Jump to content

Talk:DSLReports

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discussion of "Controversy" Paragraph

[edit]

In the past couple days there have been a few insertions of the "Controversy" paragraph which discusses a single member at the site (BBR) and the issues involved between them. I feel this has no WP encyclopedic merit and have reverted the entry twice. User:Splash suggested I write in here about it. It also seems that other editors have too reverted the same entry. I have a moment ago left a message to: User_talk:163.17.124.254. Other anon IPs that have entered the same information which was reverted are: Special:Contributions&target=69.169.144.239 and Special:Contributions&target=24.195.20.252 User_talk:69.169.144.239 and User_talk:24.195.20.252. I'd like to start up a discussion on these changes. --Paul Laudanski 13:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the article's history, you'll see that over the course of months "hockeyfun1" has made a concerted effort to mention himself, his "dispute", and his site in this article. His first acts were to vandalize this article, completely blanking it and replacing it with a mention of his site. He vandalized the article many times before he started adding the "controversy" paragraph. His dispute with BBR is not noteworthy - BBR is a huge site, and plenty of users have quit over disagreements. What he's doing is the equivalent of e.g. RickK inserting himself into the Wikipedia article (not that Rick has done this, it's just an example for comparison). This edit from February is just a typical example of hockeyfun1's vandalism: [1]
We should not reward vandals by mentioning them in articles. Hockeyfun1 may believe that his dispute is legendary at BBR but in reality few users care or even remember him. Rhobite 18:04, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Rhobite isn't a member at BBR that I know of, so how he could say "few users care or even remember him" is not accurate. I am using a different name at BBR and people still IM me on it. The "vandalism" stopped, and I've been good here. BBR has a page here, so it's part of the history, since I was NOT the only member who left over that dispute. There were a lot. Paul (z-x) remembers me and I remember him. He can vouch for me that I didn't cause much trouble before the incidents started with BBR. I had almost 14,000 posts at BBR, which is TONS for any online community. I was well known. In addition, I had the most "points" in their point system at one time. I'm not trying to advertise my own site, I have other ways of doing that. I'm just trying to make sure the facts are straight on the history of BBR. I can type in "Germany" into here at wikipedia, and it'll mention the dark days that happened in the 30's and 40's.

I've been a member there for years and I've never heard of you. Kind of takes the wind out of your departure if you come back under another name, doesn't it? Anyway, I'm not going to block you any more but I will remove any attempt you make to mention yourself in the article. As I said, people quit web forums all the time. Plenty of people quit when the Stars Back Room was closed last year. It's not in the article because nobody outside of BBR cares about this stuff. Congrats on getting the highest meaningless number next to your username, but your dispute and your web site don't belong in this article. As I said in my e-mail to you, comparing your dispute with an Internet site to the deaths of six million Jews is not exactly warming me up to your cause. Rhobite 23:48, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

You became a member the same year I stopped posting and being active. It would have taken you awhile to be familar with any names there. I didn't kill my account until a few months after then. I only came back after another name when I realized the things they were doing to me and the things I was doing to them are stupid. They still said they didn't want me back. Eventually they said I could join, but I could neither have my old account back, nor could I use Hockeyfun1 as a username and I was not allowed to mention "Hockeyfun1". The incident that I left over, probably 15 other members left too. I don't see why I can't mention it. I didn't put my main website in the Controversy section either. With your logic, then take out the secret forums if no one cares about them outside of BBR.

Be my guest. I don't think the list of private forums is of much interest to anyone outside of BBR. I don't really care if it stays or goes. No guarantees that someone else won't re-add it, of course. Rhobite 00:43, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Yes I know you, as I was a host at BBR for 3 or 4 years. I've seen many issues crop up over the years at BBR, but no offense, the issues you have with BBR are not IMVHO WP worthy. First off, if there are any issues like that, I've always felt it best to keep it non-public. If you seriously have an issue with BBR, then the BBB is the right place to complain, not here. --Paul Laudanski 02:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Justin disappointed me by doing nothing about it. It seemed pretty serious, since about 15 or so people left because of one incident. Plus I don't know why they won't even let me use Hockeyfun1 as a username now. What would the BBB do about it?

Not to make you feel bad or anything, but there have been far worse incidents that don't get the press you're trying to publish. Why don't you show you're better than that and just let it go? Is it worth it? --Paul Laudanski 06:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


BBR has long been know for punishing members who use the word 'meatlocker' if they are not one of the chosen ones to view the sekret porn forum. Do a site search for the word 'meatlocker' and see how many hits you get but cant read the posts.

A Revert War

[edit]

Small revert war in progress. A thread was posted in the Stars Pub, a secret forum on DSLR and the wiki page was mentioned. Someone (a mod?) on Optimum Online came and edited the page and removed the references to the secret forums. It has been reverted. Keep an eye out. --K, 8/27/05

Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance#Broadbandreports

[edit]

I have asked for assistance from the AMA on this revert war. Clearly the article is being reverted more than three times in a 24 hour period. Since I am involved in the rv edits, I cannot ask for a temporary article protection to enforce a cool off period. Perhaps someone who isn't involved in the edits can ask for that protection? Just before this talk page entry, I see another rv has been done yet again removing information. --Paul Laudanski 17:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I thought I couldn't ask for a page protection... but I can b/c I'm not a sysop/admin. Hence, I'm making a request for page protection temporarily. --Paul Laudanski 17:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the request for a temp page protection with a request to protect the instance with all the data before the edit war began: Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Broadbandreports. --Paul Laudanski 17:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Added an alert Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#August_28. --Paul Laudanski 18:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Private forum listings on a website are not useful information for anyone but members.. and then the only purpose they serve here is to inflame, provoke and cause trouble. I question the value of this in a wikipedia article. --User:Ktrapszo
The problem here as I see it is that changes are being made in a edit war without having any discussion whatsoever in this talk page. As such, I have pursued assistance from the greater community at WP because of these hit and runs. The information presented is non-secretive, as they have also been referenced in public forums at BBR throughout time. That information can also be useful for prospective new members to see what else lies in the benefits of membership. I'm not sure how such knowledge can cause or provoke trouble? Please note, that at WP assuming good faith is important and vital. As an aside, I added your name to the end of your comment, please add your name in subsequent replies. --Paul Laudanski 21:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, no longer are the forum links being removed, the categories are being stripped too: Category:Internet forums and Category:Websites. --Paul Laudanski 21:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Right, my point was removing the information that is of no value to the article (it really adds nothing) will stop the stupid editing war that appears to concentrate on that information. Just get rid of the private forum mention.. that will stop people from posting links here in those private forums and will stop the resulting edit wars -- otherwise, I guaruantee this is not the last time this will happen. (And more importantly, people will stop asking me to do something about this when I have no control over it!) --User:Ktrapszo
I'd have to disagree, Paul. If a forum is truly private (that is, by invitation only), it should not appear. Something that is a normal benefit of longevity on the site is a different story, however. Obliter 23:37:42, 2005-08-28 (UTC)
I agree with Obliter, that the "private" forums which are obtainable by length or posts should remain. In that case, the Lee Ho Fooks forum should also be included, as it is longevity based. Other forums like the meatlocker or the doghouse should not be included as they are by invite. However, I still fail to see how to Kasia's point (which btw for disclosure purposes Kasia is a sysadmin for Broadbandreports) is not assuming good faith from a WP perspective. If the links are causing issues at BBR, then you need to address policies at BBR and not at WP. --Paul Laudanski 23:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In furthering my response I propose the following links which have been in past article history verbatim:
Now granted, the following have also been in the article... +
  • The Meatlocker - Must be a Moderator/Admin or VIP member with premium service and have been registered for 2 years. An adult-oriented "pr0n" forum. +
  • Advanced Tweaks - For members who post in the tweaks forum and help out a lot there. Used to discuss tweaking.
  • The DCExec private forum - Private forum for members of the DCExec.
As such, the description for meatlocker indicates it is possible to gain entry without an invite. For that description, it should therefore be added back into the list of enhanced membership features given to longevity, post count, or by fee payment. The other two IMHO should not be there as they suggest by invite. --Paul Laudanski 23:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, as a former moderator you know fully well meatlocker is an invitation-only forum. Please don't misrepresent information. It's also not a 'porn forum'. kasia 00:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Paul, I'm trying to address the problem here, not at BBR. Please also consider that it generates bad blood among our users who are now questioning why "they weren't invited" to some "private club". Why do you think this edit war? It's those users.. take away the cause, you'll be rid of the war. It's simple psychology. kasia 23:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the issues at BBR should be brought here. The information has been in this page for months and you have just recently found out about it. It cannot have caused considerable issues during that time. Please see my proposal above which I was authoring during your reply. TIA --Paul Laudanski 23:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, you misunderstood me. I'm not trying to fix a problem at BBR. I'm trying to help stop the idiotic edit war. I could care less about what information is or isn't posted.. I'm giving you a solution to a problem. kasia 00:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about a single person's wish or command for what an article should or shouldn't have. Its Wikipedia, a community collaborative approach. Its about team work. Please reference the Wikipedia:Simplified_Ruleset which I left in your User_talk:Ktrapszo. I suggest you also check WP:NPOV, the whole idea is to keep a NPOV on this and any other article. --Paul Laudanski 00:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly.. Paul. kasia 00:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then so we're in agreement with my proposal then? I think that is what Obliter was suggesting. Certainly many wikipedians kept reverting back the information that folks were removing by anon IP. --Paul Laudanski 00:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's fine with me (as much as my vote counts). kasia 00:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It probably won't stop the editing, but it's a start. Obliter 00:26:47, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
Ok then, so one minor question in my mind then. Meatlocker... does it go back in because of the description it has? If not, what is a suitable description for it (meaning, is it by invite, and if so, then it doesn't get listed in the article's page)? --Paul Laudanski 00:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's invitation only as it always has been. I commented above on that. kasia 00:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaning, I missed the earlier comment. Due to the edit war in the past two days, I'm not going to make the changes until tomorrow some time unless of course there are other comments. It might prove beneficial however to also get a wider WP review (Wikipedia:Peer_review) of the article. In fact, I think I'll throw up a peer review request possibly tomorrow as well. Thoughts? Could be the greater WP community thinks the forum links are considered spam or advertisement. I don't know, but the links were there before I even joined WP. --Paul Laudanski 01:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Peer review certainly can't hurt.. I really am not sure about the forum links since I'm not familiar on the usual procedures on this kind of thing. Considering that only site members can access them, they are of little benefit. They do help to present the wide-range of our forums, but that sounds more spammy than beneficial.. but then I'm biased. kasia 02:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would not have added those links myself to the article, but they had already been there (see my comment below as to the originator) and no one appeared to have any issue with it until recently. And unfortunately, the removals were done by anon IPs. WP policy encourages discussion of changes to articles, so since the removals were not preceded or followed by discussion, you can see by the history that others along with myself reverted them back. This is why I'm suggesting a peer review to grab a broader perspective and consensus. That peer review will certainly be of added benefit since we all seem to have some kind of attachment (past or present) to the actual website. I just hope it is very clear that I did not originally enter this information (the forum links). --Paul Laudanski 02:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, the forum links were originally added to the article on 21:08, 14 July 2005 by anon IP 24.58.89.146 in the →Community section. Here is the direct link of the first presence I could find: [2]. Hope this helps. --Paul Laudanski 02:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have re-entered the proposed forum names/links a moment ago as reached by consensus above. In addition, I have entered a RfC for Other on whether or not an addition made on July 14th ought to be retained as encyclopedic worthy or removed as advertisement/spam under the Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance#Broadbandreports section . Of reference, Slashdot has multiple pages about its website and culture, including trolling pages such as Slashdot_subculture, Slashdot_trolling_phenomena, and Trolltalk where discussion of the hidden SID is found. So the question remains, are the links added on July 14th by 24.58.89.146 considered WP worthy by the greater community at WP?

I am torn on this particular one. On the one side, it shows members what lies in the waiting given time and post counts or fee payment. But on the flip side, is it WP worthy? If its not WP worthy, what kind of information should the article then contain? It was voted for deletion and kept, I'm assuming to be expanded upon. One thing is certain, the whole anon IP hit & run edits is immature. Even right now an anon IP reverted what was reached by consensus. TIA --Paul Laudanski 13:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this page has been on my watchlist for a while and, with an RfC now posted, I'll dive in:

  • I think the list of 'secret' areas is encyclopedic in nature. They are 'notable' for being 'secret'. That one presumes BBR would prefer their 'secret' areas not to appear here is, unfortunately, tough luck. We carry at least several entries about real people who do not want us to do so.
  • You all seem to have done a good job of finding a consensual way forwards here. I am not completely certain that an RfC was necessary considering that fact. If those discussing here are satisfied that the current state is acceptable, then so be it.
  • Don't worry about anon removals. Simply reinstate them — such happenings are to be expected on a page such as this. Of course, if this discussion should be restarted, the question should be rediscussed but, since you're all apparently happy with this way of doing things, it's ok to maintain the page in that state, up to the 3-revert-rule.
  • A possible alternative would be to simply list the 'secret' areas in plaintext with their current brief descriptions, and not give a link. -Splash 16:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.So long as the current descriptions are factually correct, that's not a problem. However, (in the polite vernacular) that turns out not to be the case. One of the descriptions is incorrect, and so I have altered it to a point where it is at least not a misrepresentation. Obliter 14:44:42, 2005-09-05 (UTC)
I'm not so sure that private by-invite locations should be revealed or kept. As such, they are already in the history by the original editor. In order to ensure that such information be removed, would be to delete the article. --Paul Laudanski 03:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unabated Edits

[edit]

The controversy behind this article is unreal... folks keep adding links, removing links, and we already agreed to what is supposed to be in the article above. There appears to be no sanity to this article. --Paul Laudanski 17:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just get rid of the article? How is it Wiki worth having the Stars Watercooler mentioned? - Hockeyfun1

Just mentioning the word 'meatlocker' in a thread will result in the message getting deleted. If you ask WHY the moderator will inform you it's in the site FAQ... If you persist in using the word or for clarification of why the word is not allowed on the site, it may result in your future messages being put into a message queue. Whereupon they are reviewed by a moderator who then decides if the message is ok to be post... If moderator really dislikes you, it can result in a site ban... I know, as this is what happened to me... Just google Kenmo Meatlocker and DSLREPORTS...

Unabated Edits, Again

[edit]

Information regarding moderation practices by Lovefishing and modified by Mouseanon have been removed. The first instance was by Obliter claiming "Removed non-verifiable opinions". So what would it take to "verify" the so-called opinions? I have personally witnessed such behavior on the site, which is why I put the info back up that Obliter removed. Would that qualify as verification? Shortbus28

Ok then. How is this for verification? It is from the DSLR site itself as of Saturday, July 4th, 12:42pm Mountain Time

http://www.dslreports.com/faq/648

No user of the site has any right to post anything they feel like posting. If a user posts, they have to live with any editing or deletion or other moderator action without public complaint. Private complaints can be addressed via the contacts page.

and

Any poster may be banned at any time by name, IP address or other identification without any prior warning and without any explanation given.

http://www.dslreports.com/faq/site/1.5_TOS_-_Terms_of_Service

terms of use (plain english key points)

......We also reserve the right to edit or remove any information you upload, edit or remove your user account, for any reason whatsoever, and with no prior notice.


Using these rules, posts of moderation are deleted as public complaint and also used in regard to members complaining about the site on other forums or media as a "TOS" violation. The last one is a catch-all for anything they don't like.

Therefore, I fully believe the statements to be accurate and should be reinstated.Shortbus28 —Preceding undated comment added 19:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Founder and history

[edit]

The founder and history information appears to be inaccurate. The History of DSL Reports says that:

"DSLReports was started by Justin in June of 1999. According to an interview that he gave around that time, he found himself with some extra time on his hands. At the same time, he discovered that broadband was hard to find in New York, availability fluctuated widely in other areas, and there was a general lack of information available to consumers everywhere who were interested in broadband."

That in turn links to an interview with Justin Beech at www.dotjournal.com which says:

"JB: I started it mid 1999 during the y2k development freeze that left me too much time on my hands in my position as developer for an investment bank. DSL was a "hot thing" back then and covad and northpoint were gearing up. The few sites on the web that concentrated on ISP directories did not seem to offer much information for those who wanted broadband. I also wrote a complaint piece for slashdot about the difficulty of finding broadband in the big apple, and received feedback that led me to believe the story was remarkably different in different parts of the country.. so a lot of information one needed really depended on where you lived."

The Slashdot story appears to be Getting DSL, with a time consistent with the history and story. This is also consistent with the archive.org about page, which states in part "not until I get my mail folder sorted out", also suggesting a singular founder.

Looks as though the history needs to be corrected to say that it was created by Justin Beech. Who, it seems, edited the article to have it say exactly that. 82.33.8.37 20:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Official Name

[edit]

I think something should be said about the redirection of broadbandreports.com to dslreports.com, I don't know if the official name is broadbandreports or dslreports though http://www.dslreports.com/faq/13466

The official name is still Broadbandreports, but due to Google issues the URL is now always dslreports.com. Rhobite 04:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

Move to DSLReports

[edit]

Can someone move this page to DSLReports... that is the branding they are sticking with now (see the site for the new logo).

Thanks! Myriad Pro (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on DSLReports. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:DSLReports&oldid=1205044339"