Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2006-12

Add topic
Active discussions

Proposed additions


Some anonymous user from different IP-addresses adds link to this site to Wikipedia (at least, English, Russian and Ukrainian), on en:Montenegro and related pages. -- Angryxpeh 21:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and so on. -- Angryxpeh 21:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

-- Angryxpeh 21:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Done.{admin} Pathoschild 03:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Due to the way this search engine works, it seems you can restrict it to your site and also get it to display your ads/links in a frame around the returned search results, without either being obvious in the URL linked to. Only a couple of users doing this thus far, see here, but will probably get worse. It'd also be trivial to use this to get around the blacklist, like the URL shorteners. 20:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  Done. Dmcdevit 10:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Added repeatedly to mulitple pharmaceutical-related articles on English Wikipedia by a different IP each time. Latest examples: [7] [8]. Edgar181 13:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

  Done. -- mzlla 20:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: done

The football years spammer is back.[9][10] Please refer to "*years" under Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2006/10. LX (talk, contribs) 11:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

  Done. *'s blacklisting entry changed to (?:cup|league|football|wayne|premiership|steven|united|athletic).*years\.com -- mzlla 11:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: done

This is a pirate warez site located in Russia. It is an archive of copyright books for use on the Sony Libre e-book reader. It has been added and removed from Sony Librie EBR-1000EP many times now (see article history). It should be blocked. If not, could you please let us know at w:Talk:Sony Librie EBR-1000EP. Thanks! signed w:User:Stbalbach ( 22:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC))

Should I do something different? Someone just re-added it again. [11] -- w:User:Stbalbach 14:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Someone just added it again. [12]. Any help appreciated! -- 15:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Added again [13]. -- 03:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
..and again [14] -- 03:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
one again.. [15]. -- 20:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  Done. -- mzlla 20:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, mzlla! Is there any way to scan across all of MediWiki to make sure it doesn't exist elsewhere (since it's a Russian site and the user has been unrelenting in adding it to the English WIkipedia I suspect it is probably elsewhere). Or are blocked sites auto-removed? Also, is there any way to prevent a user from adding the URL as plain text (without the "http://")? That seems to be the anons new strategy. -- 23:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
You can check individual projects with Special:Linksearch, but there's no way to check all projects yet. Blacklisted sites are not automatically removed, but pages with the link cannot be saved (so they're slowly removed as users edit them out). There's no way to prevent users from adding the link as plaintext. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: done is a trader's website for art and shouldn't be allowed in articles. Currently there are 59 Weblinks to this Website in the german Wikipedia. Before I remove them, please add to the blacklist, so I don't have to do it over and over again. Thanx --Hedwig in Washington 23:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

  Done, obvious commercial site. BTW, what do you think about MaxSem 08:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll check that in a minute, first I have to enter another 8-) --Hedwig in Washington 08:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: done

it's a auction-search-site, no additional info. --Hedwig in Washington 08:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

  Not done. We aren't usually blacklisting some kind of sites, you should give us some evidence of how this domain has been spammed in some wiki. -- mzlla 16:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand and appreciate your concern, so
here it goes: [16] 129 entries on de:wikipedia.
example: deep-link, but still brings the login/sign up stuff on top of very poor information
is that ok so far? take care --Hedwig in Washington 22:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  Done per this, talk in my talk page and per an email query. There is consensus in German Wikipedia to block this site. -- mzlla 14:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, if you want to provide visual information (e.g. John de Andrea), it would be silly to block artnet. In Germany, we have very strict copyright rules, so museums will not provide visual information because of high costs. artnet jumps in just as handy as Google does. Otherwise, you would expect users to be clever enough to find out themselves, like I did. (BTW, I circumvented your blockage by using --WernerPopken 14:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
WernerPopken, your opinion is exactly my opinion (I too come from Germany). Artnet sometimes is very useful, as you explained it. No login/sign up stuff is shown if links directly refer to a picture. Let's take the example given by Hedwig in Washington. Look: []. If important, the further given informations can be used as content of the link text. Example: [ ''Two people in bed'', Bronze]. You can do the same way using other similar auction-search-sites. What do you think, Hedwig in Washington, can we agree to use artnet in this way? -- Archidux 16:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Unblock this page, please. While it is undisputedly a commercial site, it's not pure advertising. A lot of useful material is to be found there (and only there), like commented and sorted image galleries from contemporary artists, a database of galleries, museums and magazine articles. For someone like me who writes Wikipedia articles about contemporary artists, it's very useful. Also, there is no consensus for blocking this site, there are only a couple of individual users who are annoyed by it. Fb78 14:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please unblock, in few cases we can use images from them, e. g. [:Image:Czarevich Alexei by Bernhard Christoph Francke.jpeg]] and citing the source is necessary. -- 19:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Please excuse me replying so late, I'm not frequently on Meta. It's not that I'm annoyed, the point is that 129 (see above) links are way too many. Period. That's masslinking and it's not conform with the rules. If it's unblocked, there will be 100 or more within a couple days. I understand the problem the guys have and I really wish it would be different, but unblocking is not the right thing to do IMHO. We should find different ways (websites) to show pictures and the written information is not very useful and doesn't help on the topic. And(!) if you see the articles, I think, there's no need for weblinks, in many cases there's a need for more text. Many articles are just link containers. That's definitely not the meaning of Wikipedia. I strongly recommend to leave those websites blocked. --Hedwig in Washington 00:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: done

see --jwalling 23:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 23:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: done

As per the ongoing sockpuppetry spam problem that led to the addition of to the blacklist, the spammer has now switched to using [17]. Thanks. Dmcdevit 00:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

  Done this too. -- mzlla 19:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC),,,

The following discussion is closed: done

These sites have been spammed on for about 3 months by anonymous and registered users (obviously created just to insert these links). You can see the history of it:Amantea. --.anaconda 19:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

  Done. -- mzlla 19:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC),,,,,

The following discussion is closed: done

See [18], [19], etc. Also several talk pages that were recently created by this spammer and were deleted, so can't be linked to. Dmcdevit 10:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Adding more. All appear to be the same spambot on open proxies. Examples: [20], [21], etc. Dmcdevit 10:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  Done. -- mzlla 12:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC),,

The following discussion is closed: done
  • Full list:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  • Example on pl.wikipedia: history and log

stv 14:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Some of these are already blacklisted. I am not going blacklist the others, if the spamming ended from pl.wikipedia when the spammed page was protected. Anyway please write here again if the spamming continues. -- mzlla 15:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Right... That's not the only page. See also: [22], [23] and [24]. I don't want to undelete all those pages (the last one has 145 deleted revisions). Protecting doesn't help, the spamer moves to other variants of "Forum dyskusyjne". stv 16:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  Done. I checked the sites and I can't hardly imagine any valid use of them. These seems to be spamming sites. -- mzlla 17:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: done

Spambot on open proxies, see [25], [26], [27], etc. Dmcdevit 19:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

  Done. -- mzlla 20:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC),

The following discussion is closed: done

Same spammer as above,,,,,, e.g. [28]. Dmcdevit 19:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

  Done. -- mzlla 20:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: done

IP has been spamming several Wikipedia pages with This URL ponts to This is the same website that a blacklisted URL,, points to. Others, including,,,, and also go there.

A web link search reveals none of these are currently displayed. PrometheusX303 20:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

  Done. -- mzlla 20:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Universe Daily updates for November

The following discussion is closed: Done

Hi guys, could you please remove the following links from:

## 2006-10 ([[Spam blacklist/Log]])

## 2006-11 ([[Spam blacklist/Log]])

and replace the Universe Daily section with the following update:


Having all his domains consolidated in one section on the blacklist will make it easier for us to track him. I've tidied up the regular expressions and removed the domains belonging to the Australian politicians he's handed back. Most recent additions include new domains link-spammed by en:Special:Contributions/ en:Special:Contributions/ targeting en:James Packer, en:Jodhi Packer and en:Man Powered Flight. Current domains all redirect to Thanks. --  Netsnipe  ►  06:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys, is there any particular reason why no one's gotten around to this yet? --  Netsnipe  ►  10:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Wayne has posted again [29]. --  Netsnipe  ►  10:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence: en:Special:Contributions/ and en:Special:Contributions/ --  Netsnipe  ►  02:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Done.{admin} Pathoschild 03:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: done

Commercial site; continued spamming ith sockpuppets: [30], [31], [32], [33]. Dmcdevit 05:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  Done. -- mzlla 13:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: done

Generic comercial website about rap being added in articles about rap artists using diferent IPs, all of them at After at least three IP blocks and one article block for IP edits, the problem is still present. Some examples:

[34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], ... there are more of them...

Leonardo.stabile 21:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  Done. You provided at least enough evidence. :) -- mzlla 21:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Links to this site have been spammed to at least 371 articles by multiple IPs. The site is essentially a blog site dressed in a suit - it consists of "freelance writers" submitting their own articles, none of which require sources or peer review of any kind (ie Original Research). They pay their editors based on page views, and encourage them to use SEO techniques to spam their articles across the web. See the relevant discussion on en at WikiProject Spam: [60]. AbsolutDan 15:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

  Done. -- mzlla 15:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi - my name is Peter Berger, I am representing Suite101. I would like to assure you we are not a spam site, but have contracted writers who we screen for content knowledge and writing skills. Our site is basically very similar to (which is receiving a lot of references from Wikipedia); our freelance writers are experts in their field and we do not influence them how and on what they should write. As we correct any errors on our site whenever we find them, Suite101 is a safe site to refer users to. We have always been very proud that a lot of Wikipedia users found our articles worthwhile reference, so I think it is unfair to our readers and writers to simply blacklist any links to articles simply based on the fact they are hosted on our site. It would be great if you could remove from the blacklist and those references be restored. Thanks for your help! Berger peter 23:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I have nothing against removing from blacklist, but I think we should wait if there is formed consensus in -- mzlla 23:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
mzlla, thanks for your help. I am not sure if the debate is really about blacklists or rather about removing individual links as spam. Suite101 is an editorial site, hosts 90,000 original articles and has been live since 1996; many of our articles were original sources of reference for Wikipedia articles. Suite101 has not abused Wikipedia, neither has the vast majority of our writers. We have taken steps to ensure that all writers are aware of and conform with Wikipedia's submission rules. Could you advise us if there are any additional things we need to do to be removed from the blacklist? I would really like to avoid that readers insert links to articles on our site in good faith and are then being told they are "spamming" Wikipedia. Berger_peter 17:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Will not be removed per [61]. -- mzlla 19:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC) and

Spammed new pages at the Sonikmatter Wiki.

See the following revision history's (note that these pages will be deleted in their entirity in about a week. They were previously empty, so deleting will remove the spam from the revision logs as well)

The Puppeteer 06:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

  Not done, that project seems not to be part of Wikimedia, so this is wrong place to discuss about spamming there. -- mzlla 06:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, simple search shows that this domain actively spams on MediaWiki sites, so it's worth blacklisting. Don't forget, this blacklist is shared among several thousands MediaWiki sites, though it's main purpose is protecting Wikimedia sites. MaxSem 19:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  Done then. Actually I don't think that we would need the content of these sites. -- mzlla 22:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The sonikmatter wiki isn't part of Wikimedia, but we do use MediaWiki and up until we found this spam blacklist we had dreadful problems with Spam. We are very dilligent with monitoring content and changes to our wiki, and we do maintain a local blacklist in addition to the list here, so that we can halt any spam immediately.
We submit links to this list because any spammers hitting our wiki, are likely hitting other wiki's as well. We feel that the least we can do is to be active in submitting links that are causing us problems, because it will likely be helping out others. We try to submit these links in a format that makes things as easy as possible for you guys, with links to pages showing the spam. If there is anything further that we can do to make this easier, or if you would prefer that we didn't submit links to this page, please let me know here.
We appreciate the blacklist, and what you guys do here, to maintain it. We do our best to help, but we don't want to cause any problems.
The Puppeteer 02:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, no problems, we can add the spam links here. The only situation which may cause problems is situation when the site has some valid and useful use here in Wikimedia. -- mzlla 07:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: done and related derivatives. Thanks. Proto 14:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Why? You should give some reasons why that specified site should be added. -- mzlla 15:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
It's being used in forum spam on en.wikipedia (you know, the automated messages that keep popping up on pages with artificial endings such as foo/index/w.php) Proto 13:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Would you please give some evidence, links to diffs etc.? I haven't seen any spamming from this site yet. -- mzlla 14:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
en:User talk:Skysmith/w/index.php is one location. The text read " Interesting topic... I have been researching this for a while, You seem to be very knowledgable about this I added your page to my bookmarks and hope to see more interesting advice in the future...Keep up the steady flow of good information it's lacking on most websites! [url=] Mortgage Refinance?[/url] ". Of course, it's now been deleted and protected. I don't know if you have admin access or not on en.wikipedia to double triple check I'm not making up such a crazy request for the fun and the heck of it. Proto 13:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  Done now. -- mzlla 00:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: done

Anon IP editors have been repeatedly adding the following sites selling the stuff:


It'd cut down on reverts if all of these sites could be spam blocked. Thanks. Netscott 03:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  Done. -- mzlla 09:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Mzlla, thanks for the prompt assistance. Netscott 19:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The football years spammer continues.[62] Please refer to "*years" under Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2006/10 and the recent entry for LX (talk, contribs) 17:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  Not done, because that site is validly linked from several Wikipedias. Check for example: [63] [64] [65] [66]. I think that linking to fansite of some FC should be possible. -- mzlla 21:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I humbly contest the validity of the links in the articles you present. The links in the articles you list were all added within the course of one hour[67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] by The site is not a fansite, but part of a farm of commercial sites produced by World Cup Years LTD to sell merchandise. Other associated sites have been spammed in the same fashion and subsequently blocked. I fail to see how this one is any different. LX (talk, contribs) 13:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  Done with these arguments. It seems that I made a mistake when checking these, thank you for noticing. -- mzlla 13:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! You're doing a good job here. Could you please add for the same reason. (See sv:Special:Contributions/ It's looking like it might make sense to just block .* LX (talk, contribs) 05:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: done

Hello, in de.wikipedia are links to forum not allowed. a few persons allways add links like this: Is it possible to block the hole Domain, or (if not) this forum. -- 17:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  Done (for the specified forum). I did not blocked the whole domain because there might be need to link to some forum in another wiki. -- mzlla 21:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Spammed by two successive role accounts [73], [74], plus [75] and maybe others. A ludicrously inaccurate site (see, of no conceivable encyclopaedic value. Time has been wasted cleaning up this junk. Just zis Guy, you know? 23:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

And again, [76], e.g. [77] - same MO, link added at the top of the list. Just zis Guy, you know? 15:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  Done. -- mzlla 16:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC),

Link farm replacement of category pages in an effort to boost google rankings: [78] [79]. Has also spammed other places on net including Macromedia Flash forums: [80].WAvegetarian14:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

They've branched out to multiple languages across the web. Check out a Google search for hs4free. They are huge scale link spammers.WAvegetarian 14:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  Done. -- mzlla 16:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a link added by an anonymous and persistent spammer using numerous AOL IPs, to a number of articles related to the paranormal, metaphysics and supernatural on the english Wikipedia. As for example Ghost, Poltergeist and Clairvoyance. Examples follows below:

Since this anonymous spammer have been warned on the talk pages associated with this IP, as well as on the article talk pages, but still persists with his behaviour, I feel that a blacklisting of this link would be appropriate. /Magore 20:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

  Done. -- mzlla 00:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This site is definitely not a reliable source for any information, since everything is so horribly biased it's sickening. It's also being spammed on Wikipedia (see [81] for example). They have also created an attack page on Wikipedia which is very offensive. It should definitely be blacklisted. --Mets501 (editing as 00:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

  Done. -- mzlla 00:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


Several attempts to blank "BBS" (Spanish edition) and fill it with pornographic spam. [82] [83]. --Roberpl 12:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  Done. -- mzlla 18:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Multiple IP are adding this links to french wikipédia (like here, here or here). Is that possible to blacklist it? Thanks. -- 03:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

  Done. -- mzlla 21:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Links are added to various articles on nl.wikipedia by different anonymous users: here, here, here, etc. - 13:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC) (nl:Gebruiker:Erik Baas)

  Done. -- mzlla 13:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This site posted links in wikipedia for many of the pages listed on their site. Over 100 schools on their site and they are continuing to add more. User:, User:, User:, User:, User:, User:, User: These are just a few of the IP's involved. It currently has 68 insertions in Wikipedia.

Also, this site is also connected with these others, many of which were added along with

  Done. -- mzlla 22:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Some weird webhost. Links to have been spammed around various food articles on the English Wikipedia for a while; see en:Special:Contributions/Joseypeter, en:Special:Contributions/, en:Special:Contributions/ Blacklisting the whole site probably wouldn't hurt. --Slowking Man 09:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  Done (only -- mzlla 15:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Repeatedly spammed to en:Tarot. See en:Special:Contributions/, en:Special:Contributions/ --Slowking Man 09:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  Done. -- mzlla 15:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Spammed all over the place. --Slowking Man 14:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  Done. -- mzlla 15:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Shock site. I can't even count how many times I've seen people slip it into articles; this is just one example. There's no reason why this shouldn't be blacklisted. --Slowking Man 14:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  Done. -- mzlla 15:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If you really need evidence I can go get it, but this link is being inserted into several articles on a semi-regular basis. -- Steel en:Steel 17:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please provide diffs. Dmcdevit 03:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
This request has actually already been taken care of. Someone can mark it as done if they need to. -- Steel en:Steel 22:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Feng Shui spam,,

I've grown really tired of removing from this article. only has one short article on Feng Shui. Also tired of smiling It's kind of the Sears Catalog of Feng Shui resources. Finally, the worst of them is the home of flyingstar theory of (etc.) Feng Shui,, who seem to check the article twice daily.

Never put up a site for blacklisting before - if you think I'm in error, please visit my talk page. Thanks! en:User_talk:Snackycakes

  Done --Aphaia 18:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Some bots are spamming this site here on meta. I'm currently reverting them, so please check the recent changes page yourself :-) --.anaconda 00:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for your reverting. --Aphaia 00:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
They now started with two new sites, both under Can you please blacklist the whole domain? --.anaconda 00:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Already *insurance* on the list. My gambits. Can you provide us the info about this domain? --Aphaia 00:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Google reports only spam for both and Both don't have a valid www.* host, so I must trust Google. --.anaconda 01:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  DoneAphaia 18:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC), etc

See the discussion about this spammer at WikiProject Spam. This guy was back at it this week after last warnings in November and using still another account. Domains owned or controlled:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,

The same user has also spammed for 4 sites he does not control but is an affiliate of. We've gotten spam from other unrelated spammers (such as our spammer) for the same sites and I expect this to grow since they have rich payment schemes. (The "next big thing" in affiliate marketing and multi-level marketing):,,,

Thanks! --A. B. (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  Done. Dmcdevit 04:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much. --A. B. (talk) 05:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Persistent ad spamming of from multiple addresses from an IP range in Sri Lanka ( - on Web hosting service article; see article history. Ohnoitsjamie 20:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  Done. Dmcdevit 04:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


request one

Both and have been added to Stoner rock around once a day (maybe more) since July 17, 2006. It is almost never the same IP twice and not an easily blockable range ( is the best I can figure). Small sample of the first couple weeks with the one URL: [84][85][86][87] (there would have been more in the two weeks but it was placed in a different part of the article and not spotted for a while). These are with the other URL and have been done just in the first nine days of December:[88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99]. Basically around 90-95% of the edits to the article are spamming and reverting of spam. Thanks. Wknight94 23:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

If only this article has been targetted, I wonder if semi-protection can be a solution. --Aphaia 23:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Why temporarily punish all anons because of one anon spammer? Wouldn't it be better to "block" just the one moving anon that is causing the problem? Besides, this article has been sprotected in the past and the spammer simply returns when it's lifted. Wknight94 17:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

request two

Both and have been added to Stoner rock around once a day (maybe more) since July 17, 2006. It is almost never the same IP twice and not an easily blockable range ( is the best I can figure). Small sample of the first couple weeks with the one URL: [100][101][102][103] (there would have been more in the two weeks but it was placed in a different part of the article and not spotted for a while). These are with the other URL and have been done just in the first nine days of December:[104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114][115]. Basically around 90-95% of the edits to the article are spamming and reverting of spam. Thanks. Wknight94 23:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Nudge nudge.  :) This one is still ongoing [116][117][118][119][120] - all since I first inquired here. Wknight94 03:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Done.{admin} Pathoschild 03:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: done

Service similar to which is in blacklist for long time already, now started to be abused for spamming [121] [122] Ahoerstemeier 14:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Used in linkspam on English Wiktionary, [123]. Nominated because it is a URL Redirect service which can be used to evade blacklisting. --Versageek 23:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Done.{admin} Pathoschild 03:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirect pages

these are clones of 07:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC) (Betacommand on

  Done. -- mzlla 21:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Persistant spammer on the articles Diesel and Diesel engine with multiple inserts relpacing words with links and generaly abusing Wikipedia. Constant revisions are not detering this, please blacklist. here are some examles.

Hu12 10:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  Done, but please list this properly next time. Dmcdevit 04:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Will do.. thanks Dmcdevit --Hu12 04:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Url Shortener, used here Josh Parris 01:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Done.{admin} Pathoschild 04:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This link is posted almost daily to the Lawyer article from a different IP every time, so there's nowhere else to really block them. -- 15:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

History Page Note edits from,, and --Mdwyer 20:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  Done. - Andre Engels 20:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


Anonymous IP editors have been adding the following typosquatting domain:


This is a typosquat (the "e" is changed with an "o") of the domain owned by the company co-developing the drug (King Pharmaceuticals).
Please add to the spam blacklist. Thanks. Netscott 07:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

    •   Not done No link directly provided, and following history, it cannot be considered massive/bottype attack enough list here. You can block IPs responsible? --Aphaia 11:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm in no position to block but the fact remains that this site has been added three times now (I've removed it twice). Typosquatting is bad. Netscott 12:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Please give links to the addition(s). - Andre Engels 20:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Conex India linkfarms

Linkfarm spam across many languages, socks and open proxies involved.

en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2006 Archive Dec#Conex India - WikiProject Spam case

en:User:Femto/Conex spam - a list of non-en: pages, most if not all links were added from the 59.144.* and 202.159.* range

en:Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Darrendeng - sockpuppetry

simple:Wikipedia:Simple talk#Can I link from my home page? - an inquiry about these links from a confirmed open proxy


Femto 12:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we block links to domains that are referenced by IP addresses? These guys recently started to add links to http:// Femto 13:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Done. - Andre Engels 20:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Not done e

Several empty pages created on, containing spamadv of porn sites. --M/ 15:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Not done; the spam blacklist should only be used for widespread spam that is difficult to manage with conventional tools. Please resubmit your request if reversion, protection, and blocking are insufficient (provide links demonstrating this). —{admin} Pathoschild 03:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Online store, being spammed to jeans-related articles on en. See en:Special:Contributions/, en:Special:Contributions/Joseypeter. --Slowking Man 09:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Not yet, might be useful site, have to check other wikis if this is needed. -- mzlla 15:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Not done; the spam blacklist should only be used for widespread spam that is difficult to manage with conventional tools. Please resubmit your request if reversion, protection, and blocking are insufficient. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Some sort of music journal that's regularly inserted into any remotely related articles on en. See en:Special:Contributions/Imajicka and en:Special:Contributions/ --Slowking Man 14:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Not yet, might be useful site, have to check other wikis if this is needed. -- mzlla 15:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Not done; the spam blacklist should only be used for widespread spam that is difficult to manage with conventional tools. Please resubmit your request if reversion, protection, and blocking are insufficient. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Linkfarm additions

The following discussion is closed: not done

I got a whole mess of additions which I would like to add - over 280 links. I've been tracking an anonymous user who keeps adding links to Wikipedia that link to a set of pornstar photo sites that are presumably under his control. Given the length of the list I think it might be impratical to list then here, but the full list of items can be seen here on a sublink of my user page: en:User:Tabercil\Porn Linkspam. Can I get the links he's been adding put on the blacklist? 01:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

  Not done; the subpage you linked to provides a list of IP addresses and a list of affected articles, but no list of spam URLs. —[admin] Pathoschild 18:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. Didn't realize the format I used on the article made it difficult for you to find the spam links in question. I've reformatted the page to show first the link which was spammed, then just below it the article in question and how many times it was changed. Hopefully, this works for you better. Tabercil 00:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Sure looks like a spam campaign to me. Just zis Guy, you know? 17:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Not done. These may be throwaway domains, given the number of domains involved. Since the English Wikipedia has recently blocked the AOL ranges involved (,, and, I don't see any reason to blacklist these. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: not done

Several IP's are adding a link for at 3 different articles. Full report can be seen at w:en:User:E. Sn0 =31337=/sandbox/cordyceps vandal. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather 21:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Not done; the spam blacklist should only be used for widespread spam that is difficult to manage with conventional tools. Please resubmit your request if reversion, protection, and blocking are insufficient. —{admin} Pathoschild 08:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC),,

The following discussion is closed: IP range blocked

Hi. This spam is being added through, an open proxy server deliberately set up to allow Chinese Internet users to bypass government Internet censorship. I'd like to avoid asking this IP be blocked; the alternative solution is to blacklist the URL. The 45 edits to 37 articles made between 10 and 13 December in this user history are all spam edits, as are the 5 edits made on 4 December by this Ultrareach user. Some of these links were reverted multiple times. We presently have 34 links in Wikipedia that I am reverting, but I expect to see more of this; past reversions have had little effect. --A. B. (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I have added and to this request. Another Ultrareach account added 5 links to this site on 10 December. If you look at the Google ads on both and, you can click on the "Advertise on this Site" link and it will take you in both cases to a Google page about using B. (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I've blocked the Ultrareach open proxy range on en-Wikisource, en-Wikipedia, en-Wiktionary, and Meta for two years in accordance with policy. Such abuse is the reason we enforce this policy. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: Not done

Bonjour, il y a un problème avec ce lien externes sur la Wikipedia francophone à cette page : Club Africain. Des membres du forum de ce site ne cessent de spammer l'article depuis plusieurs jours. Serait-il envisageable de blaclister le lien ? Cordialement; Kassus 12:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[en] Not done; the spam blacklist should only be used for widespread spam that is difficult to manage with conventional tools. Please resubmit your request if reversion, protection, and blocking are insufficient.
[fr] Pas fait; la liste noire ne devrais être utilisé que pour l'abus difficile à contenir avec les outils administratives conventionnelles. S'il-vous-plait resoumettre votre requête si la réversion, protection, et blocage d'accès ne suffisent pas. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: not done

Massive spam 1 2 3 from different IPs on it.wikipedia, has anybody observed the same mess on other wikies?

--M/ 01:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, on the english wikipedia. 23:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Not done. These are throwaway domains, and there is little value in blacklisting them. I would suggest blocking the IP range, particularly since several of these IPs have been blocked as open proxies on the English Wikipedia. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of these contribs and all of Kumword contribs and Humword contribs revolve around adding this site to various pages. JonHarder 17:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

  Not done, withdrawn. No recent activity. JonHarder 02:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: not done, no complains

Added twice to the en:Telecommunication article from multiple IP addresses. [133] [134] Seems unlikely to ever be used in a valid article. Please consider adding. 04:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

  Not done, this site does not need to be blacklisted because the spamming wideness isn't enough. en.wikipedia may ban the IP responsible of spamming or protect the specified page. -- mzlla 12:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: not done

Personal website of a "spamming and rude" ccontributor. This link was ever removed by administrator's decision, because it violate several WP rules: no autopromotion, avoid personnal webpages, limitation of external links to believable sources, ... Pgreenfinch uses edition war to continue promoting its own website, which also promote author's personal "original theories" without any beginning of academical caution.

(Problem is relevant for french version, english and spanish version. here are some additional informational links, for french firemen and admins') Règles Wikipédia régulièrement violées par Pgreenfinch:

  • Courtoisie (Template:A). Il est grossier, insultant, condescendant, et ne supporte pas le NPOV sur les opinions. Et après, il retourne cette accusation contre celles et ceux qui finissent, excédés, par répondre à ses insultes sur le même ton.
  • Usage des liens externes Template:A: il fait de l'autopromo. Quand bien son site d'amateur serait pertinent (ce qui n'est pas le cas), ce n'est pas conforme aux principes déontologiques WP qu'il s'autopromotionne ainsi, sans peer-review (censurées à chaque fois par ce monsieur)
  • Template:A: il menace régulièrement de poursuites judiciaires, par exemple lorsque l'on rappelle que l'entreprise qu'il avait crée a mis la clé sous la porte (info trouvé avec Google en cherchant qui était ce monsieur: source: infogreffe - entreprise monescience) ...
  • liste non exhaustive, hélas ...
Quand Pgreenfinch décide de faire son autopromo pour son site ou ses élucubrations personnelles, il emploie les pires méthodes: spam, dénigrement, guerre d'édition, mensonges, et injures. Des pages et des ages de WP montent comment cet auteur problématique se conduit, le plus souvent:

Et cette liste est très loin d'être exhaustive !!!

[en] Not done; the spam blacklist should only be used for widespread spam that is difficult to manage with conventional tools. Please resubmit your request if reversion, protection, and blocking are insufficient.
[fr] Pas fait; la liste noire ne devrais être utilisé que pour l'abus difficile à contenir avec les outils administratives conventionnelles. S'il-vous-plait resoumettre votre requête si la réversion, protection, et blocage d'accès ne suffisent pas. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC) etc

This is an amazon affiliate site, spammed here along with five other sites: [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169]



-- zzuuzz (talk) 09:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

  Not done. We can't deny only, we should ban the whole, and I think it is not sensible. I would recommend that English Wikipedia bans the whole subnetwork 217.106.166.* - it might be the easiest solution. These other .ru-domains would be blacklisted, but I think that it is not needed if you ban the subnetwork in en.wikipedia. -- mzlla 13:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

no additional info, IMHO spam --Hedwig in Washington 08:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

  Not done. We are absolutely not blacklisting sites by opinion, you should give some evidences about spamming! -- mzlla 16:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
that's already down to only 8 entries, think we can handle it manually! Like I said above: I really appreciate your concern. thanks for your time! best regards --Hedwig in Washington 22:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

See here for discussion Talk:Quixtar#Controversy. Insider201283 is continually adding a link to his personal web site to Quixtar related sites. This has been an ongoing problem for months. I think some time on the black list for this domain would save many people a lot of time. Thanks for considering this link. 08:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC) User_talk:David D.

  Not done, because I can't see any massive spamming which may need blacklisting. If there is some please give more exact details like link to differences etc. -- mzlla 13:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC) is repeatedly spamming their website in all lockpick/lock related articles on Wikipedia. I have requested numerous times to stop as have several other admins. We have to date blocked 5 sockpuppet accounts for spamming this site. Alkivar (sysop on En Wiki). 22:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Please give some links to diffs where this site has been spammed. I checked quickly your contributions for reverts, and found nothing. I saw also no spamming in accounts which you have recently banned. -- mzlla 23:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  Not done: No evidence provided. Dmcdevit 21:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Generic website about WWW technologies (with bad content) being added in the HTML and PHP articles by different IPs (and one registered user which was only editing that link), all of them at After articles block for IP edits the problem is still present. Some examples:

[170] [171] [172] [173] [174] [175] [176] [177] [178] [179] [180] [181] [182] [183]

Leonardo.stabile 12:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand Portuguese, and I'd like to see someone else commenting here too. But as far as I understand this case, some single user have registered to and gets something by bringing visitors there. In this case I think better solution would be contacting to administrators. I do not blacklist this site yet, because I can see some valid use for it. -- mzlla 20:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay. I think it's not necessary anymore. I don't know whether the person was afraid because of the domain blocking talk, however it seems that the problem isn't present anymore, as it can be seen here. If the spammer is back I'll return to this topic. Thanks, Leonardo.stabile 02:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  Not done: request withdrawn. Dmcdevit 21:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: not done

I'm not certain whether the site above is appropriate for blacklisting since it is currently under mediation Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival and AfC therefore it's an ongoing thing. However I think it's worth bringing to your attention and consideration. Examples of what I consider external linkspam are: Wikipedia:Gilli Smyth with 3 separate links; Wikipedia:Paul Krassner 2 separate links; Wikipedia:Richard Kaczynski 1 link. Currently a search turns up 31 instances of the site on Wikipedia, down from a high of 120 a few weeks ago. The site is not strictly commercial but it is promotional. (Because of my connection, I seem to have trouble staying signed in. --Pigman) 20:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

  Not done; the spam blacklist should only be used for widespread spam that is difficult to manage with conventional tools. Please resubmit your request if reversion, protection, and blocking are insufficient. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

is continiously added since mid 2005 by IPs to de:Informationsvermittler (Information Broker) to advert a private bureau. [184], [185], [186], [187], [188], [189], [190] -- Cherubino 09:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

  Not done yet, if this is only spammed article, you could semiprotect it or something. You should notice that blacklisting blocks the URL from all Wikimedia projects (and several other projects) - and it would be used only when it is really needed. Anyway, this might not be a final decision, you can continue talking. -- mzlla 23:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC),,,,

An attack site being repeatedly spammed to articles on en: by an anon; www(.)unprofessionals(.)co(.)uk - there is absolutely no conceivable way this could ever be appropriately linked, but the IP is dynamic so people are playing whack-a-mole. The "surreypolice" domains have in the past been linked without anyone noticing, because they look legit, but all are the same site. Just zis Guy, you know? 12:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you be able to give some evidence ie. few links to diffs where this site is added? -- mzlla 13:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, en:Surrey Police and en:Metropolitan Police are two I've seen, plus some meta pages. They are being reverted all the time. And another domain added... This edit [191] is fairly typical. Just zis Guy, you know? 20:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Added (replaced here [192]). The spammer's ISP is not communicative. JzG 10:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • None of these sites seem to be working. I just get the "Server not found" error. Dmcdevit 21:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Well well, looks like I spoke too soon about their ISP being unresponsive :-) Yes, they appear to have been taken down. Thanks, this can be closed. Just zis Guy, you know? 22:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    •   Not done: Thanks, tell me if it becomes a problem again. Dmcdevit 00:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
      • You say "none of these sites seem to be working " .Really ????

They have always worked and they are working right now if you care to look. Why is criticism of Surrey Police or Met Police out of bounds , or are we speaking of one rule for them and one for "us" ?. The website content is true 100% or else by now they would have taken me to Court but they know they cannot. In fact the case it is based on has been recently restored by the Court of Appeal as you will read. So what wikipedia is saying is that it does not like to have ALL the facts good and bad about a subject but just the good ones !! Nice free speech .,

Website of an italian dog breeder, spamming on dog-related articles. Here are some evidences for your pleasure. Let him know that we hate dogs, ok? involved in some annoying textual spam too which gained the owner a block. --Jollyroger 18:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  Not done. Why is it not enough that itwiki blocks the IP responsible? -- mzlla 20:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Because they could spam this on other wiki too: they don't seem to care much about policies or warnings. Anyway, this is not a famous or important breeder, so I don't see why just not put it here to prevent further spam. --Jollyroger 23:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: not done

At least 190 Wikipedia pages are linking to this who a user on the Wikipedia help desk (see link) claims installed a virus or spyware to his computer. It also has copyrighted material that doesn't belong to them, so it might be a good idea to block them anyway. - 13:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I came here to report the same site. 14:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  Done --Aphaia 18:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Please undo this. First of all, the reference to the user's post isn't valid; it directs you to the top level of the help page. Secondly, I've visited the site and none of my spam blocker alarms went off - and I have several. And lastly, we have no evidence that it "also has copyrighted material that doesn't belong to them". That is an assumption, and is not borne out by the statements at the website:

"We do not allow the following:

  • hate propaganda, hate mongering, or fraudulent material or activity;
  • any material that violates or infringes in any way upon the rights of others, including, without limitation, copyright or trademark rights;
  • material that promotes, encourages, or provides instructional information about illegal activities;
  • any software, information, or other material that contains a virus, corrupted data, or any other harmful or damaging component;
  • sending unsolicited e-mail or any other type of spam containing any reference to your web site or account."
The site makes several anti-Microsoft statements; that is hardly a reason for blocking it. Absent any real evidence that the site is responsible for spam and/or is violating copyright, the fact that 190 or more pages at Wikipedia link to the site is something that shouldn't be blocked casually. Thanks.ChiDom 04:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your information. I don't care another sysop undoes this entry. --Aphaia 05:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Removed.{admin} Pathoschild 03:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sex links

Hi, a few pages like Discuter:Phorum on the french WP are being spammed multiple times by a bot. Here are the links added:

  • and lots of subpages

Thanks for adding to the blacklist. PieRRoMaN ¤ Λογος 15:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, those links seem useless, on the other hand, Discuter:Phorum contains no spam in its history and (semi?) protection seems to solve the issue. Or not? --Aphaia 18:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Not done; the spam blacklist should only be used for widespread spam that is difficult to manage with conventional tools. Please resubmit your request if reversion, protection, and blocking are insufficient. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

At jawp, w:ja:User:影武者 and his sockpuppets are spamming to cvg-related articles. They're now recognized as a vandal, see w:ja:Wikipedia:進行中の荒らし行為/長期/影武者.--cpro 01:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I randomly checked the user you showed above, however I found no such link in his or her contributions. On the other hand, you have blocked him or her indefinitely. I have no clue what you would like us. --Aphaia 18:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Links (precisely diffs) were not added. Without o additional information, thus   Not doneAphaia 23:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: not done

Spamm on the french wikipedia Schiste 03:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please provide links to additions of the spam. Dmcdevit 03:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
the remaining links, it's in prevention. I'd understand if you don't blacklist it, but it won't be long to have normal spamm :) Schiste 07:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Not done; the spam blacklist should only be used for widespread spam that is difficult to manage with conventional tools. Please resubmit your request if reversion, protection, and blocking are insufficient. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC),

Spam on the English Wiki added by anonymous IP. (link) 20:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  Not done Blocking this IP could be a good enough solution. --Aphaia 11:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The IP spams many wikipedia projects (more than 10 as I've counted so far) in all Judo-related articles with to Though he/she has been asked to stop entering that link, he did continue to. I suggest addition of the given domain to the black-list. Thanks. --Chris 12:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC) ( 12:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC))

  •   Not done links please as evidence. --Aphaia 11:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Persistant spamming [193], [194], [195], [196], [197], [198], [199], [200] of on article Child support multiple shared Ip's. please black list Hu12 22:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

and again [201] --Hu12 07:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
continues to spam [202]--Hu12 22:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
It's the same IP every time - so I've blocked the IP for 6 months. As such, I'm going to decline this request. If it starts up again from somewhere else, I'll reconsider. Raul654 23:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Raul654 --Hu12 06:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Persistent attempts to add this link to the Email marketing article from multiple addresses in the 82.99.193.* range [203], [204], [205], [206] [207] and other users [208]. Ohnoitsjamie 22:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  Done - Andre Engels 19:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Public Speaker company adding their links to a number of celebrities, done by (bot?).

  Not done. Try other measures first. The culprit hasn't even been blocked. - Andre Engels 19:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC),,

Porn spam links [209] [210] [211] AudeVivere 17:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  Done - Andre Engels 19:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Persistent addition by various anon and user accounts. Semiprotection not effective. All of the following have added links to this stie:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Microcon and this by Cromoser. JonHarder 02:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

  Done - Andre Engels 19:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed removals


Please remove from the banned list. It provides free access to peer-reviewed journal articles on psychology, ethics and malpractice. Seems a bit weird to me that it was banned in the first place. --Biaothanatoi 23:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

  Done. I think it was blacklisted accidentally while blacklisting the site Anyway, now you are able to link -- mzlla 23:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Surfbirds appears to have been added to the spam blacklist; however any of the bird articles editors over at Wikpedia will tell you that this is not a sensible idea - Surfbirds contains a large (& growing) amount of useful reference material which is of a nature appropriate to add to external links & references sections of articles. Could someone remove it please (preferably in such a way that it doesn't get accidentally re-added, if that's possible). Thanks. 19:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC) (Wikipedia editor SP-KP)

  Done. It doesn't get re-added unless some administrator have reasons to add it - and then it is not accidental. -- mzlla 19:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

AlphaWorks at IBM was already supposed to be reopened (see removal archive for May 2006 but is still blocked. Many new technologies and documents are made available by IBM via alphaWorks (including my own "Virtual XML Garden" referenced on the in the wikipedia). Krisrose 19:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  Done. -- mzlla 20:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Linked from Seems this is mistakenly being caught by the regex: \.new(a|e|i|o|u|y)[0-9a-z-]*\.info

It's should be fixed now. Naconkantari 02:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Please remove from the banned list. This site has many good articles for Magic the Gathering Online and is linked to often by Wizards of the Coast themselves. Site can be useful for MTGO(Magic the Gathering Online.

It seems to be listed per this request. I could be ready to unblacklist it, but I'd like to hear what others say. -- mzlla 19:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

While mtgotraders is hardly as "bad" as some other sites, and is in fact a quality website, the fact remains that they committed some fairly bad behavior previously, and did so zealously and constantly. The tactics used previously were disruptive, and by the time someone started to actually talk as opposed to simply aggressively revert, I had already submitted the blacklist request.

Ironically enough, I myself have more liberal standards for external linking than most. However, the consensus should prevail, and so far from edit summaries the consensus seems overwhelmingly against. I posted a topic on allowing mtgotraders and other sites over at en:Talk:Magic: The Gathering#MTGOTraders. It got no replies.

I have no problem with raising the issue again on the talk page, but there should be a clear consensus in favor before removing from the blacklist. 21:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC) (SnowFire on en)

I am the owner of mtgotraders and i'm pretty sure I know who did the reverting. He is a friend of mine and probably thought he was helping but in turn got my site blacklisted. I was not aware that he was doing this until I tried to post a beginners guide to MTGO that WOTC also linked to that shows a beginner the basics of MTGO with images/etc. If you could please unblacklist my site I would greatly appreciate it and feel free to ask WOTC themselves about my reputation.

I'm still waiting patiently to be removed. All of my articles are free and I have had at least 3 linked from WOTC articles so far. Please let me know what I need to do.

  Done, blacklisting removed, because there were no comments against removing from blacklist during a week. -- mzlla 20:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC) is blocked (good idea), but one should unblock, because it is used as a source on the FR wiki on fr:Liste de termes sexuels japonais. nojhan 00:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  Not done, please request whitelisting on your local wiki first. Naconkantari 02:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
J'ai ajouté les adresses et dans la liste blanche locale : [212]. Korg + + 05:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  Done. Blacklisting restricted to, rather than any sitename ending with that. - Andre Engels 19:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Central Pacific Bank is a major bank in the State of Hawaii. I don't know why their main corporate site (I tried both and was blocked, but discovered such when I tried to create an article about the bank on the English Wikipedia. I was able to use an alternate domain which redirects to their site for the External link section. -- 06:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC) (Hawaiian717 on English Wikipedia)

  Done. Was a victim of an overly broad blacklisting of - Andre Engels 19:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Not done

This website is purely educational, it provides more than 30 Java applets on high school physics. All the applets were developed by the site owner. The applets are highly appraised by many teachers and students from different countries. This web has already been linked in the Portuguese Wiki, but unfortunately blacklisted in the English Wiki because of nothing but only the address "".

  Not done, please request whitelisting on your local wiki. Naconkantari 02:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I want to be allowed to edit my user page in the German WP again. Listing relations to other/previous projects is imho a necessary piece of honesty. If that should be denied to me, I cannot continue editing in the German WP.

Btw., and completely unrelated, "Yes, they are commercial" is imho not a valid cause for generally prohibiting links to a website. There are ten thousands of links to commercial radio stations, car makers, airlines, newspapers, etc. in the WP. A very large proportion of's web site is new reports, history stuff, and a knowlegde base on a pretty broad array of topics. Beyond that, they have artists bios, a wealth of photographed artworks, that I likely can imagine, WP-editors may find a valuable ressource for more in-depth reading. I have not checked a single such link, I only tell what I know from my previous work. I'm not on their payroll any more since years, and I gain plain nothing, if the German WP has or permits links to (likewise if not) --Purodha Blissenbach 03:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

  Not done, please request whitelisting on your local wiki. Naconkantari 05:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)|org

Please remove "|org" from the spam list, because even if there are some websites in|org that may do spam (this happens to any free web space provider) there also are excellent websites with very important info for the people . I consider that specific websites should be banned, but not the full domain|org, which is home of many fresh webmasters and professionals in many subjects. Thank you for your time.

  Not done, please request whitelisting on your local project. Naconkantari 02:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This web page is made by students from Colegio San Carlos, Bogota, Colombia. It only purpose is to serve as an information guide to those schools and academic institutions which will participate in the MUN model that is being organized by San Carlos school and that will take place in February, 2007. I will thank you if you can remove this address from the blacklist, in order for me to add this link in the San Carlos wikipage as well as in the MUN's one. Thank you for your time.

  Not done, please request whitelisting on your local wiki. Naconkantari 02:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please remove "" from the spam list, because even if there are some websites that may do spam (this happens to any free web space provider) there also are excellent websites about science, and about archaeology and history.

I consider that specific websites should be banned, but not the full domain xoomer.alice, which is home of many fresh webmasters and professionals in many subjects.

+1 one of the main italian providers. Please block only the websites involved in spam, not the entire domain --Jollyroger 23:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  Not done, please request whitelisting on your local project. Naconkantari 02:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Funpic is a widely-known German free webspace provider featuring 2500MB web space, PHP, FTP uploads, up to 8 MySQL databases for free. I use it to host my wordpress blog (* and wrote an article about a musician there. I tried to link it as a source for a discussion about an article, but the spam filter told me funpic was on the spam list. -- 22:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC) (German Wikipedia: Pallando / English Wikipedia Pallando14)

I personally don't have anything against replacing that with (favyr|gamenline).(fa|ga) . But I'd wait few days if there is other opinions. It could be removed, because it is not unverifying any more (see: Spam blacklist/Log#September) -- mzlla 05:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Am I wrong or blogs are not a valid linkable source anyway? --Jollyroger 23:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I am registered on de.wikipedia and I tried to embed a script from a funpic server to add some functionality to my monobook.js. The spam filter that applies to makes that impossible. I would suggest removing funpic from the spam filter. -- 13:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  Not done, please request whitelisting on your local wiki. Naconkantari 02:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this is an error, but when I go to edit Polytheistic reconstructionism the religious site (Rodzimy Kosciol Polski) is black-listed. I think this is probably a mistake. Any clarification or explanation would be helpful. - WeniWidiWiki 05:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The whole is blacklisted, but it may be going to removed (see: Talk:Spam -- mzlla 05:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up - could you give me a live link, if you are still watching this? - WeniWidiWiki 23:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  Not done, please request whitelisting on your local project. Naconkantari 02:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

All of the spamlinks that we were hit with are of the form "……". I suspect that we should narrow the pattern so as not to block an entire hosting site over one spamming user. There are some extremely useful documents about the Spanish Civil War elsewhere on that site. Thanks for your help on this, and can you ping me on en: when you respond. If this is a problem, can we at least whitelist URLs beginning with - Jmabel 19:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

We are not able to blacklist only URLs, the whole (sub)domain is blacklisted at once. You should ask whitelisting in your own wiki. -- mzlla 05:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I attempted to add a link to "" to the en:WGMC article; it's a link to the radio station's official webcasting stream. servemp3 is on the blacklist. We even have "webcast" as a field in the radio station infobox; not being able to link to it is kind of strange. Powers T 13:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

  Not done, there are now reasons why every Wikipedias should be able to link this site. You could ask about whitelisting in enwikipedia. -- mzlla 19:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, my name is Miro and I am author of this Monica Potter Fan Page - I do not know why is this page blacklisted. Is there any reason?

The whole is blacklisted, there is no specific reason why your subdomain should be. There is no talk page where is the reasons, and I would support this domain to removed from blacklist. However, we should discuss about it before removing.
If the page can't get removed you are able to request your subdomains whitelisting in local wiki. -- mzlla 22:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

We discussed it a while ago, and the result were local whitelists - the domain is now whitelisted on the Czech Wikipedia. — Timichal 23:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen that page already. I'm just thinking that why is the -domain blacklisted, and could it be removed. If there are only some subdomains spamming I think that blacklisting these may be better solution. -- mzlla 11:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand what shall I do, I just want to add my link to the site of Monica Potter in Wikipedia - . If you know how, please do it, I do not know how. Thanks. Miro, webmaster of

  Not done, please request whitelisting on your local wiki. Naconkantari 02:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

ArtsMode Network is a legal company sited in Figueres, just front the Salvador Dali Museum and Foundation.

The company was created in 1989 and we are the owners of various artworks of Salvador Dali, including “La Toile Daligram”, which is reproduced in the home page of This web site is mainly dedicated to “Dali-News” and essays about Salvador Dali, in part created by people who works for ArtsMode, like “Els tres P Mesons” which articles you can see in “Wide articles and essays” (if you decide to visit it). This website is the result of years of hard work compiling information (written information) about the world of Salvador Dali, and we are very proud about it, enough to consider that it is a very useful tool for Wikipedia people really interested in Salvador Dali who wants or need to consult as much information as possible. In that way, we try to place a link to this information in Salvador Dali places, including Wikipedia.

Is one of the most visited web sites related with Salvador Dalí. Dali News and wide articles and essays have a wide collection of articles about Salvador Dalí, his life, Gala, Museums, Surrealism, etc.

Can be considered the removal of the blacklist, please?

Thanks for your comprehension,

--ManuelBrau 17:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I asked blacklisting a few weeks ago, for repeated adding of the link to almost ALL the wikipedias. Link was provided with a babelfish translation of sth like "news about salvador dalì". Lots of diffs were provided, some were edit wars involving admins Vs anonimous. I got legal treaths from the owner of the site (who accidentally was the same who put the link. Whoops!). Twice. In a VERY aggressive way. The website do not host any valuable information that can not be found in any other more reliable primary source (like museum websites or official sites of the Dalì Foundation). Still can't see what kind of "news" you can provide about a dead painter... Moreover it is a commercial business, selling stuff vaguely related to Dalì artworks. The linked page was about a bag with dalì sketches on it, if my memory doesn't fail me.
STRONGLY against blacklist removal --Jollyroger 23:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  Not done There is no evidence that the spam will cease.

--M/ 23:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
---We ask someone else to consider blacklist removal and consider the comments placed in Wikipedia by the one who asked for blacklist, answered respectfully in the following text considered "VERY aggressive": MESSAGE TO MR. JOLLY ROGER FROM Mª DE LOS REYES DÍAZ, LAWYER AND MEMBER OF DTC ABOGADOS ASOCIADOS. Sir: Our client, ArtsMode Network S.A. has entrusted us to communicate you on respect your public comments against this company. In our knowledge of the facts, ArtsMode Network placed in Wikipedia’s “Salvador Dali” pages a link to The main content of this website is, as you declared to know, articles, essays and the Dali News, with and static reference to the SalvadorDali products. The definition of Spam, as it was in your comments, are: spam: the act of sending unsolicited commercial messages. This is not the case. Your comments about ArtsMode Network went clearly far away than a rejection of the link. This comments are offensive, injurious and defamatory accusations against an honorable company. And the author can be prosecuted as offensor against the law. “It is just a website run by spammers. Please, DO NOT VISIT the website”, “SPAAAAAAAAAM]p://www.salvador-[QUESTO E' UN SITO DI SPAM]dali.[BASTA SPAM]net”, “and who the hell does give a damn?”, “I know your bullshit was on discussion pages (and on article pages, too)”, “you should get a life, instead..not enough gals in your town?”.

--ManuelBrau 16:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Support blacklisting per no legal threats. Wikipedia is not required to link to anyone for any reason. 16:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  Not done, contact legal at wikimedia dot org regarding any comments made. Naconkantari 02:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I grant that I am not fluent in Polish, but it appears that this site is legitimately for the Polish poet Halina Poświatowska, her bio, works, etc. 22:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to login first. Bsktcase 22:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Naconkantari has blacklisted the whole domain, and we should ask his opinions too. Note that its removing is already discussed at [213], where it leaded no changes. Anyway, I would support removing, but I think we should wait other opinions too. -- mzlla 22:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  Not done, please request whitelisting on your local wiki. Naconkantari 02:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

While several netfirms addresses are named in the blacklist separately, this does not seem to be one of them, yet the spam filter blocks it. This is a legit site in Hebrew containing valid medical information. The links are also to legit sites, so I'm not sure why it's blocked. Odedee 21:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The whole seems to be banned too by Naconkantari. You may ask unblacklisting it in User talk:Naconkantari or you can request whitelisting in your own wiki. -- mzlla 21:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  Not done, please request whitelisting at your local wiki. Naconkantari 21:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. GreatestJournal is a blog-hosting site where some celebrities described in Russian Wikipedia keep their blogs; for example, link to ru:Холмогоров, Егор Станиславович's list of works published around 2005 (the list itself is in a GJ posting) now gets filtered out of wiki. —Mithgol the Webmaster 05:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

  Not done. The whole Wikimedia does not need this site, so you have to request whitelisting in Russian Wikipedia. -- mzlla 12:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt sites

The following discussion is closed: no way

I notice that the Daniel Brandt page on the English Wikipedia cannot link to his websites, which were placed on the Spam blacklist because they used to refer Wikipedians elsewhere. This was true the last time someone requested that these links be removed, but it is apparently no longer the case, and the discussion page for Daniel Brandt seems largely in favor of including traditional-style (rather than cut-and-paste) links. Though I just stumbled onto this article last night, I have to agree that actual links to pages like Wikipedia Watch and Google Watch would have obvious merit in this article. Though at least one user has argued that he "might do it again," i.e. redirecting our links elsewhere, I feel that a notice of his prior dirty tricks above the links is preferable to this accidental censorship via the spam blacklist. --Ourboldhero 17:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Request denied. Firstly, it's not "accidental censorship" - we are quite intentionally excluding his sites from being linked in Wikipedia. He's made it his mission to "out" as many administrators as possible by posting their personal information (in some cases, personal information of young children). I see no reason why we should allow his idiocy to be linked from Wikipedia. And yes, there's always the possiblity he'll do it again. Raul654 18:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

While his sites may be against Wikipedia, Wikipedia should provide the linkage. It seems "broken" to have the website address and not a hyperlink. Ndp2005goh 03:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

'' is a free webhosting service. The typical website name is ''. The fact that some '' did spamming, doesn't mean that all sites ending in '' should be blocked. (30-11-06) Thank you.

There are many sites from that are used for spamming. Please request whitelisting particular subdomains on your local wiki. Naconkantari 18:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  Done. The whole service is not listed any more. I hope that the spamming doesn't start by other hosted sites, then we have to blacklist it again. -- mzlla 13:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I tried including a link to my home page at on my user page at only to say it was still blocked. My page is at '' 01:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, actually awardspace remains in blacklist. MaxSem 08:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
You should talk about this by Naconkantari. I would recommend removing from blacklist, but he does not accept it. Or the other way, ask whitelisting in English Wikipedia. -- mzlla 11:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  Not done A google search for returns many spam domains. Naconkantari 02:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the current official site of w:SubRip, the best subtitle ripping software. I have no idea why it is blacklisted. It may seem outdated (last News item is from June) but that's because SubRip is abandonware at the moment. It's the most reliable source for downloading SubRip. I think it's better to link here than to some random ad-ridden download farm where you don't know if what you get is the real thing or a trojan.-- 23:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Please request whitelisting on your local wiki. Naconkantari 17:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: not done

Please remove from the banned list. The site does not spam, and has never spammed. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 00:17, 02. October 2006 (UTC)

  Not done per [214] Naconkantari 15:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Those pages do not exist, and the site has taken precautions to prevent the people responsible from using the service.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 18:50, 03. October 2006 (UTC)
Strongly recommend against removal per [215] Naconkantari 19:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

  Not done MaxSem 21:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC),

Please unlist these pages. It's my own Homepage. The first one will redirect to the second one, because it's easier to remember. I tried to use these links for my user profile on, but both are blacklisted and I don't know why. --Eick Wagner 12:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

  Not done, please request whitelisting on your local wiki.
Return to "Spam blacklist/Archives/2006-12" page.