Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Tor

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: Keep. — xaosflux  Talk 14:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Tor

 * – (View MfD)
 * Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

This would block read access to Wikipedia as discussed on the Talk Page, and I can't see any reason why it would make sense to do that, given that some users may be using it to bypass content blocks by censors. It also looks like these IPs are not active either...

Swil999 (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This needs a bit more commentary.
 * Not convinced. It may need updating, but I see no reason to remove the page. What this does is allow people to edit without using the Tor network, ie an exit node operator on the same IP can still edit without using Tor. This actually allows them to both edit Wikipedia and run a node for the rest of the Internet. For users using Tor, they will automatically switch to another exit node, of which there are many, in order to read Wikipedia. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Question - User:OverlordQ - This appears to be your creation. Do you have an opinion?  What is its purpose?  Is it actually harmful, as implied, or is it useful?  We should only delete if this will actually prevent access by readers.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:09, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Any harm is only done if someone actually adds this to the configuration. As it is, just entries that can be added.,  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep and mark as historical or a failed proposal (if it was ever actually proposed). It's a bad idea, but being a bad idea is not a reason for deletion and I can't see any other reason to delete it. Thryduulf (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.