The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The previous RFC regarding Archive.is concluded that the site should be added to the blacklist based on statements that links were mass added to Wikipedia by the unapproved bot called RotlinkBot, created by User:Rotlink potentially operating as a malicious botnet that mass-added some Archive.is links to articles. Archive.is is an archiving service similar to sites like Webcite and the Wayback Machine, offering different levels of service up to and including not abandoning snapshots already saved due to modern changes in a sites robots.txt file as Wayback Machine does, while Webcite has presented itself as having an uncertain long term future.
The ultimate outcome of the previous RFC is that archive.is links, whether added by the bot or by individual users, be removed with an additional weak consensus that it be added to the blacklist. Since then the addition of archive.is to the blacklist has caused more issues, preventing editing, and certain users have chosen, even in the face of dissenting users, to impose edits that remove archive.is archives without replacing them, even if this renders the now dead link completely unusable creating LINKROT.
The need for this RFC is to reflect the common talking point at the previous RFC that users, many users who actually used archive.is links were not properly informed about the discussion, and that the actions of a bot, malicious or otherwise, should not have had any impact on the links added by typical Wikipedians. Elements of the previous RFC relied on hypothetical and unproven future threats about Archive.is that should not have had any impact on the inclusion of the links. The original RFC found no issue with the quality of the snapshots provided by Archive.is.
The previous RFC posits that archive.is presents a malware risk based on the actions of RotLink and RotlinkBot, a belief supported by some users but based on a perception of RotLink's mass additions, however no evidence was provided that the site did or currently does contain malware. Protecting users from such malware was part of the reasoning for adding to the blacklist, although any ill-intent on behalf of Archive.is remains unproven. As such, I think it is time that archive.is be removed from the blacklist, while sanctions and restrictions on the use of RotlinkBot and any other bots that attempt to add links in such a way that could be considered spam, remain. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Please find the previous RFC here, as it did not seem that Darkwarriorblake linked to it. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 20:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
May I ask why some users feel this RFC was improperly formed? - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 20:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The previous RFC regarding Archive.is concluded that the site should be added to the blacklist based on statements that links were mass added to Wikipedia by the unapproved bot called RotlinkBot, created by User:Rotlink potentially operating as a malicious botnet that mass-added some Archive.is links to articles. Archive.is is an archiving service similar to sites like Webcite and the Wayback Machine, offering different levels of service up to and including not abandoning snapshots already saved due to modern changes in a sites robots.txt file as Wayback Machine does, while Webcite has presented itself as having an uncertain long term future.
The ultimate outcome of the previous RFC is that archive.is links, whether added by the bot or by individual users, be removed with an additional weak consensus that it be added to the blacklist. Since then the addition of archive.is to the blacklist has caused more issues, preventing editing, and certain users have chosen, even in the face of dissenting users, to impose edits that remove archive.is archives without replacing them, even if this renders the now dead link completely unusable creating LINKROT.
The need for this RFC is to reflect the common talking point at the previous RFC that users, many users who actually used archive.is links were not properly informed about the discussion, and that the actions of a bot, malicious or otherwise, should not have had any impact on the links added by typical Wikipedians. Elements of the previous RFC relied on hypothetical and unproven future threats about Archive.is that should not have had any impact on the inclusion of the links. The original RFC found no issue with the quality of the snapshots provided by Archive.is.
The previous RFC posits that archive.is presents a malware risk based on the actions of RotLink and RotlinkBot, a belief supported by some users but based on a perception of RotLink's mass additions, however no evidence was provided that the site did or currently does contain malware. Protecting users from such malware was part of the reasoning for adding to the blacklist, although any ill-intent on behalf of Archive.is remains unproven. As such, I think it is time that archive.is be removed from the blacklist, while sanctions and restrictions on the use of RotlinkBot and any other bots that attempt to add links in such a way that could be considered spam, remain. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Please find the previous RFC here, as it did not seem that Darkwarriorblake linked to it. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 20:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
May I ask why some users feel this RFC was improperly formed? - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 20:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)