Talk:DreamHost

Previous AfDs

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bravenet Web Services April 2006
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DreamHost November 2007

Why COI?

It seems this article has had a fair bit of discussion but as it stands there remains the coi tag but does not appear to be any npov etc. violations. WP:WHYCOI? -- samj _in^out 16:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I have replaced the tag with one that calls for better referencing (there is still a slight over reliance on primary sources), but there are no COI or NPOV issues that I can discern. These issues were originally raised by disgruntled former customers with axes to grind, it would seem. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with this promptly. Tagging the talk page to alert editors but not readers is an option in minor/inactive instances. -- samj _in^out 05:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Little is changed since September Talk on DreamHost Neutral_third_party_view, tags added by JavierMC, and reminder of WP:OWN. Judas278 (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I just read the entire article start to finish and it seems fine as at right now. -- samj _in^out 03:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

There is still an over reliance on primary sources, but that's better than using unreliable blogs, etc. I believe the disgruntled drive-by tagger is probably a sock, since the account has a single purpose with a limited history, yet seems able to wikilawyer adeptly. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The following was placed on my talk page, and is copied here verbatim. It relates to issues tags, etc.:

DreamHost

Please stop your disruptive edit warring at DreamHost. Let me be perfectly clear about this: there is no conflict of interest at this article, and there is no self-publishing going on. You have been unable to demonstrate either of these, and so your continued tagging and retagging of this article is disruptive. I am not an employee of DreamHost. I'm just one of several hundred thousand customers. I am a longtime Wikipedian of good standing, whereas you are just a single-purpose agenda account user with some sort of axe to grind. If you continue to abuse your editing privileges in this way, I will file a report on your conduct at WP:ANI and have administrators investigate your conduct. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think near-WP:OWN exists here. The article was tagged in September '08 by JavierMC. Minor edits since then. Tags were removed without consensus. They should remain. Attempting to restore them is called "apparent bad faith edit," "drive-by tagging by SPA," "drive-by tagging by agenda-driven SPA," and "nonsense tags." (See the edit history) Now, the message above. --Judas278 (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because nobody else is editing this article, and thus nobody is reverting your disruption, it does not mean that there is WP:OWN issues. Since you seem to be doing an amazing amount of wikilawyering for an SPA with only an handful of edits, I am now beginning to think you may be a sockpuppet. Any, we will see what administrators think. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestion for actually improving the article? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

A user has requested mediation on this issue. A mediator will be here shortly to assist you. The case page for this mediation is located here.

Judas278 (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

ANI discussion

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Problems at DreamHost with an SPA. There seems to be a sentiment in some quarters that the article's text is one-sided. Can anyone who still holds that view explain what changes they would make? To focus on the logic of tagging the article, without addressing how the text ought to change, seems like a waste of effort.

Personally, I think the article is a bit too complimentary towards the quality of DreamHost's customer service, but I know little about the history. This sentence DreamHost is notable for being unusually transparent about its business practices, with staff contributing to a popular blog seems a bit too effusive, given the billing disaster outlined in the following section.

In the cited article, David Berlind needled them explicitly about their lack of a phone number to call. Even when he was trying to interview them for an article they would not talk to him on the phone! To refer to them as transparent sounds like chutzpah. Don't call us, we'll never call you... EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The transparency of the company (a tell-all, insider's view-style blog is a demonstration of this) has nothing to do with the way the company handles technical support. Very few hosting companies offer phone support, especially at their pricing level. Even the Berlind article refers to the company's transparency specifically - the language is supported by the source. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This article reads like an advertisement. 5 of 13 references were published by the company, and what they said was repeated in a couple other reference publications, which quote company officers and company blog. If that's not self-publishing, what is? David Berlind also said he was considering them for his sites (COI), and quotes the company blog. It's an opinion piece in a blog. It's not reliable 3rd party publication.

It's not "notable for being unusually transparent about its business practices". It has a blog like many companies, and it publishes PR with it. Delete the statements without good references, and this article says: This is a web hosting company with x thousand customers. They've had some fubars to explain. That's about it. I was a customer. They were not transparent. I left. --Judas278 (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've responded to this at WP:ANI, but I have to say that it is patently absurd that you are criticizing the sourcing of the article and then advocating for the removal of one of these reliable sources. This goes against all kinds of common sense and seems contrary to the goals of the project. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

5 references are self-published by the company. Other references, including the mentioned blog, are poor, because they mostly repeat company PR. Therefore, they are not reliable 3rd party references. If good references are not available, the statements should be deleted. --Judas278 (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

the source for the flowery and questionable "notable for being unusually transparent" line is a blog, which is not typically considered a reliable source. in this case, i'd say if they are so notable for their transparency, then there should be other sources besides the blog. since there aren't, the line should be removed. it just reads like advertising fluff anyway. Theserialcomma (talk) 08:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The ZDNet blog isn't some idle gossip column. It is a highly-respectable tech blog. It is still considered to be a reliable source, just as blogs at CNN, MSNBC, Newsweek and The Washington Post are. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

the blog is written so poorly (there are tons of grammatical and spelling errors) that i was skeptical of it. but if you say it's a highly respected blog and should be taken as a reliable source then so be it. however, saying that dreamhost is "notable for being unusually transparent" is still flowery advertising, since it's not true to what the actual source states. if we are going to talk about how "notable" they are for their "unusual transparency," we should have solid sourcing that say exactly that. the same blog also mentions how dreamhost only has a fax number on their website to contact them, and how dreamhost's PR officer refused a phone call from the zdnet reporter. maybe we should mention that too? if ZDNet is so highly respected, why would they refuse a call from them? well, speculating about that doesn't matter. we just need to rewrite it so it's more neutral and worded accurately to the source. Theserialcomma (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

WorldBlu "Award"

This recent addition to the introduction should be removed. The primary requirements for "making the list" are simply paying an about $1,000 fee: http://www.worldblu.com/scorecard/question10.php and self-evaluation surveys: http://www.worldblu.com/scorecard/question7.php. Also, the award is not very notable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/WorldBlu --Judas278 (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Notable enough for the company to be covered by the New York Times, among others: [1] I'm willing to discuss it, but the discussion should be with other editors besides you. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Judas. If them winning such an award is notable enough for inclusion, it should be sourced from a secondary reference, not a primary source. it also does appear to be one of those "pay for inclusion" type deals based on the URL posted. Theserialcomma (talk) 08:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

i removed the claim that dreamhost's blog is popular, with a source linking to netcraft [[2]], cause that's original research. Theserialcomma (talk) 09:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Balance

Thanks to Theserialcomma's hackery, fully half the article is now about a billing issue. This now seems to be an undue weight problem that will need addressing. To redress the balance, we may have to introduce more information about the company and its products - and that means more primary sourcing (which is not preferable). -- Scjessey (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

unfortunately, the only reliable sources in the article are about the billing issue. i suggest shortening the billing information and removing the billing section altogether, after the shortened version is moved into the main article. i'll attempt some more hackery to address this issue. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, primary sources are perfectly acceptable as reliable sources for straight company facts (such as how their system operates, etc.). They are also fine for quoting DreamHost employees. Secondary sources are preferable for opinion, of course, but these must be proper reliable sources and not the blogs of former customers with a beef (which is what used to be the case here). -- Scjessey (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.webhosting.info/webhosts/tophosts/global/?pi=1&ob=RANK&oo=ASC as a reliable source

why should we believe that webhosting.info is a reliable resource for counting how many domains dreamhost hosts? if a news site said "dreamhost hosts over 800,000 domains," that'd be one thing, but webhosting.info? i am not so sure about that one. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Although I just added a Netcraft list as a reference, I think you have a good point. Secondary source definition does not include lists like that. Secondary source includes "generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information", like, as you say, (reputable) news articles. --Judas278 (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

the question is, if a secondary source evaluates original information, then where is the original information that webhosting.info has evaluated? as far as i can tell, webhosting.info is the primary source because they are publishing their own original info. besides that, it also doesn't appear to be a very reliable source, being along the lines of an alexa ranking or a traffic estimation website, both of which should also be avoided. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This speaks to the reliability of the source. It is similar in many way to the statistics gathering done by Netcraft. That being said, Judas's use of Netcraft for information about DreamHost's systems doesn't work, because it isn't specific enough. DreamHost uses Debian for shared hosting. There is little point in switching to a third party source if that information is inaccurate, so I have reverted the change. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Theserialcomma - webhosting.info is a primary source, publishing raw data. Netcraft data is also a primary source, publishing raw data, although they also publish articles interpreting the data to become secondary source. A reputable 3rd party primary source is better than self-published data. BTW, Debian is a subset of GNU/Linux, so calling it Linux is accurate. If you look around, you'll find confirmation the company is using F5 Big IP. So, I'm unreverting the change. --Judas278 (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

But that's not on shared hosting, and why replace "Debian" with a more ambiguous term? That's like saying "car" instead of "Ford". -- Scjessey (talk) 10:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no reference given for shared versus dedicated hosting descriptions anyway. No, it's like saying "Ford Fusion" instead of "Ford Fusion SE." --Judas278 (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Scarily enough, I agree with Judas here. The particular distribution of Linux isn't relevant, unless it's one that's been specially tuned for large-scale server use.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This does not establish the reliability of the source per wikipedia's standards. Please see WP:RS: "Wikipedia articles[1] should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources (although reliable self-published sources are allowable in some situations - see below). Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication". an "about" page on a website stating 'we are pretty accurate, we swear! patent pending!' does not establish reliability, nor does it change the fact that this is a primary resource Theserialcomma (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

We are not stating an opinion, we are just reported an uncharacterized fact. There is no reason at all why the Webhosting.info source cannot be used for the 800,000 domains number. Many editors have reviewed this source before and found it perfectly acceptable. You are going against a previously established consensus. I am curious - are you a former DreamHost customer as well? -- Scjessey (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

nope, never used or heard of dreamhost until i read the WP:ANI thread you posted about the SPA the other day. i agree that he appears to be an SPA, but many editors begin editing on articles that particularly interest them, and therefore start out as SPAs. more important questions would be, are you still an admin of the dreamhost wiki and still receiving financial compensation from the company? and also, what still makes you think that webhosting.info is a reliable source? what makes you think it's not a primary source? have you read WP:RS? and don't you know that consensus can change? and don't you know that 'many editors have reviewed the source' does not automatically make it a good source? i await your response. thanks. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin of the DreamHost Wiki, I am a "sysop". This status was conferred upon me so that I could help clean up vandalism there, and that is pretty much it (DH Wiki logs). I do not receive financial compensation from DreamHost. I do get a few dollars a year in "referral revenue" if people sign up for the service from my recommendation - the same arrangement that all customers of DreamHost get. There is no conflict of interest, if that is what you are getting at, because I am not (and have never been) an employee or paid advocate. I think webhosting.info is reliable for the information we seek from it, namely non-contentious raw numbers of domains. We are not seeking some sort of opinion, or looking to support data that is disputed. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Copied here: I suppose it's not true you're known as one of their biggest fans?; rlparker, another customer "sysop" got hired by the company; and you wouldn't be against arranging a nice job there for yourself? --Judas278 (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

And what the hell is wrong with that? And what has it got to do with this? You are trying to make it seem like a conflict of interest exists where there is none. Have you no interest in editing anything else on Wikipedia, other than this crusade of hate? -- Scjessey (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and I wouldn't say no to a nice test position on the Microsoft SQL Server team. Are you going to tell me I can't edit the Microsoft article any more?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If one is an active, known promoter, receiving cash, pursuing a job, etc., then one may have COI and should consider taking a less active or controlling role on that article. Just one opinion. --Judas278 (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If one is a known ex-customer holding a grudge, etc, one may have COI and should consider taking a less active or controlling role on that article. Just one opinion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to include reliable references, and tried to restore the COI and npov tags, for accuracy. If removing unreferenced info' appears to be biased, we could discuss why that is. Oh, ditto for current customers. :-) --Judas278 (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yelling "this user has a conflict of interest" over and over does not make it so.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I believed the purpose of the COI and npov tags was to draw attention from experienced, neutral editors, to help correct the situation. Likewise, repeating "he has a grudge" does not make it so. --Judas278 (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Control Panel Deletion Proposal

Re: Customers have access to a control panel that includes integrated billing and support ticket systems. and screenshot image. I propose deleting this statement and screenshot. See earlier discussions. It has a reference to only a company web page - advertising. It's "custom," but company sites are already linked extensively in External Links, to provide that advertising. All web hosts have "integrated" control panels. So this statement doesn't add anything. Finally, the web panel was involved, or thought to be, in a security breach, but this news-referenced information is no longer here. So, I say delete the superfluous statement and screenshot, or restore mention of the security breach for balance. --Judas278 (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Umm, Judas, if you can't even say if it was involved with a security breach, then exactly why are you trying to put it in? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

maybe this kills two birds with one stone: http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2007/06/07/dreamhost_hack/ . it both states information about the security breach, and it states that dreamhost hosts "more than" 500,000 domains. Theserialcomma (talk) 06:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

here is another: http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2007/06/06/mass_customer_site_hack_at_dreamhost.html Theserialcomma (talk) 06:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

And here's another - http://www.dreamhoststatus.com/2007/06/06/security-breach/, cited in the above.

We are in the middle a more thorough investigation and some new information has turned up. While we did detect some unauthorized access to our user web control panel, in at least some cases it looks like that may not be to blame for the compromised ftp accounts. In some isolated cases it appears that there may be security problems on end-user computers as well. If you have been affected by this, please do whatever checks on your own computer you can as a precaution. Our investigation is covering all possible attack points and this is one of the possibilities.

Also note that we now have confirmed information that these ftp account hijackings are happening on other web hosts as well and it looks very likely like there’s more to this situation than just the security problem we detected within our own system.

And Judas obviously knew this, or he wouldn't have added the "or thought to be" above.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

←It is worth noting that DreamHost uses a totally unique control panel designed in-house. This is unusual for all but the very big hosts, as most cheap shared hosts use cPanel. It is for this reason that the information about the control panel was added in the first place. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, it seems extraordinary to claim that detailing the "security breach", which affected less than 1% of customers (myself included, BTW), is somehow a "balance" for general information about the DreamHost control panel system. And how is it "advertising" exactly? I don't understand that at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

1% of (hundreds) of thousands (millions?) of customers, seems like it could be a big deal to me, depending on whether the media reported on it. it appears that a few reliable sources did mention it, so maybe the incident deserves a brief mention in the article? nothing more than a sentence, i would propose. Theserialcomma (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

and in a situation like this: a self-published source, potentially doing damage control, with a statement like 'in isolated cases, it might be the user's computer which was compromised' vs a third party, reliable source, which states 'dreamhost was hacked via a vulnerability in dreamhost's system.' i'd have to go with the third party source. 'a few isolated cases' of people's PCs being hacked has nothing to do with what happened, and that sounds like they are trying to change the subject somewhat. "sure, we were hacked. but in other news, some of you guys might have been hacked also." ...what? this is a prime situation where a self published source is too controversial to use Theserialcomma (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Problem is, those third-party sources are sourced to THE SAME ARTICLE, but an earlier version. Now, if you have a source that is not sourced to Dreamhost's self-reporting, we'd have a basis for discussion. As it stands, we're looking at another case of DreamHost's transparency. They said what they thought was wrong immediately in order to warn people to be careful, and the third-party sources ran with it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

well, wait a second. why should it matter if a third party, reliable source comments on dreamhost's self reporting? that is the whole point of using a third party, reliable source. we trust their editorial process and oversight more than a self published source. reliable sources take questionable information and make their own articles about it, hopefully with some additional information and fact checking. so i don't understand the objection, and i have no idea where you got transparency from this situation. for all we know, it was such a big and obvious hack that they were forced to comment. thousands of sites getting hacked? of course they are going to be 'transparent' on their blog. thousands of people knew about it anyway. they did what any company would do; nothing above and beyond the realm of corporate transparency, as far as i can see Theserialcomma (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Clearly you don't see. I was one of the people "hacked". It was a trivial matter that was more a result of the problems with using the inherently insecure FTP than anything else. It resulted in a few sites have server-side includes injected into websites that contained linkspam. Worse events happen on Wikipedia every day. Only DreamHost's exceptional transparency allowed people to find out about it quickly, and most were able to repair their sites from DreamHost's automatic snapshot backups. You are making a mountain out of a molehill. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

i am making a mountain out of a molehill? i have nothing to do with this, neither do you. multiple reliable sources commented on the hack, and we can cull information from those sources to add a quick sentence about the situation. this has nothing to do with molehills, transparency, worse events happening elsewhere, or anything else. are there reliable sources? yes. were thousands of people affected? yes. can we agree that it's worth mentioning in the article? maybe not. i'd like to hear some outside opinions, especially from non loyal customers, and not from SPAs either. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Few domains were actually compromised, although there was potential for several hundred (as reported here), and it turned out to be a problem for more than just DreamHost. A trivial incident, not worth mentioning per WP:WEIGHT. I agree with you, however, when you say that we would benefit from the opinion of other editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

according to netcraft, 700 domains and 3,500 ftp accounts were hacked. [[3]]. maybe to balance out the hack info, we could mention part of dreamhost's response: "In the last 24 hours we have made numerous significant behind-the-scenes changes to improve internal security, including the discovery and patching to prevent a handful of possible exploits," Theserialcomma (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

something like "on june 7th (or whenever it happened), approximately 700 domains and 3,500 ftp accounts were hacked. in response, dreamhost made "numerous, significant changes (to) improve internal security" Theserialcomma (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) wasn't just DreamHost, though.

• http://www.itpro.co.uk/143193/fasthosts-ftp-spaces-compromised (November 2007)
• http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201800545 (August 2007)
• http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Finjan-Finds-Database-of-8700-Stolen-FTP-Credentials/ (February 2008)
• http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/141544/hack_attack_hits_10000_web_sites.html (January 2008)

I suspect these are all related -- the modus operandi sounds awfully similar.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

true, servers on the internet are compromised all the time; and often times, hackers use same method to break into different servers. i'm not sure what this directly has to do with dreamhost, other than if we were to conduct original research to try to make a link from other hacks to dreamhost. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Theserialcomma: "can we agree that it's worth mentioning in the article? maybe not. i'd like to hear some outside opinions, especially from non loyal customers, and not from SPAs either." In itself, the panel is not notable. So it's another panel, imo. If this article links advertising description from the company's site, then should it also link the many times the panel has been reported as unavailable on the company's status site? No, this article should use good references. If the article is going to cover the panel, then use good references. This article http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2007/06/07/dreamhost_hack/ is an excellent reference, imo, because it is up front about where it got info, and used multiple sources - from the company or elsewhere. It touches several bases - control panel, blamed by company; security upgrades made, after the attack; attack publicized by company, after being tracked a few days by an independent security company, Scansafe, who notified the company. This article http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2007/06/06/mass_customer_site_hack_at_dreamhost.html is also good. As a side note, following that article's link to http://www.caydel.com/dreamhost-leaks-3500-ftp-passwords/ and scrolling down to comments, we find a few comments by our dedicated defender/editor of the company, who also states he moved his customer's site to this host, which could be more reason for more COI. In general, the company has been notable for some fubars, so use the good references and include the material. If they've been notable for some notable "great stuff", then include that too. Personally, I think supporting Ceph may be a good one, but I don't know of any good references. --Judas278 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC).

Again with your COI nonsense! Thank you for the completely useless, unusable blog link (where the author notes he is making referral money from a different company). -- Scjessey (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

and where someone using your name defends the company to the death. --Judas278 (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed wording of DreamHost hack

In June 2007 approximately 700 websites and 3,500 FTP accounts hosted on DreamHost's servers were compromised. In response to the hack, DreamHost made "numerous significant behind-the-scenes changes to improve internal security, including the discovery and patching to prevent a handful of possible exploits." [[4]] [[5]]

Given Sarek's findings above, it would seem that this was not an event unique to DreamHost, and therefore not really appropriate for the DreamHost article. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

if you find any citable evidence that dreamhost was related to those other hacks, we could add "multiple other providers were affected by this bug" or some such. but until then, there is absolutely, 100%, without any doubt, zero evidence that sarek's findings about other hacks have anything whatsoever to do dreamhost directly. total original research and speculation. any claims of a link, without evidence, should not be taken seriously, for wikipedia purposes. dreamhost has literally not even been mentioned once in any of those articles, so those other hacks should not even be mentioned on this page again until you can find a reliable source linking them to dreamhost directly. so anyway, do you have any input on how to tweak the wording i've proposed? i want it to be as NPOV as possible. Theserialcomma (talk) 08:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The point is that these types of hacks/breaches are commonplace, particularly in a shared hosting environment (which is inherently less secure). Whether or not these events are tied together (and we only have a DreamHost blog post that suggests they are), the event simply wasn't very notable. The two sources you provide are not mainstream media sources, and coverage is clearly very minimal. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Chanelregister.co.uk is theregister.co.uk, a well known and trusted source. your point about hacks and breaches go beyond the scope of what we do on wikipedia, and hence is original research. if you have any reliable sources to back your 'hacks and breaches' idea and how that directly links to dreamhost's hack, please post them. otherwise, let's discuss the actual sources we have and what they actually say. Theserialcomma (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The Register, which I have been reading for years, is essentially a trade-specific news aggregator. It is well-known for being a bit sensationalist, and it certainly isn't known for straight reporting. Let's not misrepresent things here. My point, which you seem to have a hard time grasping, is that this is not notable. You have no consensus for including this material, so either you need to go off and find more and better reliable sources to present a new case for inclusion, or you need to let it go. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

either the register is or isn't a reliable source. if we can't agree that it's reliable, let's take it to the RS boards and ask them. either the hacks and breaches are related or unrelated to dreamhost. if you can't show evidence via reliable sources, then it's not relevant enough to argue over. either it's notable or not notable that hundreds of sites were hacked. i think it's notable, you don't. let's see what other editors think, especially non SPAs and non loyal customers. if we can find more sources, maybe we can establish the notability of the hack and be done with this. Theserialcomma (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like only Netcraft and The Register reported this incident (Google News search results). Some blog posts mention it, but they cannot be used as reliable sources. The lack of coverage is key here, in that it shows a lack of notability. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: "and be done with this". We may never be done with this. A complete discussion was deleted about a year ago as a "cleanup." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DreamHost&diff=208809251&oldid=207400181 . It's been said before, by non SPAs, this article has owners. --Judas278 (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Legitimate edit, with justification in the edit summary. A lack of editors on this article make it look like I am doing the bulk of the editing, but it is not a sign of ownership. I am not preventing other editors from editing this article (violating WP:OWN), I am preventing other editors from inserting non-neutral stuff, or stuff with undue weight, or vandalism. My edits protect the article, not the company. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The point, to Theserialcomman, was you simply deleted an entire section covering the exact topic we're discussing now. It was covered before, with similar or same referencing, and you simply deleted it, to make the company look better. --Judas278 (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not my fault that you don't understand Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. That edit followed WP:WEIGHT and also the essay of WP:RECENT which recommends that events are covered from a historical perspective. Why don't you go and learn the rules and then come back and try to be a productive Wikipedian, rather than a disruptive SPA? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

when editors throw around terms like "undue weight" and links to the policy WP:UNDUE, it might serve us well to actually read the policy and what it really means. it states Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. quick sanity check: is mentioning the fact that dreamhost got hacked, even though dreamhost even admitted it, somehow a 'tiny minority view'? is it even a view at all? is it even contentious to claim something they freely admit? Further from the UNDUE guideline: If you are able to prove something that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to première such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced. Now, how can you, after reading the policy on undue weight, claim that it's undue weight to mention a FACT that dreamhost had hundreds of their domains hacked, and thousands of their FTP accounts hacked? are we making this hack up or something? are the sources not reliable enough? is DreamHost mentioning the factual reality of the hack on their official blog somehow controversial to anyone except those overly trying to protect dreamhost's reputation? Where, exactly, is the undue weight? It's neutrally worded, reliably sourced, and factual. "In June 2007 approximately 700 websites and 3,500 FTP accounts hosted on DreamHost's servers were compromised. In response to the hack, DreamHost made "numerous significant behind-the-scenes changes to improve internal security, including the discovery and patching to prevent a handful of possible exploits." [[6]] [[7]]" is about as NPOV as i could make it, and it even quotes, verbatim, dreamhost's response to the hack. what is teh problem here? Theserialcomma (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• more sources: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-31305510_ITM, http://blog.dreamhosters.com/2007/06/06/dreamhost-ftp-accounts-hacked/, http://www.dreamhoststatus.com/2007/06/11/web-hosting-break-ins-security-update/ http://www.mckremie.com/7_most_disastrous_web_hosting_mistakes.php: 7 Most Disastrous Web Hosting Mistakes Ever! http://www.spamfighter.com/News-8600-Hackers-Loaded-Malware-Into-Mercury-Music-Award-Site.htm http://www.scansafe.com/news/press_releases/press_releases_2007/scansafe_threat_center_warns_of_drive-by_malware_on_up_to_3,500_websites. if you can't find a reliable source out of all of those, you are trying too hard not to find one. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

With the exception of the DreamHost sources (that have been trashed by Judas and described as "self publishing"), the only RS in that bunch is the ScanScafe source, and that is already referred to by one of the sources in the existing text. All the other references are from blogs or websites echoing the existing coverage. You aren't bringing anything new to the table here. In any case, did you not see the recent changes? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

are you only agreeing with judas about the self published sources because it suits this particular argument? or do you suggest we eliminate all self published sources? or do we just eliminate the ones you don't like? or just eliminate the self published sources by dreamhost that could be construed as negative? please clarify, because if a reliable source reports something that an unreliable source originally posts (a blog, for example), we can use the reliable source and trust their editorial oversight in the matter. that is why they are considered reliable. this is standard wikipedia practice. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

i noticed that you failed to respond to the fallacious claims of WP:UNDUE weight. would you care to respond to my points about why it's not undue weight i.e. dreamhost mentioned it happened as a fact, and third party, reliable sources wrote about it, and the proposed addition to the article about the hack is NPOV. or are you dropping that argument? you seem to change the subject every time a good point is made. please stop that, it's a bit disruptive to the collaborative process. if you can't raise any legitimate objections that are actually relevant and true, the proposed info about the hack should be amended to the article. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No. I am not agreeing with Judas about anything at all. I was perfectly happy with what he described as "self published" sources, although that is not what they are. We can use a reliable source that we know has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking (see WP:V), but if we know something to be obviously wrong, we can only use it if it is corroborated by another reliable source. In the case of the "hack" issue, a very small number of accounts were affected, it is not representative of the DreamHost service as a whole. Adding information about this nonevent constitutes a case of undue weight, particularly because there are so few sources (sources that simply regurgitate other sources do not count). -- Scjessey (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

what you are describing is not undue weight. there is nothing in the undue weight rule that implies that 100%, 95%, or even 50% of DreamHost's clients have to be hacked before it's a notable event. notability has to do with sourcing, not arbitrary numbers of customers affected. and we have reliable sources that state that this occurred, including a self published source from dreamhost itself admitting it happened. my opinion is that 7,500 hacked ftp accounts are a lot, and 700 domains are a lot of domains to be hacked too, but that is irrelevant to anything we are talking about, because the reliable sources are what matters. the reliable sources http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2007/06/07/dreamhost_hack/, http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2007/06/06/mass_customer_site_hack_at_dreamhost.html, http://www.scansafe.com/news/press_releases/press_releases_2007/scansafe_threat_center_warns_of_drive-by_malware_on_up_to_3,500_websites, the self published sources by dreamhost, http://www.scansafe.com/news/press_releases/press_releases_2007/scansafe_threat_center_warns_of_drive-by_malware_on_up_to_3,500_websites, and https://www.sans.org/newsletters/newsbites/newsbites.php?vol=9&issue=45 are reliable enough, regardless of if they are reporting the same information as one another. the hack happened, dreamhost admitted it, and multiple reliable sources picked up the story. this will not be kept out of the article for the reasons you've attempted to present. i know that you really like dreamhost, and you admin their wiki, and you make money from them, so you obviously want dreamhost to succeed. but that is no reason for you to try to wp:own this article to remove valid, sourced, relevant information. you are not being completely neutral right now; you are being protective. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the meaning of WP:WEIGHT. The key line is this:

"Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."

What we have here is a situation where documenting this event (which actually has few reliable sources, despite what you keep saying) and the much more notable billing snafu creates a problem where the article is unbalanced. It would mean that two negative issues would completely dominate the article, which would be an unfair reflection on a company which has a solid reputation with a largely happy customer base (the kind of stuff that doesn't get reported). WP:WEIGHT demands proportionate prominence to preserve the neutral point of view. Stating "this will not be kept out of the article" makes me highly suspicious of your motives, and it not the sort of appropriate comment for someone who claims to be following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. My suspicion is further magnified by your repetition of the false claims made by the SPA. You have no consensus to include this material, and the circular arguments you are using to try to get it into the article are becoming tendentious. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Go back and look at your sources. Most of them are simply duplicates that cite each other. There just aren't enough original reliable sources to justify inclusion. And stop casting aspersions - I have been a Wikipedian for years, making over 8,000 edits in some of the most combustible, contentious articles on Wikipedia. I have a thorough and intimate knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (some of which I have helped to write). I have already explained why your proposal will not work, and I am not going to go over it again and again. This article is being reviewed by administrators, and we shall have to see what they say about it. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

this is a strange situation. somehow you have the nerve to accuse me of having suspicious motives, which is nothing more than a thinly veiled personal attack. why are you attacking me? what is your evidence? fact: you are an admin of the official dreamhost wiki and you receive some compensation from dreamhost for referrals, which you claim to donate to charity, or whatever. fact. what facts do you have about me? that i don't agree with you? and i have agreed with the SPA? does that give you carte blanche to make thinly veiled personal attacks against my motives and character? No. that will not be tolerated. i came here from WP:ANI because of a posting you made, read the situation, and realized you had big time WP:OWNership issues here, and that the SPA had some valid points, even if their motives were suspicious. if you have any questions about my motives, show proof or keep it to yourself.

the strange thing is, a few hours ago, the 'billing' section was nothing more than a sentence or two, sitting in the main article. i am the one who shortened the original 'billing error' section, condensed it into a sentence, removed it from being its own section, and stated that an entire section devoted to billing problem is silly. then, out of nowhere and without prior discussion, you recreated the old billing section. why? no real explanation. a sentence was good enough to explain it. if you are so concerned about your misinterpretation of the undue weight rule, then why not condense and move the billing information? it almost seems as if you added the billing section back just so that you could keep the "dreamhost hacked" out of the article, erroneously citing WP:UNDUE. "oops, we already have an entire section devoted to dreamhost's screw up, so we can't add any more criticisms" like undue weight works that way. please. multiple criticisms coming from multiple reliable sources is NOT undue weight as long as it's NPOV and reliably sourced. the entire article could be reliably sourced about nothing more than dreamhost's screw ups and that would not be undue weight, as long as everything were properly sourced. Stop trying to own this article, stop trying to 'protect' dreamhost from legitimate criticism, and stop filibustering collaboration by misusing policies that you appear to not understand.

• i'm removing the 'billing' section, condensing it into a sentence or two, and adding the 'dreamhost hacked' information. you have not provided any legitimate reasons why this should not happen, and i've given you plenty of opportunities Theserialcomma (talk) 04:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You do not have a consensus for this, and all you will do is precipitate an edit war. Think carefully before going down that road. Await comment from administrators. Also, do not move comments around. The threading of these comments is important for review by others. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

if i moved your comments around, it was an accident. i was trying to fix the formatting of my own comments. if i am awaiting comments from administrators, then which ones? hopefully not the one who's also a dreamhost customer. maybe we should do an RFC or report it to ANI if you are promising an edit war? some neutral, new opinions would be great. Theserialcomma (talk) 04:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Wholesale updates

I have made significant improvements to the article, including adding new references and moving old references to better positions (per WP:MOS). I have restored an earlier, fuller account of the billing issue that has many more references in it. It is a fair and accurate accounting, but it represents about 50% of the article. More neutral information about the company is needed in the future in order to repair the imbalance I have created, but these changes should satisfy certain disgruntled ex-customers of the company. I would request that future changes, both inclusions and exclusions, be first discussed on this talk page. Seek consensus for all but the most uncontroversial of changes. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

In other words, because you own this article, you can make wholesale updates, but everybody else must get permission first. --Judas278 (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I've attempted to extended an olive branch to you by putting a large chunk of negative publicity back into the article, and this is your response? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

You'd do better to leave out your obvious personal attacks. --Judas278 (talk) 05:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you restrain yourself from further finger wagging for 5 seconds and offer an opinion about the proposal below? -- Scjessey (talk) 05:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I've already spent hours restoring material that was previously in the article, and trying to make minor, well-sourced additions, only to have them promptly reverted by you without comment or discussion. Some times almost simultaneously. --Judas278 (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed untitled "issues" paragraph

I propose the following compromise text, based largely on the work of Theserialcomma, but also including much of the information demanded by Judas278. This covers all 3 documented "issues" historically mentioned in the article, with significant improvement to the references. -- Scjessey (talk) 05:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: July 2006: This (8/02 versus 7/25) reference should also be included: http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2006/08/02/la_hosting_providers_slowed_by_power_problems.html and the network issues should be mentioned in the sentence. The company blog is self-published, unreliable reference, and should not be used in the article. --Judas278 (talk) 05:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

As the article stands now, by The'comma, it's almost ok. Just delete the unreliable blog reference, and add a brief sentence on the power and network issues at the end of the paragraph. It reads better in reverse chronological order, and without added fluff about the building. --Judas278 (talk) 06:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

i like the text below, except i highly agree with judas with the idea that it's unnecessary to mention "the garland building in los angeles." for rhetorical and editorial reasons, i would have to object to using the passive voice instead of the active voice to shift the focus from the subject to the object of the sentence, which is what "the garland building" sentence currently does. the subject of the sentence should surely be dreamhost, not the object. i would propose, if we are all convinced the power outage is big enough of a deal to even be mentioned in the article at this time: "DreamHost suffered a power outage in July, 2006, which resulted in significant downtime for its customers. The outage was a result of a rolling blackout in the building in which DreamHost's datacenter was located. Other providers were also affected". Theserialcomma (talk) 07:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that approach is that it implies the outage was DreamHost's fault, which is not the case. The incident was so significant, it brought down MySpace. We could change it to something like this:

In July, 2006, DreamHost was twice the victim of power outages at the Garland Building in Los Angeles, resulting in significant downtime for customers.

That firmly puts DreamHost, rather than the building, as the subject of the sentence. I would not support Judas's call to strip the page of material sourced at DreamHost itself. That is down to his complete misunderstanding of WP:SELFPUB, and these sources have been minimized anyway. Nor would I support he ludicrous notion of a reverse chronology. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It's about what reliable sources say about the company. No need to use "ridiculous" because that's how it stood, by Theserialcomma. --Judas278 (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

how does "The outage was a result of a rolling blackout in the building in which DreamHost's datacenter was located." imply that it was dreamhost's fault? Theserialcomma (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Text

In July, 2006, the Garland Building in Los Angeles suffered two power outages that caused significant downtime for its customers, including DreamHost. In June, 2007, approximately 700 websites and 3,500 FTP accounts hosted on DreamHost's servers were compromised. In response to the incident, the company made "numerous significant behind-the-scenes changes to improve internal security, including the discovery and patching to prevent a handful of possible exploits." On January 15, 2008, DreamHost accidentally billed some users for an extra year's worth of services, totaling $2.1m.

Proposed rewrite of "Network" sentence

This sentence: "DreamHost's network consists of Debian GNU/Linux-based servers for customers running on F5 Networks Big IP-based servers." is now non-sensical, for one. Second, it was agreed by SarekofVulcan that "Debian" could be deleted, as not adding anything significant. The current Debian reference was written by the company, and posted at Debian.org: http://www.debian.org/users/com/dreamhost . It is also very old, and should be deleted. Proposed wording:

DreamHost uses GNU/Linux-based servers for customers, and F5 Networks Big IP-based servers for company sites.

Ref's: http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/hosted?netname=DREAMHOST-BLK1,66.33.192.0,66.33.223.255

--Judas278 (talk) 06:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagreed. And this is precisely where knowledge of the company is useful. DreamHost uses Debian universally - that is a fact. Although the reference is not of the highest quality, it is a non-contentious matter and so it should not be a problem. Also, your suggestion "servers for company sites" is original research, with no source to back it up. The Netcraft source you use does not mention "company sites". -- Scjessey (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This is where too much "knowledge" and devotion to the company PR is harmful. The facts need to be notable and well sourced. Terms like most, majority, and small percentage should also be removed unless you have good, reliable, 3rd party references. This is non-sensical: "for customers running on F5 Networks Big IP-based servers." I agree this reference is primary and borders on OR; however, the Whois reference you added is very similar. Do you now support removing the whois reference for the same reason? --Judas278 (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The WHOIS reference is there only to support a date, which it does quite adequately. It's not ideal, but it is still a non-contentious detail. Your thing is just pure OR, so there is no comparison to be made there. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Again no response to the sentence making no sense as it stands - ...servers on ...servers. The netcraft uptime lookup is very similar, and only supports a computer type, also a non-contentious detail or should be non-contentious. And to re-iterate, you are now making an issue of something recently agreed to above. --Judas278 (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Well obviously servers on servers is no good, and that needs to be changed. For accuracy, it should say something like:

DreamHost's network consists of Apache and lighttpd web servers running on the Debian GNU/Linux operating system, on server equipment that includes F5 Networks Big IP hardware.

Of course, we may need to rely on a mix of the Netcraft and DreamHost-based references for these specifics, but they should not be points of contention. How does that sound? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Not very good. I am against adding more advertising-like repetition of company-published PR as "references". I welcome other opinions on whois and netcraft uptime lookups as adequate references, and whether network and server description is notable enough to even include. I doubt it. --Judas278 (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The types of network and server systems are actually quite important, because they distinguish DreamHost from other services that may employ Microsoft's IIS, for example. Your continued insistence that DreamHost-based references can only be "advertising" or "PR" is quite ridiculous. In many cases, DreamHost-sourced information may be the only available, or the most accurate. This is not a problem with non-contentious data like what kind of OS is used. This is quite normal, as evidenced by similar articles for web hosts like Media Temple. The policies concerning these types of sources are well explained at WP:RS and WP:V. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not notable to use Linux/Apache instead of Microsoft: http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2009/03/15/march_2009_web_server_survey.html . The particular brand of Linux is also not noteworthy. Such information does not need to be included. This company's blogs are Questionable sources because they are notable for not fact checking, for making newsworthy mistakes, and publishing "updates." Media Temple is apparently newsworthy and notable for their somewhat unique system architecture, as there are 3rd party references on that. Questionable and self-published sources are to be avoided, and used only when "the material is not unduly self-serving". Notice Media Temple does not have a whole section of "External Links". In this article, those links are more than enough advertising. --Judas278 (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, you have completely misinterpreted policy. I didn't say anything about whether the web server software was notable, only that it was important to distinguish Apache-based web hosts from IIS-based. These sources are not questionable, because they are not being used for contentious information. And you cannot compare references to external links - that is a completely separate issue. You are being deliberately obtuse and tendentious because you have a grudge against the company. It is a complete waste of time trying to discuss this with you, because you have the red mist of DreamHost rage in your eyes. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Another editor, Theserialcomma, already questioned your interpretations of policy and protection of the article. This is not a place to repeat and link to the company's advertising and slogans. It's a place to cover notable information about the company. With no 3rd party, reliable references to use, probably the best thing is to delete the information about the company's "network" and "control panel". It is non-notable. --Judas278 (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed mention of gmail recommendation by company

Suggested wording

DreamHost recommends gmail for email.

Ref's: http://www.thewhir.com/web-hosting-news/052708_Use_Gmail_says_DreamHost , http://www.gadgetell.com/tech/comment/dreamhost-use-gmail-not-our-servers/

It was notable enough to get news reports. --Judas278 (talk) 06:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Those are not "news reports", and the overwhelming majority of DreamHost customers do not use GMail. This is an irrelevant detail. If you insist on this, then I insist on stuff like:

1. DreamHost's eradication of their carbon footprint
2. DreamHost winning an award for a democratic workplace
3. DreamHost running a DRM-free file backup system
4. DreamHost's private server system

-- Scjessey (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

They look like reliable on-line sources. It was relevant enough to get impartial, 3rd party notice. How do you know how many customers do or don't use gmail, and what does your opinion on the facts matter in the first place? If you have some relevant additions, with reliable, 3rd party references, then propose your wording and references for comment. --Judas278 (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of reliable sources and company sites as references

Should this question be taken somewhere else for comment? There seems to be wide differences here interpreting good sources definition, like on company PR on historical events. Where is the right place to take it? --Judas278 (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

If you had bothered to follow WP:RS (which is linked all over the place on this page), the second paragraph points to the reliable source noticeboard, where the suitability of sources can be discussed and debated. It's really easy to figure out though - the more contentious or extraordinary a claim, the higher the standard of the reference must be to support it. Things like whether or not a web hosting company uses Debian do not require a high standard of sourcing, whereas things that are highly-contentious with potential POV issues require very high quality sourcing. Crucially, however, it is important to understand that not everything needs to be covered in the article. Only things that are notable, neutral and balanced. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I've read it. I've read Theserialcomma statements above on your view of referencing, and protecting of this article. I don't know if more requests for outside help are appropriate yet. I welcome other opinions, but not your insults and attacks. --Judas278 (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of issues tag

1. Article references have been improved to an acceptable standard
2. Much work has been done to address the question of neutrality, and the article is properly-balanced
3. No COI has been demonstrated

Given these facts, I now propose that the "issues" tag is removed from the article. If there is no reasonable objection within the next 48 hours, I will remove the tag. Removal of the tag would not, of course, prevent continued improvement of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. The above are not all facts. Some improvements were made, but self-published references remain, unnecessarily. Unnecessary fluff descriptive material, without 3rd party reliable references remains, for self-serving purposes. COI has been repeatedly perceived and alleged. You won't allow even a brief mention of gmail to be added, when it is notable with 3rd party references, and you revert good faith edits like you own this article. --Judas278 (talk) 00:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Go back and read WP:SELFPUB again, because you completely misunderstand it. Allegations of COI are meaningless - there is none. The GMail thing isn't relevant, and you have misinterpreted the sources. You don't make good faith edits. All your edits are in bad faith, because your sole reason for editing here is to discredit DreamHost. And like I said, only reasonable objections will be considered. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This is Notice: most of the first paragraph under Web Hosting is proposed for deletion within a few days, unless you can find reliable references to show it is notable and verifiable. Except the non-notable blurb about the control panel, the accuracy of the remainder is also challenged. That is, to delete:

"DreamHost's network consists of Debian GNU/Linux-based servers for customers running on F5 Networks Big IP-based servers.[5][6] Customers have access to a control panel that includes integrated billing and support ticket systems. The majority of hosted domains exist within a shared hosting environment, with a small percentage of customers on dedicated servers."

The "Gmail thing" even hit Slashdot. Stop your false personal attacks on me and my edits. --Judas278 (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Everything hits Slashdot. And you don't have consensus for deletion of anything. Your proposal will be a gross violation of WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not your personal playground of hate. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Then you should have no trouble finding good references. From WP:SELFPUB:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."

"Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors might object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references, and it has always been good practice, and expected behavior of Wikipedia editors (in line with our editing policy), to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them."

I've made reasonable effort to find sources (Netcraft lookup, but that's OR). Find references, or delete. Stop attacking. --Judas278 (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It is necessary to use the DreamHost blog as a source for the final total because we a required to for purposes of attribution. I am not attacking anyone. You are being disruptive and you must stop now. As I said on your talk page, if you are incapable of editing this article in a neutral fashion you should recuse yourself from doing so. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith

Copied here:

Why do you continue your bad faith editing at DreamHost. I have collaborated with other editors to come up with a reasonable compromise language, and yet you persistently make disruptive, bad faith edits trying to make the article sound as negative as you possibly can. Why are you doing this? This is highly disruptive behavior.

Once again, let me repeat that it is perfectly acceptable to use DreamHost's own website as a source for non-contentious facts and details about their service. It is also necessary for us to cite the DreamHost blog entry to provide the correct attribution for the amended figure on the overbilling. If you are incapable of editing this article neutrally, you should recuse yourself from doing so. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I've used Theserialcomma's wording, which you have now reversed a few times within 24 hours, violating 3RR. A couple sentences of non-contentious fluff is one thing. Two paragraphs is too much, especially when the accuracy is questionable. It's also not necessary to describe their network, servers, and control panel in any detail, because it's non-notable. --Judas278 (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about a web hosting company. What kind of retarded article would it be if it didn't describe their web hosting? -- Scjessey (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Read the Shared hosting article. Control Panel: "Shared hosting typically uses a web-based control panel system, such as cPanel, Ensim, DirectAdmin, Plesk, InterWorx, H-Sphere or one of many other control panel products. Most of the large hosting companies use their own custom developed control panel." Servers: "Most servers are based on the Linux operating system and LAMP (software bundle),"

"DreamHost provides typical shared hosting." That's all the "Web Hosting" needs instead of first 3 sentences. It's not my fault they are notable for not using phones and for recommending Gmail. Many people use gmail, anyway. --Judas278 (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Information about the company and the services it provides is important, otherwise there would be no point in having an article about it. There is nothing notable about the GMail thing. And not having telephone support is perfectly normal for shared hosting companies. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"DreamHost provides typical shared hosting." No original research. Verifiable. NPOV. Adding any more fluff is self-serving. You give your opinion. I give reliable sources. --Judas278 (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I accept your Gmail addition, and I have improved upon it by providing additional relevant information from the sources your provided. I will not accept your proposed "typical shared hosting" nonsense, because that would render the article all but useless. Wikipedia is supposed to offer useful information, not reduce information to the minimum it can get away with. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Shortening 3 fluff sentences down to 1 leaves a 5-6 sentence paragraph, plus the Introduction paragraph. That is substantial coverage since you haven't identified a single 3rd party source to add to the Original Research source I identified and added. --Judas278 (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Although preferable, you do not necessarily need a third party source to corroborate basic, uncontentious facts. For example, you would not need a third party source to corroborate a Microsoft-sourced list of MS Office features. Nor would you need a third party source to corroborate a government-sourced list of government departments. What exists has adequate sourcing. It is not synthesized, and it is not original research. Please stop your disruption. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Office is a poor example; it is itself tagged a few times for inadequate references. "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." Repeat: I challenge the 3 sentences. Network description is gibberish, and sourced by OR and out of date self-pub. Control panel... is like saying they use electricity, ethernet, Cisco routers, and air conditioning (worthless statement). The fraction of customers on different server types is completely made up or "synthesized". Even if you can find a company-self-published description, it is notably unreliable. I looked for one and found these:

http://wiki.dreamhost.com/KB_/_Dedicated_Servers_/_Billing

http://wiki.dreamhost.com/Hosting_plan

(outdent) At the moment, both link to http://www.dreamhost.com/hosting-dedicated.html which is 404-not found. Unreliable! Fix and reference, or delete the gibberish and baseless hype. --Judas278 (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

At the moment, there are exactly zero dead links on this article, so I don't know what your last bit of gibberish is all about. Also, since you are just a DreamHost-hating SPA, your "challenge" is essentially meaningless. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The above is Another Attack. The company wiki is a questionable source, partly because it contains broken links. Judas278 (talk) 10:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what your point is. We are not using the wiki as a source, so why are you complaining about it? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The company wiki, and probably much other company-published advertising, was clearly unreliable regarding Hosting Plan and Dedicated Servers, which you insist on describing in the article without sources. Judas278 (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The wiki is not being used as a source. How can you object to a source that isn't even being used? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Several company-distributed "PR" or advertising sites, including blog.dreamhosters.com, wiki.dreamhost.com, www.dreamhost.com and more, will worm their way back in when it suits some editors. They are low quality sources, as demonstrated. Judas278 (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The company's home page is a low quality source?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

2005 Outage

I do not see how the 2005 outage is notable. It gets a single line in the provided source, and is only there to provide context. This would seem to be a violation of WP:GNG, that demands "significant coverage". A Google News search reveals only 2 sources for this matter. Web hosts suffer from outages all the time. This addition should be removed immediately. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

False. Two lines:

"Compounding the damage of the outage was the fact that DreamHost was still earning back whatever goodwill it may have lost when the company suffered a similar outage in September of 2005, when a confluence of ISP outages and power failures brought its data center offline." "Before the company's original 2005 outage, he says, the facility informed tenants that power capacity for the building had been met, and with no upgrades planned, it would be difficult to continue building within facilities."

It is also in the reference largely focusing on DreamHost: http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2006/08/02/power-woes-continue-at-las-garland-building/

"In September 2005, much of LA lost grid power when a utility worker accidentally cut a key cable. The Garland building has five generators, but three malfunctioned, and the remaining two were unable to handle the load. In the July 24 outage this year, the generators worked, only to have the ATS and UPS systems fail."

It was also widely covered in other less reliable sources including DreamHost's blog:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dreamhost+september+2005+power+outage

http://blog.dreamhost.com/2005/09/12/power-outage-update/

Suggestion: Fixup the 3 sentences of unsourced non-sense statement and fluff before it gets deleted. --Judas278 (talk) 03:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have still failed to demonstrate notability with "significant coverage" per WP:GNG. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I mis-interpreted that guideline too, for a while. You should read this carefully:

"These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They don't directly limit the content of articles. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons." My addition is Neutral, Verifiable (2 good sources), and not OR. Let it in, and put the tags back on. --Judas278 (talk) 04:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

None of the policies you refer to are being violated by my edits. You have failed to establish notability, and you are also violating neutrality by presenting negative information in undue weight. If you want to usefully contribute to this article, you will need to discuss things properly, seek consensus, and stop disruptively editing. You might also consider that you have a serious conflict of interest (disgruntled former customer seeking revenge) with no editing history outside of this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• i don't think it's been firmly established that Judas278 has a serious conflict of interest, as you've stated; or that he's (currently) editing with a bias that is blockable or punishable by wikipedia admins. Per the COI page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Your_company#How_not_to_handle_COI : Remember: an editor with a self-evident interest in the matter turning up on the talk page is an indication that they are playing it straight. Even if the changes they advocate are hopelessly biased, treat them with respect and courtesy, refer to policy and sources, and be fair. i really don't think you're treating Judas with respect and courtesy. i think you're being hostile, defensive about the company, failing to assume good faith, and you're doing a bit of bullying. until he's been sanctioned by an admin for his behavior, i don't think you should be acting this hostile towards him. some of the things you're saying about him could even be construed as personal attacks. Theserialcomma (talk) 04:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If it's appropriate, I'd appreciate you putting a word in at this Edit Warring report. --Judas278 (talk) 04:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It is highly inappropriate for anyone to request a comment on a 3RR report - especially when that report was misfiled due to a lack of a violation. I think this is symptomatic of the disgraceful behavior of this SPA. It is not possible to assume any kind of good faith when this obviously conflicted, disgruntled former customer of DreamHost is using Wikipedia as a tool to attack the company. His edits have all been designed to introduce a negative slant to the article, and he constantly removes non-contentious facts - justifying them by misquoting and misinterpreting Wikipedia policies. Administrator apathy in dealing with this poison is no excuse for ignoring Wikipedia's rules and guidelines and allowing the project to be harmed. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You escape on a technicality while violating the spirit of the rules. My edits include adding references for previously unsourced advertising fluff. Stop your baseless personal attacks!

(outdent) Back to the 2005 outage, there are 2 reliable sources. On what basis do you veto adding this history, which is mentioned prominently in already referenced articles? --Judas278 (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, it is not "prominent" as you claim. It is included in the articles for context. Secondly, it is a less significant power outage than the one already documented in the article, partly because it was nowhere near as much of a problem for customers, but also because it is older information. Thirdly, since we already talk about the more recent power problems, documenting yet another, less significant outage would constitute undue weight and be a violation of the neutral point of view. This article already suffers from being skewed significantly toward documenting negative aspects of DreamHost, thanks to your single-minded editing agenda. You have to be reasonable about this. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Above Concludes with Another attack. It is well sourced fact. Brief mention is appropriate. As you say, it puts later similar issues and later hardware moves in context. Judas278 (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but an SPA seeking to push negative information into an article to ensure that the subject is received poorly can be assumed to be acting in bad faith per WP:DUCK. It puts it in negative context, thus violating (again) the neutral point of view. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

As said by Theserialcomma, "Stop trying to own this article, stop trying to 'protect' dreamhost from legitimate criticism, and stop filibustering collaboration by misusing policies that you appear to not understand." Mentioning the 2005 outage, as in the reliable sources, is consistent with WP:NPOV:"representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Judas278 (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Another ludicrous misrepresentation of WP:NPOV. Read article as it is right now and you will see that there are 2 paragraphs of neutral information and 3 paragraphs of negative information. Even now, after I have reverted your recent changes, the article is skewed toward a negative (and definitely not neutral) point of view. How is that representing anything fairly? Your personal bias dominates the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Where does it say the positive or "neutral" information should have equal paragraphs numbers, or anything similar to that? What is wrong with Letting the facts speak for themselves? The 2005 outage is a significant fact, or you wouldn't be arguing so strongly. It's verifiable. Sourced. Stated neutrally. Judas278 (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• WP:NPOV - "Each Wikipedia article and other content must be written from a neutral point of view, by representing all significant views on each topic fairly, proportionately, and without bias."
• WP:WEIGHT - "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."
• WP:NPOVT - "A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted."
• WP:NPOVT - "Thus, verifiability, proper citation and neutral phrasing are necessary but not sufficient to ensure NPOV. It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability."

All of these talk about fairness in the article. It is an abstract concept that has no specific rules. Wikipedians are supposed to use common sense. You have gone out of your way to suppress as much positively-framed information as you possibly can, while at the same time you have tried to include as much negatively-framed information as you possibly can. The result is an article that is out of balance, with all the negative information documented in exhaustive detail, and anything positive has been minimized. You have used the lack of reliable sources for "not newsworthy" boring web hosting information as a method of suppression by demanding a high standard of sourcing for even the least contentious of facts. This tactic may be too subtle for some of the other editors to spot, but I am familiar with it because of my work on hundreds of other articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The above contains personal attacks. This section raised a simple question of one, well sourced, brief statement. Now this is confusing the discussion by raising different broad issues. Please start a different section or take this elsewhere. Without the insults. Judas278 (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Debian reference

Current reference http://www.debian.org/users/com/dreamhost is self-written by the company - "Since our inception over five years ago", "our shared hosting operations", "We now have over 150 Debian servers serving 50,000 web sites" etc. It is out of date - "Since our inception over five years ago". What kind of servers does the company currently use? Is it even significant enough to mention? I believe it is a poor reference and should be deleted. Alternatively, the article should refer to "five years after inception", or "about five years ago"... --Judas278 (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, there is nothing wrong with "self-written" sources if they relate to non-contentious material. The age of the link is irrelevant - we are not using it to reference specifics about how many servers, only that DreamHost uses Debian. It is the only source that exists that tells us that DreamHost uses Debian, besides the wiki (which should not be used for sourcing). I cannot see why anyone would have an objection to specifying the specific flavor of Linux. It is important that this article contains some of this boring, non-contentious stuff because it is helpful to the reader trying to find out information about the company. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It's an out of date article trying to support present tense description. I don't object to "Debian" if it is a fact. Are you sure they don't use some RedHat, Centos, Ubuntu, or F5 Big-IP proprietary operating systems? And our OR doesn't matter. Verifiable information is important, and you're not suggesting any sources, except some old PR. Judas278 (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The only third-party source (even though it is self-written, it is still on a third-party site) states clearly that DreamHost uses Debian, and we must follow what sources tell us. Until we have a source that states that DreamHost does not use Debian (or no longer does), this source is sufficient. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Then you must represent what it says properly: About 5 years ago the company stated they used Debian. Better, delete the insignificant adjective, which SarekOfVulcan agreed should be deleted. From WP:V :

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." Judas278 (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I utterly reject your interpretation. We have a reliable source that clearly states DreamHost uses Debian. Until you can find a source (even a crappy source, for all I care) that actually refutes this information, the information stays. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you're badly mistaken about editorial policies and norms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:29, 11 April 2009, Note added by Judas278 (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Revise support via IRC, and email

I can find no reliable source supporting IRC as a support option. Further, Self-published company source http://wiki.dreamhost.com/IRC_chat_channel says "DreamHost has an unofficial IRC chat channel where customers and prospective customers alike can chat and support one another." and "The only guaranteed way to receive official support from DreamHost is to submit a support ticket through the control panel." Thus, I propose changing from "Instead of telephone-based support, DreamHost provides support via IRC and email." to "Instead of telephone-based support, DreamHost provides support only via the control panel." --Judas278 (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I agree that the IRC part may be dubious. I have logged into IRC looking for help and found it to be a non-useful resource, with most responses pointing to the wiki or the main support system; however, email-based support works perfectly well. In fact, it is the only solution if the central server (that runs the control panel) goes down. Much of the "support" actually comes from other customers though, via the customer forum. Not sure how this aspect could be referenced, and it probably isn't all that notable. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Original Research is irrelevant, but they certainly do encourage customers to find support from other sources than the company staff. Please find a reliable source for email. "Some" postings in the forum complain about lack of response to emails, anyway. Judas278 (talk) 10:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous. There are some things you are never going to find a source for because they don't warrant third-party coverage; nevertheless, they are important details. When a support ticket is opened, the response (and any subsequent communication) on that specific ticket takes place through email. That's how ticketing systems generally work. When the panel goes down for whatever reason, open tickets continue to be served by email. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Unverifiable information is not "important details." If that's how ticketing systems generally work, then there's no need to describe it here. Link to shared hosting is all we need here. Judas278 (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I no longer wish to argue with you. Get third party assistance and proceed with dispute resolution if you wish to continue to follow this anti-DreamHost adventure. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Debian and other facts that may be disputed

The purpose of these policies is to ensure that facts quoted in articles are sourced from a credible, reliable source. A post by the subject themselves on a third party website is questionable unless there is evidence the post was written by the subject organization or someone else (and not just someone claiming to be them), and as well, by someone at the subject organization who is credible as a source for that fact. The same goes for other claims and statements made.

On this page, there is no author, it is a self written "user profile" in effect like any person might create on any blog. We have no way of verifying reliably whether this was written by the CEO, a junior techie, an office H.R. employee who heard something over coffee and thought they'd do something useful by adding it to the Debian profile, or (to make the point forcefully) someone who is nothing to do with DreamHost but wants to promote Debian Linux and does so by signing up to forums in the name of multiple ISPs claiming "Our business would not be possible without Debian Linux!". (The latter is unlikely but the point is valid).

We have no date information, hence even if it were accurate we cannot say if this is how DreamHost is now, or was 3 years ago. We can't say if it is balanced, as we have no other sources on the topic. And so on.

On an editorial level, Wikipedia:Edit war says "don't act this way". I would ask you to find ways to address this dispute - both of you - within Wikipedia dispute resolution processes, and not by reverting and fighting. Otherwise it is likely the page will be locked and/or action taken to cut down this edit war. Talk, and if needed, ask others for input.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of credible sources that state that DreamHost uses Debian (including recent links), but the SPA rejects anything from the dreamhost.com domain by invoking WP:SELFPUB. My interpretation is that the quality of sources depends on the nature of the information being presented. BLPs, for example, demand the highest standard of sourcing (and rightly so), but here we are talking about non-contentious, harmless information. Here is an example source which clearly indicates the recent use of Debian, but which would likely be rejected by the SPA: DreamHost Status Blog: debian upgrades and custom php

Here is another source, which I believe to be of even higher quality (though older), that verifies the DreamHost-sourced reference: Dreamhost Driven by Linux-Enhanced Economics

I will add that one to the article, as it provides quite an expansive reference for other facts too. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The SPA just deleted the original Debian source that the new source corroborates, and also re-added the weight-busting outdated power outage information. It is time this disruptive editor earned a block. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe FT2 just explained that the original Debian reference was quite poor. Why keep it now that there's a replacement? The 2005 power outage is briefly mentioned in context, as it is in the sources. Judas278 (talk) 03:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I retained the original Debian source for corroboration, which seemed prudent. I would prefer to see both so that there is less doubt. The 2005 power outage, as I have repeatedly explained, is a dated event that only serves to "pile on" the negative stuff and skew the article even further away from the neutral point of view. Let me repeat: there are 3 negatively-framed paragraphs and only 2 neutrally-framed paragraphs, so even now the article reflects your negative bias. Why do you insist on this additional negative information? How does it serve the article, or the project as a whole? -- Scjessey (talk) 03:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I think keeping a (very) poor reference detracts from a better reference, but other opinions are welcomed. Please discuss the 2005 outage in the section above, to avoid confusion. Judas278 (talk) 03:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

if a source isn't good enough to be used in the article in the first place, then it certainly shouldn't be used to 'corroborate' the 'good' source. either the 'good' source is reliable enough for the article, or it isn't. a bad source that corroborates it won't make magically into a better source. that said, the enterprisenetworkingplanet.com source looks good enough for me. maybe to pacify both sides, we can say "as of 2007, DreamHost ran Debian servers" if we are going to rely on the source from 2007? Theserialcomma (talk) 04:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

As I indicated earlier, I included the older reference because in order to corroborate the newer source per WP:V. Judas has gone out of his way to demand the highest-quality sources for every little bit of non-contentious information, so why not have 2 sources? No harm is being done, and even if the source is a lower quality reference, it is still valid. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

if we are talking about the same source (debian.org), FT2 goes into detail above about why this is not a valid source. if you are talking about a different source, then my apologies. if you are talking about a different source, which one? Theserialcomma (talk) 04:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

and unless i'm mistaken, i don't believe there is anything written in WP:V that states that poor sources can serve a corroboratory function. as far as i know, poor sources should be excluded at all costs. Theserialcomma (talk) 04:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't usually need a plethora of sources for a fact, thats often a sign of edit warring. One, or two, good cites, outweigh a dozen mediocre or poor ones. I would concur; if there's good cites for "DreamHost uses Debian for its servers", then it doesn't need the poor ones, and if there aren't good cites the poor ones don't properly support the statement.

On a side-issue, note that credible, authoritative, statements written by the subject, can be used, provided they are identified as such so users understand their provenance: "DreamHost states on its website that <whatever>" may well be a verifiable statement. Provided its not given undue weight (eg if a dodgy claim it's not made to look like a reputable claim) then it's often quite citable. However it's not really desirable (independent sources are far better) so try not to pepper an article with dozens of "the subject claims that..." -- it looks bad :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) - Well I am not entirely convinced of your reasoning because I believe you have been overly-dismissive of the source in question. That being said, we have a better source now so we can leave it at that. The issue, however, is that there is still this insistence that every single little piece of non-contentious neutral information be sourced by high-quality references. While high-quality sources are preferable, lower-quality sources should suffice for indisputable, non-contentious material. This isn't a BLP - it's just an article about a web host. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

(in response to FT2's last) - Well that seems like some common sense right there. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

By adding all the extra stuff, from DreamHost's PR, about the four students, at what college... you have turned it into a bit of WP:BLP. Also, as a more impartial observer, I maintain the company's press releases are not very reliable. Judas278 (talk) 00:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"As a more impartial observer"? How did you figure that? Also, I've found a reference that puts Sage Weil at Harvey Mudd, so that offers a partial corroboration of these non-contentious facts. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sage Weil-only reference, Proposed Deletion

The added reference does not even mention DreamHost. This article is about the company, not supposed to be a WP:BLP about the founders. Judas278 (talk) 01:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a reference for Sage Weil's time at Harvey Mudd College, which is where he met the co-founders of DreamHost. This was something you insisted on deleting repeatedly earlier, and this was the best reference I could find to support it. It is better than nothing, so leave it alone. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

This is synthesizing a biography story that is not available in reliable 3rd party sources about DreamHost. The four names are not important. The college name is not important. It's fluff. It's repeating company PR. When all you can find is a poor reference, then it may be time to delete the statements. A poor reference is not better than nothing. It is nothing. "started by college students" is more than enough. Judas278 (talk) 03:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It is interesting, non-contentious information. Obviously I will continue to look for better sourcing, but the existing source will be fine for the time being. It is not doing any harm to either the article or the project as a whole. If you continue in this manner, all that will be left in the article is information about outages and typing errors - or is that your intention? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The existing "Sage-Weil-only" source should be deleted. "Better than nothing" is no justification. If the information was "interesting," there would reliable 3rd party sources. One paragraph of poorly sourced introduction may be ok, but 2 paragraphs of mostly unsourced "advertising" material is too fluffy. Judas278 (talk) 02:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no advertising in this article at all, Judas278. Please don't pretend there is. The Sage Weil reference is a reliable source, albeit not a high-quality one. It is sufficient for verifying the non-contentious fact of Weil's attendance at Harvey Mudd, which the article alludes to. Taken with this source (which you have not agreed to, but which should definitely be in the article) it is more than enough to verify the interesting historical information about the founders. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate some independent opinions on this source. It is a very long article about web rings, does not mention this company even a single time. All significant view points of the source are not represented in this article. Is this appropriate for Wikipedia? Judas278 (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Josh Jones of DreamHost blogged about WebRing, Sage Weil's involvement, and how they got together at Harvey Mudd College to start DreamHost. Although it is a primary source, it would seem to offer additional verification for the details in the introduction. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

^ Kelley, Tina (January 21, 1999). "Surfing in Circles And Loving It". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/1999/01/21/technology/surfing-in-circles-and-loving-it.html?pagewanted=all. Retrieved on 2009-04-14.

I would appreciate some independent opinions on whether to delete this (one) source, which is the topic of this section. It is a very long article about web rings, does not mention the company even a single time. All significant view points of the source are not represented in this article. Is this appropriate for Wikipedia? Judas278 (talk) 12:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It is a cast-iron source for placing Sage Weil at Harvey Mudd - information that you specifically objected to due to lack of sourcing. It does not matter that the article does not mention DreamHost, because the reference is not being used for that. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

if a third party, reliable source does NOT directly mention exactly what we have put in the article, and we find ourselves combining distinct info from two different sources -- one third party, reliable, the other self-published -- to make a new sentence in the article, then this is WP:Synthesis. So I'd say that the third party source that mentions the name but nothing about dreamhost might be good for an article about Sage Weil, but not for DreamHost. the self-published source, on the other hand, might be good enough of a source, since this is a fairly non-contentious claim; however, where the founders went to college does not appear notable enough for inclusion unless a third party, reliable source states that -- and it doesn't. Theserialcomma (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) - The third-party reliable source directly states that Sage Weil went to Harvey Mudd, which is what we have in the article. That is not synthesis. We now also have another source (the DreamHost blog) which directly states that all the founders went to Harvey Mudd - again, this is stated in the article. No synthesis there either. The question of whether or not this information is notable is entirely different, and has nothing to do with synthesis. There is nothing in WP:NOT that says this information is inappropriate. Moreover, this information is neutral, interesting and relevant - it helps with the current imbalance toward negative stuff and it describes some of DreamHost's history, and why at least one of the founders was particularly notable. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

it's blatantly synthesis to take a reliable source that doesn't say exactly what's stated in the article, and back up the reliable source with a primary source which does state what's in the article. that is combing two sources, one reliable, one not as much, that say two different things, and making them into a sentence that is directly accurately reflected only by the self published sourced. synthesis, plain and simple. furthermore, it's not even notable where they went to college, nor is it interesting. who cares? if anyone did care, a third party, reliable source would mention it, wouldn't it? isn't that how wikipedia works? notability and verifiability. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is a complete misrepresentation of what is being said, and how it is being referenced. We state that DreamHost was founded by four students from Harvey Mudd, and we now have a source (from one of the students) that confirms this. We also have a separate, higher-quality source that also states that one of the founders was at Harvey Mudd. Neither source is being used incorrectly, and neither source is being used to synthesize anything. Please stop falsely and tendentiously claiming synthesis. And it is of historical interest to the article to note that DreamHost was founded by four fellow students, and it is not necessary for us to find a source to say it is interesting because we are not stating that it is. We are just noting it as a fact, and not offering any further opinion (which would be WP:OR). Since this fact is non-contentious, does no harm, and does not violate WP:NOT it is perfectly acceptable in the article. You can make no logical argument for its exclusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but i am uninterested in thinly veiled personal attacks coming from the article's WP:Owner. i am just going to go with whatever the consensus says as to whether it should stay or go. so far it's 3 deletes to your 1 keep. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support Deletion of synthesis, those references don't say anything.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support Deletion of where 'Sage Weil' went to college, and other founders' names and where they went to college, if it's not directly and exactly mentioned in a reliable source Theserialcomma (talk) 21:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support Deletion. This is an article about DreamHost not where its founders' went to college. If they are notable enough and can be sourced, add their names as notable alumni at a Harvey Mudd article. As stated by the previous two editors, it does appear as a synthesis to me as well.JavierMC 22:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Well this isn't a vote, it's about building consensus. There is no logical reason for the deletion of this material, which is notable historical information about how DreamHost got started. In fact, it is far more notable than all the outage stuff that the SPA-types seem to want to burden the article with. There is no synthesis going on here, and it defies any kind of logic that anyone is seeing any. This is clearly an example of editors lining up against an editor, rather than carefully considering the content. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

What happened to your oh so vaulted opinion of commenting on the article on talkpages and not about editors themselves? Does this only apply when you are referring to comments about yourself, yet not when you make them about other editors. You can not espouse one idiom of WP policy and then turn around and act in complete contradiction. What historical significance does the fact that they attended Harvey Mudd have to the article? If they had attended a different school, they would not have founded DreamHost? What specific source substantiates your assertion? I can not find where any of the first 4 references apply, unless synthesized to do so. If you have a source that does this then I will of course reconsider my objection to the inclusion of the information.JavierMC 00:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) we are now moving into the territory of wp:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. 4 separate editors have built a consensus, with three of them, one being an administrator, stating that this appears to be synthesis and should be taken out of the article for other reasons too. whether you choose to ignore or accept the 'vote,' the consensus is still against you. Theserialcomma (talk) 00:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

@JMC - I was responding to the bullshit WP:OWN claims. You have added nothing to this article except for criticism of me and my suggestions, so I your holier-than-thou attitude is out of line. Regardless of false claims of synthesis, there is no basis for excluding this non-contentious information from the article. Can you specifically state what is wrong with saying that DreamHost was founded by 4 students from Harvey Mudd? The article is not asserting anything else, so additional source is necessary.

@TSM - There is no consensus. Your disagreement with me is supported by 2 SPAs and another editor (not an administrator, BTW) who has not contributed anything to the article. There is no Wikipedia policy that says this material cannot be in the article, so you need to come up with a pretty good reason to exclude it. In the meantime, I think we can wait for opinions from other editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

This is totally unacceptable I demand that Scjessey be placed under permanent block immediately I and others have complained about his personal attacks on this talk page and I have asked that the talk page be reviewed and action taken regarding the wikibullying, threats and personal attacks that appear here but yet he CONTINUES, this is outrageous I demand justice.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 04:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely welcome third party review of this talk page, and the conduct of all editors involved in this article. I've been begging for it for some time. For too long this article has been held hostage by disruptive, single-purpose agenda editors who have no desire to improve the article, but a seemingly endless desire to attack the subject and attack me. Now you are on a completely bizarre mission to get a perfectly acceptable, non-contentious and harmless sentence about the founders of the company removed just because you don't like it. In my considerable editing experience over hundreds of articles, I have rarely seen such incomprehensible behavior. The sooner we get some proper third party review, mediation, or even an ArbCom investigation for this article, the better. -- Scjessey (talk) 06:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Try not to break your arm patting yourself on the back for all your contributions to WP and continuing to mention the fact here seems to be a mantra of yours. I do not have a holier than thou attitude. NOTHING can be added in a WP article that can not be substantiated by a reliable source, otherwise it is WP:OR. My asking for a reliable reference that supports a claim in an article is well within WP policy and guidelines and if it can not be referenced it therefore can be removed. Your constant claim of being personally attacked concerning this article once again brings up my assertion that you somehow feel some kind of ownership of the article. Not everything is about you. As this article reads now, it is surprising to me that it even exists. When I do a search to find some kind of comprehensive, reliable, third party reference material to somehow expand and improve the content, it is so blatantly lacking, unless I wanted to expand the derogatory section which would encompass 3/4 of the entire article and unbalance it to the point of being an attack page. This is about the article, not you or me or any other editors working to improve upon what drivel now exists in it. I think it is high time to work on expanding and improving the article and removing the chips from the shoulders of all concerned.JavierMC 06:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

"NOTHING can be added in a WP article that can not be substantiated by a reliable source, otherwise it is WP:OR."

My point exactly. All I am proposing is the addition of a reference that verifies the 4 students went to Harvey Mudd. How is adding an additional reference OR? I'm not trying to add any additional text or information, so claims of OR or SYN are just mystifying. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support Deletion. With negative information from reliable 3rd party sources, good sources are needed, because "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity; do not leave unsourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons or organizations in articles." For example, including the HMC university connection could damage their reputation.

"As this article reads now, it is surprising to me that it even exists." I agree, and said similar not long ago. Repeating, The most recent deletion discussion relied heavily on number of domains, ranking based on that, and "transparency." Number of domains and "transparency" was recently deleted from this article because of questioning the sources. Should there be another discussion of deleting the article? Judas278 (talk) 16:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There is no violation of BLP here - there is nothing negative or controversial being added. All we are doing is talking about adding an additional source for verification. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Given the nature of Dreamhost it could be very damaging to be associated with that company in any way. I ask that you cease messing with this article, your personal attacks and bs are simply too extreme, what sort of coward are you anyway attacking people on the web?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Comments like that should get you instantly blocked, frankly. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You called me an SPA when I clearly am not, that is a personal attack. Take a look at this talk page, go over it thoroughly it's fulled of all sorts of personal attacks from you against various editors on wikipedia, that's simply no good, ask yourself what sort of a man would attack others who are far away from him needlessly like this.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You have a very limited editing record, and a significant fraction of it has been right here. That pretty much makes you an SPA, and calling you such is not a personal attack. In fact, I reject all these ridiculous claims of personal attacks as mock outrage. Now you are making direct personal attacks against me, calling me a "coward", etc. You obviously need to take a step back and look hard at your behavior. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey, consensus is against you. get over it and move on. Theserialcomma (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that there is a "consensus", when there are so few editors involved in the discussion. Certainly the views of SPAs can be safely excluded; nevertheless, I have decided not to continue to argue my point. You have utterly failed to explain why keeping a perfectly good reference out of the article is a "good thing", but I no longer have the will to argue against the majority. Sometimes the senseless outnumber the sensible - that's probably how Bush managed to twice get elected. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

in these parts, calling people "ignorant"[[8]] and "senseless" is a personal attack. i suggest you strike through that nonsense and try to cooperate with the consensus a lot better. Theserialcomma (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I really don't care what you suggest. I regard you very much as part of a coalition of the foolish, since you have all bandied together to argue for the exclusion of a legitimate reference - a position that makes no sense at all, and is very much against the spirit of the Wikipedia project. It is only on low-trafficked articles such as this that a tiny number of individuals who are just plain wrong can triumph of common sense. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Simon and 194, blocked for 24 hours per my warning here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Based on above discussion and consensus (minus 1, now blocked editor), In introduction paragraph, delete: "It is the web hosting branch of New Dream Network, LLC, founded by 1996 by Dallas Bethune, Josh Jones, Michael Rodriguez and Sage Weil, undergraduate students at Harvey Mudd College in Claremont, California, and registered in 1999 by Michael Rodriguez.[1][2][3][4]" In Information Box at right, delete: "Key people Dallas Bethune, Josh Jones, Michael Rodriguez, Sage Weil" Judas278 (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with this request. I don't think that the information about who founded the company should be yanked out because of questions about the sourcing - it's hardly controversial information.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, when has it become the right of a protecting admin to decide what will or will not be included in the article they fully protected? Seems to represent a COI to have such control over every other editor involved in this article.JavierMC 02:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, when did I say what would be included? I expressed an opinion. If I had deactivated the editprotected request, you might have something to complain about.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

So it is within WP policy to include information in an article without a specific reference of verifiability? And your edit summary dismissing my concern as an overreaction is not appreciated.JavierMC 02:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Source? Ok. http://blog.dreamhosters.com/kbase/index.cgi?area=577

"I can't believe it's approaching five years since Michael Rodriguez, Dallas Bethune, and I founded New Dream Network while undergraduates at Harvey Mudd College"

As its non-controversial, a mirror of a self-published source should be sufficient.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Deactivated request as there has been no response from the proponents. Please reactivate if/when consensus arises. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

There's unlikely to be any consensus. I have no axe to grind at this article, and I cannot see why this information ought to be removed. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Since we have a ref from the DH Knowledge Base which nobody has disputed in a week as to the company founders and approximate founding date, I'd like to propose that the first paragraph have that ref added and the less-relevant ones deleted, so that it reads as:

registered in 1999 by Michael Rodriguez.<ref name="DHKBMirror">
{{cite web
|url=  http://blog.dreamhosters.com/kbase/index.cgi?area=577
|title= Company History
|accessdate= 2009-05-09
|date= January 24, 2001
|publisher= Unofficial DreamHost Blog
}}</ref><ref>
{{cite web 
|url= http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowLpllcAllList?QueryLpllcNumber=199904910092 
|title= California LLC Registration Search 
|publisher= ca.gov 
|accessdate= 2009-04-01
}}</ref> DreamHost began hosting

• Support. I support this change as proposed by SarekOfVulcan. JavierMC 18:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Sounds okay to me. I've re-watchlisted this page again, since mediation will take place here. This does not seem related to the Sage Weil reference problem, which is about something else entirely. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• Semi-Oppose. I agree with deleting "less-relevant" references, but I'm not sure exactly which you mean. If it includes the "Sage-Weil-only" reference, I agree with that part at least. The blog archive reference illustrates a problem with using the company's materials. That blog story is significantly different than the current "official" company story. In particular, names do not now appear in the "official" story. Another confusing aspect of the four names is two of them seem to change. Dallas Kashuba and Dallas Bethune appear in different places. Josh Jones and Joseph Jones appear. Probably the same people, but the names don't seem important here, unless you make it a biography, which does not seem appropriate. As for the CA gov't registration reference, I found that, and it seems like OR. I don't dispute the ~'97 start of a group, and ~99 registration, but I question whether the "whole story" is worthy of being included. Judas278 (talk) 03:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The names of the founders are not controversial, despite your attempts to make them seem so. If a company's founders' names are irrelevant, then why is there a space for them in {{Infobox Company}}?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I have updated these two references. I would agree that a company's founders are very much relevant to an article about a company and does not "make it a biography". — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why, but I see Infoboxes used with different items - compare the boxes here, Media_Temple and MySpace. The other 2 list only 1 or 2 people identified by key position titles. To those articles' credit, they include 3rd party source or wikipedia article as reference. This company is more notable, or un-notable, for Sage_Weil being deleted. The box also says "key people" not "founders". Those other 2 articles also don't repeat the same list of names in the article main body. This article is the inconsistent one, with poorer sources. Using blog.dreamhosters.com is a very poor source, imo. Judas278 (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

auto archiving

since archiving isn't a bad idea, maybe just a bit unnecessary at this size, i propose we build a consensus on how old of a thread it must be before it's archived. currently it's set to 7 days, which i think is too soon for a low traffic page like this. i propose 90 days. that way we can be sure that it wouldn't appear as if we're hiding any info from new editors who might not be savvy enough to comb through the archive, and also 90 days is enough time to be pretty confident that the topic has been adequately addressed Theserialcomma (talk) 06:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's 21 days. I think that's plenty, and I'll fix the template to display the correct timeframe.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

21 is better than 7, but is 21 still seems a bit quick for an article with such low traffic. Theserialcomma (talk) 06:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've never setup archiving before, but I think I set it so that the most recent few threads are not archived, even if they are quite old. 21 days should be just fine because of that. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this should've done something by now. Did I cock this up? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look like it: let's give it another day or two to kick in.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I support not archiving at all, until necessary. Turning on archiving has the appearance of wanting to "bury" evidence, like appearances of conflict of interest. 21 days is too quick. 90 days is marginal, given the history and slow activity on this article. There's some long term discussion that should stay indefinitely. Judas278 (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes this idea of archiving is bad and it is an attempt to bury the evidence by the same people who have so far put a great deal of energy into making the entire article about Dreamhost seem like one big "Ahhh all normal". One vote against archiving right here. Had archiving been implemented earlier then I would have never known not to use dreamhost.

Archiving is a good idea whenever a talk page gets long and unwieldy, like this one. The settings I have chosen are just fine - none of the recent stuff will be archived until it is replaced by new stuff. Only the really old stuff will get swept up, and obviously it will all still be available for perusal. This is in response to a complaint about the talk page being too long, so let's not get into BS claims about "burying" anything, shall we? -- Scjessey (talk) 01:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Where was this "complaint" exactly? Judas278 (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I setup archiving as a response to this comment which complained about the "huge discussion". The comment was removed by another editor, and then re-added and removed several times after that (presumably because of WP:SOAP concerns). -- Scjessey (talk) 12:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The author of that comment disagrees with that interpretation, and supports no archiving. Judas278 (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The proposal was for 90 days. 2 users and an IP support that. 2 users support shorter. It should be 90 days. Judas278 (talk) 04:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter, to be honest. The archive bot will not archive the last 5 threads whatever the time is set to. Go ahead and set it to whatever you think is best. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits by new editor

I reverted the edits by new user Superherox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The editor had created the peculiar construct of "support ticket system that [ ] offers technical support," which is obviously no good. The existing version was both more accurate and more neutral. If we get a sudden rash of "new editors" making edits like these, I'm going to request semi-protection of the article due to suspicion of SPA/sock/meat activity. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Simon, please take another look at WP:OWN. You're way too close to this article to look at it objectively.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the suggestion of article ownership on my part. The edits I reverted removed neutral wording, and frankly sounded rather awkward ("support system that supports"). And again, we have a new user coming out of nowhere to make very specific edits that look mighty suspicious. What has that got to do with your suggestion? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Also I have noticed that the new user has reverted with an IP address, and then posted to JavierMC's talk page. Are you not in the least bit concerned of sockpuppetry here? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

A few months rest away from this article might do some good. Nobody got all paranoid when the SPA "Michael Dreamhost" was doing its thing. Judas278 (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Any change/additions made to this article no matter how small or large are immediately passed through what appears as some kind of litmus test by Scjessey. Months ago I took a look at this article at the request of another editor as an uninvolved editor and commented on the appearance of implied wp:own. I'm sorry to see that that impression has not changed since my review. JavierMC 09:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

And just like last time, the "request" came from another SPA hellbent on ensuring the maximum amount of negative coverage. Please judge my actions on the quality of my edits, not any misguided perception of ownership based on seeds planted in your head by disruptive, agenda-driven account holders. Do not forget that this article has few editors, so it is understandable that the percentage of my edits will be high. My editing technique is no different here than it is on any of the hundreds of other articles on my watchlist - nobody complains of ownership on any of them. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

two admins (and i, too. and I'm not an SPA) share the same opinion that your editing appears to show ownership on this article. the fact that Judas, an SPA, also said so, doesn't mean that we are all blindly following him. i based that opinion on the history of this talk page, the history of this article, and your attempts to fight tooth and nail to stop my amendments to the article, when you tried to claim my changes were WP:Undue or that the sourced i provided were not reliable. i did not base my opinions on anything Judas said, and i would assume neither of the admins did either. The fact that no one is claiming that you display ownership on other articles is logically unrelated to what is claimed here. we are only talking about your edits to this article Theserialcomma (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Being an administrator doesn't bequeath an editor with any special ability to make judgments about another editor, it just gives powers to assist in the administration of Wikipedia. My goal is neutrality. It is not a defense of the company, but a defense of the standard of the article. Putting it another way, you could argue that despite administrator presence, SPAs have been allowed to skew the balance of this article away from the neutral point of view. Two thirds of this article is now devoted to documenting negative events, and thus it violates NPOV. It is extraordinary that few others seem to understand this, which is why it seems that I am being judged on the quantity, rather than the quality of my edits. Rather than being vilified for trying to preserve neutrality in the face of opposition, I should be thanked. Do not confuse high activity with ownership. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

what, precisely, in the current article, would you consider to be a violation of NPOV? it's all adequately sourced and neutrally worded, last i looked. that is what NPOV is about. not keeping out negative events. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I've already explained this at considerable length before, in my comment with the timestamp 04:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC) (diff), but essentially it is about fairness of coverage. Currently, we have an article consisting of 5 paragraphs:

1. Neutral description of company, the article introduction.
2. Relatively neutral description of services DreamHost offers, but with some unreferenced original research stating that no telephone support is available.
3. Paragraph about problems with power outages.
4. Paragraph about problems with security.
5. Paragraph about problems with billing.

If I am being generous, you could say that there are 2 neutral paragraphs and 3 paragraphs about problems - an unbalanced article according to the policies and guidelines I outlined in my April 12 comment. First of all, I'd like to see the original research about the telephone support removed, or properly referenced. Second, I'd like to see the information about the 2005 power outage, an insignificant event that is being used to give the impression that DreamHost should be called PowerOutageHost, completely removed per WP:WEIGHT. If these two problems can be resolved satisfactorily, I believe that will be enough to ensure the article is fairly balanced. We collaborated successfully on an earlier issue, and I believe we can work together to resolve these, if you are willing. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

i don't see any violation of NPOV, just a misinterpretation of the rules. we are using reliable sources, and we are wording it neutrally, so it doesn't matter if the entire article appears to be negative, positive, or neither, as long as we use reliable sources and write about it neutrally. as for the original research that states no telephone support is available, you previously argued for the inclusion and reliability of zdnet's site [[9]] which states "...Dreamhost shows nothing but a fax number in the most obvious places on it’s Web site (even after making email contact with the company’s public relations officer, I was refused a phone call". and about that zdnet blog and article in particular, you wrote "The ZDNet blog isn't some idle gossip column. It is a highly-respectable tech blog. It is still considered to be a reliable source, just as blogs at CNN, MSNBC, Newsweek and The Washington Post are. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)" Theserialcomma (talk) 05:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Although the source is legitimate, it does not specifically state a lack of telephone support. Just to be clear, I do not object to this article mentioning the lack of support, but I would object to such a mention being unreferenced (or in this particular case, synthesized). If this is all we can find then so be it, but I certainly think it needs a better reference than this. On the subject of fairness, you will find that my interpretation (which is based on several policies and guidelines) is perfectly legitimate, and not a misinterpretation. The ratio of negative to neutral is currently too high, so either some of the negative stuff should be cut (and I think dropping the 2005 outage would be satisfactory), or something positive needs to be added. Much of the positive stuff (such as the companies ranking, etc.) has been cut out, so perhaps some of that could be restored if better sourcing can be found. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

i really think we should seek some alternate viewpoints on whether your objections to the 'negative' material in this article related to unfairness and NPOV are accurately representing wikipedia policy and guidelines. i think you're misinterpreting the policy, but i could be wrong. does anyone else have a comment here? Theserialcomma (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. FT2 summed it up above with, "Unfortunately, you're badly mistaken about editorial policies and norms." (to Scjessey). Judas278 (talk) 03:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Theserialcomma asked for comments from others, not from you. Please don't needlessly perpetuate an old argument. I disagree with FT2's interpretation, as is my right - Wikipedia rules are written by the community, not administrators. Admins have no special interpretation powers, Judas. They are just regular editors with admin rights. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Another 2008 Typing Error

Proposing the following addition to the last paragraph, to include another similar, newsworthy event:

In March 2008, "another costly typing error" caused "thousands of web sites" to go offline for "more than an hour." ref: http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2008/03/08/another-costly-typing-error-at-dreamhost/ Judas278 (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no. This was an outage caused in response to a denial of service attack, so your interpretation would be a gross violation of the neutral point of view. In any case, outages like this are fairly common at DreamHost, as they are with most web hosting services. Another shocking example of how your own conflict of interest is guiding your editing agenda. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The above concludes with another personal attack. You can modify the wording, if you think you can better summarize the reliable source. Add "DNS-related" somewhere if you like. Judas278 (talk) 02:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Please seek consensus on this talk page before adding controversial information, or deleting information, from the article in future. If you want to be a part of the process, you need to follow the process. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The above is another personal attack. Judas278 (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't. You are not following the process. Please stop lying repeatedly - it is getting very tiresome. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The above is another personal attack. I am trying to follow proper process. I am not lying. Vacations are restful. Judas278 (talk) 04:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You can call these things "personal attacks" if you wish, but if you insist on repeatedly lying about me and misrepresenting what I say, it is perfectly reasonable for me to call you out on it. You will just have to learn to deal with it, or perhaps take this vacation you keep talking about. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The above is another personal attack. Judas278 (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Telephone support

thumb|200px|right|"Contact Support" Is it accurate to state that they don't offer telephone support when they do offer callbacks, for an extra charge?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This was in the article before, but nobody could find a reliable source that described it. Using DreamHost's site as a source for this stuff was regarded as a heinous crime. Incidentally, the fee for callbacks is waved on some of the plans (including the one I'm on). -- Scjessey (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Note that reliable sources state even reporters are unable to get callbacks, when reporting on major incidents. Judas278 (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What has that got to do with anything? We are talking about telephone-based support for customers, not reporters. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

based on that image, i have no objection to mentioning the fact that they offer callbacks for an extra charge. Theserialcomma (talk) 07:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem with using the screenshot as a source is that the form changes depending on what plan you are on. Only customers on the cheapest plan must pay for callbacks, although I have no idea what percentage of customers that may apply to. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Reliable 3rd party sources cover difficulty contacting the company. "Telephone support" needs neutral coverage of all significant views, including "callback not call-in, charges, and difficulty getting called back. Judas278 (talk) 12:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that reliable sources cover difficulty contacting DreamHost, but that isn't noteworthy. It has nothing to do with a lack of telephone support, which is an unrelated thing. Personally, I don't think the sources are there for any information about telephone support, including the "callbacks" thing. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

since i think we all fundamentally agree that dreamhost provides limited telephone support i.e. while there is no way of easily contacting them directly, they do offer a callback service, either for free, or for an added fee, depending on your plan. perhaps this source [[10]] might be good enough -- admittedly, it's not exactly the nytimes -- to mention that dreamhost offers limited telephone support in the form of callbacks to its customers. i don't think it's anything contentious to mention that they "don't offer direct telephone support, but a callback is available for either an added fee, or for free, depending on the hosting plan of the customer" Theserialcomma (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

That reference appears to be one of the many "fake review" or advertising sites, as evidenced by several rewards or referral links (see "rewards" in the links). I know personal experience is not relevant, but my experience was like the reporter's - I paid for call-backs, but when I needed one, I did not get it. Other companies have real telephone support. Given reporter comments in reliable 3rd party source, telephone "support" should only be included in the article if all sides are mentioned. Also, this article does not need to repeat the company's advertising; there are already links to the company's sites. Judas278 (talk) 03:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

In this respect, I agree with Judas. I don't think that reference can be considered a high enough standard. At the moment, there does not seem to be any suitable referencing for mentioning call backs. Nor are there any suitable references for the lack of telephone support, especially since we know that some form of telephone support does exist (even though Judas278's personal experience with it was poor). Reporter experience, however, is completely irrelevant, because only a customer can offer opinion on whether or not the support system works. Given this lack of referencing, Sarek's removal of the line about support does not seem unreasonable. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The company has a PR and Sales operation. If they don't even respond to reporters, who can give free positive or negative PR, in reliable 3rd party sources, then it says something significant about communications and transparency, and quality of telephone communications and support. Judas278 (talk) 02:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Er, no it doesn't. The relationship between a business and its customers is completely unrelated to how that business handles the media. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Article protection

I've protected the article for one month (to be extended if necessary). Hopefully, without being able to fight it out on the page, people will be able to reach consensus here. When you've reached consensus on a point, use the {{editprotected}} template -- as an involved editor, it wouldn't be appropriate for me to decide on the edits.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this approach. Would you agree to implement protected edits if we all agree on them - and by that I mean if Theserialcomma, Judas and I reach consensus on any particulars? We may have different opinions on what we want the article to say, but I'm confident we all want to make the article as accurate and fair as it can be. For example, Judas and I agreed that there wasn't sufficient sourcing for the "callbacks" to be covered. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

If all the usual suspects can agree on exact wording, sure -- but I don't think what you say you "agreed" on here is actually an agreement.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Well we nearly agreed. I'm the eternal optimist. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

We had not agreed. I do agree with protecting the article, but I also believe this action should have been taken by someone who was less involved, and who is not a current customer of the company. Neutrality is in question here. We should find completely neutral arbitrators if possible. Judas278 (talk) 04:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

while i do think that sarek has been pretty fair, being that he's self-admitted to being a customer, and could have misused his authority as an admin a lot worse than he has, i have to object to his removal of a sentence he didn't like [[11]], and then 4 minutes later, protected/locked the article from anyone else editing it. i don't believe that is following standard procedure of being uninvolved for admins. i don't object to the locking of the article in this instance, but i more so object to the idea in general of an involved admin removing some content that they don't like, and then locking the article their own preferred version. i don't believe that is standard practice for an admin. another admin could have easily come here and done the same protection and it wouldn't be an issue, but sarek has been a bit too hands in the history of this article to be considered uninvolved, and the fact that he made a controversial removal of content right before locking it, just isn't a best case scenario as far as admin actions go Theserialcomma (talk) 05:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd argue that it's not controversial, especially since you agreed above that the statement I removed wasn't completely accurate, but if you want, I'll restore the line.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The sourcing was not of a high enough quality to support the sentence that was removed, so I do not believe that it was unreasonable for Sarek to remove it. This is not really the appropriate venue to air complaints about administrator actions, though. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and Judas, if you use that standard for COI, how could anyone ever edit the Microsoft article?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I made a similar point earlier. It's a bit like saying you can't edit the New York Times article if you are a subscriber, or the NBC article if you ever watch it. Do I have a conflict of interest if I edit Comcast, since I watch their cable, use their internet, and live just a few miles from their Philly headquarters? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The microsoft/nbc analogy is far from perfect. NBC and microsoft are huge corporations with millions, if not billions, of indirectly affected users or customers. DreamHost is a niche company that practically no one, other than customers, has heard of, or has direct experience with. I would compare DreamHost more to a local ISP with a few thousand users. Customers taking active interest, in a less than neutral way, in a small-mid sized local ISP is much more concerning than someone taking the same type of interest in Microsoft. The question isn't really whether a weak COI exists in this article, so much as if all the editors are editing neutrally. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree. First of all, the size of the company is irrelevant. You are suggesting that more customers == less COI? Where's the logic in that? I noticed you didn't complain about the analogy of the substantially-smaller New York Times. Secondly, it is entirely your opinion that any customer involvement in this article has been "less than neutral". It is my contention that all I have been doing is trying to preserve neutrality and improve the article, although by far the bulk of my mainspace edits have been to remove vandalism. Compare this approach with that of ex-customers who create Wikipedia accounts for no other reason than to edit the DreamHost article in order to portray the company as negatively as possible. Does that seem reasonable to you? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Sarek, The nutshell version of WP:COI: "Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations,..." Customers' interests are more aligned with the company's interests than a non-customer. Some people are not customers of Microsoft (and do use computers and edit Wikipedia). If you're a customer of a small company like this, I'd give 2 or 3 points of 10 scale towards 100% COI. Being one of a couple trusted sysadmins of their wiki - add 5 or 6 points. Hosting business sites there - 5 or 6 points. Actively promoting the company for fun and profit - 5 or 6 points. Let's turn it around - When do you think you might have COI? Could you edit your own autobiography without having COI? If 2 or 3 completely independent experienced editors and admins tell you "you appear to have COI," shouldn't you listen? Judas278 (talk) 03:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You are way off base here. Your edits have the sole effect of attacking the company, whereas my edits are for the benefit of the Wikipedia project. It doesn't take a genius to figure out who has the conflict of interest. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

JavierMC, Theserialcomma, and SarekofVulcan recently gave clear opinions on this, agreeing with several others over the years. Judas278 (talk) 01:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

My edits include adding gmail, and relocating servers. These do not "attack the company." You owe me apologies. Judas278 (talk) 02:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You must be kidding? In the previous thread, you are trying to invent a connection between technical support and public relations in order to get something negative into the article - highly representative of the types of edits you have been making. You wanted to add the Gmail stuff in to make it seem as if DreamHost didn't want to offer standard email services. You want to talk about relocating servers in order to put in lots of information about various outages. Don't pretend that you are trying to do anything other than pursue your agenda. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Easter 2007 Denial of Service Attack

Proposed sentence or paragraph in incidents section: In April 2007 a "severe Denial of Service outage" caused web sites to be "unreachable for several hours, and email service was unavailable for the duration of the attack." References: 1, which points to company announcement at 2. The 3rd party source covers these sort of events, and gave additional interpretation of the event, beyond what the company announced. Judas278 (talk) 04:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I object to the source as being unreliable and unverified. It's just a random software company parroting a DreamHost blog post. I also object to the inclusion on NPOV grounds - DreamHost cannot be blamed for being subjected to a denial of service attack, yet your proposed sentence cherry-picks the source to present the issue in the worst possible light. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The above concludes with another personal attack. Wikipedia editors already found Secure64 to be notable enough to have an article, not just "random." They are experts in the field of DNS and attacks, and they as reliable 3rd party thought the incident was significant enough to write an article about it. They did not "parrot." They quoted, and added commentary and interpretation. If you don't like my summary of their article, then please suggest "better" wording. Judas278 (talk) 04:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Still not a reliable source. They got their information from the DreamHost blog, Judas. It even says so in the article. And this isn't a notable event, and Wikipedia is not supposed to report everything that happens in the universe. And please stop this "personal attack" nonsense. Nobody is going to buy it, even if you use bold type to say it. If this were any other article I edit on, you would have been blocked long ago for being a disruptive SPA. You have escaped this long only because this is a low-trafficked, low-importance article. Now please stop your misrepresentations. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Having read Judas edit regarding the matter I can in no way see how he cherry picked anything in order to present the issue in the worst possible light. Further more seeing how utterly small the article is and how it was nominated for deletion but voted to be kept I think that Judas's contribution regarding the DOS attacks is a very fine addition to the article. Further more I must ask you Scjessey to cease the personal attacks since they are in no way appropriate or justifiable.--194.144.90.118 (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have not made any personal attacks. Judas has completely misrepresented my comments, and his desire to include as much negative information as possible sets up an article imbalance that is not a fair representation of the subject (per WP:NPOV). Also, DO NOT remove my comments ever again. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The above contains 33%+ personal attack. Judas278 (talk) 01:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV says "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors." I find no discussion of "article balance" or "non-controversial information". Judas278 (talk) 02:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I've already explained my "imbalanced" interpretation several times before, including quoting several policies and guidelines that clearly indicate the problem in layman's terms. You are misrepresenting WP:NPOV to support your agenda. Your most obvious problem is a complete misunderstanding of what "signficant" and "bias" mean. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that's it. All of you are subject to a 24 hour block the next time you tell someone they have a problem, they have complete misunderstandings, they post fluff while you post reliable sources, anything. And I mean _anything_. Block length doubles for repeated offenses. Claro?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, Back to the proposed addition. Are there any other opinions on the source - 3rd party, reliable, has a company article in wikipedia, gives independent interpretation of significance of the event? Comments on the proposed wording, or suggested changes? Judas278 (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Rather than discussing the reliability of one particular source, it might be better to consider what other sources cover this topic. The more sources can be found for any given item, the stronger the argument that said item is notable and worthy of inclusion. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

As I read WP:N, it is for whether or not to have an article. Not the content of an article. Nutshell: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." and "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles." Are you suggesting this entire article should be considered for deletion? The most recent deletion discussion relied heavily on number of domains, ranking based on that, and "transparency." Number of domains and "transparency" was recently deleted from this article because of questioning the sources. Should there be another discussion of deleting the article? Judas278 (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I was not suggesting deletion of the article. I was suggesting that, if only one source thinks something is worth writing about, perhaps it isn't. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of 3rd party sources wrote about this event, but most of them are probably not reliable. I found one reliable source. Several things in the article have one or fewer sources, like this one source that doesn't even mention DreamHost? Perhaps several things in this article are not worth writing about. Judas278 (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The source originally provided seems weak, and the Google search reveals only lots of blog posts and stuff published by DreamHost itself (where the original source got the information from in the first place). A Google news search yields no results. Given the DDoS attacks are very common, and there is almost nothing in the way of reliable sourcing for this one, it does not seem to be notable. Also, with so much coverage of outages it would make the subject seem to be more of an outage service than a hosting service, if you catch my drift. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The sources include DreamHost's blog. Sure, DOS attacks are common, at Dreamhost, http://www.dreamhoststatus.com/index.php?s=dos . There is nothing contentious about this. DreamHost is notable for big typos, with and without responding to DOS. It is interesting facts, that got comment from a reliable source, as well as the company. Let the article go where the facts lead. Judas278 (talk) 12:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Judas278. Secure64 is reliable as specialists in the field. Of course it cites DreamHost - how can it report the information without citing the original source? We apply the exact same principle here: cite third-party reliable sources that verify the claim. NOTNEWS doesn't apply here because it concerns articles solely about news events, not single sentences about news events within bigger articles. Single facts do not have to pass the notability test, which is again about whether an article should exist. It is unreasonable to expect multiple reliable third-party sources for every fact, even if it sounds negative to you. If every sentence in Wikipedia were under the scrutiny you desire, it would shrink massively and be at a standstill. POV concerns are resolvable by suggesting how to rewrite that sentence or by adding more information to the article. –Pomte 03:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support Adding information regarding the 2007 easter denial of service attack.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Please try to provide policy-based reasoning, rather than just a vote. Remember that we're talking about a couple of hours of interrupted service, two years ago, which has been essentially ignored by the world's media. I can't see why anyone would want to document that incident in this article, other than to make an attack on the company or to provide an ego boost to those who launched the attack. My understanding of our neutrality policy, and in particular its undue weight clause, says that this should not be covered. The "Incidents" section already takes up the majority of the article body. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed sufficiently, I am well within normal standards to simply view what others have written regarding this matter and to give my say based on that without re quoting various rules, regulations and policies that others have mentioned. The incident is documented by a verifiable reliable source that certainly wasn't trying to attack the company or to provide an ego boost to those who launched the attack. --194x144x90x118 (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added an important clarification to my above post. You might like to consider refactoring yours.

Further info, from the cited source: Secure64® is a software developer providing highly secure DNS and server applications with built-in denial-of-service protection features to help ensure your Internet-dependent business is always accessible. In other words, the source has an incentive to highlight the vulnerability of other organisations to DoS attacks, as a means of increasing demand for their own product. This source isn't a news item, but an advertisment. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Secure64_DNS appears to be an expert in the field, according to wikipedia. Everyone has incentives for everything that gets published. They are 3rd party, independent, experts in the field, and they wrote an article on an event, which was announced and acknowledged by the company. Including an advertisement of their expertise does not seem to tarnish the credibility of the source, in this case. Judas278 (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

And yet you have often trashed reliable sources by dismissing them as advertising. I think it is pretty clear that this company is simply using its website to highlight every server problem they can find in order to sell their product. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The above first sentence is another unfounded personal attack. The source here is a 3rd party interpretation of the event. It is not a 1st party announcement or press release, repeated without interpretation. They do not "highlight every server problem they can find." If they did, they would have many more DOS articles about this company. Judas278 (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't. It may not be WP:CIVIL, but it's not an attack -- it speaks directly to his perception of your edit behavior.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPA Nutshell: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Imo, it was only a comment on the contributor. Judas278 (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but I disagree with your conclusion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Archived semi-protection

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The productive part of is discussion is over. There's no need for any further argument about editor conduct here.SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk page semi-protection

In my opinion, it was that or block the IP again, and I'm not sure I made the right call. Thoughts?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you made a mistake. The IP editor is commenting on the article and the talk page. A couple editors don't want to hear the IP's opinion, so they are deleting the comments. I think efforts would be better spent in removing ownership and conflicted editing. Can you help with that? Judas278 (talk) 01:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Good call, SoV. The IP editor didn't seem to be here to help this page at all. His threats that he would edit war, and his deletions of material here should be evidence enough. He seemed to only be here to disrupt the conversation. No loss at all to the project to protect this page. Dayewalker (talk) 02:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Judas, you're ignoring the fact that the IP was the one deleting comments shortly before I protected the page. And the IP's opinions about DreamHost have very little place on a talk page -- as do yours and mine as well.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sarek, Not ignoring it. Understanding it. They reacted to deleting their comment, which was mainly on the article versus the talk page. Not much different from other comments here, except they included reason for interest and purchase decision. Not much different from "I'm a customer" or "I'm a ex-customer" statements. It's not the first time "edit war" was discussed. The comment was then used as justification for archiving, and they explained this was mis-interpretation. Presuming good faith here. I also understand putting a lid on bickering and focus back on the article. I didn't strongly disagree with your call, just disagreed. Judas278 (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• support semi protection of talk page. he wasn't contributing in any way. if he changes his mind, and decides to contribute, however, he can make an account and do so. Theserialcomma (talk) 05:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Based on a conversation at my Talk page, I believe the editor in question has now registered an account. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I deleted PERSONAL ATTACKS, something which Sarekofvulcan should have done a long long time ago since he is such a responsible and trustworthy admin but no Deleting the personal attacks is a far graver crime than making them so Please do forgive me for that. I made no threats that I would edit war, my threat was that I would participate actively in this article that I see as biased cause I believed that those who didn't want me to express my opinion were the same ones that are having a negative POV effect on this article. Now lets see the honorable almighty Sarekofvulcan review this talk page and do something about the Numerous personal attacks, exampls of wikibullying and threats that appear here. Only appropriate thing to do regarding them is to block this user scjessey. --194x144x90x118 (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to delete your comment 194x, but I do want to make something clear. The talk page is for discussion of the subject, not for discussion of the talk page itself. You're commenting on editors above (in extremely sarcastic terms), not edits, which is not what wikipedia is about. Please limit your discussions on this page to actually improving the article, and no one will have any reason to delete your comments. Dayewalker (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I was merely answering remarks that had been made regarding me and the accusation that I was deleting comments when I infact was deleting personal attacks. Also I can not see how your or sheffieldsteels edits constitute being limited to acctually improving the article so perhaps your advice applies well for the three of us?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:TALK applies to everyone, which is why we shouldn't even have to have this discussion. Dayewalker (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Undo Talkpage protection

Lets get this straight, Question: Why was the talk page protected? Answer: To keep me away from it.

Since I'm still here then keeping the talk page protected didn't serve its purpose and doesn't serve a purpose.

Also the reason given for keeping me of the talk page was extremely unfair, here I was deleting Personal attacks from another editor and it was claimed that I was simply deleting comments and Nothing was done about the personal attacks from that editor except of course protect the talk page so they'd be guaranteed to stay.

Protecting a talk page like this can have negative effects on the article itself since IP users are not able to participate in discussions regarding the article and its contents.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Just commenting on the protection, not the reason for it, but it makes sense to drop the semi-protection now. Dayewalker (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct answer: to keep you from edit warring on it. If another admin wants to drop the semi, I won't object.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I took care of it -- you two are right, it's pointless at the moment.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Informal mediation

Hi, I'm going to be the informal mediator for this case. Could we start by the parties to the dispute (and anyone else) explaining what changes they would like to make to the current version of the article. Thanks! PhilKnight (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

For the most part, I don't mind the way it reads now. If anything is changed, I'd suggest dropping the following:

In March 2008, while attempting to "block a denial of service attack" at DreamHost's primary router, a "typing error" occurred, which caused "thousands of web sites" to go offline for "more than an hour."[20]

a) it was only an hourabout an hour, b) the quotation marks are highly unnecessary, especially around "typing error". The quotes suggest it wasn't one, which is OR. For quick background, Phil, I'm a satisfied customer of DreamHost, Scjessey is a satisfied customer who is a sysop on DreamHost's official Wiki, Judas278 is a unsatisfied ex-customer, and 194x144x90x118 claims that he was scared off from using DreamHost by this article. I don't think Theserialcomma has declared either having or not having a prior relationship with DH.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, Phil, what would be your opinion about dropping the archiving down to 45 days? The DH opponents claim that that would be hiding information, but I think that putting it up to 90 is just unwieldy.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi SarekOfVulcan, thanks for explaining. No objection to modifying the archive time. PhilKnight (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Clarified above that I didn't mean to argue about the length of the outage, just its notability.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the editor was emphasizing the typing error from the citation because of the previous incident involving a typing error which resulted in thousands of clients being erroneously billed ahead of time. Two incidents involving clerical mistakes that widely effected DreamHost client base.JavierMC 20:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

i have no prior relationship or knowledge of dreamhost. i found out about this article through WP:ANI. as for Sarek's point about the quotation marks making it seem like it isn't true, i totally disagree. the quotation marks signify that the wording is taken directly from the source, as to prevent claims of plagiarism. at least, that is what i read and understand the quotes to be. the quotes could be removed -- which would be unnecessary, because the quotes are being used properly -- but then the sentences would have to be reworded as not to plagiarize. but i dont think the entire sentence should be removed based on the objections raised, maybe just reworded. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see this incident as being particularly notable, per SarekOfVulcan. Also, I have deep concerns about the source - a company that sells software to prevent this kind of incident. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

as far as i can tell, sarek's objections were about the amount of downtime actually involved, and the significance of the quotation marks, not the notability of the source. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be why I used the word "also" in my comment. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

you said "I don't see this incident as being particularly notable, per SarekOfVulcan". and "per" is defined as "in accordance with." sarek may ultimately find the incident non-notable, but he hasn't stated so as of yet. his objections are about quotation marks he perceived as ambiguous. so you cannot be "in accordance" with what sarek's objections are if you're objecting to notability, because that's not "per" sarek's stated position. Theserialcomma (talk) 00:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

"It was only an hour."

In otherwords, so what? I took that to mean that he considered the event to not be very notable, given that it lasted "only" an hour. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent, later entry - let me know if placement is a problem) re: an hour, only an hour, about an hour, or more than an hour: I don't know how the 3rd party source determined "more than an hour". They could get reports from people and sites. If you believe the status blog as is now, it was "posted" at 8:47. At 9:54, or more than an hour later, the update stated: "Sites should start working again as soon as our router finishes loading its tables" or even more than, more than an hour later. Judas278 (talk) 23:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Theserialcomma is correct on quote marks. Original proposed wording had quotes for phrases taken verbatim from the source. A couple recurring themes causing widespread notice in 3rd party sources re: DreamHost include typos and DOS attacks. Dreamhost publishes numerous mentions of DOS attacks. The billing error sentence in the article does not now say it was caused by a simple typo, but sources say it was. This typo responding to a DOS got some notice. It's a theme that's received notice, but does not fully appear in the article.

In general, I think the unsubstantiated or insignificant information in the introduction and info box should be taken out. Most of the history and "web hosting features" have not drawn significant attention from anyone outside of the company and its customers and promoters. The supporting basis for even having the article is somewhat weak, other than for things the company promoters don't like including in the article. Judas278 (talk) 02:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

And I think that if there's a space for it in the infobox, and it's cited, that ends the discussion right there.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

An admin of dreamhosts wikipedia site has tried to recruit meat puppets to this wiki article to shower this company with praise and turn it into a big nice free advertisement. Dreamhost is obviously no dream but I don't really think that it's apropriate that we make a wikipedia article that gives one the idea that dreamhost is just one big scam. The question then becomes, what exactly can an article about dreamhost contain and the answer to that is simply not a whole damn lot. I therefor think that it's best that this article gets deleted.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 05:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Not commenting on your claim, but having a biased article isn't a valid cause for deletion. Dayewalker (talk) 05:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Without a link of diff, that's a personal attack, and will result in another block. I'd suggest backing it up post-haste.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

he may have been referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:DreamHost/Archive_1#Specific_Editor_Potential_Conflict_of_Interest and http://discussion.dreamhost.com/showthreaded.pl?Cat=0&Board=forum_offtopic&Number=44424. it does appear that scjessey 'advertised' dreamhost's wikipedia article needing editors outside wikipedia. the post below scjessey's on the dreamhost message board is marked deleted and is therefore unretrievable, so we don't know the extent of the 'advertisement', and whether this is an attempt to recruit meatpuppets, or something harmless. Theserialcomma (talk) 11:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we do know that it was posted by a different user, and that at least in part, it asked what happened to {{User DreamHost}}. My guess is that it was deleted for saying something rude about the people voting for deletion. But in any case, that's the documentation I was looking for. My apologies, 194.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Now wait just a second, how on earth can I have made a personal attack if I mentioned no person?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Judas, that link above that TSC posted raises a question for me. Did you previously post as User:Guantanamo247? It would be useful to know how long you've been working on this article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Scjessey about off-wiki activity

I'd like to directly respond to this matter after seeing it raised above. I agree that this was not an appropriate action for a Wikipedia editor, although I defended myself vehemently at the time. This issue cropped up over 3 years ago when I was still a relatively inexperienced editor, with less than 500 edits to my name (I now have almost 10,000). At the time, I did not know this sort of thing was inappropriate - in fact it seemed perfectly reasonable. As it turned out, my post on that discussion forum attracted zero attention, so it ultimately had no effect on the outcome of that AfD process, and it has not influenced this article. 194x144x90x118 has used this incident, flavored with lashings of negative spin, to cast unwarranted aspersions on my character and motivations. Nevertheless, it was my bad, and I learned from my mistake. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The above is a personal attack, I did not use any incident to show anyone in a bad light and I never mentioned Scjessey. I ask kindly that you strike out your remarks about me to this end since they are in no way warranted.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Using a three-year-old off-wiki post to attempt to demonstrate current behavior could indeed be considered "unwarranted", so there is no personal attack in the above. Don't try to claim that you mentioned no person when there's only one person in this discussion it could possibly refer to. That's disingenuous.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

What does the fact that it's off-wiki have to do with anything? Nothing. When did I "use" it? Never. I mentioned nobody, I didn't say that the person I was referring to was participating or actively participating in this discussion. Please stop the personal attacks they are not tasteful at all.(sorry) The editor that YOU! are however referring to was recently blocked for making personal attacks on this talkpage so I can not see how I need to demonstrate anything regarding him or his behavior.I am a bit concerned with your behavior though attempting to put words in my mouth and saying that I've used things which I've never mentioned, I kindly ask that you leave the bias at the door, it isn't going to benefit us in any way.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Just for future reference, you were also blocked at the same time for your legitimate personal attacks. Repeatedly calling good faith statements "personal attacks" isn't helping resolve this issue. Dayewalker (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I have facts I'd like to add to this discussion, privately. I'd appreciate if somebody would shove me in the right direction for that. Judas278 (talk) 23:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest clicking through to PhilKnight's userpage and looking in the sidebar for "Email this user" -- that's what you were asking, right?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Think so. I've seen things saying send to a list of admins. I don't know PhilKnight's "position". It's a question of trust. Thanks for the suggestion. Judas278 (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

There's also the Administrators' Noticeboard, but that isn't private. Phil's an admin too, btw, but that's not the capacity he's here in.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Article Deletion

I want to discuss nominating this article for deletion with you guys and see if we can reach a consensus on that.

The article we have before us reads as follows. DREAMHOST IS blablabla. DREAMHOST HAS Just what you'd expect any hosting company to have and offer. And INCIDENTS Text that basicly shows that shit has happened just like you'd expect that shit would happen at any company.

So basicly this article says nothing that anyone would really want to read, it's more like a badly written directory listing.

I think that the article can be deleted on the merrits that it meets the following criteria A. Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject) and B. Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion

So what do you guys say that we just yank it away and be done with it?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, no. The subject is clearly notable, and claims of bias are not a reason for deletion. Dayewalker (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your input and I understand how you can see the subject as being notable but I can't see how claims of bias have anything to do with the matter or how I suggested that the article be deleted due to it being biased, could you possibly clarify that for me? I am however saying that the article basicly says nothing and that the fact that it does is a good reason to delete it. Also I'd like to point the following http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bravenet_Web_Services out of four articles regarding similar things nominated for deletion only Dreamhost still stands perhaps it would be proper to also delete dreamhost since other similar articles are not tolerated on wikipedia. Thank you again for your input.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Dayewalker, would you please add a couple reasons why the subject is clearly notable? As said already, the "notability" reference used in the previous Deletion Discussion was deleted from this article for being unreliable. Judas278 (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Informal mediation (continued)

Apart from SarekOfVulcan, who suggested removing a sentence, and 194x144x90x118, who favors deletion, does anyone want any changes to the current version of the article? PhilKnight (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with the "incidents" section, which I feel gives excessive coverage to minor events relating to power outages and "typing errors" - some of which is supported by the questionable "Data Center Knowledge" source. I also think the section should be a subsection of "web hosting". I would like to change it to something like this:

In July, 2006, the building housing DreamHost's datacenter suffered two power outages from a rolling blackout, causing significant disruption to services offered by DreamHost, Media Temple and MySpace. In June, 2007 approximately 700 websites and 3,500 FTP accounts hosted on DreamHost's servers were compromised. In response to the incident, the company made "numerous significant behind-the-scenes changes to improve internal security, including the discovery and patching to prevent a handful of possible exploits." On January 15, 2008, DreamHost accidentally billed some users for an extra year's worth of services, which they initially reported as $7.5 million in extra charges. The company later stated the final total was $2.1 million.

All the noteworthy incidents remain, but some of the minor events, particularly those relying on the dubious source, have been cut out. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose The article would sound far too much like an advertisements if it was changed in that manner.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

  Do you have any actual policy-based objections to my proposed text? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

  As an experienced editor I am sure that you are familiar with the policies regarding this, therefor since we both know fully well which policies apply here there is no need for me to refer any further to them.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

  I am not a mind reader, and I am unaware of any policies that might support your objection to my proposal. Please offer policy-based objections to your "strong oppose" or consider withdrawing it. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_words There.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

  I see no evidence of spam or weasel words in my proposed text. Please explain more fully. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• oppose. this rewrite is a form of linguistic trickery, akin to using the passive voice instead of the active voice to shift blame from the subject to the object. e.g. instead of saying "we have made errors," a certain US administration once famously said "errors have been made." same idea, equally unnecessary. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

  The only part I "rewrote" was the bit covering the power outages. DreamHost was not responsible for the outages. Nor was the company responsible for the failure of the Garland Building's UPS. The existing wording paints DreamHost as the culprit, so I wrote a version that was neutrally worded. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is deja vu all over again. Agree with Theserialcomma. This section of the article was recently worked and reworked. Imo it already leaves out the "typo" connections between events, and leaves out other details previously in the article. Judas278 (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
• Thanks for responding Scjessey. I think it would be better to just say there was a power outage than to use the word 'suffered' which could be perceived as being sympathetic. PhilKnight (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

  How about "experienced" a power outage? Although the company was not to blame, perhaps that would be neutral than "suffered"? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_words The text is fine as it is.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

  Again, it is not clear what you are referring to with your WP:WEASEL claim. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete Control Panel Sentence

2nd sentence in WebHosting section should be deleted: "Customers have access to a control panel that includes integrated billing and a support ticket system." This is redundant to first sentence's "shared hosting" link, and the panel screenshot should also be deleted. 1st sentence should have "and lighttpd" deleted, as unsourced, unless I missed it. Judas278 (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The article has to say something about what DreamHost does, and why it is different from what other similar services do, otherwise it serves no useful purpose. The unique control panel is a characteristic of the service. Here's a source for lighttpd, although it comes in the form of an archived email sent out to all DreamHost customers (so not a third party source). I don't think this can be considered a contentious detail, so it may be sufficient. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The article does in fact have to say something about what Dreamhost does, if nobody can suggest placing other text there then I can't see it as being justifiable to delete this sentence. I will however restate my opinion that this article should be deleted.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any particular point in deleting that sentence, but neither do I have a problem with it. If that sentence goes, then the screenshot needs to go as well, as it's fair use, supporting that sentence.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

We have 2 votes in favor of deletion, 1 against, and 1 "no problem". Are there any more opinions, or is this sufficient to delete the sentence? Judas278 (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus for deletion of that sentence here, and I provided a source (of sorts) for lighttpd. DreamHost's control panel is completely different from any other, and so it can be a reason why people choose (or don't choose) the service. Also, discussion and consensus building is preferred - voting is discouraged. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Alternative text proposal

Since there have been no policy-based objections, or any movement on this for a considerable time, I'd like to propose this alternative version, per PhilKnight's suggestion:

In July, 2006, two power outages in the building housing DreamHost's datacenter caused significant disruption to services offered by DreamHost, Media Temple and MySpace. In June, 2007 approximately 700 websites and 3,500 FTP accounts hosted on DreamHost's servers were compromised. In response to the incident, the company made "numerous significant behind-the-scenes changes to improve internal security, including the discovery and patching to prevent a handful of possible exploits." On January 15, 2008, DreamHost accidentally billed some users for an extra year's worth of services, which they initially reported as $7.5 million in extra charges. The company later stated the final total was $2.1 million.

The only difference between the two proposed versions is a rewrite of the first sentence to remove "suffered", as suggested by the informal mediator. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - looks reasonable to me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

STRONG OPPOSE The suggested text isn't in any way better than the previous one and this matter has already been discussed thoroughly, no need to keep bringing this up.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any policy-based objections? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

STRONG OPPOSE The proposed change still does not connect the 2 well publicized typo incidents. The billing fubar was blamed on a typo, but this is still not mentioned. Instead the change deletes mention of the 2nd incident. This would bias the article to completely ignore the root cause of 2 well publicized typo incidents. Also, it deletes mention of repeated power outages. As usual, this change is not neutral; it overly favors the company. Non-NPOV and deleting sourced material. Judas278 (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This is an attempt to remove some of the poorly-sourced and superfluous information and offer a fairer, balanced description of events. Everything in the proposed text is fully supported by the references, and the language is neutral. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

To User:Scjessey I think that the current version describes events and how they took place better than the one that you're proposing, as for policy based objections I am sure that I can find some but it would take some time. In the meantime the burden of proof lays Solely on your shoulders, you have not given any reasons for why your proposed text is any better than the current one so your suggestion can not be taken seriously.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 01:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, I have previously explained why the proposed text is a fairer and more accurate description of events. The proposed changes are necessary to satisfy neutrality issues, and concerns about poor sourcing. Also, the newer version is a clearer and more concise summary. There is no "burden of proof" thing here, because I am not adding anything controversial. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually there is a burden of proof, it's yours to prove that your version is better than the previous one but I can now see that you indeed attempted to do such a thing, I am therefor striking that particular text out. As for satisfying neutrality and concerns about poor sourcing it is my honest opinion that the article is already as favorable for Dreamhost as it possibly can be and that your proposed change would therefor upset even further the neutrality of it and that it is therefor not a positive change to make, as for the poor sourcing I think that the sourcing is satisfactory. Clearer and more concise I don't see that. So again at this time I oppose the change that you proposed being made.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 02:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That is a reasonable response, but I still reject your insistence that I have to "prove" something here. I think it is clear that there is way too much information about outages and typing errors in the article as it stands, affording them undue weight that portrays the company in an unreasonably-negative light. My proposal condenses this information to salient issues, while at the same time removing poorly-sourced stuff - as has been discussed above. It also incorporates the suggestion of the informal mediator. None of the important information is lost. I am completely at a loss to explain how you could possibly see my proposed text as not being completely fair and neutral. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If the discussion is deadlocked, then perhaps we should consider other approaches, for example a RfC. PhilKnight (talk) 09:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to do anything that will help us move forward on this article, particularly because the current text does not meet the standards of neutrality you would expect from Wikipedia with a clear bias against the subject. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I read over the instructions for requesting an RfC, and I am a little unsure as to how to frame the request. My proposal, as outlined above, is to combine and condense the "incidents" section to satisfy undue weight concerns; however, all that is predicated on my contention that those concerns actually exist, but opponents say otherwise. What is the best way to approach this? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Is WP:Undue Weight being placed on the Incidents listed at DreamHost? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course. I'm such an ass. I was trying to think of something more complicated involving showing various versions and stuff. I'll set it up right now. Thanks! -- Scjessey (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm terse by nature - it's an advantage in situations like this. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

auto archiving redux

This matter has been discussed before and the consensus was 3 against two for 90 days, what sort of strong-arm bullying is this exactly? Shall we discuss and vote on this matter every other day? There is no consensus to change the archive rate at this time, and constantly making everyone restate their position on the matter is a tremendous waste of time.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 10:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Changing back to 45 days, since you thought it was sufficient for Talk:Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, which is far more contentious than this will ever be.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That's acctually just the point, hat Hyperactivity disorder talkpage it is far more contentious than this page and therefor it is neccessary and beneficial for that talkpage to have a shorter archiverate, this page however isn't all that popular so pracitcly all discussions would disappear instantly into archives if it had a 45 day rate giving users new to this talkpage the impression that no discussion had ever taken place at all. Thank you however for giving your point of view on this matter.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

At the moment two editors have commented on this matter, one supports a 45 day delay while the other supports a 90 day delay, if you have an opinion on the matter then please state it here below.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

PhilKnight stated on May 9 that he didn't object to a 45-day archive period. Don't know if he's seen anything since then that's changed his mind.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Arguing over whether or not it is 45 or 90 days is silly - the system will not archive the most recent discussions whatever it is set to. Furthermore, the discussions aren't somehow "lost" by being archived (a perfectly normal Wikipedia talk page procedure). 45 days is just fine, and it doesn't matter what impression is given to "users new to this talk page" because the discussions will always be available in the archive. This seems like arguing for the sake of arguing to me, and it is time we moved on from it. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This does indeed seem like arguing for the sake of arguing and that's no good really, why was this brought back up, the consensus was 3 against 2 and there was no need to discuss the matter any further the auto archiving was setup with a 90 day archive period and that should really have been the end of the matter. Not objecting to something doesn't equal supporting it so the vote so far is two versus one which is hardly anything which can be called a consensus and certainly not relevant enough to overrule the previous 3 against 2 consensus. Arguing about this matter isn't constructive in any way so I ask that you Please not bring the matter up again.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I've set it to 45 days, which is more than enough. All recent/active discussions will remain. I'm not sure why to objected to this being "brought back up", when it was actually you who did that. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

the consensus was 90 days. it should not have been changed against consensus. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no "consensus" for 90 days. Even if we include the opinions of single purpose agenda account users there is still no consensus for one setting or the other (and it's not subject to a vote anyway). Nor is there any logical reason for 90 days (paranoid claims about "burying evidence" notwithstanding). Nor is edit-warring the archive setting in any way appropriate. Archiving is necessary because long talk pages are unwieldy, and there is no point in keeping out-of-date discussions that have long since ended out of the archive. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

uhhh. did you even read "single purpose agenda account users". it says very clearly, do not bite the newcomers. it doesn't say, treat them like they should be quarantined with swine flu and that their opinions don't count. Theserialcomma (talk) 02:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't bite anyone, and it is absolutely the case that the opinions of SPAs carry less weight than the opinions of established editors, particularly when they have declared an interest (as in this case). Perhaps you should stay on topic instead of dissing other editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Lets see if Scjessey gets blocked now for personal attacks or if he only gets blocked for those when there are grounds for blocking me also.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 05:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

What personal attacks? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This single purpose account spa talk of yours.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Identifying an SPA is not a personal attack. In fact, tagging the comments of SPAs as such is encouraged when it comes to consensus/vote situations. Please stop making false claims about my comments, which are personal attacks. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Simon, have you actually looked at his contributions lately? 194x is definitely not an SPA.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I never suggested 194x was an SPA. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

True. I took that as an inference since he was the primary participant on the other side of this thread, but there were definitely SPAs in the previous discussion that you must have been referring to. My apologies for the misread.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I have resisted "naming" the SPA (as I have done in the past) because doing so has received criticism. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

"single purpose agenda account users" was what was written, single purpose agenda account userS! were NOT! involved in any previous consensus further more the standard term isn't Single purpose agenda account users it's Single-purpose account, speaking of single purpose agenda account users implies that more than one spa participated in the previous discussion and that the SPAs that participated in the previous discussion had a COI and don't edit from a Neutral point of view which is something completely false and therefor a personal attack. Also the remark that "the opinons of SPAs carry less weight than the opinions of established editors, particularly when they have declared an interest" wasn't at all appropriate when considering the participation history of the user that made it in regards to this article.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 09:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This is getting extremely tiresome, frankly. You makes false claims about me, you deliberately misrepresent my comments, you vandalize my talk page and you misinterpret Wikipedia policies and guidelines to give the appearance that I am somehow violating them. Please focus on suggestions to improve the article, rather than firing endless volleys of calumny in my direction. Your behavior is highly disruptive and not at all conducive to article development. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It indeed is tiresome. I am unfamiliar with having made any false claims regarding you, you wrote what you wrote that isn't something that can be disputed, if you should have chosen your words better then that is your fault not mine and not something that you can complain about if it gets criticized. Sorry about those reverts on your talkpage, my bad. I did not say that you were violating wikipedias policies and guidelines in my previos reply so I am unaware of what you are referring to with that. I also do not think that you are in any position to lecture me regarding disruptive behavior and ask that you kindly think long and hard regarding your own behavior here on wikipedia.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Even the most cursory of glances at your contributions to Wikipedia reveal that you have offered nothing productive to the project, and now it seems you are reduced to goading other editors (and administrators) here and on your talk page. If the banhammer doesn't fall upon you, I will simply be ignoring you from now on. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ahhhh a Personal attack how lovely.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to note that this talk page is becoming too large. If there's no consensus for how to configure an automatic archiving process, I will manually archive some of the oldest threads. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which the auto archiving bots page specifically states that there should be a consensus in place regarding its use before it is setup to archive any talk page, here the closest thing you have to a consensus was that the bot would be setup to automaticly archive content older than 90 days old. There is a automatic archiving process configured for this page so there's no need for you to manually archive any threads.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It could be argued, based on what you have posted above, that the archiving bot should not be used at all, since there is no consensus regarding its use. Just to be clear on this: I am not remotely interested in how the bot is configured. I am concerned only with the size of this Talk page. Pages which are unnecessarily long are difficult to read, navigate and edit, particularly for users on mobile devices. If automatic archiving isn't keeping the size of the page down, then manual archiving is the solution. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The only reason he doesn't want us archiving is that he thinks we're trying to hide negative information about DreamHost. Sheffield, since as far as I know, you're neutral on this article, why don't you just archive whatever you think is stale enough to go there?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahhhh yes, my good friend Sarekofvulcan with his inappropriate remarks, actions and comments. I've really tried to look past stuff in the past and as I have previously offered you to simply apologize for your actions and you have declined so I seriously doubt that there is any point in asking you to strike out those remarks of yours so now we're going to head to rfc or something similarly appropriate within the next seven days, don't say that I didn't give you every opportunity to skip this unpleasantry.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sheffield, I don't really think that it's appropriate that editors manually archive this talkpage since automatic archiving is enabled for it, if you want to then be my guest, disable the auto archiving and manually archive the "stale enough" sections that you think need to be archived.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Protection expired

For the love of all that's holy, please don't start edit warring again. Discussion here seems to be working reasonably well, if slowly.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see a local-style policy of building consensus on this talk page before performing any edits on the article itself, much like the approach editors have adopted on the Barack Obama bio. It all but eliminates edit warring and most non-discussed edits tend to be easily-reverted vandalism. I'd happily defer to having edits performed by administrators and/or mediators if everyone thought that was a better way to go for the time being. I agree that things are moving slowly, and I think this is a consequence of there being very few editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is not protected so anyone is free to edit it at his own discretion. I am concerned with the fact that some editors here seem to want to turn this article into an advertisement style reading and that's no good as far as I'm concerned, if Dreamhost really wants to advertise its services then it can buy advertising space in newspapers, hand out fliers in public or perhaps have some sort of a telephone ad campaign performed but I won't allow this article to be turned into a nice free biased advertisement for dreamhost.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually not all that sure that leaving this article unprotected is such a good idea, I vote that we reprotect the article from edits as soon as possible.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you would care to elaborate on your claims that "some editors here seem to want to turn this article into an advertisement" and offer some evidence for these bad faith claims? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Based on the discussion here, I've protected the article for another month. PhilKnight (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Pity 194x had to declare his intention to edit war so soon after the block expired.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sick and tired of your childish insults and personal attacks, Nowhere did I declare any intention to edit war. Your behavior towards me regarding this talkpage has in no way been apropriate, you keep this up and you're going to get reported.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Your proclamation that you "won't allow" something on this page, even if it is correct by wikipedia content standards, isn't really a way to show good faith and could lead other editors to see that as a declaration that you intend to see your way regardless. Whether that was your intention or not, your statement could be taken as such, especially since it seems to have led to another round of protection. Dayewalker (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting the article, I however support permanent protection for this article.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Could my protection request have led to another round of protection? Is that possible? I wonder. Where did I state that I would not allow something on this page if it was correct by wikipedia content standards? I guess that somebody could read that I had something to do with the JFK assassination from this reply of mine to you but that doesn't have anything to do with me really. And I don't really care too deeply about what people could assume that I meant or wanted to say, I wrote in English and used regular words to express my meaning. I am however starting to care a great deal more about the conduct of Sarekofvulcan towards me regarding this talkpage, it is simply Insane, totally crazy, I have had a hard time looking past it in the past but I have cause that's the kinda guy I am, never looking for a fight when I can avoid one and trying to get along with people but we are now at the end of that line, all it takes is one more inappropriate reply, action or remark and matters will get reported.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Does the "Incidents" section have undue weight concerns?

Is undue weight being given to the "Incidents" section of DreamHost? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, in my opinion the "incidents" section should not be 50% of the article. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

  Thank you for your response. I have proposed reducing this section to the following (also removing the "incidents" heading):

  In July, 2006, two power outages in the building housing DreamHost's datacenter caused significant disruption to services offered by DreamHost, Media Temple and MySpace. In June, 2007 approximately 700 websites and 3,500 FTP accounts hosted on DreamHost's servers were compromised. In response to the incident, the company made "numerous significant behind-the-scenes changes to improve internal security, including the discovery and patching to prevent a handful of possible exploits." On January 15, 2008, DreamHost accidentally billed some users for an extra year's worth of services, which they initially reported as $7.5 million in extra charges. The company later stated the final total was $2.1 million.

  Do you think that would be appropriate? -- Scjessey (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• The incidents section is less than 50% of the article when panel screenshot, info' box, references, external links, and all are included. Deleting well-sourced, historically significant (in context) material is not the solution. Also, the linked articles Media_Temple and MySpace have similar or larger sections devoted to criticism, issues or incidents. Judas278 (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

  But including images, links and references in such an equation is hardly reasonable, of course. The "incidents" section is significantly more than 50% of the readable prose, which is what counts here. The Media Temple article has a tiny paragraph about "incidents" (less than a third of the amount documented here), and the MySpace article (which is not a web host) has a criticism section much smaller than their "features" section (and most criticism is concerned with generic social networking issues), so there really isn't any reasonable comparison that you can make with those articles. Clearly a reduction in the size and scope of the "incidents" section here is appropriate, and I think the suggested compromise that I have put forward warrants support. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The power outage doesnt appear to be particularly notable as it wasnt unique to DeamHost. The accidental billing doesnt appear to be particularly notable either as this sort of thing is not that rare. The websites offline for a few hours is not notable or uncommon. So in my opinion that leaves just the compromised account incident, which should actually be expanded as it doesnt actually explain how or what was compromised. MilborneOne (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with you that the compromised account incident seems to be inadequate, but we've had two problems with it: lack of sourcing and lack of information. I am a DreamHost customer, and my account was one of those compromised; however, I never really got a straight answer as to how it was compromised. DreamHost made a bunch of changes to improve security (akin to administering broad spectrum antibiotics), but I'm not sure they ever got to the bottom of the issue. That would explain why there is a lack of reporting as well. Agreed on the lack of notability on the other issues. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The "power outage" is a series of secondary-source-reported power outages from 2005 through 2007, when sources reported the company took actions. Previously this article characterized ONE outage as a disaster, with benefits. They had a long history of major power outages, and the sources should be represented here in unbiased fashion, as the article does currently. A Single Typo (fact, though not shown in the article) causing millions of dollars of improper charges, for a year of service, for thousands of customers, seems unusual to me. DreamHost is prominent in this search. Can you show us other similar incidents? Websites offline for a few hours may be common, but here Another Typo is the "common mode failure". As I read WP policies, we are supposed to impartially present information from secondary sources. Our opinions of what should be explained, or what is "common" is not important. Judas278 (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Your Google search yields poor quality sources like blogs. A Google news search with the same parameters yields zero hits. It would seem that at least 2 additional editors who are uninvolved with this article disagree with you. One is an administrator, and the other is an admin on the Commons project. Clearly a consensus is forming for reducing the number of "incidents" to only those that are notable. You rejected the compromise text I suggested, and now even that is viewed as including too many of the "incidents". Unless we can all accept some form of compromise, it is difficult to see how we can productively move forward. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

DreamHost Denies Cybersquatting Suit

Is it too early to add mention of DreamHost's latest notoriety? Judas278 (talk) 23:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You have to be kidding me.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Google is full of mentions to this matter so it might meet Wikipedias notability requirements and I have to say it is somewhat an interesting matter "Cybersquatting" what word will they invent next but yes I am in a somewhat awkward position, while I Oppose to this article "Dreamhost" existing at all I can't say that if it has to exist that the incident Judas mentions shouldn't be in it so the only thing I can really do for the time being is accept the existence of this article. Anyway I won't pass judgment on if a mention to this latest incident should be added to the article or not unless or until I see a proposed text or something of the sort.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Nah, flash in the pan -- unless she can establish that it was actually DreamHost behind it, rather than a customer hosting at DreamHost.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably a customer who registered it through DreamHost and used a privacy service to conceal their actual identity, causing the plaintiff to go after the host as well as a "John Doe" suit against the unknown registrant. The domain doesn't seem to be hosted by Dreamhost any more (and has no site resolving there), so the case is probably moot. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Suppositions are original research, and not for the article. On the other hand, "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." We don't have to forecast the outcome. The significant viewpoint is that a suit was filed, as several reliable sources published. This one even has a link so "The lawsuit can be viewed in its entirety here." Judas278 (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not a "significant viewpoint" until it's established that Dreamhost has more to do with it than hosting the domain, and maybe acting as the registrar in the first place, if they did. It's muckraking, and as such, has no place here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If they _lose_ the suit, that might be worthy of inclusion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I just read the whole thing. Nowhere did they assert that DreamHost had actually done anything. They were just the only people they could actually find to sue.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping to see a proposed text so that I could take a stand on this matter but the discussion here has raised another question, is it not allowed to mention this matter and to put that BOX This section describes a current affair..... and all that? Without taking a stand on if I support this being included in the article or not I must say that it is somewhat more excusable to add material to this article rather than to many others since it is almost completely empty.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Even if there were some merit to this matter (which there very obviously isn't), it would surely fall foul of WP:NOTNEWS. Come to think of it, many of the documented outages violate the same policy, since for the most part they turned out to be historically insignificant. Just sayin'. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed sentence (suggested revisions welcome): In May 2009, Mel_Gibson's girlfriend, Oksana Grigorieva, filed a 100,000 USD suit against DreamHost and others, alleging they used oksanagrigorieva.com to exploit the name, photograph, likeness and persona of the internationally renowned artist. References: http://www.thewhir.com/web-hosting-news/060109_DreamHost_Denies_Cybersquatting_Suit , http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25591536-12335,00.html Judas278 (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggested revision: Not news. Unnecessary to add. Drop it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this should be in the article but at this point I aint ruling it out, but if it is to be added to the article then I think that , Mel_Gibson's girlfriend, should be striken out also in an effort to adress the undue weight concerns of some editors the word internationally could also be removed making the piece smaller.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Problem is, then it reads "somebody once sued DreamHost for cyberstalking because they couldn't find the actual owner of the domain to serve the papers on."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Their denial of being sued is not likely to have historical significance, so I would suggest the article not cover it. As it stands, there is only trivial or incidental coverage over Dreamhost, even with regards to this incident, from reliable sources. The same is true over a couple other incidents mentioned in the article. I question whether Dreamhost even meets the WP:CORP inclusion guidelines.

• Billing errors are not extroardinary, nor was it notable in this case, except as a trivial news item, recall WP:NOT#News, also, even when an event is notable, individuals involved may not be.

I'm looking for reliable secondary sources (non-blog, non-forum) that demonstrate significant non-incidental, non-trivial coverage of Dreamhost, and having difficulty finding anything, so far. --Mysidia (talk)

Proposed AfD

As discussed by Mysidia above (and others previously), there are questions whether this article meets minimum standards for being an article. Previous decisions (2) to not delete this article relied primarily on unreliable data (numbers of domains "hosted"), and support by DreamHost promoters. I agree with deleting this article. Should it be taken for another AfD? Judas278 (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I discussed this recently only to receive two answers one from you and a negative one, I suggest that we get an RfC on this particular matter and then take it from there. Thoughts?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 01:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussing whether you should have a discussion seems a bit redundant. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Sarek. This article would quickly survive a speedy delete or a PROD, if you feel like an AfD is necessary, file one. The opposing opinions on this page are well-documented, but if you believe other currently uninvolved wikipedia editors would agree the subject isn't notable enough for an article, file one. Discussing it with the usual suspects isn't going to do change anything. Dayewalker (talk) 01:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. File the AfD if you feel it is necessary. Also, please don't describe fellow editors as "DreamHost promoters". I've received blocks for far less. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Step One currently requires admin action to post the notice on this article. From above, it looks like we have the consensus needed for that notice. Judas278 (talk) 02:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can nominate and list an article for deletion. It does not require administrator action. You just need to wait until the page protection expires. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

And I don't think this sort of thing is at all appropriate either. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed AfD Statement: This company is non-notable, they fail both WP:WEB and WP:CORP. It is nearly impossible to find reliable secondary sources (non-blog, non-forum) that demonstrate significant non-incidental, non-trivial coverage of DreamHost. 3 of 4 articles from the first deletion discussion are gone. Very few other Web hosting companies in the Category have articles. The primary reference, webhosting.info, supporting "notability" previously was deleted from this article for questionable reliability, and the "data" is likely skewed by Domain_tasting and domain parking.

• Suggested changes welcome before doing the EditProtected Template to get the ball rolling. Judas278 (talk) 02:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't have put it any better myself, only other thing I can think of mentioning is the fact that Meatpuppets likely effected the outcomes of the previous AfD's something along the line of: It is likely that previous AfD's were effected by Meatpuppets, see 1 and 2.

Might be a good addition to the AfD and might not, if you see it as none beneficial then just let your suggested AfD rip.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggested changes, Judas: it's irrelevant what happened to the other articles in the first AfD, so leave that out, but paste the original AfD link down here so the admin who posts for you can include it without having to hunt for it. "Data is likely skewed" -- speculation shouldn't be included in the AfD, so leave that out, too. Anything else, I'll challenge at the AfD, if necessary. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'd leave out 194x's "meatpuppetry" accusation -- that was then, this is now. Go on the merits, or not at all. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

He can feel free to leave it out, include it or change it but if previous AfDs are supposed to be mentioned then it's also important to mention that they were likely "fixed". Also these are not accusations but admitted wrongdoings as you can see from THIS LINK!!!. Also I don't see anything wrong with this Skewed deal.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If you have a reference to establish that the data is incorrect, then show what it is -- otherwise, it's original research. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Conversely, the same original research, primary data, was quoted directly and indirectly from start to finish in the last deletion discussion, and is likely to play a part again. So I'm trying to address it from the start. I'd like to believe "currently uninvolved wikipedia editors" would decide the fate, but I know "supporters" or whatever I should call them will show up, as they have the last 2 times. Judas278 (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Revised AfD Statement: This company is non-notable, they fail both WP:WEB and WP:CORP. It is nearly impossible to find reliable secondary sources (non-blog, non-forum) that demonstrate significant non-incidental, non-trivial coverage of DreamHost. Very few other Web hosting companies in the Web hosting Category have articles. In the most recent Deletion Discussion the primary source referenced to support "notability", webhosting.info, was deleted from this article for questionable reliability, as discussed here on the talk page. Further, this 'primary' source "data" is likely skewed by Domain_tasting and domain parking, as acknowledged by the source.

• Thanks for the comments and suggestions, which I've tried to use. For now, someone else can run with it if desired. I recently observed Wikipedia likely taking useful action, and I'm waiting to see how that plays out here, as the edit block is again off. Should the article again be reduced to a poorly sourced "advertisement" this will only strengthen the case for deletion. Judas278 (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

While I don't agree with the AfD statement as above, you've addressed my issues nicely, and I have no objection to the above wording.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for inappropriately bringing up that totally unrelated ArbCom process. You can rest assured that nothing happening at ArbCom will make any noticeable difference to my contributions here. You might as well go ahead and do the AfD nomination so that we can get that little waste of time out of the way and move forward. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey, are you saying that because you don't plan on violating one revert/week here, or because you don't think it applies?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The former. Despite what ArbCom seems to think, there is very little actual edit warring in my 10,000+ edit history. Having a one revert per week restriction won't make a noticeable difference to my editing behavior. This is especially so here because there are none of those ambiguous BLP-related reversions to cloud the issue. Also, the "must talk about reversion" rule won't change anything because that is part of my editing S.O.P. - that vast majority of my edits are in article talk because I prefer to fully discuss proposed changes before making them. As far as this article is concerned, it should be business as usual. So let's have at it, shall we? The opinions we have collected from non-involved editors have clearly confirmed our position that the current "incidents" section is too long and contains too much stuff of little significance. Perhaps my proposed changes previously discussed don't go far enough? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the above. Judas278 (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Which part do you strongly disagree with? -- Scjessey (talk) 00:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

(OD) I think we're veering off track again, this section was for discussing the upcoming AfD. I'd suggest that since a wording that everyone seemed to approve of was posted here two days ago, the AfD should be posted so we can be done with either a) this article, or b) this discussion. Incidental discussions don't belong here, and are just serving to prolong a non-productive thread. Dayewalker (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. AfD is posted. Judas278 (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Free application hosting

The discussion going on at the AfD indicates a need for more information. I'd like to propose adding something about the DreamHost Apps service. Something like this, as a sub-section of the "web hosting" section, seems appropriate:

Free application hosting

In 2009, the company began offering free web application hosting. Either with their own domain, or with a free subdomain, customers are able to make use of a number of open source applications, such as WordPress and MediaWiki without charge. The service is similar to, and can be integrated with, the Google App Engine. Through a control panel, customers are able to manage their applications or upgrade to the standard, fully-managed hosting service.

I'd appreciate help with the proposed wording (reading it through, it seems like it might be a bit verbose) and any other refinement suggestions. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose This definitively does not belong in any way or any form in the article it comes across as spam or advertising and is highly inappropriate.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 00:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

  Do you have any policy-based objections, or suggestions for improvement? Simply saying "strong oppose" to every single one of my proposals is extremely unhelpful, and not at all in the spirit of a collaborative project like Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The same information is already at linked articles: Web_hosting_service. It does not need detailed repeating in this article. This article does not need to contain every factoid three times. This article should not be an advertisement. See: Comparison_of_web_hosting_control_panels for plenty of similar panels. The panel here is nothing special, and doesn't need repeated mention and description. The interpretation of the source is biased - not mentioning "beta" status, limited availability, and probable future $50/year charge. Judas278 (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You know, Judas, if you oppose adding anything to the article, asserting it should be deleted for lack of content kind of lacks credibility.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Please try to assume good faith here, adding this material to the article isn't appropriate since offering this sort of service is almost standard for web hosting companies and it would be inappropriate to make this article look like an ad for dreamhost since wikipedia articles are not meant to serve that purpose.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 23:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It is no longer possible to assume good faith in the face of such blocking tactics. Clearly, this article needs improvement. More information about the company and its services can be culled from the reliable sources available, but if it is always described as "advertising" I am at a loss as to how to move forward productively. At what point does this tendentious opposition become unacceptable to the project? We've had mediation, and RfC and now a third AfD that all indicate that the article should be improved with more detail, but such improvement is being blocked. Administrator guidance would be extremely welcome. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

And I've yet to be given a policy-based reason why the proposed text is inappropriate. Unless someone can do that, I see no reason why I shouldn't just go ahead and add it, since that fits in with comments at the AfD. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

If you are unable to assume good faith and seeing good faith edits as blocking tactics then perhaps you should consider excusing yourself from the article for some time since if this article does indeed require attention and the material that you've mentioned then other editors will surely help it along and improve it without your involvement.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Saying "oppose" to every proposal, without being able to cite policy-based reasons for such opposition, is not "good faith" editing. It is tendentious opposition. I am attempting to improve the article, not block such attempts or collaborate on its hoped-for demise. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Collaborate might not have been the best word, I'm not English like you are and I'm never going to pay your Icesave loan EVER! but anyway back to the point I was merely asking that he discussed the AfD text with me nothing more and I see nothing wrong with having done so. I do not want to fight regarding anything really I am just trying to have a positive influence on the article. I genuinely think that adding that material would make the article sound too much like an advertisement and that doing so is therefor negative as for policy-based reasons well I am actually pretty sure that there do exist some policy based reasons for not having texts that looks like an advertisement or spam in an article but seeing as I am not the most veteran wikipedia editor around I don't know what it is and I haven't really devoted too much time looking for it. But here you go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information look at number 7 .--194x144x90x118 (talk) 02:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing in the policy link you provided (although the link target is wrong) that prohibits the inclusion of the proposed text, and your belief that it makes it "sound too much like an advertisement" is not relevant here. The fact remains that it is absolutely essential to provide information that distinguishes one entity from another (in this case, one hosting company from another), and this is a perfect example. Otherwise you would have the ludicrous situation where all articles on web hosts (and anything else, for that matter) sound the same and are basically just brief summaries. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) (My) proposal for adding mention of gmail took 2 sources to add one simple sentence. This proposal is to add a whole section and paragraph based on 1 source, without fairly representing what the source actually says. You must fairly represent what the sources say, good and bad, in balance. Judas278 (talk) 03:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a mischaracterization. Your proposed addition framed the use of Gmail as if it was a "negative" thing. It needed to be changed for neutrality. In the case of the latest proposed text, we are (once again) talking about introducing non-controversial details that help distinguish this web host from others. The details about beta testing and pricing are now out of date, because the source dates back to the original announcement. Bear in mind that this is a proposed addition that can be refined, and we should not include details that we know to be false, even if the quality of the sources that can verify this isn't of the highest standard (DreamHost's own website, for example). -- Scjessey (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

My good friend Scjessey will you please listen to reason and calm yourself down. Almost all webhosting companies offer free application hosting and adding this text to the article would simply be absurd, most people already know what webhosting companies are and have to offer and if they don't then they should take a look at an article like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webhost not this one but if we were infact to add that text that you propose to this article then we would have to add that text to all webhosting articles and wikipedia it just simply isn't a directory or something meant for that sort of thing. If you are starting to lose your cool over this then just take a deep breath and give the matter some calm thought it's not like this is some big deal.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is patently false. FREE application hosting is extremely unusual for web hosts to offer. It is the sort of thing normally reserved for large companies like Google, Microsoft, Apple and internet service providers like Comcast. Your notion of it being offered by "almost all" web hosts is incorrect. Also, please do not use this talk page for making patronizing comments toward me - I am not your "friend" and I do not need you to be telling me how to behave. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for Editor Restriction Discussion

Anybody who has seen this article history knows there have been several allegations of COI by a particular, very involved, editor. This section is to ask for advice and comment on the proper way for requesting formal Admin action. Judas278 (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

SPAs don't generally get to pull that card, sorry. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This talk page should not be used for meta discussions about who should and who shouldn't be editing. That being said, there are no "allegations" of a conflict of interest. I have consistently stated (including on my user page) that I am a DreamHost customer - I have never hidden this fact, so use of the word "allegations" indicates impropriety that does not exist. I also edit other articles concerning products and services that I use regularly, so what of it? What about the conflict of interest that a former, disgruntled customer has, who only edits this article? Clearly that is of far greater concern. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said above when the discussion for the AfD seemed to go on, if you think you have a case, please file it in the correct place. Take it to ANI or file an RfC, but no lasting decision on an editor's behavior will be reached on an article talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 01:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Restored archive

I have restored the absolutely necessary archiving of what was a ludicrously overlong talk page that was broken by 194 with this edit. Several editors have complained about this page being too long, and archiving is wholly appropriate and loses nothing. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

In addition, I have added an option to the archiving template to make it easy for the archives to be searched. This should satisfy any claims about "censorship" or "truth suppression" or any other similar nonsense. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This is becoming quite tiresome. You have no business messing with the bots settings or archiving this discussion. There is a consensus in place for a 90 day automatic archive rate, that means that the bot and the bot alone is supposed to archive discussion on this talkpage according to that setting. If you disagree with the consensus then you can always try to build a new one for a shorter archive rate or for manual archiving what ever you'd want I guess but unless there is such a consensus in place it is highly inappropriate that you mess with these matters.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Your claim of "consensus" is complete nonsense. No such consensus exists, and there is no excuse for your highly disruptive behavior. This overlong talk page is making it extremely difficult for editors to contribute to this discussion, particularly those using small screen devices. The extension to the ridiculous 90-days was (instead of the default 7) was done without consensus in the first place, and administrators recommended a 45-day setting. Once again, your problematic behavior actively blocks productive contributions. Archiving is necessary, and the search box makes the entire archive easily accessible. I expect you to self-revert immediately. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, it was the bot that performed the archiving. The bot and the bot alone. The setting of 90 days was preventing the archive from performing as intended. Your actions have created a duplicate in the archive, which means the archived material must be deleted from this talk page to fix the error. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Really, I don't understand the hubbub over the talk page, and keeping old discussions up three months past the date of the last comment. Since all the discussion began here, which is primarily between half a dozen editors, the talk page is over 279K, which is longer than the Barack Obama article and talk page combined. Why is it so important to have this much old information on a page that's at AfD? Dayewalker (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Obviously it isn't important. Especially when the archive is fully searchable and available to all. No logic in it whatsoever. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't important to have this talk page Jumbo sized but what is however important is that the consensus regarding talk page archiving be respected or a new consensus be reached. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MiszaBot/Archive_HowTo it is clearly stated there that "NOTE: Before setting up automatic archiving on an article's talk page, please establish a consensus that archiving is really needed there." These alterations of the bots settings are therefor against policy and indeed DISRUPTIVE. If you can not respect the consensus regarding the bots archiving rate of this page then I suggest you go elsewhere.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 03:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

194x, other than current consensus apparently being for a 90 day archive, do you have a problem with the archives happening on a 45 day basis? I understand this is a contentious talk page, but I don't understand why a minor article needs 279K of talk page only archived every three months? Would there be a problem with archiving the page after the AfD (assuming it results in a keep, of course) is finished? Dayewalker (talk) 03:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, there is no "consensus" for a 90-day archive. 3 users (one of which is an SPA) want this overlong archive because of claims that shortening the page will "bury evidence" - obviously an unfounded notion. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

90 day archive is ridiculous: I just undid the restoration of the archived content. This page is finally manageable: leave it that way.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I support Sarek's changes. Dayewalker (talk) 03:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I also support Sarek's changes. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that's three regular editors -- sounds like we're well on the way to that new consensus you were asking for. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) From what I've seen here and at the AfD, those who scramble and relocate the histories and comments do seem to want to obscure discussions. The length of this talk page, as compared with the Obama article, may have something to do with having editors in common. A quick steamroll does not consensus make. I support 90 days archive as I support one editor staying away as he said he would, as another way to a shorter talk page. Judas278 (talk) 05:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MiszaBot/Archive_HowTo it is clearly stated there that "NOTE: Before setting up automatic archiving on an article's talk page, please establish a consensus that archiving is really needed there." Considering this changing the archive rate without a consensus is obvious abuse of the bot and certainly not allowed.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 09:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I personally support no automatic archiving of this talk page and would like to see automatic archiving disabled and archiving strictly left to uninvolved users that are likely to be unbiased when it comes to this article such as Dayewalker and Sheffieldsteel, provided that automatic archiving is disabled.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 09:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)