Talk:Railpage Australia/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Talk archives for Railpage Australia (current talk page)
<< 1          Archive 1 Archive 2 > 1 >>

Contents

earlier comments

Okay lads. Let's get an expanded article happening here. I'd do it myself, but I don't know where to start. Any thoughts on the matter are welcome.

TheLoadedDog 00:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Good to see things start to take off. SM247 05:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Required

This article reads like something a couple of fans of the website put together. Some people would nominate this for deletion, but I think it's worth giving this a cleanup first. There's uses of first person (eg. "they tell us..."), and there's references to the in jokes, which are not encyclopaedic. I would like to see how Railpage contributes to Australian railways on the internet, not how it impresses the people who wrote this. It needs a big cleanup. (JROBBO 02:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC))

nup. it seems pretty NPOV to me. i say this as a member too.

202.125.28.68

I think it's at the point now where those "first person" and "advertisement" tags might well be redundant. It's looking reasonably Wikified from my POV (within the limitations of an entry about a website). I'm reasonably happy with the entry as it is now. Any thoughts on this?

I'm curious about the "in joke" thing. I'd be inclined to draw a distinction between referencing in jokes and referencing the existence of in jokes. The latter could well qualify as encyclopaedic, if done appropriately. TheLoadedDog 13:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a lot better. (JROBBO 01:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC))

Call for Deletion: September 19th 2006

I note that there is no Votes for deletion page for this proposal. Who's resposibility is it to create this? The proposer? I would like to see some consensus, rather than have an arbitary deletion after the 5 day period has elapsed Johnmc 08:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Dude don't just remove the call for deletion. From the page you yourself referenced: "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments."

Put your comments for why the page shouldn't be deleted somewhere. The case for deletion is clearly stated in the deletion notice. If the page is to stay, refute the points made.

That's fine, I haven't touched the {Prod} tag, nor did I have any intention of doing so - that much of the policy, I *did* read. To be honest, the reasons for deletion look pretty comprehensive - to *me*. The fact that I can't think of any reasons for the page to stay, doesn't mean there aren't any. And from what I read of the policy, if that tag stays up for 5 days, then the page can be arbitarily deleted by an admin, and I least wanted to see some debate before that happened. And I wouldn't have the foggiest idea how one goes about that. That's why I asked whose job it was to create the discussion.Johnmc 12:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The call for deletion is spurious. Railpage is neither minor nor marginal. It may be minor compared to Google or ninemsn but as railway web sites goes it's one of the biggest in the world. The fact that it has collaborated with government agencies, was quoted by a major metropolitan newspaper in the last week, is frequently mentioned by Kel Richards on ABC Newsradio and used by railway company management and public transport officials (including the Director of Public Transport, Victoria) in an official capacity shows it's not marginal. It would be better to clean up the stub than call for deletion. It does meet WP:WEB on multiple criteria. (Anonymous Concerned User)
I have to agree, while it could possibly come close to vanity in a couple of areas, the site itself is very worthy of inclusion. Just about any google search on railways in Australia returns a railpage hit in the top-5 results. The site is the biggest in Australia by far.

Okay, it looks as if the deletion process was basically SNAFU'd. The {{prod}} template should not be used on an article that has been proposed for deletion before,(see wp:prod) and as this is the 2nd time this article has been nominated for deletion, the {{afdx}} template should have been used, not {{afd}}. Having both Prod and AfD tags in the same place has just made things more entertaining. (The last couple of hours have been a steep learning curve, let me tell you.)

End result: I have decided to be bold, called a 'mistrial', and have removed the AfD and ProD tags, as this seems to be the best way to unscramble the situation. If the original proposer (or anyone else) wishes to re-nominate this article for deletion, please note that the {{prod}} tag should not be used, as this is reserved for non-controversial deletions (and as mentioned, for pages that have not had previous deletion discussions). Please use the {{afdx}} tag, instead. Thank you. Johnmc 16:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"Model Railway Resources" subsection

For the sake of neatness, i've deleted the subsection to the still-born Model Railway Resources article. If this article gets up and running (and survives its baptism of fire), then someone can add it in again.Johnmc 12:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

James Morgan

James Morgan is one of several administrators on Railpage - discussing his history is irrelevant, and creates a skewed impression.

Additionally, the citation link is broken. I looked up the article on Newsbank, and found the following:

James Morgan, 18, who told police about Crawford's activities, pleaded guilty to seven charges in Melbourne Magistrates' Court in May, including theft from cars, possessing stolen property and possessing an explosive substance. He says he saw unsupervised youths, including Crawford, moving trains at the Newport yards and estimated that up to 10 sets of keys had been copied and sold. "I'd go down there and they would roll up in a train to meet me," Mr Morgan said. He had thought Crawford was a driver and surrendered to police after realising he was not. "It was frightening for me as a passenger to know that this could be happening at the front of my train," he said.

Even if this was relevant, the section included on this article does not give the same impression that the H/Sun article does.

In any case, it's simply irrelevant.

--Evan C (Talk) 09:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Discuss nicely;The Controversy

Do not violate any of Wikipedia:No legal threats, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:No personal attacks or Wikipedia:Edit war

I am currently Assuming good faith. Also,In my opinion,that thing is pretty irrelavent.Being an administrator of Railpage Australia(Or so I've heard) does not mean he is related to it,unless he does something only he can do,and it obviously is related to the page since he is doing something to it.


Discuss nicely!Cheers—121.7.56.203 10:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Add to that WP:BLP, which I think those wanting to add the comments should read (if they haven't already) before reinstating anything.
I have reverted again, partly on the basis that this sort of thing should be discussed before adding, partly on the basis of it containing unsourced critical statements (the first two paragraphs of the material I just deleted), and partly on the basis of WP:BLP which is particularly relevant here. That last link says, Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles.... In this context, I would consider a newspaper article to be a poor source.
Philip J. Rayment 11:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


And everyone needs to be aware of the three revert rule. Reverting more than three times (even if some changes are made), is grounds for being blocked. Three of us have now reverted twice, although Reverting unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons is an exception to this rule (See WP:3RR#Exceptions). Philip J. Rayment 11:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove information from articles. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed even if some believe it to be contentious. Thank you.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.113.160.21 (talk • contribs) 12:06, Feb 22, 2007 (UTC).

Calling the reversions vandalism gets you nowhere and earns no respect. Discuss the issue.
I'm making my last revert for today. Be aware of WP:3RR. --Evan C (Talk) 12:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm discussing the issue with regards to Mr Morgan nicely, only mentioning his rail activites. Its relevant because he's one of the princpals of Railpage, why censor fact?

Be aware of WP:DR and WP:RFM

Should I start a seperate article on him? Discuss please.

Thank you.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tezza1 (talk • contribs) 13:11, Feb 22, 2007 (UTC).

Is everything Mr. Morgan does that is related to rail automatically relevant? Is it relevant to mention any enthusiast trips that he goes on, that he takes photographs of trains, etc. (assuming he does these things)? I would say no. Just because he does something rail-related doesn't automatically mean that it's relevant to this article, and I can't see that some past, possibly minor, convictions which had nothing to do with Railpage itself are relevant to an article about Railpage. To an article about him, probably, but not about Railpage.
The Herald Sun article does not say that his convictions were for anything rail-related in any case, so it's a stretch to say that you are only mentioning his rail activities.
I do not consider Mr. Morgan notable enough to have his own article. It would seem that David Bromage and Brian Evans would be more notable, yet recent articles on them have been deleted.
As mentioned above, the first two paragraphs of the insertion were, in any case, not referenced and probably constitute Original Research. Many moderated forums would have some users complaining about moderation, so unless you can show some evidence that this site is exceptional in this regard, I cannot see that the comments about moderation are relevant.
Philip J. Rayment 14:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


Would it be relevant to note that the last two days of frenzied editing and reverting seems to follow from two threads on the aus.rail usenet newsgroup? " Railpage writing its own history...Bout time somebody put some facts in there." [1] and "My reply to Webslave after the Railpage aus.rail thread was locked" [2]. (With "Railpage can't handle the truth" [3] as a commentary on the Feb 22nd edits.) Johnmc 16:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It certainly explains a bit, including why two editors have suddenly appeared at the same time to put this stuff in (I suspected that it was actually one editor, but this is a viable alternative explanation).
I also see that they jump to conclusions readily. I made my first ever edit to this page by reverting an insertion of material that I consider at the very least to be irrelevant, so that somehow makes me a "Railpage apologist". And my views on creation are dragged into this for no apparent reason other than an excuse to vilify me. It's also falsely claimed that my favourite pasttime here is to contribute on the subject of creation. I've actually spent a lot of my time here contributing to railway-related articles, as well as a few related to neither railways nor creation. And my contributions to creation-related articles has been quite minimal for quite some time. So much for the objective research of the poster on aus.rail.
How being a so-called "religious nutter" explains my removal of the material is unexplained. As a Christian, I don't condone breaking the law, so I don't condone what Mr. Morgan did. It seems as though some people simply can't accept that I really do not consider the material relevant, and have to try and invent some other explanation.
Tezza1 said that he wants to discuss the changes nicely, yet he has reinserted the material without actually having any discussion!
Philip J. Rayment 01:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


This is becoming ridiculous beyond belief. Removal of unsourced, non-NPoV, and irrelevant material is NOT censorship.
Placing an AFD tag at the top without creating an entry on WP:AFD, or even justifying anything is pointless.
I've become tired of having vandalism warnings unjustifiably placed on my talk page by anonymous IP-users.
I've "warned" those involved (though I honestly consider that the process of warning will likely do little in this case), but to be fair I'll leave reverting the article to someone else, per WP:3RR. --Evan C (Talk) 11:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


"James Morgan is innocent and all charges against him were dropped." That statement is correct, but has no place in this article. it is not relevant! Railpage is actively and well moderated: there is a body of disaffected users who cannot cope with that and who actively try to bring the site down. This discussion is a consequence of that group. The article at present is a fair statement.Latrodectus 09:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)latrodectus

The "2007 Disestablishments" category ref needs to go. The line "The site has its crtics however, some users allege that some posts have been edited or deleted by a few moderators who disagree with the line of arguement or for no apparent reason, while some users have critised the ill judged selection of certain moderators." should go as it's not cited, and not consistent with other similar articles on other websites. The "James Morgan controversy" section can go, as it contributes nothing to the article, and is poorly cited - and breaches WP:BLP. Furthermore, as seen on this talk page - this campaign is the result from an incitement by some to vandalise this article through various means. 203.28.90.133 13:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The page never was protected. I'll revert, yet again, per the above request, but no guarantees it'll last long... --Evan C (Talk) 13:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The article is now protected,FULLY.WP:BLP and WP:Verifiability MUST be adhered to. Also,Jimmy(Jimbo Wales,the co-founder of Wikipedia) has stated that [cite ref] is NOT allowed in Bios,DELETE IT AGGRESSIVELY.One person's article was sneaky vandalised and guess what?It went to the News when it was found out so that is why [cite refs] are STRICTLY not allowed!So people who put in the James Morgan thing,you MUST put a reference,or expect vandalism warnings on your talk page.Anyway,controversies are usually bad in Wikipedia;they cause A LOT OF trouble.They lead to troubles(3RR and Vandalism) many,many...many,many times!So,unless it is well refed and it is related,like james said something relavant"Railpage Aussie is ...lalalala" or does something relavant"James has done(I don't know the page) lalala...and is (Very)controlversial.Or something he can do and is (Very)controversial(Anything that is to be censored because of Strong Violence,Strong Language etc.).121.7.56.203 14:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


"James Morgan is innocent and all charges against him were dropped" - WRONG!!! That statement is INCORRECT. he pleaded GUILTY to some (not all) charges ! Unless there have been very radical changes to criminal law in Victoria, if you plead guilty you admit to the charge. The magistrate can however choose not to record the conviction.

His actions are relevant to the article as they are associated with his hobby and with his involvement as one of the principals behind Railpage. If for example, his court appearance was because of drink driving, buggery, armed robbey, etc, then I whould concide it wouldn't be relevant.

The facts associated with the incident have been recorded in Railpage and the press.

The line "The site has its crtics however, some users allege that some posts have been edited or deleted by a few moderators who disagree with the line of arguement or for no apparent reason, while some users have critised the ill judged selection of certain moderators." should stay.

If some people are claiming rightly this line was written by disaffected anti Railpage users, then I would have to class them as CRITICS and disaffected users!!! Therefore the statement is TRUE.

Have a nice day. Tezza1 08:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"His actions are relevant to the article as they are associated with his hobby and with his involvement as one of the principals behind Railpage."
Well, no. They're not necessarily relevant simply because someone says they are relevant, and the link needs to be proven. What's the connection? The article is basically two parts: "Morgan was charged, etc. etc. etc.", and "Morgan's webpage, etc. etc. etc." The article may infer (which is what the media is best at) a connection between the two, but The Herald Sun is wise enough not to outright suggest that Railpage is connected with Mr Morgans activities, probably because they have no proof of such. Wikipedia is not the place to speculate on such a connection. Show me an official document (court transcript etc) which specifically mentions Railpage in connection with a matter such as this, and you may edit to your hearts content.
What we have here is the ongoing aus.rail V Railpage feud, only in a different venue. And Wikipeida is *not* a suitable venue for it. Wikipedia is place for facts. The facts surrounding Morgan are not disputed. But there are no facts connecting his actions with Railpage. If there was an article on Morgan, then that would be the place for this, not on an article about a forum which he *assists* with.
I am curious about one thing. How is "fitness to play a role" in a volunteer run forum determined? What standards are used? What impartial body determines whether an individual is or is not fit to play a part? Johnmc 22:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


"His actions are relevant to the article as they are associated with his hobby and with his involvement as one of the principals behind Railpage." Well, no."

Well, yes, he like to promote himself as a lead developer and moderator of railpage. It is fittness to continue a moderator is what the controversy is about.

"What we have here is the ongoing aus.rail V Railpage feud, only in a different venue. And Wikipeida is *not* a suitable venue for it. Wikipedia is place for facts. The facts surrounding Morgan are not disputed."

Yes, the facts should not be disputed. It is a fact he appeared in a magistrates court and pleaded guilty to some of the charges.
What he have here is a small group of ::Railpage users who seem to want to white wash his actions. Discussion on the subject of his fittness to continue as a moderator ::has been locked on Railpage.

"But there are no facts connecting his actions with Railpage. If there was an article on Morgan, then that would be the place for this, not on an article about a forum "which he *assists* with."

Yes there is, Morgan has commented about his actions as "Webslave" on Railpage.

Crawford busted: Teenager tried to hijack train

"I am curious about one thing. How is "fitness to play a role" in a volunteer run forum determined? What standards are used? What impartial body determines whether an individual is or is not fit to play a part?"

The controversy is about the fittness of such a person to continue as a moderator of Railpage, no one else.


But getting back to what Wikipedia is all about - facts, warts and all.


If people what a one sided self promotional article they should publish it somewhere else other than Wikipedia.


Again I would like to state, there should be a metion of Mr Morgan somewhere within the this Railpage article, and the continuing controversy surrounding his fittness as a moderator on Railpage which has been highlighted here.


Have a nice day. Tezza1 09:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Tezza, if you're not a user of Railpage then the issue is not relevant to you in the first instance. If you are a user on the other hand, perhaps you could discuss this alleged 'continuing' controversy on Railpage. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Furthermore, an administrator has made the decision that the content regarding James Morgan NOT be included in the article. I recommend you start a new article on him and see how long it stays for. His charges (which, according to court documents were dismissed) are nothing to do with Railpage Australia. He did not carry out any of his alleged crimes in the name of Railpage Australia, or as Railpage business. It looks like it's about time you went back to aus.rail. 203.28.90.133 02:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


From the Railpage site, Webslaves signature.

James Morgan Lead Developer - Railpage Australia™ 2.0 "Remember, you can't say filthy, without Phil!" MorgaNet Online - http://yen.omni.com.au/ Another President of Nazarail

His own signature on Railpage "Lead Developer - Railpage Australia™ 2.0" indicates he is one of the principals behind Railpage. The controversy is all about his fittness to remain as a moderator.

Using a comparision, if an executive of a company that featured an article here on Wikipedia was convicted of a crime such insider trading, the company of course would not condone the crime, but mention of that crime if it was recorded in the printed media and the boards subsequent refusal to sack the executive would surely rate a mention within that wikipedia article on that company.

I'm trying to take a middle of the road approach to this. Again I would like to suggest that mention of Mr Morgans other railway hobby activities should be mentioned with in the Railpage article. I'm not stating Railpage supports his activities and could conclude stating this.

Arbitration?

Have a nice day

Tezza1 09:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Couple of things i'd like to comment on. Railpage is a privately run internet forum, on a privately owned server. Certainly, free speech allows anyone to say "so-and-so should not be a moderator", but should that person expect that an internet forum would be obliged to act on what he says? That being the case, is the example of a public company a valid one?
You are of the opinion that Railpage does not support his activities. If you do not consider Railpage to be supportive of them, (and by extension, not involved. Would it not be reasonable to consider that if a forum does not support the actions of an individual, then it would not be involved in those actions, and any actions taken by an individual - even in admin - would be on their own behalf, and not reflect any views held by the forum?) That being the case, why would it be necessary to report details on this article, when Railpage does not support his actions, and is not involved.?
Nobody is stopping you from creating James Morgan (Forum admin), and placing whatever information you deem relevant in it. This is wikipedia, after all, with over 75,000 active editors. They can't *all* be Railpage Kiddies...Johnmc 10:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I cannot see any more than a very tenuous connection with this article. But it possible the Newport incident itself may justify its own article. This does seem to meet the WP:N and WP:V criteria if the article must be about the incident and not a biography of the people.

  • WP:N: "The person has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple non-trivial published works the source of which is independent of the person. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it". The Herald Sun article already mentioned was substantial and independent of the subject and considered the subject notable enough to write a non-trivial article. There were no doubt other media articles at the time.
  • The stand up routine by Rove McManus about the incident is also noteworthy. Similar Letterman/Leno/SNL takes on incidents are included in other articles.
  • WP:V: "An eyewitness account of a traffic accident published in a newspaper" is a primary source therefore Morgan's account in the Herald Sun is a primary source. The court transcripts are public documents and primary sources.
  • Care must be taken re WP:NPOV and WP:NPF, keeping the article to the bare minimum of relevant and attributable material. For NPOV it would be prudent for editors close to the subject or those who advocated particularly strong opinions on this talk page not to get involved.
  • The third unnamed person must remain unnamed as he was a minor at the time, even though his name is apparently widely known.
  • Around the same time, another minor drove buses and trams around Melbourne and this was also widely reported in the media. These were unrelated incidents but could serve to widen the scope of such an article so it is not seen as an attack page.

219.105.38.42 23:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

First 100 web sites in Australia

Originally started in 1992 by David Bromage, it was among the first 100 web sites to be hosted in Australia.

Is there any source for this claim? If not, the claim ought to be removed, as per Verifiability —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.30.155.158 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 24 February 2007.

6 months before the first Railpage web site there were only 150 web sites in the entire world. 12 months later (6 months after Railpage) there were about 3000[4]. The figure of being among the first 100 in Australia is probably very conservative. It was probably in the first 50. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.55.140.16 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 25 February 2007.

On the Afd, I have included newsgroup postings for the first mentions of Railpage. Is there a newgroup posting notifying aus.rail that the web server is up, or some other means of putting a rough date on the site going live? John Vandenberg 09:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

July 1994 is the best I could do for the site history page. There was some weeks of learning that new fangled HTML and converting the original plain text files to web pages before the site was made public. I don't think it is possible to pinpoint a specific date it went live. Dbromage 10:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The all important announcement date: 25 Jul 1994, and then a relocation on 16 Aug 1994. John Vandenberg 11:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Some more info but not sure how to cite it. It is not specifically related to Railpage and does not show an absolute figure for Australia, but shows the figure is probably accurate.

  • In June 1994 there were 2738 web sites in the world.[5]
  • In January 1995 there were 71,000 domains and 4,852,000 hosts in the world.[6]
  • Of these, there were 1763 domains (2.4%) and 161166 hosts (3.3%) in Australia.[7]
  • As a proportion of total world web sites, this means somewhere between 65 and 90 web sites in Australia around the time Raillpage started.

Thin Arthur 12:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The Web Service

January 1994 should probably read January 1995. The site didn't exist in January 1994 and according to the site history it moved to the dedicated server in November 1995. 72.55.140.16 06:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Not so. As the article and various posts by the creator - Railpage was indeed established in 1992. I have removed the EditProtected tag. 203.28.90.133 11:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I have put the EditProtected tag back. Yes it was indeed established in 1992 as a cfingerd service but did not become a web site until July 1994. "The content of the finger service was translated to an experimental web site in July 1994". "In January 1994, Brian Evans suggested to David Bromage that Railpage (which at that point comprised static web pages) could be further developed". Both statements cannot be true. It could not have comprised of static web pages in January 1994 as it did not exist as a web site until 6 months later. I think "January 1994" is simply a typo and should read "January 1995". Why not ask the man himself (User:Dbromage) which is correct?. 72.55.140.16 00:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the EditProtected tag. The Template:Editprotected page says that it "is useful to edit pages in Wikipedia:List of indefinitely protected pages". I admit that's a bit ambiguous, and I may be doing the wrong thing, but on the presumption that the edit protection is temporary, I don't think we should be asking an administrator to come and edit the article for every little thing that we find wrong. Using it for serious problems, as Evan C did below is fine, but this particular problem can wait until edit protection is removed. Additionally, I don't think it's yet clear that your proposed change is the correct one. If an administrator is to be asked to change it, it needs to be discussed here and agreed upon before we can expect him to do that for us.
As for the problem with the dates, I agree that there does appear to be a discrepancy. I was going to ask why you think the January 1994 date is wrong rather than the July 1994 date, but this page does confirm the July 1994 date. That page does not confirm January 1996 (the event being referred to in your query does not seem to be mentioned). I would still ask why you are suggesting January 1996 rather than January 1995. And yes, you could ask the man himself.
Philip J. Rayment 02:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I struck out my question account the previous comments being edited. But the question still remains, is January 1995 necessarily correct, or just presumed? Philip J. Rayment 02:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I take the point about temporary protection. It's probably safe to assume the month is correct. It's hard to mistype a month in words but it's easy to mistype a year in numbers - I did it myself! Look at the chronology of events. Prior to July 1994 it did not exist as a web site so January 1994 is obviously wrong. If the first web site site was created in July 1994 and moved to a dedicated server in November 1995 then Brian Evans and David Bromage must have talked about it some time between those two months. If the month is correct then it can only have been January 1995. This is why I think "In January 1994, Brian Evans suggested to David Bromage" is a simple typo. 72.55.140.16 03:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Your explanation sounds reasonable. But why could not Evans and Bromage have talked about it after it moved to a dedicated server? That is, does January 1995 have to be the correct date, or could it actually have been January 1996? For that matter, can we quote either date without a reference to back it up? Philip J. Rayment 12:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you ask them? Put a note on their User Talk pages. 72.55.140.16 02:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
You first suggested it, so I thought that you might. But I have now done so on David Bromage's talk page. Does Brian\ Evans have a user account here? Philip J. Rayment 10:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
It was indeed January 1995. 13th January to be exact, at an ARE train watching night at Bacchus Marsh. January 1994 is probably a typo.
Despite Philip's request I will abstain (courteously) from commenting on the edit war and AfD. It could be seen as WP:COI.
Dbromage 10:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Dbromage has misunderstood me (perhaps I wasn't clear); I didn't ask him to comment on the edit war and the AfD. (See his talk page.) Philip J. Rayment 12:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of objectionable content requested

The James Morgan section is COMPLETELY irrelevant and should be removed. Who gives a stuff about what one member may or may not have done in their own time. It's got fuck all to do with the actualt website.

{{Editprotected}} The content under dispute is clearly objectionable, for the reasons stated above. It would be prudent to remove it until a consensus is reached. --Evan C (Talk) 14:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed. It was not encyclopaedic. Review WP:NOT for many reasons why it did not fit within scope. --Golden Wattle talk 01:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Complete and utter bullshit! It is TRUE, it is RELEVANT and removing it is CENSORSHIP. Wikipedia should be ashamed of itself for being taken for a ride by an organised group of Railpage members trying to rewrite history. If the section about Morgan is censored then the remaining page of half truths should be deleted. 75.33.206.113 07:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It is true, but it is irrelevant. Morgans actions are not connected with Railpage. I see no evidence of any "organised" effort by Railpage to 'censor' history - all my actions are my own - but I *do* see evidence of an organized effort by aus.rail to force information into this article. "Railpage writing its own history "Bout time somebody put some facts in there." "Get the f*cking page deleted!" "Railpage can't handle the truth" "Help stop Wikipedia being censored by Railpage." [8] [9] [10]Johnmc 09:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to present a NPOV. Your opinion is generally not going to be NPOV. Also - how come this is in the " 2007 disestablishments " category? I would remove it from there but its blocked ATM :( Somebody in the WWW 08:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


Golden Wattle, under what category within WP:NOT do you justify your decision to remove the disputed content? I think the disputed content is a candiate for further dispute resolution according to Wikipedia's guidelines. WP:M should be the first stage. If all else falls then it should go to an Arbitration Committee. I have also contacted via email the reporters responsible for the orginal article from the Herald Sun about this incident.

Have a nice day.

Tezza1 08:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

In response to clarification sought, relevant sections of wikipedia is not are:

  • Wikipedia is not a soapbox
  • Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site
  • ... not repository of loosely associated topics
  • Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - this last bit is particularly important - just because a fact exists does not make it encyclopaedic "That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia."


Also review Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons including

  • Biased or malicious content
  • Presumption in favor of privacy

As many others have already commented Morgan's actions are not related to the topic of this article. --Golden Wattle talk 10:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

In accordance with the Wikipedia Libel policy, I have been aggressive in removing uncited and breaching content on this talk page. 203.28.90.133 15:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Err... no. I am assuming good faith in your edit, but the above discussions serve as a record of the debate as to whether the information should or should not appear in the article proper. A wholesale (albiet well-intentioned) removal of information would mean that we run the risk of having this entire debate occurr *again*, when the main page is eventually unlocked. So, I am reverting your edits, please don't take it personally. (There aus.rail'ers, a Railpage "Kiddie" acting to *un*stifle debate. Try fitting that in your worldview.) Johnmc 16:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Moderation Comments

The line "The site has its crtics however, some users allege that some posts have been edited or deleted by a few moderators who disagree with the line of arguement or for no apparent reason, while some users have critised the ill judged selection of certain moderators." should probably be removed as it is not encyclopaedic. See the page history for other such examples. 203.28.90.133 14:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this, and had already mentioned above that it constituted original research and was not relevant. Philip J. Rayment 10:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If that's removed then should the rest of the article as its a partisan commentary and certainly not encyclopadic. Tezza1 11:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Tezza, you're hardly a neutral point of view here. You've had your James Morgan idea shot down, and now this. You're not part of the solution - you're part of the problem. It might be time for you to step away from the article and use your talents elsewhere.
203.28.90.133 14:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the moderation comments should stay as one who has had their posts deleted in a thread for calling into account the actions of a moderator in the 3801 derailment in Maitland thread in 2005. Also the same said moderator had full knowledge of the use of a sockpuppet Railpage account that was used to humiliate another user.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gregrudd (talk • contribs) 07:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC). — Gregrudd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC) (UTC).72.55.140.16 09:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

While there may be truth to this, we really to keep the article to what is attributable to a reliable published source. If you can find a reliable source that mentions it, by all means let us know. John Vandenberg 07:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

As to point 2 the moderator told me himself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gregrudd (talk • contribs) 08:07, 1 March 2007. — Gregrudd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 08:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC) (UTC).72.55.140.16 09:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Mr/Ms 203.28.90.133, and do you have a netural point of view? Like everybody here we all have a viewpont. But what has happened here in the past week or two is ONE viewpoint trying to silence ANOTHER viewpoint.

I strongly object to the removal of the paragraph mentioning criticism of Railpage before the consideration for deletion and disputes have been resolved, Who responsible for this? it is just as encyclopadic as the other material, as I said before, the site DOES have critics, as EVIDENCED by discussion here in the past week or two. It's also not hard to find evidence of this criticism on other australian online rail and non rail discussion forums.

Tezza1 09:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

...what has happened here in the past week or two is ONE viewpoint trying to silence ANOTHER viewpoint.
You mean like the people trying to put the criticism in trying to silence those that think it shouldn't be there with threats to have editors blocked for removing it?
I strongly object to the removal of the paragraph mentioning criticism of Railpage before the consideration for deletion and disputes have been resolved, Who responsible for this?
An administrator—as far as I'm aware one with no personal interest in the article—removed it as inappropriate. See the edit history.
...the site DOES have critics, as EVIDENCED by discussion here in the past week or two.
Nobody's disputing that the site has critics, but that could apply to almost any site anywhere, so by itself is no reason to mention that. And the edits were going beyond just saying that the site had its critics by using weasel words to repeat some of those criticisms without any evidence that they were valid.
Philip J. Rayment 09:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
And as I have said, show us these sources. I am not going to look for them myself, but if you can point out blog posts, posts by credible people to aus.rail or other public forums (dont bother pointing me towards trash talk on these groups and forums), that would be handy, but will not guarantee the criticisms being included. If on the other hand you can point us to reviews by credible sources such as online news, offline newspapers or something to that effect, then any bad press will definitely get a mention alongside the good press. John Vandenberg 09:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


AfD

The AfD should be removed as it was part of the page vandalism. I suggest WP:SK. Notability was established in September (see above). I agree it could do with some cleaning up. 72.55.140.16 02:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This is false. The AfD was added by an established user. There was no previous AfD, but if there were that would not change the fact that this AfD is going to continue and this article must be verifiable in multiple reliable published sources. —Centrx→talk • 05:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify, this *is* the articles 2nd legitimate Afd. Debate for the first one - which was later withdrawn - can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Railpage_Australia Johnmc 05:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
To clarify further, IP 72.55.140.16 was referring to the link to the previous AfD at the bottom of the page, and made the comment before the current AfD listing was created. --Evan C (Talk) 05:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I would consider verification to be proven on the AfD debate page currently.
203.82.183.148 06:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Who cares? It is a non-notable vanity page. Get rid of it. 202.248.48.251 07:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a no issue. The site is infantile and the Wikipedia article is a one side vanity page. It should have removed ages ago. 202.40.200.42 02:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from attacks against people or organisations. foaming at the mouth only makes it harder to understand your opinion.
WP:NPOV can be addressed by editing; the Afd is primarily concerned with issues that cant be (or arn't being) addressed by editors.
To be quite blunt, in my opinion the influx of opinions to delete this article only justify the notability of the subject. Very few of the votes for delete have a well reasoned opinion.
Folks, the Afd will run for another three days, so if you have something to add, please take your time to read the processes and policies, and perhaps also review other ongoing debates on WP:Afd to understand how the policies are interpreted. Specifically, take a look at the debates in Category:AfD debates (Web or internet). John Vandenberg 03:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection?

Can we unprotect? Has the dispute been resolved or are there still some editors who believe the issues about Morgan should appear on the page and others not - ie the dispute still exists?--Golden Wattle talk 20:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally? I would first wait for the outcome of the AfD. If it comes down in favour of deletion, then unblocking would be a moot point. If the page survives, then look cautiously at unprotection (it may prove necessary to place a "new or unregistered user" block if there is a repeat of the Feb 20-28 edit war.) Johnmc 13:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of site administrators past history (including criminal history)

Past history of site administrators (including criminal history of those admins) along with political/religious/sexual persuasions of said administrators is only important and relevant if the site administrators abuse their priviledges of fair and reasonable site control and attempt to force a particular point of view or direction of discussion based on past history (including criminal) and/or on that person's own personal political/religious/sexual persuasions. That has definitely happened on RailPage forums and it's got to stop!

Once that stops, almost all of the complaints of censorship and inappropriateness of people to be site admins evaporates. It doesn't seem to be happening though, and they key contributor to the misappropriation of administrator priviledges seems to be the main site founder himself since the subordinate admins never appear to get pulled into line.

Online forums are meant to be 'transparent' for completely free and unrestricted discussion about any particular topic falling within the scope of a particular forum. The responsibility to ensure transparency applies just as much to site administrators as it does to the actual people posting new threads and posts into existing threads. By the same token, site administrators cannot delete or alter posts or entire threads based on their own personal point of view, or the point of view of anyone else who is in a position to admin forums. That is a failure in the duty of care as an administrator to ensure the rights (particularly the right to free speech without censorship) of everyone contributing to the forums are protected and maintained.

Zonavar 11:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

errr... Craig? Online forums (Including yours? Railzone_australia) are - I'm assuming for the most part - privately owned and run. Essentially, all the members are having a discussion on the owners server, are you suggesting that somebody doesn't have to right to control affairs on their own property? Certainly, an owner may listen to suggestions from visitors, but at all times they retain the absolute right to handle their own affairs however they see fit. You mentions the terms "Rights", "Responsibilities", and "Duty of Care". These are all terms you would find in legislation, such as the OWH&S act. What act or legislation has Railpage breached, that you would be required to force corrective action? Johnmc 14:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm kind of hoping that somebody doing a psych or sociology degree (or whatever discipline would be appropriate) will come along and analyze all the posts (both on and off wiki)concerning the aus.rail/Railpage relationship. I'll admit to living a sheltered life, but I still find some of the vitriol seen in some of these entries astounding. It's kind of like Israel/Palestine online, where each side is the True Believers, with Death to the Infidels for the opposition! I'll ask the question. How can a bunch of people with a common interest despise each other so much? Johnmc 14:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't see anybody chanting "Death to the aus.rail infidels" or similar. The vitriol all seems to be one way. 72.55.140.16 03:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment. There is no right to free speech in Australia. And Johnmc is right - these sites a privately owned, not a public utility. 149.135.109.55 01:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that Craig (Zonavar) created a similar page about his own site a few days ago. In particular the last paragraph seems to be a direct attack on Railpage and his comments above seem to support this. It is ironic that he came here to be critical of this article but his own article fails exactly the same WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY criteria being used to try to get this one deleted. It is likely that Railpage has a much stronger notability claim than Railzone. 72.55.140.16 02:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I rest my case. The Railzone article has already been deleted under CSD:A7 (Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content). 72.55.140.16 02:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Better yet, Craig has also blanked the notification of deletion and suggestion of spamming from his talk page. How can someone who comes here talking about transparency believe his own hype when this is his way of doing things. Thankfully people here seem to take his above comments with the obligatory grain of salt they deserve.
131.170.90.3 03:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow, it was deleted twice! 72.55.140.16 05:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Johnmc remember this "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" -Voltaire You should heed that advice.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/a/i/Talk%7ERailpage_Australia_Archive_1_30b8.html"