Talk:Archive.today

Information about the country blocking is self-evidently available on the web.

You can easily google for currently active proxies in the countries in question and then run something like "Chrome.exe --proxy-server=socks5://37.27.205.217:35101 http://archive.is"

Anyone know why its been down for the past ~2 days? The only working mirror currently is https://archive.is/ Youreironic (talk) 16:42, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Archiveiya74codqgiixo33q62qlrqtkgmcitqx5u2oeqnmn5bpcbiyd.onion has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 30 § Archiveiya74codqgiixo33q62qlrqtkgmcitqx5u2oeqnmn5bpcbiyd.onion until a consensus is reached. – The Grid (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

According to a blog post and a HackerNews discussion, archive.today attempted to DDOS a small blogpost for criticising them. I don't know whether this can be added on the basis of notability and WP:UNDUE, so I am asking for feedback on the matter. Oakchris1955 (talk) 11:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

This can be clearly seem by the Internet Archive's snapshot of archive.ph (on line 290 to 295 of the source code) Oakchris1955 (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

At this point, the discussion topic is gaining traction with other reputable outlets, e.g. Arstechnica, but I similarly don't have particular insight on whether this meets the bar of WP:UNDUE.~2026-93182-2 (talk) 04:03, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

There's also an ongoing RFC here on Wikipedia about whether or not the site should be blacklisted. An editor also seems to have added the incident I described above on the page of the article. Oakchris1955 (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Patokallio's name is mentioned in , which can be argued being "widely published". However, excluding his name will not "result in a significant loss of context", so IMO we should remove it per spirit of that bit of BLP policy. We can keep the name of his blog.

Opinions, editors? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Definitely would be fine with omitting the name. I'm not sure if the spirit (small individuals who wish to remain private can remain private) applies here, though. He has made no attempt to conceal his name (it's the first word in the gyrovague.com sidebar) and using the name instead of, say, "the writer" makes the prose less clumsy. (There's also the minor optics factor where part of the dispute involves the webmaster claiming Patokallio wants to hide his name, but that's just, minor.) Aaron Liu (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

The "spirit" I was thinking of include the "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event." bit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought that had the same spirit as the rest of the paragraph? Aaron Liu (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps. Not important. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Why not ask him? He, an no others, should decide, if his name is published on WP! Martin Mair (talk) 10:30, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

That will not necessarily be the case. But keep reading this thread. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:11, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose, this will significantly harm context because there's otherwise no way to know who's DDOSing whom ("gyrovague" is a site's name, not Jani's nickname). sapphaline (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

No it won't, we'll just rewrite the text to say "In 2023, a post on the blog Gyrovague..." etc. Excluding his name will cause no harm to context. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. I am Jani Patokallio, the author of the Gyrovague blog in question (you're welcome to confirm this by emailing me), and I have no objections to publishing my name here.

I do find the characterization "wrote a blog post attempting to reveal archive.today's webmaster's identity" incorrect/misleading, since the blog is quite clear that all names mentioned are aliases and even spells out that we do "not have a face and a name". Gyrovagueblog (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I've edited to avoid implying the actual identity was published, though I've kept "attempting to reveal" per the source. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

@Gyrovagueblog Welcome to Wikipedia! As you guessed, we can only guess if you are who you say you are (I'm leaning in that direction) or not. If you want us to know for sure (and personally I'd withdraw my suggestion of removing your name), there are 2 ways that works well for the Wikipedians:

1: You can make a comment, for example in the comment section at https://gyrovague.com/2026/02/01/archive-today-is-directing-a-ddos-attack-against-my-blog/ or just update the original post, saying something like "I noticed that the Wikipedians were talking about me, so I commented as "User:Gyrovagueblog"." Then tell us here you did that.

2: See Wikipedia:FAQ/Article_subjects#How_can_I_prove_my_identity_to_the_Wikipedia_Community?. Hope this helps some. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I hope #1 won't draw extraordinary attention to this article. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

The comment section is already linking WP (not this specific article), my guess is that arstechnica and tomshardware will do more than that blogpost. But if not, we have templates, admins, CTOP, etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I have added verification to the end of my blog entry. Gyrovagueblog (talk) 10:06, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, then I consider this matter settled, there is no problem with having your name in the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:19, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

It appears that all of its mirrors, including the original, are offline as it shows a spinning wheel and refreshes to the same page every 5 seconds. Can anyone else confirm if this is the case and possibly update the infobox? ~2026-11011-95 (talk) 10:34, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Huh. We'll wait and see if Ars Technica or some other WP:RS comments on it. Could be a temporary whatever. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:22, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Apparently it's happened before: https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/1my934z/is_anyone_else_having_problems_with/ Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:26, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Not for me right now. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

This should be explained in the article. إيان (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

The DDoS situation could also be explained with less jargon. إيان (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

It's a guy's blog in which he published investigation findings that archive.today didn't like. What more should the article say about it that would be relevant? Largoplazo (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

that archive.today operator has been accused of modifying archived pages from the guy's blog, which suggests, along with the DDoS, that such an archiving project is less than trustworthy ~2026-68502-0 (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

The article's uncritical repetition of the libelous "Nazi grandfather" claim violates WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Gyrovagueblog (talk) 05:11, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Agree, removed, no consensus. -- GreenC 05:28, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. However, new text "comparing Patokallio to Hunter Biden" has been added. I also posted the blog in my personal capacity, so dragging my former employers into this, with the implication that they were somehow involved, is also IMHO both unwarranted and misleading (I was no longer at either in 2023). Gyrovagueblog (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@GreenC: The article is steadily getting worse and even the Nazi slur is back. I hesitate to edit it myself due to COI but would appreciate it if you can take a look. Gyrovagueblog (talk) 13:04, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

This "sentence" is a BLP train wreck:

Invoking an unpublished interview with the German outlet Legal Tribune Online, the website operator suggested that archive.today posed a threat to the subscription business model and to media protecting reputations by retracting published content, and acknowledged that his criticism portrayed Patokallio as a Hunter Biden-like figure:[27][26] "the fool of [a] family" of "considerable geopolitical entanglement" and alleged Nazi past that "moves in politics and in the arms trade", Patokallio being a son of the Finnish diplomat Pasi Patokallio.

1. Poorly written run-on sentence with grammar issues, there are parts I can't understand it jumps around who said what to who where and why. It's a head twister.
2. "Invoking an unpublished interview". Seriously? Was this the way it happened? Was Jack the Ripper really a 60-foot sea serpent from Scotland?
3. The "allegations" have serious BLP issues per WP:AVOIDVICTIM.

-- GreenC 06:44, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree. I've removed this. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal of the sentence, which is the easy (lazy) solution and fails the standards of neutrality by not representing the website operator's stance. Mr Patokallio is not the only party whose interests need to be considered, BLP does not trump NPOV.

1. The sentence may be clumsy but is grammatically correct. Copyediting improvements are welcome, I originally extended the sentence in response to the insertion of a tag by another editor asking for clarification.

2. It is fair to say the existence of the interview is an unevidenced claim, hence it may not deserve mention.

3. Per this article, Mr Patokallio was not harmed financially and did not consider the allegations and threats to be serious enough to merit any action other than ending conversation, so although the intent to cause financial or reputational damage may well have been there on the part of the website operator, the "victimisation" appears to be exaggerated - I do not see evidence that would justify WP:VICTIM being accepted as the key policy here to guide the shape of the article. Are we sure that being on the receiving end of an intent to cause harm or nuisance exhausts the notability of Mr Patokallio's involvement in the conflict with archive.today?

4. As for the "Nazi past" allegation, the linked article mentions Mr Patokallio disputed it by saying his grandfather had served in "an anti-aircraft unit of the Finnish Army during WW2". That does not settle the matter given that the operation in question could have occurred in 1944 when Finland fought alongside Nazi Germany, so the allegation should not be regarded as proven false or even unambiguously denied by Mr Patokallio.

Overall, the dispute has been covered by enough good-quality neutral-ish specialist sources that it can be reported in some detail. I don't think any standalone claims currently in the article were sourced to either of the blogs alone, and I see no valid reason for the removal (with the exception of the LTO interview claim above). VampaVampa (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

BLP does trump NPoV because of the human (and often legal) impact of slander. You can ask at the BLP or NPoV noticeboards about this. I would even argue this falls under Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing as Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest; it should only be added with independent confirmation. And that's just for the second half (from "'the fool of a family'"). The first half definitely falls under that plus WP:Undue, a section of NPoV.

FalseBalance is also a section of NPoV. NPoV is the position of the reliable sources on the subject, not saying both sides are equally strong/giving both sides equal coverage and credence despite said sources. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

A few points. (1) There were allegations from both sides, with Patokallio claiming that the website operator employs botnets and is based in Russia or Russian in origin, and the website operator claiming that Patokallio is the son of Pasi Patokallio and that his family has a "Nazi past" (based on the fact that the surname Patokallio emerged in 1944).

(2) These allegations do not overlap in subject matter, and none of them can be either substantiated or refuted (the reliable sources do not weigh in), hence it is hard to see how WP:FALSEBALANCE could apply here.

(3) What NPOV means in this situation is giving an impartial account of the positions of the two warring sides, which may be unreasonable in their content. Remember that we are describing a dispute, not a subject on which the two parties hold divergent views. Compare how the article on the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine reports that "[Putin] said that Russia's goal was to "demilitarise and denazify" Ukraine", or how Turkish president Erdogan responded to a Turkish doctors' association criticising his invasion of Syria by calling them "filth", "agents of imperialism", and "terrorist lovers". To report allegations or insults is not the same as endorsing them as justified, and the fact that one side is an aggressor (assuming we treat the DDoS as an attack) does not prevent their justification for their actions from being cited. Perhaps the way in which the allegations are reported needs to be rewritten, and advice from WP:IMPARTIAL applied: "Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute" (although the quoted examples suggest otherwise). VampaVampa (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

1. You'll note that we don't include either of these, thanks to how little they are relevant to the situation.
2. I don't see how that's relevant. To represent Archive.today's views you're going out of the way to cite their blog and an obscure (though marginally-reliable) source while Patokallio's positions can be easily sourced by secondary and much stronger sources. You're artificially boosting archive.today's creedence beyond what reliable sources give it, and that is unDue FalseBalance.
3. The difference is that reliable sources covered Putin's justifications and Erdogan's name-calling. That's not here. Not to mention that BLP doesn't apply to entire countries and peoples but singular persons.

Aaron Liu (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

1. Your link refers to a policy about people, while your "either of these" seems to refer to allegations. I'm confused.

2. It's actually not the case that only one source reports Archive.today's take on the conflict - both TechSpot and ArsTechnica mention the Nazi allegation (2 RS). Admittedly, the claim about sonhood is most visible in TechSpot (still in a diluted form), but it is logically subsumed under the "Nazi claim" (there is no grandfather without the father) hence also indirectly supported by ArsTechnica, and also implied by the mention of the Hunter Biden case by the Digitec Magazine (3 RS). ArsTechnica and TechCrunch additionally report the website operator's accusation that the blog drew negative attention to the website, and PurePC suggests the connection in an editorial voice (3 RS). It is also not the case that Patokallio's positions are universally accepted - even the DDoS, which is the keystone of the whole affair, is described as "alleged" by Tom's Hardware and TechCrunch (2 RS), while being accepted by ArsTechnica, PurePC, TechSpot (while noting it was basically harmless), and the Digitec Magazine (4 RS + additional article by ArsTechnica's Jon Brodkin). The botnet allegation is not accepted as fact by Heise and Tom's Hardware (2 RS), while appearing to be accepted (but attributed to Wikipedia) by ArsTechnica (1 RS). We have 7 RS in total with fairly variant coverage (not counting the second Brodkin article) - where 2 out of 7 agree, I think that makes for a reasonable inclusion threshold, given that nowhere do more than 4 out of 7 appear to coincide in the above analysis.

3. Fair point about persons, but with regard to RSs, as already illustrated above, the allegations do reverberate (albeit in divergent forms) in multiple sources, and they represent the crux of a dispute that is recognised as notable. It would be strange not to spell them out (in an impartial editorial tone) - which is what I attempted, with the somewhat clumsy result that we are now discussing, when originally prompted by @GnocchiFan's clarification tag. VampaVampa (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Re 2. I forgot to include the altered snapshots claim. This is accepted as fact in (the second Brodkin article) and TechSpot, while reported as "apparent" by TechCrunch. VampaVampa (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

1. The section's about details about people, and those allegations are details about people.
2. Ars does not say past that "moves in politics and in the arms trade" and simply does not say Pasi is his father. It could verify that the webmaster called him a Nazi but I think the claim needs context which would push it beyond proportionate and Undue.
   "drew negative attention" is not exactly what the sources say, and we do currently mention that the subpoena coverage used the blog post and what the blog post's about. Feel free to suggest how better to cover this. We could add "allegedly" for the DDoS. I don't see how "apparent" changes anything. Wikipedia also says botnet is just an allegation instead of fact; this is in line with how Wikipedia:Citing sources#In-text attribution says we should cover opinions.
   All of these claims are supported by at least two mainstream sources while what you're trying to add (other than what Ars says about the Nazi allegations) is only supported by the niche TechSpot and an online retailer.

Aaron Liu (talk) 15:10, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@VampaVampa: Sorry for responding this late. I'm assuming you reverted my revert but I can't tell since the revisions have been deleted, so apologies in advance if it wasn't you. I still stand by most of my reverts: the Wikitravel Press co-founder and Google Cloud is a Verifiability violation because it Synthesizes Patokallio's roles to imply expertise (or even endorsement, as Patokallio has mentioned in this section) in a way that sources have not stated. Inclusion of it is adding OriginalResearch. The detailing of the libelous claims still violates WP:AVOIDVICTIM.

I'm also unsure how much Due weight The agency instructed Tucows not to disclose the subpoena has. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu: There need be no implication of endorsement; that is only one of multiple possible ways of reading it. The inclusion of most notable positions held is a simple matter of locating a person in their social context (occupation, relationships, possible conflicts of interest) - in the way you would mention that someone is a priest and their confession in an article on church matters, without necessarily suggesting that they are officially representing their community or having any particular expertise. I have seen no source to prove that Patokallio was no longer with Google Cloud in 2023, and if it was his last known major employment around the time then it remained relevant. As already explained above, Patokallio's involvement in Wikitravel Press is mentioned in the relevant article, so it is no "original research" to make reference to that; it is if anything a question of editorial presentation. I would refer you again to WP:COMBINE again, which I cited in the now apparently deleted revert of your revert (I am not clear as to what exactly has been deleted by @Richwales and why). On WP:AVOIDVICTIM I have replied above. VampaVampa (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:Synth disagrees. Even disregarding endorsement, listing Patokallio's previous positions suggests expertise in a way the sources did not, so I disagree that this is trivial. Thus, I don't see what section of Combine this falls under. Unless other editors agree that it is trivial, it's not trivial. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

You have referred the "non-triviality" of describing Patokallio by way of his previous positions to the expertise you believe it implies. But the notion of triviality in the WP:COMBINE guidance (case 5) refers specifically to why the No Original Research policy does not prevent editors from combining sources in all events, i.e. why no interpretation may be required to combine them. It is trivial to identify the Jani Patokallio of the Archive.today dispute with the Jani Patokallio of Wikitravel Press. To state this falls short of implying that he has some ill-defined expertise that may have assisted him in investigating Archive.today (?), it is only a statement of his past/present affiliations - to interpret this in any stronger way is unwarranted and we have no right to condescend on the readers by presuming they will jump to such conclusions. You asked what section of Combine this falls under: the Obama example is even more relevant than triviality (we don't need to wait for a source to put JP's past positions in one sentence with his involvement with Archive.today for us to make the connection explicit), and the other Combine cases may also apply (adding a description of JP to our claim about the dispute to inform the non-expert about his background/status; providing a fuller picture; recognising that JP is the same person as the Wikitravel co-founder described in another Wikipedia article). VampaVampa (talk) 05:26, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I still disagree that the expertise implied is not an interpretation. I think this is pretty similar to the textbook WP:Synth example of the United Nations and number of past wars. I'll leave to the others here like @GreenC to decide whether it's trivial, or we could ask Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

To me it is a case of WP:AUDIENCE, which is also described in a way that is relevant here by the second paragraph in WP:BALASP. Can you explain what you mean by "the expertise implied" with regard to our case, before we hear others? VampaVampa (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

The problem with the context you're trying to provide to the audience here is it's OR synthesis while the examples in that second paragraph are verifiable by single citations. Patokallio's career is not prominently covered and associated along with his role in tour event. Adding his prestigious past employments implies that he is somewhat trustworthy. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

It is either OR or COMBINE. I take you to be saying it is similar to the United Nations red flag example because you maintain there is an interpretation involved. Suppose a former president of Kiribati was writing a blog in a personal capacity on issues outside his previous remit. As he is not going to be immediately recognisable to readers as more widely known presidents would be, does he not merit introduction as former president of Kiribati, or does this necessarily entail an interpretation? I am not sure where you derive the requirement for "verifiability by single citations" from, given that WP:COMBINE explicitly discusses Examples using multiple sources to support a single statement, but founding Wikitravel Press is easily verifiable from the Wikitravel article and Google Cloud employment is mentioned by the blog and verifiable by a single additional citation (to ecosperity.sg). VampaVampa (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I am saying that the interpretation here is not trivially simple and I do not see what else under Combine this can fall under. Without any other provision of Combine applying you do need a single source per Synth. I'm not sure I understand your example, but if his status as former president of Kiribati was relevant then reliable sources would cover it. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Re Tucows, I do not see why it would be relevant to mention that archive.today obtained and published the subpoena, but not that FBI wanted it to remain unknown to the public. Please can you clarify your reasoning. VampaVampa (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

To summarize WP:Due weight, information should be covered as much as reliable sources mention them, no more and no less. Out of the numerous sources mentioning the subpoena incident (including the ones that summarize it after the Gyrovague DDoS), only TechSpot—which is also far less mainstream than the others—mentions this detail. I don't think that's enough coverage to include it, but I guess I'm fine with it. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:43, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. You seem to be correct that only TechSpot (a less mainstream but nonetheless reliable source) mentioned the detail, but the report is not contested by other sources. It needs to be underlined that WP:DUE pertains to representation of viewpoints and not to inclusion of statements of fact, as is clear throughout its text (the word "aspects" in sentence 2 may be misleading). VampaVampa (talk) 05:45, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm fine with including this sentence but please see WP:MBFC. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, my bad. That said, TechSpot appears to be widely used as a tech news source in legal scholarly articles available on HeinOnline (as can be checked on Google Scholar) going back at least to 2005. VampaVampa (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:PROPORTION covers inclusion of, well, anything. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

This article appears to have many broken references, which appears to consist primarily of to the archive.is blog. There are also some remaining citations to archive.today, that will need to be removed as well. Mitchsavl (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

In Japan, the Ibaraki Prefectural Police Department (ja:茨城県警察) called Archive.today a fake site in 2016. They claim that this site contains redirects to adult and gambling sites, as well as malware. ChaetoLv (talk) 00:54, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Translated:

If you search for "Ibaraki Prefectural Police" etc. on the search site, in the results column
"Ibaraki Prefectural Police Homepage Ibaraki Prefectural Police - Archive.is"
A website that spoofs the Ibaraki Prefectural Police website has been confirmed.

This website mimics the Ibaraki Prefectural Police website that was posted in the past.

If you access it, it may be infected with viruses. Please do not access such websites.

As your second link exactly mentions, I think they're just confused about archival vs imitation; the "spoof" was probably just a snapshot of the page. I don't see anything mentioning redirects to bad sites. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:06, 10 March 2026 (UTC)