Talk:Shell account/Archive 2

Removed links
Out of the 4 links that were removed from the External links section, one did not go to a directory/list and appeared to be linkspam but I don't personally see a problem with the other 3 links that were removed. Those links do meet the external links guideline and had been included in the article for quite some time. I do think the current Dmoz link is better than the original one,  since the original link only linked to the "Free Shells" subgroup of "Unix Shell Providers". --Tothwolf (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Jan's list of free shell providers
 * ClueNet's free shell providers list
 * Mitja's list of free shell providers
 * What's the relevance? This page is about "shell accounts", at a push "shell providers". Can you explain to me the relevance of "list of free shell providers" to this article? Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 08:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that the external links section should contain a listing of Shell providers, these can be beneficial for the users looking for an account, and can also serve as the listing point for the additional new shell provider entries (we can avoid single add-ons by pointing users to the external lists). These links served well in the past inside of this article. -- Prunk (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a list, provided via DMOZ, which is linked from the article. The other links were simply inappropriate and unrelated. --Hm2k (talk) 11:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The links I mentioned above that you removed are perfectly acceptable per the external links guideline. DMOZ is not able to provide as much information as those links provide (two are comparison charts) and all of these links are comparison/directory links. I think the current DMOZ link combined with the links above is a much better solution. While I agree 100% with your change of "Historical free shell account providers" to "Shell providers" (this article should not be restricted to only covering "free shell providers") I do not see anything being gained from the removal of the links mentioned above. --Tothwolf (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Those links don't appear to add anything to the article, they offer the same content and don't appear to be very established/reliable sources. There are way more established sites that list shell account providers.. I also found an article on slashdot about shell accounts that could be reference. --Hm2k (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Your arguments still don't hold water and I intend to restore these links within the next few days. The links meet the external links guidelines and two are to updated versions of List of free shell providers which was transwikied after having been deleted because it failed WP:NOT. While wikipedia might not be a good place for List of free shell providers, providing links to such directories are perfectly acceptable. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * They aren't within the guidelines. If you add them, they will be removed and reported. Don't waste your time. --Hm2k (talk) 08:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken, they are indeed acceptable per the external links guideline. You seem to be the only one taking issue with links that a number of other editors decided were acceptable. --Tothwolf (talk) 08:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you check the DMOZ link a little better, it contains a list of shell providers which is outdated. You can click on the links and you will notice that 50% of the links will bring you to non-existing website. So why not put a link to the lists of shell accounts which are accurate, instead ? It also meets the wikipedias external links guideline, there is no need to remove it. Prunk (talk) 08:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not mistaken, check #12 of WP:ELNO. We don't need a forth opinion, considering an impartial third opinion has already been given by PeterSymonds further up, who said "the link[s] you are adding does not meet WP:EL (see WP:ELNO)" when referring the links in question. I agree that the DMOZ links are outdated (as is most of DMOZ) however it is a reliable source that is recognised by wikipieda and thus worth keeping. It's not all bad though, instead of adding these links back, i've proposed some others, that I'd consider "better", mainly because they have been around a lot longer and are more appropriate to this article. Both AckyNet's ShellSearch.com and egghelp.org's list of shell providers have been around for as long as I can remember and are still very well maintained. --Hm2k (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

These fall under WP:ELYES #3. Furthermore, the "wiki link" you are complaining about is maintained by User:Cobi, the same Cobi who runs User:ClueBot. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ELYES #3 does not support your argument, there's quite a few reasons it was removed, not copyright, too much detail or anything like that though. I'm in agreement with the "lack of notability" issues, which questions the accuracy of the content.
 * All that aside, my main issue is that the links simply aren't appropriate to the article. This article is about what a "shell account" is, not a list of "free shell providers", the article doesn't even mention "free shell providers".
 * My suggestion would be to find notability, which is what I suggested in the section below, this will give you way more context to work with.
 * --Hm2k (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you just can't stand to lose an argument can you? The AfD you linked to above has nothing to do with including a link here. The notability guideline has nothing to do with a link or even the actual content of an article. The notability guideline states: "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles." Your argument thus far has been and continues to be flawed and a logical fallacy. --Tothwolf (talk) 08:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I totally disagree with your claims. I think I've made my position on this clear enough, I don't need to add anything else. Wait for the third/forth opinion. --Hm2k (talk) 09:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm quoting the notability guideline. The notability guideline has nothing to do with links or the actual content of an article. Whether you like it or not, there isn't much you can disagree with there. You've argued relevance, reliable sources, external links guidelines, and the notability guideline – none of which are an issue here, and reliable sources and the notability guideline are not even applicable to external links. PS: pulling this stunt and removing references because you don't like what I've had to say is not going to gain you any brownie points with anyone. --Tothwolf (talk) 10:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is getting ridiculous now. My goal is to improve the article, I'm not trying to score points, pull stunts, do wheelies, or anything else. Do you want to improve the article or just continue to argue and add irrelevant external links? --Hm2k (talk) 10:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain exactly how it is your edit warring over the external links    the 3O template    and now removing references (which were fine in the manner in which they were used) contributes towards improving this article? --Tothwolf (talk) 10:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't you read the edit summaries? Its clear from those links that i've improved the article. Inappropriate links were simply deleted. I don't think we needed a 3O, however as you continue to argue, I'm happy to invite another third opinion to resolve this matter. --Hm2k (talk) 11:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also "Note: You must list your dispute at Third opinion in order for editors to respond. If you do not make a request at WP:3O, the template will be removed." -- You haven't done this, did you want me to do it? --Hm2k (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I see it was added about an hour ago, although it was inaccurate, so I've updated it. --Hm2k (talk) 11:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In response to the third opinion request: In my opinion a list of links to lists of free shell providers fails to meet the guidance of WP:DIRECTORY. The current Open Directory Project link does meet WP:ELMAYBE and as the guidance suggests there, a single such link is sufficient and in this case meets the needs of a reader to find all significant examples of shell accounts.—Teahot (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm glad you cleared this up for us. I think we can we agree that no further action needs to be taken. --Hm2k (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this does not resolve things at all. You changed the 3O request First you try removing the 3O template 3 times, then you change the request. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, the links you seem to hate so much (which the other editors here also find acceptable) are comparison tables and contain a lot of detail, they are not simple "lists of providers". These are more than acceptable per WP:ELYES #3: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons." If you are trying to argue the WP:DIRECTORY thing (which IMO is not an issue here as this is very small number of links, which have actually served well in the past to keep people from adding links here), then the links that you just added are also not acceptable. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Hm2k Can you tell us what is the difference between the Acky.net and Eggdrop.org lists, which in your opinion meet the standards for external links, and why you keep deleting the primary shell comparison charts (which are by the way more accurate and checked for valid shell providers) ? I don't understand why you have double standards/measures ? -- AndrejDo (talk) 08:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We're going round in circles here. This matter has already been resolved twice by using a third opinion. I see no point in continuing this discussion. If you have a new issue with new links, please start a new discussion in a new section. --Hm2k (talk) 09:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it hasn't been resolved twice. The first you claim to be a 3O was an admin who told you and Dren to knock it off the arguing and edit warring. The second you claim you changed the 3O request after you previously removed the 3O template from the article 3 times. Stop trying to bury the discussion. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you suggest? Another third opinion? --Hm2k (talk) 14:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Dispute
This dispute is regarding the links removed in this edit.
 * Do you agree or disagree with the edit? The following questions should assist your decision:


 * 1) Are the links appropriate to the article?
 * 2) Are the links useful content-relevant links?
 * 3) Are the links are acceptable as external links?
 * Please can I invite any other editors that have not already expressed their opinion to do so now.
 * This debate should be open for no longer than 5 days, after which a third opinion will be invited to make the final decision with the arguments and opinions left here in mind.
 * Editors who have already contributed to the discussion are encouraged not to partake.

--Hm2k (talk) 10:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Since no further comments were added within the time frame, I am assuming no further action is required and that this matter is resolved.
 * If you disagree, please add a comment within the next 5 days. --Hm2k (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You sure seem to like to twist things and play with the icon templates... You do not moderate or decide what should or should not be included in this article. The other editors involved here all have reverted your removal of links at least once and some cases multiple times. That alone makes it quite clear that your removal of those links is going against consensus here. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, so you disagree. The next step is to open another WP:3O or an RFC with neutral wording. I propose the first 5 lines under this heading. Do you agree? --Hm2k (talk) 08:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I propose an RFC is raised with the following question in order to resolve the issue:
 * Are the links removed in this edit appropriate for the Shell account article?

Do you agree or disagree with this request? I will allow 5 days to respond, otherwise wp:silence will apply. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 09:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

--Tothwolf (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, WP:SILENCE does not apply here, what applies here is WP:GAME in your continued attempt to game the system. People are also tired of your edit warring and are largely ignoring you. Furthermore, the wording you propose is biased, misleading, and contains a false analogy in that it uses a piped wikilink for appropriate to WP:LINKSPAM. "Linkspam" is a negative connotation and linking this and asking if the links you edit warred over to remove are appropriate is yet again another attempt to mislead others so that they logically have to agree with you (i.e. linkspam == bad, removed links == linkspam, links == inappropriate). The links you removed could not even remotely be considered "linkspam". The "replacement" links you've added to the article actually would be much easier to classify as linkspam as the "replacement" links contain banner ads. Kudos to you for being so darned sneaky but some of us are on to your game.

Per WP:EL, "External links to an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." The previous list of links was excessive/redundant, you don't need ten links to the same thing.  Triplestop  x3  01:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

My only previous comment here was as a third party but I would like to pick up on the accusation of gaming and I am therefore stepping out of the role of third party. Reading the text above, Hm2k has made a proposal for an RFC giving 5 days for responses before proceeding. The guidance at WP:RFC only states "it generally helps to simply discuss the matter on the talk page first", so this appears to me to be a reasonable way of finalizing the already lengthy discussion here and agreeing the text of a potential RFC before going ahead and raising it. I would do something similar as a courtesy for other editors. Can I suggest that Tothwolf proposes some alternative text for an RFC that can be considered more neutral or propose an alternative acceptable dispute resolution process?—Ash (talk) 05:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC) As for an RFC, an RFC at this stage would be inappropriate for what amounts to one editor (you) being in dispute with the other editors who have worked on this article. Following the normal progression order for this type of thing, the next stage would be informal mediation. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no other way to resolve this. I'd be happy for Tothwolf to propose the request, so long as we can all agree that the wording is neutral. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 07:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I realise I did not give a time frame for this to be actioned. I set 5 days from now as a reasonable time for Tothwolf to propose an RFC or wp:silence will apply and I will consider this issue resolved. --Hm2k (talk) 23:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * First Hm2k, you do not dictate the time frame or set the terms here. Second, it wouldn't matter if you consider something resolved or not, it will remain unresolved until it is resolved.
 * So, even for that one of us needs to propose a neutral request, since you rejected mine, I am requesting you propose one. So far you have failed to provide one. This suggests you are unwilling to resolve this. Are you willing to propose a request? I'll allow 5 days for a response before I take this further. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 09:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) There is no deadline, the world won't end in 5 days. Dictating time frames is not how we work here on Wikipedia.  I suggest that everyone cool down a bit.  -- Cobi(t 10:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice false analogy. Now it's my turn to tell you knock it off. You didn't like what I had to say == "So far you have failed to provide one. This suggests you are unwilling to resolve this." --Tothwolf (talk) 10:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine, have it your way. I'm going to call troll on this and won't engage in any further discussion on this matter unless you use a proper dispute resolution process. I'm fed up of this dickery. --Hm2k (talk) 11:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think DR is necessary, you should go ahead and start the process. I can tell you from experience that Tothwolf is unlikely to do so himself. I'd suggest starting with WP:3O RFC. I'd rather not give an opinion myself as Tothwolf has engaged in disputes with me previously and if I take your side he may claim it's for other reasons... Yworo (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no issue to dispute. Tothwolf has an issue, but won't resolve it. I have proposed a request, but Tothwolf has rejected it and fails to suggest an alternative. I see no reason for me to start an RFC, although I will gladly if Tothwolf would clearly outline his issue. --Hm2k (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Will someone here initiate an RFC on this dispute (a 3O does not factor as this is between three users it looks like) and notify the proper channels (i.e. WikiProjects, etc.)? If you people have problems starting one, I can help out. However, any more edit warring/refactoring/personal attacks/incivility and I will go to ANI on all parties. Regards, MuZemike 23:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Would love to, however Tothwolf won't agree with my request proposal and won't propose his own. I don't really see how I can take this further without the assistance of a third party. Your assistance is welcomed. --Hm2k (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I started the RFC and placed in the appropriate RFC section. Hopefully you start to get other related users to comment on the way. Now I won't be able to help out much after this but stand aside and let others comment as they come in. MuZemike 23:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh give me a break... Hm2k, you seem to be ignoring the fact I suggested WP:MEDCAB. You've been the one arguing/fighting/edit warring with the other editors here. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You have your break, an RFC has been issued. I ask that you keep any further discussion related to the issue with the article. If you have a personal issue with me, I suggest you use the user talk instead of here. Your disruptive behaviour is unacceptable. --Hm2k (talk) 00:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

As per this discussion and the RFC below it's safe to assume this dispute between Tothwolf is resolved. --Hm2k (talk) 12:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Are these appropriate external links?
Are the external links in this edit appropriate for this article?
 * See the, , and sections for past discussion.
 * --Tothwolf (talk) 11:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Refactored to be more neutral and concise. (WP:AGF) --Hm2k (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * They may not be inappropriate, but as their inclusion is disputed, it would be better to leave them out. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A handful of links is not a problem. If there is a problem then there should be a DMOZ page for lists of shell providers we can link to. Rich Farmbrough, 19:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC).
 * The current external links should be sufficient. (DMOZ; AckyNet's UNIX Shell Provider Search; Egghelp.org's Shell Provider List). --Hm2k (talk) 12:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, ELMAYBE states A well-chosen link to a directory of websites rather than a number of directories. If the ODP directory is inadequate than one of the other directories should be nominated so long as it can be considered neutral in line with the same guidance.—Ash (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * DMOZ is useful, but outdated as pointed out in earlier discussion; AckyNet's may be classed as advertising, but has decent reviews; while Egghelp's is simply a well maintained list. If I had to choose, it'd be Egghelp's list. --Hm2k (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note, DMOZ/ODP is open in a similar way to Wikipedia. If it is deficient you can suggest links to the editors there without even signing up for an editing account. The same degree of openness does not apply to the other sites suggested.—Ash (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is currently no editor for the category in question on DMOZ, while Egghelp.org does allow anyone to submit a suggestion without signing up, contrary to what you have said.. --Hm2k (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. In the case of egghelp.org, there is no process for becoming an editor (as far as I can determine). As you point out that there is no editor for the directory in ODP, it sounds like an opportunity for an interested contributor here to volunteer.—Ash (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The external link policy says nothing about having "no process for becoming an editor". What I do know is that the egghelp list is better than the dmoz list and has been quite some time. --Hm2k (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)