Talk:DreamHost

Previous AfDs

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

Neutrality

Disgruntled Customer Effect

DreamHost is a huge hosting company. Whenever there is a problem that affects customer, a few are quite outraged. In some of these cases, they announce their intent to 'spread the word', basically wanting to punish DreamHost for their inconvenience by canceling, posting bad reviews, and otherwise warning folks about going with DreamHost. I believe looking at the billing issue section and some past edits that an unhappy past customer or two are using Wikipedia to draw a distinctively negative view of DreamHost. DreamHost has issues, as many (if not all) large primarily shared hosting companies do. There are good sides to DreamHost as well, but Wikipedia is not the forum to argue the case either way. Please leave agendas for slamming or promoting DreamHost at the door and try to make/keep this article objective, neutral, and on-topic. Thank you. 66.241.81.46 (talk) 09:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Gruntled Customer Effect

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. From that, "WIKIPEDIA is NOT for unverifiable material", "WIKIPEDIA is NOT a soapbox", "WIKIPEDIA is NOT a free advertising space", "WIKIPEDIA is NOT a place to publish your opinions", WIKIPEDIA is NOT a democracy", and "WIKIPEDIA is NOT a place to publish your new ideas". Current customers, owners and employees, and others who stand to benefit from the company's success, are vulnerable to "buyer's remorse" when verifiable, well-sourced, bad news reports make this information notable. If "the good sides to DreamHost" appear in verifiable, well-sourced, good news reports, then it would be notable as well. If this company is more or less like many (if not all) other similar companies, and nothing notable, then the article could be deleted. This article, over its history, suffers from a Gruntled Customer Effect, which motivates editors to include unreliable-sourced positive information, while deleting reliably-sourced negative information.

"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." (Content Guide) --Judas278 (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Biased Article

I think the promotions section isn't very good. First off, every hosting company that has a referral program has spammers and dissatisfied customers. Specifically mentioning it on the DreamHost page and not on other pages for web hosts is unfair. If you look at the Godaddy page, you'll find nothing about spammers or dissatisfied customers. Also, there are things under Promotions that have nothing to do with promotions.

In addition, why bother mentioning the control panel? Every webhost has a control panel! The points made are someone's opinion and don't relate to Dreamhost as a subject.

I think the first two paragraphs before Promotions along with a few things from the sections below it are more than enough for a good, fair article about Dreamhost. -- Sleepy Sentry

I totally agree with Sleepy Sentry's assessment about promotions. I think there is evidence that disgruntled and former customers are shaping the article more than they should be. In the matter of the Control Panel, I do feel its uniqueness is worth mentioning. I think it stands head and shoulders above cPanel, and its uniqueness makes it less of a security vulnerability too. Note to Sleepy Sentry: Please sign your comments with four tilde characters (~~~~) -- Scjessey 15:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Supporting information re: control panel: Ours is a one of a kind, developed in-house and improved over the course of the 7 years we've been in business. Some people love it, a few don't, but the fact that we don't use the everyday cPanel or similar is noteworthy to anyone who wants to know more about DreamHost. -- 66.92.39.177 19:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding external links

Added [http://dhstatus.com unofficial dreamhost status] site to Dreamhost page, but it was removed... who decides what goes on the dreamhost page? is that site just not cool/useful enough or what? thx, 70.56.68.135 19:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

External links must follow Wikipedia guidelines, and such decisions are made by the Wikipedia community, or (if necessary) by Wikipedia administrators. The site in question did not add significant value to the article, and appeared to be designed mostly for the owner's personal enrichment (AdSense everywhere). -- Scjessey 20:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Anzeige

I don't know if it's just me, but this article sounds pretty advert-ish to me, only stating that "DreamHost does this, DreamHost does that", without any criticism, and no real sources — the only "sources" (besides the statistics) are DreamHost's own public announcements which are naturally not reliable sources.

Back when I left DreamHost, there was a lot of grumbling about their excessive overselling, although I don't think any published research has actually touched this topic. I will admit leaving DreamHost partly due to their reliability and other problems, so I will not be bold in doing this. But would anyone mind if the fluff was removed and the article stubbified? -- intgr 16:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is purely descriptive, and free from any "fluff" I can see. It isn't really any different from other hosting companies on the Wikipedia. Although not a particularly long article, I think there is more than enough information to justify the absence of a stub tag. -- Scjessey 17:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"Stubbifying" is the process of turning an article into a stub, e.g., removing content. -- intgr 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is "descriptive", but there is no basis for saying that the content is notable, given that no reliable sources are cited. For example, there is no way that we can say that they actually respect their "no-censorship" policy, etc — as far as I can tell, this conflicts with the verifiability policy. -- intgr 20:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I know what stubbifying is, but I don't think it should happen. What information is currently presented in the article is relevant and important, with the possible exception of the "press coverage" section (which I am tempted to remove). I totally disagree with you about the notability of the content, and I cannot see how you could get a more reliable source of information about company facts than the company itself. -- Scjessey 20:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that the company itself is notable (for its unusual transparency, its weird control panel, etc.), but what the company does (web hosting) is not. -- Scjessey 20:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

We have no way of knowing (verifying) whether the company's advertisements are actually true, and it cannot be reliable since their interest is to promote their service, not to provide neutral information. Please refer to WP:RS. -- intgr 20:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any "advertisements" in the article. The business data (ownership, services offered, etc.) is a matter of public record (like any other business). Their status as a registrar is also verifiable (see ICANN list of accredited registrars). -- Scjessey 20:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would remove the "Non-censorship policy" section — the "DreamHost does not censor the content" claim is clearly unverifiable at this point.

The rest of the article indeed isn't bad, which I perceived differently yesterday. But I would also remove the "A new version of the panel was deployed on March 1, 2007." statement which is useless, and section titles, since the article has too little content to warrant them IMO. I also agree that the only link under "Press Coverage" is useless. -- intgr 09:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've nixed those things that you have mentioned. -- Scjessey 11:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! -- intgr 21:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

BBB

There is no reason at all to put a link to a BBB study on an article for a business. The BBB ratings misrepresent companies because they are based solely on complaints. Attempts to add BBB links (when spotted) are usually removed, as per WP:EXT. -- Scjessey 12:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to question your ability to write a neutral article on this subject. Do you have any potential conflicts of interest? While I can understand removing a sole external link under WP:EXT, the removal of the referenced text which I've added is clearly not governed by that guideline. DreamHost has been the subject of many complaints, and their rating with the BBB has been the subject of much talk. I don't see any reason not to include this information, and I think to not include it would be extremely biased. If you have a problem with the BBB this article is not the place to discuss that. They are a highly respected organization and qualify as a reliable source on the number of unanswered complaints received about an organization. anthony 12:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is completely neutral, and simply presents basic company information and explains what the company does. There is evidence of POV in the article. Each piece of information given is properly cited. DreamHost has not been the subject of many complaints from a relative standpoint, and you cannot cite any statistic that will prove otherwise. The only person who feels the article is biased is you, and WP:NPOV guidelines explain that your opinion in the matter is not sufficient to warrant the neutrality tag. If you look back in Wikipedia's history, you will see numerous examples of BBB links being removed from company-related articles - almost all of which are to do with editors having an axe to grind with the company in question -- Scjessey 13:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read the comments from others above. I am not the only person who feels this article is biased. You are an affiliate of Dreamhost and you have inserted your biased opinion into this article from the start, ignoring multiple people who have suggested a lack of balance and edit warring over anything which suggests a critical point of view. Please read over WP:COI and think very long and hard about whether or not you should be contributing to this article at all. anthony 13:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears you have failed to grasp the essence of WP:COI. No conflict of interest occurs in this instance because my contributions/additions/removals from the article have all been in the interest of a neutral point of view. The negative comments on this page of all come from individuals who definitely do have a conflict of interest, because they feel they have been slighted by the company in some way. Your own motivation remains unclear. I won't be reverting your last edit because I'd rather not violate WP:3RR. Also, please don't confuse Wikipedia guidelines with Wikipedia policy. -- Scjessey 14:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

A google search for "dreamhost jessey" yields the quote "I don’t know anyone who preaches Dreamhost more than Simon Jessey." And that from a fellow DreamHost supporter. WP:COI applies regardless of whether or not you think you're contributing neutral information. My motivation is to present an informative, well-balanced article. I don't make money off DreamHost, and I don't make money off any competitor either. I've never been slighted by the company, and in fact I've never used their hosting service at all. I have absolutely no conflict of interest, and my comments are merely factual, not negative nor positive. I hope we can work together to create a balanced article, but reverting anything which you feel is negative is not the way to do so. anthony 14:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, you don't understand the essence of WP:COI, and you appear to be struggling with the concept of neutrality as well. I'm not opposed to any article with a balanced point of view, but adding a misleading BBB link will skew the currently balanced article into a negative position. Remember that the BBB link would not be appropriate for any article about a company. I'm not sure what your agenda is, but by briefly looking at the history of your contributions I see that you are no stranger to controversial editing. -- Scjessey 15:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Scjessey in that it is the *article* that is subject to WP:NPOV considerations. You surely are not suggesting that anyone with an opinion should not be allowed to edit a Wikipedia page! We all have opinions, but good editors are able to contribute without allowing those opinions to encroach upon the neutrality of the article. Given the clear statement in WP:COI that edits should be constrained "where your close connection to the subject may cause a conflict between your agenda and Wikipedia's goal of producing a neutral encyclopedia", one should evaluate the applicability of WP:COI based on the contents of the article in question. I have reviewed the article repeatedly, and see no non-neutral statements in it and no reflection of any "pro-DreamHost" bias. In fact, the only "neutrality" issue I see at all is the attempt to link the BBB into the article. As the BBB is a purely commercial interest in its own right, whith its own financial interests and motivations to encourage companies' membership and participation, reference to the BBB's relationship with, or rating of, *any* company should be suspect from a neutrality and POV standpoint. The argument that Scjessey's support of DreamHost or his "affiliate" status, absent any demonstrable bias in the article, is a strawman. I agree with him that the BBB verbiage is inappropriate in the article, and as *that* seems to be the basis for your neutrality tag, I disagree that the tag is proper and have removed it. -- Rlparker 16:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

And what is your bias, Rlparker? Your only contribution at all to the encyclopedia was the edit you just made on DreamHost. anthony 17:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That looks rather like a personal attack to me. -- Scjessey 17:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

C'mon, it didn't take much searching to reveal that both you and rlparker are both admins of wiki.dreamhost.com. Pointing out that fact and questioning the bias of an editor doesn't seem to me to be a personal attack. anthony 17:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe I have a bias, though I'd be happy to entertain and/or consider any discussion of bias you would like to allege. You can allege "bias of an editor" all you want, but you have yet to indicate where you think bias is evident in the article. I And, yes, that edit *was* my first Wikipedia participation; every person who participates here has to have a "first edit". Unfortunately, it looks as though I chose mine to be one where some kind of emotional knee-jerk is in play. Your comment is without foundation, non-responsive to the discussion in which it was posted, and frankly, just childish. Given that, and the lack of logic you have evidenced in this whole POV/COI/neutralilty issue with this article, I can only assume you have some deeper agenda than the quality of the article and you are certainly entitled to that agenda; you are not, however, entitled to detract from the quallity of the article in furtherance of it. To simply tag the article COI in response to my removal of NPOV tag is less than productive and demonstrate an unwillingness opn your part to engage in serious dialog with those that disagree with you. I've already stated, as has Scjessey that it is the *article* that should be free of COI and should maintain NPOV. I cannot find any evidence of COI in the article and, therefore, would have reverted your adding of that tag had another editor not already done so. As a courtesy to a Wkipedia newbie who is trying to take seriously the social contract in play here, would you please respond in this talk page with some discussion or indication of where in the article you feel that COI or lack of NPOV is in evidence before re-adding either tag? BTW, thanks for the intelligent and productive welcome to WIkipedia! -- Rlparker 17:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, everyone has a first edit on Wikipedia, but that first edit is usually not to revert an edit for an associate who just ran up against the three revert rule. It's usually not to revert a neutrality dispute tag from an article on a subject of which you have a strong bias. It's usually not too say that you agree with someone who you already know and work together with on another site, a site which in fact is used to promote the very product which the article you're discussing is about. anthony 18:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess there is something to be said for being "unusual", though I continue to reject the premise that I have a "strong bias", or any bias at all, merely by virtue of the fact that I have an online acquaintance with someone I agree with; I also have online acquaintances with whom I disagree. You seem to have a misunderstanding about the nature of the DreamHost Wiki and Jessey and my association with it. The site does not exist to promote DreamHost, rather it serves as a community resource for DreamHost, and DreamHost users, to document the use of the service. I am not an employee of DreamHost, nor is Jessey. We are merely customers who are active on that community resource wiki and who serve that community with limited Sysop privileges on that wiki. -- Rlparker 19:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the reason I added the COI tag is because Jessey, who has substantially contributed to the article, may have a conflict of interest regarding its subject matter. anthony 18:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand that clearly enough, yet still fail to understand why you feel that is a valid position to take, absent any demonstrable effect of such alleged COI on the article other than the BBB issue (which I have already addressed and reject as being driven by any COI). -- Rlparker 19:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again I feel I must point out that you do not understand what the Wikipedia's guideline on Conflict of Interest actually is. As a customer of DreamHost, I am in a position to provide information about the company that a non-customer cannot. None of my contributions have been biased in favor of the company, which is properly represented in a neutral manner as the article stands. If I was to use my status to add a biased POV, I would be in breach of the guideline. I did not do this. That is why your COI tag is unwarranted.

Incidentally, I must ask why this is so important to you? As I understand it you are in Florida, correct? Why should you care what the Los Angeles Better Business Bureau thinks about any Los Angeles-based company? Do you have some history with DreamHost, or did you mysteriously stumble upon the article and then specifically seek a BBB report on it? Your actions indicate a clear personal agenda. -- Scjessey 18:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Being a customer of DreamHost is one thing. Running a website which "is basically the DreamHost Web Hosting manual" is another. Running an affiliate site which profits off getting people to subscribe to DreamHost is yet another. It was Jessey's overprotective behavior which first led me to suspect a conflict of interest. It was his affiliate site which sealed the deal in my mind.

I ran across this article when I was looking for information on DreamHost. I ran across the BBB report while doing a google search on the company. anthony 18:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is a guideline that suggests all corporation articles need a BBB link, I don't understand why this article would need one? (Disclosure: I am a customer, but I'm often unimpressed with the reliability (particularly of the mail servers). Though ya gets what ya pay for, and I'm on the cheapest plan.) --Quiddity 18:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

DreamHost in particular had a problem with the BBB, received an F rating, which was later raised to a B, and has been lowered to CCC in the last few days. I'm not sure if the link is relevant for all companies, but it is relevant for this one. anthony 18:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Any company that does not participate with the BBB in addressing BBB generated complaints will experience the same history. DreamHost has, at various times, both been a BBB member, and has not been a BBB member. Your attitude about the relevance of a company's BBB experience evidences a lack of appreciation of the nature of the BBB (as a profit-making organization with it's own business interests to protect and enhance)and a limited understanding of how BBB ratings are assigned (there is a lot of information on that at the BBB site). It is erroneous to assume that the BBB is an "authority" that is in any way objective in nature. Some consider the BBB, and it's marketing and publicity tactics, to be little more than thinly veiled attempts to extort membership and participation from businesses. For these considerations alone, BBB ratings are highly suspect by many. This only enhances the argument that BBB ratings should not be included in *any* "corporation article" unless, as a matter of policy, they are included in *all* corporation article. To do otherwise could be construed as unfairly maligning corporations that do not do business with the BBB, or have had sporadic business relationships with the BBB, and therefore have less favorable ratings from the BBB for problem resolution. -- Rlparker

No it isn't. The BBB rating was the result of an actual campaign by a handful of disgruntled customers, and has no bearing on the real credibility of the company itself.

Running a website which "is basically the DreamHost Web Hosting manual" is another. Running an affiliate site which profits off getting people to subscribe to DreamHost is yet another.

I'm not sure what you are referring to there. I am a customer who contributes to the DreamHost Wiki (I don't "run" it, although I was made a "sysop" of it to help weed out vandalism). I don't have any "affiliate site" of any kind. In any case, neither would affect my ability to edit Wikipedia impartially, as I have done on hundreds of articles. -- Scjessey 19:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't reporting on the credibility of the company itself, merely on the BBB rating. Do you deny that http://jessey.net/dreamhost/ is yours? You have made numerous positive comments regarding the hosting site all over the place. I'm sure you can edit Wikipedia impartially on hundreds of other articles, just not this particular article. anthony 19:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Er... that is a web page, not a website. Are you aware of the difference? It has nothing to do with my ability to be impartial on this article. As I said, some of the information on the article can only be provided by a customer. If you are going to report on the BBB rating, you might wish to consider how totally biased that organization is before you refer to one of their reports. Consider Better Business Bureau#Criticisms -- Scjessey 19:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Neither Jessey nor I "run" the DreamHost Wiki. It is operated by DreamHost, and we participate in its operation in the same way any wiki editor with sysop privileges participates in any other wiki. While I do not do so myself, I don't believe that the posting of an affiliate link on a site equates to "running an affiliate site". Personally, I do not utilize DH affiliate linking for reasons I have discussed at length on the DreamHost forums, but use of such links by an editor does not automatically make his edits tainted by COI or non-NPOV. The article should stand on its own merits, and I, and apparently others, believe this one does stand on it's own merits and is absent evidence of COI and respectful of NPOV. It is disingenuous, particularly in light of others comments on the subject, to assume and/or insist that the only reason anyone would feel the BBB reference should not be in the article is because of COI or to somehow extrapolate that into an argument concerning NPOV. You may ahve "sealed the deal" in your own mind, but you haven't articulated here how you felt the article was impacted improperly. -- Rlparker 19:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I haven't been clear enough on this. Let's look at some other questionable edits by Jessey. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. You say the link to the BBB is inappropriate because we don't link to the BBB for all companies. What about webhosting.info? Do we link to that for all webhosting sites? A link to a BBB site is perfectly appropriate and neutral. Dreamhost's current rating is actually a good rating, and it's up to the reader to weigh the importance of that rating. It certainly is significant, the BBB is one of the oldest and most respected sources for this sort of information in the United States. The criticisms section linked to doesn't even mention any concerns over the rating system. The entire Control Panel section of this article is original research and should be sourced from reliable sources or removed. The links Jessey added to websites where he is an administrator were added inappropriately. This article needs major attention and it should be tagged in a way to attract it. anthony 20:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, let's see here. Direct links to the company's own(ed) websites versus a completely irrelevant BBB link? Why is it irrelevant you ask? Well first, this wiki article in itself tells a reader about the basics of Dreamhost's services and provides links to the company's website(s) that would allow them to investigate the contents of the article in more detail if they were interested. The BBB link on the other hand is not referenced at ALL in the main article, making it irrelevant in that aspect, and further it doesn't add consistency to the rest of the article *if* there were even actual information regarding the link to DreamHost's BBB rating. While I will agree with you that the Webhosting.info links are quite similar to the BBB link in that they really add nothing useful to the article itself, I'd say the BBB link provides even less usable information in that, as Scjessey has already pointed out, the BBB ratings are entirely biased in consideration of the fact that the BBB doesn't provide for positive feedback, only negative and thus a company's rating is subjective. I really don't see point in further discussion on this topic unless someone not affiliated with both DreamHost and yourself can comment. And yes, I am likewise a DreamHost customer, though not nearly as long as Scjessey or Rlparker so perhaps I can provide slightly less "bias" in this discussion, but I'd really prefer to see someone outside of both comment to hopefully completely resolve this debate. Madmousee 20:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The BBB link on the other hand is not referenced at ALL in the main article Only because Jessey took out the references. I agree with you that there is not much more to say until someone unaffiliated with DreamHost and myself come in. That was actually my purpose in adding the neutral template. Frankly, I don't care that much about the link - my main problem is that various editors have managed to take everything out of this article which is remotely critical, and have left in things which are not sourced by reliable sources. anthony 00:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

All of those edits involved correcting inaccurate information and removing POV material from the article. These edits were performed in complete harmony with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I'm sorry that my efforts to make the article neutral and informative don't fit in with your clear personal agenda. And what kind of "attention" do you mean? It appears that you want to add criticism of DreamHost in an attempt to balance out some sort of perceived bias that doesn't really exist. Jimbo Wales himself wrote, "And I agree with the view expressed by others that often, [criticism sections] are a symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." The Control Panel section is not "original research". It is just brief description of fact that I only had a small part in writing. -- Scjessey 20:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and don't edit or move around other people's comments. That's a severe breach of Wikipedia guidelines. -- Scjessey 20:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

COI

Conflict of Interest tag removed, there is little, if any way for there to be a conflict of interest in this article, it contains only easily-verifiable facts and references. Arkiedragon 17:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that summary, except for the section on the "Control Panel", which needs sourcing (of notability) or removal. --Quiddity 18:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The panel is notable for being proprietary, and not cPanel like everyone else uses. It is not possible to cite the information because only customers can access the panel. -- Scjessey 21:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not possible to cite the information because only customers can access the panel. If someone wrote about the panel in a reliable source, then you can cite that. If not, then I don't think it should be included, precisely because only customers can access the panel. anthony

There is a page in their site describing the panel. *Dan T.* 01:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

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: [8] 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 [[9]], 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. [[10]]. 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." [[11]] [[12]]

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." [[13]] [[14]]" 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)

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)

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 [[15]] 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

File:DreamHostPanelSupport.png

"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 [[16]] 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 [[17]], 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)

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.