Talk:DreamHost/Archive 8
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Suspicious IP activity
There is some suspicious IP activity in relation to this article. Consider the following edits:
- 21:13 - August 17 by 166.192.216.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 23:07 - August 17 by 32.162.156.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 00:13 - August 18 by 166.194.24.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
All three of these edits are the first (and currently, only) edits by these IPs. Two of the IPs resolve to the same location. Semi protection of both the article and this talk page may be desirable if this sort of thing continues. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- what do you object to the most / that my ip is dynamic, that I don't have an account, or that I disagree with you and therefore must be threatened? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.195.217.225 (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- No need for such hostility. I refuse to answer a question that is so obviously designed to antagonize, rather than resolve. Certainly your lack of an account makes it very difficult to assume good faith, when the only available evidence of your contribution to this project is to post unsigned negative comments and revert this article to an earlier version with a misleading edit summary. Now you have accused me of threatening you, when I have done no such thing. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- You're asking your good buddy Sarekofvulcan to exclude this fellow from editing the article because he disagrees with you and he's not supposed to feel the least bit threatened? Further editing restrictions imposed on Scjessey or a permanent block may be desirable if this sort of thing continues.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not asking anything of anyone. I simply stated that there was suspicious IP activity which may necessitate semi protection if it gets to be a problem. Please don't misrepresent my comments. Anyway, if you are so pressed for time, why are you wasting it with this meta discussion? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- The only problem here is inappropriate behavior by you. You have no business claiming that this activity is suspicious in any way due to the fact that it's NOT!. If your request were to be accepted then that would exclude that IP editor from editing the article and why are you asking that the article be protected and this user excluded from it? Because he's making inappropriate remarks? Because he's vandalizing the article? No but because he disagrees with you something which many users have done over time and something which many other users do. Oh and what I do with my time is my own business thank you.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Let me repeat myself, since I obviously didn't make it clear enough the first time: I'm not asking anything of anyone. I am not requesting semi protection, and I am not behaving inappropriately. I merely stated that if suspicious IP activity continues (and independent IPs making one-time contributions (including undiscussed reversions) to the same topic across multiple namespaces is suspicious), semi protection may become necessary. If this were to happen, the individual in question would be free to register an account to participate - something Wikipedia actively encourages to avoid this sort of difficulty. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- The only problem here is inappropriate behavior by you. You have no business claiming that this activity is suspicious in any way due to the fact that it's NOT!. If your request were to be accepted then that would exclude that IP editor from editing the article and why are you asking that the article be protected and this user excluded from it? Because he's making inappropriate remarks? Because he's vandalizing the article? No but because he disagrees with you something which many users have done over time and something which many other users do. Oh and what I do with my time is my own business thank you.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not asking anything of anyone. I simply stated that there was suspicious IP activity which may necessitate semi protection if it gets to be a problem. Please don't misrepresent my comments. Anyway, if you are so pressed for time, why are you wasting it with this meta discussion? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- You're asking your good buddy Sarekofvulcan to exclude this fellow from editing the article because he disagrees with you and he's not supposed to feel the least bit threatened? Further editing restrictions imposed on Scjessey or a permanent block may be desirable if this sort of thing continues.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- No need for such hostility. I refuse to answer a question that is so obviously designed to antagonize, rather than resolve. Certainly your lack of an account makes it very difficult to assume good faith, when the only available evidence of your contribution to this project is to post unsigned negative comments and revert this article to an earlier version with a misleading edit summary. Now you have accused me of threatening you, when I have done no such thing. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ahhhh yes normal IP users showing an interest in the article is extremely suspicious and MUST! be stopped that is to say... if it continues of course.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Multiple IPs across multiple namespaces within a single topic is not "normal", 194. "Normally", that would be a sign of IP socking. However, I made no accusations of any kind. I simply stated that the activity seemed "suspicious". You are making a big deal out of nothing. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Nothing abnormal has happened here besides your usual pleasantries. And I am not making a big deal out of nothing... the IP user rightfully stated that he felt as if he was being threatened because that's exactly what was going on you were telling that user to back off or you'd ask someone to make sure he'd be unable to participate, what you're doing is called harassment, you disagree with what this user has to say so instead of discussing the matter with the user somehow civilly you start with the threats and harassment and all that and that's just simply no good.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Fine. Whatever. The facts speak for themselves, however you try to spin them.
<ignore />-- Scjessey (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)- jessey, with your most recent response, you called 194x144x90x118 a "problem editor" and you called the IP editor, whom you wish to disallow from posting here, a "problem editor" who made "undiscussed" changes, even though he discussed it and is not a problem editor. then when i warned you for bad faith assumptions for calling an IP editor with 3 edits problematic (when none were problematic), you reverted my warning as rv problem editor. jessey, stop this now. this is a problem. this discussion space is meant to be for improving the article. it's hard to improve the article if you are calling everyone who disagrees with you disparaging names. using a dynamic IP is not socking. having a dynamic IP is not unacceptable, or problematic. disagreeing with you is not problematic. typing "
<ignore/>", as you just did to the other user, is rude. there is no 'ignore' in wikipedia. you are just antagonizing the situation. stop it. Theserialcomma (talk) 02:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)- You have your facts wrong. First off, 194 is a problem editor - otherwise, we would not have been forced to bring up his bad behavior at ArbCom. Secondly, I did not call the IP editor a "problem editor" - the reversion I made was of two separate edits. In the edit summary, the comma is used to indicate the second editor - which was 194. But because you read the summary incorrectly, you decided to hit me with the template. And the IP editor is a concern, due to the use of multiple IPs over multiple namespaces on the same topic - the sort of sequence explicitly referred to here. Finally, I used the jokey "ignore" construct to indicate that I will no longer be reading or responding to 194's antagonistic ramblings. Clearly I am going to have to adopt the same attitude with you. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- having an arbcom filed against you does not prove guilt until the sanctions occur. so wait until they sanction him before you get to call him bad names and assume guilt. i am not under arbcom sanctions either, nor am i currently blocked. so why am i a problem user? oh, that's just bad faith and name calling from you, which is wp:uncivil. you are being disruptive. Stop. Theserialcomma (talk) 03:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah wait just one miniute there Scjessey, the arbitration committee has not found me guilty of Anything yet or imposed any sanctions on me what so ever, you however currently have ACTIVE editing restrictions imposed by Arbcom so the "problem editor" would be you not me.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 09:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- I said the reason the ArbCom process was filed in the first place was because of 194's poor conduct. Cause and effect. I am not being disruptive - 194 did that by making a big deal out of my concerns over the suspicious IP activity. Please stop making drama. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- i told jessey not to contact me for any reason on my talk page, and so he immediately goes and posts a message on my talk page why he can do that whenever he wants, especially "when i make an ass out of myself[[1]]." jessey, if you dont get sanctioned by arbcom for harassment, i will be very surprised. leave me alone. do not contact me on my talk page. and stop calling people names Theserialcomma (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- When there is an issue with user conduct, as in this case, a user talk page is the appropriate place to discuss it. An article talk page is not an appropriate place to discuss user behavior. If you are going to misrepresent my activities, as you have done above, you give me no choice but to post on your talk page. That is the way Wikipedia works. You began this "harassment" with this inappropriate template, remember? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- i told jessey not to contact me for any reason on my talk page, and so he immediately goes and posts a message on my talk page why he can do that whenever he wants, especially "when i make an ass out of myself[[1]]." jessey, if you dont get sanctioned by arbcom for harassment, i will be very surprised. leave me alone. do not contact me on my talk page. and stop calling people names Theserialcomma (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- I said the reason the ArbCom process was filed in the first place was because of 194's poor conduct. Cause and effect. I am not being disruptive - 194 did that by making a big deal out of my concerns over the suspicious IP activity. Please stop making drama. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- You have your facts wrong. First off, 194 is a problem editor - otherwise, we would not have been forced to bring up his bad behavior at ArbCom. Secondly, I did not call the IP editor a "problem editor" - the reversion I made was of two separate edits. In the edit summary, the comma is used to indicate the second editor - which was 194. But because you read the summary incorrectly, you decided to hit me with the template. And the IP editor is a concern, due to the use of multiple IPs over multiple namespaces on the same topic - the sort of sequence explicitly referred to here. Finally, I used the jokey "ignore" construct to indicate that I will no longer be reading or responding to 194's antagonistic ramblings. Clearly I am going to have to adopt the same attitude with you. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- jessey, with your most recent response, you called 194x144x90x118 a "problem editor" and you called the IP editor, whom you wish to disallow from posting here, a "problem editor" who made "undiscussed" changes, even though he discussed it and is not a problem editor. then when i warned you for bad faith assumptions for calling an IP editor with 3 edits problematic (when none were problematic), you reverted my warning as rv problem editor. jessey, stop this now. this is a problem. this discussion space is meant to be for improving the article. it's hard to improve the article if you are calling everyone who disagrees with you disparaging names. using a dynamic IP is not socking. having a dynamic IP is not unacceptable, or problematic. disagreeing with you is not problematic. typing "
- Fine. Whatever. The facts speak for themselves, however you try to spin them.
- Nothing abnormal has happened here besides your usual pleasantries. And I am not making a big deal out of nothing... the IP user rightfully stated that he felt as if he was being threatened because that's exactly what was going on you were telling that user to back off or you'd ask someone to make sure he'd be unable to participate, what you're doing is called harassment, you disagree with what this user has to say so instead of discussing the matter with the user somehow civilly you start with the threats and harassment and all that and that's just simply no good.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Multiple IPs across multiple namespaces within a single topic is not "normal", 194. "Normally", that would be a sign of IP socking. However, I made no accusations of any kind. I simply stated that the activity seemed "suspicious". You are making a big deal out of nothing. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Placing questionable warnings on users talk pages is something which Scjessey is quite fond of but it is Not allowed and it's actually harassment see WP:HUSH "Placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' on a user's talk page, restoring such comments after a user has removed them, placing 'suspected sockpuppet' and similar tags on the user page of active contributors, and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space is a common form of harassment."--194x144x90x118 (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
This Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.
All editors of the DreamHost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article are reminded to abide by Wikipedia's policies of neutral point of view, using reliable and verifiable sources; to engage in civil discussion on the talk page to resolve editorial disputes; and to use the relevant noticeboards and dispute resolution processes to seek external opinions on coverage of matters where the current editors may lack objectivity.
For the Arbitration Committee
Seddσn talk|WikimediaUK 03:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
No phone support, and discuss before reverting
Scjessey, it is proper form to discuss before reverting. And I take offense at your labeling my edit as "original research". If what troubled you was the lack of a citation, you could have easily found and added one yourself (they're exceptionally easy to find), rather than reverting without discussing. In any event, I'll add multiple citations now. MichaelBluejay (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I did not revert you. I removed a single sentence that you had added. Your other edits remained untouched. And it's original research if you write something and don't back it up with a source, and that is precisely what you did. It is your responsibility to provide sources for anything you wish to add, not mine. I have updated the text to more fairly reflect the sources you have provided and changed the references to standard form, although neither source is of particularly high quality. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, the cycle is WP:BRD -- Bold, Revert, then Discuss.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
You are both being exceptionally nit-picky. Sarek, the point is that Scjessey didn't discuss *at all*, not the precise chronology in which discussions should happen. Scjessey, when you completely yank out the entirety of the only content I added to a particular section, I'm calling that a revert. Further, your edit is POV, trying to frame DH's lack of call-in phone support in the best possible light. You also fail to state that the callbacks are not included for the overwhelming majority of DH customers. I'm going to add back in the part that's of most use to readers (that DH doesn't offer call-in support), but in the spirit of compromise I'll keep some of your bit about callbacks. However, if you continue to nitpick, I'll just edit the article to say only what it should say about this issue: That DH does not offer call-in support. An encyclopedia does not report the details without reporting the main point. MichaelBluejay (talk) 03:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, he has discussed it before -- it's just in the archives. It gets tiring having the same arguments over and over.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Use by Neonazis
Shoudl this article have information about Dreamhost's seeming popularity with neonazis (in countries like Austria where it is illegal), see Parliamentary Enquiry (Parliament of Austria)? Judging from that enquiry it seems as most if not any big (neo)nazi website of austria is hosted there. --Completefailure (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think it should -- if they consistently take a position in favor of free speech, calling them out for any particular group would seem to me to be WP:UNDUE weight. If they were to take a particular position for or against a group, rather than just ignoring them, that would be more noteworthy.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
another webhost page?
Why is wikipedia becoming a yellowbook for webhosts? I can understand companies like 1&1 and godaddy having pages but these off-the-wall companies pages include nothing but propaganda.
What's the point? Who in the world is coming to wikipedia to find out information about dreamhost?Woods01 (talk) 06:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- The article exists because it meets the general notability guidelines. It has been thrice nominated for deletion in the past, but the article was (obviously) deemed worthy of keeping each time. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Dreamhost is decent sized, established and profitable company, you cannot dismiss that by calling it "off-the-wall", They have their own offices and partly own the colo they use. Yes there are a ton of fly by night seamy reseller hosts with template websites and cpanel driven servers out there, Dreamhost is not one of them. As for how and why someone is going to read the article I can only ask how you found it and point out why I read it. I was looking for the open source file system Dreamhost sponsor's development of it appears the article doesn't mention that, oh well I read the thing anyway. 199.185.120.1 (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
March 14 outage
A couple of editors have tried to add material to this article relating to a current outage. This is a non-notable event that has not received coverage in secondary reliable sources, and therefore does not meet the usual criteria for inclusion. May I recommend that any editor wishing to document this matter in the article first propose inclusion on this talk page and seek a consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Source: http://www.dreamhoststatus.com/2011/03/14/network-outage-5/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.87.57.217 (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Update to key people
I'd suggest updating the key people section of the callout to remove the "(CEO)" from Simon Anderson (CEO), as he officially stepped down on November 24th, per Fortune Magazine's article [1].
I think it is a pretty straightforward change, but I don't want to just make the edit without a request for comments here first, since I'm not a regular contributor to this page.
Outsideshot (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on DreamHost. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081121222156/http://www.scansafe.com/news/press_releases/press_releases_2007/scansafe_threat_center_warns_of_drive-by_malware_on_up_to_3,500_websites to http://www.scansafe.com/news/press_releases/press_releases_2007/scansafe_threat_center_warns_of_drive-by_malware_on_up_to_3,500_websites
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)