Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archive.is RFC 4: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 17:47, 5 June 2016

Revision as of 17:59, 5 June 2016

Line 129:

#:: '''Keep Open'''. Valid. Apparently, in your case, you have the ability to think you can look inside people's heads and tell what they're thinking. (Perhaps the admin bit caused this wooly thinking?) Fortunately, you can't. Have my facts straight. It's magical thinking to believe that ignoring the many well-documented cases where only archive.is works, would work if it wasn't blacklisted, and works much better, makes them go away. This punitive block should have ended years ago, and I don't hold a grudge over activity that worked to get around a block that should have been removed years ago. That the extreme claim that "A consensus that supports not using the blacklist to prohibit additions does not automatically mean ... a consensus that ''no'' new links can be added." is even made shows how extreme and closed-minded the thinking on this has become. Common sense has gone out the window. (Presumably the ''no'' is there due to an editing error; without that assumption, the comment makes even less sense!) Oh, and given that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Archive.is_RFC_4&diff=720832040&oldid=720828858 Beetstra] edited the RFC for clarity, any remaining ambiguity is not to be interpreted extremely in Beetstra's favor, per the legal principles of the [[Offer_and_acceptance#Battle_of_the_forms|last shot rule]] and [[Contra proferentem]]. --[[User:Elvey|<font color="burntorange">Elvey</font>]]^{([[User talk:Elvey|t]]•[[Special:Contribs/Elvey|c]])} 18:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

#:::{{rto|Elvey}} It is funny to see that you comment like this while you are also clearly unaware (and this RfC is not exactly helping in providing you that information) that the promotion of archive.is has been repeating itself several times since the original situation, and is an actually currently ongoing situation (FYI, you were [[WP:CANVAS|canvassed]] here to support - I wonder how that stands in light of [[WP:FALSECON]]). --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] ^{[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]} 13:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

#::::<facepalm> Wow, way to attempt change the subject. I make some valid points and your response is an ad hominem attack - you accuse me of ignorance. Same thing with [[User:Codename Lisa|Codename Lisa]], below - she makes valid points and the response is more accusations of ignorance. Borderline [[WP:NPA]] violations. Your argument is that since I'm not agreeing with you, I must be ignorant. Lame! It is hubris to think you can look inside people's heads and tell what they're thinking, yet you've made this claim get again, by claiming to know I'm unaware of something! That it happened again after I called it out... shocking. It needs to STOP! <p><p> '''Analogy''': Consider a prisoner who is found guilty of attempted escape (that injured no one and no thing), and sentenced to additional time because of it. If DNA evidence becomes available that proves him innocent of the original crime, should he still be required to serve the sentence for an attempted escape? Probably not, IMO. That's why I said when I voted, "the bot ... should have been approved; instead a bad decision led to more and more bad, authoritarian decisions (including some blocks and bans) all compounding the original error, even though it was well argued that preceding decisions had been in error." So, IMO, the initial allegations that led to the denial of bot status led to more and more, including people pushing a story of criminality. <u>I don't buy the story of criminality</u> ''based on evidence presented'', and I have looked at it. I do have my facts straight. The evidence is too weak. But more importantly, I don't think an innocent man should be imprisoned for trying to escape an unjust sentence. The "crime" is whatever led to denial of bot status. The use of proxies, etc is the escape attempts. --[[User:Elvey|<font color="burntorange">Elvey</font>]]^{([[User talk:Elvey|t]]•[[Special:Contribs/Elvey|c]])} 17:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

#'''Oppose''' There are plenty of legitimate archiving services (archive.org is the main one) that take care of the link rot problem without introducing any of the many problems of archive.is. [[User:Jackmcbarn|Jackmcbarn]] ([[User talk:Jackmcbarn|talk]]) 00:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

#:Archive.is is a legitimate archiving service. It invariably does a better job than archive.org or webcite. Regrettably, the number of archiving services remains pitifully few. [[User:Hawkeye7|Hawkeye7]] ([[User talk:Hawkeye7|talk]]) 01:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)