Fun talk:How to use proxies

One thing you shouldbe wary of when using proxies is that the Teacake and Kowardjerk my use checkuser at any time, especially if you are new user. So editing from more than one IP address over a short period will trigger a sock alert. If you want to edit using a proxy it is vitally important that you keep a record of what you are doing, what IPs youare using etc. so that you don't slip up. See the The Information Warrior's Handbook for more tips. -- Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 14:18, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Exactly. DogP 14:22, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Another tip is to use whois to find out where your proxy is located. You need to ensure your persona matches the proxy location or at least has a good alibi. -- Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 14:38, 7 December 2008 (EST)

I've got to leave now. I'll come back tomorrow. Proxima Centauri 14:42, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Point of order

Essay space if for people who want to write a particular piece which is owned by then and can only be edited by them. This is not the case with this piece. It should be in mainspace, Fun or CP.--Bob^{bing up} 15:13, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Should we encourage this?

It is one thing logging on and editing CP badly you have not technically done anything wrong, but evading a block by using a proxy is a violation of the terms of conditions of use of the website and you are now moving into legally trickier areas. - User $\pi$ 02:59, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Two words: Steve Carson. DogP 03:03, 8 December 2008 (EST)

I'm not too sure about this either.--Bob^{bing up} 03:16, 8 December 2008 (EST)

As a general guide to proxies OK, but I think the overt targeting of CP is very dubious. _and marmite 03:32, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Lily moved it from mainspace to Essay which is where I think it should have stayed. Essays are not official site policy but MS/RW/CP could be seen as officially endorsing it. The Information Warrior's Handbook is in Essay space. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 03:50, 8 December 2008 (EST)

I've carried on working on this article. Those who understand the law better than I do will have to decide the next step. Proxima Centauri 05:03, 8 December 2008 (EST)

I do not think it should be essay. Essay is for articles by individual users to express a particular point of view. Such articles should only be edited by their creator. Lily moved the "The Information Warrior's Handbook" to essay at the same time yesterday. It did not start life there and after moving it to essay she edited it. If we don't want it in mainspace, it's not an essay and we don't want it in CP the only place left is "Fun". Fun is the home for things we don't know what to do with - they don't have to be "funny" to be there, they are free-to-edit and they are clearly non-policy. I think that both this and the handbook should be in Fun.--Bob^{bing up} 05:10, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Though it might be nice if we actually discussed these things a bit more before moving them.--Bob^{bing up} 05:53, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Actually Bob, it was Linus who moved the Information Warrior's Handbook to Essay: in December 2007, and it has been edited by several editors besides the original CatWatcher (what happened to him? He was a great parodist). Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 07:03, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Yes, My bad. I apologise for my error and thank you for pointing it out.--Bob^{bing up} 08:34, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Agreed (re this & info-warrior thing). Also I'd propose renaming this something like: How to surf teh net using proxies. _and marmite 06:30, 8 December 2008 (EST)

I agree. Here we are being attacked by some twit using proxies but, at least apparently, encouraging others to do the same thing at CP.--Bob^{bing up} 06:40, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Anyone second or disagree? Give it a couple of hours & then make it so, Bob? _and marmite 06:58, 8 December 2008 (EST)

(EC)I agree that Fun is probably a good home for these things, because we're not seriously advocating that people sock up and vandalise add factual information at CP are we? Perhaps we should included a disclaimer that the information is provided for entertainment purposes only. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 07:03, 8 December 2008 (EST)

That sounds good. Any more thoughts before we change things? It would be nice to get comments from all who might have an opinion before moving them any more.--Bob^{bing up} 08:28, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Let one or two Murkans log on - Oh! teh hell with it - Move it. _and marmite 08:31, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Seems to me there's a boatload of pussyfooting going on here. Conservapedia is filled with total lies, blatant factual untruths, made-up information, libellious statements of opinion, and nonsense and gibberish which has been inserted into pages. Not a court in the land would deny that. Being banned for adding simple factual truths there - no bias, no trolling - means that you are now unable to fix the info. If it takes a sock via a proxy to get articles over there into an 'encyclopediac' form, so be it. After all, it does claim to be an encyclopedia, and it does claim as its purpose the education of children. No-one has the right to publish lies and warp children's minds. Finally, CP is a blog, and has no legal rights whatsoever. There is no impediment to membership, no fee, nothing. Assuming they have a legal right to stop you posting is like assuming that some nerdy Star Wars blog run by some nerdy guy has an actual legal right to stop you posting that "Han Solo is teh gay" in his blog comments. He doesn't, and neither does AndyPants. DogP 12:24, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Perhaps we should encourage users to get proxies to write truthful stuff. Can we encourage This Type of Stuff legally as well? I hope we can. Proxima Centauri 12:59, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Strenuous objection to DoggedPersistence. The way I read your post is "the end justifies the means" and "we are the good guys". Using proxies to bypass a ban is probably a clear breach of the conditions agreed to when a user signs up for the site. If they want a website thats a particular viewpoint thats the owners right and changing it to any other viewpoint is rightly considered vandalism. I dont have a problem with a tech article on Using proxies because it can be used to bypass a very slow network or provide some extra security for young peoples using chat sites. Hamster 13:12, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Individuals may do whatever they wish. But I do not that that we, as a site, should explicitly encourage vandalism of another project. I suppose I see no reason for not providing generalised information about socking - but I am uneasy about explicitly telling people how to vandalise CP. It's certainly not one of our mission statements and I thought we grew beyond that some time ago.--Bob^{bing up} 13:26, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Fair enough, you're both perfectly entitled to your opinion, and I understand that some are frightened by lawyers. But I don't give a damn. The world is being destroyed by lawyers. First, if you can direct me to CP's Terms of Agreement, I'd be delighted to read it? No? That's right, they don't have any. Second, what law am I breaking if I repeatedly try to discuss on the Talk Page (because the article itself is locked to non-admins) why the Barack Obama article claims he was 'allegedly born in Hawaii' when the SCOTUS won't even listen to such a case? That's right - none. What about the insistence that he is "likely a Muslim". If that article isn't an incitement to religious and racial hatred I don't know what is, and my bet is that the Secret Service has glanced at it (and written them off as powerless losers).

There are no laws covering argumentative posting on blogs. CP are pond scum, and to give them respect is the first weakness. I intend to do everything within my power to correct CP's evil dissemination of lies to children, and they can send the FBI after me if they want. I don't think the FBI took on the Steve Carson case, do you? They don't have a legal leg to stand on, and I will continue to debate them and correct their filthy lies as long as there's breath in my body. Via multiple, proxy-empowered socks if need be. DogP 13:32, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Actually my argument is not based on the law. It's based on what's moral. Our going into their site to vandalise it is, in my mind, similar to taking any sort of direct action against things you don't like. We should be able to show they are wrong by the strength of our arguments and the power of our ridicule. I understand that others will have differing views of what appropriate moral actions should be taken.--Bob^{bing up} 14:04, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Who's talking about wandalism? I'm talking about correcting their warped presentation of 'fact', and debating them. DogP 14:11, 8 December 2008 (EST)

What Conservapedia blocks

It looks like they undid the range block they had against me. Alternatively they haven't blocked the whole range. I socked up and made a legitimate edit. Let's see what happens. I think I'll go back and make more truthful edits. If they block for truthful edits we probably have a stronger case for helping proxies. Ask a lawyer though. Proxima Centauri 13:19, 8 December 2008 (EST)

I've been asked not to introduce anti family paropaganda. Proxima Centauri 13:46, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Now that you have newly-enhanced socking powers, the next thing to learn is wise use of them. They read over here, so try not to post each and every item you create with your sock. It's only going to lead to an inevitable blockage. And, reporting on one's own sock's activities all the time is ultra-mega-non-lulzy, so try to be more discrete. DogP 13:55, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Blocked for making this sourced statement and making reasonable comments about sex and marriage. Ask a lawyer if it is legal to help people use proxies to evade such blocks. Proxima Centauri 14:11, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Yes they block when you post something not CPPOV, so what have you proved? Just because they are block happy doesn't mean it is right to try to circumnavigate blocks and vandalise the place? - User $\pi$ 19:56, 8 December 2008 (EST)

One (wo)man's constructive editing is another (wo)man's vandalism. Also one person's parody is another's valuable contribution. There's nowt wrong with circumnavigating blocks, it's an ideological battlefield and if you believe in something then so long as you don't break the law it's fair game. If they bad mouth Obama by alleging he is Muslim then undermining their creditabilty to reduce the importance of their claim is justified in my opinion. Especially if you are doing it by using the truth as a weapon. PC read the Information warrior's handbook there's a lot of good advice about how you should conduct yourself if you want to be successful. Rule #1- keep schtum about it. -- Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 20:15, 8 December 2008 (EST)

I think you have hit my point it is this we are right so we can do bad things to prove it attitude that this place has become as a vandal hang out instead of a collection of people interested in rational debate. This is not very rational. - User $\pi$ 04:11, 9 December 2008 (EST)

The question isn't, "Is it morally right?" The question is, "Can we get into trouble with the law?" Well yesterday they undid the range block against me.

• Perhaps they're scared. If that's true they probably can't do much about proxies.
• Perhaps they're trying to lead me on and hope I'll do something they can where they can punish me.
• Perhaps there's a bug in software somewhere. I should be rangeblocked. I will be rangeblocked once they've sorted teh bug. I'll find if I can edit without proxies once they're open for editing. Proxima Centauri 04:25, 9 December 2008 (EST)

I can't edit today. The Crock o Shite did it to me. Proxima Centauri 07:57, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Personally I think "Is it morally right?" a far more important question than "Is it legal?" it is a greater test of your character. Whilst the odd vandalism of CP is amusing claiming that you are better than them/you are right whilst you go around disrupting their project is clearly false as no one from CP does that here (often). We monitor and refute CP, we do not actively encourage vandalism. - User $\pi$ 04:33, 9 December 2008 (EST)

You still haven't said what you mean by vandalism. Is asking questions vandalism? Is arguing a rationalview point vandalism? Is addding referenced facts vandalism? Is pointing out their hypocrisy, bigotry, logical flaws and outright deceit direct to their face vandalism? I would regard posting goatse pictures or obscenity as vandalism. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 05:20, 9 December 2008 (EST)

I would say that post deliberate rubbish is obvious vandalism. I can't see how posting truthful statements is vandalism. The question I am trying to raise is how are we here perceived and at the moment I think we are perceived as a hang out for CP vandals. How often do we get some lame asshole showing up saying look what I did and it is just a page full of fucks or something pathetic? Okay not that often but I think if we want to shake that image anything that condones vandalism of CP should be extremely limited. - User $\pi$ 06:12, 9 December 2008 (EST)

How about we change it from CP to get around blocks at some random generic forum? - User $\pi$ 06:13, 9 December 2008 (EST)

I agree totally that the emphasis on Conservapedia should be removed. The information would apply anywhere. I also dislike the self-congratulatory "look what I did at CP hah-hah" postings as they do reflect poorly on us. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 07:22, 9 December 2008 (EST)

That is also true. Wholly apart from the question of whether such actions are morally right, if we want to promote ourselves as a responsible home for those interested in refuting anti-science in general, then having an image or reputation as a vandal hideout (rightly or wrongly) will do little to convince fence-sitters of the justice of our case.--Bob^{bing up} 11:00, 9 December 2008 (EST)

I am of the opinion that mentioning CP in the title is a bit lame. One, for the moral issue raised above, and two, I think the constant, constant, constant drumming of CP, CP, CP makes RW a little less interesting. Someone above suggested "How to use proxies to surf teh innertubes" or some such, that is a much better title. And get the CP mention out of the lead, and drop the refs to individuals at CP. Or just delete it, it's embarrassing, put it on another website somewhere. ħuman 19:02, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Holy shit, you're all getting your knickers in a twist. Everyone keeps blabbering on about this encouraging vandalism. Excuse me while I ask a pertinent question - please point me to the part of the article that encourages vandalism? It isn't in there. Nowhere does the article mention vandalising. Instead, it is a guide as to how to continue to correct factual errors at CP when you've been banned for doing so, and when not possible (because an article is locked, for example), to debate them on the Talk page. I feel like Headless Chicken Mode is approaching again, as another outbreak of PC Wars sweeps through. However, I'm TOTALLY with Genghis about the self-promotional crap - it's incredibly lame. "Oooh, look at what he said! And then look at what I said! Aren't I clever?!" That shit's embarassing. DogP 10:43, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Oh, Canada!

Let's say somene wanted to access content that was only available to IPs from a particular country--webcasts of sporting events, to be specific. How can one pick'n'choose where their proxy comes from? PFoster 10:17, 8 December 2008 (EST)

I've done this several times to access or download stuff from the UK (BBC & Channel 4 sites). Try Googling for "canada proxy servers". There are quite a few sites which report on available proxies and where they are based. For instance the first one I came across was this which shows one for Canada, many unknowns, one for the UK and a bunch for the US. These tend to go off and on so you can't rely on them for every occasion. Some sites also show what you can do with the proxy, as there may be a restriction on bandwidth or directionality. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 11:00, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Proxy help!

When I open a proxy and go to CP in logged-out mode, the top-right hand corner shows that my IP-address is the same as my home one (which I wish to keep safe in case I am seized by the desire to create a long-term sock). Is it still safe for me to voice my legitimate criticisms of CP and not get me home IP blocked? EddyP 15:36, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Nope. Cubic time Hoover! 15:39, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Thank you for your soul-crushingly concise answer. Any way I can safely use a proxy? EddyP 15:41, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Yes; make sure it actually cloaks your IP and don't get your sock banned for 2 weeks. Cubic time Hoover! 15:50, 20 February 2009 (EST)

XD I worked out the problem. When the new window opened, I would type in the URL in my internet bar, rather than the proxy one. Whoops. EddyP 15:52, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Good, but if you logged in as your home IP, don't edit from that account or make low key edits for 2 weeks, until the checkuser log wipes. Cubic time Hoover! 15:53, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Tor?

I tried to use Tor yesterday and find the following:

• 7-9 per 10 IP's used (tried like 30-40) are blocked on CP(man, you guys are efficient in attracting blocks)
• 3-5 per 10 IP's used (tried 20-25) are downloading from Rapidshare (Free mode, limit one DL per IP) at any given moment.

Does that suggest something weird? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 03:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent Edit Revert

Hello. Recently I noticed Reverend Black Percy‎ reverted an entire edit of mine. I can understand that don't like my humor (I will tone it done next time) but Reverend Black Percy‎ also managed to revert a lot of information about Tor and minor improvments to the article in the process. Am I allowed to resubmit the information with the line you did not like or is there another issue that needs to be addressed?CheeseburgerFace (talk) 01:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Meh, I will revert the revert and edit the crude humor out. If anyone has any other complaints, put them here and don't revert the whole thing. CheeseburgerFace (talk) 02:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)