I have purged easily a thousand links to these sites used as references in articles. It's not spam, but it's a mix of abuse and well-intentioned but clueless people setting themselves up for strife. I think that int he interests of protecting the project from a mix of Russian bots and Rany from Boise we should blacklist these domains. Guy (Help!) 19:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@73.244.132.26: Your comment both shows lack of arguments based on policy why we need the site and vestsed interest. Both would be reason to blacklist. With your last comment you lost all credibility. --Dirk BeetstraTC06:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Towards the bottom there are three links in the blacklist: (approximately lines 8852-8854)
\bplus.google.com\/u.*?VZ7mpSdWdU3\b
\bplus.google.com\/u.*?Fk1FtuqrUKJ\b
\bplus.google.com\/u.*?Ec78oiod5jp\b
It appears that every other link in the blacklist places a backslash before the extension - all the surrounding lines have \.com or similar, but these three lines do not. Is it intentional, or an accidental oversight? – numbermaniac03:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruslik0 and Numbermaniac: you are right, though it for 99.9999% will do the same. The unescaped dot stands for any character (includion the dot), which is practically the only character that you will ever encounter there. --Dirk BeetstraTC03:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I would like to reference an interview on this site, and could not find this site on the blacklist, but I did find the domain ".site" listed somewhere. As this blacklist does not seem to refer to this particular site, could the blacklist be removed?
This site is run by a professional musician and is a well-respected resource amongst the classical music community. It is not a formal publication, but is well-maintained and regularly updated.
That's odd, because I do get an error message when I try to publish changes with a link through this website cited: "The following link has triggered a protection filter: .site/2017/10/30/alexandra-harwood-composer/ Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blocked." Lpharris
Could somebody confirm why this site still comes up as blacklisted, despite Ruslik0 confirming it doesn't appear to be on the blacklist? Is it to do with its domain ".site"? Lpharris (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a direct hit: .*\.(ga|cf|ml|gq|online|site)/.*?\d{4,5}[-/]\d{1,2}[-/]\d{1,2}.*. No scope for mitigation apart from removing the .site part of the regex. MER-C09:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vwegba4real. An obviously user-generated, i.e. non-RS, site that is being used for adding spam for a pastor Isaiah Ogedegbe on multiple articles. Ogedegbe's own website, warritimes.wordpress.com (and everything else that includes "warritimes"), is globally blacklisted on WP because of the constant spammimg, but daily socks are doing their best to find ways to outsmart us, and get Ogedegbe and his Warritimes Newspaper (which in spite of its name is a blog with "prophecies", not a news site) mentioned or linked to here (sample edits: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]). - Tom | Thomas.W talk22:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Systematic long-time spamming for a non-notable web developer by multiple socks and single-usage accounts. No possible encyclopedic usage (aside from an unlikely future main article). There is also some activity on sister projects, but probably not enough for a global request? Not sure. The main focus is en-Wiki, but zh-Wiki got a fair amount of such "contributions" recently aswell. GermanJoe (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The idea this site is spam is bizarre. It is a political website, controversial as all political sites are. They have some original content, where such pages are better to reference than sites that repost. They also repost some material, for instance from Reuters or RT, but in those cases one can cite the original. Where an Infowars page is the original and is worthty of inclusion, we need to be able to post that. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.241.191 (talk) 08:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And regarding 'Where an Infowars page is the original and is worthty of inclusion, we need to be able to post that', then you can make a case at the whitelist for that page. As it is so often unreliable and since it has been spammed, blacklisting is more efficient than having to revert most of this. Declined. --Dirk BeetstraTC14:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Could this site be removed from the blacklist? It has very useful lists of military hardware, companies and weapons. Some of which aren't described on any other site. Oranjelo100 (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Oranjelo100: Declined. The site was spammed and consensus in previous discussions is that it is not a reliable source. Content is aggregated from other sources anyway, so in pretty much every case there should be an alternate source for any content. --Guy (Help!) 09:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When was the last discussion? Things could have changed since that time. Some informations about military hardware there aren't available anywhere else. Oranjelo100 (talk) 06:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Oranjelo100:: 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017 and now 2017 (and all except 2013 whereblacklist requests). NO one is requesting whitelisting of specific links that are needed, showing that there is non-replaceable, reliable material (in fact, the 2013 info in the request could not be confirmed). If you can show us, through successful whitelistings (and WP:RSN may be of help regarding reliability), that the material unique and reliable, then de-listing can be re-considered. --Dirk BeetstraTC14:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perennial at RSN (e.g. [7]), unreliable, frequently proposed by well meaning but mistaken editors. I think this should at least go on the revert list. Guy (Help!) 08:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to report secresystems.net. If anyone can figure out how to contact them and get assurances they are working on their problems, they are welcome to. Otherwise, my virus protection was disabled. This happened after I got a message saying it had expired and I should download again, which I ignored.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The tech support person, in trying to do something else, told me to restart my computer. My virus protection was working again. No one was able to explain why. She suspected it was updating, but it seems strange it would just disappear. — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]