From Encyclopedia Dramatica
archive.is (many domains archive.fo, archive.today, archive.ec, archive.li) is the favorite way today that pedophiles share their child porn hosted by Hostkey. They simply upload child pornography somewhere, then archive it before it gets deleted, and have it saved to share forever. Unlike an image uploader which does one image at a time, archive.is will scrape an entire page of child porno and store it forever. It is a beloved, free, on-demand archiving service.
Pizzagate and Podesta pedo leaks
Since his site only stores porn pictures and not videos, that is odd. Why would someone need an archive site to store porn pictures they can just download? And why not just bookmark the site itself? A pay-site also would block his archiver anyway. That is because the porn people use his site to store is child porn and he is well aware. People store it on his site so when the V& comes, they have a computer free of CP -- it's stored online at the world's most popular archive site and they merely have links to it in encrypted texts.
One of the most popular places people uploaded child porn to and used archive.is to store it was on 8ch.net. They uploaded CP to the lolicon board (which is supposed to be drawings only) and before the mods deleted it, they archived it to share. For years, this was the notorious CP upload spot. 8ch.net kept fighting it and fighting it but Denis Petrov who runs archive.is refused to stop scraping the site. After a series of legal actions, Denis Petrov finally stopped but only stopped scraping the lolicon board and he still scrapes the rest of the site regularly. Archive.is turns fukken saved into a reality.
Amateur detectives and Wikipedia patriots have used their collective imaginations to conjure up an existential threat to Wikipedia's ad-free, money-hating society. Their minds conceived a nefarious criminal enterprise aimed at taking over your PC's with malware and making profits by suddenly introducing ads.
Wikipedian opinions in 2013
I prefer this option. It is based primarily on my belief that the IPs were not being used legally. This makes me distrust the motives of archive.is, and suspicious that we are being set up as the victim of a Trojan Horse: once the links to archive.is are established, those links can be rerouted to anywhere. If illegal means were used to create the links, why should we trust the links to remain safe?—Kww(talk)
Support after reading User:Kww's rationale. We don't know what the purpose of the links is, and so we can't be sure that they aren't being used as a Trojan horse. If the nature and details of the archive are better known, I may change this to option 1. Robert McClenon (talk)
Support with blacklist: The operator of archive.is appears to be acting in extreme bad faith in how he is inserting these links; consequently, I don't feel we can trust the site's contents in the future. --Carnildo (talk)
Support - Using zombies to link to this site makes me leery of what could be added to the site in the future. If he's willing to do this, he might add exploits to the site in the future. With this many links incoming from Wikipedia, a fair number of people could have their machines compromised with zero-day exploits. @Kww, I'd notify the WMF and the stewards of this, since it'll probably need a global blacklisting. Reaper Eternal (talk)
Support removal of all archive.is links now. After the repeated insertions of links by botnet(s), I have little faith in the ethics of the site owners. They could well turn their site into a malware dissemination tool. There is other corroborating evidence for low ethics like their choice of data storage ISPs and lack of respect for robots.txt (and thus the content/copyright owners' desires). Someone not using his real name (talk)
Support The security issues involved are far too plausible to leave these links in Wikipedia without strong evidence that the archive is run by an organization capable of maintaining the archive, and with accountability for any malware or problematic content that may appear later. Big money can be made from infecting computers used to browse the Internet, and someone running a bot operating from multiple IPs demonstrates high motivation and a low regard for ethics. Johnuniq (talk)
Wikipedian opinions in 2014
Support We should not be linking to sites that could infect user's computers or rely on that functionality to operate. (note: if someone developer a legit peer-type service, that would be different; it's the unknowing potential misuse of compromised systems that's at issue). --MASEM (t)
Support. While the RFC was phrased in a circumspect manner, there's no reasonable doubt that the owner of archive.is used an illegal botnet to add links to Wikipedia, and I mean illegal in the sense of contravening actual law, not Wikipedia policies. We should not use our status as the sixth largest website to provide links to someone that has demonstrated that he will use compromised computers to achieve his goals. That places our users in unnecessary peril.
Further, the use of advertising on a site that takes snapshots of other people's contents raises substantial copyright questions: it's hard to justify taking a complete copy of someone's work and using it to attract people to ads under current copyright law.—Kww(talk) 20:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Archive.is has demonstrated multiple times that they have no scruples in regards to respecting robots.txt rules, Injection of malware, replacement of ads, violation of Wikipedia Terms of Service, and abuse of process. Archive.is and it's advocates should demonstrate by acceptance elsewhere that the internet as a whole trusts them before they can earn our trust back. Hasteur (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - There are too many uncertainties, even as to what law the server is subject to. It is not subject to US law. The domain is registered in Iceland, but the servers appear to be in Prague, and one of the name servers is in Lichtenstein. There are too many uncertainties as to what the purpose of the archive is. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Whoever is behind archive.is has demonstrated that they are willing and able to do anything, and they cannot be trusted. If thousands of links are established on Wikipedia, the archive operator can later do whatever they want when a link in an article is clicked. Johnuniq (talk) 02:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose The archive.is links present a possible (even if not confirmed) threat to readership. Immediate removal is more important that having ~16,000 some articles with dangling references most which can be fixed in time. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Support They have to go, they present a danger (even if not malignant at the present time) to our readership. Damage control in the safer enviornment can be done later. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedian opinions in 2016
Leave on blacklist : No legitimate archiving service would use illegal botnets to add the links. It's interesting that this RFC doesn't mention that piece of archive.is's history, and I expect that the votes to remove it are based on ignorance of that fact.—Kww(talk) 22:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
We aren't talking Rotlinkbot and contravention of Wikipedia policies: we are talking actual criminal trespass, where hundreds of user computers were compromised. It was a criminal act which directly benefited archive.is and only benefited archive.is. It's pretty unlikely that the only beneficiary of a criminal act was somehow completely uninvolved.—Kww(talk) 23:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
WP:KETTLE violation there, CFCF. You dismiss concerns, state your own dismissal repeatedly, and repeatedly disrupt the discussion in order to minimize the opposition.  . Your abuse of this RFC alone should merit invalidating it and running a fresh one in which you are forbidden to participate.—Kww(talk) 03:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not aware of any of the arguments against archive.is that doesn't check out. Care to indicate exactly how you delved into any of them and found them lacking? Or do you just want to have your support vote highlight your edit history as an editor that intentionally bypasses the spam blacklist when you find it convenient?—Kww(talk) 21:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose We are to allow a site known for malicious activities to spread their links onto this project? The supporters need to take a long hard look in the mirror and decide if they want Wikipedia to be overrun with commercialism. Archive.is needs to be a hell of a lot more forthcoming with the Foundation before we could dream of allowing this. As is, it's nightmare waiting to happen. Allowing archive.is to run amok of this project is no better than welcoming Willy on Wheels back with open arms. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
In July 2008, "Masharabinovich" joined Wikipedia and contributed to several software-related articles. In 2010, Masharabinovich fell victim to Wikipedia's aggressive persecution of proxies, forcing Masharabinovich to seek more obscure proxies:
I had to use a proxy in order to edit, because my ISP's (fiber.cz) network is blocked as proxy.
The blocked range 220.127.116.11/19 is not an anonymous proxy.
It is network of 8192 IP addresses.
And there are a lot of subnetworks owned by different providers inside the range.
You give me no another possibility as to find an anonymous proxy each time I want to edit, because I am not allowed to edit without the proxy, using my ISP's IP.
The Wikipedians failed to address the issues Masharabinovich was facing, and no one responded to Masharabinovich's final statements in that thread.
In August 2012, Masharabinovich identified archive.is as "my website" and expressed frustration at not being able to link to archive.is on the Finnish Wikipedia due to an issue with F-Secure.
A month later, the "Rotlink" account was created, and Masharabinovich and Rotlink began replacing dead links with archive.is links. Rotlink created the "RotlinkBot" account later that month, and its creation was met with approval from the Russian Wikipedia (ruwiki).
For over a year, Rotlink was able to continue his or her mission of preserving webpages in relative peace and earned the appreciation of the other Wikipedians.
In early August 2013, the Russian Wikipedia community asked Rotlink to run a separate account with a "bot" flag, so that his revisions don't flood the RecentChanges page, and Rotlink obliged by applying his "RotlinkBot" account for bot status.
After applying for bot status at the Russian Wikipedia, the "RotlinkBot" account became active at the English Wikipedia (enwiki). Although Rotlink requested bot status for RotlinkBot at ruwiki, he forgot to do so at enwiki, so in mid-August, an enwiki sysop blocked the "RotlinkBot" account, despite the fact that RotlinkBot wasn't technically a bot. Rotlink submitted a bot request to enwiki, but Rotlink withdrew it in order to rewrite it.
Near the end of August, the ruwiki community granted the RotlinkBot account "bot" status.
Despite the setbacks on enwiki, Rotlink continued his or her mission, sometimes neglecting to log into his or her account. In early September 2013, Rotlink attracted the attention of Kww, Wikipedia's most uptight sysop, by persistently triggering the edit filter while trying to update the "Empire State of Mind" article. Although Rotlink's revisions were harmless, Kww responded by blocking Rotlink's proxies, but Rotlink kept returning under new proxies.
After encountering resistance at the AN/I for suggesting that all of Rotlink's revisions be reverted, Kww started a RfC in order to obtain consensus for the eradication of archive.is links. Kww accused Rotlink of running a botnet and other crimes based on pure speculation and no evidence. Despite this, Kww's fear-mongering was able to sway the community towards his point of view, and archive.is links ended up being banned from Wikipedia for over two and a half years.
In May / June 2016, the opponents of archive.is finally found themselves outnumbered and outmatched and archive.is was removed from the blacklist. What havoc will archive.is wreck upon Wikipedia now that it's unbound? Only God and Kww know.
Use the following code whenever you use an archive.is link;
Where A: archive.is code (Ex: A7XGB)
Where B: custom text (JEWDIDWTC)
If done right, you get:
If you want no custom text, do not use B.
You don't need to capitalise the word archive in order for it to work, to clarify.
Archive.is is part of a series on
Visit the Wikipedia Portal for complete coverage.