https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...
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.
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.
It was reverted less than an hour later with the comment "Thanks for the addition, but as wikipedia is not a directory, please limit the list to services with wikipedia articles." So it's at least plausible that he tried to create an article for Rsync.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_onl...
Edit: I initially thought you couldn't search for deletions older than a year. I was mistaken.