Talk:DreamHost/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Debian and other facts that may be disputed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sage Weil-only reference, Proposed Deletion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

in these parts, calling people "ignorant"[[1]] and "senseless" is a personal attack. i suggest you strike through that nonsense and try to cooperate with the consensus a lot better. Theserialcomma (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

auto archiving

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent edits by new editor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i don't see any violation of NPOV, just a misinterpretation of the rules. we are using reliable sources, and we are wording it neutrally, so it doesn't matter if the entire article appears to be negative, positive, or neither, as long as we use reliable sources and write about it neutrally. as for the original research that states no telephone support is available, you previously argued for the inclusion and reliability of zdnet's site [[2]] which states "...Dreamhost shows nothing but a fax number in the most obvious places on it’s Web site (even after making email contact with the company’s public relations officer, I was refused a phone call". and about that zdnet blog and article in particular, you wrote "The ZDNet blog isn't some idle gossip column. It is a highly-respectable tech blog. It is still considered to be a reliable source, just as blogs at CNN, MSNBC, Newsweek and The Washington Post are. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)" Theserialcomma (talk) 05:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Another 2008 Typing Error

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Telephone support

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

since i think we all fundamentally agree that dreamhost provides limited telephone support i.e. while there is no way of easily contacting them directly, they do offer a callback service, either for free, or for an added fee, depending on your plan. perhaps this source [[3]] 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 [[4]], 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)