From LinuxReviews
Jump to navigationJump to search

Reverting to remove libel again(?)

The information as presented on this page has numerous times been replaced with:

SixXS provides quality IPv6 tunnels that actually work to a lot of people.

They are known to effectively cut off abusers of their service thus making sure that these kind of practices don't let the other users suffer due to the attraction of various attacks, which will affect all users.

Criticism of their policies is accepted, but do remind yourself that it is a free service and that you do not set those policies that apply to all the users.

Also don't swear or insult the SixXS staff, just like you don't like to be insulted when doing your hobby, these people neither want to be insulted. It definitely does not give them any incentive to allow you to make use of the service they are providing.

In case somebody does have constructive arguments, please raise them at we are very open to valid discussions.

If you still don't like it, then there is of course a long list of other Tunnel Brokers where you might be able to do what you want to do.

Objective review of above much-likely-by-Sixxs-staff statement and main article page combined with background research and statements from former and present SixXS users seems required. --Oyvinds 16:42, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Valid sources?

Article was written entirely by two people (2001:618:400:f1a9:204:76ff:0:4 and Oyvinds), and doesn't back up all claims with useful sources.

The "closed-because-of-email-question" comes from [3], but there's not enough background info to make any kind of judgement.

The "Using IRC is 'abuse'" comes from [2], where someone was apparently running a BNC for a friend. There's nothing surprising about analyzing network traffic streams when investigating abuse.

The "Null routing" thing seems to be based on a comment at [1], stating that "Mike was told to 'go to XS26', a network that is conveniently null routed from SixXS", but that's certainly not true anymore, if it ever was.

In all, a lot of harmful claims without anything to back them up? Would this be better removed?

1. - ToS violation for sharing+IRCd
2. - apparently they were running a BNC?
3. - no further background info

OpenNIC boycott? Big lie?


But WHERE mentioned "alternate root advocates" actually decided to request mentioned boycott is unknown.

It's not a boycott request of SIXXS from OpenNIC but rather a a single person's article.

--Rawr 20:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not a big lie, and it's not a conspiricy. The OpenNIC m/l archives clearly show my intent was to request that all OpenNIC members and alt-root activists boycott SixXS. I've since modified the header to better reflect my original intent.

-- brianko