its owner, who then edit warred over its removal; it has also been linked with misleading sumamries, and in place of more reliable sources for the same content. The evidence of its authority is not so compelling as to justify the nuisance caused. Just zis Guy, you know? 18:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
No, as has been made abundantly clear, [134] the FE website is being judged on an ex post facto basis, and by standards that don't apply to other websites, such as, for ex., which, at last check, has 319 links from Wiki -- from entries like "Waldorf Salad," "Miso Soup," "Gandhi," "Sigmund Freud," "Morality," every book of the Old Testament (or Tanach or however you want to refer to it), every Jewish ritual and holiday that exists, etc. As for "authority," other sites can be linked to without being run through the wringer like mine -- and, besides which, the Catholic Encyclopedia links [135], Latin Mass Magazine links [136], New York University's "The Revealer" links [137], The Latin Mass Society of England and Wales links [138], parishes link [139], links [140], priests link [141] -- what do you want? An imprimatur from the Pope himself?
The simple fact, JzG, is that you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to the topics of traditional Catholicism, FE's "pan-trad" approach to the matter and what that means, what Ecclesia Dei means, the subtleties involved in SSPX issues (such matters being avoided at the FE site itself though they are discussed by people with various opinions at the forum), and so on. But you don't know that about yourself and/or won't admit it, you stick to your guns come Hell or high water, and Naconkantari just takes your view of the matter without looking into it herself (or so it seems, and it is understandable as I am sure Admins are busy). -- A Stranger
The simple fact, Stranger (and owner of the site), is that you were caught red-handed. Subsequent special pleading has proven unpersuasive. The fact that you have persuaded other sites to boost your pagerank link is of no relevance to us, and farnkly the whole issue has, as my American friends put it, "gotten real old real quick". Just zis Guy, you know? 12:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I "got caught red-handed" adding links to my site before there was any rule against doing so, and there was certainly no rule against "too many links" (and there still isn't, it seem -- at least not for Chabad, et. al.). [142] Your animosity and presumptions -- "the fact that you have persuaded other sites to boost your pagerank link" -- are noted. I guess any link to my site is somehow just "proof" of your argument which is, apparently, that for me, pagerank for my non-commercial site is everything for some unexplainable reason (as if that should be relevant to whether the site should be linked to even if it were true). Gee, wonder why I didn't make a porn site instead! Speaking of "real old, real quick"... --- A Stranger has a pagerank of 10,786 and rests on a named authority. You have a pagerank of 328,788 and no identified authority. Pick a better example. Just zis Guy, you know? 22:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Scroll up and read, JzG. My site sites on two servers; going by Alexa's service won't tell you the half of it. Chabad's "authority" is Chabad themselves -- a sub-set of a sub-set of a "larger" religion that, outside of Israel, rarely consists of 2% of any population to begin with. Besides which, one doesn't have to be "an authority" to have an external link, which is different from a source (BTW, is Chabad an authority on Waldorf Salad? Just curious!). And, gee, is it any wonder Chabad has a high page rank when they can, by your standards, "spam" Wiki and get away with it, having an entry on just about anything? They're up to 324 returns now [143]. --- A Stranger

The named authority is the Chabad Lubavitch organisation, with identified individuals in named roles, and there is substantial external discussion of the site in reliable secondary sources as well - it is, in other words, the official website of a substantial and longstanding organisation with an identifiable editorial policy; it has a substantial and long-term web presence and is notable as a pioneer in its field. And even then I think it's over-linked, although many of the links were added by an admin with no identifiable connection to the group. Your special pleading with regard to the low alexa rank of your site is duly noted, but unpersuasive. Just zis Guy, you know? 14:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
So if I were to file papers with the United States Government such that I could call my site the website of an "official organization" or something, all would we well? Is that what you're saying? Would the minimum-wage, faceless bureaucrat who stuffs the proper forms into the envelope be granting me the right "authority" to have an external link at Wiki? (Hey, wanna be my chairman?) It must be something like that you require since acknowledgement from Catholic authorities doesn't seem to do the trick and, somehow, just "proves" that I am just trying to up the ole pagerank by "getting" said priests and groups and publications to link.
As to the rest: I'm not sure how much more you want in the way of "editorial policy" and "identified individuals" than what is on my contact page. Could you clarify? "Long-standing," eh? How long have Catholics been around compared to Lubavitchers again? Links added by people with no identifiable connection with the group: easy to say when not every editor who adds a link to a site is automatically presumed to be "one of the usual suspects." (This admin who keeps adding links to -- is he/she perhaps a Lubavitcher? Does he/she visit the site? At what point does he/she become "one of the usual suspectitchers"?)
And of course the fact that my site sits on two servers so going to Alexa and getting traffic stats on only one -- the much, much less busy one -- wouldn't be "persuasive" to you; in order to be persuaded, one would have to remove one's piggy-head from one's dark place. But people with reasoning skills who might be reading over our shoulders will know better, and that is the point.
Finally, your confusion of "source" with "further reading" is noted once again. --- A Stranger
As usual you have it the wrong way round. Chabad is linked because it is a significant organisation; you are asking how to make your organisation appear significant so you can have links. I think you have merely demonstrated once again that your principal aim is to get your site linked not to contribute to the encyclopaedia; I believe that is the main reason why your pleas fall on deaf ears. Just zis Guy, you know? 11:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't have an "organization"; I have an educational site, one devoted to teaching about the beliefs and practices of traditional Catholics (or "traditionalist Catholics," if you prefer, doesn't matter to me) in an objective manner, taking no sides in the "SSPX vs. Indult" type debates (the discussion board has a forum set up for such debates, and I take no sides, having moderators on both sides of the issues). As has been shown above, my site is taken quite seriously by prestigious websites and organizations. If my "principal aim" (sic) were to get my site linked, I wouldn't have spent months working on the entry "Traditionalist Catholics" (which is total crap now), and I'd be kissing your butt instead of telling you, an admin whose word is gold around here, to remove your head from it. My only aim at this point is to defend my site and myself against your slander and to point out for all to see how little teeny Chabad, with 250,000 adherents, can have almost 400 links -- while the traditional Catholics who vastly outnumber them have to fight for any little crumb they get.
This conversation is being archived. Please continue discussions elsewhere and return with a final resolution. Naconkantari 22:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

please remove it!

Any particular reason why? Naconkantari 02:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  Not done spammers fail. Naconkantari 00:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the site of the current head of Aum Shinriko/Aleph and edits to pages related to this group, e.g. the article on Shoko Asahara cannot be made because of the presence of this site on the spam blacklist. 01:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Naconkantari 01:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC) and related sites is my site, which is hosted by a blacklisted site. I frequently provide user statistics reports for people, editor reviews and RfA's, which link through to pages hosted on my site. For example, see an archive of my talk page, an editor review, an RfA. I also have a user subpage for my scripts, which I can no longer edit. My site is just a personal site, it has never had any adverts and I make no money from it. This is going to cause me a lot of problems, so would it be possible to unblock or at least my site? Icey 22:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  Not done, at least for now. Added your site to the spam whitelist. Naconkantari 22:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

dear moderators, this is a harmless torrent search site. i dont know whether its blocked bcos of extension. Pls look into this matter as not to disallow some useful sites getting listed. thank you!

I've disabled the entry for for now. Naconkantari 05:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The domain is blocked by the spam filter due to the "zapto\.org" rule. Can the rule be removed or endeavour be whitelisted? --Astronouth7303 16:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  Not done, added to local whitelist. Naconkantari 01:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC) &

These domains are blocked by the "hopto\.org" rule. I currently host these websites for the calculation of pi and are not spam. Can these sites be added to the whitelist or the rule removed? Thank You, Deathbob

  Not done, added to local whitelist. Naconkantari 01:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Trying to edit the marathon page, I was unable to as the page linked to the above domains. However, it just seemed to be a site which shows the best performances of all time in athletics as a list, and was being used to link to useful and relevant information 22:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

I cannot edit Eurythmics because their official site is on the blacklist -- 23:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

I can't tell what's matching this, but it obviously shouldn't be blocked. Nickptar 00:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

I think that this site got blocked because the main website offers free message boards. But this particular link is essential for the Daniel Myron LeFever wikipedia page. It is the only site like it, and isn't harmful. Please remove it from the blacklist so that the information can be shared.

  Not done, added to local whitelist. Naconkantari 03:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC) is my blog. is a domain held by No-IP, the same company that holds for the purpose of providing free subdomains. Please add my site to the whitelist. Thank you. --Tobias382 13:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  Not done, added to local whitelist. Naconkantari 01:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Unlock this, this is Polish alias site with thousands of pages registered. Just look at this site. Dodek

  Not done, this site is being abused by spammers. Please provide specific legitimate subdomains from this site so they can be whitelisted. Naconkantari 01:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
As dodek wrote, this alias is used by thousands of pages; consequently a lot of entries at have become uneditable. Please remove that entry. tsca @ 13:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Please add the domain "prv\.pl" to the spam whitelist. Naconkantari 16:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I've just been bitten by this one -- not a pretty sight when a pywikipedia 'bot hits a spam blacklist message. I'll add to the en whitelist if this can't be made any narrower. Alai 23:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Have absolutely no idea why is blacklisted (according to message when editing w:Katherine Harris) -- it's a site run by w:Congressional Quarterly . --User at Work 18:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Naconkantari 01:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC) is the homepage of a student movement with lots of useful articles. It is not a spam site, not even a hosting provider; their forum ( seems to be the only place a spammer could write to. Please remove from blacklist. --Tgr 16:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 12:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

.. this is a educational website .. like others listed - American Pain Foundation  etc - it has been crededtialed by HONCODE 812666 as such

Please remove from the blacklist

  Not done, the editor that added the link was blocked for linkspam. Naconkantari 20:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This site is my website which has been long linked to from my Wikipedia user page. This link has been one of my main source of readers (using WP-SlimStat) but now I can't save my userpage until I remove the link! Please unblock so I can save my userpage! See and be assured it contains no spam nature. --wikipedia:User:Jeremy.Visser 04:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

  Not done, added to local whitelist. Naconkantari 15:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I´d like to have this site removed from the blacklist because it isn't spam or something like this. It's only a normal site created by a fan of Dendemann. The content is only about Dendemann and I do not see any reason, why this page should be blocked. Some pages may contain unliked conent but this page definately does not. -- 09:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

  Not done, added to local whitelist. Naconkantari 15:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
If I interpret the answer in a right way, I now should be able to use the link because it now is on the whitelist... Nonetheless it still doesn't work, as the url is still on the blacklist.
I do not know if it is relevant but I am using the german wikipedia, maybe the whitelistes for the several wikipedias are seperated or something like that.
-- 14:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
You will need to have an administrator from to add the site to the local whitelist. There is no global whitelist. Naconkantari 20:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This site is blocked at English Wikipedia. CSOMA, whose website is, is the California State Oriental Medical Association. It's a legitimate professional organization, representing licensed practitioners of acupuncture and Oriental medicine in California. It's got decent information on it and is in the External Links section of several acupuncture-related articles. We don't block the American Medicial Association[144], and it doesn't make sense to block this either. Thanks! -Jim Butler 06:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  Not done, added to local whitelist. It was unfortunately blocked by the pharmphrase block (soma)(online). Naconkantari 14:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The log lists which is far too general an exclusion!

Useful sites:

--Swift 19:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  Not done, added all valid sites on Special:Linksearch to whitelist. Naconkantari 20:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Unsure why this was blocked when I tried to edit w:Excel_Saga. The site seems legit to me.-- 21:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC) (User Mononcrat on EN)

It's been fixed. Naconkantari 21:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Return to "Spam blacklist/Archives/2006-08" page.