MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October 2023

theprisondirect

 * Link

Please blacklist
 * Spammers

More to come...-KH-1 (talk) Adding two:
 * Other related links:


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNo itsJamie Talk 11:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, @Ohnoitsjamie I hereby declare that I possess no conflict of interest with the Domain, and I acknowledge their commendable proficiency and expertise in the realm of prisons and correctional centers. Their comprehensive and insightful information regarding various aspects of correctional management and prison operations has been widely recognized and respected within the industry. This includes, but is not limited to, their adept management practices, innovative approaches towards inmate reform, and steadfast adherence to regulatory compliances, which collectively contribute towards a well-structured and effective penal system. My interactions and statements pertaining to Stated Domains are unbiased and do not stem from any personal, professional, or financial affiliations that could potentially influence my perspective or judgments concerning them. Omeryousaf1208 (talk) 11:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's great, but it's too late for that and the spam campaign was rather obnoxious and extensive. None of these sites has any valid use on Wikipedia. Please do not ping me again. OhNo itsJamie Talk 11:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's excellent that you blacklisted them, but as you indicated, I don't believe they violated Wikipedia's regulations because they used reliable sources. However, it is up to the moderator's judgment whether to support them or not.
 * External links policy
 * Links to be avoided
 * ”Reliable sources” Guideline
 * ”Verifiability”
 * Self-published sources
 * Questionable sources
 * "Verifiable Reliable Sources"
 * Linking to copyrighted works
 * Nooreomer (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Spamming links like this is a a clear violation of Wikipedia's regulations. For that matter so is showing up on this page with sockpuppet accounts to argue about it. MrOllie (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am a moderator, and I'd judge that you're going to need to promote your sites elsewhere. Also, you're blocked. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

More related domains


More from same spam ring. to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist.OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

andrewprokos
I am the owner of this domain, and yes I have read that the domain owners will likely be denied having their sites removed from the blacklist. Just for context, I am an internationally awarded and published artist, a leading photographer in my genre, and my photography has been exhibited in galleries and museums in the USA, Europe, South America, and Asia.

I was recently contacted by an editor EcclesMan who wanted to cite one of my photography projects on a page he is writing Negative_(photography)...it is good quality and interesting content. He was unable to do so because my site is on the blacklist, so he emailed me directly. I was not aware that my site has been blacklisted but one of your moderators responded to him that my site was banned because the "site owner" had spammed. You can see the conversation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#andrewprokos.com/photos/inverted-uae-series/. MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2023/09

It appears that my site has been blacklisted due to spam back in 2008...15 years ago now. At the time I had hired an SEO optimization service to build up my web presence and I think that that was probably the source of the spam. That was many years ago now and I am still paying for whatever methods they employed apparently.

I created my own account today because I wanted to upload a current portrait of myself. The photo used in the Wiki article about me is ancient and it doesn't reflect what I look like now...but it appears that I am prevented from even doing that as when I submitted the image it told me the domain url with the image was banned! God only knows how many other editors have tried to cite my site over these last 15 years and weren't able to so they just gave up.

I completely understand that the spamming 15 years ago may have merited being added to the blacklist, but that was then and this is now. The quality of the website (and content) should be a main factor in deciding whether it should be removed from the blacklist. The site clearly contains high-quality content and there are no ads running on the site (the site has been ad-free since I started it 21 years ago). What is the likelihood that spamming is going to happen again after 15 years have passed? In fact, I posted this on the global Wiki blacklist talk page and was informed that my site is not blacklisted globally, only on Wikipedia English. If the site has not been spammed on any of the other Wikis for the last 15 years then there is a good chance it will not happen on Wiki EN either. I do think that some sort of rational approach to delisting sites is needed, not just banning a site for life and then forgetting about it. I invite you to visit the site in question for yourself to see the content, publications, awards and exhibitions posted there. I appreciate your time and consideration of the matter from this exasperated site owner!

Andrewprokos (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Who is ? Does that account also belong to you? Its singular purpose is adding promotional material about you, and it was active only a few months ago. - MrOllie (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No it is not owned by me at all...perhaps it is a fan of my work? I am not a super famous artist but I do have some serious devotees that come to exhibitions. I opened an account yesterday as I want to update the image used in my profile and am not able to do it...the image is my own and not available elsewhere. There are also some factual errors on the page, but nothing major. How does this pertain though? Has there been spamming of my site here on Wiki? Thanks for your response, it was a lot faster than I expected. Andrewprokos (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It pertains because the existence of these serious devotees would suggest that spamming would resume. Has there been spamming of my site here on Wiki? Not since it was placed on the blacklist - that is what the blacklist is for. MrOllie (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Mr Ollie, you are assuming that someone who is editing an article is automatically also intent on spamming...that is a bit of a leap. If they wanted to spam they would have found a way to spam in all of the other languages still available to them I think. There has apparently been no spam in any other wiki other than English those 15 years ago. I respectfully propose, time to reconsider the site. It's not of the same ilk as these sites that I see are being proposed above...they seem to be mostly throw away sites created for spamming. If my site is spammed again it can always be banned again, it seems like the editors here are quite on top of that. There's not much else I can really say, but thanks for considering it. I would have asked a trusted editor to propose this but I don't know any. Andrewprokos (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Looking xwiki, the current usage seems to be predominantly EL, and would appear to have stemmed/propogated from usage on articles here at enWP, and the corresponding articles created at the other WPs has essentially, respectively, been translated. [Though noting that these ELs have been removed locally though still exist xwiki, consequence of the SEO hit at the tim.] So it would not appear to be direct xwiki abuse, though one wonders whether the the EL use is appropriate. The identified author does indeed seem to have a particularly interest in the use of the domain and the practitioner at the domain. We can get COIBot to monitor the domain specifically if we have concerns that it is being spammed, and of course we can set parameters on its use through an abuse filter. I cannot get COIBot to run reports on the history of the domain, too long ago when they don't exist today (and they don't). I believe that we can have a balanced approach of monitoring the domain's link additions, and gently speaking with the devoted user about reliable source and external link policies to address potential overuse. — billinghurst  sDrewth  03:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The identified author does indeed seem to have a particularly interest in the use of the domain and the practitioner at the domain.
 * Billinghurst not sure who this refers to...I was contacted via email by EcclesMan regarding a specific type of work that I do which is not very common. I have no prior relationship with this editor/author except via email and he has no interest in me or my site other than as a reference for this topic. He was the one who alerted me to the blacklist to begin with. My website and socials get a surprising about of visits as the content on my site is wide ranging and there are thousands of pages of content...the site is also old, having been started in 2003 and gone through numerous iterations. My work is published in numerous publications...that's how people find me primarily. Again, not a single ad being run on the website...never have and never will run ads. If Wikipedia has a bot to sniff out spammy links automatically then I would think that would be enough to catch future abuse, which is what it sounds like you are saying here. Thanks for your input...
 * Andrewprokos (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment First of all, the "inverted-uae-series" might be a reasonable link to whitelist for Negative_(photography); I personally wouldn't object to it for that particular use, and it looks like the "bio" page from the domain is already whitelisted for Andrew Prokos. I'm not convinced that there's a strong reason to remove the domain from the blacklist, if for no other reason I can't imagine too many other legitimate uses on Wikipedia for links from the site. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It is patently unfair to blacklist a domain for 15 years running that shows no signs of being spammed going back to 2008. The senior editors here must develop a reasonable attitude toward delisting sites, and right now it seems like they are just added and then forgotten about forever. Can I ask, what criteria are in place to remove any site from the blacklist? Does a set of criteria even exist?
 * If there is an automated system to report link spam then what is the need to keep a site perpetually blacklisted in reality? Perhaps a more gradual approach is merited...i.e. probationary period, then back on the blacklist if spam recurs. Andrewprokos (talk) 21:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * COIbot is not exactly 'an automated system to report link spam'. In any case someone has to review the reports and act on them. We typically remove stuff from the blacklist when a trusted high volume editor needs to use it as a source. Many sites that are blacklisted will never be usable as a source (because they do not meet WP:RS). Wikipedia processes are really not motivated by 'fairness' to site owners - they are motivated by the needs of the encyclopedia project. If there is no way to use a site to assist with the encyclopedia project, there is no reason to unblacklist it. MrOllie (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, clearly someone has need and finds it salient to the project or they would not have tried. How many others tried in the last 15 years and just dropped the idea because they were blocked? I couldn't even update my own profile pic. I do understand that you are not here to advocate for any single site or consider the merits of that site, but perhaps better to err on the side of letting users decide what is salient to the articles they are writing. If only the opinion of the senior editors matters though, and for whatever reason the site is seen as never really being useful to the project in any way then so be it. I think it's a bit extreme, but I will let you all come to a conclusion about this. Thank you all for your consideration of my request - A
 * Andrewprokos (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't help but notice that the Larantes account uploaded File:Photographer Andrew Prokos.jpg on Commons, where it says the image is sourced to the Andrew Prokos photography website, and its release as a free image was verified via WP:VRT. They were also asking this exact same thing at User talk:Jevansen. That seems like a lot of coincidences. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The photo in question was the main profile of my web site for years and was the profile picture used for my social media profiles as well. It can still be found in google images and it's still uploaded to my server.
 * I wasn't going to comment further here, but I see that I am now being punished for having asked to be removed from the blacklist by having a nasty warning added at the top of my own Wiki profile stating that someone has most likely paid for the page! That is just ludicrous, and I have no real way of defending myself from that claim do I? After so many years it is downright absurd to tag a page with this, it is intentionally discrediting the page just to be punitive. I have never paid anyone to write or edit anything on Wikipedia ever. I repeat, I have never directly or indirectly paid anyone or any company to write anything about me on Wiki. Can someone please remove this label? Andrewprokos (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have never directly or indirectly paid anyone or any company to write anything about me on Wiki. Didn't you mention something earlier about a SEO service? MrOllie (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I used an SEO service to improve my OWN website's pages so they performed better in search...that most certainly did not include writing anything for wikipedia. I never said that and I never meant that, so please do not make inferences which lead to punitive actions. A service that I used for a few months 15 years ago would not be continuing to make edits on my personal profile all these years. There are numerous citations to outside articles on my profile, so the article is well sourced. Did I hire someone to write articles about me in all these magazines too? What about the national newspapers and the TV interviews? Please remove the label, it looks 10x worse than being on any blacklist as it seems like the article is all 'fake news' now. Andrewprokos (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It is plainly a promotional article and needs fixing - it needs tagging for that reason. I don't buy into the idea that Larantes is some totally unrelated person, their editing history is too consistent with what we see of COI/paid editors. MrOllie (talk) 22:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This article is how many years old now? It was never tagged in all this time, and has not seen any spam either so it makes no sense to do it now if the article hasn't been substantially altered. What is the process for having this label removed? Does the flag eventually get removed on its own after the article is reviewed, sources checked etc? If so, then I am not going to worry about this. What is the process and how long does it usually take?
 * Thanks Andrewprokos (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

It is plainly a promotional article and needs fixing

But who is going to fix it? I can't edit it myself and it cannot sit forever with a warning at the top. That is completely arbitrary and based purely on speculation. It's also highly punitive when the credibility of an article is suddenly trashed like this after apparently having no issues whatsoever for more than a decade....or am I missing something here? I would appreciate an answer from someone (anyone) as to how this gets fixed at Wikipedia? Is there a process, and how long does it take?

Thank you Andrewprokos (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * That an article has had problems for a long time (even a decade) does not mean we can never acknowledge or fix them. Wikipedia has no deadlines, we fix things when volunteers have time to take them up. MrOllie (talk) 14:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If it has had problems for a decade and has not ever been 'cleaned up' thus far then it probably never will be. And this situation of having it sit in limbo with a big red flag on it calling the credibility of the page in question is not acceptable to me. It is my name associated with that article after all, and Wikipedia gets a lot of views. I don't want to fight with editors here, but this is not a tolerable situation. So if someone can address the problems with the page sooner rather than later it would be helpful... Andrewprokos (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The reason we tag it is to put it on the list for cleanup, so editors working from the lists will get to it. With respect, Wikipedia articles are not WP:OWNed by the subject, we're not really concerned with what is acceptable to you. MrOllie (talk) 15:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I did a quick review of the article; I cleaned up the language in a few places, trimmed the external links section. As to further work needed, it's possible that some of the exhibitions aren't particular notable and might not merit inclusion. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 16:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking a look at it so quickly OhNoitsJamie Andrewprokos (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Sprueth Magers Gallery
I am planning on expanding multiple stub articles of internationally established contemporary artists. Sprueth Magers is an internationally renowned contemporary art gallery, their website contains a lot of factual information on many of these artists, such as exhibition dates, press releases and a huge archive of all shows the gallery has ever had. Their website is not locally blacklisted but rather at Meta. There I was told to check with my local wiki. http://spruethmagers.net/, which is used at Sprüth Magers redirects to spruethmagers.com, maybe someone was cybersquatting on the -.com variant at some point, and then the gallery was able to eventually acquire it? Unlisting their website would certainly help make improvements to a lot of artist articles. I would consider it a citable source, if used correctly. Looking forward to hear what you think, thank you.
 * - Meta suggested that you contact the local whitelist for selective whitelisting; we're not going to unblacklist the entire site. OhNo itsJamie Talk 11:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

latestdiscuss.com


Site appears to be combination of content scraping and user-submitted junk stories. A fair number of the edits are to add a link to the site when there's already a perfectly good source. There's also some potential SEO / promotional editing that seems to be happening. The references added by the listed editors all have the same author. Definite effort to promote their stories across multiple accounts now, and nothing about this site suggests it could be a reliable source.  Ravensfire  (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Four strikes, you're out. to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNo itsJamie  Talk 18:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

invasioned.com


Three strikes. to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

National File


National File is an Alex Jones website created to launder content from WP:INFOWARS per the Southern Poverty Law Center: Isi96 (talk) 01:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

orienstarpatches.com
--Wotheina (talk) 07:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Special:Diff/1088970989
 * Special:Diff/1088974548
 * Special:Diff/1088983870
 * Special:Diff/1179243630
 * Special:Diff/1179619951
 * Special:Diff/1179444433, Special:Diff/1179741498, Special:Diff/1180305605
 * Special:Diff/1179444433, Special:Diff/1179741498, Special:Diff/1180305605

oriengis.com
--Wotheina (talk) 07:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Special:Diff/1117057723
 * Special:Diff/1131969023
 * Special:Diff/1116092558, Special:Diff/1179240140
 * Special:Diff/1116092558, Special:Diff/1179240140

Domains of the pattern *hyme.com and others from the same spammer
This concerns persistent spamming which has been going on at least since January 2020, perhaps longer. Most of the spammed URLs have been from domains of the form *hyme.com, so perhaps you may think it suitable to produce a blacklist entry for that pattern. I am also listing here other domains, on the basis that editing histories and IP addresses used make it clear that they are from the same spammer. I don't know whether you will be willing to take action on some or all of those too.

The first examples I know of were from, but after that account was blocked in January 2022 the spamming has continued via numerous IP addresses. The following list may be incomplete:



They have spammed the following clearly closely related domains, which I give with diffs. Again, the list of diffs may be incomplete.
 * Special:Diff/1143171799
 * Special:Diff/1142437318
 * Special:Diff/1139462867
 * Special:Diff/1139462594
 * Special:Diff/1146978239
 * Special:Diff/1142637956
 * Special:Diff/1171283409
 * Special:Diff/1180414377
 * Special:Diff/1067459692
 * Special:Diff/1065842391
 * Special:Diff/1065842391


 * Special:Diff/1077609817
 * Special:Diff/1071931335
 * Special:Diff/1069259231
 * Special:Diff/1167402512
 * Special:Diff/1167666580
 * Special:Diff/1175780375
 * Special:Diff/1180414195
 * Special:Diff/1079506541
 * Special:Diff/1079506541


 * Special:Diff/1175670135
 * Special:Diff/1177924217
 * Special:Diff/1178055836
 * Special:Diff/1178055836


 * Special:Diff/1120479665
 * Special:Diff/1120479665


 * Special:Diff/1093553640
 * Special:Diff/1078552718
 * Special:Diff/1078552718


 * Special:Diff/1087580940
 * Special:Diff/1087580940


 * Special:Diff/1167971881
 * Special:Diff/1167971881

The following have also been posted from the same or closely related IP addresses. As you will see, I have been able to provide only one or two diffs for some of them, but as always the list may not be complete.


 * Special:Diff/1067787700
 * Special:Diff/1067787566
 * Special:Diff/1067787439
 * Special:Diff/1066405997
 * Special:Diff/1066406116
 * Special:Diff/1066617927
 * Special:Diff/1066617927


 * Special:Diff/1144864865
 * Special:Diff/1144942588
 * Special:Diff/1152474732
 * Special:Diff/1157647411
 * Special:Diff/1157647411


 * Special:Diff/1090828256
 * Special:Diff/1051776594
 * Special:Diff/1007917815
 * Special:Diff/1007917815


 * Special:Diff/1166610291
 * Special:Diff/1167323048
 * Special:Diff/1167402648
 * Special:Diff/1170669069
 * Special:Diff/1170669069


 * Special:Diff/1144541250
 * Special:Diff/1144534846
 * Special:Diff/1144534846


 * Special:Diff/1144534226
 * Special:Diff/1144531434
 * Special:Diff/1144531434


 * Special:Diff/1127539229
 * Special:Diff/1127539229


 * Special:Diff/1061361008
 * Special:Diff/1061361008


 * Special:Diff/1179296901
 * Special:Diff/1178531057
 * Special:Diff/1178531057


 * Special:Diff/1176524865
 * Special:Diff/1176057641
 * Special:Diff/1176057641


 * Special:Diff/1160102393
 * Special:Diff/1159921378
 * Special:Diff/1159921378


 * Special:Diff/859328678
 * Special:Diff/859328678

JBW (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I have now been told by another editor that there has been similar spamming at and, but I have not seen it myself and so I can't provide diffs. JBW (talk) 07:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Roofspam


Though epdmcoatings was supposedly blacklisted in 2008, here we are again. to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist.OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

thebestlawyersintheworld.com

 * Special:Diff/1180616667
 * Special:Diff/1166310972
 * Special:Diff/1165650878
 * Special:Diff/1165600092
 * Special:Diff/1165616329
 * Special:Diff/1165289235
 * Special:Diff/1165619955
 * Special:Diff/1165619955

Multiple attempts to insert "thebestlawyersintheworld.com" website into U.S. attorney articles for no apparent reason other than to promote the website. Most recent entries on October 16-17, but entries date back to July 2023. Woodlot (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

harmonycr.com
Gcxp97 has mostly added and repeatedly updated links to harmonycr.com, a lab & safety supplies house. Links are often "dressed up" as a legitimate RS as in the case of Lint, Hairnet, Rubber glove, or Cleaning card. Hijacked such as the case of Biomedical waste or Gas duster. I have removed/repaired eleven links. Having archive issues with CAVE people. Gcxp97 registered March 2016, did ten edits related to TV & film over a month. No edits between then and November 2020. Last edit was 31 March 2023. Editing seems rather sophisticated to be solved with a block. Hence, requesting blacklisting. Gcxp97 will be notified. Adakiko (talk) 08:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * &mdash; &mdash;  &mdash;
 * &mdash; &mdash;
 * &mdash; &mdash;
 * &mdash; &mdash;
 * &mdash; &mdash;  &mdash;
 * &mdash; &mdash;
 * &mdash; &mdash;
 * [not harmonycr.com]
 * &mdash;
 * &mdash;
 * Gcxp97 has not edited since March 2023. Email is enabled. Adakiko (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Search for blocked URLs
I added the ability to search the new domain blacklist at https://searchsbl.toolforge.org/ (and not just the SBL). Feel free to give this a try and report any bugs to me. -- seth (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Awesome tool; even shows the regex triggering for non-specific URLs and includes the new block list. Incredible time saver. Thank you! Sam Kuru (talk)
 * Thanks! In fact, the script is ~15 years old. I just added new domain blacklist at the weekend (and did some code maintenance). :-) -- seth (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ya. Realized that right after I typed that; just my own ignorance that the tool was there. :) Sam Kuru (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

quizplus.com and biologyplus.study




RidAndia was blocked in January, so other accounts are probably block evaders. This has included a few attempts to create a Quizplus article, including the current Draft:Quizplus. Onosco23 first claimed that they weren't paid, before going back and admitting it later. Other socks still claim innocence, though. There is no chance that we would ever use this as a source and a very low chance that a draft would be approved based on the available sourcing. Please put this one out of its (and my) misery and blacklist the URLs. - MrOllie (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't think resorting to blacklisting would have been your best decision for Draft:Quizplus. Truly, there have been attempt to create a page for the subject but it didn't pass the Notability (organizations and companies). Ever since then and now some new resources which serves as sources have been added to the subject under discussion. You mentioned that the page must go through Articles for creation process, which was unopposed. Aside that, i don't see any spamming behavior around the subject.
 * Why then should you solely decide whether the page meets up with the Notability (organizations and companies). Why are you not letting the page pass through the Articles for creation process where it will be determined whether the page stays or it is deleted together with everything in it? I oppose to blacklisting of the URLs of Draft:Quizplus but rather it should go through the Articles for creation process. Onosco23 (talk) 23:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Added to blocked external domains list. There is an obvious SEO campaign underway; the article used blatant SEO/PR promotional sourcing, and there are multiple accounts (one blocked indefinitely) spamming links to both sites. These links are not, in any way, reliable sourcing for articles. Please note that paid advocacy is a really bad idea, and many people view it quite a bit of a step way from simple paid editing. Please be more careful with your client selection in the future, and please act honestly. Sam Kuru (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

oriengis.com
Another domain by the same editor who added orienstarpatches.com --Wotheina (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Special:Diff/1117057723
 * Special:Diff/1131969023
 * Special:Diff/1116092558
 * Special:Diff/1116092558
 * ✅ Added to blocked external domains list. Sam Kuru (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

orienstarpatches.com
This proposal was once rejected, but I re-list it as the spamming is still continuing. The editors are not deterred by numerous blocks, warnings and deletions. Blacklisting would be most effective against any further attempts. --Wotheina (talk) 12:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Special:Diff/1088970989
 * Special:Diff/1088974548
 * Special:Diff/1088983870
 * Special:Diff/1179243630
 * Special:Diff/1179619951
 * 2023-10-10T05:07:53, 2023-10-12T03:44:19, 2023-10-15T20:07:21, 2023-10-29T10:32:19
 * 2023-10-10T05:07:53, 2023-10-12T03:44:19, 2023-10-15T20:07:21, 2023-10-29T10:32:19
 * ✅ Added to blocked external domains list. Sam Kuru (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Frizwoods

 * Link

Please blacklist.-KH-1 (talk) 22:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Spammers
 * ✅ Added to blocked external domains list.Sam Kuru (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

ueducate.pk
Has been spammed by IPv4s over a /16 and also others, and also multiple accounts, for over a year into various articles. DMacks (talk) 08:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Added to blocked external domains list.Sam Kuru (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

bajajfinserv.in
This link should not be blocked as this is completely different website from bajajfinservhealth.in, The actual blocked website is bajajfinservhealth.in I couldn't find any option to adding a site for delisting that's why i have added here. Please correct if this is an error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.36.213.80 (talk • contribs)
 * ❌ This link was heavily spammed by numerous accounts, so that's a big no. 11:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

zameenlocator.com


Socks have been adding this along with WP:COPYVIOs of the site. Judging from their comments that "(i)t is crucial that you reinstate all of my contributions and offer an apology to me", I doubt they will stop on their own. Apparition11 Complaints/ Mistakes 16:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Added to domain block list and blocked the obvious socks and/or meatpuppets. Sam Kuru (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)