:::::Really? I'll stop labeling lies as such when they are retracted. So, I will spell out what I mean since you're somehow failing to get what I mean, or even recognize what you've lied about: 
 :::::Lie #1 was in the first sentence of your first declaration: "spambot". Spam is useless interference: links to archive pages at archive.org and at archive.is are not useless or interference. You bias the reader by the presumption of both "bot" (and it still could have been a guy running a script sporadically) and "spam" (presumption of uselessness or damage/interference). You didn't say "in my opinion, this seems like a spambot - is it?" You used the full force of your admin knowledge to inform the world that it absolutely is a spambot, and nothing else. Bull. Shit. 
 :::::Lie #2 was that the links were all(implied) "to his site": too bad for you it's obvious by examination of the IP contributions you linked to that the changes were all of high quality: much higher than you have so far admitted, and large numbers (from the several sets of IPs you listed) were to archive.org, most definitely not "his site".  
 :::::Lie #3 was your still unsupported claim of "illegal". That's just bullshit scare tactics, designed to frighten readers who aren't yet wise to such bullshit tricks: "Oooh, it was illegal, so of course we have to revert all those edits!" Legal claims are just not on, and you've no right to throw that sort of shit around. 
 :::::Maybe you didn't mean to actually lie. Maybe you're just angry and burned out about unauthorized scripted actions, and having to deal with folks doing end runs around bot disapprovals. Sorry you think the fact of a possible bot is soooo much more important than the quality/applicability/usefulness of the edits performed. Maybe extremist, radical rhetoric is the only way you feel your concerns will be heard. Keep it up - you're just making my job easier.