[Declanomous]

My mistake, I tried using just a year in the search results and got older results, so I don't really know what the restrictions on the search are.

I wasn't able to bring up any pages from earlier than 12 months ago without putting in a specific year. I tried using Wikipedia pages that I have bookmarked in the past but no longer exist. I understood this to mean that I couldn't access older deletions, because of the following line on the page:

> Below is a list of recent deletions and restorations.

edit: Either way, it appears Rsync.net would be notable, as it appears on the Warrant Canary page as having the first commercial use of a Warrant Canary. That's the only current use I can find of Rsync.net. Internet cache pages are blocked where I work, so I can't find any more information.

[tptacek]

Hold on. I'm not debating whether Rsync.net is notable. I'm saying that you confidently made a statement about Wikipedia that appears to be false --- and you did so while condemning other commenters here for holding an opinion contrary to your own.

[Declanomous]

I think you may be ascribing too much confidence and condemnation to my comment. I removed my inaccurate statement about the edit when I changed my comment, as I couldn't determine how to strikeout my text as I normally prefer, but my intention was not to make a definitive claim about the nature of Wikipedia, and I don't believe I worded my comment as such.

As far as I recall, my initial comment about how the deletion search worked was hedged by the phrase "it appears", (or something substantially similar). I provided evidence of what steps I had taken in my work. My joke about pitchforks was merely a joke, meant to point out how quickly users make up their mind one way or another.

I edited my initial comment to admit my error as soon as it was pointed out to me. Had I been acting maliciously, I would have just removed that section completely.

Regardless of what words I used to describe how Wikipedia works, the word I used in my assessment was "plausible", which I think is a very even-handed word. I specifically chose it because it doesn't make a strong claim either way.

You are reading a bit too far in to my comments if you think what I said was a definitive claim about how Wikipedia works, or an attack on other users.