Talk:Hurricane Electric

There are some grammatical and stylistic issues that need to be identified and addressed. This message is primarily a reminder to myself (so that I can flag this properly later)

—KJ4IPS (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

NPOV dispute - IPv6 Tier
There is not clear agreement among network operators as to the relative "tiers" of Cogent vs HE in the IPv6 DFZ. I do not think it is appropriate for Wikipedia to take such a strong position in the article text. I've proposed several changes to the peering dispute section to describe that dispute without violating WP:NPOV by taking a position on a disputed issue. But every time I do so, my edits are reverted by User:Volkirik. Take a look at the Hurricane Electric article history, and each of our recent contribs, for context. This is coming close to violating the spirit of the WP:3RR, so rather than continue the edits, I'm bringing it to the talk page. How do people feel about this? DefaultFree (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * IT is actually clear. Cogent has peering agreement with each and every other tier-1 network while HE does not. For example; IF google decides to not announce their prefixes to Level3 are we going to consider level3 tier2? Please be more reasonable. --Volkirik (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * We need to make sure peering wars between internet/network operators do not create revert wars here. Tier-1s are always tier-1 until they depeer with a tier1. Wikipedia is independent. Not peering with HE.net means no tier1 league for them. So if you are going to remove my words which were accepted for a long time, then please indicate sensible reason. We are not defending Cogent or HE.net here. You can get more information from operators, but to make it clear, HE.net is not and never has been a Tier-1. They lack peering to four operators in IPv4 internet and to one operator (Cogent) in IPv6. It is their responsibility to complete their peering to become tier-1. Caida AS-rank and many other independent source ranks Cogent higher than He and they dont have any upstream. I am not customer/staff of Cogent or HE.net.. Please be more reasonable. --Volkirik (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should not allow peering wars to lead to edit wars (hence, this discussion rather than continued edits). But we also shouldn't take sides, i.e. declare Cogent's position correct, or HE's position correct.  Like you say, Wikipedia is independent.  One could argue, by the same logic you used, that Cogent is not Tier-1 because they have no IPv6 routes to Google or to HE, who can both credibly be said to be part of the DFZ.  Instead of taking a position in the dispute, we should be trying to describe the dispute in neutral terms.  DefaultFree (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Got it, thanks! I will not persist. --Volkirik (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested edit 13 August 2023
Please replace under Incognet dispute "discussion forum" with "discussion and harassment forum" as per lede of Kiwi Farms. "discussion forum" is probably not NPOV, and as the IP revert pointed out, "criminal" is not in the lede of the article of the banned customer, so it would be not WP:DUE here. lizthegrey (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Reply 13-AUG-2023
Regards, Spintendo  20:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Controversial issues ought not to be resolved through the COI edit request feature, a feature which is primarily meant for COI editors to propose nominally controversial edits to be reviewed by a neutral third party editor. Edit requests involving overtly controversial proposals such as the ones proposed here are not recommended for use with the  template.
 * 2) The process of content dispute resolution needed here should begin with a discussion of the issues with local editors here on this talk page. To that end, the COI editor is invited to continue the discussion below.
 * 3) If consensus is achieved, and that consensus is that the information ought to be removed and/or clarified in the article, the COI editor may then invoke the  template to have a neutral editor make those changes. If no consensus is found here on the talk page alone, the COI editor may then follow up by using any of the subsequent dispute resolution strategies listed under WP:CONTENTDISPUTE.