User talk:Doctorfluffy/Archive 2

AfDs
I have noticed you posting rapidly in multiple AfDs lately, something I once got in trouble for last year. So, I just wanted to caution you about not repeating the mistake I made. Also, here are some other tips for discussions: you posted Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Congressional_endorsements_for_the_2008_presidential_election&diff=prev&oldid=167888651 this in a discussion; please read this. You posted Veni%2C_Vidi%2C_Vici_in_popular_culture&diff=prev&oldid=167888500 this and this; please read this. It is important to elaborate on reasons and to avoid words like "cruft" or "I don't like it" arguments. Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am familiar with WP:ATA, but that however is only an essay, whereas many of my votes are based on WP:NOT, which is actual policy. The WP:NOT collection is really just a formalization of the arguments I typically make; listcruft = WP:DIRECTORY, gamecruft = WP:NOT, futurecruft = WP:CRYSTAL, etc. In fact, using shorthand terms ("cruft" and "per nom" included) is specifically mentioned in the guide to deletion. That said, I suppose could reference specific policies more often, instead of using the common slang that many people employ. Doctorfluffy 18:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've looked at your !votes and noms so far, and i agree with about 3/4 of the ones on subjects I think I have some understanding about, which I is more than I do with quite a lot of people. . But I think it will add to credibility if you make it clear what sort of articles you do say keep for--just as I !vote delete about one-third of the time when I think an article deserves it and i have something particular to say. It also will help to give somewhat more extended reasons. Not only quote the policy, but explain just how the article meets them. Saying "for x-cruft" says only "I think it is ....", but if you say why you think it is, it may convince other people. It's an argument, not a vote.  DGG (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't participate in an AfD where I would vote 'keep' since my primary goal is to trim down Wikipedia and I have only finite time. I don't like the term deletionist since it connotes forceful removal, so I generally prefer to identify myself as a reductionist. The analogy in that link is an apt one and it adequately explains my philosophy in its few sentences. This is going to sound trivial, but if I had more time, I would vote to preserve articles which are notable by my own intepretation of WP:N, which I believe to be the most important policy here. As it stands, I believe notability is too broadly defined, but there is little I can do to change that, so I do my best to remove the "deadwood" by involving myself in AfDs and tagging articles.
 * I understand your comment about credibility and fleshing out votes, but having participated in a fair number of AfDs now, they almost always degenerate into a simple listing of policies followed by the latecomers merely reiterating the votes of the first few editors. I've read many of the policies and precedents in place here and the theory of an AfD being a discussion, rather than a majority vote, is a nice one, but in practice that's rarely the case. The system evolved into its current form independently of me and I have little choice but to participate in that system as it currently exists in the way that most editors do. Besides, strictly speaking, any vote is a contribution to the discussion, even if contains no rationale whatsoever. It may not sway the closing admin as much, but it still let's them know that there is one more person who has a sufficiently strong opinion about the matter to cast a vote. Thanks to technology, that only takes a moment, but traditionally an official declaration of one's viewpoint "on paper" is rather weighty in the eyes of authorities. Doctorfluffy 01:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I came here worrying because your behaviour - objecting to every or almost every keep vote - is ordinarily characteristic of editors shortly before they storm off the project spewing obscenities and insults, but I see now that that doesn't apply to you, so never mind. Anyway, I don't believe you should object if others characterise you as deletionist, as you are thoroughly devoted to the destruction of information. Cheers. --Kizor 22:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh gimme a break. The person right above you was pointing out how I tersely throw out policies and "per others" votes when AfDs are intended to be a discussion, not merely a majority vote. So in response, I start trying engender such discussion by actually replying to other editors' !votes and what do I get? Someone else complaining that I am being too vocal and that I shouldn't be responding to votes! I can in good conscience say that I feel I'm acting appropriately within the set policies and guidelines. You however are not. Stating that I am "thoroughly devoted to the destruction of information" is quite close to a personal attack, especially when I articulated my viewpoints on article inclusion, topic notability, and the label "deletionist" directly above. I don't see what purpose you could possibly have had by coming here other than to insult me or anger me. Doctorfluffy 23:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Frick, frick, frick, frick frickfrickfrick perkele frick. That wasn't what I was going for at all. I I never intended to insult you, what would be the point? Look, can we back up and try this again? Here's how my intent might have been phrased by someone without foot-in-mouth disease and superiority in social acuity to a clam:"Hey, I was worried about you for a moment there but turns out that I was wrong, so never mind. But BTW, while I'm here, try not to take being called a deletionist personally even though you don't like the word, since you will get called that while you delete a lot of things, which you do. What a fetid piece of crap my previous message was. --Kizor 23:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's okay, we can still be wikifriends. Doctorfluffy 07:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I realize that you are well within policy guidelines. I think the previous post was in response to a notable trend in downsizing articles. So-called "purges" for notability are a hot-button issue, as I am sure you are aware of. What I am trying to get at is this. I personally believe that sheer breadth is the biggest selling point for Wikipedia, and policy or not, reducing that breadth should not be done lightly. I agree there are things that are indeed not notable, but instead of nomination for deletion, I would prefer to clean them up or merge them. Whether you like it or not there is a large subset of the Wikipedia community that is heavily interested in "cruft." Rather than just brushing that subsection off to the side by moving for deletion every time, try to cleanup more often. "Cruft" is important to some, and when you get down to it notability is a function of population. Just because a benchmark population has not come in to contact with a certain piece of information does not necessarily mean that it is somehow less valuable. However, I respect your rights as a user. I would just ask you to consider that the more information WP can incorporate, the better. Hagan jared 01:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * since we are having this interesting and posibly productive discussion, I do not agree that "[AfD's] almost always degenerate into a simple listing of policies followed by the latecomers merely reiterating the votes of the first few editors. I've read many of the policies and precedents in place here and the theory of an AfD being a discussion, rather than a majority vote, is a nice one, but in practice that's rarely the case. " Sure, this is the case for many of the obvious ones, which is why I too avoid them, but in a batch of say 1200 AfDs, about 10 or 20 do get a real discussion. The dynamics i see in such case is a batch of pile on votes at first, followed by someone improving the article or finding an argument for it, or strongly against it, and then a change in the pattern during the five days. I suggest you look for more subtle things like that here, where a reasoned argument from you might make a difference.
 * And what I said remains, if you always say delete, we dont know what your standards of keep are. For all we know you might think everything of a type non-notable. From what you say here it isnt true, so the thing to do is to show it. DGG (talk) 02:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I refer you to my initial response regarding keep votes. Specifically, I have only finite time. Doctorfluffy 20:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * drfluffy, I've looked at most of the articles you've recently AfDed and I agree with your decision to delete on a few. I just think that deletion is not something to be immediately used. It's a last resort. Be reasonable here, what harm does a borderline or even less than notable article really do? Sure there are blatantly disruptive practices like invention of memes and such things, but a little bit of fan cruft never hurt anyone. It only alienates those who care about the material. Hagan jared 03:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It damages the credibility of the encyclopedia as a whole. Read my mission statement and the link there. Less than 1% of the articles on Wikipedia have even moderate quality control. That's absolutely ridiculous. Numerous articles fail WP:N and WP:V by leaps and bounds. It's getting to the point where Wikipedia is becoming a joke. Doctorfluffy 20:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you feel that WP is becoming a joke. With literally everyone I know it's the first choice in the search for information. Verifiability is a necessity. I'll grant you that. I just don't don't share your zeal in setting such high notability standards. WP is so much more than an encyclopedia, whether or not policy or guidelines admit it. Hagan jared 20:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps "becoming a joke" was a poor choice of words. Just imagine though if you were at the library, you picked up a reference book, and only 1% of the articles were verified as polished, accurate, and fit for reading. How would you feel about such a book? Naturally, Wikipedia isn't a paper book and a lot of things are different due to its unique nature, but whatever feeling you would have about that reference book is what I am looking to fix here. Doctorfluffy 21:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Why are you trying to apply book standards to a database ?
 * Anyway /me thinks you should have a talk with Mr Sturgeon (don't get too excited here, it's referencing its sources) --86.210.24.168 18:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Which !vote are you referring to? I probably mistyped. Sometimes even I forget which WP:ALPHABETSOUP policy is which. Doctorfluffy 18:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability of opera articles
Re Graham Vick this is to explain that the most important source for opera articles, indeed all music articles, is Grove. If a person or work is in Grove that does establish notability as well as any other printed source. Thank you. -- Kleinzach 23:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll accept that you're knowledgeable on the subject and likely telling the truth, but I should point out that the Grove article, which you are using to indicate notability of another topic, is itself unsourced and doesn't establish notability. I'll refrain from being a nuisance and won't tag the article for the time being, but it would be nice if you could add some references. Besides, if it's even a fraction as notable as you say, finding sources shouldn't be difficult at all. Doctorfluffy 00:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Before you put any more tags on opera articles, please have a look at Grove. You will find that the articles there are extensively referenced. If you are going to start challenging major reference works it will cause a lot of problems for WP. Thousands of articles are involved. BTW, have you tagged any other opera pages? -- Kleinzach 00:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The exact article you linked to me above, New Grove Dictionary of Opera, is currently unreferenced. I was merely pointing out that fact. I am not trying to "challenge" that it is a major reference work; I am simply respectfully requesting, as a non-expert on the subject and fellow Wikipedian, that you reference the article which you yourself linked to me to prove notability of another article. Doctorfluffy 00:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please check Grove again - same book, same edition. The article in question in Grove was referenced. (Even it it hadn't been Grove is authoritative enough anyway.) -- Kleinzach 01:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You just added a link to the official site a few moments ago, which may or may not be a proper source. Please review WP:V and WP:RS for information regarding sourcing. In any case, I've looked at the wikiproject for opera and Grove does appear to be a major work in the field. Therefore, I think it's safe to say this problem is simply one of sourcing, not one of notability (WP:N, speficially WP:BK), and frankly only notability concerns me. I don't really want to waste any more time on the matter. Best of luck. Doctorfluffy 01:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's getting to the point where Wikipedia is becoming a joke. Doctorfluffy 20:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you so much that I want to report you to the police for stealing my thoughts.

There are indeed a whole pile of articles on Wikipedia - who knows, maybe half of them - that are sheer absolute vanity-spam. There are not enough people to even delete all the new vanity-spam that gets posted here every day, much less the tons of spam already lodged deep in the bowels of the database. Wikipedia is already targeted by every advertiser, politician, and myspace band on the planet; you'd think the embarassment of Virgil Griffith's Wikitracker would have brought about a big change of attitude here among the editors, but it doesn't seem to be much better than a few months ago.

Of the non-vanity articles, maybe half of those are fancruft that wouldn't have much use to anyone outside of a fan group. I personally like D&D articles - heck, I've even sat here reading the Wikipedia articles on (lessee...) Obox-Ob and Ivid the Undying. But I don't think Wikipedia should be a resource for gamers, or TV show trivia buffs, or pretty much anything else to do with transient elements of pop culture. I agree with many, though, that any editor who even attempts to delete the 2000 Simpsons articles here will probably end up disemboweled by an angry mob; some cruft is just too holy, and too much effort was invested in it.

And of the remainder, 90% of the non-cruft non-vanispam articles are completely unsourced. Geez, if someone feels so importantly about an article that they have to pull a snit in an AfD discussion, why not spend 5 minutes referencing the article properly? You ask someone for references and most of the time all they do is put a frigging website link at the bottom of the page - and then they think they've done a fabulous job.

A few months ago I felt that while Wikipedia could have been the greatest invention of mankind to date, right up there with Gutenberg's moveable type, it's instead being dragged down into a choking morass by people who proudly add articles on 10,000 topics but don't want to source any of them, don't want to prove notability, and don't want to contribute to a sourced encyclopedia. Many people are actually proud to have added over a thousand articles on (e.g.) Canadian unsigned indie-rock bands, or on D&D plants, or on Things Wile E. Coyote Dropped From The Top Of A Cliff.

If you were to put all of Wikipedia on a USB RAM drive and beam it 200 years into the future, past the coming apocalypse, the scattered remains of the human race would not find a great resource of all mankind's knowledge with which to rebuild society. They wouldn't even find a great resource of a couple little bits of the more important knowledge. They'd only find untold gigabytes of total nonsense that would make their heads spin at how much time the people of the 21st century invested in trivia and sales pitches.

My only advice to you is: take regular breaks. Only allow yourself to come here 2 days a week. Getting involved in the AfD side of things basically ruined my enjoyment of Wikipedia, and I had to relinquish my account for a few months so that I could appreciate the good articles again.

Anyway... quit stealing my thoughts. And if you're forming a cabal of über-deletionists (sorry - über-reductionists), I'm in. We'd be better off doing this crap in shifts. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I could go into mini-rant of my own, but I'll keep it simple: Your analysis is perfect. The world (especially Wikipedia) is a better place because you exist.
 * I'd definitely been into forming a group of like-minded souls. There are quite a few users who frequent AfDs, some of which surely would be interested as well. It frightens me how many people don't understand the core concepts for notability, so it would be nice to have a group to help spread the word. I have to go because the new episode of "Everyone Loves Hypnotoad" is on and strangely I have the overwhelming urge to watch it. (ps thanks for adding the exploding organisms template, that's a new one to me) Doctorfluffy 04:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We could call the group Suicide Commandos of the RedUctionist Brigade (SCRUB)... but maybe just calling ourselves "Quality Control" would ruffle fewer feathers. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ever since Elara's Uber-Deletionist Cabal went under..well, let's just say I'd be in. - Woo ty   [ Woot? ]  [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam! ] 16:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, Hypnotoad. On behalf of everyone who watched their work disappear into the ether because you found it easier to destroy than to create: see ya!  Just Some Guy 16:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I never voted to delete any of your personal fancruft... until, well, I saw this post. Ha! AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 21:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Exploding organisms

"Makedonsko Devoiche"
In the Articles for deletion thread for this article you voted to delete it because there were not enough sources to show the notability of the article. However now several very significant sources have been added to the article that show the notability of it. They are:
 * BBC []
 * Sheet Music []
 * Evansville Folkdancers []
 * Soros Foundation []
 * Preformed by famous guitarist Martha Masters []
 * US Government Website []

An certain editor has claimed to have "analyzed" these sources and has unfortunately made some false statements. For example claiming that the BBC, Soros Foundation or US government are not reliable or notable is definitely untrue. Please reconsider your decision to delete this song. Several editors have compared this song to epic historic songs. This is what one editor said "It's analogous to deleting Waltzing Matilda, I Still Call Australia Home and The Wild Colonial Boy which are songs well known by Anglophones."

Thank you Ireland101 22:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

So apperently you and I are the same person.
{{sockpuppet|{{{1|IAmSasori}}}|evidence={{{1|IAmSasori}}}}}}. Ridernyc 17:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I found no merit in TheKillerAngel's accusation of sockpuppetry and closed IAmSasori SSP. -- Jreferee    t / c  18:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Good, I wasn't even going to bother responding to his accusation. Doctorfluffy 18:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion sorting
It be useful to me and other editors who are interested in the Game-related deletions if you could add a deletion sorting tag to any game related AFDs at the time of nomination. Please have a glance at WikiProject Deletion sorting for guidance as to how this works and why it is benefical. In a nutshell: adding certain tags helps with identifying game-related deletions by the addition of the following tag and then adding the AFD to Game-related deletions page:
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions.   --Gavin Collins 14:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This example is done by adding this tag to the AfD by adding the following text:
 *  Game-related —~ .

Alternatively, you might want to add this tag to the AfD by adding the following text:
 *  Fictional characters —~ .

This way we can all keep an eye out on game-deletions.--Gavin Collins 10:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You got it. Doctorfluffy 16:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

HALLO!
AndalusianNaugahyde 04:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Bad Joke

 * Meatpuppets - They contributed to the following articles or its talk page: Anal-oral contact‎ and Antonio Garrido, more by happenstance than anything else. They are not meatpuppets.-- Jreferee    t / c  18:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

^^^ The above quote (from the infamous DoctorFluffy meatpuppet trial) made me laugh. Maybe not terribly funny, but then again, neither is WP:BJAODN. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

unblock
I really hope that simply having a reductionist outlook is not why you so brusquely disregarded my unblock request. Doctorfluffy 16:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I responded to the evidence of sockpuppetry. You addressed absolutely nothing I said in my unblock request. Checkuser would show that we physically could not be the same person.
 * Where was I disruptive?
 * Where did I troll?


 * ResponseI will raise this issue on the admin notice board. --Gavin Collins 16:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a discussion of this block going on now at WP:ANI. Thank you for your concise, specific, and courteous unblock request; admins really hate undoing other admins actions, so there will likely be some discussion before anything actually happens. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It is exceedingly frustrating to watch the ANI thread and not be able to defend myself. I responded to the exact concerns Phil Sandifer has brought up when another editor raised such concerns on my talk page a few weeks ago. Without going into details and simply reiterating that discussion here, I believe my response clearly shows that my intent is not to damage Wikipedia and that I feel I am increasing the quality of the project by removing poor content. That conversation is a only few sections up from this sentence. Are there any provisions in policy for me to participate in this discussion? If I drafted a response here, could someone direct the participants of the ANI discussion to view it? Doctorfluffy 17:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I suspect most of the people looking at ANI will check here, so yes, I think that if you want to defend yourself, you could do so here and expect that folks will see it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick reply. I will write up something as soon as I can. Doctorfluffy 18:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Defense

 * This is primarily for those coming over from the ANI thread.

Regarding sockpuppetry
This was my initial unblock request: I am not a sockpuppet of Pilotbob. He and I work in the same office and share an IP address some of the time, but we independently contribute to Wikipedia and it is coincidence that we have same viewpoint on notability. A simple look through my contribution history can verify point 1, and a checkuser could easily verify 2 and 3. I openly admit that Pilotbob and I work in the same office building and that we both edit Wikipedia from the same IP address during the workday. We also happen to share similiar ideas on notability and how it affects the credibility of Wikipedia as a whole. However, we always independently edit. We both find non-notable content independently and nominate it independently. We don't collaborate to get any specific article deleted, nor do we band together against any specific fictional universe. We don't direct or persuade each other in the least. In fact, we don't even discuss our activities. It is likely we have both participated in the same AfDs, but, as I stated in my unblock request, that is pure coincidence as I have voted in 100s of AfDs. It would be more suspicious if I somehow avoided all his AfDs while patrolling the deletion debate catagories. None of the above was addressed during my unblock request. It is extremely disheartening that all of my points were ignored.
 * 1) If we have made any edits to the same page, it is by happenstance that I came across that page, probably while simply going through the entire AfD category or log page, and my contributions will likely show I made many edits before and after such edits.
 * 2) About half my edits should come from a separate IP than the one Pilotbob and I share, since I frequently edit from home, and none of his edits could have ever come from that IP. Likewise, many of his edits would come from his home IP address, which I couldn't have made an edit from.
 * 3) Although I am not generally aware what he is doing, it is likely we have both been contributing at the exact same time from separate IP addresses (both from our homes) in a way that would be physically impossible for a single human to accomplish.


 * Your points are not being ignored. They just don't address the basic contention, which is that the CU evidence (I ran checks too, on request, before David did but did not have time to block you myself) strongly suggests that this is one user, not three. And further, even if you are three independent users, you are doing essentially the same things at essentially the same times. That's a violation of our policies in any case, even if you are really different people. The block is sound, we don't want people stacking consensus discussions that way. I see no reason to unblock you merely based on the argument that you're a meatpuppet of someone else rather than a sockpuppet. I counseled Pilotbob to go find something else to do for a while, edit in a different space, contribute in different ways. I make the same suggestion to you.... I'll unblock you IF you and Pilotbob both mail me from your work email addresses to prove you are different people, and if you also undertake to stay out of any AfD that he is in and vice versa, until you have built up a very solid history of contributing in articlespace, writing articles or adding to them, in useful, and well cited ways. He says he works for IBM and you say you work in the same building, so if you both work for IBM, use your IBM emails to mail me. I work for IBM too, so I will be able to validate you are actually different people. I won't reveal the IDs to anyone else without your permission, but will vouch for them being different to whoever you need that vouched for. ++Lar: t/c 20:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It still has not been explained to me how checkuser shows that the situation I described is not true. Three people at work during the day on one or two static IPs. Three at home at night on different IPs. Please elaborate on how checkuser doesn't confirm this.
 * Pilotbob and myself always acted independently. We did not "vote stack" according to any grand plan. We are not meatpuppets. We are individual people who happen to share the same goal and happen to work in the same building. Any article we both edited happened by mere chance and is very small portion of my total edits. We both probably made numerous edits before and after such occurences. We never supported each other in meaningful way beyond a simple !vote in an AfD.
 * There is no reason we should not be allowed to contribute to the same articles. This is blatant discrimination because we share a close physical proximity.
 * There is no reason any users should be forced to contribute in ways that they do not want to. Removing poor content is a perfectly valid way to help Wikipedia. There is no policy that states users must contribute to the main namespace in order to be eligible to participate in AfDs.
 * I have already stated most of the above numerous times in numerous ways, either here or in the ANI thread.
 * There is no way in hell that I am identifying myself to random person online by using my work email. Even novice internet users know better than that. I cannot believe you even made such a ludicrous suggestion.
 * Frankly, I don't know where to go from here. It seems that there is no way for me to convince anybody of my case. I think the easiest solution is if everybody at my office simply starts sharing Pilotbob's username. Does that break any policies? Doctorfluffy 21:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * By policy, checkusers are not obligated to explain all the evidence and how it correlates. I've seen it, and it correlates to my satisfaction (although mistakes are always possible, I see the probability here as low). I'll be happy to discuss this privately with any other CU that has rights on en:wp. If you're not satisfied with that, you can use the ombudsman process.
 * It's really too coincidental that you seem to turn up on the same AfDs so much with similar agendas.
 * You're more than welcome to contribute to the same articles, as long as you're making constructive contributions... it's votestacking in the same AfDs that is problematic.
 * People offer mentorships of all sorts. My offer to validate that you and Pilotbob are different people, via a mechanism of my choosing, is yours to take or not as you like. I've actually done it for others in the past without revealing their real identities. I'm not a "random person", my identity is known and validated and I think my reputation here speaks for itself. Calling my suggestion "ludicrous" disinclines me to offer to help you any further, I am afraid.
 * "everybody at my office simply starts sharing Pilotbob's username" will result in that user AND that IP being blocked, I'd expect. Perhaps the IP should be blocked now with a tag that the IT department can write the unblock list with an undertaking to stop disruptive behaviour by users at that office? Thats what we do with school IPs that are sources of nothing but disruptive edits. ++Lar: t/c 22:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to pursue whatever options I have regarding checkuser analysis. Where can I view a review such as the one you mentioned? Will I be able to speak in my defense or at least be able to make a statement here?
 * Compare our contribution histories. I've !voted in 100s of AfDs and probably less than 5% of those were started by Pilotbob. I mainly patrol the fiction cat, which is also where he is the most active. I would imagine 5% is well within statistical boundries of random occurence when taking into the proportion of AfDs in that cat which he has has started.
 * See directly above regarding votestacking. It's unintentional.
 * Perhaps ludicrous is too strong a word, but there is absolutely no way whatsoever for me to validate anything you say. Stating that your identity is known, that your reputation is in good standing, and that you've not revealed the identity of others is insubstantial and unverifiable. Users here can easily pretend to be whatever they want. Rememeber Essjay?
 * I am truly struggling to understand how people on the same connection can contribute to Wikipedia in a similiar manner without being labelled as sock/meatpuppets. If Pilotbob and myself were doing this 100 miles apart our conduct would be perfectly acceptable, but since we are 100 feet apart we are targeted. This cannot be the first time such a situation has occurred. What are we supposed to do? How can people with common goals or ideals on the same connection contribute individually?
 * I've stated multiple times that I take personal offense when at the insinuation that my edits are "nothing but disruptive". I've written out rationales for my interest in notability policy, inclusion, and deletion debates in many places. One of those is directly below where I am typing right now. Comparing my office to a school and my coworkers and I to teenage vandals disinclines me to accept any help you offer as genuine, I am afraid. I apologize if I offended you earlier, but let's both try to avoid offending each other in the future. Doctorfluffy 22:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "Where can I view a review such as the one you mentioned" ... follow the link I gave and do what it advises. Note that it involves using email to contact people, so you'll have to find an anonymous email to use, there are some out there... or trust that the people that the foundation board appointed are going to not violate your privacy. Your choice, but that's your recourse.
 * "Rememeber Essjay?" ... yes, I do, actually. Not relevant, really. See my userpage on how to verify my identity, the foundation already knows it, or go look at the m:User:Lar/WikiMatrix permissions I have here and on other projects to get some idea of the trust placed in me... my reputation is sound and that's easily verified but I don't have to prove my bonafides to you. You can take or leave my offer to help you as you like. Getting huffy doesn't make your case, and I don't really care if you believe me or not. Hope that clarifies matters. ++Lar: t/c 00:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Frankly, all I care about now is the following, which I will simply copy and paste from above instead of rewording.
 * I am truly struggling to understand how people on the same connection can contribute to Wikipedia in a similiar manner without being labelled as sock/meatpuppets. If Pilotbob and myself were doing this 100 miles apart our conduct would be perfectly acceptable, but since we are 100 feet apart we are targeted. This cannot be the first time such a situation has occurred. What are we supposed to do? How can people with common goals or ideals on the same connection contribute individually?
 * That's really the crux of the issue. I get the impression it's simply deemed safer for Wikipedia to assume sock/meatpuppetry is occurring and lose honest editors than it is to deal with the harmful effects of such puppetry and the damage they do to the integrity of the project, especially since there is no foolproof way to determine the identity of anonymous users. Is that basically correct?
 * I am truly interested in your answers to the above, so please do respond at your convenience, but it seems we are at an impasse. I will not be allowed to contribute unless I reveal my identity, which I am unwilling to do. Do you concur? Doctorfluffy 21:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You have a valid point that there are combinations of circumstances in which, if everything were known, would clearly be one thing but which, based on what is actually known appear to be another thing. I acknowledge that it is possible... possible, mind you... that you and Pilotbob and Andalusian Naugahyde are three completely different people who just happen to work in the same exact place, edit over the same exact connections, and spend a fair fraction of your edits on the same exact topics. But it is not probable. That has been our experience so far, it is highly unlikely.
 * And you are correct in your judgement that we, as volunteers on a volunteer project, faced with limited information and with limited resources and with a very large project and millions of users to deal with... we sometimes act expediently rather than exhaustively checking, and we sometimes block on behaviour and under the principles of WP:DUCK rather than assuming that this is the time when the extremely unlikely happened.
 * That's just the way it is. I am sorry, but this is not a perfect world and our primary goal here is not to be perfectly fair or just. This is not an experiment in social democracy or in governance, it is a project to create an encyclopedia. Sometimes things turn out unfair.
 * But you are incorrect when you say that "I will not be allowed to contribute unless I reveal my identity" as a black or white thing. My offer to you is that you reveal some part of it (not all of it) to me. Not to the world at large, but specficially to me, and that you trust me not to reveal it further. If I were just a random person that turned up, some phishing email or whatever, that might be a poor bet. But I am well known here, I have a reputation to protect. Go review my wikimatrix as I urged you before to see that I am bit above "some random person" in credibility... see those checkusers? those bureaucratships, my adminship on 4 different projects? The WMF knows my real name, I proved it, and many communities here trust me a fair bit. But if you don't trust me, fine... Alternatively, make the information known to an Arbcom member, or open an OTRS ticket about it... fundamentally you have to decide that someone here is trustable. We ask that of other users all the time and we do a pretty good job of restricting privacy and keeping confidences. Go read the privacy policy again. It is NOT black/white naked to the world vs secure in an impregnable fortress... it is a relatively minor disclosure. Are we perfect? No. Just pragmatically good enough.
 * Now... you can do as you like. But under the principles I've just articulated about pragmatics, about good enough, about choosing to spend time as I see fit, about how we sometimes don't get the answer that would be best if we had infinite time to spend, and that's just the way it is, and with due regard for the law of diminishing returns, I'm done arguing here. I choose not to spend further time here. You already got way more than I give most garden variety socks... Take up my offer or don't, as you like. Or... Set up a secure email and write unblock-en-l and plead your case. Or... use the unblock request again and see if another admin will take your case. (but if you hide this stuff so they don't have context that you've already had stuff explained, I will know, and I will come back and reblock.) As you like. I hope that helps because that is all the explanation you are going to get from me. ++Lar: t/c 01:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding my contributions

 * This is a response to Phil Sandifers comments from the ANI thread, and for any others in the same vein. Since I have already detailed in depth responses to such concerns, this section will mainly take the form of quotes I have made.

I feel that notability is most important policy for Wikipedia. It detracts greatly from the credibility of the encyclopedia as a whole when non-notable, unverifiable information pervades the site. Here are some quotes I have made in the past when my conduct was first questioned. First, here is a concise definition of the problems I see in Wikipedia as written by an experienced contributor,

Here is another quote regarding the same idea from when a user questioned how non-notable content damages Wikipedia,

It damages the credibility of the encyclopedia as a whole. Read my mission statement and the link there. Less than 1% of the articles on Wikipedia have even moderate quality control. That's absolutely ridiculous. Numerous articles fail WP:N and WP:V by leaps and bounds. Doctorfluffy 20:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is an analogy I used to help elaborate,

Just imagine though if you were at the library, you picked up a reference book, and only 1% of the articles were verified as polished, accurate, and fit for reading. How would you feel about such a book? Naturally, Wikipedia isn't a paper book and a lot of things are different due to its unique nature, but whatever feeling you would have about that reference book is what I am looking to fix here. Doctorfluffy 21:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope the above effectively illustrates my general outlook and shows that I am not here to damage Wikipedia or to alienate any users.

Here is an articulated response indicating why I mainly contribute in AfDs and why I would only vote delete,

I wouldn't participate in an AfD where I would vote 'keep' since my primary goal is to trim down Wikipedia and I have only finite time. I don't like the term deletionist since it connotes forceful removal, so I generally prefer to identify myself as a reductionist. The analogy in that link is an apt one and it adequately explains my philosophy in its few sentences. This is going to sound trivial, but if I had more time, I would vote to preserve articles which are notable by my own intepretation of WP:N, which I believe to be the most important policy here. As it stands, I believe notability is too broadly defined, but there is little I can do to change that, so I do my best to remove the "deadwood" by involving myself in AfDs and tagging articles.

Please notice the portion about finite time, since another user didn't seem to fully grasp the implication of it before. ''Since I don't have unlimited time, yet I have a set goal, it is logical for me to only attempt to advance that goal. Doing otherwise would illogical.'' This next section goes on to discuss my experiences in AfDs and how it determined my usual conduct,

I understand your comment about credibility and fleshing out votes, but having participated in a fair number of AfDs now, they almost always degenerate into a simple listing of policies followed by the latecomers merely reiterating the votes of the first few editors. I've read many of the policies and precedents in place here and the theory of an AfD being a discussion, rather than a majority vote, is a nice one, but in practice that's rarely the case. The system evolved into its current form independently of me and I have little choice but to participate in that system as it currently exists in the way that most editors do. Besides, strictly speaking, any vote is a contribution to the discussion, even if contains no rationale whatsoever. It may not sway the closing admin as much, but it still let's them know that there is one more person who has a sufficiently strong opinion about the matter to cast a vote. Thanks to technology, that only takes a moment, but traditionally an official declaration of one's viewpoint "on paper" is rather weighty in the eyes of authorities.

I truly believe poor content hurts Wikipedia more than good content helps. Specifically, I strongly believe that removing poor content is just as noble a goal as adding good content. I take personal offense when someone trivializes my contributions because they don't fit into that user's predetermined concept of how to improve Wikipedia.

Participating in AfDs is stressful since many users typically have strong viewpoints on the removal of information, especially when it's content they enjoy. It requires knowledge of policy and precedent that many casual users aren't familiar with and likely aren't even aware of. It requires one to sometimes make detailed arguments against another person's points while remaining cool headed and civil. In short, it's not particularly "fun".

But I do it. Because I like Wikipedia. I don't want to see the credibility of the project ruined. The policies of WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NOT exist for a reason yet they are constantly disrespected both by uninformed users and the articles they create. I am here to simply make sure some of the core policies that make up the foundation of this incredible project receive the respect they deserve. Doctorfluffy 18:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop creating new accounts
You have received instructions already how how to contest your block, but for your reference, you may Instructions for all of these steps will appear any time you try to edit while blocked, or you can read Appealing a block. You will not help your case any by continuing to create sockpuppet accounts. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Contact the blocking administrator using the 'E-mail this user' link on his userpage;
 * Seek third-party review of the block using the template on your talk page;
 * Request review through the unblock mailing list unblock-en-l; or
 * Ask for the Arbitration Committee to review your block.
 * Thanks for the advice, but I have found that being able to defend myself in the ANI discussion is helping my case a lot more than whatever trivial damage sock account creation is doing to harm it. Doctorfluffy 21:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Edits made by socks to AN/I – or anywhere else – have been and will continue to be reverted on sight. Please work within the system.  Defending yourself against accusations of sockpuppetry through creating multiple sockpuppets is not a sound strategy, and won't get you unblocked.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ. The ANI thread would've been forgotten by now if not for my protestations. As to working within the system:
 * I can't email a user without personally identifying myself, which simply isn't safe on the internet.
 * I have already used the unblock template to no effect. My request was denied and the ANI thread was started by another user in my defense. That's how I ended up there in the first place and the reason why I've needed to created multiple accounts.
 * I can't add myself to mailing list without providing personally identifying myself and providing an email address, which simply isn't safe on the internet.
 * I can't ask the ArbCom for a hearing while blocked. Even if I could, it's extremely unlikely they would even accept such a hearing, so per WP:SNOW, I shouldn't bother asking.
 * The system doesn't leave me with very options. I shouldn't be forced to sacrifice my anonymonity and put myself at the mercy of the unknown, possibly malicious intentions of random internet users in order to defend myself. Doctorfluffy 22:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You need to stick by the rules here and not create new accounts. Please abide by our policies and stop casting aspersions on everyone else. If you continue to create new accounts you might find the IPs you use to do so blocked. ++Lar: t/c 22:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please reread the above. I would abide by policies if they allowed me the means to defend myself. Threatening a rangeblock is not an effective way to engender goodwill. Doctorfluffy 22:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The ANI thread is still running and has pointers here. If something really key comes out of the discussions here, throw up another unblock request (and note that you were advised to do so by me). But our policy is that blocked users are confined to their talk page and nowhere else, and right now I'm not seeing anything that the AN/I thread hasn't covered. Certainly there are more words here but not more basic ideas.
 * I shouldn't be forced to sacrifice my anonymonity and put myself at the mercy of the unknown, possibly malicious intentions of random internet users in order to defend myself. You're not forced to do anything at all, editing here is a privilege not a right, and you certainly don't have to do so. But if you do, you have to abide by policy. The projects appreciate constructive contributions from anonymous users, as well as those such as myself who have long and public histories of their identities. But everyone is expected to abide. And that's not negotiable. I hope that helps clarify matters. ++Lar: t/c 23:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

One more freebie "I can't ask the ArbCom for a hearing while blocked". No, actually you can. It requires that you mail the arbcom mailing list and plead your case. There are plenty of ways to get secure emails. ++Lar: t/c 01:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that editing from work doesn't exactly make you un-anonymous in the first place. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Unblock 2

 * NOTE: you didn't say anything about the disruption and trolling. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 01:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me go check with David Gerard to see if he agrees. As you can see this is a rollback of my last edit where I accepted your unblock request. I still will but want his buyin first. ++Lar: t/c 03:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * He has acquiesced. That we unblock userids that have been pretty definitively shown to be socks and that have been engaged in disruptive behaviour is not a very common thing at all. So you'll be on a pretty tight leash as far as I am concerned. ++Lar: t/c 16:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on your unblock
I'm glad that you were exonerated of sockpuppetry, and I am glad that you were unblocked. Have a nice day. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear here. There was no exoneration of sockpuppetry. The CU results show a strong correlation between these IDs. It is just possible, yes, but very implausible, that they are different people.  There was also no exoneration of meatpuppetry, the contrib history shows correlation, and there is admitted real life discussion (either there really was discussion between two closely associated people, or it was a sham discussion, doesn't matter which, same outcome). The unblock happened because the user(s)/userids have undertaken not to cause the disruption that the sock policy disallows. Whether they are the same person or not is irrelevant. Sorry to come down so hard but I want to make sure we are crystal clear here. Also, and please be very clear on this, I would not consider this as setting any precedent, you guys just caught me being a softie. Normally we cut our losses, we block and move on and that is that. But in this case I'm willing to try, as long as it doesn't waste too much of my time. Surprise me. Prove everyone else (that is laughing at me for being willing to do this) wrong. Be upstanding positive users. It would be much appreciated. Hope that helps and, I mean this sincerely, have a nice day. ++Lar: t/c 17:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Aw, and I'm really hoping that you aren't socks. I feel like we're the little angel and the little devil battling for this user's soul.  Come on, prove me right! -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Me too. I'd love to be wrong. ++Lar: t/c 17:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Lar, I know you'll probably never believe we are separate people, but I am still curious as to how you personally resolve the fact that we use three separate IPs on three separate ISPs (you whois the checkuser results, right?) in the evenings. Do you really think it's likely that a single person maintains three usernames and freely socks with them during the workday, but then goes home, somehow has 3 separate ISPs which don't even offer service in the same areas, and consciously isolates one userid to each ISP account? Doctorfluffy 17:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Blah blah blah, previous sockpuppet accusations are null and void at this point, don't bother trying to defend against 'em. Welcome back. - Woo ty   [ Woot? ]  [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam! ] 04:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right, there is no further reason to defend myself since I'm unblocked. I really am just curious about the checkuser results. Doctorfluffy 19:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotected
I have semiprotected your user page for some time, as there appears to be significant and continuing vandalism of it. There's no need for that. If you'd rather I didn't I'll happily unprotect it for you, just let me know. ++Lar: t/c 03:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I usually don't even notice the vandalism since it's reverted so quickly, but I suppose the semi-protection makes life a bit easier for the recent changes patrollers. Doctorfluffy 04:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)