MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January 2020

123movies.*


For example:


 * and several others

123Movies has had a ton of spam with various clone sites. It's been semiprotected, but there's no reason they should be linked to imo. I have a feeling they'll be back once the protection expires. There's also been at least one user who was autoconfirmed that added the link multiple times. This regex will capture any 123movies domain ending with a 2 or 3 letter TLD. I chose to use  rather than   because it seems safer (but my regex skills aren't great). – Frood (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Handled on meta by at m:Special:Diff/19673374. Thanks for reporting this. —  Newslinger   talk   03:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Indian financial scheme spam




These site have been spammed in the past by various users and IP editors, but it stopped for a while. It's come back of late, so probably time for the black list.  Ravensfire  (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * , cross-wiki problem. Since the reports for pradhanmantri.info and pmagreement.in indicate that the domains are being spammed on the Hindi Wikipedia as well as the English Wikipedia, could you please resubmit the request at m:Talk:Spam blacklist? Thanks for reporting this. —  Newslinger   talk   03:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Will do, and thanks!  Ravensfire  (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

vrbo
I went to update an footnote on the vrbo page,only to find the domain blocked. I tried searching for a reason, buyt I could not find one. (I'm also a total newb at this, so could be user error). I did see some discussion around a sock puppet (don't know what that is, exactly), but I would expect that particular endpoint/listing to be blacklisted, not the entire site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.34.134 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * , for specific links on this domain. Since Vrbo is a nonjournalistic commercial site that has been spammed in the past, we will generally not remove it from the blacklist. However, you can request specific links on the site to be whitelisted if they can be appropriately used as primary sources. —  Newslinger   talk   03:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Airline Safety Cards
Per ANI report, long-term spamming at. Guy (help!) 09:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist per ANI report. --Guy (help!) 09:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

akaddprice.com
This has blown up a few times and has mostly been contained, but they don't seem dissuaded by reversions or an IP block. Recommend adding it to blacklist. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

outlawsgameroom.com
This link has been spammed across the wiki by a series of IPs. The following are a sampling.



Warnings don't seem to phase the person as 67.140.42.97 has received three within the last day and still keeps adding more every few hours. It isn't clear that any of the radio shows provided on the page are public domain and they are only added by these IPs who make no other edits to articles. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (help!) 09:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * It doesn't appear blacklisted in practice. There is a link on Lone Ranger but when I made an edit there it didn't warn me about a blacklisted URL before saving. It updated the page without any problems and the link remains. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I just confirmed this myself with a simple auto-ed. Jerod Lycett (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's definitely on the blacklist and a test edit in my sandbox shows it's working. The blacklist only traps when the link is added, though. Guy (help!) 14:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

pv-magazine
Added to spamlist due to some ancient spam case (2011). Not blocked globally or any local wiki.

Site is very useful source about current news in photovoltaics, used 1000+ times on Google Scholar. Jklamo (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , this was extensively spammed and appears to be mainly churnalism. Did you check the archives? This is pretty much a perennial here. Guy (help!) 22:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

transparencymarketresearch.com


Transparency Market Research is a market "research" firm of questionable credibility, their reports are mostly used by trade associations, trade magazines and similar PR publications. The domain has been repeatedly spammed by various COI editors and SPAs for promotional editing (see also COIBot report), no foreseeable encyclopedic usage - their website shows no evidence of credible unbiased expert research. As I could be seen as involved, I'll leave this one open for independent review. GermanJoe (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (help!) 22:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

State sponsored fake news
See and

These sites are state-sponsored fake news / disinformation. Guy (help!) 23:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist per RSN consensus. --Guy (help!) 23:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

cricketwa.com


This unreliable website's links have been spammed across various pages by various IPs. Time to blacklist it. Dee 03  09:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

lnkclik.com




That was the only use, but it's a redirect shortening service. Jerod Lycett (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * , URL shortener. --Guy (help!) 10:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Duplicates
I just removed some duplicates. Feel free to review. Guy (help!) 20:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Zoominfo.com
Co-ordinated spamming, see Sockpuppet_investigations/Juliofcruz0902. Probably SEO spam. Guy (help!) 01:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I ran into one of the sockpuppets,, and was suspicious but let it slide because Zoominfo appeared to be a valid source. In light of the sockpuppetry, the site should be blacklisted. —  Newslinger  talk   01:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. —  Newslinger  talk   01:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

indian-lyrics.com
Edits adding this site popped on my watchlist today and I've got a feeling I've seen this added before (and reverted). Multiple indian lyrics sites have been spammed recently. I think this is a possible candidate for black listing.  Ravensfire  (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Spammy and probably also copyright violations. Classy. to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (help!) 20:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

eporner
Hello, we've noticed that someone has clearly spammed wikipedia using our domain eporner.com. Random links from our domain were added in completely unmatched places: list are here Therefore, our domain now is blacklisted. Please unblock it, because users cannot naturally add content from our domain as a source for information published on Wikipedia. We have press information BLOG in the eporner.com/news/ which are SFW, very useful as a reliable source of industry information (We are large, over 10 years old, alexa top1000 website). Regards, Eporner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eporner (talk • contribs) 17:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read the large yellow box at the top of this section. Furthermore, it's not blacklisted locally but rather on meta. If a trusted, non-COI editor finds a reasonable link at your site for a source, they can request a whitelisting for that link. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Toevolution
I want to add resources to this site, but a message appears that the domain is prohibited and it can be added and I do not see any reasons for its ban or its presence in the blacklist and I need to add some articles to it as a reference and I do not see any reason for being on this list. Please remove it so that I can add it and benefit from it me and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdulaziz Sobh (talk • contribs)
 * It's blacklisted because you and many other anon IP addresses spammed the hell out of it in 2018. Furthermore, it looks like a garbage site with nonsense about keto and other fads; as such, it would have no use on Wikipedia.OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

lyricsganti.com


External link spamming. Site contains copyright violations, and should not be linked to per WP:COPYLINK. —  Newslinger  talk   07:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --—  Newslinger  talk   07:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

djjaani.com


External link spamming. Site contains copyright violations, and should not be linked to per WP:COPYLINK. —  Newslinger  talk   09:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --—  Newslinger  talk   09:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Since quite a few Indian music websites are being spammed in the same way, and some of them are related to each other, I'm continuing the search at. —  Newslinger  talk   11:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

rsheria.com


Repeated spam for a blog with bonus and gift card offers. Only warning has been ignored. GermanJoe (talk) 13:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --GermanJoe (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

procore.com


Has been going off and on since early 2019. They hit mostly construction-related articles. One or two articles spammed per IP. They never respond to warnings, even when IPs are reused. I don't think they're going to stop unless the blacklist makes them. - MrOllie (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 22:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

technicalswank.blogspot.com


Per evidence presented at Sockpuppet investigations/Aman pathak7045. Average blogspot spam; cannot see any valid usage here on Wikipedia. theinstantmatrix (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --—  Newslinger  talk   06:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Bodybuilding spam


Repeated spamming for bodybuilding blog/shop sites after several warnings and a block. GermanJoe (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --GermanJoe (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Computer Business Review
Unless I'm missing something this is a news site, "The site offers senior IT industry executives in-depth news and understanding.". like "xxx business journal". I have hit this blocked site before and just hit it again. I don't see a reason why it's blocked. Peter Flass (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , for specific links on this domain. The site has been blacklisted due to systematic spamming in the past. Please see the archives on top for further information. --GermanJoe (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Moreover, cbronline.com material is very often churnalism - copied or regurgitated material from primary sources or other sources. Most of the material is replaceable by better sources (or the actual primary source and not one pretending to be secondary).  For the few cases where that is not possible whitelisting can be applied. Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

taxsathi.in


Continued blog spam after warnings and a first block. GermanJoe (talk) 10:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --GermanJoe (talk) 10:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

bunnyandbutters.com


Repeatedly spammed, see e.g., Special:Contributions/75.182.4.89. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * . According to COIBot these are the only 2 incidents (?) - usually too early for a full blacklist. But please report back, if the spamming occurs again or is part of a larger pattern (or if I have missed something). I have added a warning on IP talk. --GermanJoe (talk) 07:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)



(seems to have other links in their portfolio?). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * A stale incident (but certainly worth keeping an eye on). GermanJoe (talk) 12:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

juegostudio.com


Repeated spamming for a promotional non-RS (3 user, 1 IP) over the last year. Several warnings have been ignored. GermanJoe (talk) 12:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --GermanJoe (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

uniquelyrics.com




Part of the current wave of indian lyrics sites, but this one is up to at least three user accounts now and still hasn't gotten the clue, so time to break out the hammer.  Ravensfire  (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

aircheckdownloads.com

 * I came across this link due to an AFD I initiated and it's got quite a complicated history. This website hosts "scoped" (recorded) OTA broadcasts of radio jingles and commercials of a wide variety of radio stations. I cannot possibly see how this jives with our copyright policy and more specifically, External_links/WP:LINKVIO as it's clearly hosting copyrighted material that they could not possibly own the rights to. Unfortunately the COIBot report maxes out (there are 55 occurrences on enwiki, despite the report number because of one editor who repeatedly blanked his sandbox which contained the link) and the rest were added presumably in good faith by another editor. Praxidicae (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

allbestspec.com


See Sockpuppet investigations/Soyseak. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

EconLib
I would like to request that econlib.org be removed from the blacklist. This is a legitimate site that hosts a number of prominent bloggers, a popular podcast, and a library of writings by economists and philosophers from the 19th century. I have no personal connection or ideological affinity to the site; I just don't see a reason why it should be blacklisted. Thank you. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 13:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * , for specific links on this domain. This was spammed by a paid editor. Virtually everything other than the (already whitelisted) /encyclopedia are available from other free sources that do not have the baggage of being part of a libertarian think tank advancing an agenda. Every one I have seen was replaceable from Project Gutenberg, archive.org or some other neutral archive. --Guy (help!) 13:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Perennially - except for the encyclopedia it self-published (and which is whitelisted already), most of the other information is available from other sources (including often our own WikiSource).  The blogs are opinions of the people themselves, which have very little use in general references.  That leaves only very little information that is regularly needed (as witnessed by the many declined whitelisting requests which almost exclusively show that alternatives exist).  The rest can be whitelisted:.
 * As for the reason of blacklisting: a declared ring of paid editors with a demonstrable conflict of interest with this library found it necessary to write promotional texts regarding this set of websites (the blogs and site itself). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, both, for the reply. I know you are pressed with time, so I won't push the point beyond this response. EconLib is part of an educational nonprofit; they have a libertarian ideological orientation (which I don't share), but I don't think that's in itself a reason for making the website suspect.  I am not familiar with the details of the COI alluded by Dirk Beetstra (a search didn't help), but I would caution against blacklisting an entire domain that hosts a wide variety of content and a number of heterogeneous projects because of an incident that likely involved a few people unrelated to the rest of the site.
 * For background, the reason I was prompted to place this request was that, on several occasions over the past three or four months, I tried to provide a better citation for a claim made in an article only to stumble upon the message that my edit was rejected for including a link to econlog.org. A recent example is my attempt to link to this blog post [see first hit; obviously I can't link to the actual address] as a source for the concept of "ideological Turing test"—reasonably popular in some circles—in the Bryan Caplan article. Currently the source is an obscure comment that is clearly inadequate as a canonical reference. I understand that I could request that this particular URL be whitelisted, but although that would meet my needs in this specific case, it wouldn't address the underlying issue, which is that editors need to cite this site with sufficient regularity that placing a whitelist request each time isn't really a sustainable solution. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 14:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , nonprofit or not, think tanks exist to promote an agenda. The Liberty Fund is a fundamentalist libertarian group, and its publications serve that agenda: if their perspective on a thing is significant then we should be sourcing their perspective from reliable independent secondary sources that establish its significance. Your suggested blog post should not be linked, regardless of the blacklist status of the site, because it's a blog post - at best a primary source and in this case also lacking credible evidence of peer review. And one of the main goals of the spammer who got the site blacklisted, was promotion of Bryan Caplan, so that's about the worst example you could have picked! Guy (help!) 16:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * being nonprofit or not does not matter in cases of spam. ANY organisation of any form has 'an agenda' (some stronger, some weaker).  On some times it are the individual KPIs of an employee that 'force' them to spam (I've run into a website maintainer of a state-run museum who spammed their links because they needed to show sufficient web-traffic to their server).  Non-profit organisation still need money to run, and being seen on the web is a great way of attracting incoming traffic who may, who knows, buy something.  That a paid editing ring is getting involved in this shows that there was an agenda worth promoting, even for a non-profit organisation.
 * The site econlib.org has, as I said, the encyclopedia whitelisted completely. The rest of the material, as has been shown on the spam-whitelist, is almost exclusively replaceable by other online copies, often even copies on our own WikiSource: practically ALL of that material is in the public domain.  It may boil down to just a handful of links to the blog (which anyway is a source of limited use, but I agree that some material there is suitable for primary sourcing).  The link you mention may very well easily be whitelisted, and requests for delistings become easier if one can show a large/regular volume of granted whitelist requests (which we have not).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

This blacklisting has been discussed in a March 2017 ANI thread and a May 2017 MediaWiki thread. I don't see a consensus for keeping this on the blacklist in those threads, in fact is heavily criticized in them. Apparently keeping this on the spam blacklist is JzG's pet project. I find it troubling to say the least that JzG is saying unsupported personal opinions here The Liberty Fund is a fundamentalist libertarian group and that there is a historical ArbCom finding on JzG misusing the spam blacklist. Why is he acting as a gatekeeper here? What is the evidence of this source being spammed? It's because was a paid editor 3 years ago and he used this extensively as a source? Can you quote any part of a policy/guideline which supports keeping this blacklisted? --Pudeo (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's on the blacklist due to paid spamming. The request this time was so that the OP could add "known for..." a theory with no article based on a primary link to the website, which is not appropriate. This is typical. The vast majority of uses were replaceable, wrapping libertarian ideology round public domain sources, and many of the citations were deceptive regardless of who added them (elgl Areopagitica cited as published by The Library of Econmics and Liberty). There's consensus at RSN that we should not use agenda-based sources for public domain content.
 * Here's the original log entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=769671529#Immigration_law_refspam_round_3 - this was Vipul's paid spamming and a lot of it was promoting Bryan Caplan, exactly the subject this time. Guy (help!) 20:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I leave it as an exercise for you to find the very clear and direct connection that proves the COI that this admitted paid editor has. And again, by far most of the useful info is in the public domain and hence available every/elsewhere. Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

technicalcuriosity.com
Added by five different accounts over the last year; this addition will be the last. . OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Procore Technologies
Procore Technologies is a construction project management software company. The company itself is not posting these links and has nothing to do with them. It seems like these links have been posted by a third-party agency. I think the site itself should be removed from the blacklist, but perhaps those IPs should be blocked instead. --Geri.corum (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As you can see on the report links above, this was spammed quite extensively. I have no doubt that Joe jobs happen, but the careful and deliberate nature of the additions makes it much more likely that this was part of an SEO campaign. Whether or not it was an internal or third-party SEO campaign is immaterial here.  I don't see how procore links would qualify as reliable sources for any material on Wikipedia, and as such there's no compelling reason to remove it from the blacklist.  An experiened editor without a COI could request a whitelisting if the need arose for an article about the company. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 16:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

TheNextHint.Com - News Portal
This news site is approved by Google News. I thing we want this type of site for reference links. but now I saw this site is black listed so now I would like you to please remove this site from blacklist because anybody want this type of site for references. Wikialinaparker (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Now you're just forum shopping. Praxidicae (talk) 12:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * , what part of "[t]his was spammed by accounts with a clear conflict of interest" did you not understand? --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think they are getting the hint. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know who's spam this site, But now I want to remove this site from blacklist, could you please suggest me the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikialinaparker (talk • contribs) 07:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know who spammed it either (though generally it are people affiliated with the site, or SEO companies who were hired by those people). We only remove sites if they have a demonstrable use to Wikipedia and we can be reasonably reassured that the spamming stopped.  The former would be up to our users, the latter however is seriously questionable seeing the records on:
 * Which earlier would suggest that there is a lot more to blacklist than that there is no risk of further spamming. Until then: .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am taking responsibility of this site Wikialinaparker (talk) 08:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , and how do you think to do that? Or are you the owner of the site?  If that is the case, may I suggest you thorougly read m:Terms of use.
 * Regarding the de-listing, however you think to take care of the spamming we will de-list when there is demonstrable use, the rest can be handled with specific whitelisting where appropriate. Dirk Beetstra T C 13:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not owner of this site but I want to create a wiki page of this site thats why I want this site Wikialinaparker (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * for that you don't need a delisting, you need a whitelisting on a neutral landing page: Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * for that you don't need a delisting, you need a whitelisting on a neutral landing page: Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Northern Transmissions
Northern Transmissions is a popular Canadian online magazine for independent music. It appears the site may have been hacked sometime in 2012 which lead to it being blacklisted. As it is a relevant music publication, many music related entries reference its' reviews.Henry A-W (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I see you tried to use it on Draft:Northern Transmissions. As long as it is in draft I think it is fine without the working external link, if it is ready/accepted for mainspace then we can always whitelist the specific link (in the meantime I am trying to find the relevant discussions). Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestion. I've created the draft page without the blacklisted url.Henry A-W (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by "hacked" here. The site is hosting service in Los Angeles. Looks like a spam campaign launched from British Telecom IPs, likely as part of an SEO campaign. Then in 2015 an account with a conflict of interest tried several times to create an article, resulting in the article getting salted. Be aware of our conflict-of-interest policies and disclosure requirements. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 16:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * , for specific links on this domain (e.g. an About page). The site itself was spammed and does not look to be a reliable source sufficient to justify removal from the blacklist, unless you have evidence to the contrary in the form of consensus at WP:RSN. --Guy (help!) 08:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Techtowards

 * Link

+ others. Please blacklist. -KH-1 (talk) 05:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Spammers


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * deleted this report in diff. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * deleted this report in diff. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

guestkor
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sefburhan (talk • contribs)
 * Thank you for contacting us (we tried and failed to communicate with you). The links were blacklisted after several warnings to stop were ignored and the links were deemed inappropriate for Wikipedia.  Can you please read through our external links guideline and our reliable sources guideline and inform us why you think that these links pass either of these?  Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Alphabetization
Should the list be alphabetised? Any problem with doing this? - David Gerard (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem like a problem, but and  might have different opinions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's worth doing if it would improve performance, but otherwise probably not. Guy (help!) 12:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The list is currently nearly chronological. I do not see how alphabetizing the list would be of use (but agreed, no problem either).  Whether in alphabetical or random (i.e. chronological) order, you'd probably use the search function from your browser to find the rule.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's worth doing unless it improves matching performance, which I doubt that it would. As Beetstra has noted, it's much easier to use the browser search function than scrolling through the list.  A disadvantage is that adding new entries becomes more tedious.  The /b prefixes add ti the challenge of visually scanning for the proper insertion point. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 14:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, nobody thinks it'll help anything :-) - David Gerard (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

globeelectionshistory.science.blog


Systematic spamming via dynamic IPs for a blog with election polls. Not a reliable source for any encyclopedic purpose. See also COIBot data and this ANI report with more information and additional links. GermanJoe (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --GermanJoe (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

news24ghante.com


I blocked the user for spamming. Asking the URL be added to the list.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. -- Ignored a clear warning, deceptive change of existing references. GermanJoe (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

sarkarinaukrifast.com

 * At least three accounts have tried to add this; . OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * At least three accounts have tried to add this; . OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * At least three accounts have tried to add this; . OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * At least three accounts have tried to add this; . OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * At least three accounts have tried to add this; . OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Sutex.429
Spamming by a small group of sockpuppets. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * please do, cross-wiki problem. I want to see a report on the 'parent' domain (429.kim) as well (COIBot report will be saved soon), see if there is wider abuse.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Don't bother, I already handled this on meta for the parent domain 429.kim. Thanks for reporting this.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

travelogyindia.com


Repeated spamming for a promotional blog by multiple IPs. See: added by 182.69(...), added by 106.215(...), added by 106.215(...) (2nd), added by 112.177(...). All examples added in the last week. The Banner talk 10:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Significantly larger:
 * And a handful of named accounts. Some seen genuine (though maybe misplaced as witnessed by the fact that nothing is still there), and there is quite a cross-wiki part to this.  Waiting for some more reports. Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And a handful of named accounts. Some seen genuine (though maybe misplaced as witnessed by the fact that nothing is still there), and there is quite a cross-wiki part to this.  Waiting for some more reports. Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And a handful of named accounts. Some seen genuine (though maybe misplaced as witnessed by the fact that nothing is still there), and there is quite a cross-wiki part to this.  Waiting for some more reports. Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And a handful of named accounts. Some seen genuine (though maybe misplaced as witnessed by the fact that nothing is still there), and there is quite a cross-wiki part to this.  Waiting for some more reports. Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And a handful of named accounts. Some seen genuine (though maybe misplaced as witnessed by the fact that nothing is still there), and there is quite a cross-wiki part to this.  Waiting for some more reports. Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And a handful of named accounts. Some seen genuine (though maybe misplaced as witnessed by the fact that nothing is still there), and there is quite a cross-wiki part to this.  Waiting for some more reports. Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And a handful of named accounts. Some seen genuine (though maybe misplaced as witnessed by the fact that nothing is still there), and there is quite a cross-wiki part to this.  Waiting for some more reports. Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And a handful of named accounts. Some seen genuine (though maybe misplaced as witnessed by the fact that nothing is still there), and there is quite a cross-wiki part to this.  Waiting for some more reports. Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And a handful of named accounts. Some seen genuine (though maybe misplaced as witnessed by the fact that nothing is still there), and there is quite a cross-wiki part to this.  Waiting for some more reports. Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And a handful of named accounts. Some seen genuine (though maybe misplaced as witnessed by the fact that nothing is still there), and there is quite a cross-wiki part to this.  Waiting for some more reports. Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And a handful of named accounts. Some seen genuine (though maybe misplaced as witnessed by the fact that nothing is still there), and there is quite a cross-wiki part to this.  Waiting for some more reports. Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And a handful of named accounts. Some seen genuine (though maybe misplaced as witnessed by the fact that nothing is still there), and there is quite a cross-wiki part to this.  Waiting for some more reports. Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And a handful of named accounts. Some seen genuine (though maybe misplaced as witnessed by the fact that nothing is still there), and there is quite a cross-wiki part to this.  Waiting for some more reports. Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. All seem just SPA for this link, one per IP. Communication will be futile.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Just adding an addendum: this entity has several other subsites which are now being spammed.
 * I'm going to add these to the blacklist as well. Kuru   (talk)  12:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to add these to the blacklist as well. Kuru   (talk)  12:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to add these to the blacklist as well. Kuru   (talk)  12:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to add these to the blacklist as well. Kuru   (talk)  12:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to add these to the blacklist as well. Kuru   (talk)  12:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

todaylyrics.com
Yet another lyrics spam site, oddly being inserted in non-lyrics locations. Figured we should just head this one off at the pass and block it. (Or, you know, we could just block *lyrics*.com and call it a day) creffett (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * +100000000 support of this idea! Whitelist the handful of good lyrics sites that pay royalties and are allowed on Wikipedia, but the rest - pffft!  Ravensfire  (talk) 03:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Lets first do this one.  I guess for the rest (though I don’t disagree) we need a wider discussion.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

knowledgetrick.com


"Online money generating" website, only warning has been ignored. GermanJoe (talk) 09:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --GermanJoe (talk) 09:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)