Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archive.is RFC 4: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
close, consensus to remove archive.is |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (12 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 79:
#::::Striking support, moving to oppose. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 02:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
# '''Support'''. Archive.is is a legitimate archival service. The unauthorized bot incident was sad; the community here was unsettled. But the response to it was akin to terminating all relations with a country just because a tourist from that country broke a law. It is a good service. Let's put it to use. Best regards, [[User:Codename Lisa|Codename Lisa]] ([[User talk:Codename Lisa|talk]]) 10:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
# '''Support'''. BTW, I'm sick and tired of the carpet bombing by the malicious 'Blacklisted link' template flagging articles for no good reason. '''[[User:Poeticbent|<
#'''Support''' – Archive.is is a legitimate archiving service, unlike Internet Archive which retroactively deletes pages based on changes to robots.txt after archiving, and WebCite which sometimes does not archive pages correctly. Archive.is is also able to create archives from Google caches. I have run into many occasions when repairing dead links where Archive.is is the only archiving service available. The benefits of adding Archive.is back outweigh the minor disadvantages. [[User talk:SSTflyer|SST<span style="color:DarkSlateGray">flyer</span>]] 07:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support''', in large part because the whole thing was a big overreaction, as Codename Lisa notes. Plus, it's a benefit if they don't follow archive.org's policy of dumping pages based on later robots.txt changes. [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 12:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - if it's being used for spammy links, those need to be dealt with individually. The service is way too useful to encyclopedic purposes - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 13:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support'''—as noted above, the original decision was an overreaction, the site is useful, and we can deal with case-by-case situations of spamminess. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<
#'''Weak support for last resort''' There's no question that archive.is handles more scenarios as the other haven't adopted to newer web technologies. I am concerned about the lack of respect that archive.is shows for internet standards, particular ignoring robots.txt. Content producers have the right to control what they produce, and often use that file to control it. archive.is, in part, can archive more links because it ignores the expressed wishes of content producers that use that file to control access. And yes, I read their FAQ. My preference would be to encourage archive.is only as a last resort archival service.[[User:Ravensfire|<b
#: {{re|Ravensfire}} You forgot about the case where a ___domain expires and/or is taken over. Parked domains usually have a robots.txt that prevents crawling, and if it's taken over, the attacker can do so manually. Archive.is has a manual report process if one would like an archived copy to be taken down. There is only limited automated archiving (from Wikipedia recent changes, I don't know of anything else), other than that it's manual so it doesn't really make sense to apply robots.txt. Anyway, I don't mind a preference for other archives when not inferior. [[User:Nyuszika7H|nyuszika7h]] ([[User talk:Nyuszika7H|talk]]) 14:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per all previous supports. (Note I am a long-time user who now prefers to edit as an IP. I don't see anything about IP's not being allowed to weigh in here.) <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/173.17.170.8|173.17.170.8]] ([[User talk:173.17.170.8|talk]]) 17:08, 23 May 2016</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP -->
Line 122:
#:My concern is that if the folks running archive.is are the ones running the spambots, which seems likely, I worry about why. Maybe it's to help Wikipedia, but that seems unlikely. If they, for example, start using it to distribute malware (which isn't impossible, they've been associated with botnet attacks already), that is a huge problem for us. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 02:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
# '''Support''' - As stated below sometimes crucial sources are trapped and are only archived in one place. I don't buy the argument that if it's only archived in one place it's insignificant, based upon my experience with one link about [[Lycee Seijo]] being closed. I requested whitelisting for that link anyway, but I think I will let my opinion known here in this RFC. [[User:WhisperToMe|WhisperToMe]] ([[User talk:WhisperToMe|talk]]) 06:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
# '''Support''' – The service is useful, and the block hurts Wikipedia. -
# '''Support''' – I dislike spam, but truly despise dead reference links. In an ideal world, WMF would be putting some of its considerable resources into developing some new and improved archive service, but until that happens we have to work with the options available to us. If a reliable online source is deadlinked, and Internet Archive and WebCite both lack versions we can use, then we should have the option of adding a link from this archive service if doing so preserves content. I'd prefer using either of the two alternatives myself, but they are not perfect, between the risk of losing IA links to robots.txt and the need to proactively create WebCite links. If the archive.is people try spamming Wikipedia, all we have to do is put the site back on the blacklist. It's a risk that I feel is worth taking, at least until a better option presents itself. [[User:Giants2008|<
# ''''Support'''' - Its usefulness appears to outweigh the concerns, which to the best of my knowledge have not resulted any concrete detriment to Wikipedia. --[[User:Dtaylor1984|Dtaylor1984]] ([[User talk:Dtaylor1984|talk]]) 15:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support''' sometimes archive.is is the only available archiving site. --'''[[User:Jakec|Jakob]] ([[user talk:Jakec|talk]]) ''' <small><small>aka Jakec</small></small> 18:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Line 221:
#::{{rto|Beetstra}} Just to be clear, both webcitation.org and archive.is have non-shortened forms of URL that include the full original link plus a simple date parameter: e.g. '''archive.is''' <span style="color:#BA0000;"> http{{colon}}//archive.is/2016.05.24/https{{colon}}//www.google.de/</span>, and '''webcitation.org''' <span style="color:#BA0000;">http{{colon}}//www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgoogle.com&date=2016-05-30</span> ... because of the blacklisting, you will need to put these addresses into your browser instead of clicking them. The same pages with the shortened link options: <span style="color:#BA0000;">http{{colon}}//archive.is//nnnHP</span> and <span style="color:#BA0000;">http{{colon}}//www.webcitation.org/6hsn16K2q</span>. So, really, this is a non-argument; opponents of archive.is should focus on other angles of attack. -- [[User:Ham105|Ham105]] ([[User talk:Ham105|talk]]) 06:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
#:::{{rto|Ham105}} I would not oppose the de-listing on basis of url-shortening concerns, and it is not a concern under this RfC - it is a concern for all of the archiving services and not specific to archive.is (and not even to archiving services - we have parts of google.com blacklisted due to url-shortening and/or blacklist-evasion issues, not because the base domains were spammed beyond control). --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 07:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' - for now pending discussion (see [[#Questions|below]] for concerns). — <
#'''Oppose''' - although marking '''archive.today''' links dead in Feb-2016 is doubtfully a SPAM-action (the proxies did not add new links), there was a SPAM-action in Jun-2015 (after RFC3; not mentioned in RFC3 and not mentioned here yet) adding links to another their ___domain (now offline) '''archive.limited''' [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/Local/archive.limited]]. The threat is still here. As soon as archive.is is whitelisted, they start adding links again. It if will not be whitelisted, they will go on with registering new archive.* domains and SPAM links pointing to new domains. '''webarchiveproject.org''' is hosted on the same IP [http://bgp.he.net/ip/208.78.224.27#_dns] and not yet blacklisted. [[Special:Contributions/202.21.125.86|202.21.125.86]] ([[User talk:202.21.125.86|talk]]) 03:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
#:Another interesting ___domain from the same server: http://web.archive.org/web/20160530040627/http://lushlinks.com/ [[Special:Contributions/202.21.125.86|202.21.125.86]] ([[User talk:202.21.125.86|talk]]) 04:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Line 242:
#'''Oppose for now''' The community sat down with the Internet Archives and had discussion of how to work together. Would want to see the bot operators / group from archive.is comment on the concerns raised before we lift the blacklisting. If they are doing this "Archive.is strips out the original advertising on the page and inserts in their own advertising links to montetize themselves, thereby making it not a true archive of the page?" Than wow. Of course they want more links from us. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 14:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
#:{{re|Doc James}} They are '''not''' stripping out ads and I have never seen any from them. See archive dot is XajR3 for an example. Their FAQ says that they may include advertising "after 2014", but including ads alone is not an argument against using it, as many news and other sites include ads too. [[User:Nyuszika7H|nyuszika7h]] ([[User talk:Nyuszika7H|talk]]) 17:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
#::{{tq|many news and other sites include ads too}} - But we're not debating sources. We're debating a way we access sources across the project, which is a separate discussion from whether a source is reliable. The question is, as I've come to understand it, should we be pointing readers to a site that says it may introduce ads, gives no indication about whether the ads would be implemented responsibly, run for profit by unknown entities with an unknown business model, providing with no information about the long-term plan for the site or long-term feasibility? It's a tough question to answer in the affirmative, even if there are a few cases when it's the only currently available means of accessing some sources. We do link to news sites that have ads, but only when we consider them to be reliable sources according to other criteria. When we know nothing about the source, when it's unclear about the purpose, ownership, and priorities of the site, it's very rarely going to be considered a reliable source. Seems more analogous to the way we handle [[WP:DEADLINKSPAM]] -- when someone finds a deadlink, copies archived source content to their own ad-filled website, and adds the link to Wikipedia to remove the deadlink tag. Yeah, because their spam site doesn't acknowledge robots.txt, there's an argument that it could be around longer than archive.org, but we remove those links anyway. If we were deciding between no archiving and archive.is, that would be one thing, but in the vast majority of cases we have an alternative (and not just any alternative, but a well-known, well-respected non-profit with a long-term plan, many funding sources -- and not only are they committed to not showing ads and not spamming us, but they're even interested to work with other non-profits for a cause that has nothing to do with personal profit. — <
#:{{re|Doc James}} The archive does not replace ads. Wikipedia has a promotional article about [[Brave (web browser)|a project]] which does replace ads with their own. Wouldn't you like to start a RFC about its removal and blacklisting?
#:::Okay thanks. Why not just use archive.org? Am moving to neutral due to the difficulty with reverting vandalism when an archive(.is) link is present [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 15:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
#::::{{ping|Doc James}} I suppose this page is turning into a prohibitive wall of text. To summarize my understanding: Archive.org respects the use of [[robots.txt]] and thus will not archive sites which do not want to be archived. Archive.is ignores it. So there are more sites archive.is ''can'' archive, and archives aren't deleted if, down the road, a site decides it ''does'' want to use robots.txt. Ignoring robots.txt could be controversial, but is not, as far as I've seen, a reason anyone has given for not using archive.is. While archive.is is not currently replacing ads, as above, nobody knows where it gets funding, it's not a non-profit, and it says it may run ads "after 2014". On the subject of ads, if this is a small venture with one or a small number of people bearing the costs, it seems like opening the floodgates of Wikipedia would surely hasten the process of implementing ads -- and in such a case there are no commitments/indications about ''how'' those ads will be implemented. There have also been a great deal of spam, with bots/IPs adding loads of archive.is links to Wikipedia, which some allege to have been orchestrated by the owners of the site (I don't know what evidence there is for that, though). The appeal of archive.org is that, while it doesn't cover as many sites due to robots.txt, it's a non-profit that cooperates with Wikipedia, has a long-term plan, will never be running ads (aside from their fundraising banner, I suppose), and is more likely to be around years from now (archive.is has been around since 2012, but again, it seems very unclear about its funding/long-term prospects). For me, I'm uneasy with removing it from the blacklist, especially if we don't have a mechanism to ''always prefer'' archive.org whenever at all possible. Adjusting [[Template:Cite web]] to accommodate multiple archive urls and to state an explicit preference for archive.org is one way to do that, but as of now the result of supporting removal from the blacklist will be to use archive.is by default, which I don't know is a good thing. — <
#:::::Yes agree long term stability is important for an archive service. Also good to have one that complies with websites requests. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 15:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - <b><
#'''Oppose''' Archive.is is not known for predictable and transparent conduct (quite the contrary). Luckily, there are viable alternatives. Archiving services are not just a link here and there in the External links sections, but used on a massive scale. Therefor, continuing the blacklist is justified. <span style="font-family: serif; letter-spacing: 0.1em">– [[User:Finnusertop|Finnusertop]]</span> ([[User talk:Finnusertop|talk]] ⋅ [[Special:Contributions/Finnusertop|contribs]]) 14:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Continuing on the blacklist is justified for now given the concerns.[[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 20:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Line 384:
#:What is this supposed to mean, [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]]? If all else fails we remove it from the blacklist, or that the links should only be used if there is no alternative archive (the latter being the current practice)? --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 06:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
*Just commenting that this sub-section is a disaster, and it's entirely inappropriate to move someone else's comments (multiple comments directed at multiple users) to a separate section while leaving everyone else's comments intact and in place (and it should really go without saying that it looks really bad if you only move someone's comments who you disagree with). Also, they were just dumped here and the syntax wasn't even cleaned up. They should be moved back into place, the rest of the extended comments moved out of the survey sections, or it should at least be rendered readable for crying out loud. — <
===Spammy links?===
Line 421:
*: Thank you very much indeed"! [[Special:Contributions/78.139.174.106|78.139.174.106]] ([[User talk:78.139.174.106|talk]]) 17:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
*:! The OP's IP is close to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/105.107.15.128 which has a short history of doing nil but flagging archive.is links as being dead. The latter is obviously a sock from the anti-archive.is camp. So there's evidence of serious abuse on both sides. --[[User:Elvey|<font color="burntorange">Elvey</font>]]<sup>([[User talk:Elvey|t]]•[[Special:Contribs/Elvey|c]])</sup> 16:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
*::? There's someone hopping IPs who wanted this page to be noindexed so as to be treated the same as it would be under Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/. I don't really understand the motivation of either side, but I also don't understand what in the world you're talking about. There's at least one IP hopper participating. You've found another IP from one of those ranges who may be someone participating in this discussion. Are you saying it was someone anti-archive.is who was arguing with {{u|Beetstra}} to noindex the page? (Beetstra, who has been one of the more vocal "anti-archive.is" participants in this discussion (insofar as the blacklist is concerned)). What reason do you have to throw out [[WP:SOCK]] allegations? Because someone used multiple IPs? I genuine don't follow. — <
*:::I would consider the IPs that try to NOINDEX as IPs on the support-to-deblacklist side (make sure that the world doesn't see these discussions that resulted in the blacklisting), as the IPs that were (successfully in 2 cases) canvassing for support !votes (all in discussions where there were complaints about not being able to link, or to editors who were finding solutions to have at least the data on-wiki; 2 editors responded within an hour of being pinged which strongly suggests that they were here because they were pinged). The other IPs active here at this time are less clear in the pattern. However, the former all do fit the same pattern as the IPs in 2013, April 2015 and February 2016. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 17:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
*::::{{rto|Rhododendrites}} I am not against de-blacklisting per sé .. But I am concerned about the continued abuse by the original spammers, and do think that editors should be properly informed before !voting, and that solutions should be properly discussed before deblacklisting. As such, I am against ta plain uncontrolled de-blacklisting as is mainly argued here. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 19:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Line 428:
First of all, these discussion sections as they exist right now are sort of unapproachable for the previously uninvolved (scattered discussion, debates over nuance without some basic information, syntax problems, etc.). Similarly, we really need a summary at the top of why archive.is is blacklisted and why it should be taken off the blacklist. Just pointing to ''four'' other RfCs while providing no other context makes it really difficult for neutral parties to join the discussion who weren't part of the past discussions.
So here are my questions. My hope is that they will lead to inline discussions, but feel free to ignore if you think I should dig through the previous RfCs. — <
::I disagree with the premise that this is needed — seeing as an '''overwhelming majority''' support overturning the ban. It was shoddily introduced and likewise poorly defended by a small number of editors who believe that sheer persistence will merit their position more weight. [[User:CFCF|<span style="color:#014225;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Bold;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px #014225;">Carl Fredik</span>]]<span style="font-size: .90em;">[[User talk:CFCF| 💌]] [[Special:EmailUser/CFCF|📧]]</span> 13:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
:::{{rto|Rhododendrites}} And I completely disagree with that. Many of the editors were oblivious of intemediate problems ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Archive.is_RFC_4&diff=722195299&oldid=722193850 diff]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Archive.is_RFC_4&diff=722025375&oldid=722021724 diff]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Archive.is_RFC_4&diff=721998323&oldid=721997763 diff]; and some of the support !votes, e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Archive.is_RFC_4&diff=721743860&oldid=721740716 diff]). It is clear that there is a lack of information provided to the editors (as also evidenced by the comment here, and the questions posted you below). It is now difficult to say whether the presentation of this RfC is the reason for the 'overwhelming support'. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 13:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
:::Well, sure, if you say "this site is useful, should we take it off the blacklist" and say nothing about why it's blacklisted, the default would probably be support. Without providing an adequate summary of context, you're going to get people who are already opinionated on the subject, people who give kneejerk uninformed opinions, and very few uninvolved contributors who take the time to parse old discussions. — <
::: [[WP:KETTLE]] violation there, [[User:CFCF|CFCF]]. You dismiss concerns, state your own dismissal repeatedly, and repeatedly disrupt the discussion in order to minimize the opposition. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Archive.is_RFC_4&diff=722223928&oldid=722223651] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Archive.is_RFC_4&diff=722208726&oldid=722208350]. Your abuse of this RFC alone should merit invalidating it and running a fresh one in which you are forbidden to participate.—[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 03:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
::::Kettle is an essay, it can't be "violated". I have nowhere disrupted the discussion and I have engaged in the discussion in a reasonable manner. What you suggest is preposterous and will never happened. [[User:CFCF|<span style="color:#014225;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Bold;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px #014225;">Carl Fredik</span>]]<span style="font-size: .90em;">[[User talk:CFCF| 💌]] [[Special:EmailUser/CFCF|📧]]</span> 12:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Line 450:
:::::It isn't down to whether the problem is common — but a single case of a lost source caused by this block is significant in my book. Just because the issue is rare doesn't mean it is in any way insignificant. [[User:CFCF|<span style="color:#014225;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Bold;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px #014225;">Carl Fredik</span>]]<span style="font-size: .90em;">[[User talk:CFCF| 💌]] [[Special:EmailUser/CFCF|📧]]</span> 15:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
::::::Well, the way I meant it is, if it is 1 on 10 blacklisting becomes rather disruptive, we would have to whitelist a lot. If it is 1 on 50 or 1 on 100 then the problem becomes already much less. Seen the ease that alternative archives could be found on the whitelists, and the fact that no-one bothered in the 2 1/2 years that it was blocked to ask for an exception seems to suggest that we are closer to the 1:100 side than to the 1:10 side. You here suggest that if we lose a reference because the original goes down and we do not have a viable archive (which could be the case if we are too late already to create an archive of the information with archive.is), then that would be a disaster for the information on Wikipedia. Is that ''really'' true, would we delete because the reference does not exist anymore? Is that information so important that we do not have any other references that confirm the situation? (and under the current situation, we could whitelist the archive.is, if it is demonstrably the only archive). --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 15:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
:*There's talk of longevity here. What reason do we have to believe archive.is will be around? They only date back to 2012, after all, and say nothing about their funding except that it's private. The Internet Archive, putting aside any faults it has for the moment, is a non-profit behemoth with a long-term plan and tons of funders. — <
:::None, but they are currently the only service that provides this functionality. We shouldn't prohibit the use of a good service just because it isn't perfect. [[User:CFCF|<span style="color:#014225;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Bold;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px #014225;">Carl Fredik</span>]]<span style="font-size: .90em;">[[User talk:CFCF| 💌]] [[Special:EmailUser/CFCF|📧]]</span> 15:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
::* {{ec}} The longevity argument for archive.is is indeed one that can be returned in kind. Archive.org deletes sometimes stuff based on robots.txt issues, but the site is likely to stay around - archive.is is not deleting, but since it is privately funded may not stay forever, meaning that those links could all go down as well - leaving no alternative either. A return question: if we do not link to internet archives at all (including archive.org), will that bring down Wikipedia, will it ''really'' bring down those statements for which the original citation does not exist anymore, or is there where [[WP:AGF]] on the original citation comes around? --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 15:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Line 458:
::It is also considerably faster and transparent to the end user in how it performs the archival. [[User:CFCF|<span style="color:#014225;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Bold;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px #014225;">Carl Fredik</span>]]<span style="font-size: .90em;">[[User talk:CFCF| 💌]] [[Special:EmailUser/CFCF|📧]]</span> 13:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
:* {{ec}} No. Those specific instances could be whitelisted (and I have just done one a couple of hours ago). Except for the lack of manpower at the whitelist, there is no reason that links cannot be whitelisted if there is a demonstrable need for it (i.e. there are no alternative archives available or even that the alternative archives are grossly insufficient in capturing the required information, or when other archives are deleting the content due to certain reasons). --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 13:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
::*I see talk of why archive.is is better, why it's not ''that'' great, and ways to keep it on the blacklist, but still no explanation of why it's blacklisted to begin with other than spammers. Surely if someone started spamming links to Elsevier it wouldn't be blacklisted, so why is it? In the time since asking these questions I did a little bit of digging to learn more about archive.is. There's a longevity concern I stated above, but there's also the question of whether, if we opt to use archive.is instead of e.g. archive.org, they could decide to flood the site with ads in the future (even malicious ads). With archive.org's funding model and various commitments we're reasonably safe from that, but the FAQ on archive.is even says "Well, I can promise it will have no ads at least till the end of 2014." Which means it could be imminent. That seems like an awfully big deal when talking about introducing tons of links from Wikipedia. — <
::::Yeah, it would be a big deal if that was what was up for debate — but it isn't. We are discussing whether the site should be allowed at all, not whether we should allow the introduction of ''tons of links''. I am fully behind the idea that we should stop users from running unauthorized bots, but when archive.is already holds links that no longer exist anywhere else (yes that is the case) — we shouldn't be distracted by the issue of a rogue user who is ignoring policy.
::::I don't see why we would scrutinize their funding model when we don't do the same with media-sites which are already riddled with ads. [[User:CFCF|<span style="color:#014225;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Bold;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px #014225;">Carl Fredik</span>]]<span style="font-size: .90em;">[[User talk:CFCF| 💌]] [[Special:EmailUser/CFCF|📧]]</span> 15:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Line 469:
:*Choice of which service to archive with should be up to editor discretion — therefor the question is moot. [[User:CFCF|<span style="color:#014225;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Bold;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px #014225;">Carl Fredik</span>]]<span style="font-size: .90em;">[[User talk:CFCF| 💌]] [[Special:EmailUser/CFCF|📧]]</span> 13:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
:* {{ec}} The edit filter (which has been active for several years) practically did that (preventing the addition of the link). One could consider a 'warning only' filter to be used, but that would not deter additions of links that are replaceable, nor would it, obviously, stop those who feel the need to spam (like the editors and IPs that precipitated the first RfC and the decision to blacklist). Another option is [[User:XLinkBot]], but also there it is a matter of reverting the bot (though that generally gets noticed quite early, and persistent editors might end up being reported to [[WP:AIV]] early on if they go over the addition throttle (6th revert within a 3 day period <s>if I recall the settings correctly</s>)). --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 13:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
::*I'm thinking about other means. For example, a bot that looks for archive.org versions of the same source and replaces them when available. You'd lose the benefits of archive.is above, yes, but I'm wondering if these sort of compromise scenarios have been discussed. — <
::::I don't like that idea, because it should be presumed that when an editor chose a specific archival service that was done for a reason.
::::I am far more supportive of running XLinkBot on new users/IPs — essentially barring IPs from adding these links. I don't think that would have very much impact on legitimate use.
Line 486:
:: {{re|Beetstra}} My point is archive.is links should not be arbitrarily replaced overriding the user's decision which may have been made because it is the only suitable archive – although while archive.is remains on the blacklist, it should be OK to do that (making sure to exclude any whitelisted URLs). [[User:Nyuszika7H|nyuszika7h]] ([[User talk:Nyuszika7H|talk]]) 16:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
:::What about adding optional parameters to [[Template:Cite web]] for specific archives? You could use archive-url and archive-date as usual, filling in the archive of your choice, and someone else could fill in an additional field if they so chose. E.g. if there's a reason to use archive.is, you could still add the parameters archiveorg-url and archiveorg-date. If something happens to archive.is in the future, the content isn't lost, and if something happens re: robots.txt with archive.org, content wouldn't be lost. Some will undoubtedly view this as overkill, but it doesn't necessarily change how people use the template -- it would just add flexibility and an extra layer of protection against link rot. — <
:::: I'd actually like to see how we handle archives switched to something more like what is done with ISBN, PersonData, intra-wiki links for other languages, etc. using WikiData. See [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archive.is RFC 3#Look at referencing templates that support links to multiple archiving sites]]. [[User:PaleAqua|PaleAqua]] ([[User talk:PaleAqua|talk]]) 16:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
::::: [http://mementoweb.org/about/ Memento] could be useful in that. [[User:Nyuszika7H|nyuszika7h]] ([[User talk:Nyuszika7H|talk]]) 16:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Line 566:
=== Allow extendedconfirmed users to edit through the blacklist ===
Considering the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Tagged_pages_containing_blacklisted_links sheer number of pages] with blacklisted links, most of which are due to archive.is issues; and the fact that most of the spamming is done by IPs and new users, it makes sense for [[WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED]] users to be able able to edit through the blacklist (i.e. set the filter to warn but not disallow), or at least for archive.is' particular entry. It prevents shit like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=719362651 this] where a vandal blanks a page with archive.is on it and reverting is hindered by the blacklist. '''''[[User:Satellizer|<
::Yes good point. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 15:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
:::Very supportive of this idea — as long as it is technologically feasible. One problem that exists is that these articles will not be editable at all by anyone without extendedconfirmed rights, and changing these things may require some substantial work in the MediaWiki software. For the record I am supportive of allowing any edits through the blacklist if the user is extendedconfirmed — not only relating to archive.is. These edits should not be seen as de facto spam — and if spamming occurs (adding many similar links, not just the occasional black-list circumvention) the user can be dealt with appropriately. [[User:CFCF|<span style="color:#014225;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Bold;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px #014225;">Carl Fredrik</span>]]<span style="font-size: .90em;">[[User talk:CFCF| 💌]] [[Special:EmailUser/CFCF|📧]]</span> 18:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Line 578:
=== Archives and Edit Wars ===
There is [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Geboren_im_Schatten_der_Angst an edit war in German Wiki]. One party sent a removal request to Wayback Machine and the evidence used by another party [http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.wienerzeitung.at/themen_channel/literatur/buecher_aktuell/270888_Schnellenkamp-Geboren-im-Schatten-der-Angst.html was removed] ([http://mini.s-shot.ru/1024x768/JPEG/1024/Z100/?web.archive.org%2Fweb%2F*%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.wienerzeitung.at%2Fthemen_channel%2Fliteratur%2Fbuecher_aktuell%2F270888_Schnellenkamp-Geboren-im-Schatten-der-Angst.html screenshot]). Archive.is still has the page so far but it could be the question of days or hours. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:78.84.89.4|78.84.89.4]] ([[User talk:78.84.89.4|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/78.84.89.4|contribs]]) 06:09, 8 June 2016</span></small>
===IPs unceremoniously stripping out citations with archive.is links===
This morning, I noticed two IPs, {{useranon|185.127.244.160}} and {{useranon|27.4.121.209}}, mass-removing archive.is citations from articles. I don't have time to investigate each citation in hopes of finding suitable replacements, and, because of the blacklist, I can't roll them back either; the best I can do is undo and comment out the offending archive links, which I did on the articles on my watchlist. Is there a better way to handle this? <span style="font-weight:bold">[[User:Rebbing|<span style="background:#f660ab;color:#60f6f6">Rebb</span>]][[User_talk:Rebbing|<span style="background:#60f6f6;color:#f660ab">ing</span>]]</span> 16:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
:The better way to handle it is to not add blacklisted links to Wikipedia. Since you were not able to rollback due to the blacklist, I presume that means the pages haven't been given an exception, so anyone is correct to remove them (pending, of course, the outcome of this RfC). — <
----
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> No further edits should be made to this discussion. <!--Template:Rfc bottom--></div>
*[[Wikipedia_talk:Using_archive.is#RfC:_Should_we_use_short_or_long_format_URLs.3F|RfC open]] if we should use long or short URLs when linking to archive.is .. noted here as it may still be on watchlists and some discussions here were about the short form. -- [[User:Green Cardamom|<span style="color:#006A4E;">'''Green'''</span>]][[User_talk:Green Cardamom|<span style="color:#009933;">'''C'''</span>]] 23:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
| |||