Talk:DreamHost/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Easter 2007 Denial of Service Attack

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archived semi-protection

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

---

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

Talk page semi-protection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Undo Talkpage protection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Informal mediation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"It was only an hour."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Scjessey about off-wiki activity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article Deletion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protection expired

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Informal mediation (continued)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete Control Panel Sentence

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alternative text proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

auto archiving redux

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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