Talk:Archive.today

Japanese police warned that Archive.today is dangerous.

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)

Please see page 2 of the J-Cast article

Translated:

It wasn't just a simple copy (archive) of the Ibaraki Prefectural Police website; it was designed to redirect users to other pages containing inappropriate content, such as X-rated sites and gambling-related sites.

Original:

ただ茨城県警のサイトをコピー（魚拓）しただけではなく、成人向けサイトや賭博に関わるサイトなど不適切な内容を含む他のページに移動してしまう仕様になっていました

Furthermore, in my experience, this site has led to fake virus warnings or redirected to the Russian state-run RT. ChaetoLv (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

The reporter says the "redirection" happens ページ中のリンクをクリックした際に [when you click on links on the page], which sounds like the 2010s ad situation for any website not in the mainstream. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 02:14, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2026-03-10/Technology report

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

This seems like an overreaction. Were examples provided of where the content was allegedly changed? - Scarpy (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Not accessible when using "private DNS Provider" security.cloudflare-dns.com

also known by the numeric IP 4 address "1.1.1.1". Gaskew7 (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

No, the Cloudflare DNS server with the DNS-over-TLS domain security.cloudflare-dns.com is 1.1.1.2 (called “1.1.1.1 for Families”, malware-only blacklist), whereas 1.1.1.1 is the main Cloudflare DNS server, DNS-over-TLS domain one.one.one.one, and has no blacklist. You can see more information on the setup page: https://developers.cloudflare.com/1.1.1.1/setup/

Since I’m commenting anyways, I might as well also mention that I did some testing earlier today and, out of 1.1.1.1, 1.1.1.2, 9.9.9.9, and 9.9.9.11, 1.1.1.2 was the only DNS server which didn’t resolve archive.* to a genuine IP address, instead resolving to 0.0.0.0. My guess would be that, since both 1.1.1.1 and Quad9 with or without EDNS Client Subnet enabled were able to resolve archive.* just fine, Cloudflare and Quad9 don’t use identical malware/security blacklists and one of the lists which Cloudflare aggregates but Quad9 doesn’t currently simply includes archive.* and Cloudflare either isn’t aware or actively chooses to deffer to the blacklists it aggregates. I’m not all that familiar with how the whole malware/security filtering thing works in practice though, so my guess could be waaaaay off. El-Sandos-Grande (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Addition of "status update" on link removal

diff is currently being edit warred over by multiple people. I don't think it's good:

1. Making a separate subsection for the first paragraph doesn't make sense to me. See MOS:OverSection: Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheadings. The DDoS attack and the Wikipedia response is all the same thing. I haven't seen an argument about this aspect yet.
2. Random comments by non-SubjectMatterExpert Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources for these controversial claims. It cannot source that Wikipedia has hardly removed links. It cannot source that Archive.today is "accelerating" the process. It cannot source that Wikipedia is estimated to take centuries to remove links and it cannot source that Archive.today's referer blocking is effective.
   UnWP:Due (compare how much coverage everything else mentioned has), this is very opinionated OriginalResearch. To illustrate how much PoV plays into this, I would argue that we have removed nearly all article links to archive.today as putting its URLs in citation templates no longer produces a link.

In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

You are 1 click away to repeat the "original research":

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch/archive.is&limit=5000&offset=55000&target=archive.today

60000 is not the number of remaining AT links - it is the limitation of the search function, the results are sorted by date, and 60000th result is from year 2013. Results from 2013..2026 are beyond the list. There are many 100000s still remains.

The argument that fixing one template removed nearly everything is laughable.

Stop sabotaging, go and do the work. ~2026-34961-81 (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

This does not address anything I've said, and I don't understand what "laughable" means. You need a reliable source to add challenged claims and interpretations, which this is. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

You removed only one links actually.

Although it had some multiplicative effect being a template, actually it is 0.0001% of the work had been done, because the rest won't have multiplicative effect ~2026-34849-90 (talk) 14:32, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Source for 0.0001%? You need a reliable source for what you're trying to add. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

As for "reliable source" - just ask Jani Patokallio to write an blogpost with investigation on how slow his work is going and who and why sabotages it; Or should I wrote to him? ~2026-34849-90 (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Asamboi @Asamboi: User:Gyrovagueblog @Gyrovagueblog: ~2026-34849-90 (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I ping them not to ask to edit a wiki article, but to write a blog post, publish it in Heise and force you to stop sabotaging the link removal work. ~2026-34967-53 (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:archive.today guidance § Wrap standalone, blacklisted link

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:archive.today guidance § Wrap standalone, blacklisted link. Dw31415 (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2026 (UTC)