Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2021 Archive Jan 12

Publicity farm including londondailypost.com and others

 * probable publicity farm with identical policy pages
 * potentially associated, have carried native advertising alongside oneworldherald.com
 * potentially associated, have carried native advertising alongside oneworldherald.com
 * potentially associated, have carried native advertising alongside oneworldherald.com
 * potentially associated, have carried native advertising alongside oneworldherald.com
 * potentially associated, have carried native advertising alongside oneworldherald.com
 * potentially associated, have carried native advertising alongside oneworldherald.com

Fake news sites. Appears to a publicity farm with manufactured office addresses; see Articles for deletion/Bagio White (3rd nomination) and the collapsed part of Articles for deletion/Coach Meddy. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There are lots more fake news sites that belong to the first category:
 * There's a small collection of spam articles supported by these "sources". MER-C 10:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've got several of these (especially group 1) in my custom rules list for Headbomb's unreliable.js script (which is based on a list by Praxidicae). I basically have two concerns about blacklisting: first, I don't love the precedent of blacklisting pay-for-play sources without discussion at, say, RSN; us blacklisting them for being "fake news" seems like a bit of an overreach for the spam project since the websites themselves aren't the spam. Second, they're great as honeypots - an article with a bunch of sources on this list is almost certainly covert advertising/UPE. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a small collection of spam articles supported by these "sources". MER-C 10:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've got several of these (especially group 1) in my custom rules list for Headbomb's unreliable.js script (which is based on a list by Praxidicae). I basically have two concerns about blacklisting: first, I don't love the precedent of blacklisting pay-for-play sources without discussion at, say, RSN; us blacklisting them for being "fake news" seems like a bit of an overreach for the spam project since the websites themselves aren't the spam. Second, they're great as honeypots - an article with a bunch of sources on this list is almost certainly covert advertising/UPE. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a small collection of spam articles supported by these "sources". MER-C 10:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've got several of these (especially group 1) in my custom rules list for Headbomb's unreliable.js script (which is based on a list by Praxidicae). I basically have two concerns about blacklisting: first, I don't love the precedent of blacklisting pay-for-play sources without discussion at, say, RSN; us blacklisting them for being "fake news" seems like a bit of an overreach for the spam project since the websites themselves aren't the spam. Second, they're great as honeypots - an article with a bunch of sources on this list is almost certainly covert advertising/UPE. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a small collection of spam articles supported by these "sources". MER-C 10:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've got several of these (especially group 1) in my custom rules list for Headbomb's unreliable.js script (which is based on a list by Praxidicae). I basically have two concerns about blacklisting: first, I don't love the precedent of blacklisting pay-for-play sources without discussion at, say, RSN; us blacklisting them for being "fake news" seems like a bit of an overreach for the spam project since the websites themselves aren't the spam. Second, they're great as honeypots - an article with a bunch of sources on this list is almost certainly covert advertising/UPE. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a small collection of spam articles supported by these "sources". MER-C 10:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've got several of these (especially group 1) in my custom rules list for Headbomb's unreliable.js script (which is based on a list by Praxidicae). I basically have two concerns about blacklisting: first, I don't love the precedent of blacklisting pay-for-play sources without discussion at, say, RSN; us blacklisting them for being "fake news" seems like a bit of an overreach for the spam project since the websites themselves aren't the spam. Second, they're great as honeypots - an article with a bunch of sources on this list is almost certainly covert advertising/UPE. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a small collection of spam articles supported by these "sources". MER-C 10:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've got several of these (especially group 1) in my custom rules list for Headbomb's unreliable.js script (which is based on a list by Praxidicae). I basically have two concerns about blacklisting: first, I don't love the precedent of blacklisting pay-for-play sources without discussion at, say, RSN; us blacklisting them for being "fake news" seems like a bit of an overreach for the spam project since the websites themselves aren't the spam. Second, they're great as honeypots - an article with a bunch of sources on this list is almost certainly covert advertising/UPE. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a small collection of spam articles supported by these "sources". MER-C 10:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've got several of these (especially group 1) in my custom rules list for Headbomb's unreliable.js script (which is based on a list by Praxidicae). I basically have two concerns about blacklisting: first, I don't love the precedent of blacklisting pay-for-play sources without discussion at, say, RSN; us blacklisting them for being "fake news" seems like a bit of an overreach for the spam project since the websites themselves aren't the spam. Second, they're great as honeypots - an article with a bunch of sources on this list is almost certainly covert advertising/UPE. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a small collection of spam articles supported by these "sources". MER-C 10:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've got several of these (especially group 1) in my custom rules list for Headbomb's unreliable.js script (which is based on a list by Praxidicae). I basically have two concerns about blacklisting: first, I don't love the precedent of blacklisting pay-for-play sources without discussion at, say, RSN; us blacklisting them for being "fake news" seems like a bit of an overreach for the spam project since the websites themselves aren't the spam. Second, they're great as honeypots - an article with a bunch of sources on this list is almost certainly covert advertising/UPE. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a small collection of spam articles supported by these "sources". MER-C 10:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've got several of these (especially group 1) in my custom rules list for Headbomb's unreliable.js script (which is based on a list by Praxidicae). I basically have two concerns about blacklisting: first, I don't love the precedent of blacklisting pay-for-play sources without discussion at, say, RSN; us blacklisting them for being "fake news" seems like a bit of an overreach for the spam project since the websites themselves aren't the spam. Second, they're great as honeypots - an article with a bunch of sources on this list is almost certainly covert advertising/UPE. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a small collection of spam articles supported by these "sources". MER-C 10:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've got several of these (especially group 1) in my custom rules list for Headbomb's unreliable.js script (which is based on a list by Praxidicae). I basically have two concerns about blacklisting: first, I don't love the precedent of blacklisting pay-for-play sources without discussion at, say, RSN; us blacklisting them for being "fake news" seems like a bit of an overreach for the spam project since the websites themselves aren't the spam. Second, they're great as honeypots - an article with a bunch of sources on this list is almost certainly covert advertising/UPE. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a small collection of spam articles supported by these "sources". MER-C 10:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've got several of these (especially group 1) in my custom rules list for Headbomb's unreliable.js script (which is based on a list by Praxidicae). I basically have two concerns about blacklisting: first, I don't love the precedent of blacklisting pay-for-play sources without discussion at, say, RSN; us blacklisting them for being "fake news" seems like a bit of an overreach for the spam project since the websites themselves aren't the spam. Second, they're great as honeypots - an article with a bunch of sources on this list is almost certainly covert advertising/UPE. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a small collection of spam articles supported by these "sources". MER-C 10:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've got several of these (especially group 1) in my custom rules list for Headbomb's unreliable.js script (which is based on a list by Praxidicae). I basically have two concerns about blacklisting: first, I don't love the precedent of blacklisting pay-for-play sources without discussion at, say, RSN; us blacklisting them for being "fake news" seems like a bit of an overreach for the spam project since the websites themselves aren't the spam. Second, they're great as honeypots - an article with a bunch of sources on this list is almost certainly covert advertising/UPE. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a small collection of spam articles supported by these "sources". MER-C 10:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've got several of these (especially group 1) in my custom rules list for Headbomb's unreliable.js script (which is based on a list by Praxidicae). I basically have two concerns about blacklisting: first, I don't love the precedent of blacklisting pay-for-play sources without discussion at, say, RSN; us blacklisting them for being "fake news" seems like a bit of an overreach for the spam project since the websites themselves aren't the spam. Second, they're great as honeypots - an article with a bunch of sources on this list is almost certainly covert advertising/UPE. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a small collection of spam articles supported by these "sources". MER-C 10:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've got several of these (especially group 1) in my custom rules list for Headbomb's unreliable.js script (which is based on a list by Praxidicae). I basically have two concerns about blacklisting: first, I don't love the precedent of blacklisting pay-for-play sources without discussion at, say, RSN; us blacklisting them for being "fake news" seems like a bit of an overreach for the spam project since the websites themselves aren't the spam. Second, they're great as honeypots - an article with a bunch of sources on this list is almost certainly covert advertising/UPE. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a small collection of spam articles supported by these "sources". MER-C 10:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've got several of these (especially group 1) in my custom rules list for Headbomb's unreliable.js script (which is based on a list by Praxidicae). I basically have two concerns about blacklisting: first, I don't love the precedent of blacklisting pay-for-play sources without discussion at, say, RSN; us blacklisting them for being "fake news" seems like a bit of an overreach for the spam project since the websites themselves aren't the spam. Second, they're great as honeypots - an article with a bunch of sources on this list is almost certainly covert advertising/UPE. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a small collection of spam articles supported by these "sources". MER-C 10:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've got several of these (especially group 1) in my custom rules list for Headbomb's unreliable.js script (which is based on a list by Praxidicae). I basically have two concerns about blacklisting: first, I don't love the precedent of blacklisting pay-for-play sources without discussion at, say, RSN; us blacklisting them for being "fake news" seems like a bit of an overreach for the spam project since the websites themselves aren't the spam. Second, they're great as honeypots - an article with a bunch of sources on this list is almost certainly covert advertising/UPE. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a small collection of spam articles supported by these "sources". MER-C 10:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've got several of these (especially group 1) in my custom rules list for Headbomb's unreliable.js script (which is based on a list by Praxidicae). I basically have two concerns about blacklisting: first, I don't love the precedent of blacklisting pay-for-play sources without discussion at, say, RSN; us blacklisting them for being "fake news" seems like a bit of an overreach for the spam project since the websites themselves aren't the spam. Second, they're great as honeypots - an article with a bunch of sources on this list is almost certainly covert advertising/UPE. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a small collection of spam articles supported by these "sources". MER-C 10:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've got several of these (especially group 1) in my custom rules list for Headbomb's unreliable.js script (which is based on a list by Praxidicae). I basically have two concerns about blacklisting: first, I don't love the precedent of blacklisting pay-for-play sources without discussion at, say, RSN; us blacklisting them for being "fake news" seems like a bit of an overreach for the spam project since the websites themselves aren't the spam. Second, they're great as honeypots - an article with a bunch of sources on this list is almost certainly covert advertising/UPE. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a small collection of spam articles supported by these "sources". MER-C 10:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've got several of these (especially group 1) in my custom rules list for Headbomb's unreliable.js script (which is based on a list by Praxidicae). I basically have two concerns about blacklisting: first, I don't love the precedent of blacklisting pay-for-play sources without discussion at, say, RSN; us blacklisting them for being "fake news" seems like a bit of an overreach for the spam project since the websites themselves aren't the spam. Second, they're great as honeypots - an article with a bunch of sources on this list is almost certainly covert advertising/UPE. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a small collection of spam articles supported by these "sources". MER-C 10:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've got several of these (especially group 1) in my custom rules list for Headbomb's unreliable.js script (which is based on a list by Praxidicae). I basically have two concerns about blacklisting: first, I don't love the precedent of blacklisting pay-for-play sources without discussion at, say, RSN; us blacklisting them for being "fake news" seems like a bit of an overreach for the spam project since the websites themselves aren't the spam. Second, they're great as honeypots - an article with a bunch of sources on this list is almost certainly covert advertising/UPE. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a small collection of spam articles supported by these "sources". MER-C 10:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've got several of these (especially group 1) in my custom rules list for Headbomb's unreliable.js script (which is based on a list by Praxidicae). I basically have two concerns about blacklisting: first, I don't love the precedent of blacklisting pay-for-play sources without discussion at, say, RSN; us blacklisting them for being "fake news" seems like a bit of an overreach for the spam project since the websites themselves aren't the spam. Second, they're great as honeypots - an article with a bunch of sources on this list is almost certainly covert advertising/UPE. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a small collection of spam articles supported by these "sources". MER-C 10:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've got several of these (especially group 1) in my custom rules list for Headbomb's unreliable.js script (which is based on a list by Praxidicae). I basically have two concerns about blacklisting: first, I don't love the precedent of blacklisting pay-for-play sources without discussion at, say, RSN; us blacklisting them for being "fake news" seems like a bit of an overreach for the spam project since the websites themselves aren't the spam. Second, they're great as honeypots - an article with a bunch of sources on this list is almost certainly covert advertising/UPE. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a small collection of spam articles supported by these "sources". MER-C 10:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've got several of these (especially group 1) in my custom rules list for Headbomb's unreliable.js script (which is based on a list by Praxidicae). I basically have two concerns about blacklisting: first, I don't love the precedent of blacklisting pay-for-play sources without discussion at, say, RSN; us blacklisting them for being "fake news" seems like a bit of an overreach for the spam project since the websites themselves aren't the spam. Second, they're great as honeypots - an article with a bunch of sources on this list is almost certainly covert advertising/UPE. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a small collection of spam articles supported by these "sources". MER-C 10:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've got several of these (especially group 1) in my custom rules list for Headbomb's unreliable.js script (which is based on a list by Praxidicae). I basically have two concerns about blacklisting: first, I don't love the precedent of blacklisting pay-for-play sources without discussion at, say, RSN; us blacklisting them for being "fake news" seems like a bit of an overreach for the spam project since the websites themselves aren't the spam. Second, they're great as honeypots - an article with a bunch of sources on this list is almost certainly covert advertising/UPE. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a small collection of spam articles supported by these "sources". MER-C 10:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've got several of these (especially group 1) in my custom rules list for Headbomb's unreliable.js script (which is based on a list by Praxidicae). I basically have two concerns about blacklisting: first, I don't love the precedent of blacklisting pay-for-play sources without discussion at, say, RSN; us blacklisting them for being "fake news" seems like a bit of an overreach for the spam project since the websites themselves aren't the spam. Second, they're great as honeypots - an article with a bunch of sources on this list is almost certainly covert advertising/UPE. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a small collection of spam articles supported by these "sources". MER-C 10:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've got several of these (especially group 1) in my custom rules list for Headbomb's unreliable.js script (which is based on a list by Praxidicae). I basically have two concerns about blacklisting: first, I don't love the precedent of blacklisting pay-for-play sources without discussion at, say, RSN; us blacklisting them for being "fake news" seems like a bit of an overreach for the spam project since the websites themselves aren't the spam. Second, they're great as honeypots - an article with a bunch of sources on this list is almost certainly covert advertising/UPE. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a small collection of spam articles supported by these "sources". MER-C 10:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've got several of these (especially group 1) in my custom rules list for Headbomb's unreliable.js script (which is based on a list by Praxidicae). I basically have two concerns about blacklisting: first, I don't love the precedent of blacklisting pay-for-play sources without discussion at, say, RSN; us blacklisting them for being "fake news" seems like a bit of an overreach for the spam project since the websites themselves aren't the spam. Second, they're great as honeypots - an article with a bunch of sources on this list is almost certainly covert advertising/UPE. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a small collection of spam articles supported by these "sources". MER-C 10:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've got several of these (especially group 1) in my custom rules list for Headbomb's unreliable.js script (which is based on a list by Praxidicae). I basically have two concerns about blacklisting: first, I don't love the precedent of blacklisting pay-for-play sources without discussion at, say, RSN; us blacklisting them for being "fake news" seems like a bit of an overreach for the spam project since the websites themselves aren't the spam. Second, they're great as honeypots - an article with a bunch of sources on this list is almost certainly covert advertising/UPE. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a small collection of spam articles supported by these "sources". MER-C 10:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've got several of these (especially group 1) in my custom rules list for Headbomb's unreliable.js script (which is based on a list by Praxidicae). I basically have two concerns about blacklisting: first, I don't love the precedent of blacklisting pay-for-play sources without discussion at, say, RSN; us blacklisting them for being "fake news" seems like a bit of an overreach for the spam project since the websites themselves aren't the spam. Second, they're great as honeypots - an article with a bunch of sources on this list is almost certainly covert advertising/UPE. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a small collection of spam articles supported by these "sources". MER-C 10:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've got several of these (especially group 1) in my custom rules list for Headbomb's unreliable.js script (which is based on a list by Praxidicae). I basically have two concerns about blacklisting: first, I don't love the precedent of blacklisting pay-for-play sources without discussion at, say, RSN; us blacklisting them for being "fake news" seems like a bit of an overreach for the spam project since the websites themselves aren't the spam. Second, they're great as honeypots - an article with a bunch of sources on this list is almost certainly covert advertising/UPE. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a small collection of spam articles supported by these "sources". MER-C 10:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've got several of these (especially group 1) in my custom rules list for Headbomb's unreliable.js script (which is based on a list by Praxidicae). I basically have two concerns about blacklisting: first, I don't love the precedent of blacklisting pay-for-play sources without discussion at, say, RSN; us blacklisting them for being "fake news" seems like a bit of an overreach for the spam project since the websites themselves aren't the spam. Second, they're great as honeypots - an article with a bunch of sources on this list is almost certainly covert advertising/UPE. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a small collection of spam articles supported by these "sources". MER-C 10:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've got several of these (especially group 1) in my custom rules list for Headbomb's unreliable.js script (which is based on a list by Praxidicae). I basically have two concerns about blacklisting: first, I don't love the precedent of blacklisting pay-for-play sources without discussion at, say, RSN; us blacklisting them for being "fake news" seems like a bit of an overreach for the spam project since the websites themselves aren't the spam. Second, they're great as honeypots - an article with a bunch of sources on this list is almost certainly covert advertising/UPE. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've got several of these (especially group 1) in my custom rules list for Headbomb's unreliable.js script (which is based on a list by Praxidicae). I basically have two concerns about blacklisting: first, I don't love the precedent of blacklisting pay-for-play sources without discussion at, say, RSN; us blacklisting them for being "fake news" seems like a bit of an overreach for the spam project since the websites themselves aren't the spam. Second, they're great as honeypots - an article with a bunch of sources on this list is almost certainly covert advertising/UPE. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Abuse of these fake news websites has metastasized cross-wiki, particularly to Wikidata. MER-C 12:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

onesthealth.com
—  Newslinger  talk   02:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Università Popolare degli Studi di Milano
Content of the page has violate the copyright Università popolare degli studi di Milano is a registered trademark The person that has blocked the page of this trademark has nothing to do with the university and is just trying to commit a vandalism act by locking the same university administrators out of their own page.Shame

Nekaway Fray (talk) 07:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Blocked Contents of the page Università Popolare degli Studi di Milano, are violating the copyright of this trademark. Università popolare degli studi di Milano is a registered trademark to the Ministero dello sviluppo economico in Italy and is protected. The person that has blocked the page of this trademark has nothing to do with the university and is just trying to commit a vandalism act by locking the same university administrators out of their own page. Shame

Nekaway Fray (talk) 07:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This page is for reporting spam. The protection of the Università Popolare degli Studi di Milano article was done in response to a content dispute, and is not a spam concern. If you would like to propose changes to that article, please discuss on the article's talk page at Talk:Università Popolare degli Studi di Milano. —  Newslinger  talk   08:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Jihad Watch


Refreshing COIBot report for Jihad Watch, for use in. —  Newslinger  talk   02:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

bestoftci.com
—  Newslinger  talk   02:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

dr199.com
—  Newslinger  talk   03:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Cross wiki issue, if need for blacklisting send to meta. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

drigz.co
—  Newslinger  talk   03:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

devtechnosys.com

 * Domain
 * Users
 * Users

Multiple IPs and users (two of them listed that I know of) spamming articles with this domain. —Bruce1eetalk 12:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. First warnings from Feb. 2020, nothing heeded. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Jschwitzke (GreatPoint Ventures)
Hello. The majority of Jschwitzke's contributions relate to the company GreatPoint Ventures, yet they have ignored two requests to clarify if they have a COI. Could an admin please look into this? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 08:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

dteklivebeeremoval.com
—  Newslinger  talk   12:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

onlinecasinossweden.com

 * Domains
 * Users
 * Users

Multiple IPs spamming Casino with this domain. —Bruce1eetalk 10:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * PC1 applied. MER-C 16:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)== carpetcleaningservices.com.au & cleaningtoday.com.au & carpetcleaningballarat.com ==


 * Domains
 * Users
 * Users
 * Users
 * Users

Multiple IPs spamming carpet cleaning with three domains that appear to be related. —Bruce1eetalk 21:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Page semi-protected indefinitely as well. MER-C 16:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Lets see what else hosted on these servers was spammed here.
 * --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

sattamatka24.in & sattamatka.fit

 * Domains
 * Users
 * Users
 * Users

Multiple users and IPs spamming gambling articles with these domains. —Bruce1eetalk 09:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Thanks for reporting this. —  Newslinger  talk   03:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Olorama


Please can someone check the neutrality of mentions of Raúl Porcar's Olorama product? (That wikilink is a 2015 version, but most additions are recent.) Thanks, Certes (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ as a promotion-only account. Their edits have been reverted as spam. Thanks for reporting this. —  Newslinger   talk   03:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

shedgame.com
—  Newslinger  talk   08:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)