Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:44, 4 April 2009

This page is not a forum for general discussion about DreamHost. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about DreamHost at the Reference desk.

Magazine

I have tagged this page as it uses peacock terms such as, but not limited to; DreamHost hosts over 540,000 domain names (16th-ranked web host in the world, 12th-ranked web host in the United States) and DreamHost is notable for being unusually transparent about its business practices. I think the article needs a general proof read to remove the peacock terms - Wardhog 19:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the unwarranted tag. The information about the number of domains hosted is completely consistent with articles on other hosting companies. Furthermore, it is because of DreamHost's weird transparency that the company is notable, and thus warrants the article in the first place. You have made many edits to the DreamHost article, and none of them have added value to it. -- Scjessey 19:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not want to remove anything from this article. I was simply saying that some of it needs to be rephrased - Wardhog 15:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Previous AfDs

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bravenet Web Services April 2006
• Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/DreamHost November 2007

non-censorship policy

I added the following which was subsequently reverted:

__________________

For instance, DreamHost hosts a websight called "redwatch" which publishes names, addresses, photos and other personal data of human rights activists in order to encourage violent attacks against them. According to Indymedia.org, on May 16 2006, an antifascist activist was followed, attacked and nearly killed in Warsaw after his personal data appeared on this sight.

Consequently, a post on the DreamHost forum, from "the main person who handles these sorts of issues", states:

"... we have a long and cooperative relationship with law enforcement. Upon receiving complaints regarding the legality of a given site we investigate it internally, calling upon law enforcement in situations where we feel that it is warranted. The nature of such investigations is such that we are often unable to comment on their status or provide details on what is going on behind the scenes.

As for this case in particular, I can only say this: We're aware of the site, and of the concerns and facts surrounding the recent incidents in Poland. If any of you can provide us with additional information that could be of use, please don't hesitate to let us know. Beyond that, though, I'm afraid that we cannot comment on this matter any further."

__________________

The reason given is "Revert, the specific sites DreamHost hosts (as mentioned before, over 260,000 domains) are not subject for this article".

So, which article is the relevant place for this information ? Surely there should be a link to the relevant place ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Heysan (talk • contribs) .

Apologies. I'd meant to note that it might fit better in the Redwatch article. Of course, others there may disagree — I can't say for sure. jareha 18:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The information is better suited to the Redwatch article, although I'd argue it is ludicrous to single-out DreamHost for specific mention. There are thousands of web hosts, many more popular and well-known, that host material that is similar to this. -- Scjessey 19:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I certainly did not mean to single out DreamHost as a particular offender. But I think it is better if there is some mention of the fact that a non-cencorship policy of this sort has possibly directly facilitated a violent crime.--Heysan 20:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, and also I think your argument makes no sense at all. Should the Misplaced Pages mention that AT&T/Verizon/Cingular/whatever have possibly directly facilitated a violent crime because the alleged perpetrators have used telephones to communicate with each other? What about GM/Ford/Chrysler/VW/whatever for building the vehicles that allow perpetrators to travel to the locations where the crimes are committed? What about the internet service providers? Should they be mentioned because they failed to block access to the website in question? In all seriousness, the involvement (if it can even be called that) of DreamHost in the activities of Redwatch is completely irrelevant, and not worthy of mention in this (or any) Misplaced Pages article. -- Scjessey 21:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Scjessey. A pen can be a tool to write with; it can also be used to jab someone in the eye. Does that, therefore, mean we should discuss the pitfalls of pen manufacturing on the BIC Corp. article? jareha 21:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the content because it is more pertinent to the debate of freedom of speech on the internet than it is to DreamHost. jareha 21:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think your examples of the pens, vehicles, and telephones are not comparable to the current situation. The fact is that DreamHost itself will block an illegal site -- infact, as I quoted before, they will, "Upon receiving complaints regarding the legality of a given site ... investigate it internally, calling upon law enforcement in situations where we feel that it is warranted", a responsible position to be sure; while pen, vehicle and telephone manufacturers do not nead to take such a position. Why is that ? I think it is because, unlike your examples, DreamHost is in a position where the legality of the sites it hosts might come into question.

For the sake of this argument, lets assume that DreamHost is advised to block the site because it violates their own policy prohibiting illegal sites. Then is it worth pointing out that in the interim, they hosted a site which facilitated a violent crime ? Now, from your comments, I assume you find the phrase 'facilitated a violent crime' too broad to be reasonably applied, but my point is that why else is DreamHost legally obliged to remove the content ? That is, to test whether a party 'facilitated a violent crime', or (the clunkier) 'possibly directly facilitated a violent crime' seems simple: are they legally obliged to take responsibility for their action (of hosting the site)? If they are legally obliged, then I would say that they did, in this case, facilitate a violent crime.

I have a related query: the article previously stated that "There is, for example, no barrier to "adult" sites, or sites that state extremist views." I changed this to "For instance, they do not allow the hosting of child pornography or death threats. On the other hand, for example, there is no barrier to "adult" sites, or sites that state extremist views." Why was this reverted ? At least there should be a link, under the heading non-cencorship policy, to an article discussing the meaning, consequences, and debate of such a policy.--Heysan 00:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the protocol at his point ? Do I add to the article my suggested link, or wait for some sort of consensus from those involved in this discussion ? --Heysan 16:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There is already a consensus that your proposed additions are inappropriate. In fact, I think the "Non-Censorship Policy" section should be removed as well. -- Scjessey 16:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think what we have now is a fair compromise, Scjessey — no need to remove the "non-censorship policy" section. jareha 18:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did expect a response to my last comments -- its a bit disingenuous to stop a discussion midway. --Heysan 17:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't responded because I'm sure neither of us will budge on our opinions. I've said my piece, you've said yours. I disagree with your opinion, but you're free to hold it.

Also, I didn't notice you'd requested to add a link. How about linking censorship? jareha 18:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

How about freedom of speech on the internet as someone suggested earlier ?--Heysan 19:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I suggested that link earlier. Works for me. jareha 20:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

Disgruntled Customer Effect

DreamHost is a huge hosting company. Whenever there is a problem that affects customer, a few are quite outraged. In some of these cases, they announce their intent to 'spread the word', basically wanting to punish DreamHost for their inconvenience by canceling, posting bad reviews, and otherwise warning folks about going with DreamHost. I believe looking at the billing issue section and some past edits that an unhappy past customer or two are using Misplaced Pages to draw a distinctively negative view of DreamHost. DreamHost has issues, as many (if not all) large primarily shared hosting companies do. There are good sides to DreamHost as well, but Misplaced Pages is not the forum to argue the case either way. Please leave agendas for slamming or promoting DreamHost at the door and try to make/keep this article objective, neutral, and on-topic. Thank you. 66.241.81.46 (talk) 09:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Gruntled Customer Effect

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. From that, "WIKIPEDIA is NOT for unverifiable material", "WIKIPEDIA is NOT a soapbox", "WIKIPEDIA is NOT a free advertising space", "WIKIPEDIA is NOT a place to publish your opinions", WIKIPEDIA is NOT a democracy", and "WIKIPEDIA is NOT a place to publish your new ideas". Current customers, owners and employees, and others who stand to benefit from the company's success, are vulnerable to "buyer's remorse" when verifiable, well-sourced, bad news reports make this information notable. If "the good sides to DreamHost" appear in verifiable, well-sourced, good news reports, then it would be notable as well. If this company is more or less like many (if not all) other similar companies, and nothing notable, then the article could be deleted. This article, over its history, suffers from a Gruntled Customer Effect, which motivates editors to include unreliable-sourced positive information, while deleting reliably-sourced negative information.

"Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." (Content Guide) --Judas278 (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Biased Article

I think the promotions section isn't very good. First off, every hosting company that has a referral program has spammers and dissatisfied customers. Specifically mentioning it on the DreamHost page and not on other pages for web hosts is unfair. If you look at the Godaddy page, you'll find nothing about spammers or dissatisfied customers. Also, there are things under Promotions that have nothing to do with promotions.

In addition, why bother mentioning the control panel? Every webhost has a control panel! The points made are someone's opinion and don't relate to Dreamhost as a subject.

I think the first two paragraphs before Promotions along with a few things from the sections below it are more than enough for a good, fair article about Dreamhost. -- Sleepy Sentry

I totally agree with Sleepy Sentry's assessment about promotions. I think there is evidence that disgruntled and former customers are shaping the article more than they should be. In the matter of the Control Panel, I do feel its uniqueness is worth mentioning. I think it stands head and shoulders above cPanel, and its uniqueness makes it less of a security vulnerability too. Note to Sleepy Sentry: Please sign your comments with four tilde characters (~~~~) -- Scjessey 15:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Supporting information re: control panel: Ours is a one of a kind, developed in-house and improved over the course of the 7 years we've been in business. Some people love it, a few don't, but the fact that we don't use the everyday cPanel or similar is noteworthy to anyone who wants to know more about DreamHost. -- 66.92.39.177 19:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding external links

Added site to Dreamhost page, but it was removed... who decides what goes on the dreamhost page? is that site just not cool/useful enough or what? thx, 70.56.68.135 19:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

External links must follow Misplaced Pages guidelines, and such decisions are made by the Misplaced Pages community, or (if necessary) by Misplaced Pages administrators. The site in question did not add significant value to the article, and appeared to be designed mostly for the owner's personal enrichment (AdSense everywhere). -- Scjessey 20:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Advertisement

I don't know if it's just me, but this article sounds pretty advert-ish to me, only stating that "DreamHost does this, DreamHost does that", without any criticism, and no real sources — the only "sources" (besides the statistics) are DreamHost's own public announcements which are naturally not reliable sources.

Back when I left DreamHost, there was a lot of grumbling about their excessive overselling, although I don't think any published research has actually touched this topic. I will admit leaving DreamHost partly due to their reliability and other problems, so I will not be bold in doing this. But would anyone mind if the fluff was removed and the article stubbified? -- intgr 16:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is purely descriptive, and free from any "fluff" I can see. It isn't really any different from other hosting companies on the Misplaced Pages. Although not a particularly long article, I think there is more than enough information to justify the absence of a stub tag. -- Scjessey 17:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"Stubbifying" is the process of turning an article into a stub, e.g., removing content. -- intgr 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is "descriptive", but there is no basis for saying that the content is notable, given that no reliable sources are cited. For example, there is no way that we can say that they actually respect their "no-censorship" policy, etc — as far as I can tell, this conflicts with the verifiability policy. -- intgr 20:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I know what stubbifying is, but I don't think it should happen. What information is currently presented in the article is relevant and important, with the possible exception of the "press coverage" section (which I am tempted to remove). I totally disagree with you about the notability of the content, and I cannot see how you could get a more reliable source of information about company facts than the company itself. -- Scjessey 20:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that the company itself is notable (for its unusual transparency, its weird control panel, etc.), but what the company does (web hosting) is not. -- Scjessey 20:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

We have no way of knowing (verifying) whether the company's advertisements are actually true, and it cannot be reliable since their interest is to promote their service, not to provide neutral information. Please refer to WP:RS. -- intgr 20:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any "advertisements" in the article. The business data (ownership, services offered, etc.) is a matter of public record (like any other business). Their status as a registrar is also verifiable (see ICANN list of accredited registrars). -- Scjessey 20:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would remove the "Non-censorship policy" section — the "DreamHost does not censor the content" claim is clearly unverifiable at this point.

The rest of the article indeed isn't bad, which I perceived differently yesterday. But I would also remove the "A new version of the panel was deployed on March 1, 2007." statement which is useless, and section titles, since the article has too little content to warrant them IMO. I also agree that the only link under "Press Coverage" is useless. -- intgr 09:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've nixed those things that you have mentioned. -- Scjessey 11:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! -- intgr 21:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

BBB

There is no reason at all to put a link to a BBB study on an article for a business. The BBB ratings misrepresent companies because they are based solely on complaints. Attempts to add BBB links (when spotted) are usually removed, as per WP:EXT. -- Scjessey 12:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to question your ability to write a neutral article on this subject. Do you have any potential conflicts of interest? While I can understand removing a sole external link under WP:EXT, the removal of the referenced text which I've added is clearly not governed by that guideline. DreamHost has been the subject of many complaints, and their rating with the BBB has been the subject of much talk. I don't see any reason not to include this information, and I think to not include it would be extremely biased. If you have a problem with the BBB this article is not the place to discuss that. They are a highly respected organization and qualify as a reliable source on the number of unanswered complaints received about an organization. anthony 12:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is completely neutral, and simply presents basic company information and explains what the company does. There is evidence of POV in the article. Each piece of information given is properly cited. DreamHost has not been the subject of many complaints from a relative standpoint, and you cannot cite any statistic that will prove otherwise. The only person who feels the article is biased is you, and WP:NPOV guidelines explain that your opinion in the matter is not sufficient to warrant the neutrality tag. If you look back in Misplaced Pages's history, you will see numerous examples of BBB links being removed from company-related articles - almost all of which are to do with editors having an axe to grind with the company in question -- Scjessey 13:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read the comments from others above. I am not the only person who feels this article is biased. You are an affiliate of Dreamhost and you have inserted your biased opinion into this article from the start, ignoring multiple people who have suggested a lack of balance and edit warring over anything which suggests a critical point of view. Please read over WP:COI and think very long and hard about whether or not you should be contributing to this article at all. anthony 13:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears you have failed to grasp the essence of WP:COI. No conflict of interest occurs in this instance because my contributions/additions/removals from the article have all been in the interest of a neutral point of view. The negative comments on this page of all come from individuals who definitely do have a conflict of interest, because they feel they have been slighted by the company in some way. Your own motivation remains unclear. I won't be reverting your last edit because I'd rather not violate WP:3RR. Also, please don't confuse Misplaced Pages guidelines with Misplaced Pages policy. -- Scjessey 14:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

A google search for "dreamhost jessey" yields the quote "I don’t know anyone who preaches Dreamhost more than Simon Jessey." And that from a fellow DreamHost supporter. WP:COI applies regardless of whether or not you think you're contributing neutral information. My motivation is to present an informative, well-balanced article. I don't make money off DreamHost, and I don't make money off any competitor either. I've never been slighted by the company, and in fact I've never used their hosting service at all. I have absolutely no conflict of interest, and my comments are merely factual, not negative nor positive. I hope we can work together to create a balanced article, but reverting anything which you feel is negative is not the way to do so. anthony 14:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, you don't understand the essence of WP:COI, and you appear to be struggling with the concept of neutrality as well. I'm not opposed to any article with a balanced point of view, but adding a misleading BBB link will skew the currently balanced article into a negative position. Remember that the BBB link would not be appropriate for any article about a company. I'm not sure what your agenda is, but by briefly looking at the history of your contributions I see that you are no stranger to controversial editing. -- Scjessey 15:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Scjessey in that it is the *article* that is subject to WP:NPOV considerations. You surely are not suggesting that anyone with an opinion should not be allowed to edit a Misplaced Pages page! We all have opinions, but good editors are able to contribute without allowing those opinions to encroach upon the neutrality of the article. Given the clear statement in WP:COI that edits should be constrained "where your close connection to the subject may cause a conflict between your agenda and Misplaced Pages's goal of producing a neutral encyclopedia", one should evaluate the applicability of WP:COI based on the contents of the article in question. I have reviewed the article repeatedly, and see no non-neutral statements in it and no reflection of any "pro-DreamHost" bias. In fact, the only "neutrality" issue I see at all is the attempt to link the BBB into the article. As the BBB is a purely commercial interest in its own right, whith its own financial interests and motivations to encourage companies' membership and participation, reference to the BBB's relationship with, or rating of, *any* company should be suspect from a neutrality and POV standpoint. The argument that Scjessey's support of DreamHost or his "affiliate" status, absent any demonstrable bias in the article, is a strawman. I agree with him that the BBB verbiage is inappropriate in the article, and as *that* seems to be the basis for your neutrality tag, I disagree that the tag is proper and have removed it. -- Rlparker 16:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

And what is your bias, Rlparker? Your only contribution at all to the encyclopedia was the edit you just made on DreamHost. anthony 17:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That looks rather like a personal attack to me. -- Scjessey 17:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

C'mon, it didn't take much searching to reveal that both you and rlparker are both admins of wiki.dreamhost.com. Pointing out that fact and questioning the bias of an editor doesn't seem to me to be a personal attack. anthony 17:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe I have a bias, though I'd be happy to entertain and/or consider any discussion of bias you would like to allege. You can allege "bias of an editor" all you want, but you have yet to indicate where you think bias is evident in the article. I And, yes, that edit *was* my first Misplaced Pages participation; every person who participates here has to have a "first edit". Unfortunately, it looks as though I chose mine to be one where some kind of emotional knee-jerk is in play. Your comment is without foundation, non-responsive to the discussion in which it was posted, and frankly, just childish. Given that, and the lack of logic you have evidenced in this whole POV/COI/neutralilty issue with this article, I can only assume you have some deeper agenda than the quality of the article and you are certainly entitled to that agenda; you are not, however, entitled to detract from the quallity of the article in furtherance of it. To simply tag the article COI in response to my removal of NPOV tag is less than productive and demonstrate an unwillingness opn your part to engage in serious dialog with those that disagree with you. I've already stated, as has Scjessey that it is the *article* that should be free of COI and should maintain NPOV. I cannot find any evidence of COI in the article and, therefore, would have reverted your adding of that tag had another editor not already done so. As a courtesy to a Wkipedia newbie who is trying to take seriously the social contract in play here, would you please respond in this talk page with some discussion or indication of where in the article you feel that COI or lack of NPOV is in evidence before re-adding either tag? BTW, thanks for the intelligent and productive welcome to WIkipedia! -- Rlparker 17:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, everyone has a first edit on Misplaced Pages, but that first edit is usually not to revert an edit for an associate who just ran up against the three revert rule. It's usually not to revert a neutrality dispute tag from an article on a subject of which you have a strong bias. It's usually not too say that you agree with someone who you already know and work together with on another site, a site which in fact is used to promote the very product which the article you're discussing is about. anthony 18:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess there is something to be said for being "unusual", though I continue to reject the premise that I have a "strong bias", or any bias at all, merely by virtue of the fact that I have an online acquaintance with someone I agree with; I also have online acquaintances with whom I disagree. You seem to have a misunderstanding about the nature of the DreamHost Wiki and Jessey and my association with it. The site does not exist to promote DreamHost, rather it serves as a community resource for DreamHost, and DreamHost users, to document the use of the service. I am not an employee of DreamHost, nor is Jessey. We are merely customers who are active on that community resource wiki and who serve that community with limited Sysop privileges on that wiki. -- Rlparker 19:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the reason I added the COI tag is because Jessey, who has substantially contributed to the article, may have a conflict of interest regarding its subject matter. anthony 18:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand that clearly enough, yet still fail to understand why you feel that is a valid position to take, absent any demonstrable effect of such alleged COI on the article other than the BBB issue (which I have already addressed and reject as being driven by any COI). -- Rlparker 19:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again I feel I must point out that you do not understand what the Misplaced Pages's guideline on Conflict of Interest actually is. As a customer of DreamHost, I am in a position to provide information about the company that a non-customer cannot. None of my contributions have been biased in favor of the company, which is properly represented in a neutral manner as the article stands. If I was to use my status to add a biased POV, I would be in breach of the guideline. I did not do this. That is why your COI tag is unwarranted.

Incidentally, I must ask why this is so important to you? As I understand it you are in Florida, correct? Why should you care what the Los Angeles Better Business Bureau thinks about any Los Angeles-based company? Do you have some history with DreamHost, or did you mysteriously stumble upon the article and then specifically seek a BBB report on it? Your actions indicate a clear personal agenda. -- Scjessey 18:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Being a customer of DreamHost is one thing. Running a website which "is basically the DreamHost Web Hosting manual" is another. Running an affiliate site which profits off getting people to subscribe to DreamHost is yet another. It was Jessey's overprotective behavior which first led me to suspect a conflict of interest. It was his affiliate site which sealed the deal in my mind.

I ran across this article when I was looking for information on DreamHost. I ran across the BBB report while doing a google search on the company. anthony 18:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is a guideline that suggests all corporation articles need a BBB link, I don't understand why this article would need one? (Disclosure: I am a customer, but I'm often unimpressed with the reliability (particularly of the mail servers). Though ya gets what ya pay for, and I'm on the cheapest plan.) --Quiddity 18:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

DreamHost in particular had a problem with the BBB, received an F rating, which was later raised to a B, and has been lowered to CCC in the last few days. I'm not sure if the link is relevant for all companies, but it is relevant for this one. anthony 18:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Any company that does not participate with the BBB in addressing BBB generated complaints will experience the same history. DreamHost has, at various times, both been a BBB member, and has not been a BBB member. Your attitude about the relevance of a company's BBB experience evidences a lack of appreciation of the nature of the BBB (as a profit-making organization with it's own business interests to protect and enhance)and a limited understanding of how BBB ratings are assigned (there is a lot of information on that at the BBB site). It is erroneous to assume that the BBB is an "authority" that is in any way objective in nature. Some consider the BBB, and it's marketing and publicity tactics, to be little more than thinly veiled attempts to extort membership and participation from businesses. For these considerations alone, BBB ratings are highly suspect by many. This only enhances the argument that BBB ratings should not be included in *any* "corporation article" unless, as a matter of policy, they are included in *all* corporation article. To do otherwise could be construed as unfairly maligning corporations that do not do business with the BBB, or have had sporadic business relationships with the BBB, and therefore have less favorable ratings from the BBB for problem resolution. -- Rlparker

No it isn't. The BBB rating was the result of an actual campaign by a handful of disgruntled customers, and has no bearing on the real credibility of the company itself.

Running a website which "is basically the DreamHost Web Hosting manual" is another. Running an affiliate site which profits off getting people to subscribe to DreamHost is yet another.

I'm not sure what you are referring to there. I am a customer who contributes to the DreamHost Wiki (I don't "run" it, although I was made a "sysop" of it to help weed out vandalism). I don't have any "affiliate site" of any kind. In any case, neither would affect my ability to edit Misplaced Pages impartially, as I have done on hundreds of articles. -- Scjessey 19:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't reporting on the credibility of the company itself, merely on the BBB rating. Do you deny that http://jessey.net/dreamhost/ is yours? You have made numerous positive comments regarding the hosting site all over the place. I'm sure you can edit Misplaced Pages impartially on hundreds of other articles, just not this particular article. anthony 19:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Er... that is a web page, not a website. Are you aware of the difference? It has nothing to do with my ability to be impartial on this article. As I said, some of the information on the article can only be provided by a customer. If you are going to report on the BBB rating, you might wish to consider how totally biased that organization is before you refer to one of their reports. Consider Better Business Bureau#Criticisms -- Scjessey 19:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Neither Jessey nor I "run" the DreamHost Wiki. It is operated by DreamHost, and we participate in its operation in the same way any wiki editor with sysop privileges participates in any other wiki. While I do not do so myself, I don't believe that the posting of an affiliate link on a site equates to "running an affiliate site". Personally, I do not utilize DH affiliate linking for reasons I have discussed at length on the DreamHost forums, but use of such links by an editor does not automatically make his edits tainted by COI or non-NPOV. The article should stand on its own merits, and I, and apparently others, believe this one does stand on it's own merits and is absent evidence of COI and respectful of NPOV. It is disingenuous, particularly in light of others comments on the subject, to assume and/or insist that the only reason anyone would feel the BBB reference should not be in the article is because of COI or to somehow extrapolate that into an argument concerning NPOV. You may ahve "sealed the deal" in your own mind, but you haven't articulated here how you felt the article was impacted improperly. -- Rlparker 19:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I haven't been clear enough on this. Let's look at some other questionable edits by Jessey. , , , , , , . You say the link to the BBB is inappropriate because we don't link to the BBB for all companies. What about webhosting.info? Do we link to that for all webhosting sites? A link to a BBB site is perfectly appropriate and neutral. Dreamhost's current rating is actually a good rating, and it's up to the reader to weigh the importance of that rating. It certainly is significant, the BBB is one of the oldest and most respected sources for this sort of information in the United States. The criticisms section linked to doesn't even mention any concerns over the rating system. The entire Control Panel section of this article is original research and should be sourced from reliable sources or removed. The links Jessey added to websites where he is an administrator were added inappropriately. This article needs major attention and it should be tagged in a way to attract it. anthony 20:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, let's see here. Direct links to the company's own(ed) websites versus a completely irrelevant BBB link? Why is it irrelevant you ask? Well first, this wiki article in itself tells a reader about the basics of Dreamhost's services and provides links to the company's website(s) that would allow them to investigate the contents of the article in more detail if they were interested. The BBB link on the other hand is not referenced at ALL in the main article, making it irrelevant in that aspect, and further it doesn't add consistency to the rest of the article *if* there were even actual information regarding the link to DreamHost's BBB rating. While I will agree with you that the Webhosting.info links are quite similar to the BBB link in that they really add nothing useful to the article itself, I'd say the BBB link provides even less usable information in that, as Scjessey has already pointed out, the BBB ratings are entirely biased in consideration of the fact that the BBB doesn't provide for positive feedback, only negative and thus a company's rating is subjective. I really don't see point in further discussion on this topic unless someone not affiliated with both DreamHost and yourself can comment. And yes, I am likewise a DreamHost customer, though not nearly as long as Scjessey or Rlparker so perhaps I can provide slightly less "bias" in this discussion, but I'd really prefer to see someone outside of both comment to hopefully completely resolve this debate. Madmousee 20:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The BBB link on the other hand is not referenced at ALL in the main article Only because Jessey took out the references. I agree with you that there is not much more to say until someone unaffiliated with DreamHost and myself come in. That was actually my purpose in adding the neutral template. Frankly, I don't care that much about the link - my main problem is that various editors have managed to take everything out of this article which is remotely critical, and have left in things which are not sourced by reliable sources. anthony 00:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

All of those edits involved correcting inaccurate information and removing POV material from the article. These edits were performed in complete harmony with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. I'm sorry that my efforts to make the article neutral and informative don't fit in with your clear personal agenda. And what kind of "attention" do you mean? It appears that you want to add criticism of DreamHost in an attempt to balance out some sort of perceived bias that doesn't really exist. Jimbo Wales himself wrote, "And I agree with the view expressed by others that often, are a symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." The Control Panel section is not "original research". It is just brief description of fact that I only had a small part in writing. -- Scjessey 20:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and don't edit or move around other people's comments. That's a severe breach of Misplaced Pages guidelines. -- Scjessey 20:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

COI

Conflict of Interest tag removed, there is little, if any way for there to be a conflict of interest in this article, it contains only easily-verifiable facts and references. Arkiedragon 17:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that summary, except for the section on the "Control Panel", which needs sourcing (of notability) or removal. --Quiddity 18:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The panel is notable for being proprietary, and not cPanel like everyone else uses. It is not possible to cite the information because only customers can access the panel. -- Scjessey 21:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not possible to cite the information because only customers can access the panel. If someone wrote about the panel in a reliable source, then you can cite that. If not, then I don't think it should be included, precisely because only customers can access the panel. anthony

There is a page in their site describing the panel. *Dan T.* 01:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Some changes

Just made some edits to the article to clean it up.

• removed redundant text about being an ICANN-accredited domain name registrar
• cut out non-sourced description of control panel
• removed link to staff blog which seems to be unrelated to company other than being made by staff
• removed description of discussion forum which seemed to be inaccurate and poorly worded
• removed link to unofficial dreamhost blog - there are hundreds of blogs discussing dreamhost and no apparent reason this one gets a link
• consolodated into one section - having multiple sections for one or two sentences and a TOC was overkill
• other minor rewording (fixed a run-on sentence, etc.)

anthony 15:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

I have performed a significant rewrite of the article.

• Added more information about some of the notable aspects of the company
• Restored some of the important information deleted without consensus
• Restored link to staff blog due to reference in Notoriety section
• Split up text into logical sections - necessary following the addition of new information
• Tidied up the (now longer) references section with refs template
• Restored screenshot thumbnail that had been removed without consensus

The new version of the article mirrors the style used by articles for similar companies in related businesses. -- Scjessey 17:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The edits of Wardhog

I placed this on Wardhog's talk page, which was immediately deleted, after reverting and edit where an entire section was deleted without discussion:

I have reverted your recent edit to DreamHost. You deleted an entire (and significant) section without first discussing it on the talk page and seeking a consensus for the change. The paragraph you removed refers to the company's "disastrous power outage", so calling it "advertising" is illogical. You will find all sections of the article are properly cited. -- Scjessey 20:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Wardhog immediately, and without offering any rationale, reinserted a NPOV tag. This I also reverted. -- Scjessey 20:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Change

This article has too many short chapters. I think it should be reviewed. Have a look at this - Pheonix 21:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Reliability

I'm seeing a lot of comments from two extremes, some saying that Dreamhost is very good and reliable, and others saying that it's crap. IMHO, if a hosting provider has an article here on the Misplaced Pages, readers should be able to get the real story. As it stands, what is the final word here: is Dreamhost a good, reliable host or not? How does it compare to say, Siteground? Bill Jacobs 11:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not for Misplaced Pages to pass judgment or give opinions on anything, let alone on a service like this. Misplaced Pages must present only verifiable facts in a neutral point-of-view, which this article does. -- Scjessey 15:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, then what makes this particular host notable enough for a Misplaced Pages entry? As it stands, the fact that an entry exists when none exist for most providers out there (including some of the oldest), makes it appear that this host is one of the very best. How many other web hosts have an article here? Bill Jacobs 16:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The notability of DreamHost is discussed in the article. The unusual transparency and large customer base makes the company noteworthy enough for an article. The article does not make DreamHost "appear one of the very best" at all. Many other notable web hosts have articles, including GoDaddy, Yahoo, Network Solutions, eNom, Register.com, etc. -- Scjessey 16:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability is established by what the company does, not by their customer service track or reliability. GreenJoe 18:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I hate to be one of those guys, but I have an overriding suspicion that some of the folks here are involved with DreamHost in some way, whether as employees or customers. I have to tell you, I've been finding a lot of bad reviews of DreamHost and nothing has been posted here about concerning such incredible negativity. As my original post states, people seem to either love or hate this host, *but* the more I search the more negative I'm finding than positive. Bill Jacobs 20:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

How you "feel" about the article, or the company, is not really relevant. As I have stated before, the article is about a notable web hosting company. All information in the article is verified and cited, and presented with a neutral point-of-view. Incidentally, you are always going to find more negative publicity than positive publicity. That is the nature of publicity. -- Scjessey 21:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Please try to assume good faith, and check out the notability guidelines. Scjessey is right. Bad publicity generates more bad publicity. GreenJoe 21:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Dreamhost's reliability sucks, but until that fact is brought to light by independent verifiable sources, you can't really put it in the article. --Neurophyre 20:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

referral system

Is there a reason behind why nothing about their referral system is mentioned? It's a fairly unique and successful strategy that's helped them a lot on the way, its way of bringing advertising for Dreamhost to the grassroots of the internet is quite notable if you ask me. EditorInTheRye 23:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please leave personal attacks at the door. Thank you. J 04:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Only positive content allowed?

How come that GreenJoe keeps removing factual negative information about the company that can save many of its customers from being ripped off and then slaps me with a warning? To me it looks like GreenJoe is being paid to do so. This appears to be strange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamripoff (talk • contribs) 04:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

1. It violates our neutrality policy.

2. You fail to cite sources. J 04:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the source http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=598172. It was properly cited as #14 in the list. Neutrality and positivity are difference things. I simply state the fact that they have one thing written in their marketing and help wiki and the other in fine print in Terms and Conditions. You can see it is a far from isolated case if you bother to check the reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamripoff (talk • contribs)

The problem is, sources must be reliable, and web forums are not reliable. —C.Fred (talk) 04:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Specific Editor Potential Conflict of Interest

Suggestions of potential bias have already been made. This is to add additional specific details. Contrary to Meat Puppet recruiting prohibitions, Scjessey did exactly that. Rlparker's limited appearance here may have been a result.

http://discussion.dreamhost.com/showthreaded.pl?Cat=0&Board=forum_offtopic&Number=44424

In my opinion, a review of this page editing history shows a systematic bias. As receiver of financial benefits from DreamHost's rewards program and an Administrator of DreamHost's wiki, Scjessey should recuse himself from further editing of this page. Guantanamo247 06:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

All Dreamhost customers are (at least potentially) able to receive benefits from Dreamhost's rewards program. Do you really want to restrict all of them from editing, which would exclude most people with knowledge and familiarity with the subject? *Dan T.* 13:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Rewards participation or other financial ties to Dreamhost success is one consideration. If they also actively recruit voters contrary to guidelines, are appointed to an authority position in a Dreamhost operation like Administrator of their wiki, and demonstrate systematic bias in editing, then they should probably also recuse themselves due to COI. Guantanamo247 13:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You have created a new user name so that you can conduct a personal vendetta against me. Very Wikipedian of you. You are seeing conflicts of interest and conspiracies where none exist. -- Scjessey 13:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The financial rewards for Dreamhost customers (I'm one myself) come only when people follow an affiliate-coded link or enter an affiliate offer code tied to that particular user. As long as we're vigilant to keep out attempted spam of these things into the article, nobody will profit from it. *Dan T.* 14:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Dan, Please consider the examples: Financial interests, Promotion, Close Relationships, and Campaigning. Affiliate links or codes are simple and blatant. This regards a more broad systematic COI influencing this article. A specific example. We all know 500,000 domains is not the same as 500,000 FTP accounts; there were probably much fewer than 50,000 FTP accounts. Yet the article says "less than 1%" of accounts were compromised, when it could have been "nearly 10%," or not imply 500,000 FTP accounts. Scjessey, please don't change the title again of my comment. Guantanamo247 14:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The facts are these:

1. I have no financial interest in DreamHost other than small earnings from being an affiliate, along with tens of thousands of other customers. You will not find any example of my affiliate code anywhere except on my own website, and on the DreamHost forum.
2. I have no "close relationship" with DreamHost. I agreed to be a sysop of their wiki to help purge it of spam and vandalism, and to try to improve the quality of articles.
3. The "specific example" you refer to is a cited quote from DreamHost, and has nothing to do with me.

Finally, please do not use my user name in a page heading. This is not an acceptable Misplaced Pages practice and it is clearly an example of a personal attack. -- Scjessey 18:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The COI factors are a matter of degree and judgment. It is good for you to disclose your extensive posting of affiliate codes and links. Fact - you are an active Dreamhost promoter, for reasons including financial rewards. Fact - Of thousands of customers, you are one of 2 now acting on behalf of Dreamhost as Administrators of their wiki. Relative to most customers or wikipedia editors, this is a very close relationship. Fact - the quote has to do with your editing because you added it; referencing company news releases should not prevent one from using common sense. Guantanamo247 18:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "Scjessey did exactly that. Rlparker's limited appearance here may have been a result." - Well if Scjessey was recruiting meatpuppets with that forum post, it doesn't appear to have been very effective. I don't remember having even seen that (though I probably did, as I do hang put on that forum quite a lot).

That post was most certainly not what prompted me to post on this talk page, and I think that is pretty clearly evidenced by the fact that it was made over a year prior to my posting (14 months or so?). I stand by my earlier comments on this page regarding COI, and am still waiting for someone to point out any demonstrated bias in the *contents of the article* as opposed to simply taking personal issue with Scjessey -- Rlparker 19:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The Meat Puppet policy says, "It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Misplaced Pages articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Misplaced Pages and support your side of a debate." Advertising this article to solicit support was explicitly done by Scjessey before, he just did similar implicit advertising in a posting again. And here you are again.

I gave a specific bias example above, regarding minimizing the significance of 3500 compromised accounts. For more details, First, Scjessey attempted deletion of the discussion criticising the panel, but that was objected to by another editor. Coincidentally (?), this occurred around the same time Michael-co-owner of DreamHost posted, "I noticed that the wikipedia article for dreamhost refers to our panel pretty negatively." This has the appearance of doing the owner's bidding, and COI. Subsequently, Scjessey moved the criticism to the end (less prominent), and added "(less than 1%)", based on faulty logic as I explained above.

Many more examples of biasing the article are available.

As for more general bias in the article, without identifying particular editors responsible, this article reads like an advertisement. 9 of 16 "Reference" links are in essence Dreamhost press releases (links to Dreamhost controlled sites). 5 of 5 "external links" are to Dreamhost sites. Guantanamo247 01:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Your arguments are based on a misunderstanding of how Misplaced Pages works. It is perfectly legitimate to refer to press releases for confirmation of offered services, and these services are presented in a descriptive and non-biased way. Your "evidence" of biased edits are just examples of where I have removed POV text from the article, in full accordance with W:NPOV. I take offense at your suggestion that I "do DreamHost's bidding", when all I am trying to do is maintain article accuracy and a neutral point of view. As I have said before, your accusations are baseless and obviously predicated on some sort of personal dislike for me. I shall not offer any further comment on this matter. -- Scjessey 12:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

COI in your edits in this article was previously suspected and questioned by others. I am aware enough of Misplaced Pages's problems with biased information in general, and editing history of this article in particular to bring new details for open consideration: repeated solicitation of support in Dreamhost's forums, and appearance of acting directly on the suggestion of Dreamhost owners - almost as their surrogate. The suggestion (recuse yourself, or at least take a less active role) is on the table. Let your ethics be your guide. Guantanamo247 18:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

My conscience is clean. -- Scjessey 18:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

2008 Billing issue

Everyone knows that this is a heated issue with customers of Dreamhost. Naturally, it should be documented, but you shouldn't attempt to spin the article with words that invoke emotions or scorn ("half-naked Josh"?). Let's keep it to the facts of the issue and not try to cast Dreamhost in a bad light by throwing in how many customers have reportedly lost money. Crazed Ewok | Talk 20:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The number of customers who have lost money seems like a verifiable, objective fact to me. If the facts cast Dreamhost in a bad light, isn't that just a side effect of the *truth*? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.231.28.58 (talk) 15:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Wtroopwept keeps adding uncited and undocumented original research regarding this billing issue, in violation of policy WP:NOR, and guidelines WP:WEASEL and WP:CITE, and essay WP:RECENTISM. The last edit adds a source which doesn't really support User:Wtroopwept's edits. I would argue that the entire section, and indeed the section on the 2007 FTP issues are not notable enough for the article in any case. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I'm unsure in this case. While Misplaced Pages is not a forum, Misplaced Pages is also censored. If we look at the Go Daddy article, it has very similar material in it. While we shouldn't compare to other stuff, I'd say it probably merits inclusion. It was a major blunder with major media coverage. GreenJoe 19:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "major media coverage", and this sort of issue is fairly common. Needless to say, my issue with the recent edits revolves around a change of emphasis from reporting the event to characterizing the event by deleting relevant information. Words in the section like "most" and "some" appear to violate WP:WEASEL, with a blog being used as a reference to back them up. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree with you on that. We don't want any weasel words, and certainly blogs are not a reliable source. GreenJoe 19:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(1) The material in my first edit was cited and documented and was not original research. (2) Any weasel wording was changed in my second edit. (3) Any issues of recentism stem from the fact that the event in question happened recently, not from over-emphasis. (4) That the event was the subject of coverage in several media outlets makes it clear to me that the event is notable. Even if this sort of issue is fairly common, this particular incident happened to get picked up in the media. (5) My edits added relevant information to the article; other recent reversions deleted relevant information from the article. (6) If blogs are going to be an unacceptable source for this article, we need to take a look at the material supported by citations 4, 8, 11 and 17, all of which appear to be blogs. Thanks and cheers. Wtroopwept (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, those references do need to be replaced. GreenJoe 21:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the need to change those references. One of the blog references is from the well-respected ZDNet site, and the others are from Josh Jones (DreamHost blog) himself, and are referred to in the article directly because they are the only reliable source available. It seems to me that it is more likely that Wtroopwept has personally suffered from this billing issue (or knows someone who has), and wants to make point. Please understand that the article in its current form reflects the company in a very negative light, which is in no way a reasonable depiction of the overall service the company provides. The issues described may have some historical relevance, but they are certainly too minor to warrant dedicated 2nd-level sections. And weasel words still exist: "Most users" is referenced by a piece in the Register that does not even contain the word "most". I recommend a complete re-write of the two issue sections. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

So find the article from ZDnet and reference it directly. He's right. Blogs fail WP:RS. You can't pick and choose which blogs you use to suit your needs. I agree, it does need a re-write. GreenJoe 00:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral third party view

I have been asked to come and look at this article and talk page as a neutral third party editor. I take no position concerning the article content, but wish to remind editors who consistently contribute to it that Misplaced Pages works under WP:CONSENSUS and any contentious edits should be discussed on this talk page to reach it. Article should maintain a WP:NPOV which in parts allows for inclusion of opposing views, that are WP:RELIABLE sourced, but also takes in account WP:UNDUE. After reading the entire talk page, I would also remind editors of WP:OWN and suggest that they allow other editors to make WP:AGF edits and not immediately revert/undo the edit, unless Misplaced Pages:Vandalism, without first discussing it on the talk page. As suggested in the WP:OWN policy, "If you find yourself warring with other contributors over deletions, reversions, and so on, why not take some time off from the editing process? Taking yourself out of the equation can cool things off considerably. Take a fresh look a week or two later." One last point: Established editors, please try and avoid WP:BITE and maintain WP:CIVIL whether here or on user talk pages. Having said all this, I wish you all happy editing.--«JavierMC»|Talk 02:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for saying so Javier. There is so much conflict of interest here and status quo is easily defended by slick and experiences editors. It's turned out that the people with the most financial interest to gain are the most dedicated to this page. I practically wrote a dissertation about it and I'm reviewing the guidelines to make sure this is the most appropriate place to put it. I want to mention that it's obvious the goal of 'neutrality' has not been met here. Experienced editors are using Wiki-speak to dismiss relevant edits with this company. Education is not happening. I will write more about my POV when I get it consolidated and I hope you have the opportunity to review it.Spiney deluxe (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What conflict of interest are you referring to? If you examine my edits, you will find that I have been removing promotional codes by unscrupulous DreamHost referral seekers who are looking to make a fast buck. Considering the various sources you have proffered thus far, it is not inconceivable that you might be a former customer with an axe to grind. My only concern is that the article adheres to a neutral point of view, does not resort to blogs for sources, and does not misrepresent the subject with a weighty description of negative (but unremarkable) event. It would seem from your contributions that your sole interest in this article is to document this negative event, perhaps seeking to influence this article to support a personal point of view. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Funny, I didnt even mention your name and you come leaping in defensively. Oh Jesse, you're like a broken record. This whole page is like a broken record. I've been through all of these posts, all of these guidelines, even found your website. I've done it all to the most exacting degree of research I could and I've found it all. But, don't worry, I am like the rest. I have too much of a life to devote it to fighting you so that this article is more accurate and revealing about Dreamhost. Anyhow, I will leave you alone for good after my following post, mostly as a reply to many of your comments above- at least all I could get through. You can continue to pursue your agenda free from at least my interference. Spiney deluxe (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I see many many many people have written about this common experience with Dreamhost, almost like a petition, all over the Internet. A 5 minute google search surfaces thousands of people shocked and on an endless search to find in the end that there is no phone number. One person is even offering a reward for the phone number. Practically all of these people were incensed enough and found it important enough to post about it, create their own websites about, review and rave about it. Godaddy, Earthlink, One and One, Hostmonster, Bluehost, Inmotion Hosting, FastDomain, Webhostingpad, Host Gator, Yahoo- all of these are right up on google- seach web hosting, these come up first and all have phone numbers.

Most of this reply is to scjessey's comments. scjessey, yes, do a search for Dreamhost sucks and you get a similar 1st page on google as if you search Godaddy sucks. You know what? You get the same thing if you search Misplaced Pages sucks. If you search Dreamhost phone number, you get a special collection of thousands of people suffering acutely for the phone number problem. These other hosts you mention without phone numbers might not have phone numbers, but maybe they have their acts together better with their non-phone number support. Maybe they do better to calm their customers down, and maybe they know how to advertise better so they only get more technically savvy customers, who knows (if they even exist), but the reaction to Dreamhost is unique and profound, and they way you dismiss everybody on here who tries to make an edit is because of your myopic view.

If there is a small number of people in a community suffering an unusual fate, we hear about it. How about the millennium suicide cult wearing nike sneakers to ride the comet through a ring of stars. Or Wako. We know all those details about a miniscule amount of our population and we know the details intimately. Let's give the details about Dreamhost rather than revert them. This way, we can educate people exactly what differentiates Dreamhost's uniquely frustrating breed of poor customer service from other service providers and how it fuels a spirit of revenge against Dreamhost.

Your POV is tech oriented. You speak of Dreamhost's hosting plans as if you'd written them yourself, and you speak of the depth of experience you've had with hosting companies. Most people haven't had that sort of experience. Do you think an expert in doing business with these companies, like yourself, has anticipated what the person without all that experience needs to know from Misplaced Pages?

This is after all a company with little kids on the home page, you can't expect every dreamhost customer to have the same technical background as you do and just know off the bat that they can't access a company directly by phone and I doubt it would occur to the average programmer, until they had a problem with it. They would benefit to know ahead of time that Dreamhost only commits as far as a 24 hour response on email request, which although is advertised as guaranteed, offers no assurance.

In fact, their marketing could be attracting a client base that expects more support, or wouldn't think that there is any other kind of support aside from a phone number. These customers will realize they need support before they know they can't reach Dreamhost directly by phone. The thousands of people that I can see in just 5 minutes on a google search would have benefited from understanding the Dreamhost system better, and it's past, and present, and they should be able to find that information here.

Omission is bias. You call a toy store and ask if they have a red toy. They confirm they do, you ask to have it gift wrapped, and you go pick it up. On your kid's birthday, your kid opens it, starts crying, all hell breaks loose because the toy is broken. You call the store and ask how they can sell you a broken toy? And they respond something like, ah, well nowadays this is what people do. They buy broken toys to save money and fix it themselves because everybody knows how to fix toys nowadays. You didn't ask if this toy was unbroken, you just needed it gift wrapped, don't you know people fix toys themselves nowadays? When you explain Dreamhosts phone number problem that's how it sounds to me.

The general You expects a company that You are contracting to support You in the manner of the general common experience. Many people still use the phone to call their electric company, ISP/cable company, banks, etc. Maybe given your extensive (unreferenced) research and the depth of experience you have with Dreamhost, you have found that there are other hosts that conduct business similarly to Dreamhost. You are going out looking for them with the sole objective to find these companies without phone numbers. The average non-tech person doesn't anticipate the experience they will have when they need support from Dreamhost and they can't get it in the manner they expect. This would be an excellent place for them to make that discovery about Dreamhost.

You mention above that Dreamhost is typical/normal. However, you also mention, "Furthermore, it is because of DreamHost's weird transparency that the company is notable..." and then go on to section off what is usual and unusual as needed to respond to various challenges. Ugh. Well, the problem with their wacky call-back phone support system that doesn't work and leaves people going out of their minds is the "weird" part of Dreamhost and is certainly noteworthy. But, it is obviously a confusing issue about what is and isn't normal about Dreamhost. We should define it, good and bad.

The facts are that Dreamhosts unique combination of technology to service their customers results in a frustration and antagonization, which is significant enough to describe as impacting a negative result. That's not even a negative statement. It's not bias. A reference to the crusading ferver that this frustration causes in their x-customers is phenomenal and should not be reverted.

If a company drives their customers up the wall and we can attribute it to a specific problem, it's noteworthy. Didn't we hear about the new terminal at Heathrow shutting down because of baggage problems? And all the airlines within suffered and had to shut down their business. That's the same for the people running their businesses on Dreamhost servers. Regarding Heathrow, we would still be hearing about it today if the problem still existed. If it happens again, it will make the news again. There is still a problem with the system of Dreamhost. I say it's a problem because it repeatedly screws up their business and their customers and there is plenty published about it.

The Billing Issue of this article, with your edits, read smoothly, but the contradiction of impact between the last line, "This was corrected the next day" and "which lead their websites to go down," nicely fitted inbetween, "which DreamHost covered to offer" is shockingly superficializing. The impact of this issue on the customers was not resolved the next day. The technical problem may have been fixed the next day, but not the lives or businesses that were effected because of it. Further, Dreamhost offered to cover a few overdraft charges? Thanks for the $30, but how about getting my my non-tech client back who couldn't believe that I would use a company without a phone number? That exists out there too, I saw the edit where someone added quotes and tried to make that clear, whoosh- gone in 30 seconds or less followed by some non-sense follow up by the slick editor to go take your edit and shove it essentially. There is opportunity to reform this twisted article in a meaningful way as so many have tried but been reverted.

So much of this argument is about people's intention to support or bash Dreamhost. With the smallest bit of research, I found that you, the defender of neutrality, consistent reverter of this page has the same handle as a DH DreamMaster! at dreamhost.com. Also, there is a league of promotional offers with a kickback for the same handle to sign up at Dreamhost. I'd like to point this out a contradiction to your neutrality to Anthony and the league of others above. And certainly, the same can be said about this web site, of similar resemblance to your handle and offering a battalion of promotional offers for Dreamhost: http://jessey.net/

and where you have your own articles written in the way you want with your personal point of view about Dreamhost's issues. It's absurd that you would mention just in your last post about Dreamhost referral seekers, while you and someone with the exact same handle share.

While this might seem like a personal attack, I have no idea who you are. I don't care. It just has to be called out in the most obvious way possible how thinly veiled your claims to neutrality are. It's like dealing with Donald Rumsfeld.

Have you ever heard a disclaimer for participating in a focus group? It reads something like, 'have you or any members of your family ever worked for a company in any of the following industries?' And then goes on to disqualify you if you've been even near the industry giving the promotion. How about a simpler example. Given your interests in Dreamhost, do you think a court of law would allow you to be selected as a juror? They may not me either given my negative experience with dreamhost, but as I'm not being financially endorsed by the company in any way whatsoever, I could serve as a witness to the negative experience. Removing negative edits ≠ neutrality. Neutral does not mean no information that speaks badly of a company, or else there wouldn't be any there at all. Right now, there is a significant cracking in your dam from the ever increasing pressure on your claim of neutrality.

I've tried an edit or two on this page, so have many others and what happens? We all get fleeced by a team of seasoned Wiki editors who at least one of which have the time, resiliency and financial interests to keep any tied up arguing this point. It's pointless to try to edit this article except in it's favor to Dreamhost. Jessey, you are foxholed as judge and jury administering this page. THAT is entirely against Misplaced Pages ethos, but you have managed for the most part to beat the system with just a slap on the wrist here and there. I should have taken your original advice when you were playing nice with me, which was to go get some experience making small edits somewhere before taking on the big boys or something like that. Had I know how well developed your rhetoric and expertise, and how important it is to be seasoned with Wiki in general to enact your will here, I certainly wouldn't have gotten wrapped up in it. To anybody who has gotten this far, take my advice don't bother, they will outlast you- just look at the history and how long they've fended everybody off...

It's easy to point at something and say that's negative- much easier than pinpointing the bias of a smoothly written entry through omission and strategy of cushioning negative information that was already there, while at the same time, pull back for a second and it's blatantly obvious. Starting with the billing issue, the article doesn't need an edit. It need's a rewrite.

The funniest thing is, this article as it reads makes Dreamhost sound entirely crooked. Do you really think that an article sculpted like this, with such obvious deviation away from anything negative paints Dreamhost as authentic? At least your approach to being unbiased has an implied ambience of deception that is obvious in the article.

Lastly, I read through all the quibber in this discussion page. It's ridiculous. I can only image that the Dreamhost referral business must be through the roof for such talented lobbyists and filibusterers to be here devoting so much time to it. Perhaps I should switch to the other side, it's MUCH easier to play defense here on Wiki anyhow. Spiney deluxe (talk) 06:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Your reasoning is flawed, your understanding of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines in inadequate and your comments directed at me (rather than the subject) are inappropriate. I am just a DreamHost customer, and as such I have a good understanding of their systems and can write with expert knowledge. I do have a "referral account" but I do not publish it anywhere except my personal website, which is not a conflict of interest. Everything you are trying to add is based on the views of disgruntled and/or former customers, which is completely biased. Please don't use talk pages to lecture other editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would I try to add anything- why would I bother? It will just be reverted no matter what it says if you don't think it is angled suitably enough to favor Dreamhost. My comments are directed to you because you are a self appointed unrelenting dreamhost patriot admin defender of this page, who self admittedly directly benefits from Dreamhost's profitability. I specifically address a series of your reasonings on this page. If this sounds like a lecture to you, it's probably because you're expecting one. Your lack of neutrality is evidenced merely with a read through of this page and your activity editing it.Spiney deluxe (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Again you are mistaken. I do not benefit from DreamHost's profitability in any way. I benefit if someone uses my referral ID to sign up for the service, but this is no different from if someone buys a book through Amazon through one of my Amazon referral links. Are you suggesting I should not be editing the Amazon.com subject? I get electricity from PECO, and cable from Comcast. Should I avoid those articles too? I breathe air. Is air out of bounds? You are trying to push a negative agenda, instead of adhering to a neutral editing policy. Don't try to frame it any other way because your actions are completely transparent. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality is in question on this article. In the section Dreamhost#Transparency, the first reference() is an opinion piece provided by a blogger and should be worded accordingly "In the opinion of David Berlind at ZDNet..." and the second references' (),(ranked 91949, ), dubious "popular blog" wording, could be ascribed to the fact that there is no direct phone contact for customer service, but a call back system which waits on the pleasure of Dreamhost, not its customers. There is too much undue weight given to this issue in Dreamhost favor, without referencing the lack of phone support, which is a big issue for customers. 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. Neutrality is a cornerstone policy of Misplaced Pages, and must be maintained in all articles. I have tagged the article to address these issues, and their removal needs to be discussed on this talk page until consensus is reached.--«JavierMC»|Talk 21:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank heavens- a voice of reason like a beacon of light in this quagmire of lobbying. I hope someone else can make the appropriate edits on this page. Maybe I can attempt it again in a few weeks, but I realize how carefully I would have to do that and I'm not sure I have enough strategic experience to get through it, which seems unfortunate, but necessary. Anyhow, thanks very much for the post. Truly I feel relieved to hear your opinion as I didn't know the WIki system well enough to know there was anybody else who would listen and it seemed hopeless. To you Jessey. You're reasoning can't be as superficial as it's been just to brush off edits and get your way. If and when we decide to work out a consensus about editing, I'm asking you ahead of time for your comments to actually be constructive rather than defensive/dismissive. If not, this horrible battle wages on if I have to sit here and untangle and expose your shallow reasoning. Please note Javier's comments. He mentions 'an even more unsettling WP:OWN tendency.' As I too have mentioned repeatedly, this is the most disturbing behavior on this page as it is paramountly antithetical to Wiki policies. And you don't have to have much experience as an editor to get the sense of how you've violated that and how strategically you smoke screen away from it criticizing anybody else's practices. Let's exterminate your WP:OWN tendency and build up from there.Spiney deluxe (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me be clear about this right now. The suggestion of me attempting to own the article is preposterous. The lack of edits by other Wikipedians is what makes it look like I'm doing most of the editing. The facts are clear - most of the editors of this article are "first-timers" who come here to deliberately write negative commentary, usually based on poor referencing (or just blatant original research) because they have personally experienced problems as DreamHost customers. There are also a large number of edits by customers seeking to generate revenue with referral IDs or promotional codes. I have this page watchlisted to "patrol" it for this problem editors, and that's about it. Your comments about "disturbing behavior" are patently absurd. If you have a problem with my approach, I urge you to bring it up with administrators by filing a report at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Instead, however, you will be far better served by viewing my extensive editing record across hundreds of articles - you will see for yourself that I am a neutral and diligent Wikipedian. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Who are you addressing Jessey? The other administrator made the call about the Own policy and gave their opinion about the page. Luckily, we don't have to work at whether or not you Own the page or if either one of us is neutral. That has been established. What has also been established is that this page is grossly out of whack as it describes Dreamhost. Now we need to move on and work on this page.Spiney deluxe (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I am addressing both of you. JavierMC suggested that there may be an ownership problem, but this is not the case. You constantly repeating it will not make it so, either. I have explained the reasoning behind my edits, and I have indicated that if anyone has a problem with them they should bring them to the attention of administrators and stop using an article talk page as an attack vessel. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Luckily, at least the way the Wiki system is set up, I don't have to say it to make it so, as you repeatedly do when dismissing peoples' edits. You repeating the same invalid reasoning for dismissing edits doesn't justify you to do so. Further, I'm not asking anybody to believe me regarding your behavior. As Javier and anybody else can see, your edits reveal your lack of neutrality and your vigilance in owning this article and that can't be undone or reasoned away. And to your other point about the multitudes of articles you maintain. I've looked at a few of those at your invitation. Jessey, I just don't have the time to untangle and address all of the ownership and lack of neutrality on the other pages as well. I don't even want to do it here, but you make it entirely compelling to straighten out your agenda and bring some balanced, factual, entirely accurate (good and bad), neutral, referenced, and finally community-based (rather than solely your) information to this article. Finally, I'm not deliberately using this page as an attack vessel, I'd like to get back to the point as well. It's not easy to approach editing the page when I anticipate than any effort and research I put into it is going to be vaporized by you 30 seconds after it's up. I (and others above) don't know how to move forward with the page while you sit as sentinel, which is why the discussion page has so much of you on it. Spiney deluxe (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Your continued attacks here are now bordering on disruption. Please comment on the article, not the editor. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Bias, NPOV

I stumbled across this article and was immediately struck by the fact that this article read(s) like a marketing brochure. I don't live in the US, I've never hosted a website in the US r with DH but even I have heard negative stories on Dreamhost. To my surprise, the only "criticism" was phrased as examples of the adequate and fast response of DH in rectifying problems. I removed the most obvious PR-speak from the article, but unfortunately there is not much of an article left by now. Han-Kwang (t) 10:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

With the exception of the information about the control panel (which really is unique - most shared hosting companies use cPanel), the cuts you have made seem fine. The "criticism" you are looking for is not included in the article because it could not be reliably-sourced, and suffered from undue weight and recentism issues. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually that's not right Jessey. It's because you removed it at your discretion.74.66.230.203 (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

A user has requested mediation on this issue. A mediator will be here shortly to assist you. The case page for this mediation is located here.

Why COI?

It seems this article has had a fair bit of discussion but as it stands there remains the coi tag but does not appear to be any npov etc. violations. WP:WHYCOI? -- samj _in 16:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I have replaced the tag with one that calls for better referencing (there is still a slight over reliance on primary sources), but there are no COI or NPOV issues that I can discern. These issues were originally raised by disgruntled former customers with axes to grind, it would seem. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with this promptly. Tagging the talk page to alert editors but not readers is an option in minor/inactive instances. -- samj _in 05:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Little is changed since September Talk on DreamHost Neutral_third_party_view, tags added by JavierMC, and reminder of WP:OWN. Judas278 (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

I just read the entire article start to finish and it seems fine as at right now. -- samj _in 03:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

There is still an over reliance on primary sources, but that's better than using unreliable blogs, etc. I believe the disgruntled drive-by tagger is probably a sock, since the account has a single purpose with a limited history, yet seems able to wikilawyer adeptly. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The following was placed on my talk page, and is copied here verbatim. It relates to issues tags, etc.:

DreamHost

Please stop your disruptive edit warring at DreamHost. Let me be perfectly clear about this: there is no conflict of interest at this article, and there is no self-publishing going on. You have been unable to demonstrate either of these, and so your continued tagging and retagging of this article is disruptive. I am not an employee of DreamHost. I'm just one of several hundred thousand customers. I am a longtime Wikipedian of good standing, whereas you are just a single-purpose agenda account user with some sort of axe to grind. If you continue to abuse your editing privileges in this way, I will file a report on your conduct at WP:ANI and have administrators investigate your conduct. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think near-WP:OWN exists here. The article was tagged in September '08 by JavierMC. Minor edits since then. Tags were removed without consensus. They should remain. Attempting to restore them is called "apparent bad faith edit," "drive-by tagging by SPA," "drive-by tagging by agenda-driven SPA," and "nonsense tags." (See the edit history) Now, the message above. --Judas278 (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because nobody else is editing this article, and thus nobody is reverting your disruption, it does not mean that there is WP:OWN issues. Since you seem to be doing an amazing amount of wikilawyering for an SPA with only an handful of edits, I am now beginning to think you may be a sockpuppet. Any, we will see what administrators think. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestion for actually improving the article? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

ANI discussion

See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Problems at DreamHost with an SPA. There seems to be a sentiment in some quarters that the article's text is one-sided. Can anyone who still holds that view explain what changes they would make? To focus on the logic of tagging the article, without addressing how the text ought to change, seems like a waste of effort.

Personally, I think the article is a bit too complimentary towards the quality of DreamHost's customer service, but I know little about the history. This sentence DreamHost is notable for being unusually transparent about its business practices, with staff contributing to a popular blog seems a bit too effusive, given the billing disaster outlined in the following section.

In the cited article, David Berlind needled them explicitly about their lack of a phone number to call. Even when he was trying to interview them for an article they would not talk to him on the phone! To refer to them as transparent sounds like chutzpah. Don't call us, we'll never call you... EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The transparency of the company (a tell-all, insider's view-style blog is a demonstration of this) has nothing to do with the way the company handles technical support. Very few hosting companies offer phone support, especially at their pricing level. Even the Berlind article refers to the company's transparency specifically - the language is supported by the source. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This article reads like an advertisement. 5 of 13 references were published by the company, and what they said was repeated in a couple other reference publications, which quote company officers and company blog. If that's not self-publishing, what is? David Berlind also said he was considering them for his sites (COI), and quotes the company blog. It's an opinion piece in a blog. It's not reliable 3rd party publication.

It's not "notable for being unusually transparent about its business practices". It has a blog like many companies, and it publishes PR with it. Delete the statements without good references, and this article says: This is a web hosting company with x thousand customers. They've had some fubars to explain. That's about it. I was a customer. They were not transparent. I left. --Judas278 (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've responded to this at WP:ANI, but I have to say that it is patently absurd that you are criticizing the sourcing of the article and then advocating for the removal of one of these reliable sources. This goes against all kinds of common sense and seems contrary to the goals of the project. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

5 references are self-published by the company. Other references, including the mentioned blog, are poor, because they mostly repeat company PR. Therefore, they are not reliable 3rd party references. If good references are not available, the statements should be deleted. --Judas278 (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

the source for the flowery and questionable "notable for being unusually transparent" line is a blog, which is not typically considered a reliable source. in this case, i'd say if they are so notable for their transparency, then there should be other sources besides the blog. since there aren't, the line should be removed. it just reads like advertising fluff anyway. Theserialcomma (talk) 08:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The ZDNet blog isn't some idle gossip column. It is a highly-respectable tech blog. It is still considered to be a reliable source, just as blogs at CNN, MSNBC, Newsweek and The Washington Post are. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

the blog is written so poorly (there are tons of grammatical and spelling errors) that i was skeptical of it. but if you say it's a highly respected blog and should be taken as a reliable source then so be it. however, saying that dreamhost is "notable for being unusually transparent" is still flowery advertising, since it's not true to what the actual source states. if we are going to talk about how "notable" they are for their "unusual transparency," we should have solid sourcing that say exactly that. the same blog also mentions how dreamhost only has a fax number on their website to contact them, and how dreamhost's PR officer refused a phone call from the zdnet reporter. maybe we should mention that too? if ZDNet is so highly respected, why would they refuse a call from them? well, speculating about that doesn't matter. we just need to rewrite it so it's more neutral and worded accurately to the source. Theserialcomma (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

WorldBlu "Award"

This recent addition to the introduction should be removed. The primary requirements for "making the list" are simply paying an about $1,000 fee: http://www.worldblu.com/scorecard/question10.php and self-evaluation surveys: http://www.worldblu.com/scorecard/question7.php. Also, the award is not very notable: http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Search/WorldBlu --Judas278 (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Notable enough for the company to be covered by the New York Times, among others: I'm willing to discuss it, but the discussion should be with other editors besides you. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Judas. If them winning such an award is notable enough for inclusion, it should be sourced from a secondary reference, not a primary source. it also does appear to be one of those "pay for inclusion" type deals based on the URL posted. Theserialcomma (talk) 08:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

i removed the claim that dreamhost's blog is popular, with a source linking to netcraft ], cause that's original research. Theserialcomma (talk) 09:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Balance

Thanks to Theserialcomma's hackery, fully half the article is now about a billing issue. This now seems to be an undue weight problem that will need addressing. To redress the balance, we may have to introduce more information about the company and its products - and that means more primary sourcing (which is not preferable). -- Scjessey (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

unfortunately, the only reliable sources in the article are about the billing issue. i suggest shortening the billing information and removing the billing section altogether, after the shortened version is moved into the main article. i'll attempt some more hackery to address this issue. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, primary sources are perfectly acceptable as reliable sources for straight company facts (such as how their system operates, etc.). They are also fine for quoting DreamHost employees. Secondary sources are preferable for opinion, of course, but these must be proper reliable sources and not the blogs of former customers with a beef (which is what used to be the case here). -- Scjessey (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.webhosting.info/webhosts/tophosts/global/?pi=1&ob=RANK&oo=ASC as a reliable source

why should we believe that webhosting.info is a reliable resource for counting how many domains dreamhost hosts? if a news site said "dreamhost hosts over 800,000 domains," that'd be one thing, but webhosting.info? i am not so sure about that one. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Although I just added a Netcraft list as a reference, I think you have a good point. Secondary source definition does not include lists like that. Secondary source includes "generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information", like, as you say, (reputable) news articles. --Judas278 (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

the question is, if a secondary source evaluates original information, then where is the original information that webhosting.info has evaluated? as far as i can tell, webhosting.info is the primary source because they are publishing their own original info. besides that, it also doesn't appear to be a very reliable source, being along the lines of an alexa ranking or a traffic estimation website, both of which should also be avoided. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This speaks to the reliability of the source. It is similar in many way to the statistics gathering done by Netcraft. That being said, Judas's use of Netcraft for information about DreamHost's systems doesn't work, because it isn't specific enough. DreamHost uses Debian for shared hosting. There is little point in switching to a third party source if that information is inaccurate, so I have reverted the change. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Theserialcomma - webhosting.info is a primary source, publishing raw data. Netcraft data is also a primary source, publishing raw data, although they also publish articles interpreting the data to become secondary source. A reputable 3rd party primary source is better than self-published data. BTW, Debian is a subset of GNU/Linux, so calling it Linux is accurate. If you look around, you'll find confirmation the company is using F5 Big IP. So, I'm unreverting the change. --Judas278 (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

But that's not on shared hosting, and why replace "Debian" with a more ambiguous term? That's like saying "car" instead of "Ford". -- Scjessey (talk) 10:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no reference given for shared versus dedicated hosting descriptions anyway. No, it's like saying "Ford Fusion" instead of "Ford Fusion SE." --Judas278 (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

This does not establish the reliability of the source per wikipedia's standards. Please see WP:RS: "Misplaced Pages articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources (although reliable self-published sources are allowable in some situations - see below). Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication". an "about" page on a website stating 'we are pretty accurate, we swear! patent pending!' does not establish reliability, nor does it change the fact that this is a primary resource Theserialcomma (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

We are not stating an opinion, we are just reported an uncharacterized fact. There is no reason at all why the Webhosting.info source cannot be used for the 800,000 domains number. Many editors have reviewed this source before and found it perfectly acceptable. You are going against a previously established consensus. I am curious - are you a former DreamHost customer as well? -- Scjessey (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

nope, never used or heard of dreamhost until i read the WP:ANI thread you posted about the SPA the other day. i agree that he appears to be an SPA, but many editors begin editing on articles that particularly interest them, and therefore start out as SPAs. more important questions would be, are you still an admin of the dreamhost wiki and still receiving financial compensation from the company? and also, what still makes you think that webhosting.info is a reliable source? what makes you think it's not a primary source? have you read WP:RS? and don't you know that consensus can change? and don't you know that 'many editors have reviewed the source' does not automatically make it a good source? i await your response. thanks. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin of the DreamHost Wiki, I am a "sysop". This status was conferred upon me so that I could help clean up vandalism there, and that is pretty much it (DH Wiki logs). I do not receive financial compensation from DreamHost. I do get a few dollars a year in "referral revenue" if people sign up for the service from my recommendation - the same arrangement that all customers of DreamHost get. There is no conflict of interest, if that is what you are getting at, because I am not (and have never been) an employee or paid advocate. I think webhosting.info is reliable for the information we seek from it, namely non-contentious raw numbers of domains. We are not seeking some sort of opinion, or looking to support data that is disputed. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Copied here: I suppose it's not true you're known as one of their biggest fans?; rlparker, another customer "sysop" got hired by the company; and you wouldn't be against arranging a nice job there for yourself? --Judas278 (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

And what the hell is wrong with that? And what has it got to do with this? You are trying to make it seem like a conflict of interest exists where there is none. Have you no interest in editing anything else on Misplaced Pages, other than this crusade of hate? -- Scjessey (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and I wouldn't say no to a nice test position on the Microsoft SQL Server team. Are you going to tell me I can't edit the Microsoft article any more?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If one is an active, known promoter, receiving cash, pursuing a job, etc., then one may have COI and should consider taking a less active or controlling role on that article. Just one opinion. --Judas278 (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If one is a known ex-customer holding a grudge, etc, one may have COI and should consider taking a less active or controlling role on that article. Just one opinion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to include reliable references, and tried to restore the COI and npov tags, for accuracy. If removing unreferenced info' appears to be biased, we could discuss why that is. Oh, ditto for current customers. :-) --Judas278 (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yelling "this user has a conflict of interest" over and over does not make it so.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I believed the purpose of the COI and npov tags was to draw attention from experienced, neutral editors, to help correct the situation. Likewise, repeating "he has a grudge" does not make it so. --Judas278 (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Control Panel Deletion Proposal

Re: Customers have access to a control panel that includes integrated billing and support ticket systems. and screenshot image. I propose deleting this statement and screenshot. See earlier discussions. It has a reference to only a company web page - advertising. It's "custom," but company sites are already linked extensively in External Links, to provide that advertising. All web hosts have "integrated" control panels. So this statement doesn't add anything. Finally, the web panel was involved, or thought to be, in a security breach, but this news-referenced information is no longer here. So, I say delete the superfluous statement and screenshot, or restore mention of the security breach for balance. --Judas278 (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Umm, Judas, if you can't even say if it was involved with a security breach, then exactly why are you trying to put it in? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

maybe this kills two birds with one stone: http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2007/06/07/dreamhost_hack/ . it both states information about the security breach, and it states that dreamhost hosts "more than" 500,000 domains. Theserialcomma (talk) 06:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

here is another: http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2007/06/06/mass_customer_site_hack_at_dreamhost.html Theserialcomma (talk) 06:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

And here's another - http://www.dreamhoststatus.com/2007/06/06/security-breach/, cited in the above.

We are in the middle a more thorough investigation and some new information has turned up. While we did detect some unauthorized access to our user web control panel, in at least some cases it looks like that may not be to blame for the compromised ftp accounts. In some isolated cases it appears that there may be security problems on end-user computers as well. If you have been affected by this, please do whatever checks on your own computer you can as a precaution. Our investigation is covering all possible attack points and this is one of the possibilities.

Also note that we now have confirmed information that these ftp account hijackings are happening on other web hosts as well and it looks very likely like there’s more to this situation than just the security problem we detected within our own system.

And Judas obviously knew this, or he wouldn't have added the "or thought to be" above.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

←It is worth noting that DreamHost uses a totally unique control panel designed in-house. This is unusual for all but the very big hosts, as most cheap shared hosts use cPanel. It is for this reason that the information about the control panel was added in the first place. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, it seems extraordinary to claim that detailing the "security breach", which affected less than 1% of customers (myself included, BTW), is somehow a "balance" for general information about the DreamHost control panel system. And how is it "advertising" exactly? I don't understand that at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

1% of (hundreds) of thousands (millions?) of customers, seems like it could be a big deal to me, depending on whether the media reported on it. it appears that a few reliable sources did mention it, so maybe the incident deserves a brief mention in the article? nothing more than a sentence, i would propose. Theserialcomma (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

and in a situation like this: a self-published source, potentially doing damage control, with a statement like 'in isolated cases, it might be the user's computer which was compromised' vs a third party, reliable source, which states 'dreamhost was hacked via a vulnerability in dreamhost's system.' i'd have to go with the third party source. 'a few isolated cases' of people's PCs being hacked has nothing to do with what happened, and that sounds like they are trying to change the subject somewhat. "sure, we were hacked. but in other news, some of you guys might have been hacked also." ...what? this is a prime situation where a self published source is too controversial to use Theserialcomma (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Problem is, those third-party sources are sourced to THE SAME ARTICLE, but an earlier version. Now, if you have a source that is not sourced to Dreamhost's self-reporting, we'd have a basis for discussion. As it stands, we're looking at another case of DreamHost's transparency. They said what they thought was wrong immediately in order to warn people to be careful, and the third-party sources ran with it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

well, wait a second. why should it matter if a third party, reliable source comments on dreamhost's self reporting? that is the whole point of using a third party, reliable source. we trust their editorial process and oversight more than a self published source. reliable sources take questionable information and make their own articles about it, hopefully with some additional information and fact checking. so i don't understand the objection, and i have no idea where you got transparency from this situation. for all we know, it was such a big and obvious hack that they were forced to comment. thousands of sites getting hacked? of course they are going to be 'transparent' on their blog. thousands of people knew about it anyway. they did what any company would do; nothing above and beyond the realm of corporate transparency, as far as i can see Theserialcomma (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Clearly you don't see. I was one of the people "hacked". It was a trivial matter that was more a result of the problems with using the inherently insecure FTP than anything else. It resulted in a few sites have server-side includes injected into websites that contained linkspam. Worse events happen on Misplaced Pages every day. Only DreamHost's exceptional transparency allowed people to find out about it quickly, and most were able to repair their sites from DreamHost's automatic snapshot backups. You are making a mountain out of a molehill. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

i am making a mountain out of a molehill? i have nothing to do with this, neither do you. multiple reliable sources commented on the hack, and we can cull information from those sources to add a quick sentence about the situation. this has nothing to do with molehills, transparency, worse events happening elsewhere, or anything else. are there reliable sources? yes. were thousands of people affected? yes. can we agree that it's worth mentioning in the article? maybe not. i'd like to hear some outside opinions, especially from non loyal customers, and not from SPAs either. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Few domains were actually compromised, although there was potential for several hundred (as reported here), and it turned out to be a problem for more than just DreamHost. A trivial incident, not worth mentioning per WP:WEIGHT. I agree with you, however, when you say that we would benefit from the opinion of other editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

according to netcraft, 700 domains and 3,500 ftp accounts were hacked. ]. maybe to balance out the hack info, we could mention part of dreamhost's response: "In the last 24 hours we have made numerous significant behind-the-scenes changes to improve internal security, including the discovery and patching to prevent a handful of possible exploits," Theserialcomma (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

something like "on june 7th (or whenever it happened), approximately 700 domains and 3,500 ftp accounts were hacked. in response, dreamhost made "numerous, significant changes (to) improve internal security" Theserialcomma (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) wasn't just DreamHost, though.

• http://www.itpro.co.uk/143193/fasthosts-ftp-spaces-compromised (November 2007)
• http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201800545 (August 2007)
• http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Finjan-Finds-Database-of-8700-Stolen-FTP-Credentials/ (February 2008)
• http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/141544/hack_attack_hits_10000_web_sites.html (January 2008)

I suspect these are all related -- the modus operandi sounds awfully similar.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

true, servers on the internet are compromised all the time; and often times, hackers use same method to break into different servers. i'm not sure what this directly has to do with dreamhost, other than if we were to conduct original research to try to make a link from other hacks to dreamhost. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Theserialcomma: "can we agree that it's worth mentioning in the article? maybe not. i'd like to hear some outside opinions, especially from non loyal customers, and not from SPAs either." In itself, the panel is not notable. So it's another panel, imo. If this article links advertising description from the company's site, then should it also link the many times the panel has been reported as unavailable on the company's status site? No, this article should use good references. If the article is going to cover the panel, then use good references. This article http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2007/06/07/dreamhost_hack/ is an excellent reference, imo, because it is up front about where it got info, and used multiple sources - from the company or elsewhere. It touches several bases - control panel, blamed by company; security upgrades made, after the attack; attack publicized by company, after being tracked a few days by an independent security company, Scansafe, who notified the company. This article http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2007/06/06/mass_customer_site_hack_at_dreamhost.html is also good. As a side note, following that article's link to http://www.caydel.com/dreamhost-leaks-3500-ftp-passwords/ and scrolling down to comments, we find a few comments by our dedicated defender/editor of the company, who also states he moved his customer's site to this host, which could be more reason for more COI. In general, the company has been notable for some fubars, so use the good references and include the material. If they've been notable for some notable "great stuff", then include that too. Personally, I think supporting Ceph may be a good one, but I don't know of any good references. --Judas278 (talk)

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)

1. http://discussion.dreamhost.com/showthreaded.plCat=&Board=forum_beginners&Number=110721&Search=true&Forum=All_Forums&Words=scjessey&Match=Username&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Old=allposts&Main=110720 scjessey promo