Talk:DreamHost/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Magazine

I have tagged this page as it uses peacock terms such as, but not limited to; DreamHost hosts over 540,000 domain names (16th-ranked web host in the world, 12th-ranked web host in the United States) and DreamHost is notable for being unusually transparent about its business practices. I think the article needs a general proof read to remove the peacock terms - Wardhog 19:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the unwarranted tag. The information about the number of domains hosted is completely consistent with articles on other hosting companies. Furthermore, it is because of DreamHost's weird transparency that the company is notable, and thus warrants the article in the first place. You have made many edits to the DreamHost article, and none of them have added value to it. -- Scjessey 19:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not want to remove anything from this article. I was simply saying that some of it needs to be rephrased - Wardhog 15:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

non-censorship policy

I added the following which was subsequently reverted:

__________________

For instance, DreamHost hosts a websight called "redwatch" which publishes names, addresses, photos and other personal data of human rights activists in order to encourage violent attacks against them. According to Indymedia.org, on May 16 2006, an antifascist activist was followed, attacked and nearly killed in Warsaw after his personal data appeared on this sight.

Consequently, a post on the DreamHost forum, from "the main person who handles these sorts of issues", states:

"... we have a long and cooperative relationship with law enforcement. Upon receiving complaints regarding the legality of a given site we investigate it internally, calling upon law enforcement in situations where we feel that it is warranted. The nature of such investigations is such that we are often unable to comment on their status or provide details on what is going on behind the scenes.

As for this case in particular, I can only say this: We're aware of the site, and of the concerns and facts surrounding the recent incidents in Poland. If any of you can provide us with additional information that could be of use, please don't hesitate to let us know. Beyond that, though, I'm afraid that we cannot comment on this matter any further."

__________________

The reason given is "Revert, the specific sites DreamHost hosts (as mentioned before, over 260,000 domains) are not subject for this article".

So, which article is the relevant place for this information ? Surely there should be a link to the relevant place ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Heysan (talk • contribs) .

Apologies. I'd meant to note that it might fit better in the Redwatch article. Of course, others there may disagree — I can't say for sure. jareha ^(comments) 18:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The information is better suited to the Redwatch article, although I'd argue it is ludicrous to single-out DreamHost for specific mention. There are thousands of web hosts, many more popular and well-known, that host material that is similar to this. -- Scjessey 19:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I certainly did not mean to single out DreamHost as a particular offender. But I think it is better if there is some mention of the fact that a non-cencorship policy of this sort has possibly directly facilitated a violent crime.--Heysan 20:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, and also I think your argument makes no sense at all. Should the Wikipedia mention that AT&T/Verizon/Cingular/whatever have possibly directly facilitated a violent crime because the alleged perpetrators have used telephones to communicate with each other? What about GM/Ford/Chrysler/VW/whatever for building the vehicles that allow perpetrators to travel to the locations where the crimes are committed? What about the internet service providers? Should they be mentioned because they failed to block access to the website in question? In all seriousness, the involvement (if it can even be called that) of DreamHost in the activities of Redwatch is completely irrelevant, and not worthy of mention in this (or any) Wikipedia article. -- Scjessey 21:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Scjessey. A pen can be a tool to write with; it can also be used to jab someone in the eye. Does that, therefore, mean we should discuss the pitfalls of pen manufacturing on the BIC Corp. article? jareha ^(comments) 21:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the content because it is more pertinent to the debate of freedom of speech on the internet than it is to DreamHost. jareha ^(comments) 21:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think your examples of the pens, vehicles, and telephones are not comparable to the current situation. The fact is that DreamHost itself will block an illegal site -- infact, as I quoted before, they will, "Upon receiving complaints regarding the legality of a given site ... investigate it internally, calling upon law enforcement in situations where we feel that it is warranted", a responsible position to be sure; while pen, vehicle and telephone manufacturers do not nead to take such a position. Why is that ? I think it is because, unlike your examples, DreamHost is in a position where the legality of the sites it hosts might come into question.

For the sake of this argument, lets assume that DreamHost is advised to block the site because it violates their own policy prohibiting illegal sites. Then is it worth pointing out that in the interim, they hosted a site which facilitated a violent crime ? Now, from your comments, I assume you find the phrase 'facilitated a violent crime' too broad to be reasonably applied, but my point is that why else is DreamHost legally obliged to remove the content ? That is, to test whether a party 'facilitated a violent crime', or (the clunkier) 'possibly directly facilitated a violent crime' seems simple: are they legally obliged to take responsibility for their action (of hosting the site)? If they are legally obliged, then I would say that they did, in this case, facilitate a violent crime.

I have a related query: the article previously stated that "There is, for example, no barrier to "adult" sites, or sites that state extremist views." I changed this to "For instance, they do not allow the hosting of child pornography or death threats. On the other hand, for example, there is no barrier to "adult" sites, or sites that state extremist views." Why was this reverted ? At least there should be a link, under the heading non-cencorship policy, to an article discussing the meaning, consequences, and debate of such a policy.--Heysan 00:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the protocol at his point ? Do I add to the article my suggested link, or wait for some sort of consensus from those involved in this discussion ? --Heysan 16:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There is already a consensus that your proposed additions are inappropriate. In fact, I think the "Non-Censorship Policy" section should be removed as well. -- Scjessey 16:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think what we have now is a fair compromise, Scjessey — no need to remove the "non-censorship policy" section. jareha ^(comments) 18:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did expect a response to my last comments -- its a bit disingenuous to stop a discussion midway. --Heysan 17:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't responded because I'm sure neither of us will budge on our opinions. I've said my piece, you've said yours. I disagree with your opinion, but you're free to hold it.

Also, I didn't notice you'd requested to add a link. How about linking censorship? jareha ^(comments) 18:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

How about freedom of speech on the internet as someone suggested earlier ?--Heysan 19:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I suggested that link earlier. Works for me. jareha ^(comments) 20:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Some changes

Just made some edits to the article to clean it up.

• removed redundant text about being an ICANN-accredited domain name registrar
• cut out non-sourced description of control panel
• removed link to staff blog which seems to be unrelated to company other than being made by staff
• removed description of discussion forum which seemed to be inaccurate and poorly worded
• removed link to unofficial dreamhost blog - there are hundreds of blogs discussing dreamhost and no apparent reason this one gets a link
• consolodated into one section - having multiple sections for one or two sentences and a TOC was overkill
• other minor rewording (fixed a run-on sentence, etc.)

anthony 15:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

I have performed a significant rewrite of the article.

• Added more information about some of the notable aspects of the company
• Restored some of the important information deleted without consensus
• Restored link to staff blog due to reference in Notoriety section
• Split up text into logical sections - necessary following the addition of new information
• Tidied up the (now longer) references section with refs template
• Restored screenshot thumbnail that had been removed without consensus

The new version of the article mirrors the style used by articles for similar companies in related businesses. -- Scjessey 17:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The edits of Wardhog

I placed this on Wardhog's talk page, which was immediately deleted, after reverting and edit where an entire section was deleted without discussion:

I have reverted your recent edit to DreamHost. You deleted an entire (and significant) section without first discussing it on the talk page and seeking a consensus for the change. The paragraph you removed refers to the company's "disastrous power outage", so calling it "advertising" is illogical. You will find all sections of the article are properly cited. -- Scjessey 20:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Wardhog immediately, and without offering any rationale, reinserted a NPOV tag. This I also reverted. -- Scjessey 20:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Change

This article has too many short chapters. I think it should be reviewed. Have a look at this - Pheonix 21:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Reliability

I'm seeing a lot of comments from two extremes, some saying that Dreamhost is very good and reliable, and others saying that it's crap. IMHO, if a hosting provider has an article here on the Wikipedia, readers should be able to get the real story. As it stands, what is the final word here: is Dreamhost a good, reliable host or not? How does it compare to say, Siteground? Bill Jacobs 11:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not for Wikipedia to pass judgment or give opinions on anything, let alone on a service like this. Wikipedia must present only verifiable facts in a neutral point-of-view, which this article does. -- Scjessey 15:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, then what makes this particular host notable enough for a Wikipedia entry? As it stands, the fact that an entry exists when none exist for most providers out there (including some of the oldest), makes it appear that this host is one of the very best. How many other web hosts have an article here? Bill Jacobs 16:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The notability of DreamHost is discussed in the article. The unusual transparency and large customer base makes the company noteworthy enough for an article. The article does not make DreamHost "appear one of the very best" at all. Many other notable web hosts have articles, including GoDaddy, Yahoo, Network Solutions, eNom, Register.com, etc. -- Scjessey 16:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability is established by what the company does, not by their customer service track or reliability. GreenJoe 18:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I hate to be one of those guys, but I have an overriding suspicion that some of the folks here are involved with DreamHost in some way, whether as employees or customers. I have to tell you, I've been finding a lot of bad reviews of DreamHost and nothing has been posted here about concerning such incredible negativity. As my original post states, people seem to either love or hate this host, *but* the more I search the more negative I'm finding than positive. Bill Jacobs 20:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

How you "feel" about the article, or the company, is not really relevant. As I have stated before, the article is about a notable web hosting company. All information in the article is verified and cited, and presented with a neutral point-of-view. Incidentally, you are always going to find more negative publicity than positive publicity. That is the nature of publicity. -- Scjessey 21:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Please try to assume good faith, and check out the notability guidelines. Scjessey is right. Bad publicity generates more bad publicity. GreenJoe 21:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Dreamhost's reliability sucks, but until that fact is brought to light by independent verifiable sources, you can't really put it in the article. --Neurophyre^(talk) 20:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

referral system

Is there a reason behind why nothing about their referral system is mentioned? It's a fairly unique and successful strategy that's helped them a lot on the way, its way of bringing advertising for Dreamhost to the grassroots of the internet is quite notable if you ask me. EditorInTheRye 23:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please leave personal attacks at the door. Thank you. J 04:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Only positive content allowed?

How come that GreenJoe keeps removing factual negative information about the company that can save many of its customers from being ripped off and then slaps me with a warning? To me it looks like GreenJoe is being paid to do so. This appears to be strange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamripoff (talk • contribs) 04:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

1. It violates our neutrality policy.

2. You fail to cite sources. J 04:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the source http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=598172. It was properly cited as #14 in the list. Neutrality and positivity are difference things. I simply state the fact that they have one thing written in their marketing and help wiki and the other in fine print in Terms and Conditions. You can see it is a far from isolated case if you bother to check the reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamripoff (talk • contribs)

The problem is, sources must be reliable, and web forums are not reliable. —C.Fred (talk) 04:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Specific Editor Potential Conflict of Interest

Suggestions of potential bias have already been made. This is to add additional specific details. Contrary to Meat Puppet recruiting prohibitions, Scjessey did exactly that. Rlparker's limited appearance here may have been a result.

http://discussion.dreamhost.com/showthreaded.pl?Cat=0&Board=forum_offtopic&Number=44424

In my opinion, a review of this page editing history shows a systematic bias. As receiver of financial benefits from DreamHost's rewards program and an Administrator of DreamHost's wiki, Scjessey should recuse himself from further editing of this page. Guantanamo247 06:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

All Dreamhost customers are (at least potentially) able to receive benefits from Dreamhost's rewards program. Do you really want to restrict all of them from editing, which would exclude most people with knowledge and familiarity with the subject? *Dan T.* 13:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Rewards participation or other financial ties to Dreamhost success is one consideration. If they also actively recruit voters contrary to guidelines, are appointed to an authority position in a Dreamhost operation like Administrator of their wiki, and demonstrate systematic bias in editing, then they should probably also recuse themselves due to COI. Guantanamo247 13:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You have created a new user name so that you can conduct a personal vendetta against me. Very Wikipedian of you. You are seeing conflicts of interest and conspiracies where none exist. -- Scjessey 13:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The financial rewards for Dreamhost customers (I'm one myself) come only when people follow an affiliate-coded link or enter an affiliate offer code tied to that particular user. As long as we're vigilant to keep out attempted spam of these things into the article, nobody will profit from it. *Dan T.* 14:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Dan, Please consider the examples: Financial interests, Promotion, Close Relationships, and Campaigning. Affiliate links or codes are simple and blatant. This regards a more broad systematic COI influencing this article. A specific example. We all know 500,000 domains is not the same as 500,000 FTP accounts; there were probably much fewer than 50,000 FTP accounts. Yet the article says "less than 1%" of accounts were compromised, when it could have been "nearly 10%," or not imply 500,000 FTP accounts. Scjessey, please don't change the title again of my comment. Guantanamo247 14:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The facts are these:

1. I have no financial interest in DreamHost other than small earnings from being an affiliate, along with tens of thousands of other customers. You will not find any example of my affiliate code anywhere except on my own website, and on the DreamHost forum.
2. I have no "close relationship" with DreamHost. I agreed to be a sysop of their wiki to help purge it of spam and vandalism, and to try to improve the quality of articles.
3. The "specific example" you refer to is a cited quote from DreamHost, and has nothing to do with me.

Finally, please do not use my user name in a page heading. This is not an acceptable Wikipedia practice and it is clearly an example of a personal attack. -- Scjessey 18:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The COI factors are a matter of degree and judgment. It is good for you to disclose your extensive posting of affiliate codes and links. Fact - you are an active Dreamhost promoter, for reasons including financial rewards. Fact - Of thousands of customers, you are one of 2 now acting on behalf of Dreamhost as Administrators of their wiki. Relative to most customers or wikipedia editors, this is a very close relationship. Fact - the quote has to do with your editing because you added it; referencing company news releases should not prevent one from using common sense. Guantanamo247 18:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "Scjessey did exactly that. Rlparker's limited appearance here may have been a result." - Well if Scjessey was recruiting meatpuppets with that forum post, it doesn't appear to have been very effective. I don't remember having even seen that (though I probably did, as I do hang put on that forum quite a lot).

That post was most certainly not what prompted me to post on this talk page, and I think that is pretty clearly evidenced by the fact that it was made over a year prior to my posting (14 months or so?). I stand by my earlier comments on this page regarding COI, and am still waiting for someone to point out any demonstrated bias in the *contents of the article* as opposed to simply taking personal issue with Scjessey -- Rlparker 19:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The Meat Puppet policy says, "It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate." Advertising this article to solicit support was explicitly done by Scjessey before, he just did similar implicit advertising in a posting again. And here you are again.

I gave a specific bias example above, regarding minimizing the significance of 3500 compromised accounts. For more details, First, Scjessey attempted deletion of the discussion criticising the panel, but that was objected to by another editor. Coincidentally (?), this occurred around the same time Michael-co-owner of DreamHost posted, "I noticed that the wikipedia article for dreamhost refers to our panel pretty negatively." This has the appearance of doing the owner's bidding, and COI. Subsequently, Scjessey moved the criticism to the end (less prominent), and added "(less than 1%)", based on faulty logic as I explained above.

Many more examples of biasing the article are available.

As for more general bias in the article, without identifying particular editors responsible, this article reads like an advertisement. 9 of 16 "Reference" links are in essence Dreamhost press releases (links to Dreamhost controlled sites). 5 of 5 "external links" are to Dreamhost sites. Guantanamo247 01:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Your arguments are based on a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. It is perfectly legitimate to refer to press releases for confirmation of offered services, and these services are presented in a descriptive and non-biased way. Your "evidence" of biased edits are just examples of where I have removed POV text from the article, in full accordance with W:NPOV. I take offense at your suggestion that I "do DreamHost's bidding", when all I am trying to do is maintain article accuracy and a neutral point of view. As I have said before, your accusations are baseless and obviously predicated on some sort of personal dislike for me. I shall not offer any further comment on this matter. -- Scjessey 12:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

COI in your edits in this article was previously suspected and questioned by others. I am aware enough of Wikipedia's problems with biased information in general, and editing history of this article in particular to bring new details for open consideration: repeated solicitation of support in Dreamhost's forums, and appearance of acting directly on the suggestion of Dreamhost owners - almost as their surrogate. The suggestion (recuse yourself, or at least take a less active role) is on the table. Let your ethics be your guide. Guantanamo247 18:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

My conscience is clean. -- Scjessey 18:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

2008 Billing issue

Everyone knows that this is a heated issue with customers of Dreamhost. Naturally, it should be documented, but you shouldn't attempt to spin the article with words that invoke emotions or scorn ("half-naked Josh"?). Let's keep it to the facts of the issue and not try to cast Dreamhost in a bad light by throwing in how many customers have reportedly lost money. Crazed Ewok | Talk 20:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The number of customers who have lost money seems like a verifiable, objective fact to me. If the facts cast Dreamhost in a bad light, isn't that just a side effect of the *truth*? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.231.28.58 (talk) 15:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Wtroopwept keeps adding uncited and undocumented original research regarding this billing issue, in violation of policy WP:NOR, and guidelines WP:WEASEL and WP:CITE, and essay WP:RECENTISM. The last edit adds a source which doesn't really support User:Wtroopwept's edits. I would argue that the entire section, and indeed the section on the 2007 FTP issues are not notable enough for the article in any case. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I'm unsure in this case. While Wikipedia is not a forum, Wikipedia is also censored. If we look at the Go Daddy article, it has very similar material in it. While we shouldn't compare to other stuff, I'd say it probably merits inclusion. It was a major blunder with major media coverage. GreenJoe 19:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "major media coverage", and this sort of issue is fairly common. Needless to say, my issue with the recent edits revolves around a change of emphasis from reporting the event to characterizing the event by deleting relevant information. Words in the section like "most" and "some" appear to violate WP:WEASEL, with a blog being used as a reference to back them up. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree with you on that. We don't want any weasel words, and certainly blogs are not a reliable source. GreenJoe 19:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(1) The material in my first edit was cited and documented and was not original research. (2) Any weasel wording was changed in my second edit. (3) Any issues of recentism stem from the fact that the event in question happened recently, not from over-emphasis. (4) That the event was the subject of coverage in several media outlets makes it clear to me that the event is notable. Even if this sort of issue is fairly common, this particular incident happened to get picked up in the media. (5) My edits added relevant information to the article; other recent reversions deleted relevant information from the article. (6) If blogs are going to be an unacceptable source for this article, we need to take a look at the material supported by citations 4, 8, 11 and 17, all of which appear to be blogs. Thanks and cheers. Wtroopwept (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, those references do need to be replaced. GreenJoe 21:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the need to change those references. One of the blog references is from the well-respected ZDNet site, and the others are from Josh Jones (DreamHost blog) himself, and are referred to in the article directly because they are the only reliable source available. It seems to me that it is more likely that Wtroopwept has personally suffered from this billing issue (or knows someone who has), and wants to make point. Please understand that the article in its current form reflects the company in a very negative light, which is in no way a reasonable depiction of the overall service the company provides. The issues described may have some historical relevance, but they are certainly too minor to warrant dedicated 2nd-level sections. And weasel words still exist: "Most users" is referenced by a piece in the Register that does not even contain the word "most". I recommend a complete re-write of the two issue sections. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

So find the article from ZDnet and reference it directly. He's right. Blogs fail WP:RS. You can't pick and choose which blogs you use to suit your needs. I agree, it does need a re-write. GreenJoe 00:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral third party view

I have been asked to come and look at this article and talk page as a neutral third party editor. I take no position concerning the article content, but wish to remind editors who consistently contribute to it that Wikipedia works under WP:CONSENSUS and any contentious edits should be discussed on this talk page to reach it. Article should maintain a WP:NPOV which in parts allows for inclusion of opposing views, that are WP:RELIABLE sourced, but also takes in account WP:UNDUE. After reading the entire talk page, I would also remind editors of WP:OWN and suggest that they allow other editors to make WP:AGF edits and not immediately revert/undo the edit, unless Wikipedia:Vandalism, without first discussing it on the talk page. As suggested in the WP:OWN policy, "If you find yourself warring with other contributors over deletions, reversions, and so on, why not take some time off from the editing process? Taking yourself out of the equation can cool things off considerably. Take a fresh look a week or two later." One last point: Established editors, please try and avoid WP:BITE and maintain WP:CIVIL whether here or on user talk pages. Having said all this, I wish you all happy editing.--«JavierMC»|Talk 02:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for saying so Javier. There is so much conflict of interest here and status quo is easily defended by slick and experiences editors. It's turned out that the people with the most financial interest to gain are the most dedicated to this page. I practically wrote a dissertation about it and I'm reviewing the guidelines to make sure this is the most appropriate place to put it. I want to mention that it's obvious the goal of 'neutrality' has not been met here. Experienced editors are using Wiki-speak to dismiss relevant edits with this company. Education is not happening. I will write more about my POV when I get it consolidated and I hope you have the opportunity to review it.Spiney deluxe (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What conflict of interest are you referring to? If you examine my edits, you will find that I have been removing promotional codes by unscrupulous DreamHost referral seekers who are looking to make a fast buck. Considering the various sources you have proffered thus far, it is not inconceivable that you might be a former customer with an axe to grind. My only concern is that the article adheres to a neutral point of view, does not resort to blogs for sources, and does not misrepresent the subject with a weighty description of negative (but unremarkable) event. It would seem from your contributions that your sole interest in this article is to document this negative event, perhaps seeking to influence this article to support a personal point of view. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Funny, I didnt even mention your name and you come leaping in defensively. Oh Jesse, you're like a broken record. This whole page is like a broken record. I've been through all of these posts, all of these guidelines, even found your website. I've done it all to the most exacting degree of research I could and I've found it all. But, don't worry, I am like the rest. I have too much of a life to devote it to fighting you so that this article is more accurate and revealing about Dreamhost. Anyhow, I will leave you alone for good after my following post, mostly as a reply to many of your comments above- at least all I could get through. You can continue to pursue your agenda free from at least my interference. Spiney deluxe (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I see many many many people have written about this common experience with Dreamhost, almost like a petition, all over the Internet. A 5 minute google search surfaces thousands of people shocked and on an endless search to find in the end that there is no phone number. One person is even offering a reward for the phone number. Practically all of these people were incensed enough and found it important enough to post about it, create their own websites about, review and rave about it. Godaddy, Earthlink, One and One, Hostmonster, Bluehost, Inmotion Hosting, FastDomain, Webhostingpad, Host Gator, Yahoo- all of these are right up on google- seach web hosting, these come up first and all have phone numbers.

Most of this reply is to scjessey's comments. scjessey, yes, do a search for Dreamhost sucks and you get a similar 1st page on google as if you search Godaddy sucks. You know what? You get the same thing if you search Wikipedia sucks. If you search Dreamhost phone number, you get a special collection of thousands of people suffering acutely for the phone number problem. These other hosts you mention without phone numbers might not have phone numbers, but maybe they have their acts together better with their non-phone number support. Maybe they do better to calm their customers down, and maybe they know how to advertise better so they only get more technically savvy customers, who knows (if they even exist), but the reaction to Dreamhost is unique and profound, and they way you dismiss everybody on here who tries to make an edit is because of your myopic view.

If there is a small number of people in a community suffering an unusual fate, we hear about it. How about the millennium suicide cult wearing nike sneakers to ride the comet through a ring of stars. Or Wako. We know all those details about a miniscule amount of our population and we know the details intimately. Let's give the details about Dreamhost rather than revert them. This way, we can educate people exactly what differentiates Dreamhost's uniquely frustrating breed of poor customer service from other service providers and how it fuels a spirit of revenge against Dreamhost.

Your POV is tech oriented. You speak of Dreamhost's hosting plans as if you'd written them yourself, and you speak of the depth of experience you've had with hosting companies. Most people haven't had that sort of experience. Do you think an expert in doing business with these companies, like yourself, has anticipated what the person without all that experience needs to know from Wikipedia?

This is after all a company with little kids on the home page, you can't expect every dreamhost customer to have the same technical background as you do and just know off the bat that they can't access a company directly by phone and I doubt it would occur to the average programmer, until they had a problem with it. They would benefit to know ahead of time that Dreamhost only commits as far as a 24 hour response on email request, which although is advertised as guaranteed, offers no assurance.

In fact, their marketing could be attracting a client base that expects more support, or wouldn't think that there is any other kind of support aside from a phone number. These customers will realize they need support before they know they can't reach Dreamhost directly by phone. The thousands of people that I can see in just 5 minutes on a google search would have benefited from understanding the Dreamhost system better, and it's past, and present, and they should be able to find that information here.

Omission is bias. You call a toy store and ask if they have a red toy. They confirm they do, you ask to have it gift wrapped, and you go pick it up. On your kid's birthday, your kid opens it, starts crying, all hell breaks loose because the toy is broken. You call the store and ask how they can sell you a broken toy? And they respond something like, ah, well nowadays this is what people do. They buy broken toys to save money and fix it themselves because everybody knows how to fix toys nowadays. You didn't ask if this toy was unbroken, you just needed it gift wrapped, don't you know people fix toys themselves nowadays? When you explain Dreamhosts phone number problem that's how it sounds to me.

The general You expects a company that You are contracting to support You in the manner of the general common experience. Many people still use the phone to call their electric company, ISP/cable company, banks, etc. Maybe given your extensive (unreferenced) research and the depth of experience you have with Dreamhost, you have found that there are other hosts that conduct business similarly to Dreamhost. You are going out looking for them with the sole objective to find these companies without phone numbers. The average non-tech person doesn't anticipate the experience they will have when they need support from Dreamhost and they can't get it in the manner they expect. This would be an excellent place for them to make that discovery about Dreamhost.

You mention above that Dreamhost is typical/normal. However, you also mention, "Furthermore, it is because of DreamHost's weird transparency that the company is notable..." and then go on to section off what is usual and unusual as needed to respond to various challenges. Ugh. Well, the problem with their wacky call-back phone support system that doesn't work and leaves people going out of their minds is the "weird" part of Dreamhost and is certainly noteworthy. But, it is obviously a confusing issue about what is and isn't normal about Dreamhost. We should define it, good and bad.

The facts are that Dreamhosts unique combination of technology to service their customers results in a frustration and antagonization, which is significant enough to describe as impacting a negative result. That's not even a negative statement. It's not bias. A reference to the crusading ferver that this frustration causes in their x-customers is phenomenal and should not be reverted.

If a company drives their customers up the wall and we can attribute it to a specific problem, it's noteworthy. Didn't we hear about the new terminal at Heathrow shutting down because of baggage problems? And all the airlines within suffered and had to shut down their business. That's the same for the people running their businesses on Dreamhost servers. Regarding Heathrow, we would still be hearing about it today if the problem still existed. If it happens again, it will make the news again. There is still a problem with the system of Dreamhost. I say it's a problem because it repeatedly screws up their business and their customers and there is plenty published about it.

The Billing Issue of this article, with your edits, read smoothly, but the contradiction of impact between the last line, "This was corrected the next day" and "which lead their websites to go down," nicely fitted inbetween, "which DreamHost covered to offer" is shockingly superficializing. The impact of this issue on the customers was not resolved the next day. The technical problem may have been fixed the next day, but not the lives or businesses that were effected because of it. Further, Dreamhost offered to cover a few overdraft charges? Thanks for the $30, but how about getting my my non-tech client back who couldn't believe that I would use a company without a phone number? That exists out there too, I saw the edit where someone added quotes and tried to make that clear, whoosh- gone in 30 seconds or less followed by some non-sense follow up by the slick editor to go take your edit and shove it essentially. There is opportunity to reform this twisted article in a meaningful way as so many have tried but been reverted.

So much of this argument is about people's intention to support or bash Dreamhost. With the smallest bit of research, I found that you, the defender of neutrality, consistent reverter of this page has the same handle as a DH DreamMaster! at dreamhost.com. scjessey promo Also, there is a league of promotional offers with a kickback for the same handle to sign up at Dreamhost. I'd like to point this out a contradiction to your neutrality to Anthony and the league of others above. And certainly, the same can be said about this web site, of similar resemblance to your handle and offering a battalion of promotional offers for Dreamhost: http://jessey.net/

and where you have your own articles written in the way you want with your personal point of view about Dreamhost's issues. It's absurd that you would mention just in your last post about Dreamhost referral seekers, while you and someone with the exact same handle share.

While this might seem like a personal attack, I have no idea who you are. I don't care. It just has to be called out in the most obvious way possible how thinly veiled your claims to neutrality are. It's like dealing with Donald Rumsfeld.

Have you ever heard a disclaimer for participating in a focus group? It reads something like, 'have you or any members of your family ever worked for a company in any of the following industries?' And then goes on to disqualify you if you've been even near the industry giving the promotion. How about a simpler example. Given your interests in Dreamhost, do you think a court of law would allow you to be selected as a juror? They may not me either given my negative experience with dreamhost, but as I'm not being financially endorsed by the company in any way whatsoever, I could serve as a witness to the negative experience. Removing negative edits ≠ neutrality. Neutral does not mean no information that speaks badly of a company, or else there wouldn't be any there at all. Right now, there is a significant cracking in your dam from the ever increasing pressure on your claim of neutrality.

I've tried an edit or two on this page, so have many others and what happens? We all get fleeced by a team of seasoned Wiki editors who at least one of which have the time, resiliency and financial interests to keep any tied up arguing this point. It's pointless to try to edit this article except in it's favor to Dreamhost. Jessey, you are foxholed as judge and jury administering this page. THAT is entirely against Wikipedia ethos, but you have managed for the most part to beat the system with just a slap on the wrist here and there. I should have taken your original advice when you were playing nice with me, which was to go get some experience making small edits somewhere before taking on the big boys or something like that. Had I know how well developed your rhetoric and expertise, and how important it is to be seasoned with Wiki in general to enact your will here, I certainly wouldn't have gotten wrapped up in it. To anybody who has gotten this far, take my advice don't bother, they will outlast you- just look at the history and how long they've fended everybody off...

It's easy to point at something and say that's negative- much easier than pinpointing the bias of a smoothly written entry through omission and strategy of cushioning negative information that was already there, while at the same time, pull back for a second and it's blatantly obvious. Starting with the billing issue, the article doesn't need an edit. It need's a rewrite.

The funniest thing is, this article as it reads makes Dreamhost sound entirely crooked. Do you really think that an article sculpted like this, with such obvious deviation away from anything negative paints Dreamhost as authentic? At least your approach to being unbiased has an implied ambience of deception that is obvious in the article.

Lastly, I read through all the quibber in this discussion page. It's ridiculous. I can only image that the Dreamhost referral business must be through the roof for such talented lobbyists and filibusterers to be here devoting so much time to it. Perhaps I should switch to the other side, it's MUCH easier to play defense here on Wiki anyhow. Spiney deluxe (talk) 06:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Your reasoning is flawed, your understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines in inadequate and your comments directed at me (rather than the subject) are inappropriate. I am just a DreamHost customer, and as such I have a good understanding of their systems and can write with expert knowledge. I do have a "referral account" but I do not publish it anywhere except my personal website, which is not a conflict of interest. Everything you are trying to add is based on the views of disgruntled and/or former customers, which is completely biased. Please don't use talk pages to lecture other editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would I try to add anything- why would I bother? It will just be reverted no matter what it says if you don't think it is angled suitably enough to favor Dreamhost. My comments are directed to you because you are a self appointed unrelenting dreamhost patriot admin defender of this page, who self admittedly directly benefits from Dreamhost's profitability. I specifically address a series of your reasonings on this page. If this sounds like a lecture to you, it's probably because you're expecting one. Your lack of neutrality is evidenced merely with a read through of this page and your activity editing it.Spiney deluxe (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Again you are mistaken. I do not benefit from DreamHost's profitability in any way. I benefit if someone uses my referral ID to sign up for the service, but this is no different from if someone buys a book through Amazon through one of my Amazon referral links. Are you suggesting I should not be editing the Amazon.com subject? I get electricity from PECO, and cable from Comcast. Should I avoid those articles too? I breathe air. Is air out of bounds? You are trying to push a negative agenda, instead of adhering to a neutral editing policy. Don't try to frame it any other way because your actions are completely transparent. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality is in question on this article. In the section Dreamhost#Transparency, the first reference([1]) is an opinion piece provided by a blogger and should be worded accordingly "In the opinion of David Berlind at ZDNet..." and the second references' ([2]),(ranked 91949, ^{retrieved 2008-09-20}), dubious "popular blog" wording, could be ascribed to the fact that there is no direct phone contact for customer service, but a call back system which waits on the pleasure of Dreamhost, not its customers. There is too much undue weight given to this issue in Dreamhost favor, without referencing the lack of phone support, which is a big issue for customers. My initial review and comments above were based on the talk page only, but having read the discussion under this section of the talk, leads me to believe there is a possible WP:COI and an even more unsettling WP:OWN tendency. If such continues, I will bring this article to WP:EAR for comment and if necessary, admin review. Neutrality is a cornerstone policy of Wikipedia, and must be maintained in all articles. I have tagged the article to address these issues, and their removal needs to be discussed on this talk page until consensus is reached.--«JavierMC»|Talk 21:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank heavens- a voice of reason like a beacon of light in this quagmire of lobbying. I hope someone else can make the appropriate edits on this page. Maybe I can attempt it again in a few weeks, but I realize how carefully I would have to do that and I'm not sure I have enough strategic experience to get through it, which seems unfortunate, but necessary. Anyhow, thanks very much for the post. Truly I feel relieved to hear your opinion as I didn't know the WIki system well enough to know there was anybody else who would listen and it seemed hopeless. To you Jessey. You're reasoning can't be as superficial as it's been just to brush off edits and get your way. If and when we decide to work out a consensus about editing, I'm asking you ahead of time for your comments to actually be constructive rather than defensive/dismissive. If not, this horrible battle wages on if I have to sit here and untangle and expose your shallow reasoning. Please note Javier's comments. He mentions 'an even more unsettling WP:OWN tendency.' As I too have mentioned repeatedly, this is the most disturbing behavior on this page as it is paramountly antithetical to Wiki policies. And you don't have to have much experience as an editor to get the sense of how you've violated that and how strategically you smoke screen away from it criticizing anybody else's practices. Let's exterminate your WP:OWN tendency and build up from there.Spiney deluxe (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me be clear about this right now. The suggestion of me attempting to own the article is preposterous. The lack of edits by other Wikipedians is what makes it look like I'm doing most of the editing. The facts are clear - most of the editors of this article are "first-timers" who come here to deliberately write negative commentary, usually based on poor referencing (or just blatant original research) because they have personally experienced problems as DreamHost customers. There are also a large number of edits by customers seeking to generate revenue with referral IDs or promotional codes. I have this page watchlisted to "patrol" it for this problem editors, and that's about it. Your comments about "disturbing behavior" are patently absurd. If you have a problem with my approach, I urge you to bring it up with administrators by filing a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Instead, however, you will be far better served by viewing my extensive editing record across hundreds of articles - you will see for yourself that I am a neutral and diligent Wikipedian. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Who are you addressing Jessey? The other administrator made the call about the Own policy and gave their opinion about the page. Luckily, we don't have to work at whether or not you Own the page or if either one of us is neutral. That has been established. What has also been established is that this page is grossly out of whack as it describes Dreamhost. Now we need to move on and work on this page.Spiney deluxe (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I am addressing both of you. JavierMC suggested that there may be an ownership problem, but this is not the case. You constantly repeating it will not make it so, either. I have explained the reasoning behind my edits, and I have indicated that if anyone has a problem with them they should bring them to the attention of administrators and stop using an article talk page as an attack vessel. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Luckily, at least the way the Wiki system is set up, I don't have to say it to make it so, as you repeatedly do when dismissing peoples' edits. You repeating the same invalid reasoning for dismissing edits doesn't justify you to do so. Further, I'm not asking anybody to believe me regarding your behavior. As Javier and anybody else can see, your edits reveal your lack of neutrality and your vigilance in owning this article and that can't be undone or reasoned away. And to your other point about the multitudes of articles you maintain. I've looked at a few of those at your invitation. Jessey, I just don't have the time to untangle and address all of the ownership and lack of neutrality on the other pages as well. I don't even want to do it here, but you make it entirely compelling to straighten out your agenda and bring some balanced, factual, entirely accurate (good and bad), neutral, referenced, and finally community-based (rather than solely your) information to this article. Finally, I'm not deliberately using this page as an attack vessel, I'd like to get back to the point as well. It's not easy to approach editing the page when I anticipate than any effort and research I put into it is going to be vaporized by you 30 seconds after it's up. I (and others above) don't know how to move forward with the page while you sit as sentinel, which is why the discussion page has so much of you on it. Spiney deluxe (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Your continued attacks here are now bordering on disruption. Please comment on the article, not the editor. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Bias, NPOV

I stumbled across this article and was immediately struck by the fact that this article read(s) like a marketing brochure. I don't live in the US, I've never hosted a website in the US r with DH but even I have heard negative stories on Dreamhost. To my surprise, the only "criticism" was phrased as examples of the adequate and fast response of DH in rectifying problems. I removed the most obvious PR-speak from the article, but unfortunately there is not much of an article left by now. Han-Kwang (t) 10:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

With the exception of the information about the control panel (which really is unique - most shared hosting companies use cPanel), the cuts you have made seem fine. The "criticism" you are looking for is not included in the article because it could not be reliably-sourced, and suffered from undue weight and recentism issues. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually that's not right Jessey. It's because you removed it at your discretion.74.66.230.203 (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

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