Talk:DreamHost/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Removal of COI issue

I'd like to propose that the current {{Article issues}} tag be removed from the article, and replaced with a {{POV}} tag. The use of the COI portion of the tag has become a badge of shame, which is frowned upon by the community and specifically referred to in the documentation of the tag. Tags like these are intended as temporary warnings to encourage resolution, and their continued presence could be regarded as a violation of WP:NPA (because they comment on editors, not content). Individuals claiming a conflict of interest exists have been content to make the accusation without attempting any form of resolution, and I think this is unreasonable. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Works for me - doing it now. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

in order to ascertain whether this article has COI issues, Scjessey, it would be fair for you to approximate how much compensation you have received from dreamhost. Theserialcomma (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That is a completely unreasonable request, and completely inappropriate for an article talk page. Being associated with the subject of the article is not a conflict of interest. The conflict occurs if that association causes an editor to violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines because of that association. If you are making that sort of assertion, I suggest you do so in the appropriate place. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not a dreamhost customer and I never have been. It is however my legitimate complaint that Scjessey and Sarekofvulcan are and that their being so might be a conflict of interest, they have both edited this article and I know that a certain Judas agrees with me on this matter. Scjessey and Sarek have also complained that Judas is a former disgruntled customer and that he therefor has a coi, Judas has edited this article. With accusations abound COI does infact belong here and it should stand until a consensus for dropping it is reached.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

An independent editor agreed it should be removed -- rather than argue with the bunch of us, I'll go with their opinion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

so no one's concerned that scjessey admittedly receives financial compensation from this company and is unwilling to discuss how any details, like, for example, how much. Okay... Theserialcomma (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) - As I have repeatedly stated, all DreamHost customers are automatically signed-up to receive compensation from the company's referral scheme. That includes all former customers, by the way. Once again, I will remind you that this is a wholly inappropriate venue to bring this up. This talk page is for discussing the content of the article, not the private financial matters of Wikipedians. If you have a grievance, I suggest you gather your evidence and open a case at WP:COIN. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the request, as per the policy above. Dayewalker (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing This could be seen as disruptive editing on your part it is stated that QUOTE You challenge the reversion of your edits, demanding that others justify it. Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it. This applies most especially to biographies of living individuals, where uncited or poorly cited controversial material must be removed immediately from both the article and the Talk page, and by extension any related Project pages. Only once you have justified your edits beyond a reasonable doubt does the burden of proof shift to others. UNQUOTE So in other words stop the reverting and allow a consensus to form, do not act as if you are somehow entitled to change the article however you want while others have to first ask your permission.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

*suggests quietly that 194x might want to consider taking his own advice.*--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do not edit war the tag. In my initial comment at the beginning of this section, I proposed the replacement of the tag and gave my reasons. I expected (and hoped for) discussion, not edit warring. I would like to see this COI issue resolved and the tag removed; however, I would ask all parties to avoid edit warring. I am hoping to foster a culture of "proposal → discussion → consensus → implementation" here, and not the current system of edit warring, arguments, accusations, assumptions of bad faith and administrator blocks. Please. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I just went over to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#DreamHost for more opinions on the subject.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Establishing a consensus for proposed changes to the article is something which the ones proposing it have to do NOT! those that oppose the change being made. Bullying this change into place by frequently reinserting it is not civil.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no consensus for removal of the tag (or anything, frankly) is required. It is, however, preferable because it reduces the likelihood of edit warring. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Neither is "bullying" civil. Again, please take your own advice. Two people outside the primary dispute core group have agreed it should come out - in my view, that's a lot more representative than your opinion or mine. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Dayewalker can not be considered an outsider.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that's true, but he's not involved enough to be a party to the arb case, which was the definition I was using - and FennShaya (sp?) is definitely outside.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

So what if Day isn't invovled enough to be a party to the arb case? It's questionable if Theserialcomma should be a party to it, who is an who isn't a party to it has simply been a matter of your invitation really. Day is an involved editor who always sides with those wanting to ad pro dreamhost material to the article. This guy the fenshaya has so far not shown a great interest in editing this article in a civil and calm manner and also seems to take this pro dreamhost stance. This article shouldn't be touched for the time being really until the arbitration is over, it's just a waste of time.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(OD) So basically anyone who disagrees with you or isn't actively supporting you is an "involved editor?" Dayewalker (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The one person who has responded so far at the conflict of interest noticeboard has reviewed the discussion and concluded there is no COI. Can we stop this now?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop the edit warring

Judas has just reverted the last batch of changes. Although this is a provocative, tendentious and disruptive act, I would like to repeat my plea to avoid edit warring. The changes Judas reverted had pretty broad support on this talk page, so I see no reason why we cannot resolve this latest dispute amicably with some productive discussion. Just to recap, there are two issues here:

1. The COI tag discussed immediately above.
2. The slight change in text (and an apparent misuse of a reference).

-- Scjessey (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Judas continues to edit war, despite entreaties on this talk page and a reasonably broad agreement on the disputed text. I would appreciate opinions on whether or not this should be taken to the new content noticeboard, or is WP:AN3 a better approach? -- Scjessey (talk) 01:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

An outside view

As an experienced editor with zero past or present connection to DreamHost (I've only heard of them through this dispute and still know nothing of them) I've had a quick look at some of the edits and issues in this thread. Two observations, for what it's worth:

• Users are not expected to have no outside life, nor to avoid all mention of things that matter to them. They are expected to leave bias at the door, edit neutrally and with reasonable regard for core policies, and if they cannot edit neutrally then to rsstrict themselves voluntarily to edits that are "safe" (typos or "flow", for example) and talk page comments rather than act disruptively in editing. In other words, having a COI by itself is something others should be aware of but ideally should not be a reason not to edit, but some may find it hard to edit properly on topics they hold a significant view and therefore need to avoid editing directly on areas they are likely to edit improperly. Other users often assess this by how they edit.

• A number of edits in the dispute are not (as I would see it) encyclopedic in nature. For example the fact an article is about a business does not mean that every failing or success by that business is worthy of note. A "typing error" that caused websites to go down for a brief period is just not encyclopedic, however useful or interesting to a possible client, customer or supplier - we are not here to log every last thing that ever happens in their world. Ditto much of this edit - "the business has a bespoke user interface which has attracted some criticism [CITE] [CITE]" is possibly all that needs saying.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments. The article previously contained mention of bigger typo problems and associated notoriety, which has been removed by pro-company editors. Also, previous criticism of the panel is no longer even mentioned at all. There is nothing special about this panel, but proponents insist on mentioning it. Judas278 (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

What would seem an appropriate outside view would be to go back and read the entire talkpage archive up to and including the current discussion topics, then form an opinion. When I originally added the COI tag, there appeared to be just that. Every edit made to this article was reviewed and if it coincided with the view of the overload editor it was kept, otherwise it was summarily dismissed and reverted. Since that time more editors have gotten involved in the process and more eyes are on proposed changes and edits, with discussion and consensus following to a point. As the article reads at this point, I can find no COI content and with ongoing discussion and consensus, I would agree that the COI tag should be removed. I'm glad to see more interest has been generated in expanding and improving the article content. To my eyes, it still has a long way to go for encyclopedic content. NOTE: For an editor not involved in this article or not having taken the time to read the entire talkpage, archives included, to removed the COI tag, was a mess waiting to happen in the first place. I would hope anyone responding to such a request would take the time to thoroughly investigate and thence be more able to make an informed edit. JavierMC 17:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Tag Removal

Rather than contribute to the edit war, I'd like to make an official proposal here to remove the COI tag as per the discussion above. It seems as if only two editors feel strongly that it should stay, and one of those is now retired [1] after an admin asked him to stop interacting with Scjessey [2]. As I said above, I see the COI tag as being used as a scarlet letter for edits made years ago. Now with much more attention to the page, the tag is outdated and any COI in the article has been removed. Thoughts? Dayewalker (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The tag has already been removed, and I think the discussion at WP:COIN has pretty much supported that removal. There is still the matter of the POV tag, which has a very old date on it at the moment, but I think it should remain until the issues with the "incidents" section have been worked out. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Duly noted, apologies, I glanced at the neutrality tag and misread it as the original disputed POV tag. I'll agree on the current tag, so if there are no other comments, we can close this discussion. Dayewalker (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

IP stuff

I've noticed that we've had the odd random IP address (usually first-time editors) removing or adding material in the last few days. Unless it is a case of obvious vandalism, I am operating on quite a severe editing restriction; however, I have boldly restored material that a new IP editor has removed as it is fairly controversial material that involved heated talk page discussion. It probably needs additional discussion if significant changes are going to be made. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. The new IP editor has just reverted me. I have left a friendly note on his/her talk page about it. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the best place to adress this matter to begin with would have been his talkpage and not this one.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Since most IP editors are on dynamic IPs, it's not unusual to take a content discussion to the article talk page rather than leave a message on an IP talk page that would never be visited. As for the IP, if his incessant quacking continues we'll just have the page semi-protected. Dayewalker (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Er... I did (diff). Following that message, I thought it would be sensible to bring the matter up here because it seemed to be an issue with several IP editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just eradicated another affiliate link. It's weird that we have all this anonymous IP activity all of a sudden. If this sort of thing ramps up, we may have to consider requesting semi-protection. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Such few IP edits do not warrent semi protecting the article.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 12:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If the IP continues to try and disrupt the page, that will be a decision for an admin. Dayewalker (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Who says that anyone has tried to be disruptive? Ever heard of the term Assume good faith? Semi protection of this article isn't a decision for just any admin to randomly take.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

My concern was chiefly about the sudden return of IP editors placing affiliate links in the article, which hadn't been happening for quite some time. Incidentally, an administrator is quite free to semi-protect an article without debate, if he/she perceives that it would be beneficial to the project. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

DreamHost recommend Google G-Mail

The fact that DreamHost recommends gmail has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on this article and completely surprises me that it is part of the article. They have their own mail client and this article is not an extension of their advertising campaign, blog or other means of promoting what they recommend or don't. If this was seriously addressed before, how did the powers that may be convince the retention of such a blatant attempt to insert a wholly self promoting addition of a DreamHost company recommendation?JavierMC 03:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Javier, will you please read the archives before making assumptions? That was added in in an attempt to make DreamHost look like they were too incompetent to handle email themselves, and the wording was hammered out over some time by the various parties. Advertising it's not, believe me.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Your the one making assumptions about me. It may not be strictly advertising Sarek, but what does it have to do with an article on DreamHost? What DreamHost recommends to it's clients is it's business, not the business of this encyclopedia. Whether DreamHost wants to farm out it's e-mailing to gmail to save themselves bandwidth and storage costs, this encyclopedia should not join in reiterating that policy. It has no benefit to the article other than to promote a DreamHost recommendation. Whether the wording was hammered out previously or not, I still believe it of no value to the article in achieving an understanding DreamHost.JavierMC 05:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This is really a non-issue. JavierMC is right in saying that the Gmail stuff is irrelevant, but Sarek is right in saying that it was forced into the article at the behest of individuals wishing to make DreamHost seem incompetent. Let's move past all that and consider how best to revise the existing text. The company offers fully-featured and configurable email services, but although not all hosting companies do this, it is by no means unusual (or particularly notable). Anyone got any ideas? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Javier, I really have no problem with taking this out as irrelevant: I just have a problem with taking it out as advertising. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm kinda confused that you solely picked up on the advertising portion of my statement, considering I said ...article is not an extension of their advertising campaign, blog or other means of promoting what they recommend or don't. My point was that because DreamHost recommends something, doesn't necessary make it noteworthy for inclusion in their wiki article.JavierMC 16:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Again: the only reason this was added was to make DreamHost look like they were too incompetent to handle email. If you want to take it out because it's irrelevant to the article, be my guest -- but if you want to take it out because you think its intention is to promote DreamHost, you are incorrect, and it should stay.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems irrelevant, especially for the lead. Dayewalker (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to remove it, chaps. Way too many words expended on this minor issue created by now-retired user. Other matters (various proposals for changes to the text) above that need attention. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I sorta have a problem with all these accusations of bad faith edits, I don't think that they are really appropriate, if we could possibly skip them from now on then that would just simply be great, thanks.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

As part of your desire to avoid personal attacks going forward, would you be willing to agree to drop the archive period from 45 days down to 28?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Inlight of opinions expressed by other editors I have changed my position and now support an archive period of 90 days.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Tasks

I've added a "to do" list to the top of this discussion page to help with focus. Feel free to edit, but please don't make this another target for edit warring. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom

Please note that the DreamHost case at ArbCom has been declined. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

NODRAMA

Anybody care to join me next week in The Great Wikipedia Dramaout? :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Subscribed. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Count me in.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Normally, this would seem to be the place to post a picture of a kitten. However, since I just spotted the score to In C that I keep forgetting to take home, I'll link to this instead. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"Incidents" section proposal

Now that some of the other concerns, such as the COI matter, have been largely resolved, I would like to revisit my earlier proposal to consolidate the "incidents" section somewhat. Here is the existing text:

In July, 2006 DreamHost suffered two power outages that caused significant downtime for its customers. The outage was a result of a rolling blackout involving DreamHost's datacenter. Other providers such as Media Temple and MySpace were also affected. There was "a similar outage in September 2005." In July 2007, the company relocated servers to a different data center due to "space and power constraints."

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.

And here is my proposed revision:

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.

I also think the section header could be downgraded to a level 3, making it a subsection of "web hosting" like the chunk on file hosting. I would be grateful for opinions on this text, together with any suggestions for improvement. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I will shortly be implementing this proposed change per WP:SILENCE. Please speak up if you wish to voice objections (or support) for this proposal - better to do that than edit war the change after the fact. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I think your wording change is good, assuming all the references are the same -- I didn't double-check them. I wouldn't downgrade the section header, though. I'll double-check at the NPOV board. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The wording and references are the same as when I previously proposed these changes on June 8, following advice from the informal mediator, but prior to the RfC on the existing wording. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(od)Wasn't there a cause and effect to the July 2006 incident? I seem to remember previous wording stating that as a result they moved to a better facility. It might be a good idea to state the corrective action as well as the incident itself.JavierMC 18:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

There's wording to that effect in the first version above. I don't have a problem with leaving that in: it just seemed a bit irrelevant to me.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I oppose these changes being made per my prior objections.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made Scjessey's proposed edit to the article (including Javier's suggestion), but I split the three incidents apart for readability.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The finished result doesn't seem quite right. I think the outages at the Garland building were definitely a contributing factor to DreamHost moving to another building, but there were certainly other reasons too. The version we have now implies a direct relationship that doesn't really exist (and also, the relocation isn't an "incident", or even a particularly notable event). Another thing I noticed is that "numerous significant behind-the-scenes changes to improve internal security, including the discovery and patching to prevent a handful of possible exploits" doesn't really make sense - something I should've spotted in my earlier reworking. Is this long quote absolutely necessary? In such a short paragraph, perhaps it would be better for the text to summarize it with something like: "In response to the incident, the company made some changes to improve security." Finally, I'm not sure why it is necessary to split it up into three separate paragraphs. All the sentences refer to "incidents", so there should be no problem with them being incorporated into one paragraph. May I proffer this alternative:

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 some changes to improve security. 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.

Thoughts? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I shall take it from the apparent 5-day silence that nobody objects to these changes. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

194 has reverted the perfectly reasonable improvement I outlined above, with no talk page explanation and no alternative proposal. I would appreciate comments from other editors familiar with this article, but I will file an RfC if necessary. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I still object to running all three incidents together into one paragraph: as they're three independent incidents, they shouldn't all be treated in the same thought (which is what a paragraph should be).--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think an RfC is a good idea - it's reached the stage where we should consider the dispute a user conduct problem. PhilKnight (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

@Sarek - I don't like to see single-sentence paragraphs if at all possible; however, if everyone thinks that is the best approach I have no real objection. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

@PhilKnight - I think that an RfC should be a last resort, since an RfC has already taken place on this same material earlier. We are now at the post-RfC implementation stage, with discussion now largely limited to style, rather than content. The problem here is really only related to 194's objections to any proposals to improve the article. I am leaning toward asking WP:ANI to look at this, since it comes under the auspices of user conduct and disruption. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be extremely appropriate if Scjessey were to file a conduct complaint against me LOL.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll request

I would like to get a feel for the direction and preference of editors with respect to this section. If there is no obvious preference/consensus for one of them, I shall file an RfC per the discussion above. I would be grateful if editors could offer opinions/thoughts as well as indicating their preference.

• A (current version)
• B (Scjessey version split up per Sarek's preference)
• C (Scjessey version combined)

Version A

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. About a year later, the company relocated to a different data center due to "space and power constraints" at LA Telecom.

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.

Version B

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 some changes to improve security.

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.

Version C

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. A year later, approximately 700 websites and 3,500 FTP accounts hosted on DreamHost's servers were compromised. In response to the incident, the company made some changes to improve security. The following January, 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.

Version B differs in that it removes the information about the datacenter move (not directly related to outages) and it removes the long quote about specific (and not particularly notable) changes that were made. Version C combines the sentences in version B and de-specifies some of the date information to make the paragraph a more natural prose. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• C - I prefer this because it loses some superfluous information and doesn't feel too much like a list. I could settle on any of the 3 versions, but this is my preference. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Free application hosting (2nd proposal)

I'd like to revisit an earlier proposal that suggested the addition of something about the DreamHost Apps service, which is both notable and unusual. I initially proposed this text:

Free application hosting

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

The initial proposal of this section attracted some objections that weren't policy-based, but there were no other comments (either positive or negative). I'd like to hear some opinions about the prose, and about whether or not it is an appropriate addition. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose per my previous objections and the objections of others, please don't waste any more of our time with this thanks.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, you have made no policy-based objections. How is proposing an improvement to an article a "waste of time" exactly? Please assume good faith and cease tendentiously objecting to every single suggestion for improvement I make. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned you're not suggesting that any improvement be made. Also don't give me this "policy based" crap ever again thank you.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 03:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not "crap". Wikipedia policy determines whether or not something should be in an article, not your opinion. You are free to object to a proposal on whatever grounds you wish, but if your objection is not based on Wikipedia policy or guidelines it is essentially irrelevant. So if you are determined to see this excluded, you will need to find policy-based reasons. If you object to just some part of the proposal, or how it is written, I urge you to proffer your own version. Perhaps it will form the basis of a compromise that everyone can be happy with. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note on 194x144x90x118's user talk page in regard to his conduct on this page. PhilKnight (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as you decided not to discuss this matter with me further on your talkpage despite my effort to discuss it with you I am hereby Recjecting! your note regarding my conduct and any and all warnings that have been made by you regarding this matter. A one sided conversation simply doesn't work.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Lack of interest

There has been no apparent interest in expressing opinions or commenting on the recent proposals that have been made. To recap, the following is under consideration:

1. Minor changes to "incidents" section.
2. Addition of a section on application hosting.
3. Removal or evolution of the Gmail mention.
4. Removal of the POV "badge of shame" tag.

There was also a suggestion that the auto-archiving period be reduced to 28 days, but the lack of activity on this talk page seems to make that suggestion redundant at the moment. If there aren't any reasonable objections, I plan to boldly implement these changes in the near future. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

More tedious editing from Scjessey, as far as I am concerned you have forgone your right to edit this article with your behavior. If you continue down this path then I will initiate a procedure that will lead to further editing restrictions being levied upon you, just leave this to others.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 23:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm definitely "going down this path", so I strongly recommend that you "initiate a procedure" immediately. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I've lost count of the number of times 194x has threatened to "initiate procedures" without following through. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the proposed changes per WP:BRD. I'm quite happy to discuss them with other editors who disagree with them, but I would respectfully request that no edit warring takes place. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, last time someone "initiated procedures" it backfired. Arbcom declined their case, and they retired rather than agree to an admin's request they stop harassing another editor. Dayewalker (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I initiated that case, not Judas.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I stand corrected, then. Dayewalker (talk) 00:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the article after 194 reverted all of my edits without explanation. If anyone has reasonable objections to the changes, I would hope they would be voiced here instead of initiating an edit war. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Beyond Weak

Wow. I don't even know what to say. It's like the old article went bankrupt, shirked it's Wiki responsibilities and was rewritten by a PR firm.Spiney deluxe (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Responding to deleted post about "trademarked service" -- umm, if we don't mention notable services, we're left with a directory entry, which Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Now, if you want to make constructive suggestions, feel free, but we're sick and tired of being called company shills. Edit usefully, or shut up. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

agree with the questionable SPA. this article has been bullied into submission and now is just a big pile of advertising. Theserialcomma (talk) 07:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The article describes the company, and what it does. It also documents notable problems. I cannot see how it could possibly be described as "advertising". An example of advertising would be: "DreamHost is the most bestest host in the world EVAR! Sign up with promocode NULL1SECUNDUS for an unbeatable deal that includes 2 free babies from Eritrea!" There is nothing like that in the article (joking aside). If you have any policy-based concerns about specific parts of the article, please bring them up here. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

More disruptive behavior from Sarekofvulcan, Surprising.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

you are right jessey, that would be an example of outlandish advertising. here is another: if the article has two separate sections titled "Free application hosting" and "File hosting," which are not notable features of the webhost, but more so blatantly free advertising of their non-notable services. i believe that a neutral, unbiased, and uninvolved editor would agree. perhaps some outside input would be warranted Theserialcomma (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe there are multiple sources talking about their file hosting services, meeting the GNG, and hence a notable feature.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

False. http://www.genbeta.com/web/files-forever-nuevo-servicio-de-dreamhost is not a reliable source. it's a blog. if it's such a notable feature, there would be a third party reliable source, right? somewhere? just one? please? No. just a blog - in spanish, at that. the fact that you'd argue for inclusion, arguing 'notability' of the feature, based on a single spanish-language blog, is insane. i am done arguing here. good luck to anyone else attempting to fix this article's slant Theserialcomma (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If I linked to TechCrunch, would you also say that was "just a blog"? If not, then how do you establish that GenBeta is not the Spanish-language equivalent? Given the number of sites that link to/quote it, it does seem to be a notable tech blog. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

According to Alexa, it has a traffic rank of 15,631, which is well above the 100,000 number for unreliable ranking, according to Search engine test. (Techcrunch is at 700-something, fwiw.) So, it doesn't seem to be "just another blog". And while I may question my own sanity, I prefer that other editors not do the same -- at least in print, thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, here's a list of 20 major tech blogs in Spanish. http://www.latin3g.com/entry/20-technology-blogs-spanish-you-cannot-avoid-hearing-about I checked the Alexa ranks of most of them, and Genbeta.com has the second highest, so it would appear my assessment is roughly on track. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Save the rhetoric- your words just don't matter. It's your behavior, for years at this point, that renders your agenda entirely obviously commercial. You summon a reaction like this from so many people, instantaneously. Your behavior is dead wrong and you've totally outlasted me congratulations- I'm not gonna spell it out again like I did in my previous dissertation that somehow just evaporated from this discussion page. I hope your wikipedia piracy pays off for you and you enjoy your crap $5 commissions from this crap company. Spiney deluxe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC).

Years, huh? Guess that shows everyone how seriously to take the rest of your assertions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It should also be noted that this feature was described on Icelands 38th most read tech BLOG!!!!!! and yes that little bit of text written there on that blog what 200 words in a language that you guys don't understand? surely establishes notability. Ohhh yeah it's also really welcoming to tell a newcomer on his 50th edit to "shut up".--194x144x90x118 (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that would be a 13-month editor, currently on their 100th edit. But hey, why let facts get in the way? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

←To be clear, the subsections about file hosting and free application hosting are both adequately sourced. Neither section makes any extraordinary claim, and both sections contain only non-contentious facts about services offered by the company. It is functionally equivalent to saying "Apple makes hardware and software." High quality sourcing is always preferable, but certainly not required for non-contentious facts like these. If anyone can find sourcing that refutes the information in these sections, then obviously it will be necessary to review the situation. Any reasonable discourse is always welcome, but comments and rants about editor conduct, "Wikipedia piracy", and libelous assertions that editors are being compensated for contributing are wholly inappropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Very "clear" these services that Dreamhost offers are not notable and have fringe notability these huge sections they don't belong in the article.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Advertising material.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

a single spanish blog to warrant a whole section

i've posted to the RS board here [[3]] about this situation. clearly the blog is unacceptable to warrant a whole section, but we have jessey and sarek arguing that it is acceptable still. furthermore, sarekofvulcan appears to be watching my edits and following me to articles to threaten to use his admin tools to reverse articles i've voted to delete. sarek appears to be passive aggressively reprimanding me with his admin status for attempting to remove the advertising from this article. good game, wikipedia. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Uttmost dissapointing, I was coming to believe that it was a positive thing that Sarek had access to the admin tools despite the issues that have been illustrated through his participation in the editing of this article, if I ever actually do get around to responding to my RFAR then I'll have to consider mentioning his behavior there.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop using article talk pages for meta discussions about the conduct of other editors. This page is for discussing improvements to the DreamHost article. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Remove it re: reliable sources board —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.162.156.189 (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)