Projects talk:Archive everything - Revision history

Tempo123: /* Invidious? */ Reply

2026-04-06T10:18:44Z

Invidious?: Reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:18, 6 April 2026
Line 108:		Line 108:
	:Invidious is only an alt frontend for YT, I don't see how it would help here? It doesn't circumvent age-restricted vids, and we already have preservetube as a perfect YT archiver. [[User:Tempo123\|Tempo123]] ([[User talk:Tempo123\|talk]]) 00:31, 6 April 2026 (UTC)		:Invidious is only an alt frontend for YT, I don't see how it would help here? It doesn't circumvent age-restricted vids, and we already have preservetube as a perfect YT archiver. [[User:Tempo123\|Tempo123]] ([[User talk:Tempo123\|talk]]) 00:31, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
	::so is Nitter and Redlib and they're also not treated as archives. I was talking abt Invidious' inclusion in [[Projects:Archive everything#Alternative frontends & mirrors\|Alternative frontends & mirrors]] btw [[User:SinexTitan\|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan\|talk]]) 08:42, 6 April 2026 (UTC)		::so is Nitter and Redlib and they're also not treated as archives. I was talking abt Invidious' inclusion in [[Projects:Archive everything#Alternative frontends & mirrors\|Alternative frontends & mirrors]] btw [[User:SinexTitan\|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan\|talk]]) 08:42, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
			:::Nitter is there because it allows for comments to be seen without sign-in so it's superior to x dot com, Redlib is there to go around 18+ gated content on old dot reddit that archive services can't get past. The three available Invidious instances that are up all have anti-bot measures that block archival services, and even if that weren't the case, the fact remains that PreserveTube can archive videos perfectly and YT archived pages leave the topmost comments visible, so there isn't really a need for a YT frontend for archival purposes in the first place (atm, anyway). [[User:Tempo123\|Tempo123]] ([[User talk:Tempo123\|talk]]) 10:18, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

SinexTitan: /* Invidious? */ Reply

2026-04-06T08:42:15Z

Invidious?: Reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:42, 6 April 2026
Line 107:		Line 107:

	:Invidious is only an alt frontend for YT, I don't see how it would help here? It doesn't circumvent age-restricted vids, and we already have preservetube as a perfect YT archiver. [[User:Tempo123\|Tempo123]] ([[User talk:Tempo123\|talk]]) 00:31, 6 April 2026 (UTC)		:Invidious is only an alt frontend for YT, I don't see how it would help here? It doesn't circumvent age-restricted vids, and we already have preservetube as a perfect YT archiver. [[User:Tempo123\|Tempo123]] ([[User talk:Tempo123\|talk]]) 00:31, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
			::so is Nitter and Redlib and they're also not treated as archives. I was talking abt Invidious' inclusion in [[Projects:Archive everything#Alternative frontends & mirrors\|Alternative frontends & mirrors]] btw [[User:SinexTitan\|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan\|talk]]) 08:42, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Tempo123: /* Invidious? */ Reply

2026-04-06T00:31:30Z

Invidious?: Reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:31, 6 April 2026
Line 102:		Line 102:
	::Thank you for your clarification. [[User:JodyBruchonFan\|JodyBruchonFan]] ([[User talk:JodyBruchonFan\|talk]]) 13:55, 26 March 2026 (UTC)		::Thank you for your clarification. [[User:JodyBruchonFan\|JodyBruchonFan]] ([[User talk:JodyBruchonFan\|talk]]) 13:55, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

	== Invidious? ==		==Invidious?==

	sir can I have some more Invidious? [[User:SinexTitan\|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan\|talk]]) 18:40, 5 April 2026 (UTC)		sir can I have some more Invidious? [[User:SinexTitan\|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan\|talk]]) 18:40, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

			:Invidious is only an alt frontend for YT, I don't see how it would help here? It doesn't circumvent age-restricted vids, and we already have preservetube as a perfect YT archiver. [[User:Tempo123\|Tempo123]] ([[User talk:Tempo123\|talk]]) 00:31, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

SinexTitan: /* Invidious? */ new section

2026-04-05T18:40:03Z

Invidious?: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:40, 5 April 2026
Line 101:		Line 101:
	:If you have any more questions about the RfC, let me know! [[User:MEN KISSING\|MEN KISSING]] ([[User talk:MEN KISSING\|talk]]) 06:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC)		:If you have any more questions about the RfC, let me know! [[User:MEN KISSING\|MEN KISSING]] ([[User talk:MEN KISSING\|talk]]) 06:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
	::Thank you for your clarification. [[User:JodyBruchonFan\|JodyBruchonFan]] ([[User talk:JodyBruchonFan\|talk]]) 13:55, 26 March 2026 (UTC)		::Thank you for your clarification. [[User:JodyBruchonFan\|JodyBruchonFan]] ([[User talk:JodyBruchonFan\|talk]]) 13:55, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

			== Invidious? ==

			sir can I have some more Invidious? [[User:SinexTitan\|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan\|talk]]) 18:40, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

JodyBruchonFan: /* Redacted evidence is no evidence. */ thanks

2026-03-26T13:55:13Z

Redacted evidence is no evidence.: thanks

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:55, 26 March 2026
Line 100:		Line 100:
	:@[[User:JodyBruchonFan\|JodyBruchonFan]] The redacted text was not any evidence. It was a TA making a really nasty and unsubstantiated allegation against the blog owner, which violates Wikipedia's policy on content about living people. See: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:BLPTALK WP:BLPTALK]. Sapphaline discovered the archive tampering based on the link the TA posted, but that was mostly just something between coincidence and irony. As pointed out by Tempo, the real evidence of tampering is further down.		:@[[User:JodyBruchonFan\|JodyBruchonFan]] The redacted text was not any evidence. It was a TA making a really nasty and unsubstantiated allegation against the blog owner, which violates Wikipedia's policy on content about living people. See: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:BLPTALK WP:BLPTALK]. Sapphaline discovered the archive tampering based on the link the TA posted, but that was mostly just something between coincidence and irony. As pointed out by Tempo, the real evidence of tampering is further down.
	:If you have any more questions about the RfC, let me know! [[User:MEN KISSING\|MEN KISSING]] ([[User talk:MEN KISSING\|talk]]) 06:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC)		:If you have any more questions about the RfC, let me know! [[User:MEN KISSING\|MEN KISSING]] ([[User talk:MEN KISSING\|talk]]) 06:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
			::Thank you for your clarification. [[User:JodyBruchonFan\|JodyBruchonFan]] ([[User talk:JodyBruchonFan\|talk]]) 13:55, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

MEN KISSING: /* Redacted evidence is no evidence. */ ce

2026-03-13T06:34:35Z

Redacted evidence is no evidence.: ce

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:34, 13 March 2026
Line 98:		Line 98:
	::I agree that falsifying snapshots is a severe breach of trust, but: "The evidence is archived further down that Wiki RFC thread." - If it is the same evidence, what was the point of redacting the original evidence in the first place? [[User:JodyBruchonFan\|JodyBruchonFan]] ([[User talk:JodyBruchonFan\|talk]]) 21:34, 5 March 2026 (UTC)		::I agree that falsifying snapshots is a severe breach of trust, but: "The evidence is archived further down that Wiki RFC thread." - If it is the same evidence, what was the point of redacting the original evidence in the first place? [[User:JodyBruchonFan\|JodyBruchonFan]] ([[User talk:JodyBruchonFan\|talk]]) 21:34, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
	:Rather silly to find my own username elsewhere on the internet, haha!		:Rather silly to find my own username elsewhere on the internet, haha!
	:@[[User:JodyBruchonFan\|JodyBruchonFan]] The redacted text was not any evidence. It was a TA making a really nasty and unsubstantiated allegation against the blog owner, which violates Wikipedia's policy on content about living people. See: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:BLPTALK WP:BLPTALK]. Sapphaline discovered the archive tampering based on the link the TA posted, but that was mostly just something between coincidence and irony. As pointed out by Tempo, the real evidence of tampering is ~~unrelated~~.		:@[[User:JodyBruchonFan\|JodyBruchonFan]] The redacted text was not any evidence. It was a TA making a really nasty and unsubstantiated allegation against the blog owner, which violates Wikipedia's policy on content about living people. See: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:BLPTALK WP:BLPTALK]. Sapphaline discovered the archive tampering based on the link the TA posted, but that was mostly just something between coincidence and irony. As pointed out by Tempo, the real evidence of tampering is further down.
	:If you have any more questions about the RfC, let me know! [[User:MEN KISSING\|MEN KISSING]] ([[User talk:MEN KISSING\|talk]]) 06:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC)		:If you have any more questions about the RfC, let me know! [[User:MEN KISSING\|MEN KISSING]] ([[User talk:MEN KISSING\|talk]]) 06:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

MEN KISSING: /* Redacted evidence is no evidence. */ Reply

2026-03-13T06:33:46Z

Redacted evidence is no evidence.: Reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:33, 13 March 2026
Line 97:		Line 97:
	:The evidence is archived further down that Wiki RFC thread. There are IA and Megalodon archives of the Archive.today page showing "Nora Puchreiner" being altered to show "Jani Patokallio". The original Archive.today snapshot has since been reverted back to the original "Nora Puchreiner", but the Megalodon and IA archives are existing evidence of the snapshot having indeed been altered at a certain point in time. Just a single minor instance, however insignificant, of snapshots being altered completely invalidates the reliability of Archive.today as an archival service. That is all, of course, not mentioning the character of the individual Archive.today admin being petty and malign enough to direct visitors' traffic to unknowingly DDoS someone's personal blog site and levy various additional threats, which in my mind is alone enough of a reason to cease using their service. [[User:Tempo123\|Tempo123]] ([[User talk:Tempo123\|talk]]) 16:31, 2 March 2026 (UTC)		:The evidence is archived further down that Wiki RFC thread. There are IA and Megalodon archives of the Archive.today page showing "Nora Puchreiner" being altered to show "Jani Patokallio". The original Archive.today snapshot has since been reverted back to the original "Nora Puchreiner", but the Megalodon and IA archives are existing evidence of the snapshot having indeed been altered at a certain point in time. Just a single minor instance, however insignificant, of snapshots being altered completely invalidates the reliability of Archive.today as an archival service. That is all, of course, not mentioning the character of the individual Archive.today admin being petty and malign enough to direct visitors' traffic to unknowingly DDoS someone's personal blog site and levy various additional threats, which in my mind is alone enough of a reason to cease using their service. [[User:Tempo123\|Tempo123]] ([[User talk:Tempo123\|talk]]) 16:31, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
	::I agree that falsifying snapshots is a severe breach of trust, but: "The evidence is archived further down that Wiki RFC thread." - If it is the same evidence, what was the point of redacting the original evidence in the first place? [[User:JodyBruchonFan\|JodyBruchonFan]] ([[User talk:JodyBruchonFan\|talk]]) 21:34, 5 March 2026 (UTC)		::I agree that falsifying snapshots is a severe breach of trust, but: "The evidence is archived further down that Wiki RFC thread." - If it is the same evidence, what was the point of redacting the original evidence in the first place? [[User:JodyBruchonFan\|JodyBruchonFan]] ([[User talk:JodyBruchonFan\|talk]]) 21:34, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
			:Rather silly to find my own username elsewhere on the internet, haha!
			:@[[User:JodyBruchonFan\|JodyBruchonFan]] The redacted text was not any evidence. It was a TA making a really nasty and unsubstantiated allegation against the blog owner, which violates Wikipedia's policy on content about living people. See: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:BLPTALK WP:BLPTALK]. Sapphaline discovered the archive tampering based on the link the TA posted, but that was mostly just something between coincidence and irony. As pointed out by Tempo, the real evidence of tampering is unrelated.
			:If you have any more questions about the RfC, let me know! [[User:MEN KISSING\|MEN KISSING]] ([[User talk:MEN KISSING\|talk]]) 06:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

JodyBruchonFan: /* Redacted evidence is no evidence. */ question

2026-03-05T21:34:40Z

Redacted evidence is no evidence.: question

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:34, 5 March 2026
Line 96:		Line 96:

	:The evidence is archived further down that Wiki RFC thread. There are IA and Megalodon archives of the Archive.today page showing "Nora Puchreiner" being altered to show "Jani Patokallio". The original Archive.today snapshot has since been reverted back to the original "Nora Puchreiner", but the Megalodon and IA archives are existing evidence of the snapshot having indeed been altered at a certain point in time. Just a single minor instance, however insignificant, of snapshots being altered completely invalidates the reliability of Archive.today as an archival service. That is all, of course, not mentioning the character of the individual Archive.today admin being petty and malign enough to direct visitors' traffic to unknowingly DDoS someone's personal blog site and levy various additional threats, which in my mind is alone enough of a reason to cease using their service. [[User:Tempo123\|Tempo123]] ([[User talk:Tempo123\|talk]]) 16:31, 2 March 2026 (UTC)		:The evidence is archived further down that Wiki RFC thread. There are IA and Megalodon archives of the Archive.today page showing "Nora Puchreiner" being altered to show "Jani Patokallio". The original Archive.today snapshot has since been reverted back to the original "Nora Puchreiner", but the Megalodon and IA archives are existing evidence of the snapshot having indeed been altered at a certain point in time. Just a single minor instance, however insignificant, of snapshots being altered completely invalidates the reliability of Archive.today as an archival service. That is all, of course, not mentioning the character of the individual Archive.today admin being petty and malign enough to direct visitors' traffic to unknowingly DDoS someone's personal blog site and levy various additional threats, which in my mind is alone enough of a reason to cease using their service. [[User:Tempo123\|Tempo123]] ([[User talk:Tempo123\|talk]]) 16:31, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
			::I agree that falsifying snapshots is a severe breach of trust, but: "The evidence is archived further down that Wiki RFC thread." - If it is the same evidence, what was the point of redacting the original evidence in the first place? [[User:JodyBruchonFan\|JodyBruchonFan]] ([[User talk:JodyBruchonFan\|talk]]) 21:34, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Tempo123: /* Redacted evidence is no evidence. */ Reply

2026-03-02T16:31:56Z

Redacted evidence is no evidence.: Reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:31, 2 March 2026
Line 76:		Line 76:
	:Thanks for all the answers! And cool bot, @[[User:Banana\|Banana]]. [[User:Marc84\|Marc84]] ([[User talk:Marc84\|talk]]) 22:12, 24 February 2026 (UTC)		:Thanks for all the answers! And cool bot, @[[User:Banana\|Banana]]. [[User:Marc84\|Marc84]] ([[User talk:Marc84\|talk]]) 22:12, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

	== Redacted evidence is no evidence. ==		==Redacted evidence is no evidence.==

	So the main reason Archive.Today is supposedly untrustworthy is that they supposedly falsified snapshots.		So the main reason Archive.Today is supposedly untrustworthy is that they supposedly falsified snapshots.
Line 85:		Line 85:

	<blockquote>		<blockquote>
	* <s style="font-style:italic; color:#565656">(Redacted)</s> ~2026-10956-05 12:48, 18 February 2026 (UTC)		*<s style="font-style:italic; color:#565656">(Redacted)</s> ~2026-10956-05 12:48, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
	::Where exactly are you getting this information from? MEN KISSING 13:13, 18 February 2026 (UTC)		::Where exactly are you getting this information from? MEN KISSING 13:13, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
	:::Your link returns a 404 error. <s style="font-style:italic; color:#565656">(Redacted)</s> sapphaline 13:26, 18 February 2026 (UTC)		:::Your link returns a 404 error. <s style="font-style:italic; color:#565656">(Redacted)</s> sapphaline 13:26, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Line 94:		Line 94:

	Sorry, but if someone can't show me actual evidence, I don't trust it, and neither should you. If you can't see it, it might as well not exist. Redacted evidence doesn't count. Don't give credence to it. [[User:JodyBruchonFan\|JodyBruchonFan]] ([[User talk:JodyBruchonFan\|talk]]) 10:41, 25 February 2026 (UTC)		Sorry, but if someone can't show me actual evidence, I don't trust it, and neither should you. If you can't see it, it might as well not exist. Redacted evidence doesn't count. Don't give credence to it. [[User:JodyBruchonFan\|JodyBruchonFan]] ([[User talk:JodyBruchonFan\|talk]]) 10:41, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

			:The evidence is archived further down that Wiki RFC thread. There are IA and Megalodon archives of the Archive.today page showing "Nora Puchreiner" being altered to show "Jani Patokallio". The original Archive.today snapshot has since been reverted back to the original "Nora Puchreiner", but the Megalodon and IA archives are existing evidence of the snapshot having indeed been altered at a certain point in time. Just a single minor instance, however insignificant, of snapshots being altered completely invalidates the reliability of Archive.today as an archival service. That is all, of course, not mentioning the character of the individual Archive.today admin being petty and malign enough to direct visitors' traffic to unknowingly DDoS someone's personal blog site and levy various additional threats, which in my mind is alone enough of a reason to cease using their service. [[User:Tempo123\|Tempo123]] ([[User talk:Tempo123\|talk]]) 16:31, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

JodyBruchonFan: /* Redacted evidence is no evidence. */ new section

2026-02-25T10:41:53Z

Redacted evidence is no evidence.: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:41, 25 February 2026
Line 75:		Line 75:
	::::Bananabot can handle everything that IA can save. Right now limits are rate on IA itself (itgets rate limited + uploading takes quite a while). About project page table - I'll check out if I can automate it [[User:Banana\|Banana]] ([[User talk:Banana\|talk]]) 10:05, 24 February 2026 (UTC)		::::Bananabot can handle everything that IA can save. Right now limits are rate on IA itself (itgets rate limited + uploading takes quite a while). About project page table - I'll check out if I can automate it [[User:Banana\|Banana]] ([[User talk:Banana\|talk]]) 10:05, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
	:Thanks for all the answers! And cool bot, @[[User:Banana\|Banana]]. [[User:Marc84\|Marc84]] ([[User talk:Marc84\|talk]]) 22:12, 24 February 2026 (UTC)		:Thanks for all the answers! And cool bot, @[[User:Banana\|Banana]]. [[User:Marc84\|Marc84]] ([[User talk:Marc84\|talk]]) 22:12, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

			== Redacted evidence is no evidence. ==

			So the main reason Archive.Today is supposedly untrustworthy is that they supposedly falsified snapshots.

			Of course, this would be very bad if it were true, but if you actually dig to the bottom of the Archive.Today drama, past the sensationalized news articles by Ars Technica and others, you end up on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Archive.is_RFC_5#Evidence_of_altering_snapshots Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archive.is RFC 5 § Evidence of altering snapshots].

			Now, let's see what groundbreaking evidence they have, shall we?

			<blockquote>
			* <s style="font-style:italic; color:#565656">(Redacted)</s> ~2026-10956-05 12:48, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
			::Where exactly are you getting this information from? MEN KISSING 13:13, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
			:::Your link returns a 404 error. <s style="font-style:italic; color:#565656">(Redacted)</s> sapphaline 13:26, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
			</blockquote>
			<small>(signatures shortened to usernames only)</small>

			Awesome. "Just take our word for it, bro!"

			Sorry, but if someone can't show me actual evidence, I don't trust it, and neither should you. If you can't see it, it might as well not exist. Redacted evidence doesn't count. Don't give credence to it. [[User:JodyBruchonFan\|JodyBruchonFan]] ([[User talk:JodyBruchonFan\|talk]]) 10:41, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:18, 6 April 2026
Line 108:		Line 108:
	:Invidious is only an alt frontend for YT, I don't see how it would help here? It doesn't circumvent age-restricted vids, and we already have preservetube as a perfect YT archiver. [[User:Tempo123\|Tempo123]] ([[User talk:Tempo123\|talk]]) 00:31, 6 April 2026 (UTC)		:Invidious is only an alt frontend for YT, I don't see how it would help here? It doesn't circumvent age-restricted vids, and we already have preservetube as a perfect YT archiver. [[User:Tempo123\|Tempo123]] ([[User talk:Tempo123\|talk]]) 00:31, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
	::so is Nitter and Redlib and they're also not treated as archives. I was talking abt Invidious' inclusion in [[Projects:Archive everything#Alternative frontends & mirrors\|Alternative frontends & mirrors]] btw [[User:SinexTitan\|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan\|talk]]) 08:42, 6 April 2026 (UTC)		::so is Nitter and Redlib and they're also not treated as archives. I was talking abt Invidious' inclusion in [[Projects:Archive everything#Alternative frontends & mirrors\|Alternative frontends & mirrors]] btw [[User:SinexTitan\|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan\|talk]]) 08:42, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
			:::Nitter is there because it allows for comments to be seen without sign-in so it's superior to x dot com, Redlib is there to go around 18+ gated content on old dot reddit that archive services can't get past. The three available Invidious instances that are up all have anti-bot measures that block archival services, and even if that weren't the case, the fact remains that PreserveTube can archive videos perfectly and YT archived pages leave the topmost comments visible, so there isn't really a need for a YT frontend for archival purposes in the first place (atm, anyway). [[User:Tempo123\|Tempo123]] ([[User talk:Tempo123\|talk]]) 10:18, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:55, 26 March 2026
Line 100:		Line 100:
	:@[[User:JodyBruchonFan\|JodyBruchonFan]] The redacted text was not any evidence. It was a TA making a really nasty and unsubstantiated allegation against the blog owner, which violates Wikipedia's policy on content about living people. See: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:BLPTALK WP:BLPTALK]. Sapphaline discovered the archive tampering based on the link the TA posted, but that was mostly just something between coincidence and irony. As pointed out by Tempo, the real evidence of tampering is further down.		:@[[User:JodyBruchonFan\|JodyBruchonFan]] The redacted text was not any evidence. It was a TA making a really nasty and unsubstantiated allegation against the blog owner, which violates Wikipedia's policy on content about living people. See: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:BLPTALK WP:BLPTALK]. Sapphaline discovered the archive tampering based on the link the TA posted, but that was mostly just something between coincidence and irony. As pointed out by Tempo, the real evidence of tampering is further down.
	:If you have any more questions about the RfC, let me know! [[User:MEN KISSING\|MEN KISSING]] ([[User talk:MEN KISSING\|talk]]) 06:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC)		:If you have any more questions about the RfC, let me know! [[User:MEN KISSING\|MEN KISSING]] ([[User talk:MEN KISSING\|talk]]) 06:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
			::Thank you for your clarification. [[User:JodyBruchonFan\|JodyBruchonFan]] ([[User talk:JodyBruchonFan\|talk]]) 13:55, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:33, 13 March 2026
Line 97:		Line 97:
	:The evidence is archived further down that Wiki RFC thread. There are IA and Megalodon archives of the Archive.today page showing "Nora Puchreiner" being altered to show "Jani Patokallio". The original Archive.today snapshot has since been reverted back to the original "Nora Puchreiner", but the Megalodon and IA archives are existing evidence of the snapshot having indeed been altered at a certain point in time. Just a single minor instance, however insignificant, of snapshots being altered completely invalidates the reliability of Archive.today as an archival service. That is all, of course, not mentioning the character of the individual Archive.today admin being petty and malign enough to direct visitors' traffic to unknowingly DDoS someone's personal blog site and levy various additional threats, which in my mind is alone enough of a reason to cease using their service. [[User:Tempo123\|Tempo123]] ([[User talk:Tempo123\|talk]]) 16:31, 2 March 2026 (UTC)		:The evidence is archived further down that Wiki RFC thread. There are IA and Megalodon archives of the Archive.today page showing "Nora Puchreiner" being altered to show "Jani Patokallio". The original Archive.today snapshot has since been reverted back to the original "Nora Puchreiner", but the Megalodon and IA archives are existing evidence of the snapshot having indeed been altered at a certain point in time. Just a single minor instance, however insignificant, of snapshots being altered completely invalidates the reliability of Archive.today as an archival service. That is all, of course, not mentioning the character of the individual Archive.today admin being petty and malign enough to direct visitors' traffic to unknowingly DDoS someone's personal blog site and levy various additional threats, which in my mind is alone enough of a reason to cease using their service. [[User:Tempo123\|Tempo123]] ([[User talk:Tempo123\|talk]]) 16:31, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
	::I agree that falsifying snapshots is a severe breach of trust, but: "The evidence is archived further down that Wiki RFC thread." - If it is the same evidence, what was the point of redacting the original evidence in the first place? [[User:JodyBruchonFan\|JodyBruchonFan]] ([[User talk:JodyBruchonFan\|talk]]) 21:34, 5 March 2026 (UTC)		::I agree that falsifying snapshots is a severe breach of trust, but: "The evidence is archived further down that Wiki RFC thread." - If it is the same evidence, what was the point of redacting the original evidence in the first place? [[User:JodyBruchonFan\|JodyBruchonFan]] ([[User talk:JodyBruchonFan\|talk]]) 21:34, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
			:Rather silly to find my own username elsewhere on the internet, haha!
			:@[[User:JodyBruchonFan\|JodyBruchonFan]] The redacted text was not any evidence. It was a TA making a really nasty and unsubstantiated allegation against the blog owner, which violates Wikipedia's policy on content about living people. See: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:BLPTALK WP:BLPTALK]. Sapphaline discovered the archive tampering based on the link the TA posted, but that was mostly just something between coincidence and irony. As pointed out by Tempo, the real evidence of tampering is unrelated.
			:If you have any more questions about the RfC, let me know! [[User:MEN KISSING\|MEN KISSING]] ([[User talk:MEN KISSING\|talk]]) 06:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC)