Each section has a message box with instructions. In addition, pleasesign your posts with ~~~~ after your comment.
Completed requests arearchived. Additions and removals arelogged, 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. SeeUser:COIBot for more information on the reports.
Instructions for admins
Any admin unfamiliar with this page should probablyread this first, thanks. If in doubt, please leave a request and a spam-knowledgeable admin will follow-up.
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 aWikiProject Spam report? If so, a permanent link would be helpful.
Please ensureall links have been removed from articles and discussion pagesbefore blacklisting. (They do not have to be removed from user or user talk pages.)
Make the entry at the bottom of the list (before the last line).Please do not do this unless you are familiar withregular expressions — the disruption that can be caused is substantial.
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.
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 – 1338449009after you have closed the request. Seehere for more info on logging.
{{Link summary|example.com}}-- do not use "subst:" with this template
Do not include the "http[s]://www." portion of aURL inside this template, nor anything behind the domain name. Including this template will give tools to investigate the domain, and will result in COIBot refreshing the link-report. ('COIBot')
{{BLRequestRegex}} - to suggest more complexregex filters beyond basic domain URLs
{{BLRequestLink}} - to suggest specific links to be blacklisted
Please provide diffs ( e.g.[[Special:Diff/99999999]] ) to show that there has been spamming! Completed requests should be marked with{{done}},{{not done}}, or another appropriateindicator, and thenarchived.
One for the on-going series of menu spam campaigns. These (in the pattern restaurantname.res-menu.com) were added over 2024 and 2025, as references, to the external links and in one case as the official site. All of the accounts will be stale for CU purposes, I imagine, and I've reverted the edits in question. •a frantic turtle 🐢19:52, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I've blocked all the accounts. None have edited recently enough for checkuser to be useful.@Beetstra andOhnoitsjamie: what are your thoughts on blacklisting "-menu.com" locally or even globally? I can't see any use for these domains but I don't have any experience with regex beyond single domains.HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?22:53, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
From my experience researching this once I stumbled on this latest batch, I believe there’s an argument to be made for both "-menu.com"and "-menus.com", but that’s up to you experts of course! Either way, I’d add a caveat: "pie-menu.com", which is legit and is a real source onPie menu, should be whitelisted at the same time. •a frantic turtle 🐢00:39, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are trying to create a list of urls matching that regex? I was unable to find an obvious way to do that via the UI, but I wouldn't be opposed to a regex blacklisting as long as there wasn't too much collateral. There's a few other sites with "menu" in the domain on the global blacklist, but not always at the end.OhNoitsJamieTalk14:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, Usama is on a completely different range to Bella (one is on IPv4, one on IPv6). Usama's range is very busy and overlaps with the hempire group on WT:WPSPAM, several accounts spamming Dubai-based domains, and trips.pk (globally blacklisted). I'm not sure it's useful or possible to work out whether these are one group or several but we also have:
Aeroroutes is a one man blog about airline routes, planes and announcements. The site doesn't display sources for anything and it used to be frequently used as a reference despite failingWP:SPS. There was recently a reliable sources discussion on this atWP:AEROROUTES where it was determined that this source was completely unreliable for use on Wikipedia and violated policies. However there are still many users and a lot of IPs that keep trying to use the source. Some editors disagree with the decision on Aeroroutes and persist on edit warring to continue including it such as inthis edit. The editors who disagree, or just continue using it anyway regardless of being informed of the decision, are clearly not going to stop using it. Rather than take direct administrative action against such editors and have many editors fight a whack-a-mole approach to the thousands of airline and airport articles, it would be easier to enforce the consensus and policy by just blacklisting the domain. I'd rather not lose otherwise productive editors to such a minor thing as deliberately disregarding the outcomes on a single domain reference. It there's ever an actual proper challenge against the policy and consensus outcome, it can be easily removed from the blacklist, but until such time I think it's best to help everyone help themselves as simply deciding it's unreliable isn't enough and the site provides no value other more reliable sources don't already provide so it has no value as an external link.Canterbury Tailtalk14:17, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Canterbury Tail there's quite a big jump from a finding of unreliability to blacklisting. We don't even blacklist theDaily Mail for example. I think blacklisting would need a wider discussion. Aside from that, it's still used in a lot of places; those links would need to be removed, preferably before blacklisting—blacklisting doesn't just prevent new additions, it prevents any edits being saved if a blacklisted domain is present on the page.HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?15:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We have had sporadic attempts by anonymous editors to add this garbage domain to our chess articles, most recently bySpecial:Contributions/~2026-63620-7. A quick examination of the site will show that it is self-published, and that the quality of the content is extremely poor, ungrammatical and error-ridden, and likely generated at least in part by AI. Furthermore it appears to be an ad for a phone app. See alsothis discussion.MaxBrowne2 (talk)23:50, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I posted a concern about these sites onWikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Potential deceptive news websites, and three editors agreed. (I'm omitting the warsawpoint.com website that I also listed there, because as another editor pointed out, the evidence is less strong for that one.) I don't see evidence of systematic campaigns to introduce these links into Wikipedia, but I'd like to nominate them for the blacklist because they are easy to mistake for legitimate news sources, which underminesWP:V in a dangerous way.Dreamyshade (talk)06:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Global blacklist is only for widespread, unmanageable spam, which these links are not. Are they malicious? As such they'd fall under exceptions.A09|(talk)00:25, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Found more blackmail websites documented byIntelligence Online - seePart 1,Part 2,Part 3 [Wikipedia Library links]. In particular, antikor.com.ua may be a good candidate for the global blacklist - it's already on the local spam blacklists for the Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedias, but cited in at least 60 English Wikipedia articles.
@WhatamIdoing I've seen the VPT thread. The links would all have to be removedbefore blacklisting if blacklisting is the way we're going. Once the domain is blacklisted, nobody will be able to edit any page it appears on (tens of thousands of articles!) except to remove the link. Also, if the malware concerns are as serious as we think they are, we might want to think about deprecating and blacklisting globally.HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?22:27, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is (or at leastwas a decade and a half ago) a bugger when you ran into a page with a blacklisted link still in it and couldn’t get out of the edit screen until you had removed the forbidden link, as the interface didn’t tell you what the bad link was. I assume it does now? Even if it does, it’s a lot to ask of newbies.
A lesser problem was — forgive thebeans I’m sowing — an LTA back then who would find pages with a bad link in them, vandalise them in lots of places in the text, then remove the link. Undo/rollback didn’t work and unpicking the vandalism took ages — during which time they’d done the same on half a dozen other pages.
I remember that pain. It's gotten a lot better. But still, blacklisting now will force some editors to find and fix the problem, and even if they agree with the importance, they may not appreciate the unexpected interruption during the saving process.
I wonder if the Editing team could build us a "SpamCheck" to warn editors (in the visual editor) that the page they're editing has a bad link on it, ideally at the start of the editing session instead of at the end.WhatamIdoing (talk)00:53, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Use this section to request that a URL beunlisted. Please add new entries to thebottom of this section.
Requests from site owners or anyone with aconflict of interest will be declined. Otherwise, follow these steps to post a properly-formatted request:
Familiarize yourself with the reasons why a site was blacklisted. Look atMediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/log to see who blacklisted the link and when, and the reason given for blacklisting.
At the beginning of your request, include the domain in a{{link summary}} template (remove the http:// and www from thedomain). This provides tools to find more information on the domain. For example,*{{Link summary|example.com}} results in:
When previewing your post with an included{{link summary}}, you will find links to a COIBot-report ('COIBot'), linksearches on en ('Linksearchen'), and tracked discussions ('tracked' and 'advanced'). If the log did not provide sufficient information on why a link was blacklisted, these links often yield more information.
Explain how the link can be useful on Wikipedia. Referencing a discussion atWP:RSN can be helpful.
Explain your reasoning why the blacklisting is not necessary anymore.
The bar for blacklisting is whether a site was spammed to Wikipedia, or otherwise abused,not whether the content of the site is 'spammy' or unreliable. Please indicate why you expect that that abuse has stopped.
Providing this information often helps in a faster handling of the request.
Once you have added your request, please check back here from time to time to get the outcome or to answer any additional questions. We will not email you or otherwise notify you about your request, and if no answer is received to a question, the request will be considered abandoned.
Administrators: Completed requests should be marked with{{done}},{{not done}}, or another appropriateindicator, thenarchived.
Request for removal of thepointsguy.com from blacklist
"TPG" was added to the blacklist seven years ago. Apparently there was a (minor?) issue with spamming, potentially by undisclosed paid editors, but the actual requests limited themselves to TPG's content (1,2). It was not removed from the list in 2019 despite two requests to do so (1 and2). I don't think there's any evidence to indicate that spamming would reemerge in 2025, andover at RSN a TPG website rep has said that they both have no knowledge of undisclosed previous paid editing and had no intention of doing so in the future. Still, if new spamming is a concern, it would be trivial to set up an edit filter to monitor it.
Note that the website's current articles are likely unreliable per a larger RSN concern with TPG's owner (seeWP:REDVENTURES). But non-advertorial articles published before TPG's acquisition could be reliable in some contexts, per a2019 RSN discussion, and in any case the spam blacklist is not for content concerns ("The bar for blacklisting is whether a site was spammed to Wikipedia, or otherwise abused,not whether the content of the site is 'spammy' or unreliable. Please indicate why you expect that that abuse has stopped." (Emphasis in original.)
That second request (a whitelisting request from 2019) was submitted by me,so I am noting for the record that I no longer support the whitelisting request and that I oppose removing The Points Guy (TPG) from the spam blacklist for the reasons I mentioned in the noticeboard discussion. Compared to 2018–2019, TPG still primarily publishes credit card advertorials, but is additionally now owned and operated by the LLM-generated content publisherRed Ventures. Historically, websites are not removed from the spam blacklist unless the spam is unlikely to continue and the website is likely to be be used in an appropriate way on Wikipedia, outside of the article about the website itself. (Whether a website is "spammy" or unreliable is not the main criterion used for adding the website to the spam blacklist, but this is still considered for whether the website is removed from the spam blacklist or added to the spam whitelist.) Any news articles published by TPG prior to its acquisition by Red Ventures can still be considered for whitelisting if there is consensus that it is reliable and appropriately used, which would mean that the article cannot be related to credit cards or any other topic for which TPG has anapparent conflict of interest. — Newslingertalk12:31, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The ed17, I just spent an hour reviewing my edits from the week TPG was added to the spam blacklist (December 2018), all the way back to my very first edit in April 2018, and I was not able to find additional edits related to the spam blacklist request. Because of this, and given that TPG appears to have switched from undisclosed to disclosed paid editing, I am withdrawing my opposition to the removal of TPG from the spam blacklist. If the site does get removed from the blacklist, I believe the best path forward would be a request for comment onWP:RSN to update the consensus on TPG's reliability to account for its ownership by Red Ventures. Thanks for your diligence here. — Newslingertalk20:41, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I am trying to edit the pageiPod_Classic and a very common thing people do to iPods is they remove the spinning hard drive and replace it with a board that allows the iPod to read SD cards (or some other media). I have done a complete wiki search across all namespaces and this url doesn't come up at all so I have very good reason to believe that wikipedia has not been spammed with this url. I believe this link to be useful to the project to cite as a source when mentioning the LBA28 addressing limitation of some of these iPods AND also for mentioning the maximum track limit that these iPods have. This being an ecommerce store it is prohibited for external links, but I intend to use it as an inline citation.Jake01756(talk)(contribs)10:11, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I attempted to add a link to https://www.digifind-it.com/linden/data/yearbooks/1964.pdf and received a blacklist message indicating that the domainit.com was blacklisted. That doesn't seem to be the domain here and digifind-it.com is used in about a dozen existing articles. Is this a problem with the domain itself or how the rule is being interpreted?Alansohn (talk)00:44, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed toBojhai (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·blacklist hits ·Edit filter search ·what links to user page ·count ·COIBot ·Spamcheck ·blacklist hits ·user page logs ·x-wiki ·status ·Google ·StopForumSpam) which gives us:
Added tuition.pk toWP:BED, along with:
Defer toWhitelist for the domain. --Dirk BeetstraTC05:48, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]