Talk:DreamHost/Archive 3

Proposed wording of DreamHost hack
In June 2007 approximately 700 websites and 3,500 FTP accounts hosted on DreamHost's servers were compromised. In response to the hack, DreamHost made "numerous significant behind-the-scenes changes to improve internal security, including the discovery and patching to prevent a handful of possible exploits." [] []


 * Given Sarek's findings above, it would seem that this was not an event unique to DreamHost, and therefore not really appropriate for the DreamHost article. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * if you find any citable evidence that dreamhost was related to those other hacks, we could add "multiple other providers were affected by this bug" or some such. but until then, there is absolutely, 100%, without any doubt, zero evidence that sarek's findings about other hacks have anything whatsoever to do dreamhost directly. total original research and speculation. any claims of a link, without evidence, should not be taken seriously, for wikipedia purposes. dreamhost has literally not even been mentioned once in any of those articles, so those other hacks should not even be mentioned on this page again until you can find a reliable source linking them to dreamhost directly. so anyway, do you have any input on how to tweak the wording i've proposed? i want it to be as NPOV as possible. Theserialcomma (talk) 08:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is that these types of hacks/breaches are commonplace, particularly in a shared hosting environment (which is inherently less secure). Whether or not these events are tied together (and we only have a DreamHost blog post that suggests they are), the event simply wasn't very notable. The two sources you provide are not mainstream media sources, and coverage is clearly very minimal. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Chanelregister.co.uk is theregister.co.uk, a well known and trusted source. your point about hacks and breaches go beyond the scope of what we do on wikipedia, and hence is original research. if you have any reliable sources to back your 'hacks and breaches' idea and how that directly links to dreamhost's hack, please post them. otherwise, let's discuss the actual sources we have and what they actually say. Theserialcomma (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The Register, which I have been reading for years, is essentially a trade-specific news aggregator. It is well-known for being a bit sensationalist, and it certainly isn't known for straight reporting. Let's not misrepresent things here. My point, which you seem to have a hard time grasping, is that this is not notable. You have no consensus for including this material, so either you need to go off and find more and better reliable sources to present a new case for inclusion, or you need to let it go. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * either the register is or isn't a reliable source. if we can't agree that it's reliable, let's take it to the RS boards and ask them. either the hacks and breaches are related or unrelated to dreamhost. if you can't show evidence via reliable sources, then it's not relevant enough to argue over. either it's notable or not notable that hundreds of sites were hacked. i think it's notable, you don't. let's see what other editors think, especially non SPAs and non loyal customers. if we can find more sources, maybe we can establish the notability of the hack and be done with this. Theserialcomma (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like only Netcraft and The Register reported this incident (Google News search results). Some blog posts mention it, but they cannot be used as reliable sources. The lack of coverage is key here, in that it shows a lack of notability. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: "and be done with this". We may never be done with this. A complete discussion was deleted about a year ago as a "cleanup." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DreamHost&diff=208809251&oldid=207400181 . It's been said before, by non SPAs, this article has owners. --Judas278 (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Legitimate edit, with justification in the edit summary. A lack of editors on this article make it look like I am doing the bulk of the editing, but it is not a sign of ownership. I am not preventing other editors from editing this article (violating WP:OWN), I am preventing other editors from inserting non-neutral stuff, or stuff with undue weight, or vandalism. My edits protect the article, not the company. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The point, to Theserialcomman, was you simply deleted an entire section covering the exact topic we're discussing now. It was covered before, with similar or same referencing, and you simply deleted it, to make the company look better. --Judas278 (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not my fault that you don't understand Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. That edit followed WP:WEIGHT and also the essay of WP:RECENT which recommends that events are covered from a historical perspective. Why don't you go and learn the rules and then come back and try to be a productive Wikipedian, rather than a disruptive SPA? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * when editors throw around terms like "undue weight" and links to the policy WP:UNDUE, it might serve us well to actually read the policy and what it really means. it states  Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all.  quick sanity check: is mentioning the fact that dreamhost got hacked, even though dreamhost even admitted it, somehow a 'tiny minority view'? is it even a view at all? is it even contentious to claim something they freely admit? Further from the UNDUE guideline: If you are able to prove something that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to première such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced. Now, how can you, after reading the policy on undue weight, claim that it's undue weight to mention a FACT that dreamhost had hundreds of their domains hacked, and thousands of their FTP accounts hacked? are we making this hack up or something? are the sources not reliable enough? is DreamHost mentioning the factual reality of the hack on their official blog somehow controversial to anyone except those overly trying to protect dreamhost's reputation? Where, exactly, is the undue weight? It's neutrally worded, reliably sourced, and factual. "In June 2007 approximately 700 websites and 3,500 FTP accounts hosted on DreamHost's servers were compromised. In response to the hack, DreamHost made "numerous significant behind-the-scenes changes to improve internal security, including the discovery and patching to prevent a handful of possible exploits." [] []" is about as NPOV as i could make it, and it even quotes, verbatim, dreamhost's response to the hack. what is teh problem here? Theserialcomma (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * more sources: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-31305510_ITM, http://blog.dreamhosters.com/2007/06/06/dreamhost-ftp-accounts-hacked/, http://www.dreamhoststatus.com/2007/06/11/web-hosting-break-ins-security-update/ http://www.mckremie.com/7_most_disastrous_web_hosting_mistakes.php: 7 Most Disastrous Web Hosting Mistakes Ever! http://www.spamfighter.com/News-8600-Hackers-Loaded-Malware-Into-Mercury-Music-Award-Site.htm http://www.scansafe.com/news/press_releases/press_releases_2007/scansafe_threat_center_warns_of_drive-by_malware_on_up_to_3,500_websites. if you can't find a reliable source out of all of those, you are trying too hard not to find one. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * With the exception of the DreamHost sources (that have been trashed by Judas and described as "self publishing"), the only RS in that bunch is the ScanScafe source, and that is already referred to by one of the sources in the existing text. All the other references are from blogs or websites echoing the existing coverage. You aren't bringing anything new to the table here. In any case, did you not see the recent changes? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * are you only agreeing with judas about the self published sources because it suits this particular argument? or do you suggest we eliminate all self published sources? or do we just eliminate the ones you don't like? or just eliminate the self published sources by dreamhost that could be construed as negative? please clarify, because if a reliable source reports something that an unreliable source originally posts (a blog, for example), we can use the reliable source and trust their editorial oversight in the matter. that is why they are considered reliable. this is standard wikipedia practice. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * i noticed that you failed to respond to the fallacious claims of WP:UNDUE weight. would you care to respond to my points about why it's not undue weight i.e. dreamhost mentioned it happened as a fact, and third party, reliable sources wrote about it, and the proposed addition to the article about the hack is NPOV. or are you dropping that argument? you seem to change the subject every time a good point is made. please stop that, it's a bit disruptive to the collaborative process. if you can't raise any legitimate objections that are actually relevant and true, the proposed info about the hack should be amended to the article. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No. I am not agreeing with Judas about anything at all. I was perfectly happy with what he described as "self published" sources, although that is not what they are. We can use a reliable source that we know has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking (see WP:V), but if we know something to be obviously wrong, we can only use it if it is corroborated by another reliable source. In the case of the "hack" issue, a very small number of accounts were affected, it is not representative of the DreamHost service as a whole. Adding information about this nonevent constitutes a case of undue weight, particularly because there are so few sources (sources that simply regurgitate other sources do not count). -- Scjessey (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * what you are describing is not undue weight. there is nothing in the undue weight rule that implies that 100%, 95%, or even 50% of DreamHost's clients have to be hacked before it's a notable event. notability has to do with sourcing, not arbitrary numbers of customers affected. and we have reliable sources that state that this occurred, including a self published source from dreamhost itself admitting it happened. my opinion is that 7,500 hacked ftp accounts are a lot, and 700 domains are a lot of domains to be hacked too, but that is irrelevant to anything we are talking about, because the reliable sources are what matters. the reliable sources http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2007/06/07/dreamhost_hack/, http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2007/06/06/mass_customer_site_hack_at_dreamhost.html, http://www.scansafe.com/news/press_releases/press_releases_2007/scansafe_threat_center_warns_of_drive-by_malware_on_up_to_3,500_websites, the self published sources by dreamhost, http://www.scansafe.com/news/press_releases/press_releases_2007/scansafe_threat_center_warns_of_drive-by_malware_on_up_to_3,500_websites, and https://www.sans.org/newsletters/newsbites/newsbites.php?vol=9&issue=45 are reliable enough, regardless of if they are reporting the same information as one another. the hack happened, dreamhost admitted it, and multiple reliable sources picked up the story. this will not be kept out of the article for the reasons you've attempted to present. i know that you really like dreamhost, and you admin their wiki, and you make money from them, so you obviously want dreamhost to succeed. but that is no reason for you to try to wp:own this article to remove valid, sourced, relevant information. you are not being completely neutral right now; you are being protective. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You are misunderstanding the meaning of WP:WEIGHT. The key line is this:
 * "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."
 * What we have here is a situation where documenting this event (which actually has few reliable sources, despite what you keep saying) and the much more notable billing snafu creates a problem where the article is unbalanced. It would mean that two negative issues would completely dominate the article, which would be an unfair reflection on a company which has a solid reputation with a largely happy customer base (the kind of stuff that doesn't get reported). WP:WEIGHT demands proportionate prominence to preserve the neutral point of view. Stating "this will not be kept out of the article" makes me highly suspicious of your motives, and it not the sort of appropriate comment for someone who claims to be following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. My suspicion is further magnified by your repetition of the false claims made by the SPA. You have no consensus to include this material, and the circular arguments you are using to try to get it into the article are becoming tendentious. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Go back and look at your sources. Most of them are simply duplicates that cite each other. There just aren't enough original reliable sources to justify inclusion. And stop casting aspersions - I have been a Wikipedian for years, making over 8,000 edits in some of the most combustible, contentious articles on Wikipedia. I have a thorough and intimate knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (some of which I have helped to write). I have already explained why your proposal will not work, and I am not going to go over it again and again. This article is being reviewed by administrators, and we shall have to see what they say about it. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * this is a strange situation. somehow you have the nerve to accuse me of having suspicious motives, which is nothing more than a thinly veiled personal attack. why are you attacking me? what is your evidence? fact: you are an admin of the official dreamhost wiki and you receive some compensation from dreamhost for referrals, which you claim to donate to charity, or whatever. fact. what facts do you have about me? that i don't agree with you? and i have agreed with the SPA? does that give you carte blanche to make thinly veiled personal attacks against my motives and character? No. that will not be tolerated. i came here from WP:ANI because of a posting you made, read the situation, and realized you had big time WP:OWNership issues here, and that the SPA had some valid points, even if their motives were suspicious. if you have any questions about my motives, show proof or keep it to yourself.


 * the strange thing is, a few hours ago, the 'billing' section was nothing more than a sentence or two, sitting in the main article. i am the one who shortened the original 'billing error' section, condensed it into a sentence, removed it from being its own section, and stated that an entire section devoted to billing problem is silly. then, out of nowhere and without prior discussion, you recreated the old billing section. why? no real explanation. a sentence was good enough to explain it. if you are so concerned about your misinterpretation of the undue weight rule, then why not condense and move the billing information? it almost seems as if you added the billing section back just so that you could keep the "dreamhost hacked" out of the article, erroneously citing WP:UNDUE. "oops, we already have an entire section devoted to dreamhost's screw up, so we can't add any more criticisms" like undue weight works that way. please. multiple criticisms coming from multiple reliable sources is NOT undue weight as long as it's NPOV and reliably sourced. the entire article could be reliably sourced about nothing more than dreamhost's screw ups and that would not be undue weight, as long as everything were properly sourced. Stop trying to own this article, stop trying to 'protect' dreamhost from legitimate criticism, and stop filibustering collaboration by misusing policies that you appear to not understand.
 * i'm removing the 'billing' section, condensing it into a sentence or two, and adding the 'dreamhost hacked' information. you have not provided any legitimate reasons why this should not happen, and i've given you plenty of opportunities Theserialcomma (talk) 04:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You do not have a consensus for this, and all you will do is precipitate an edit war. Think carefully before going down that road. Await comment from administrators. Also, do not move comments around. The threading of these comments is important for review by others. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * if i moved your comments around, it was an accident. i was trying to fix the formatting of my own comments. if i am awaiting comments from administrators, then which ones? hopefully not the one who's also a dreamhost customer. maybe we should do an RFC or report it to ANI if you are promising an edit war? some neutral, new opinions would be great. Theserialcomma (talk) 04:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Wholesale updates
I have made significant improvements to the article, including adding new references and moving old references to better positions (per WP:MOS). I have restored an earlier, fuller account of the billing issue that has many more references in it. It is a fair and accurate accounting, but it represents about 50% of the article. More neutral information about the company is needed in the future in order to repair the imbalance I have created, but these changes should satisfy certain disgruntled ex-customers of the company. I would request that future changes, both inclusions and exclusions, be first discussed on this talk page. Seek consensus for all but the most uncontroversial of changes. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In other words, because you own this article, you can make wholesale updates, but everybody else must get permission first. --Judas278 (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've attempted to extended an olive branch to you by putting a large chunk of negative publicity back into the article, and this is your response? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You'd do better to leave out your obvious personal attacks. --Judas278 (talk) 05:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you restrain yourself from further finger wagging for 5 seconds and offer an opinion about the proposal below? -- Scjessey (talk) 05:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've already spent hours restoring material that was previously in the article, and trying to make minor, well-sourced additions, only to have them promptly reverted by you without comment or discussion. Some times almost simultaneously. --Judas278 (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed untitled "issues" paragraph
I propose the following compromise text, based largely on the work of Theserialcomma, but also including much of the information demanded by Judas278. This covers all 3 documented "issues" historically mentioned in the article, with significant improvement to the references. -- Scjessey (talk) 05:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: July 2006: This (8/02 versus 7/25) reference should also be included: http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2006/08/02/la_hosting_providers_slowed_by_power_problems.html and the network issues should be mentioned in the sentence. The company blog is self-published, unreliable reference, and should not be used in the article. --Judas278 (talk) 05:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As the article stands now, by The'comma, it's almost ok. Just delete the unreliable blog reference, and add a brief sentence on the power and network issues at the end of the paragraph. It reads better in reverse chronological order, and without added fluff about the building. --Judas278 (talk) 06:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * i like the text below, except i highly agree with judas with the idea that it's unnecessary to mention "the garland building in los angeles." for rhetorical and editorial reasons, i would have to object to using the passive voice instead of the active voice to shift the focus from the subject to the object of the sentence, which is what "the garland building" sentence currently does. the subject of the sentence should surely be dreamhost, not the object. i would propose, if we are all convinced the power outage is big enough of a deal to even be mentioned in the article at this time: "DreamHost suffered a power outage in July, 2006, which resulted in significant downtime for its customers. The outage was a result of a rolling blackout in the building in which DreamHost's datacenter was located. Other providers were also affected". Theserialcomma (talk) 07:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with that approach is that it implies the outage was DreamHost's fault, which is not the case. The incident was so significant, it brought down MySpace. We could change it to something like this:
 * In July, 2006, DreamHost was twice the victim of power outages at the Garland Building in Los Angeles, resulting in significant downtime for customers.
 * That firmly puts DreamHost, rather than the building, as the subject of the sentence. I would not support Judas's call to strip the page of material sourced at DreamHost itself. That is down to his complete misunderstanding of WP:SELFPUB, and these sources have been minimized anyway. Nor would I support he ludicrous notion of a reverse chronology. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's about what reliable sources say about the company. No need to use "ridiculous" because that's how it stood, by Theserialcomma. --Judas278 (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

how does "The outage was a result of a rolling blackout in the building in which DreamHost's datacenter was located." imply that it was dreamhost's fault? Theserialcomma (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Text
In July, 2006, the Garland Building in Los Angeles suffered two power outages that caused significant downtime for its customers, including DreamHost. 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, totaling $2.1m.

Proposed rewrite of "Network" sentence
This sentence: "DreamHost's network consists of Debian GNU/Linux-based servers for customers running on F5 Networks Big IP-based servers." is now non-sensical, for one. Second, it was agreed by SarekofVulcan that "Debian" could be deleted, as not adding anything significant. The current Debian reference was written by the company, and posted at Debian.org: http://www.debian.org/users/com/dreamhost. It is also very old, and should be deleted. Proposed wording:

DreamHost uses GNU/Linux-based servers for customers, and F5 Networks Big IP-based servers for company sites.

Ref's: http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/hosted?netname=DREAMHOST-BLK1,66.33.192.0,66.33.223.255

we do have more : http://livemnc.com/virtual-private-cloud/

--Judas278 (talk) 06:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Disagreed. And this is precisely where knowledge of the company is useful. DreamHost uses Debian universally - that is a fact. Although the reference is not of the highest quality, it is a non-contentious matter and so it should not be a problem. Also, your suggestion "servers for company sites" is original research, with no source to back it up. The Netcraft source you use does not mention "company sites". -- Scjessey (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is where too much "knowledge" and devotion to the company PR is harmful. The facts need to be notable and well sourced. Terms like most, majority, and small percentage should also be removed unless you have good, reliable, 3rd party references. This is non-sensical: "for customers running on F5 Networks Big IP-based servers." I agree this reference is primary and borders on OR; however, the Whois reference you added is very similar. Do you now support removing the whois reference for the same reason? --Judas278 (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The WHOIS reference is there only to support a date, which it does quite adequately. It's not ideal, but it is still a non-contentious detail. Your thing is just pure OR, so there is no comparison to be made there. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Again no response to the sentence making no sense as it stands - ...servers on ...servers. The netcraft uptime lookup is very similar, and only supports a computer type, also a non-contentious detail or should be non-contentious. And to re-iterate, you are now making an issue of something recently agreed to above. --Judas278 (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well obviously servers on servers is no good, and that needs to be changed. For accuracy, it should say something like:
 * DreamHost's network consists of Apache and lighttpd web servers running on the Debian GNU/Linux operating system, on server equipment that includes F5 Networks Big IP hardware.
 * Of course, we may need to rely on a mix of the Netcraft and DreamHost-based references for these specifics, but they should not be points of contention. How does that sound? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not very good. I am against adding more advertising-like repetition of company-published PR as "references". I welcome other opinions on whois and netcraft uptime lookups as adequate references, and whether network and server description is notable enough to even include. I doubt it. --Judas278 (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The types of network and server systems are actually quite important, because they distinguish DreamHost from other services that may employ Microsoft's IIS, for example. Your continued insistence that DreamHost-based references can only be "advertising" or "PR" is quite ridiculous. In many cases, DreamHost-sourced information may be the only available, or the most accurate. This is not a problem with non-contentious data like what kind of OS is used. This is quite normal, as evidenced by similar articles for web hosts like Media Temple. The policies concerning these types of sources are well explained at WP:RS and WP:V. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not notable to use Linux/Apache instead of Microsoft: http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2009/03/15/march_2009_web_server_survey.html . The particular brand of Linux is also not noteworthy. Such information does not need to be included. This company's blogs are Questionable sources because they are notable for not fact checking, for making newsworthy mistakes, and publishing "updates." Media Temple is apparently newsworthy and notable for their somewhat unique system architecture, as there are 3rd party references on that. Questionable and self-published sources are to be avoided, and used only when "the material is not unduly self-serving". Notice Media Temple does not have a whole section of "External Links". In this article, those links are more than enough advertising. --Judas278 (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, you have completely misinterpreted policy. I didn't say anything about whether the web server software was notable, only that it was important to distinguish Apache-based web hosts from IIS-based. These sources are not questionable, because they are not being used for contentious information. And you cannot compare references to external links - that is a completely separate issue. You are being deliberately obtuse and tendentious because you have a grudge against the company. It is a complete waste of time trying to discuss this with you, because you have the red mist of DreamHost rage in your eyes. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Another editor, Theserialcomma, already questioned your interpretations of policy and protection of the article. This is not a place to repeat and link to the company's advertising and slogans. It's a place to cover notable information about the company. With no 3rd party, reliable references to use, probably the best thing is to delete the information about the company's "network" and "control panel". It is non-notable.  --Judas278 (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed mention of gmail recommendation by company
Suggested wording

DreamHost recommends gmail for email.

Ref's: http://www.thewhir.com/web-hosting-news/052708_Use_Gmail_says_DreamHost, http://www.gadgetell.com/tech/comment/dreamhost-use-gmail-not-our-servers/

It was notable enough to get news reports. --Judas278 (talk) 06:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Those are not "news reports", and the overwhelming majority of DreamHost customers do not use GMail. This is an irrelevant detail. If you insist on this, then I insist on stuff like:
 * DreamHost's eradication of their carbon footprint
 * DreamHost winning an award for a democratic workplace
 * DreamHost running a DRM-free file backup system
 * DreamHost's private server system
 * -- Scjessey (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * They look like reliable on-line sources. It was relevant enough to get impartial, 3rd party notice. How do you know how many customers do or don't use gmail, and what does your opinion on the facts matter in the first place? If you have some relevant additions, with reliable, 3rd party references, then propose your wording and references for comment. --Judas278 (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of reliable sources and company sites as references
Should this question be taken somewhere else for comment? There seems to be wide differences here interpreting good sources definition, like on company PR on historical events. Where is the right place to take it? --Judas278 (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you had bothered to follow WP:RS (which is linked all over the place on this page), the second paragraph points to the reliable source noticeboard, where the suitability of sources can be discussed and debated. It's really easy to figure out though - the more contentious or extraordinary a claim, the higher the standard of the reference must be to support it. Things like whether or not a web hosting company uses Debian do not require a high standard of sourcing, whereas things that are highly-contentious with potential POV issues require very high quality sourcing. Crucially, however, it is important to understand that not everything needs to be covered in the article. Only things that are notable, neutral and balanced. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've read it. I've read Theserialcomma statements above on your view of referencing, and protecting of this article. I don't know if more requests for outside help are appropriate yet. I welcome other opinions, but not your insults and attacks. --Judas278 (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of issues tag
Given these facts, I now propose that the "issues" tag is removed from the article. If there is no reasonable objection within the next 48 hours, I will remove the tag. Removal of the tag would not, of course, prevent continued improvement of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Article references have been improved to an acceptable standard
 * 2) Much work has been done to address the question of neutrality, and the article is properly-balanced
 * 3) No COI has been demonstrated


 * Disagree. The above are not all facts. Some improvements were made, but self-published references remain, unnecessarily. Unnecessary fluff descriptive material, without 3rd party reliable references remains, for self-serving purposes. COI has been repeatedly perceived and alleged.  You won't allow even a brief mention of gmail to be added, when it is notable with 3rd party references, and you revert good faith edits like you own this article. --Judas278 (talk) 00:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Go back and read WP:SELFPUB again, because you completely misunderstand it. Allegations of COI are meaningless - there is none. The GMail thing isn't relevant, and you have misinterpreted the sources. You don't make good faith edits. All your edits are in bad faith, because your sole reason for editing here is to discredit DreamHost. And like I said, only reasonable objections will be considered. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This is Notice: most of the first paragraph under Web Hosting is proposed for deletion within a few days, unless you can find reliable references to show it is notable and verifiable. Except the non-notable blurb about the control panel, the accuracy of the remainder is also challenged. That is, to delete:


 * "DreamHost's network consists of Debian GNU/Linux-based servers for customers running on F5 Networks Big IP-based servers.[5][6] Customers have access to a control panel that includes integrated billing and support ticket systems. The majority of hosted domains exist within a shared hosting environment, with a small percentage of customers on dedicated servers."


 * The "Gmail thing" even hit Slashdot. Stop your false personal attacks on me and my edits. --Judas278 (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything hits Slashdot. And you don't have consensus for deletion of anything. Your proposal will be a gross violation of WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not your personal playground of hate. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you should have no trouble finding good references. From WP:SELFPUB:
 * "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."
 * "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors might object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references, and it has always been good practice, and expected behavior of Wikipedia editors (in line with our editing policy), to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them."
 * I've made reasonable effort to find sources (Netcraft lookup, but that's OR). Find references, or delete. Stop attacking. --Judas278 (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is necessary to use the DreamHost blog as a source for the final total because we a required to for purposes of attribution. I am not attacking anyone. You are being disruptive and you must stop now. As I said on your talk page, if you are incapable of editing this article in a neutral fashion you should recuse yourself from doing so. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith
Copied here:

Why do you continue your bad faith editing at DreamHost. I have collaborated with other editors to come up with a reasonable compromise language, and yet you persistently make disruptive, bad faith edits trying to make the article sound as negative as you possibly can. Why are you doing this? This is highly disruptive behavior.

Once again, let me repeat that it is perfectly acceptable to use DreamHost's own website as a source for non-contentious facts and details about their service. It is also necessary for us to cite the DreamHost blog entry to provide the correct attribution for the amended figure on the overbilling. If you are incapable of editing this article neutrally, you should recuse yourself from doing so. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've used Theserialcomma's wording, which you have now reversed a few times within 24 hours, violating 3RR. A couple sentences of non-contentious fluff is one thing. Two paragraphs is too much, especially when the accuracy is questionable. It's also not necessary to describe their network, servers, and control panel in any detail, because it's non-notable. --Judas278 (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This is an article about a web hosting company. What kind of retarded article would it be if it didn't describe their web hosting? -- Scjessey (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Read the Shared hosting article. Control Panel: "Shared hosting typically uses a web-based control panel system, such as cPanel, Ensim, DirectAdmin, Plesk, InterWorx, H-Sphere or one of many other control panel products. Most of the large hosting companies use their own custom developed control panel." Servers: "Most servers are based on the Linux operating system and LAMP (software bundle),"
 * "DreamHost provides typical shared hosting." That's all the "Web Hosting" needs instead of first 3 sentences. It's not my fault they are notable for not using phones and for recommending Gmail. Many people use gmail, anyway. --Judas278 (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Information about the company and the services it provides is important, otherwise there would be no point in having an article about it. There is nothing notable about the GMail thing. And not having telephone support is perfectly normal for shared hosting companies. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "DreamHost provides typical shared hosting." No original research. Verifiable. NPOV. Adding any more fluff is self-serving. You give your opinion. I give reliable sources. --Judas278 (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I accept your Gmail addition, and I have improved upon it by providing additional relevant information from the sources your provided. I will not accept your proposed "typical shared hosting" nonsense, because that would render the article all but useless. Wikipedia is supposed to offer useful information, not reduce information to the minimum it can get away with. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Shortening 3 fluff sentences down to 1 leaves a 5-6 sentence paragraph, plus the Introduction paragraph. That is substantial coverage since you haven't identified a single 3rd party source to add to the Original Research source I identified and added. --Judas278 (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Although preferable, you do not necessarily need a third party source to corroborate basic, uncontentious facts. For example, you would not need a third party source to corroborate a Microsoft-sourced list of MS Office features. Nor would you need a third party source to corroborate a government-sourced list of government departments. What exists has adequate sourcing. It is not synthesized, and it is not original research. Please stop your disruption. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Office is a poor example; it is itself tagged a few times for inadequate references. "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." Repeat: I challenge the 3 sentences. Network description is gibberish, and sourced by OR and out of date self-pub. Control panel... is like saying they use electricity, ethernet, Cisco routers, and air conditioning (worthless statement). The fraction of customers on different server types is completely made up or "synthesized". Even if you can find a company-self-published description, it is notably unreliable. I looked for one and found these:
 * http://wiki.dreamhost.com/KB_/_Dedicated_Servers_/_Billing
 * http://wiki.dreamhost.com/Hosting_plan

(outdent) At the moment, both link to http://www.dreamhost.com/hosting-dedicated.html which is 404-not found. Unreliable! Fix and reference, or delete the gibberish and baseless hype. --Judas278 (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * At the moment, there are exactly zero dead links on this article, so I don't know what your last bit of gibberish is all about. Also, since you are just a DreamHost-hating SPA, your "challenge" is essentially meaningless. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The above is Another Attack. The company wiki is a questionable source, partly because it contains broken links. Judas278 (talk) 10:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see what your point is. We are not using the wiki as a source, so why are you complaining about it? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The company wiki, and probably much other company-published advertising, was clearly unreliable regarding Hosting Plan and Dedicated Servers, which you insist on describing in the article without sources. Judas278 (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? The wiki is not being used as a source. How can you object to a source that isn't even being used? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Several company-distributed "PR" or advertising sites, including blog.dreamhosters.com, wiki.dreamhost.com, www.dreamhost.com and more, will worm their way back in when it suits some editors. They are low quality sources, as demonstrated. Judas278 (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The company's home page is a low quality source?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

2005 Outage
I do not see how the 2005 outage is notable. It gets a single line in the provided source, and is only there to provide context. This would seem to be a violation of WP:GNG, that demands "significant coverage". A Google News search reveals only 2 sources for this matter. Web hosts suffer from outages all the time. This addition should be removed immediately. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * False. Two lines:

"Compounding the damage of the outage was the fact that DreamHost was still earning back whatever goodwill it may have lost when the company suffered a similar outage in September of 2005, when a confluence of ISP outages and power failures brought its data center offline." "Before the company's original 2005 outage, he says, the facility informed tenants that power capacity for the building had been met, and with no upgrades planned, it would be difficult to continue building within facilities."
 * It is also in the reference largely focusing on DreamHost: http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2006/08/02/power-woes-continue-at-las-garland-building/

"In September 2005, much of LA lost grid power when a utility worker accidentally cut a key cable. The Garland building has five generators, but three malfunctioned, and the remaining two were unable to handle the load. In the July 24 outage this year, the generators worked, only to have the ATS and UPS systems fail."


 * It was also widely covered in other less reliable sources including DreamHost's blog:
 * http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dreamhost+september+2005+power+outage
 * http://blog.dreamhost.com/2005/09/12/power-outage-update/


 * Suggestion: Fixup the 3 sentences of unsourced non-sense statement and fluff before it gets deleted. --Judas278 (talk) 03:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you have still failed to demonstrate notability with "significant coverage" per WP:GNG. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I mis-interpreted that guideline too, for a while. You should read this carefully:

"These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They don't directly limit the content of articles. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons." My addition is Neutral, Verifiable (2 good sources), and not OR. Let it in, and put the tags back on. --Judas278 (talk) 04:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * None of the policies you refer to are being violated by my edits. You have failed to establish notability, and you are also violating neutrality by presenting negative information in undue weight. If you want to usefully contribute to this article, you will need to discuss things properly, seek consensus, and stop disruptively editing. You might also consider that you have a serious conflict of interest (disgruntled former customer seeking revenge) with no editing history outside of this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * i don't think it's been firmly established that Judas278 has a serious conflict of interest, as you've stated; or that he's (currently) editing with a bias that is blockable or punishable by wikipedia admins. Per the COI page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Your_company#How_not_to_handle_COI : Remember: an editor with a self-evident interest in the matter turning up on the talk page is an indication that they are playing it straight. Even if the changes they advocate are hopelessly biased, treat them with respect and courtesy, refer to policy and sources, and be fair. i really don't think you're treating Judas with respect and courtesy. i think you're being hostile, defensive about the company, failing to assume good faith, and you're doing a bit of bullying. until he's been sanctioned by an admin for his behavior, i don't think you should be acting this hostile towards him. some of the things you're saying about him could even be construed as personal attacks. Theserialcomma (talk) 04:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's appropriate, I'd appreciate you putting a word in at this Edit Warring report. --Judas278 (talk) 04:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is highly inappropriate for anyone to request a comment on a 3RR report - especially when that report was misfiled due to a lack of a violation. I think this is symptomatic of the disgraceful behavior of this SPA. It is not possible to assume any kind of good faith when this obviously conflicted, disgruntled former customer of DreamHost is using Wikipedia as a tool to attack the company. His edits have all been designed to introduce a negative slant to the article, and he constantly removes non-contentious facts - justifying them by misquoting and misinterpreting Wikipedia policies. Administrator apathy in dealing with this poison is no excuse for ignoring Wikipedia's rules and guidelines and allowing the project to be harmed. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You escape on a technicality while violating the spirit of the rules. My edits include adding references for previously unsourced advertising fluff. Stop your baseless personal attacks!

(outdent) Back to the 2005 outage, there are 2 reliable sources. On what basis do you veto adding this history, which is mentioned prominently in already referenced articles? --Judas278 (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, it is not "prominent" as you claim. It is included in the articles for context. Secondly, it is a less significant power outage than the one already documented in the article, partly because it was nowhere near as much of a problem for customers, but also because it is older information. Thirdly, since we already talk about the more recent power problems, documenting yet another, less significant outage would constitute undue weight and be a violation of the neutral point of view. This article already suffers from being skewed significantly toward documenting negative aspects of DreamHost, thanks to your single-minded editing agenda. You have to be reasonable about this. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Above Concludes with Another attack. It is well sourced fact. Brief mention is appropriate. As you say, it puts later similar issues and later hardware moves in context. Judas278 (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but an SPA seeking to push negative information into an article to ensure that the subject is received poorly can be assumed to be acting in bad faith per WP:DUCK. It puts it in negative context, thus violating (again) the neutral point of view. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As said by Theserialcomma, "Stop trying to own this article, stop trying to 'protect' dreamhost from legitimate criticism, and stop filibustering collaboration by misusing policies that you appear to not understand." Mentioning the 2005 outage, as in the reliable sources, is consistent with WP:NPOV:"representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Judas278 (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Another ludicrous misrepresentation of WP:NPOV. Read |the article as it is right now and you will see that there are 2 paragraphs of neutral information and 3 paragraphs of negative information. Even now, after I have reverted your recent changes, the article is skewed toward a negative (and definitely not neutral) point of view. How is that representing anything fairly? Your personal bias dominates the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Where does it say the positive or "neutral" information should have equal paragraphs numbers, or anything similar to that? What is wrong with Letting the facts speak for themselves?  The 2005 outage is a significant fact, or you wouldn't be arguing so strongly. It's verifiable. Sourced. Stated neutrally.  Judas278 (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV - "Each Wikipedia article and other content must be written from a neutral point of view, by representing all significant views on each topic fairly, proportionately, and without bias."
 * WP:WEIGHT - "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."
 * WP:NPOVT - "A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted."
 * WP:NPOVT - "Thus, verifiability, proper citation and neutral phrasing are necessary but not sufficient to ensure NPOV. It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability."
 * All of these talk about fairness in the article. It is an abstract concept that has no specific rules. Wikipedians are supposed to use common sense. You have gone out of your way to suppress as much positively-framed information as you possibly can, while at the same time you have tried to include as much negatively-framed information as you possibly can. The result is an article that is out of balance, with all the negative information documented in exhaustive detail, and anything positive has been minimized. You have used the lack of reliable sources for "not newsworthy" boring web hosting information as a method of suppression by demanding a high standard of sourcing for even the least contentious of facts. This tactic may be too subtle for some of the other editors to spot, but I am familiar with it because of my work on hundreds of other articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The above contains personal attacks. This section raised a simple question of one, well sourced, brief statement. Now this is confusing the discussion by raising different broad issues. Please start a different section or take this elsewhere. Without the insults. Judas278 (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Debian reference
Current reference http://www.debian.org/users/com/dreamhost is self-written by the company - "Since our inception over five years ago", "our shared hosting operations", "We now have over 150 Debian servers serving 50,000 web sites" etc. It is out of date - "Since our inception over five years ago". What kind of servers does the company currently use? Is it even significant enough to mention? I believe it is a poor reference and should be deleted. Alternatively, the article should refer to "five years after inception", or "about five years ago"... --Judas278 (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, there is nothing wrong with "self-written" sources if they relate to non-contentious material. The age of the link is irrelevant - we are not using it to reference specifics about how many servers, only that DreamHost uses Debian. It is the only source that exists that tells us that DreamHost uses Debian, besides the wiki (which should not be used for sourcing). I cannot see why anyone would have an objection to specifying the specific flavor of Linux. It is important that this article contains some of this boring, non-contentious stuff because it is helpful to the reader trying to find out information about the company. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's an out of date article trying to support present tense description. I don't object to "Debian" if it is a fact. Are you sure they don't use some RedHat, Centos, Ubuntu, or F5 Big-IP proprietary operating systems? And our OR doesn't matter. Verifiable information is important, and you're not suggesting any sources, except some old PR. Judas278 (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The only third-party source (even though it is self-written, it is still on a third-party site) states clearly that DreamHost uses Debian, and we must follow what sources tell us. Until we have a source that states that DreamHost does not use Debian (or no longer does), this source is sufficient. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you must represent what it says properly: About 5 years ago the company stated they used Debian. Better, delete the insignificant adjective, which SarekOfVulcan agreed should be deleted. From WP:V :

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." Judas278 (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I utterly reject your interpretation. We have a reliable source that clearly states DreamHost uses Debian. Until you can find a source (even a crappy source, for all I care) that actually refutes this information, the information stays. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, you're badly mistaken about editorial policies and norms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FT2 (Talk 21:29, 11 April 2009, Note added by Judas278 (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Revise support via IRC, and email
I can find no reliable source supporting IRC as a support option. Further, Self-published company source http://wiki.dreamhost.com/IRC_chat_channel says "DreamHost has an unofficial IRC chat channel where customers and prospective customers alike can chat and support one another." and "The only guaranteed way to receive official support from DreamHost is to submit a support ticket through the control panel." Thus, I propose changing from "Instead of telephone-based support, DreamHost provides support via IRC and email." to "Instead of telephone-based support, DreamHost provides support only via the control panel." --Judas278 (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. I agree that the IRC part may be dubious. I have logged into IRC looking for help and found it to be a non-useful resource, with most responses pointing to the wiki or the main support system; however, email-based support works perfectly well. In fact, it is the only solution if the central server (that runs the control panel) goes down. Much of the "support" actually comes from other customers though, via the customer forum. Not sure how this aspect could be referenced, and it probably isn't all that notable. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Original Research is irrelevant, but they certainly do encourage customers to find support from other sources than the company staff. Please find a reliable source for email. "Some" postings in the forum complain about lack of response to emails, anyway. Judas278 (talk) 10:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous. There are some things you are never going to find a source for because they don't warrant third-party coverage; nevertheless, they are important details. When a support ticket is opened, the response (and any subsequent communication) on that specific ticket takes place through email. That's how ticketing systems generally work. When the panel goes down for whatever reason, open tickets continue to be served by email. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Unverifiable information is not "important details." If that's how ticketing systems generally work, then there's no need to describe it here. Link to shared hosting is all we need here. Judas278 (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I no longer wish to argue with you. Get third party assistance and proceed with dispute resolution if you wish to continue to follow this anti-DreamHost adventure. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)