Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 167: Line 167:
==Link spams in [[Housing in Hong Kong]]==
==Link spams in [[Housing in Hong Kong]]==
*{{Link summary|homewise.hk}}
*{{Link summary|homewise.hk}}
*{{Link summary|truehome.hk}}
*{{Link summary|spacious.hk}}
*{{Link summary|spacious.hk}}
*{{IPSummary|121.202.250.48}}
*{{IPSummary|121.202.250.48}}

Revision as of 07:44, 14 February 2019

"Wikipedia:Spam-blacklist" redirects here. Not to be confused with Wikipedia:Spam blacklist or Wikipedia:Spam-blacklisting.
    Spam blacklists
    Shortcuts

    Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist is meant to be used by the spam blacklist extension. Unlike the meta spam blacklist, this blacklist affects pages on the English Wikipedia only. Any administrator may edit the spam blacklist. See Wikipedia:Spam blacklist for more information about the spam blacklist.

    Instructions for editors

    There are 4 sections for posting comments below. Please make comments in the appropriate section. These links take you to the appropriate section:

    1. Proposed additions
    2. Proposed removals
    3. Troubleshooting and problems
    4. Discussion

    Each section has a message box with instructions. In addition, please sign your posts with ~~~~ after your comment.

    Completed requests are archived. Additions and removals are logged, reasons for blacklisting can be found there.

    Addition of the templates {{Link summary}} (for domains), {{IP summary}} (for IP editors) and {{User summary}} (for users with account) results in the COIBot reports to be refreshed. See User:COIBot for more information on the reports.

    Instructions for admins
    Any admin unfamiliar with this page should probably read this first, thanks.
    If in doubt, please leave a request and a spam-knowledgeable admin will follow-up.

    Please consider using Special:BlockedExternalDomains instead, powered by the AbuseFilter extension. This is faster and more easily searchable, though only supports whole domains and not whitelisting.

    1. Does the site have any validity to the project?
    2. Have links been placed after warnings/blocks? Have other methods of control been exhausted? Would referring this to our anti-spam bot, XLinkBot be a more appropriate step? Is there a WikiProject Spam report? If so, a permanent link would be helpful.
    3. Please ensure all links have been removed from articles and discussion pages before blacklisting. (They do not have to be removed from user or user talk pages.)
    4. Make the entry at the bottom of the list (before the last line). Please do not do this unless you are familiar with regular expressions — the disruption that can be caused is substantial.
    5. Close the request entry on here using either {{done}} or {{not done}} as appropriate. The request should be left open for a week maybe as there will often be further related sites or an appeal in that time.
    6. Log the entry. Warning: if you do not log any entry you make on the blacklist, it may well be removed if someone appeals and no valid reasons can be found. To log the entry, you will need this number – 883256481 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.


    Proposed additions

    cn.qihua.host

    cn.qihua.host: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

     Done Handled on meta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    antrukandamugam.wordpress.com

    antrukandamugam.wordpress.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

    bestdiabeticmealplans.com

    Advertisement for diabetic meal product(s), not a reliable source, not useful for the encyclopedia as external link either. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @ToBeFree: plus Added to SBL. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    earnmoneyonline-2019.blogspot.com

    Spammed to multiple articles by multiple IPs. -LiberatorG (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @LiberatorG: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    ebolaoutbreakmap.com

    Noticed at ANI, this looks like a permanent blacklist will achieve more than regular blocks. I see no good reason why this fringe website would be used as a reference. -- Luk talk 12:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Luk: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    *bng.com

    Per their user page, they run all of these. Working on removing links now. Ravensfire (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ravensfire: Anything against blacklisting bng\.com/b (that is, everything ending in bng.com, also those that are not above?). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: I don't, but I didn't search for any collateral from a broad entry. Ravensfire (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    informationcradle.com

    This site uses scraped content from other sites. Links to this site would violate WP:ELNEVER, which prohibits links to copyright-infringing material. There is a discussion of this source at WP:RSN § informationcradle.com. — Newslinger talk 11:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    As mentioned in the linked discussion, InformationCradle.com also copies or closely paraphrases Wikipedia content (without attribution), making it a circular source. — Newslinger talk 13:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    allbloggersden.com

    Dead link spam for a product review blog. Continued after "only warning" - no encyclopedic usage. GermanJoe (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @GermanJoe: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    rkmissionbaranagar.org

    Link sets off malicious website warnings. As discussed at User Talk:Gab4gab. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 15:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Please read Gab4Gab's talk page and respond to the help request there as well when actioning this report. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 15:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @RhinosF1: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    modernmogul.co.uk, southernbusinessreview.com, londonexaminer.co.uk, cloutbeat.com

    This site contains numerous copyright violations. Links to this site would violate WP:ELNEVER, which prohibits links to copyright-infringing material. There is a discussion of this source at WP:RSN § Modern Mogul. — Newslinger talk 03:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Newslinger: The report on RSN mentions more sites, let us have a look at the person who is adding this:
    --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    You're right. Thejoshblackwell's external links also include these domains:

    All of these domains contain scraped content from other sources. There are numerous errors on multiple pages, which strongly suggest that the sites were created hastily and that the content was generated automatically. Examples:

    • Errors on southernbusinessreview.com:
      1. http://southernbusinessreview.com/ex-trump-lawyer-michael-cohens-testimony-postponed-before-house-intelligence-committee/
      2. http://southernbusinessreview.com/disney-will-take-a-150-million-hit-to-stream-captain-marvel/
      3. http://southernbusinessreview.com/stifel-adds-nearly-60-advisers-with-plans-for-more-as-it-eyes-3-3-billion-in-revenue/
    The rest is from Reuters, and I doubt the site is properly licensed.

    ​— Newslinger talk 15:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Newslinger: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 21:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    youcontrol.com.ua

    WP:REFSPAMming. Guy (Help!) 21:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist per [5]. --Guy (Help!) 21:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    mumbaikarboy.com

    All recent edits spamming this site, broad range of IP addresses and no redeeming qualities. Ravensfire (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ravensfire: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    poecurrency.shop

    RMT site for in-game currency of the game Path of Exile. They have no encyclopaedic value as a citation and these site are against Term of use of the game. Matthew hk (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Matthew hk: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    wikifamous.com

    wikifamous.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

    A small nest of socks - cf Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Williams taylor - adding links to this site via citations, which, as the name suggests, is not a reliable source. Likely to be more socks as times passes. No legitimate reasons I can think of to link to this commercial site. ◦ Trey Maturin 19:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 22:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    mercola.com

    mercola.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

    This website promotes pseudoscientific and fringe theories about medicine and methods to encourage alternative medicine and cannot be used as a reliable source (see Joseph Mercola for more information about this pseudocientific). In addition, it includes drug advertising. I request its addition to the blacklist. --Agusbou2015 (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    It's definitely not a reliable source, but that is generally not a reason for blacklisting. And if websites were blacklisted for including drug advertising, we'd probably have almost nothing left. Although there have been occassional attempts to use mercola.com as a reference, I'm not aware of any concerted effort at spamming; and in article space it is currently only used at Joseph Mercola. So I don't think there is really any problem that needs to be solved by blacklisting. -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Blacklisting it would save me a lot of time - I have removed thousands of links to this site. Guy (Help!) 00:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mercola.com is pure shit. There's nothing worth citing to that source whatsover, save for WP:ABOUTSELF stuff. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There's an endless supply of websites that are pure shit, but we don't need to worry about them unless they are spammed here. If mercola.com has been added thousands of times recently, then clearly my statement above about no problem needing to be solved is wrong. I used to see it appear on occasion, but can't recall seeing it any time recently.-- Ed (Edgar181) 00:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mercola.com is on XLinkBot's revert list. Does that not control the problem? -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    To me a reason for blacklisting on basis of reliability seems a bit thin, there is not much community discussion at WP:RSN (4 discussions, last two not about the site in general). So either ee agree on that here, or in an extensive discussion on RSN. Another option is to establish significant abuse.

    Re:'XLinkBot' .. it has been on there for over a year now, and here we have an independent report. It seems to be a problem, still. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Links spam in the article by separate users, seem competitive website but never heard (not the major real estate agent of HK, even they are , not appropriate as ext link). Not sure why 1997kB restored it also. Matthew hk (talk) 07:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Despite it did have an article about Spacious, but not sure why the external link was spammed to Gherveh Spacious Mosque in the past. Matthew hk (talk) 07:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals


    wizcase

    Studies on our site published by spammers in places that were not supposed to be published or not in the way we would like it published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.26.149.207 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @37.26.149.207: no Declined, de-listing requests by site owners are generally not honoured. Wikipedia is not here to protect your site, and the blacklist only exists to protect Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Totally agree, this is not something we initiated or asked. Spammers/competitors seem to have done this to hurt our reputation here. We would be happy if you can take us out of the list. We will follow Wikipedia on a weekly basis to avoid such problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.26.149.207 (talk) 13:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @37.26.149.207: '.. this is not something we initiated or asked. Spammers/competitors seem to have done this ..' - that suggests that you had no control over this action happening, and that you have no way of stopping unwanted additions to Wikipedia. And that means, that we still need to protect Wikipedia. As seen from the reports (use of multiple usernames and IPs) the only way to stop this is to keep it on the blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Beetstra:I would like to please have another chance for my site. This time it was not my fault. And I'll monitor things better from now on.

    @37.26.149.207: no Declined. No credible reason given for removal, spamming is acknowledged, there's no evidence this would be a credible source per our guidelines and we typically do not remove websites at the request of their owners, especially when the request clearly indicates an intent to try to get links on Wikipedia. --Guy (Help!) 13:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @JzG: I received an alert from one of my tools that my website is mentioned on Wikipedia, I was very surprised and happy because it was not something we were doing. I was more surprised to discover that the site is blacklisted on something we didn't do. That's why I'm trying to write here and get second chance.

    I think we understand your perspective. Now please understand ours: there is no reason within our normal procedures to even consider removing this. Guy (Help!) 14:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @JzG:Thanks Guy, what's the solution of Wikipedia in this case?

    No solution is needed, as there is no problem for Wikipedia to address. Guy (Help!) 19:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @JzG: Guy, what can I do?

    Go about your business and forget about it. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @JzG: Guy, I would like to know what can I do to get out this site of the list. This is not done by the team, this was done by competitors or spammers. Is there anything you can do/check to help me?

    Guy already answered you. Go about your business and forget about it. From Wikipedia's perspective, there is no problem to solve. We don't de-list sites at the request of site owners, period. If a trusted, high-volume contributor requests that it be de-listed, we will consider it. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    PV Magazine

    pv-magazine.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

    As far as I can tell this site has been blacklisted since 2011. I have no connection to it and no vested interest. Occasionally I would like to cite their short articles so could they be removed from the list as perhaps they have served enough time there?

    Chidgk1 (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Chidgk1: no Declined,  Defer to Whitelist for specific links on this domain, but note that a lot of the material on this site is regurgitated (aggregated) from the original (basically this is a primary source for most information, it is almost exclusively scraping information from primary sources and rewrites it). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG: This is the first time I have requested a site removed from the blacklist. I looked at the link above but perhaps I am looking in the wrong place: so far I have not been able to find any spamming attempts regarding this site since 2011.
    @Beetstra: Regarding aggregating from the original: for example in the article I was going to cite they quoted "data published by Turkey’s Electricity Transmission Company (TEIAS)" regarding the permits TEIAS had issued but then commented critically on the TEIAS data that "there are relatively few such permits still active going into 2019." which presumably TEIAS did not write if they even issued a press release in English. So although it is true that they have used info from several sources in the article I feel they have done some useful synthesis and analysis.
    I realise you guys are busy doing useful anti-spam work but would removing this site from the blacklist really risk a lot of spamming? I doubt many editors will spend time requesting whitelisting each time they wish to cite this site.Chidgk1 (talk) 11:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chidgk1: You are asking for an article on pv-magazine, and now use a reference from 'finanznachrichten.de'. So there is an alternative to pv-magazine? TEIAS may have that information still on the website, and I am not sure if pv-magazine's analysis 'there are relatively few such permits still active going into 2019' is reliable as most of the other information is scraped. I can only assume that they did the proper research to make that statement.
    Regarding that you did not find any spamming attempts - obvious, it is blacklisted.
    Regarding 'risk of spam' - since it is blacklisted it is relatively difficult to see whether it is still spammed or not, which makes any evaluation on whether it is a risk or not rather difficult.
    What we find is that generally people find other sources to back up their information, instead of whitelisting. De-blacklisting as a reason to avoid having to ask for whitelisting is a way of opening floodgates, and using that reason as a reason for a lack of whitelisting requests is negated by a lack of serious attempted additions on the other hand. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: Don't we have some sort of query tool that shows logged attempts at spamming a particular blacklisted domain? I could swear somebody once mentioned such a thing. If not, it would be a useful thing to have. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anachronist: I am not aware of this tool, but if it exists (or when created) it should be built into our {{LinkSummary}} templates (the reverse, looking at attempts by editor is possible). IIRC, pv-magazine is part of a larger group of sites (check; clear COI-sockpuppet spamming), and we should consider to look for the other sites (if there are) as well in that query. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: 'finanznachrichten.de' copied the article (with attribution) from 'pv-magazine'. Although TEIAS has English pages on its website unfortunately once one drills down through the English menus (for example the drop down "reports") the details are often only in Turkish. Although I could look for the data in Turkish and cite that if I found it I thought readers of English Wikipedia might prefer an English cite. I agree with your point that it is difficult to evaluate whether spamming would recur if the site was removed from the blacklist. So as I see that several others have requested its removal from the list and the editor has changed since 2011 might it be possible to delist it for, say, a few weeks and then review the situation? If spamming recurred it could easily be blacklisted again I presume. I realise this is extra work for you but after all it has been 8 years since the spamming occurred and PV is a very important subject. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chidgk1: that the original text is only available in Turkish is not a reason not to use it as a source .. the point of verifiability is, IMHO, that the statements can be verified to a reliable source (depending on the type of info, preferably secondary but for certain material primary is fine). That a source is then behind a paywall, in Turkish, or only available as a book in a library in Tibet is not necessarily a problem: you can always ask someone who has paid/can translate/lives in Tibet to verify the information - that you cannot check the reference does not necessarily make a statement untrue. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    bmihealthcare.co.uk

    I was surprised to find this blocklisted, as BMI Healthcare is a reputable company that has been in business for many years. I wanted to add it as a citation at Milton Keynes#Hospitals. Looking back at the history, it was blocklisted in July 2015, as part of a sockpuppet investigation. It looks to me like collateral damage. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Promotional links for knee surgery and cancer surgery were systematically spammed by several Orangemoody-related accounts (see COIBot report). I don't see how blacklisting as a perfectly reasonable reaction to verifiable spamming during a massive coordinated campaign could be considered "collateral". The company might be reputable, but apparently the same can't be said about their PR department. But of course required specific source links for valid encyclopedic information can be whitelisted. GermanJoe (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    SEO is not something that is only being done by shaggy people promoting viagra and pornography. Basically, all organisations in the world try to have their search results optimized so they appear in the top of relevant search engines. As GermanJoe states, this was spammed by Orangemoody socks (link to report). Really needed material will be whitelisted ( Defer to Whitelist), but de-listing no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, that (SEO) is certainly true in general. Without doing a lot more work than it deserves, its application to this organization must remain an open question. I accept this ruling. I'm sure I can find a secondary source that shows that it exists, which is all I need really. I won't bother the whitelisters. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @John Maynard Friedman: Don't worry to bother me, I whitelist (or decline ;-) ) using a script which makes the process rather painless. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Troubleshooting and problems

    Logging / COIBot Instructions

    Blacklist logging

    Full instructions for admins


    Quick reference

    For Spam reports or requests originating from this page, use template {{/request|0#section_name}}

    • {{/request|213416274#Section_name}}
    • Insert the oldid 213416274 a hash "#" and the Section_name (Underscoring_spaces_where_applicable):
    • Use within the entry log here.

    For Spam reports or requests originating from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam use template {{WPSPAM|0#section_name}}

    • {{WPSPAM|182725895#Section_name}}
    • Insert the oldid 182725895 a hash "#" and the Section_name (Underscoring_spaces_where_applicable):
    • Use within the entry log here.
    Note: If you do not log your entries, it may be removed if someone appeals the entry and no valid reasons can be found.

    Addition to the COIBot reports

    The lower list in the COIBot reports now have after each link four numbers between brackets (e.g. "www.example.com (0, 0, 0, 0)"):

    1. first number, how many links did this user add (is the same after each link)
    2. second number, how many times did this link get added to wikipedia (for as far as the linkwatcher database goes back)
    3. third number, how many times did this user add this link
    4. fourth number, to how many different wikipedia did this user add this link.

    If the third number or the fourth number are high with respect to the first or the second, then that means that the user has at least a preference for using that link. Be careful with other statistics from these numbers (e.g. good user who adds a lot of links). If there are more statistics that would be useful, please notify me, and I will have a look if I can get the info out of the database and report it. This data is available in real-time on IRC.

    Poking COIBot

    When adding {{LinkSummary}}, {{UserSummary}} and/or {{IPSummary}} templates to WT:WPSPAM, WT:SBL, WT:SWL and User:COIBot/Poke (the latter for privileged editors) COIBot will generate linkreports for the domains, and userreports for users and IPs.


    Discussion

    list of pages containing blacklisted items

    Is there a bot-maintained report of pages that currently contain blacklisted items? Or something similiar? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Headbomb: User:Cyberpower678's bot used to tag those pages with a template. I don't know if that is still being done (it was rather controversial, people don't like 'their' pages being tagged and prefer to hide-and-ignore). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thinking more like a daily report of what's currently blacklisted. If there's a category, that would work too. Maybe Cyberpower678 (talk · contribs) could adapt his bot and produce such a listing if that's no longer done? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Headbomb, Sure. It needs a rewrite anyway. —CYBERPOWER (Be my Valentine) 00:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cyberpower678: you can look at WP:JCW/POP or WP:JCW/CRAP for some inspiration. Like a sortable table, which can be sorted by 'popularity' and by domain, with links to articles (if few hits) or search links (if many hits). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh! Must look. Guy (Help!) 08:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG: see addition 6 (Feb 5, 2019) in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/open.online. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=883256481"