Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-03-26/DreamHost

Where's the dispute?
DreamHost

What's the dispute?
neutrality disputed, editor conflict of interest; tags being removed

Mediator Notes
Could you please describe the conflict a bit more? Also, could you provide links to relevant sections on the talk page? The page is quite lengthy, and I have neither the time nor the willpower to read through it all. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Scjessey
A disgruntled former customer of DreamHost has created a single-purpose agenda account and has begun a campaign of trying to shove as much negative information into the DreamHost article as possible, while also removing anything that he/she doesn't consider to be adequately sourced. At the same time, he/she is accusing me (an existing customer of DreamHost) of a conflict of interest, although I have made repeated statements explaining my relationship (or lack thereof) with the company and only wish to improve the article and make sure it doesn't violate Wikipedia's policy on the neutral point of view. Currently, and largely by his/her hand, the existing article describes the company quite negatively already; however, this still does not seem to be enough for this person. Apart from specialist websites, there is a dearth of quality reliable sources describing the services the company offers; however, since these details are what distinguish one hosting company from another they are necessarily included for completeness. Sadly, this has meant (in a very few cases) on using lower-quality references, including (but not limited to) web pages from DreamHost itself; however, this is only in the case of non-contentious facts such as what kind of operating system is used by the servers. Since it is the SPA seeking mediation, I will let him/her provide the links you requested. Please note that this matter was also discussed at an unresolved (and now stale) incident report at WP:ANI. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Due to the difficult editing atmosphere, I have decided to withdraw from editing the article or taking part in discussions on its talk page for the time being. I remain an interested party, and I will happily return if requested to do so. Although I do not have the article on my watchlist, I will continue to watch this page in the event I am asked to comment or participate in any way. I hope this does not inconvenience anyone involved in the mediation process. Kind regards, Scjessey (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Judas278
Since I requested the help, sorry I didn't go first, but I don't watch things as closely. In short, the article has an owner, or company defender, and I'm not the first or second to observe it. The fact this editor cannot even stipulate "I may have some COI issues in editing this article", a long history of editing "difficulty" here, and quotes listed below, about summarizes the problems. I'd am curious if there's anything this editor could have COI on. Being one of a couple customer-sysops at DreamHost's wiki is a "close" trusted relationship, imo, and a demonstrated path for getting a job with them, which this editor has posted a desire for, at least 3 times (links are available). Getting paid for referrals is an incentive to think and write with a bias towards the company. And, actually, only a few of my changes stuck; most were made by other editors, or returned to the article after being (sarcasm) "skillfully" deleted over the months or years.

There's also a piece of info' I could provide privately, if appropriate. Please direct me if so.

As a "SPA," I should probably quote other, more established editors. I put the mediation request tag at here between "Bias, NPOV" and "Why COI?" because it seemed like a good place to look. Above that is where JavierMC said "Neutrality is in question on this article." and "My initial review and comments above were based on the talk page only, but having read the discussion under this section of the talk, leads me to believe there is a possible WP:COI and an even more unsettling WP:OWN tendency. If such continues, I will bring this article to WP:EAR for comment and if necessary, admin review." He tagged it with npov coi primarysources and self-published, last fall.

I thought Theserialcomma might be from the informal cabal that might or not exist, although they said they came because of the ANI. Down into Proposed wording of DreamHost hack they said, "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."

and

"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."

"Wholesale updates" summarizes one editors view of how they can operate: They can make "wholesale" major changes, but only they can.

Bad faith was presumed from the start of my editing.

Under 2005 Outage, "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)"

On whether to use "Debian Linux" or just "Linux" without a decent source: "Scarily enough, I agree with Judas here. The particular distribution of Linux isn't relevant, unless it's one that's been specially tuned for large-scale server use.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)" Regardless, the editor insisted on putting it back, and even after long discussion concluded "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)" Note: this "reliable source" is 5+ years old, and written by the company, but it is used as though applicable to present day.

This is the essence of the problem. An editor who insists they can use poor or no sources for what they know to be true, but others must give excellent sources and even that may not be enough, an editor who is hostile, an editor whose view of neutral presentation is decidedly in favor of the company. Judas278 (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)