MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February 2018

mangauk.com

 * The official website of Manga Entertainment in the UK. It seems like back in 2011 user or users were adding lots of blog entry links to Wikipedia articles. Apart from the fact that they hopefully will have given up on that by now, there is no longer a blog on the site. Shiroi Hane (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Even without the blog, I'm not seeing anything on that site that we'd want to cite in Wikipedia articles. If you need some links on the Manga Entertainment article, then . ~Anachronist (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It says there that "Requests quoting only a domain (i.e. ending in .com or similar without anything after the / character) will be denied" and refers me back here. Since what I was trying to do when I was referred here in the first place was add the site to external links at Manga Entertainment, that is precisely what I need. It is entirely plausible that we might want to cite information from under /news/ or product details from /shopmanga/, but I have no specific URLs to whitelist at preset other than /. Shiroi Hane (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You did not read the full sentence: "You must provide a full link to the specific web page you want to be whitelisted." .. that is exactly what we will ask you there. If you need the domain as an official link for the subject's article, you'll have to provide a full link to the top level page or an about page.  Whitelisting the domain itself is simply negating the blacklist.  Here .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The "full link to the top level page" (which I can't reproduce directly as I would be unable to save this comment) *is* www.mangauk.com which is "without anything after the / character" and thus would be denied for whitelisting. Why are you upholding a blacklist due to SEO-type behaviour from 7 years ago anyway? The structure of the company has changed completely since then even (Manga UK was owned by Starz/Anchor Bay but has since been bought back and is now independent), as has most of the staff, and their PR (they used Fetch for a long time, but not for a couple of years). Shiroi Hane (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I am sure there is an about page. Make your case there, I am sure we can find a solution.
 * 7 years? I just declined a case where someone with a clear interest in having his site linked.  That site was heavily sockpuppet spammed in 2007.  Hundreds of sites blacklisted, regularly they return because they want it linked.  Spammers hardly ever go away, being linked pays their bills.  This is not a schoolkid that changes teacher after a year or grows up.  This is long term abuse because that is what they are paid to do.  We only delist if there is a significant independant need, one WikiPage or 10 links don’t cut the deal.  Sorry.  —Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * mangauk.com/about-us/ would do. —Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

oncenturyavenue.org
Crypto-mining sideload. Not obviously useful as a source. Guy (Help!) 10:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 10:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

alletec.com
spammed by: Repeated promotional blog spam. Apparently two previous blocks failed to get across the message. GermanJoe (talk) 14:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

researchgate.net (specific publication)
Persistent spamming of external link to
 * Third level warning, 5 February 2018
 * Second level warning, 3 February 2018
 * First level warning, 2 February 2018
 * No warning, just edit summary, 2 February 2018
 * First level warning, December 2017
 * First level warning, December 2017

Improper per wp:ELNO, by ever shifting IP from exact same location. wp:AIV and wp:3RR unlikely to work. The domain researchgate.net is used all over the place, so can this specific publication be blacklisted with the domain left untouched? - DVdm (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist <- here you go. I reorganized the text a bit to hold the link in a template (and not as a working link). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks. Meanwhile the article has been protected by, but I guess that they will be back a few months after the prot expires. Or in other articles. This is more solid indeed. Thanks . - DVdm (talk) 08:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

mediafire.com
IP is adding a ton of links to this cloud/file sharing website, pdfs etc. Was blacklisted before, not sure why it got unlisted. There is no way it can be a reliable source and it is too easy to host a virus or copyright infringement (or change the content on that site to that). Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 02:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you please point me to the spammer, COIBot has SOO many additions that it does not give me a useful report. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

newpakhistorian.wordpress.com
Purely used for self-spamming and insertion of utterly-unreliable content by a former contributor.See this t/p thread. ~ Winged Blades Godric 10:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

marked-cards.com


Spammed by:

Commercial website advertising marked cards that has been inserted repeatedly into the external links section of Card marking since 2006 despite multiple deletions. This was done by a former contributor and now done anonymously and is the only edit of each IP address.--Countakeshi (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

seoleaders.co.uk


IP hopping spammer. Deli nk (talk) 12:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

maccablo.com


WP:NOTHERE account,, possibly sock of , only adding links to Kerala-based blog masquerading (poorly) as a legitimate news site. Clearly SEO link related. [], [], [] User has been warned on talk page about adding such links. All their edits have been reverted. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  03:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Google Datally (subject page?)
 * Google Datally (subject page?)
 * Google Datally (subject page?)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

prequin.com


Preqin.com is blacklisted, this is a redirect to that site. Using this is plain blacklist evasion. Get the official links whitelisted where needed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Preqin.com
A employee of Preqin came into the Wikipedia-en-help IRC channel asking about changing the link on Preqin. Evidently, this link has been blacklisted since 2008, and had a failed un-blacklist request in May 2014. The article on Preqin has shown prequin.com, with the added u, as the website (which isn't their website). I attempted to change the link on Preqin and triggered a protection filter.  Vermont &#124; reply here  11:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As the article appears to be correctly titled it would make sense to at least get the links corrected on the article even if the link wasn't permanently unlisted. Amortias (T)(C) 11:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Preqin owns prequin.com domain but this a defensive registration to prevent scamming and is not the official company site hence the need to change — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbpreqin (talk • contribs) 11:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I saw that I handled this in 2014, where I found a 2013 editor (5 years after blacklisting), and you tell me that you were talking to an employee - that shows that they have interest in being linked 10 years after date (and that behavior is not uncommon .. I think another case of >10 years of interest is still on this page).,  for specific links on this domain (in this case a /about or similar!).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Preqin's interest in having the link correct on Preqin is suspicious? To clarify, the user came into the IRC help channel asking why he couldn't change the link, not asking for it to be un-blacklisted. You said that you think another "case of >10 years of interest is still on this page". Are you implying that Preqin employees will no longer be interested in Preqin after 10 years, or are you implying that the user I spoke to in the IRC help channel was not an employee? Sorry, I do not know much about this area of Wikipedia, and don't really see much of a reason for declining.  Vermont  &#124; reply here  12:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies if I've not followed protocol here but it was me who was chatting with Vermont earlier with this request. Dbpreqin (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

If someone first spams it, and then clearly involved editors come here to have it on their page, then yes, to me that makes it clear that they have a clear conflict of interest. All the actions further are appropriate (though I do have doubts about the very last edit to the subject page). WP:COI is clear: if you have a conflict of interest, then stay away from the article but discuss on the talkpage. Wikipedia is not here to have a page looking in exactly the way the subject (or representatives of the subject) want it to look. We are not running an advertising service. Is it natural: yes. Note that the use of the prequin links is plain blacklist evasion (seen the statements in this thread).

Anyway, I am not willing to de-blacklist it (I do not have a guarantee that the link will not start appearing in other places as well, the last edits to the page show a disregard for Wikipedia linking standards and for Wikipedia editing standards ..), but per WP:ELOFFICIAL and MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Common requests I will whitelist a specific page for the use on the subject article. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Please, also include the currently used references on Preqin in the whitelisting request. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Infoelections.com
This website has been used as a source in quite a few articles related to Indian politics. Further research shows that its a consultancy service offering to do door-to-door surveys, political campaign and social media management for its clients. Most of the content on this website is copied from charts and reports published by the Election Commission of India and a few unsuspecting users have cited this websites pages as a reliable source for backing the official facts and figures. --Skr15081997 (talk) 11:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * we rarely blacklist based on reliability concerns, blacklisting needs abuse. The cases where reliability is an issue need a proper analysis on WP:RSN with a consensus of total unreliability and suggestion to blacklist.  Did such discussions take place?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have initiated a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Let's see what others have to say. But its clear that the people behind the website have used Wikipedia for promoting themselves and increasing their search result ranking. --Skr15081997 (talk) 11:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Insureye.com


This website has been added to many pages, most of which have had the link removed from them. It's an insurance quotes company advertising itself on-wiki. I'm going to go ahead and remove all instances of it. See this diff, showing the above-mentioned user repeatedly adding the website to pages after being reverted.  Vermont &#124; reply here  11:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

1. I did add the website to many pages, but that was a mistake and I got it. Never did that again, did I? 2. "It's an insurance quotes company" - not entirely true. The link I referenced to contains consumer reviews. My purpose was to back up the information about Canada Life activities with the opinions of the company's consumers. All in all, it's an insurance company and it has clients who use its' services and have their opinions about their quality. And as far as I know, Insureye presents itself as a platform for consumer reviews of insurance products. 3. If you do consider Insureye an insurance company, why does it not have its own wiki page then? It's a pretty popular site among the Canadians. Just look at the reviews quantity. Did you even look through the contents of the page? 4. Apart from the link to Insureye I added four more links. Why don't you delete them then? All links I added, including Insureye, were exclusively for informational purposes. Or do you think people who write these reviews pay the company for this opportunity? That's just dumb.

I would like to ask you to remove the website from the blacklist since it does not serve commercial purpose - it only spreads awareness about quality of insurers' services. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaneySmith (talk • contribs) 12:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * You received in October last year up to 4 warnings from 4 independent users, yet you found yesterday the need to use it as a reference, without significant discussion beforehand. And all your edits are related to adding this website.  Please have a good look through our policies and guidelines - at first glance I don't think that this site is a good external link, or a good reference (no one else has used it .. and it is contested).
 * For now,, it is one user (and one IP edit). First action would be to block the spammer (if they really do not communicate and adapt their ways, which is not the case).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

befilter.com
Obvious socks doing nothing but spamming this link into WP. Have filed at SPI to deal with the users. Jytdog (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

wikileaks.org
I just discovered the addition of the link here and have reverted it. The editor (a newbie) who added it has thanked me for the deletion. My edit summary: "No. Our External links rules forbid linking to a site with copyrighted works held there without permission. The same applies to the Trump-Russia dossier." The Trump–Russia dossier is a copyrighted work hosted at DocumentCloud, and because of our rules, we are not allowed to link to it. It seems these situations are analogous.

Since the very mission of Wikileaks is to host stolen information, our default position should be to treat links to them with strong suspicion, strong enough for inclusion in the blacklist. There can be situations where a link can be legitimate, and an exception to the rule can be made for that specific use. The most obvious situation is on their own article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I am in favor of this, though would like to see some community discussion where it is agreed that by far most of the material on the site is indeed a copyright violation that should not be linked per WP:COPYLINK. Are the sites hosting the Trump-Russia dossier blacklisted?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Dirk Beetstra, I agree that a good discussion would be nice. As far as the dossier, no, DocumentCloud is not blacklisted, probably because hosting stolen information isn't their mission. AFAIK, much or most of their content is legitimate. For the dossier, we just follow policy and don't link to that URL at DocumentCloud.
 * By constrast, with Wikileaks it would be the exceptional URL that wasn't hosting stolen information. They don't hide their mission at all. So our default attitude toward each website should be different. :: As with many blacklisted sites, there can be exceptional situations where it is justified to list a URL here, and permission to do so can be requested. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I would then blacklist the specific documents on the DocumentCloud, and consider any edit that adds a redirect to that same document as level-4im disruptive. We have in the past blacklisted single documents on furthermore good servers.
 * Would one of the VPs be a place to set this precedent (or talkpage of WP:LINKVIO - do we have a place where we can say that sites that in far majority are hosting copyvio material, or specific links to copyvio material should be blacklisted without question? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm really not familiar enough with the procedures here to be sure, but both propositions make sense: blacklist the one URL from DocumentCloud we don't want here (although there hasn't been a problem with it being spammed), and blacklist the entire Wikileaks website which specializes in stolen documents. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

apyoth.com
Russian spammers hitting cryptocurrency articles. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)




 * , cross-wiki problem (also spammed and reverted on ru.wikipedia). --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

lexroll.com
Spammed by Seems to have no content not available from elsewhere; repeatedly spammed by multiple IPs which do little but add links to this domain. I've removed some, but still several links out there. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 02:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

wikkimedia.com


Note, this is not Wikimedia. The name Wikkimedia is obviously intended to prey upon the similarity. Although I have just encountered one instance of this being added to Wikipedia (here), I think this is such egregious bad faith with potential for harm and confusion that it should be immediately blacklisted. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * On second thought, this would be a site wide issue, so I have made the request at the Global Blacklist: w:MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Handled on meta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

carbay.ph

 * --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. This looks to be related to below report, but not sure.  If so, and if we decide to go to meta, please encapsulate this one in that request. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

funwhileitlasted.net
Persistently placed by
 * and  General Ization  Talk  12:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

onlinehack8ball.website


Also see the report on Meta. I couldn't find another wiki where it was added. Thanks.—Teles « Talk to me ˱ M @ C S ˲» 16:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

cartrade.com

 * 
 * 


 * --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, this is complicated, there is way more here I am afraid. Quick list:



And
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Smileverse
 * Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 88

I need to see reports ('COIBot' in the linksummaries), and will probably need help to expand this further (track what links to the reports, and what links to the spammers). One of the reports shows that there is a small cross-wiki aspect to this, so this may go onto meta. This material needs to be blacklisted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

+ --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Blacklisted: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October_2015
 * Blacklisted, though not due to MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/July_2016
 * Blacklisted: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October_2015
 * Blacklisted, though not due to MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/July_2016
 * Blacklisted, though not due to MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/July_2016

Ah:


 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2015_Archive_Dec_1

More. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive906
 * Sockpuppet investigations/ManiSahota

Pinging User:MER-C here, they have been looking into this before. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2017_Archive_Dec_1
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Justincoope
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Justincoope

Funny, wherever I look, there are accounts popping up with similar behavior and sockpuppet investigations. Note that all sockpuppet investigations seem to have the same conclusion: 'inconclusive' on technical data. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's because they're, in part, using webhosts and massively shared Indian ISPs. Much of this is stale and unactionable, apart from autoportal.com (now blacklisted). MER-C 17:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Multifest.org

 * See also COIN thread Jytdog (talk) 02:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * See also COIN thread Jytdog (talk) 02:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * See also COIN thread Jytdog (talk) 02:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * See also COIN thread Jytdog (talk) 02:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 13:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

econlib.org
Hello, I am looking to remove econlib.org from the spam blacklist. It appears to be triggering the block based on the entry beconlib.org. I think its inclusion appears to be a mistake, and that there is trouble shooting going on here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=771045371#econlib.org

The site is a repository for economics definitions and articles by economists and doesn't seem to match the definition for blacklisting. Any assistance would be appreciated. Squatch347 (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * , it was spammed/abused by editors engaging in SEO ánd having a clear direct link//COI. Moreover, most of the material is accessible elsewhere (up to WikiSource).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


 * , sorry, just found the discussion in the archives. It does seem like there was a serious spam issue. I'm not as familiar with the blacklist/whitelist functionality as you, would it be possible to white list just certain sections of the site? As several commenters mentioned there are some excellent explanations of not commonly discussed topics (like monopsony which is how I discovered the block) that are better sources for article development than non publicaly available textbooks or primary source historic or peer reviewed texts.


 * Squatch347 (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * yes, we can whitelist certain things for specific goals, but be aware that a lot ‘’is’’ available elsewhere. This is just a library (with an agenda). But as any library, some material is unique.  —Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

In looking through the history, the "spamming" was done by someone not affiliated with the site, and was also some time ago. Site is consistently rated by other outlets as a top source for economics. EconLog (blog) and EconTalk (podcast series) and Concise Encyclopedia of Economics especially. They also consistently link to wikipedia entries... As a reader, I would also like to see this site removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.225.141.195 (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC) Thank you in advance for your consideration. AmyWillis (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)AmyWillis
 * How enterprising of you to find this obscure process page with your very first edit. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * .. "In looking through the history, the "spamming" was done by someone not affiliated with the site ..." .. Wrong. ".. and was also some time ago" .. Your point being.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Follow up request on econlib
I was irritated by the "econlib.org" blocklist message on John Gray (philosopher) since, having tried it, I thought the blocked link led to many useful resources for those who wanted to delve into Gray's published work available online. After looking into the Blocklist feature on Wikipedia (which I never encountered before though I have edited Wikimedia projects for over 12 years), I gather that someone from econlib.org or someone hoping to promote them, had been adding inappropriate links to that site on Wikipedia, presumably in an effort to increase their traffic. However the link from the John Gray article is appropriate as it leads to many of his essays. So I request that link be restored to it's normal function unless it is Wikipedia policy to risk inconveniencing its users as a way of punishing its spammers, in which case it should remain. —Blanchette (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a think-tank, it was spammed, many of the materials linked are available on free sources such as Wikisource. Since it is a think-tank, there will be a less biased source for anything that is genuinely significant. And yes, it is normal policy to blacklist spammed sites however many people might like them. Guy (Help!) 17:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * , for specific links on this domain. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

neocatechumenalway.info
See User_talk:165.142.249.81 Daask (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

thoughtfulcatholic.com
They are back, I think.



To be blacklisted in a minute. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

movierecipe.infoversant.com
Links to movierecipe.infoversant.com have been popping up slowly over the last few years. It's a blog, so it shouldn't be used as a reference, and there are certainly more authoritative references than this one. Sometimes it's been added in batches like by 117.195.4.250 and 59.95.41.147, but often it's just one quiet edit like this one by IP 117.195.18.20. It looks like most of the IPs involved are located in India. This should raise suspicions, as these IPs are editing not only Indian articles, but also American and British ones. Here, they republish the plot summary found in the source they added, so we have copyright violation issues to consider. As of today there were about 50 links in various articles, but I'm chipping away at removing them. I'd previously performed a purge circa May 2016. I don't see anything of specific use at the top level domain infoversant.com. The site appears to be owned by Rightmix Technologies, which appears to be a marketing company based in Pune, India. Hmm... The IP I tagged above (103.61.202.54) appears to be connected to Manjunath Marketing. Anyway, it's your call if you think we should blacklist the TLD. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)



Blegh. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * With so many IPs and ranges, I accept any collateral damage it may have - the whitelist will handle that.  to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Steevven1 spam


Quite possibly we should block*advice.com and *rates.com, as all instances of these I can find are not appropriate as sources. Guy (Help!) 13:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 13:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

radiancespace.com


Repeated spamming (the usual service site spam), continued after final warning. A second domain idghomez.com is also involved, but only once so far (just fyi). GermanJoe (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)