Talk:Railpage Australia/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 2	Archive 3	Archive 4 >	4 >>

Contents 1 Commercial Site? 2 External links 3 New Server. 4 Evan C and others - non disclosure of conflict of interest 5 Gheringhap Loop 6 Articles for deletion/Railpage Australia (3rd nomination) 7 Dumb and Dumber, recent edits 8 Disruptive edits 8.1 Getting Tezza blocked 9 Tagging as Advertising 10 Articles for deletion/Railpage Australia (4)

Commercial Site?

Tezza, how did you come to the determination that Railpage is a commercial site? My understanding of "commercial" is "pay a fee for a service", and Railpage is free, with a "tipping jar" donation page.

And I will ask you outright: What is your endgame? You say that you want to "show (Railpage) for what it is". Why do you want to do this? Johnmc 04:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

One has to ask, what is the endgame of the people who purport that Railpage is not a commercially owned site.

There are many free to join sites on the internet, Yahoo groups is a good example which is commercially owned.

If Railpage is a community non-profit organisation, and is asking for donations, it should be registered as such in the State of Victoria where it is located. Just like any of the various rail preservation groups and model rail groups.

http://online.justice.vic.gov.au/cav/br-search-criteria?mode=iaextr

I haven't been able to find any reference of Railpage or Railpage Networks there.

Now if Railpage became a incoporated non profit association, that would mean the owner would have to allow voting members, elections for a board, AGM's etc etc.

Somehow I don't think that would happen.

I'm also pretty sure asking for donations when operating as a commercially owned site is also in breach of Victorian and Federal Law.

Have a good day.

Tezza1 05:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, a commercial site is one which exists for the purpose of making money. There are many ways in which websites do this, but Railpage simply does not (and cannot) do it. Its copyright is owned by a company, yes, but the website itself is not a business, and is not operated as such. --Evan C (Talk) 08:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to argue that way, then Yahoo groups would not be commercial! We have no evidence that Railpage makes or loses money for its owner. The fact that it is legally owned by a privately profit orientated business makes it commercial. Have a nice day. Tezza1 08:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, the infobox space refers to whether the site is operated on a commercial or non-commercial basis. Secondly, per wikt:commercial#Adjective, commercial means that it is for making money and participating in an economy. Therefore, saying that the website is commercial is saying that it exists to make money.

Railpage does not exist to make money. It is "owned" by a company for the purpose of making up the shortfall of funds in its operation. Without the generosity of that company's owner, Railpage simply would not exist. This post on Railpage (and the surrounding posts) are testament to this.

You analogy of Yahoo being commercial is not applicable to Railpage. Yahoo uses its position of popularity and a significant amount of advertising (most of it administrated by Yahoo itself) to make a profit. Railpage has a single Google ad banner (often replaced with a no-income ad for local railway societies due to Google not finding any applicable ads), which due to Railpage's insignificant numbers of visitors (in the greater perspective of the internet) would provide only a small amount of income.

Simply, you have no evidence that it is actually commercial. I have it on good word from Brian Evans that it isn't. It certainly doesn't look commercial to me. Perhaps some other editors should make their own judgement on the subject?

--Evan C (Talk) 10:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You have it on word from Mr Evans? Maybe you could reference that statement in the article? Maybe Brian Evans can post his books online to prove it's not commercial? Aside from Mr Evans and his business associates, you are not party to Mr Evans profit/loss statements and tax write offs.

The fact is that Railpage is owned and donations go directly to Interactive Omnimedia Pty Ltd. Unless someone can prove it's not for profit status, i.e. independent online documentary evidence, then I would say Railpage is a commercially owned free to join forum.

Tezza1 11:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The question is not whether it is commercially owned. It seems reasonably clear that it is. The question is whether it is a commercial site. There is, unfortunately, no public evidence to prove it either way. Honestly, I'd say it'd be best to simply not give any indication of such in the article of something for which there is no evidence. That means leaving the field blank. --Evan C (Talk) 11:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No, Leaving the field bank is not on. If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, then it is a duck. It's a commercially owned free to join discussion forum. Lets not hide facts.

Tezza1 11:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Why? You can't provide evidence that it exists to make money (see above). I'll tell you that it doesn't (pointless as that may be). You say it "walks like a duck" (in an analogical sense), but it doesn't! There is no charge for use, minimal advertising, requests for donation. All that you can stand your argument on is that it is propped up by a company - to me that is not evidence in the slightest!

The compromise I've proposed (removing an unsourceable piece of information) is entirely reasonable - please consider it thoroughly. --Evan C (Talk) 11:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't why you have got your back up over this, I have considered it thoroughly. Ever since your 24th of June revert. Railpage is commercially owned discussion forum. The fact that it is there because of a generous benefactor and makes or loses money is irrelevant. Why hide the fact?

And are you serious about removing unsourced pieces of information in the Railpage article? Tezza1 12:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It's simply because to say "Commercial: Yes" is incorrect. It is not a commercial site. It is owned by a company, but the site is non-commercial. Its purpose is not to make money. Quite simple, really. I don't understand why you maintain that your definition is correct, despite a clear explanation and evidence showing such. --Evan C (Talk) 12:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Commercial (connected with or engaged in or sponsored by or used in commerce or commercial enterprises) "commercial trucker"; "commercial TV"; "commercial diamonds" http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=commercial Tezza1 12:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, that's an ambiguous definition at best. I gave the Wiktionary definition because it's clear, and as it's accepted for one Wiki project, it would no doubt be the most acceptable for Wikipedia. In any case, the most appropriate definition is one given in an Australian dictionary (as the topic at hand is an Australian website).

From The Australian Modern Oxford Dictionary:

'commercial' adj.

1. of or engaged in commerce
2. (of broadcasting) financed by firms etc. whose advertisments are included (commercial radio)
3. having financial profit as its primary aim rather than artistic etc. value; viewed as a matter of business

- Definition 1 isn't the case, as Railpage does not engage in trade, nor is it an item of trade - that's what commerce is, trade.

- Definition 2 doesn't apply, as the context is not broadcasting. I suspect that's where the Wordnet definition was going. In any case, the firm that finances Railpage doesn't really have any advertisements; an ownership note is all.

- Definition 3 isn't the case either; Railpage does not aim to turn a profit. Even if it did make profit, it would not be considered commercial unless it actually aimed to. It certainly isn't a matter of business.

That's easily the clearest definition I've seen. --Evan C (Talk) 14:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Evan C, please refer to WP:COI and read before making any further edits. You seem to be close (how close is open to question) to the owners/operators Railpage. You have disclosed that you know the owner of Railpage forums/Interactive Omnimedia Pty Ltd. Tezza1 16:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Tezza, it's not Evan's job to prove the site is not commercial. It's your job to prove that it is. The domain railpage.com.au is owned by a company because at the time the domain was gained, only registered companies could obtain a .com.au domain. The Railpage trademark is also owned by the same company. But the site is not commercial in the sense that it makes money for the company. It is not a commercially owned discussion forum because Railpage is more than just a forum! A more accurate description would be a portal. In fact they have said many times that donations and Google ads don't even come close to covering all the costs of bandwidth (around $25,000/year). The shortfall comes out of Brian's own pocket. None of the site administrators (and I mean site admin, not forum admin) receive any payment. In this thread they quite clearly state it is a hobby and rejected the idea of making it commercial, but did introduce an optional donation to help offset the costs. Also remember that Omni hosts a fair number of heritage operators and other enthusiast sites for free. You may care to explain exactly how that makes it a commercial site. Thin Arthur 02:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish, the argument that it is not commercial. It may well be a loss making commercial venture, but it is commercial never the less.

Any "donations" paid to Interactive Omnimedia Pty Ltd would definitely be classified as income by the Australian Taxation office. Nobody has yet provided evidence that it is operated as an incorporated non profit group or association. (a non commercial venture)

He(Evans)has it registered against a business name registration in the State of Victoria as 'Railpage Australia' (B1598262N (VIC))

SNIP -----------

WhoIs Domain

WhoIs response for railpage.com.au:

Domain Name: railpage.com.au <http://www.railpage.com.au/>

Last Modified: 06-Jan-2007 02:48:47 UTC

Registrar ID: R00010-AR

Registrar Name: Melbourne IT <http://www.melbourneit.com.au/>

Status: OK

Registrant: Interactive Omnimedia Pty Ltd

Registrant ID: OTHER 091879962

Eligibility Type: Other

Eligibility Name: Railpage Australia

Eligibility ID: B1598262N (VIC)

Registrant ROID: C2825944-AR

Registrant Contact Name: Railpage Australia

Registrant Email: bevans@omni.com.au

Tech ID: C2825944-AR

Tech Name: Railpage Australia

Tech Email: bevans@omni.com.au

Name Server: ns7.omni.com.au <http://whois-generic.ausregistry.net.au/index.php?domain=HOST%20ns7.omni.com.au>

Name Server IP: 203.28.90.7

Name Server: ns8.omni.com.au <http://whois-generic.ausregistry.net.au/index.php?domain=HOST%20ns8.omni.com.au>

Name Server IP: 202.80.176.5

SNIP -----------

Please remember WP:COI, it seems many of the more vocal proponents of the Railpage article have either are involved in it's management, or are associates of those individuals. Tezza1 10:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

1. The Victorian department of Consumer Affairs would seem to disagree with you. See[1], which shows that the "Railpage Australia" business name was deregistered as a Victorian company on 15/10/2004. This would probably tie in with ThinArthur's comment regarding ".com.au" requirements when the Railpage domain was registered. How could it be a commercial site, when it doesn't even exist as a business?

2. Are you accusing me of COI? I am a member of Railpage, nothing more, nothing less (Train Driver IRL). I am not a moderator, nor an admin, I am not one of the "15 mates" you mention. I am merely one of the 13,000 Railpage members, exactly the same as you are. [2]. If this is sufficient to place me in COI, then you are also in COI as well.Johnmc 12:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no conflict of interest, as there is no reason for any party to add misleading information to the article. There isn't anything wrong with Railpage being a commercial site; it simply isn't the case. --Evan C (Talk)

Evan that sounds about right. Back then only a registered company could get a .com.au domain and the domain had to be related to the company name. A company called something like Smith Operations Pty Ltd couldn't register jones.com.au. I guess they deregistered the name after AuDA relaxed the rules. And remember Railpage also has the railpage.org.au domain. What does AuDA have to say about that?[3]

SCHEDULE F
ELIGIBILITY AND ALLOCATION RULES FOR ORG.AU

The org.au 2LD is for non-commercial organisations.

1. To be eligible in the org.au 2LD, registrants must be:
a) a charity operating in Australia, as defined in the registrant’s constitution or other documents of incorporation; or
b) a non-profit organisation operating in Australia, as defined in the registrant’s constitution or other documents of incorporation.

I think that says it all. Thin Arthur 07:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No, Thin Arthur, I think this link says it all, if it is a not for profit organisation, then what the hell is it, answer? ...........a commercial site,

Australian Taxation Office

Administrators please note. From the ATO website.

An organisation is not a charity(i.e non profit) if

• it is primarily for sporting, recreational or social purposes
• it is primarily for political, lobbying or promotional purposes
• its purpose is illegal or against public policy, or
• it is primarily for carrying on a commercial enterprise to generate surpluses.

Tezza1 11:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Railpage certainly isn't a charity. But that does not mean that it's commercial. What gives you the idea that it does? Moreover, why do you persist that it's a commercial exercise? If an agreement on content cannot be reached, and there is no definitive source to prove it, the content in question must simply not be included. --Evan C (Talk) 12:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

How do you know it's not commercial?, the fact that it is owned by a commercial entity makes it commercial.

As I have indicated before, I think mention that it is commercial should stay unless you can provide documentary evidence that it is not, feel free to go to arbitration. Tezza1 13:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

After review of the site, the suggestion that it is commercial seems farfetched at best. It is clear from my view that the staff are not paid, and that it does not exist to turn a profit (regardless of whether it may or may not - I was unable to confirm this). Copyright ownership of the site, whether by a business or individual, for profit or not, does not dictate whether the site is commercial or not. On the basis that the suggestion of commerciality is coming from a minority of contributors who have been unable to achieve a consensus in the past according to the article talk page; I feel that arbitration would be an unfair waste of Wikipedian's time, so accordingly I have amended the article to reflect the site's non-commercial status (Please note - "Commercial: No" does not mean "Status: Not for profit" - as I have not yet found a cite to push it into not-for-profit status). I trust that all contributors can agree with this opinion, at least in the short-term. 59.167.89.251 05:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to restate my previous comment, I think mention that it is commercial should stay unless you can provide documentary evidence that it is not, feel free to go to arbitration.I have supported all of my arguments with online documentary evidence.Tezza1 08:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Your previous comments have been noted, and nobody here has agreed with you. Given that the section is under dispute, the section should be removed until a consensus is reached (since there is no point keeping what could easily be incorrect information). Please do not reinstate the section until a consensus is reached. Wikipedia has rules against aggressive editing, not to mention 3RR. If any user feels that the section should be re-inserted (either to read as commercial or not), they should not do so - instead, they should file for arbitration and leave the section out pending the outcome of that. 59.167.89.251 15:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

User 59.167.89.251|59.167.89.251, my edits are not aggressive. If you have a problem, you file for arbitration. Lets get one thing straight here. Railpage is owned by Interactive Omnimedia Pty Ltd. The hosting is provided by Interactive Omnimedia Pty Ltd. Intellectual property rights for the name are owned by Interactive Omnimedia Pty Ltd. Hypothetically, if someone took legal action against Railpage, then they would take it out against Interactive Omnimedia Pty Ltd. I'd concede if the name Railpage was owned by a private individual (John Smith) not a registered corporation, and the hosting was provided or donated by a third party then it would not be commercial.Tezza1 20:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect; hosting is provided by Digital River Networks. I guess that makes it a non-commercial, ergo non-profit website then. Doctorjbeam 11:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)doctorjbeam

A traceroute backs up this revelation. Does anybody know if Digital River charges for the hosting? I think I remember something about it being posted by an admin on the forums... 59.167.89.251 14:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've written (snail mail) to the Australian Taxation Office, providing them with the details of Interactive Omnimedia Pty Ltd, and the URL of that company and Railpage forums to see if they should be paying GST on "donations". I've also asked them to provide an opinion of forums such as Railpage with regards of being commercial for taxation purposes. Hopefully I will get a reply which will resolve the issue. I will post their response online.Tezza1 22:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This is far above and beyond what a wiki editor would do, i think. Why are you going to these lengths?Johnmc 01:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Tezza1, there was no need for that. You maybe correct in the strict sense of the law, but I'm sure Brian Evans doesn't want the ATO sniffing around his business. They might be bending the rules, but without the commercial support, I don't think Railpage would exist. Concentrate on the article content issues (there are some)as a good Wikipedia editor would.124.176.64.118 02:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Tezza, refer to Wikipedia:No_legal_threats. What do you intend to do with this information, after you have placed it in the article?Johnmc 02:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless they somehow managed to make at least $50000 from the donations (assuming that's the only source of income), they wouldn't be required to pay GST. --Evan C (Talk) 16:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Everybody step back - Tezza1 & Johnmc. Tezza1,is not making a legal threat.124.176.64.118 02:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I will agree that no threat of legal action made. The posting of the link was to inform Tezza of the existence of the policy, so that he does not inadvertently fall foul of it. I am curious about one thing though. How would finding out whether Interactive Omnimedia pay tax on donations have any effect on whether or not Railpage is a commercial site, which is the *entire* subject of this debate, no? Johnmc 09:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

External links

I have removed two unnecessary external links. The redirect from Omni to Railpage is due to the new hardware not being fully configured yet. A lot of sites hosted on the same server are redirecting to Railpage at the moment. The Omni link will go back to the Omni page in due course, probably a matter of days. See Wikipedia:External links#Longevity of links - "It is very important to consider if the link is likely to remain relevant and acceptable to the article in the foreseeable future."

For the donation link, while unintentional it may count as spam. See WP:SPAM#External link spamming. Thin Arthur 01:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

New Server.

Mubd Can we please change the page to make it more updated. Railpage is now running on a new server that is more than capable of running the current load of railpagers.

The server has

2x dual core Intel Xeon 3ghz CPUs

4gb RAM

3x 175GB SCSI hard drives in RAID 5 config

I have updated the Technical section with both references for the facts stated therein, and to reflect the new hardware Railpage is currently running on. I have also removed the citation box. Doctorjbeam 06:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)doctorjbeam

Evan C and others - non disclosure of conflict of interest

I have raised this issue before, Evan C seems to have a serious conflict of interest WP:COI with this Wiki article. He seems to be overally sensitive to ANY change. He has indicated through his comments (8 July 2007) that he has either has a direct or close involvement in the Railpage operation.

Tezza1 12:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as you are making the accusation, I believe that the burden of proof lies with you, Tezza. Please provide this.Johnmc 12:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sensitivity to change is not the same as conflict of interest. Doctorjbeam 06:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)doctorjbeam

Also included for WP:COI is user Thin Arthur on 02:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC) and on 01:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC), for "operational" comments made about Railpage. "The redirect from Omni to Railpage is due to the new hardware not being fully configured yet. " Tezza1 13:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The redirect information could have been deduced without being part of Railpage Admin. :Please refer to WP:COI#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest, paying attention the first paragraph. ie, "Suspected conflict of interest incidents may be reported on the conflict of interest noticeboard". If you feel that a COI exists, please report it on this noticeboard, and let the wiki admins and community take whatever action they deem is necessary. Thank you.Johnmc 14:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Johnmc I could report it to the noticeboard, but I was hoping some common sense would prevail and the persons concerned would own up and disclose their COI. There is nothing wrong editing an article if you have a COI - the most recent Wiki Editor pls note!!! But please read the guidelines.

Tezza1

I'd like to nominate the user Tezza1 for COI. Looking at his talk page, there are numerous users who have posted comments such as "Tezza Rules!!! Railpage sucks doodle!!!", leading me to believe that a COI exists. I cross referenced the term 'Fundie' with 'Railpage' on Google (Anti Fundie is the most recent poster on Tezza's talk page) and found http://groups.google.com.au/group/aus.rail/browse_thread/thread/1f42b83663ef575/622cefd11d409225?lnk=gst&q=Railpage+Fundies&rnum=1#622cefd11d409225 which indicates to me that this term may have originated on the aus.rail usenet group. A further look through aus.rail shows various anti-railpage posts, as well as this interesting post by 'Tezza': http://groups.google.com.au/group/aus.rail/browse_thread/thread/b41739be1bf0da8d/23e586d6c9401ce2?lnk=gst&q=Tezza+David+Bromage+fuckwit&rnum=2#23e586d6c9401ce2. In this post, Tezza calls "David Bromage" a "fuckwit", and a look at the Railpage article shows that David Bromage is a railpage founder - this may suggest that there is some form of tension between the two, resulting in a negative conflict of interest. This link: http://www.railpage.com.au/f-pr-viewprofile-12269.htm shows that Tezza has a profile on the Railpage site, but has been inactive for a significant period of time. Perhaps somebody could contact railpage to determine if this is the result of a banning? I appreciate that Tezza1 may have an opposing view, and could provide valuable contributions to Wikipedia, yet be unaware of his potential COI so I hope that this may serve as an indication to Tezza1 that they may possibly be out of line due to a COI. 59.167.89.251 05:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous user 59.167.89.251, My Wiki user name is "Tezza1" not "Tezza", There is no copyright on that user name. I have never claimed to be that individual you refer to and have no control over what people post on my talk page or on aus.rail.Tezza1 08:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to be wrong here, but it seems the evidence keeps stacking up. A check of the source IP on the aus.rail posting that attacks David Bromage reveals a hostname containing "nsw.netspace.net.au", and a later post contains "lns1.syd3.internode.on.net" (indicating an ISP change). Checking through your contribs page shows us that you've made contributions on the 3801 and Dorrigo Steam Railway Museum pages, which are both organisations located in NSW (which is where both IP sources and many posts by 'Tezza' on aus.rail claiming to be a Sydney rail worker hail from. Furthermore, you claimed earlier on this talk page that you had knowledge of censorship of discussions on Railpage on various issues. Am I correct in thinking you expect us to believe that Tezza and Tezza1 are two different people, who both live in NSW, both have an interest in railways, both have ties to aus.rail, and both have a dislike for Railpage? Even after "Tezza" has shown an inclination to place numbers after his name (eg; "Tezza1") as evidenced by the source email address on the David Bromage post (tezza2002@netspace.net.au)? I think it's time you were honest with the rest of the contributors, and stepped aside. 59.167.89.251 15:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous user 59.167.89.251, Please be honest, why don't you use your Wiki user name? I could start doing IP searches as well. That individual you refer to is not the only rail enthusiast in NSW who has an interest in Dorrigo, 3801 etc etc. Actually I am a user of Railpage - I find it informative, although I have a different user name. No, for obvious reasons I won't be disclosing my railpage user name. There seems to be certain editors here who want to make this Railpage article into a vanity write up. I play by the Wiki rules here, I'm trying to add some balance, I use verifiable information etc, backed up with primary online documentary sources.Tezza1 20:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Interest in, or enthusiasm for, a subject does not mean it's a COI. Bearian 23:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Tezza has a bigger COI than anybody else. Somebody with a history of attacking the site shouldn't be editing it. It's certainly a NPOV issue. 61.193.244.20 06:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

User the Null Device, how are you able to know in depth the activities of the people behind Railpage? Tezza1 14:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

By reading the site. The Null Device 02:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This seems like some sort of campaign by Tezza1 to discredit anybody who doesn't agree with him. Thin Arthur 05:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Gheringhap Loop

Could whoever placed the ((content)) tag on the Gheringhap Loop sub-section please indicate exactly what the dispute is? Otherwise I will remove it. Thanks.Johnmc 12:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't raise that dispute, but is it really relevant to the Railpage article? If you want the Gheringhap loop in, then surely the Morgan episode is relevant. Tezza1 11:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't see how the one would justify the other, but anyway...

1. "Gheringhap Loop" is hosted on Railpage, which is what this article is about (not just the forums, as some seem to believe).

2. One of the main topics that comes up everytime there is an AfD is "Notability". The Gheringhap loop situation involves a Federal Government Department using information from a Railpage hosted website to provide an Information Paper. The Geringhap loop site (www.railpage.org.au/ghaploop/) is listed as a primary source.

3. This means that we have a secondary or tertiary external source(i'm not sure which, and I've just finished a shift, so i'm not inclined to go digging) which references Railpage Australia in a published article. In the event of a 3rd AfD (probably inevitable), this would go towards Notability, which would bolster the articles defense. Of course, if it could be easily swept away, so much the better. The fact that it was placed by an anonymous user, only a few days after the article was unprotected, and with no commentary on the talk page tells me that it is little more than vandalism. Johnmc 14:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed. Johnmc 08:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

In reference to the "Morgan episode" remark. I note that reply to your "need help" request Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Need_help_on_Railpage_Australia includes the following comment: "the criminal activities material probably contravenes the presumption in favor of privacy aspect of the BLP policy". Assuming that you agree that User:Mike33 is neutral in this matter (the fact that your reply comprised a simple "Thank you", with no other comments would *appear* to suggest that you agree with his comments) would you agree that the entire Morgan affair was simply a carryover of anti-Railpage sentiment onto the wiki article?Johnmc 08:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Railpage Australia (3rd nomination)

The fact that the AfD was added by a new account called "DFC Free Oz" says it all. See Special:Contributions/DFC_Free_Oz. Thin Arthur 04:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It was inevitable, "death to the infidels" and all. Are all hobbies this divided?Johnmc 04:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Dumb and Dumber, recent edits

This article is not the property of Interactive Omnimedia Pty Ltd.

Where does it say it is? 59.167.89.251 16:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The most amazing thing is what you Interactive Omnimedia people did was to mention Mr Morgan in your article. "Other staff (Not volunteers? Railpage staff?) including Michael Greenhill and James Morgan have participated in media coverage about Railpage"

Which Interactive Omnimedia people? Railpage staff == volunteers - since when are the two mutually exclusive? 59.167.89.251 16:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this the SAME Mr Morgan who was arrested and charged for activites on railway property? Tezza1 13:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure is the one that was involved with that stuff. Your point is?

Wholesale reversion of collaborative edits (more of which are yet to come) is vandalism. --Evan C (Talk) 13:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Arrested and charged but not convicted. Do you know what the word acquitted means, Tezza? The Null Device 14:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I question the relevance of even asking, Tezza1. 59.167.89.251 16:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tezza1 is still open for contributions. The Null Device 14:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Is that a threat, Null Device?Tezza1 14:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The rule here is to not make threats. If you've done no wrong, you've nothing at all to worry about - so please concentrate on that. 59.167.89.251 16:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Tezza, as I have stated before, I have as much association with Railpage as you do. I am a member of Railpage, as you are. If I am in COI, then you are. Everything I say or add to this article, I do on. my. own. without consultation with Interactive Omnimedia, without consultation with Railpage Moderators or Admins. Please do not accuse me - even vaguely - of being part of a conspiracy to keep this article going. Railpage proponents do *not* determine the outcome of AfD's. Wikipedia does. If this page survives, it is *not* because Fundie Railpage Kiddies have managed to hoodwink the wiki admins. It survives because Wiki decides it - not you, not me, not anyone who's edited this page - but wikipedians as a whole. People from all over the world, who wouldn't know a triple valve from a pantograph, but decide that this article is worth keeping.Johnmc 19:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've asked this question before, and I would like to ask it again, as directly as I can. What do you want in this article? Where do you want this article to be in - say - 6 months time? Do you even want there to be an article in 6 months time? You voted (twice) in the 2nd AfD for this article to be deleted, do you still want this article to go? I don't have a *right* to know these things, but I would *like* to know. It would make things clearer - if not easier - if I knew where you stood in regard to the article.Johnmc 19:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Simple, stop turning it into the vanity page it is, you have been discussing this article in the past on Railpage, can't you follow the lead from some of the comments posted on Railpage? [4] Such as Wikipedia does not like vanity pages. it would benefit from more historical information and less on the personalities, in jokes and revenue.- User DavidB, 22/04/06 If you put in that sort of information it would lead to speedy deletion of the page. Wikipedia is does not like vanity pages. If you cannot fully understand and comply with Wikipedia's policies, you shouldn't be creating or editing pages there. Is is so hard to understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia? - User DavidB, 24/04/06. Tezza1 20:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply to my query, Tezza. I will not bug you about it again. I am very aware of David's comment, it hangs in the back of my mind whenever I see this article. It was in my mind when I inserted the Gheringhap Loop information, with the intention of adding notability. But as for "fixing" it, you would have read some of my comments, a few posts down from David's?"I would attempt to try and fix it up myself, but I wouldn't have the faintest idea where to start... '" "...the article is *far* from encyclopedic, and will continue to be under a cloud until this is rectifed." 10 months later, I'm not half as much of a noob as I was then, but I'm still in over my head.

Also, this[5] was the state of the article in September 2006, when David made his comments. Compare it with now. Can you say that it hasn't improved at all?

Have a look at the entries in the Internet Forums category. (This isn't just for Tezza, it's aimed at anyone who wants to improve this article.) The Railpage article is greatly better than a lot of the articles there. I'm not saying this to be complacent, but I am asking that this article be compared with other forum articles - articles which have survived, and some which have received GA nominations.

Also - just for the record - I'm all for the peer review, and had the AfD continued, I would have posted a comment to the effect of "wait for the peer review before doing anything." Johnmc 21:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Tezza, you seem addicted to the word 'vanity'. It's a fact that good things are going to be said about a site like Railpage, and it's also a fact that trying to slip in petty negative information is going to be rejected. If you don't like the site; fine - we congratulate you for it. If you can't handle people saying good things about the site, then you're going to be sorely disappointed with whatever ends up on the wiki article. Your continued campaign to introduce sections on the supposed commerciality of the site, the dubious connection Railpage has with the private actions of its members, the continued downtime, and the 'moderation issues' are poorly thought out, and clearly unencyclopedic. If you're banking on these eventually being included, then I'd advise you to quit while you are ahead. Sections like these (despite the same thing happening on other sites) do not appear on the articles of others sites. Wikipedia does not class 'Vanity' as "An article that provides a summary of a website, which happens to include good properties, that Tezza1 does not like". You've campaigned for citations from third parties, and rewriting - now that you've got both of those you say that it's worse than ever? If there is anyone to blame for that, chances are it'd be your good self - we spend so much time reverting your 'contributions' (which we wouldn't if they were any good) that we scarcely have time to make them ourselves. Your continued cries of Vanity say more about your motives than anything else you say could - so as somebody with a vested interest in negatively affecting the article, we can take your contributions with the weight they deserve. Have a nice day. 59.167.89.251 01:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Has anybody noticed that Tezza has made a bit of a fool of himself by trying to open | Conflict of Interest procedings against The_Null_Device? Turns out he was dead wrong. 131.170.90.3 23:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Another example!!! I'm dead wrong? Who's the fool now? get another sock puppet, user 131.170.90.3 [6]Tezza1 12:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That page clearly indicates that the IP address in question is that of RMIT's shared proxy. According to its article, in 2005 RMIT had over 34000 students and nearly 3000 faculty. That's over 37 thousand people that could be represented by that IP address. --Evan C (Talk) 14:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Do any of the of the characteristics of problem editors sound familiar? Thin Arthur 05:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

Tezza, unilateral reversion of collaborative edits to a non-consensus version is vandalism. 3RR does not apply to vandalism. The Null Device 14:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't, it's a content dispute. Stop reverting and discuss it here. JPD (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Tezza is the only one disputing the content, some of which he himself called for when tagging the article for reliable sources, and reverted to a non-consensus version. The other edits incorporate the views expressed in the AfD discussion. The current (protected) version was still a work in progress. The Null Device 02:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Getting Tezza blocked

I'm getting sick of this guy, he constantly disrupts other users and posts, I don't have a user account yet, and i doubt if a new user would succeed in blocking. Any suggestions?58.105.240.251 08:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have escalated the RfC to Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation/Requests. The Null Device 02:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

This is BS.Tezza1 09:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not BS. You can choose to participate in Community enforceable mediation to reach a mutually acceptible outcome. If you choose not to participate in mediation, the matter will be referred for Arbitration. Any decision by ArbCom is final and binding. The Null Device 00:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Null Device: The Community Mediation page mentions that the RFC/U is still active, and should be closed before the mediation step can take place. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines.[7]

   1 Avoidance
   2 First step: Talk to the other parties involved
   3 Second step: Disengage for a while 
   4 Further dispute resolution
       4.1 Informal mediation
       4.2 Discuss with third parties

Tezza1 14:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Tagging as Advertising

I'd like to achieve a consensus on what the contributors here see as advertising. Tezza1 seems to enjoy tagging the article with advert tags, however I think this is a little short-sighted. Most online dictionaries define advertising as a "Paid form of a nonpersonal message communicated through the various media by industry, business firms, nonprofit organizations, or individuals. Advertising is persuasive and informational and is designed to influence the purchasing behavior and/or thought patterns of the audience.". Railpage doesn't sell anything to my knowledge, and I'm baffled by the reasons Tezza1 would tag the 'Uses in Society' section as advertising, when every single line in it is factual, encyclopedic, and cited by a third party source. Tezza, instead of bringing out the tags again (including speedy delete for 'spam', haven't you learned anything? you lose.), we need to achieve consensus on this talk page. Only after others regular editors have agreed with you, should you add tags. 59.167.77.190 01:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed the page since I last looked at it (during the Afd) and I agree that there is no wholesale advertising in the article. If there are specific sentences that other contributors considered to be advertising, feel free to discuss them here on the talk page or remove them if that is required, but there is no need to tag this article or sections of it as advertising. John Vandenberg 02:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

John, which version have you been reading? A quick search provided this.......
It is one of the oldest websites in Australia and easily the largest (and oldest) online rail community in Australia.
and provides free or reduced-cost internet services to not-for-profit railway organisations and preservation group
Railpage is the largest railway-oriented web-sites in Australia[citation needed] and was among the first 100 web sites to be hosted in Australia[2].
Railpage enjoys a long history of use as a reference source for railway information in Australia, in particular with the Federal and State governments.
Railpage, through its hosting partner Digital River, continues to provide free or reduced-cost web hosting to a number of railway and heritage oriented societies in Australia.
The Railpage codebase is the collaborative work of a number of users. Early code contributors were David Bromage (dbromage) and Brian Evans (bevans), who were later joined by James Morgan (webslave), Michael Greenhill (michaelgreenhill), Lionel Camilleri (loco), James Holt (jholt), and Phil Hawthorne (philbert). All site staff are volunteers who undertake all management and development taks including server configuration and maintenence (as the site is self-hosted).
I don't think a large multinational fast food chain would get an article up here without dispute if it were written in the same mannerTezza1 09:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

ok, we've arrived. I'm not sure if i've ever seen a point by point list of things you find disagreeable about the article, tezza. I'm about to go to work, so I can't do much editing, but I have altered "It is one of the oldest websites in Australia and easily the largest (and oldest) online rail community in Australia." to "It is one of the oldest websites in Australia and claims to be the largest (and oldest) online rail community in Australia." The "one of the oldest websites" is a verified fact, and is not advertising. I agree that the "easily" is not encyclopedic. Are you satisfied with how the sentence is now worded? Johnmc 09:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Railpage Australia (4)

Ho hum, here we go again! The Null Device 03:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• What a laugh - Tezza's friends are doing nothing more than destroying his case and his credibility. 59.167.77.190 03:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I wasn't aware he had any left. The Null Device 03:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Lodged by wiki user "FailpageMustGo". This is getting rather tiresome... Doctorjbeam 03:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)doctorjbeam
    • And just as quickly nipped in the bud as a "Bad Faith" nomination. We should run a book on how many nanoseconds before AfD(5)Johnmc 03:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: This sort of exchange can be considered a violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Please tone it down. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)