User talk:Lensovet/Archive/2008/Apr

Unfair block
User SkierRMH has blocked me from editing using an IP block that won't expire for 5 years. I find this to be absolutely ridiculous given the history of the many edits that I have made. I am, in fact, running a tor relay, but there is the option of soft-blocking, which I think is very appropriate given my past edit history and my complete lack of any vandalizing edits. One of my main motivations for running this proxy is to enable users in China to access censored pages – and despite having an entire page dedicated to giving Chinese users options for how to get around the Great Firewall, the only viable one that exists today is still using an open proxy like tor.

Please unblock this IP address, or at least put in place a soft block if that's possible. Thank you so much. —lensovet–talk – 04:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you don't want your IP blocked, don't run a tor node. Regardless of your motivation, open proxies are a source of endless abuse.  The foundation forbids the use of open proxies and so we block them on sight. — B (talk) 05:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * They are also the only way over a billion people can access this encyclopedia at all. If soft blocks are possible, can you give a good reason for why they can't be put in place? I'm not asking to unblock my IP; I'm asking to unblock my username, namely, lensovet. —lensovet–talk – 06:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, from meta, The blocking of tor is unfortunately not an assault on trolls or people with a barrow to push (POV-pushers) but rather on the right to anonymity by anyone requiring it. The problem of vandalism is deeper than the band-aid approach of blocking tor users from access to Wikipedia. Instead of this blunt instrument, the types of pages that are being vandalised should be analysed and stricter measures taken against the editing and vandalism on those pages rather than a blanket ban on all tor users.
 * I didn't write that myself. Should I point you to Jimbo's POV as well? —lensovet–talk – 06:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A soft block doesn't stop the node from being used abusively. Rather, it allows abusive users to run an untraceable army of sockpuppets. --B (talk) 06:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Am I an abusive user? Is there any evidence of abusive users coming out of my node? The answer is no to both, and I see no need for such harsh and proactive blocks until either of these conditions actually precipitates. —lensovet–talk – 07:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's the Foundation's policy to block open proxies from editing. However, you can still view pages. While there may not be any evidence of abusive users editing from your IP, it doesn't mean that it won't happen. As this is a foundation policy, we can't ignore it. If you want to be unblocked, I suggest you pull down your Tor node, hence closing the open proxy.  Stwalkerster  [  talk  ]  08:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The whole problem with open proxies is that there wouldn't be any evidence of wrongdoing. A sockmaster could have 20 socks running on 20 open proxies and there's no way to connect them. --B (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No it's not. The policy is that nodes may be blocked. Nothing says that if a node has been found, it has to be blocked. As I've said numerous times, there has been no activity that has taken place coming out of this node that is questionable. Furthermore, only English Wikipedia has chosen to block all exit nodes; the Foundation certainly hasn't. Don't try to hide behind the foundation; this overzealous policy only happens on the English wiki, and has little factual basis. —lensovet–talk – 02:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you know that no questionable activity has taken place? If I was using a sock puppet via your node, you wouldn't have any idea that I was abusing socks.  As long as I was "only" violating 3RR, but not being a flagrant troll, you wouldn't know. --B (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This seems to imply that the user running the sockpuppets has some sort of control over which node their connections go through, when in fact they don't. It's not like they could dictate which node which user went through. They could certainly try the "try it and hope it works" approach, but that's rather bogus. You also, still, haven't responded to why only the English wiki is so adamant about blocking exit nodes. —lensovet–talk – 05:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (unindent) English Wikipedia is the 7th or so largest website on the internet.   The risk of people using it to push a POV or advertise their business is greater here than it is anywhere else.  If someone is using socks on Commons or Wikisource, who cares?  But here, it's a bigger issue. --B (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You haven't addressed the fact that no one can direct which sock uses which relay, which sort of breaks down the whole "a user will use 20 relays to run 20 socks" argument. I'm also curious to see how the German wiki deals with this problem – they are the second-largest wiki, and Germany has the largest number of running tor relays in the world. Perhaps the real problem we're facing here is not some real threat but simply a lack of knowledge on the part of admins and editors due to tor's relative obscurity in the US? —lensovet–talk – 02:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

my concerns above have not been address still. —lensovet–talk – 22:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If your IP is hard blocked, please use unblock-auto (Yes I know this is not an autoblock but that template is also used for hardblocked IPs) to request review of your block. Please see Appealing a block for more information on how to get your block removed.

Fair use rationale for Image:ACTransit.png
Thanks for uploading Image:ACTransit.png. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)