Talk:Digital Spy/Archive 1

Archive 1

This is neutral as far as I can tell. I'll remove the neutrality disputed tag unless anyone can prove otherwise - Wezzo 14:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I have just managed to make an edit, despite a lock being on the page. Is this a technical bug? --AntzUK 16:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No, as its not locked; someone just added the {{vprotected}} tag. --Kiand 21:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Minor Edits

Just a small point, 2 minor updates needed, looking at the Digital Spy Forums Statistics there are now over 7.3 million posts and over 137,000 members.

Neutral Point of View?

I've decided to add a Point of View check to this page as I believe that having the members of well known forum members in the article is bias towards them and goes against the neutral point of view policy. Sonic 19:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I have just been bold and removed the whole paragraph and the pov check message – I wouldn’t have said it was pov as much as pure vanity. Nobody there is noteworthy, to be WP noteworthy the FM would have had to have been quoted in national media or some such - simply posting a lot is not grounds for getting a name check in an encyclopedia. The para was just attracting vanity additions from people, and was unnecessary; if others disagree then I would be interested to hear why they think it should be there. SFC9394 21:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Completely agreed with you guys, for what it's worth. Not useful, encyclopedia content. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 06:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems pretty neutral to me. Also, I don't agree with the point about "noteworthiness". Digital Spy is a discussion forum and some of the leading contributors appear to be mentioned for noteworthiness in that specific context. As an analogy, consider entries that mention biblical characters: should references to biblical characters be excised simply because those characters have no currency outside the bible? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dundee nark (talk • contribs) .

• Please sign talk comments - so other users know who posted them, thanks. Additionally please have a very careful read of WP:SOCK - multiple accounts should not be used without good reason, thanks. As for the issue at hand, firstly please don't reinsert the material without consensus on what should be added being reached here on talk - actions counter to this will most likely be viewed as purposeful vandalism and dealt with accordingly. The material inserted was nothing but vanity - internet forum members are ordinarily not notable enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia. The only cases where that is not true is if they have been cited, by name, in national media or some such - someone’s tales of their pregnancy et all is just a load of NN information that cannot be allowed (otherwise the precedent set would allow NN additions all over the place and the integrity of this encyclopedia would become compromised). Feel free to post your thoughts on the issue here. SFC9394 15:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't round up a couple of chums in a bid to summarily delete material you personally dislike. If you have a dispute, please use the proper procedure to resolve the dispute rather than heavy-handed bullying tactics. Feel free to post your thoughts on why due process should not be observed. Thanks. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dundee nark (talk • contribs) .

You are both in violation of 3RR - please stop, and discuss on here. I've requested the page gets protected, I'll get it unprotected after you've both sorted this out civilly. -- 9cds^(talk) 16:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Check the history please - I am not in violation of 3RR. There is nothing to resolve - the material is grade 1 vanity and does not belong in an encyclopeic article. The user has also created an article (nominated for speedy) on a DS user (a DS user who has posted here and asked not to be associated with any of these socks) - vandalism masked as a content dispute is all this is. I will leave for others to comment on the situation. SFC9394 17:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

If anyone believes the information should be kept in the article, then all the spinoff material should be placed back into the article too. I agree with the above poster, not only does it fail Wikipedia:Neutral point of view by focusing on the exploits of a few well established forum members, the forum members concerned are not notable in any way and also fail Wikipedia:Notability (people) and as I believe the paragraph is written in a way to promote the forum members concerned, and so it also fails Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines. If they can be included and be given their own articles, as a member of Digital Spy myself, why shouldn't I? The content of that paragraph does not belong in the article and should be removed. I suspect that as SFC9394 said this is, and I quote "vandalism masked as a content dispute". The article on Dundee Mark was rightly speedily deleted just before I wrote this on my talk page for the same reasons as what I claim that paragraph has written. Personally, if the disputed information is left in, this article should go the same way too.

And as for the three revert rule, the only person who is in violation of the three revert rule is the vandal concerned, as and I quote: "Do not revert any single page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours, except in the case of obvious, simple vandalism." from Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. The day that people are getting banned for reverting vandalism will be a sad day for Wikipedia. --tgheretford (talk) 20:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Added this page to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, art and literature regarding the dispute above. If no resolution can be found soon, I will suggest looking at options here Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. --tgheretford (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly - obvious, simple, vandalism. This includes edits by people saying that their friends are gay. This is not simple obvious vandalism, it is a content dispute. I could have had both Dundee nark and Tghe-retford blocked for 3RR, but I decided that this wasn't productive to the article. (Blockings are meant to be preventative, not punishment). I did this in hope the two editors could discuss this. -- 9cds^(talk) 21:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my comments I have made above. If we agree that the paragraph should be kept, it'll open the floodgates for everyone to start adding what they like to the article about Digital Spy disregarding policy and procedure. Should I add to the article that I have around 1,300 posts in Digital Spy and that I post three times a week and that I once started a thread on setting up a router for Internet access for example? Of course not! The forum members concerned in that paragraph have never been mentioned in any news article, TV show, radio show etc. My fear is that this dispute will never get sorted out and it'll stay protected forever. I await Dundee nark's response in anticipation. --tgheretford (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Should I be honoured that I have given rise to such a fascinating turn of events? ;-) Seriously, I've read through the article history and I presume the paragraph in question is the one about contributers. Individuals shouldn't be mentioned, because opinions about these posters may vary from person-to-person, so how about a compromise that goes along the lines of:

As with most internet forums, users start to get to know each other and form "e-friendships". If a notable event is happening in a user's life (for example, pregnancy or graduation) they sometimes share it with their "e-friends", akin to sharing things with a "real life" circle of friends.

It's probably not grammatically correct (at 5 past 2 in the morning, what do you expect!), but I hope you get the idea. Marks87 01:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

My only thought on that, although it does sound like a better compromise than what we do have, it probably would be better placed in the Internet forum article, the above statement could and does apply to pretty much any Internet forum. --tgheretford (talk) 09:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

One last thing, in response to content disputes, I have noticed that a few people on my watchlist have made reverts to POV material on this and other articles, should I name and shame them and ask to get them all blocked? --tgheretford (talk) 10:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

If that is a violation of the rules, it makes more sense to just do that instead of just threatening to do it. Ramore

Although Digital Spy has so many users, how many ACTIVE users does it have ? The data comes from the site itself - I think you will find that many usernames do not post, or are banned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.227.183 (talk • contribs)

Spinoffs

Just wondering if this section is entirely necessary --Marks87 01:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Spinoff examples?

Unless anyone can find some spinoff sites, this section is pointless82.26.83.46 16:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The spinoff links that were there were deleted because they failed the Wikipedia:Notability (web) tests. Therefore, unless anyone has any objections, it would be safe to delete this section, or at the very least to have a simple sentence somewhere which says that Digital Spy has spawned a number of spinoff sites, or neutral point of view words to that effect. Sonic 18:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, after re-reading it, I think it violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. Instead of deleting it (unless it can be reworded) I'll add a NPOV violation tag to the section and leave it a few days until someone can reword it/delete it as appropiate. Sonic 18:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

IF any of them ever get to being notable rather than being the rantings of a few banned people on a free proboards with a .tk domain name, the section should be re-added then. Until then, its not worth anything. --Kiand 19:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep, agreed. I'll delete the section as there is no reason from the number of times its been there before other than to say that its not needed. If anyone can give a valid reason, we can always revert. Sonic 19:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

My comment on the history page should say Wikipedia:Notability (web). Apologies. Sonic 19:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I just looked at some of the spin-off sites, there is nothing about banned users on them. I think that if people have had a genuine disagreement with the management of Digital Spy, it is a genuine part of the site's history and therefore should be included in this entry. I don't think they should be referred to as "spin-offs" though, this implies they are in some way linked to the main site, which they are not. However, I saw in the history an article entitled 'censorship', which was removed; reinstating this section and including them there would be better. Ramore

I have a few days ago and the sections which discuss the banned users are locked out to people who have not registered to the forum. They have only just locked out the forums concerned with the discussion of banned users/Digital Spy forum members. --tgheretford (talk) 20:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

There is definitely no talk in those threads about those forums being for banned users, maybe I just missed it. Anyhow, if those other sites aren't to be included, I think the cumulative total of users on the listed sites is suggestive of censorship being an issue on Digital Spy. Just because not everyone from Digital Spy has gone elsewhere, it does not mean censorship is not an issue, I doubt it is even allowed to post a link to those sites in the forum in much the same way as they removed links to the Blue Room when it was established as an alternative. The membership of the 'spin off' sites I have been able to locate are as follows: The Blue Room (1266 members), Showbizspy (220 members), DSU (214 members), Nowhereland (82 members), DS2 (102 members), and the original (now defunct) version of Digiretreat had 5543 members. The cumulative total of members of these sites is then over 8,000 spread over six separate sites, all of which specialise in specifically being not-Digital Spy. This suggests that if there is not a split in the Digital Spy 'community' that there is at least some contention about censorship of the site and therefore the article about censorship should be reinstated. As regular users of Digital Spy, both tgheretford and Marks87 should be aware of many postings in the forums by James Welsh telling people that if censorship is an issue they should go elsewhere, as well as the announcements in several forums relating to 'libellous' subjects. Ramore

It should be noted that Showbizspy is not a "DS Spin-off" site. It originally went under the name of "Lost Topic" and was simply another forum on the internet. If you want my honest opinion, the owners of Showbiz Spy appear to be jealous of its Digital namesake's success and wishes to try and copy it. "Immitation is the sincerest form of flattery" and all that.

Then, if you want to start diving into the others, I could almost guarantee that there aren't 8,000 unique users. Marks87 15:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Then our information differs, because my understanding of Showbizspy is that it was begun as a forum which specialised in not being Digital Spy for Digital Spy users. The mere existence of six (that I know of) forums which specialise in this as their reason d'existence suggests that cneshorship is an issue. Ramore

Why, if what you say about Showbiz Spy (SBS) is correct, is there no mention if this on the site? Furthermore, I think you'll find there was one original DS "spin-off", with the rest being (somewhat ironically) "spin-offs" of each other. (I have further comment to add, but need to go now. I'll add it later). Marks87 17:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've contacted the owners of SBS to clarify the situation and also the owner of DSU to clarify the 'libel' accusation. Ramore

"Dundee Mark"

My username on Digital Spy is "dundee_mark". Someone has signed up here using that name in order to make edits to this (and I presume other) pages, spamming their "DS Spin-off" site. Just so it's clear, The "Dundee Mark" on here is not the "dundee_mark" on Digital Spy. Marks87 21:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Mark87 you are being presumptious, please do not do so. this is an article about a website, said website has had problems with people who have had disagreements with the admins there. Is this not fact?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dundee mark (talk • contribs) .

I'm not being presumptious. It's obvious your sole intention is to spam (at least) this article with links to sites that have no place on Wikipedia. Furthermore, I was making it clear that the member using "my" DS name isn't me. Marks87 23:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Following on from the Dundee Mark user name being used, Dundee nark is also not the same person as "dundee_mark" on Digital Spy. --tgheretford (talk) 14:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to be rude, but who cares? It's obvious that someone called 'dundee nark' is not 'dundee mark' when there's already someone called 'dundee mark' registered. I get the feeling reading this that it's just a small group of users from Digital Spy who all know each other that are making the edits on this page and dictating what content is included. This defeats the object of wikipedia, doesn't it? Ramore

From what I can gather, there's a considerable number of Digital Spy posters visit Wikipedia. I just felt it necessary to distance myself from the comments and edits being made by someone using the username I have on DS. Marks87 00:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Addition of Digital Spy Uncut information and logo

To add on from Marks87 original comment about spamming of a "DS Spin-off" site. If you look at this edit, the "Dundee mark" as mentioned above is placing a Digital Spy Uncut picture into the article. This, alongside the linkspam removed for the external links here. Regardless of which, all the edits made are of a website that is not notable (as explained in the spin-off section of this talk page). I believe that the vandalism on this page may be being caused by at least one member of the aforementioned website. I add this in the hope they stop. --tgheretford (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's true. The first registration on the DSU site is on 30th April, yet the vandalism was happening last year. It's also not logical that if someone was trying to get their site included in the links, that they'd just upload their logo willy nilly and expect people not to notice, it's more rational that the user doing this is trying to make them look bad by doing it. Or am I just reading a conspiracy into it! Ramore

Dundee_Mark (the DS one) Is a jumped up little prick with nothing better to do all day than alert other FM's for not agreeing with him.

I don't think that's really helpful. I have heard stories about him, but just repeating them here doesn't make for a very useful discussion. Ramore

DSU has been around before April 30, the reason why it has no posts before then is because the forum had to move providers. This in turn lost the posts prior to April 30. hope this explains things. --tgheretford (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason it had to change providers was because the content of the original DSU was libelous. Says it all really Marks87 00:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why that should preclude it from being included here, surely that makes it more notable? What was the result of the court case? Have the other 'spin-off' sites been accused of libel too? Ramore

There was no court case, because the webspace provider closed the site down before it had a chance to get that far. And I fail to see how being libelous makes a website "notable". Marks87 13:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If Digital Spy threatened legal action against a website, then it makes the incident a legitimate part of Digital Spy's history and therefore the site should be mentioned along with the incident. Something cannot be libellous if libel is not proved in count, what with 'libel' being a legal term. How do you know about the libellous aspects of it? Ramore

If Wikepedia is to be all-encompassing and non biased then surely it should account for the fact that there are numerous websites and forums that have developed because of Digital Spy. Some of the users of these were banned but others use all the other 'spin off' forums. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the spin-offs - remember the USA was once a colony of the British Empire. signed Charlie.

This article is about Digital Spy it's self, not about websites which have been born due to DS. Unless they are part of Digital Spy and offical site of them, they do not belong in this article. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 17:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If Digital Spy threatened legal action against a spin off site, the incident merits inclusion as a legitimate part of the site's history. Ramore

If they were to take legal action yes, but a threat is just a threat in the end. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 18:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

But if it resulted in the deletion of the site, that is surely notable. Ramore

Is the site notable? Matthew Fenton (contribs) 19:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Dundee_Mark is well known amongst DS user's, new users are often warned of his coming, his inabability to discuss problems rationally. 90% of users think his problems could be solved by actually venturing outside and taking part in life instead of pontificating with all the knowledge that a 18 yr old hermit and virgin can offer. Be warned of D_M and his big red button. Poor lad needs a good shag. BC xxx

Links to DS related sites must be kept even anti-DS sites as it is part of DS's history.

To remove the links would be the equivalent to having a section on God without the Devil. Bender 12:11, 14 July 2006

It's not a part of DS's history. DS's history relates solely to what happens on DS and nothing else. Marks87 00:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

As a response to the comment about a threat of legal action, there is no evidence of this in the public domain. (Also, why the hell has my writing gone small?) Marks87 00:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

So if there is no evidence of this in the public domain, where is your information about libel coming from? Ramore

I see mark. so what you are saying is DS would like to hide its skeletons in a cupboard rather than exept them as part of the natural progression of a commercial forum. Talk about shurking responsability. BTW are you officially speaking on behalf of DS and does James know. Bender 07:38, 14 July 2006

I think these anti DS site links should be included in this section as alot of these forums started because members wanted somewhere to chat with the same people but without the fear of being banned for having strong opinions. These forums exist beacuse of DS so they are part of DS. They are part of DS history so to speak whether they like it or not. The fact is there are alot of people who are members of both DS and "Anti-DS sites". They choose to post in both for different reasons mainly because alot of these "anti-ds" site are more relaxed on freedom of speech and alot of people find that refreshing. If you were to look at both DS and Anti DS forum discussions you'd see alot of similar conversation going on. MG

Are they offical sites... no. Are they part of its history... no. The links do not belong here. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 08:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, links to other "spin-off" sites are not notable, not connected to Digital Spy Ltd and there is no verifiable evidence can be found for the threat of legal action against Digital Spy Uncut (though I am aware a letter was posted on Digital Spy Uncut before being taken off by admin). Neither the links nor the information regarding the legal threat should be included into the article. --tgheretford (talk) 08:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's put it this way - if I started up a Geocities website devoted to how rubbish ITV is, would that deserve a link on the ITV article? I think we all know the answer... Marks87 10:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The answer would be no, the same answer applies here. Non related/offical links do not belong here. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 10:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes but its a matter of opinion whether it is related or not! and im my opinion it is. (MG)

One unregisterd users opinion wont change the consensus. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 11:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

So we're agreed that Marks87 is lying about the threat of legal action? Ramore

Fair enough matthew ive registered id my opinion valid now?--LolaF 12:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC):(MG) --LolaF 12:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

One persons opinion does still not justify the link(s) being there a consensus has been reached, end of. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 13:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not lying about the alleged threat of legal action. I read an e-mail that was posted on "DSU", where it was claimed legal action would be taken if the site was not closed down. Of course, it is possible this was faked. Marks87 13:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Spin Offs

While the links may not be needed, it should be noted that people have gone elsewhere. Otherwise this is just a page advertising a business is it not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dundee mark (talk • contribs) .

Please sign your posts with four tildes so other users know who posted the text, Thanks. As for the issue in hand, you say that other people having gone elsewhere should be noted and that the links may not be needed, then go and insert all the material (including links) back into the article. My thoughts:

• 1. "Spin-offs" is completely the wrong wording irrespective of anything else. Spin-off's belong to the originator (in some way or another) - these dissatisfied sites are not sanctioned, setup, or managed by DS, thus the term is completely out of place.

• 2. As for this page just being advertising, DS is a well known and large website, thus it gets a page here at WP as it is an encyclopedic (i.e. non-trivial) subject, in just the same way that Slashdot or BBC News Online have articles.

• 3. I fail to see why there is any just reason for these alternative websites to be mentioned - this wasn't some great split in the DS community that lead to thousands of people setting up an alternative, this was just a tiny number of people, most of whom were banned from DS and have become bitter about the whole situation.

Feel free to post your thoughts on the situation here, but please don't reinsert the rejected content in again, discussion is good, edit wars are not. SFC9394 23:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Unless the Digital Spy owners wish to come onto this site and explain why they banned people, then there should be no mentions of "unfair bannings" or "alternative sites". Doing so would be a violation of the NPOV policy (in that we would only be getting one side of the story). Marks87 23:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The websites that were added would fail alone just on the fact that for many of the topics (notably the "controversial" and Digital Spy threads and user topics) you need to register as a member to view anything. Hmm, why would that be..? --Sonic 07:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering that, as per the above discussion on Netural point of view that WP:NPOV and Wikipedia: Notability (web) is not a reason to remove violating material, should the Spin-offs section have to be added back into the article? --tgheretford (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I had a read through the 'spin-off' sites, it looks like the 'controversial' subjects are members-only due to some TOS from the host provider. I'm sure one of their members can clarify this for me. In addition, as it's already been established the notability requirements are not reason to remove the links, they should then surely be allowed back on, although giving them 'spin-off' status is perhaps not the correct area. Ramore

The only problem is that a) I said that during the dispute over the neutral point of view, which is now resolved, so that point I made is no longer relevant (hence why now I have striked it out) and b) the websites concerned are not relevant to Digital Spy other than by name. My thoughts on this are mirrored by SFC9394's third comment above. --tgheretford (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

As I stated in my post regarding 'spin off' sites above, the cumulative total is 8,000 members spread over six sites (there could be more that I am unaware of). I also pointed out that there is no mention of the sites being for banned users. I am not suggesting that the spin-off sites should be reincluded but that it is clear that censorship has been an issue to some. Any user of Digital Spy can attest to the Stickies in the forums and postings by James Welsh that allude to this. The existence of six other sites dedicated to being anti-censorship versions of Digital Spy with 8,000 users does suggest thousands of people have gone elsewhere because of censorship and this fact should be included in the main article. Ramore

If you believe there should be a section, check the previous content of this discussion. If there are no violations of policy or guidelines, add it. As long as you make sure what you write does not violate Wikipedia policy and guidelines. If you think that any of the spin off websites are notable (check Wikipedia:Notability (web) first) then you can start an article on them. --tgheretford (talk) 07:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The accusation of 'libel' against one of the sites in particular warrants a new section added to the article describing the incident and also linking to the site in question, does it not? Ramore

Protected Page Edit

I require the image tag changing to: [[Image:Digital Spy Webpage.PNG|thumb|right|Digital Spy Homepage|330px]]

Also on reading the article some vanity requires removing:

Some contributors to the Digital Spy forums have become celebrated for the nature or the frequency of their posts. Leading lights include PamelaL, the 'first lady' of DS, and Dundee_mark, the 'first boy'. Rudi enjoys much virtual backslapping for his popular and witty 'signature'. More recently, Digital Spy readers the world over have been following the progress of Ann1982, whose pregnancy and lifestyle many find particularly engrossing, and her regular updates are followed with a dedication usually found amongst soap-opera audiences.

Thanks. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 09:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The above paragraph being added then removed several times is the reason it's been protected in teh first place. -- 9cds^(talk) 09:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

How long is it going to remain protected then? Pretty shocking situation here. Consensus amongst all established editors (read that as not 2 day old sock accounts) is that the para is vanity. Pages should not remain protected to ensure consensus cannot be implemented. SFC9394 09:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I proposed a compromise above, but the user who posted the paragraph hasn't returned to say what they think of it. I get the strange feeling they never will (well, not in their current guise anyway)... Marks87 09:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Since there's at least some attempt to talk, I've requested it be unprotected. However, any more revert wars will result in a block. -- 9cds^(talk) 10:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It should be unprotected and the vanity removed, and whom ever removed teh editprotected tag, please do not. My edit has not yet been carried out. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 13:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

As I explained above, the page is no longer protected. -- 9cds^(talk) 13:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahh yes, my fault the page had been cached. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Sections

Is this section really needed, that sort of info can be found out on its website? Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is fine as it gives an overview to readers what the website covers. It may be worthwhile expanding on it (for example, the technology section only refers to media gadgets, for example). --tgheretford (talk) 07:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It does seem to go into a lot of unnecessary detail about the site, merely clicking on the link will show you it's content - when does a genuine encyclopaedia entry just become a free advertisement? Ramore

Regarding the section itself, I think it is fine as it is. If expanded, it should explain the website to people who may not have heard of the website without advertising it. If however, you believe the article does violate advertising, then you should mark up the article as such or in extreme cases, nominate the article for deletion (if it is a blatant advertisement). You may want to check Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not under section 1.4.3 for more information. --tgheretford (talk) 20:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a feeling that if I did that, it wouldn't lead anyhere. I also have a feeling that I agree with the user above who posted abut the bullying tactics being employed on this page. It's perfectly obvious that tgheretford and marks87 both know each other from their postings on Digital Spy and are conspiring to dictate the content of this article. I don't know who SFCwhatever is, but I can guess that if I knew his or her Digital Spy name I'd be able to find some very chummy postings between the three of you. Which of course doesn't defeat the object of wikipedia at all. Ramore

And I just noticed on one of the spin-off sites that both tghe-retford and dundee_mark are mercilessly ripped apart by its users, so do I get a prize for guessing why you want to keep the links hidden? Ramore

Two things that must be cleared up, first of all I couldn't give a hoot whether they were posting death threats about me on those sites. To be honest, reading those websites before they locked out guests, the only "ripping-apart" they do is petty personal attacks. Secondly, we are not dictiating the content of the article, if it is the three of us debating because we are the only three that came and debated the article over the last few weeks, that's not our fault.

And if you believe bullying has occured, report it. (See Wikipedia:Resolving disputes which deals with bullying within Wikipedia) --tgheretford (talk) 07:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Correction, checked DSU and it allows me in now. I must be popular, I have my own thread And looking at what has been written, in response to the above user, it isn't exactly "ripping-apart". They go off on a tangent about anti-depressants halfway down page 2. --tgheretford (talk) 08:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

And I suppose dundee_mark can say the same. Ramore

Okay, this section is going off topic. I still believe it should be removed and i am going to remove it as:

• The info can be seen on the website its self or the screenshot.
• With the info there it just makes the article look long and bare (w/space)
• That sort of info could be summed up in words.

So i ask that it not be put back in and that someone sum the info up in a sentance, i may do it my self if i can think what to write. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 17:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Censorship

I am starting a new section on this page because the comments above are all over the place and are hard to understand, and because I am proposing a new section. I propose that this section be entitled 'Censsorship' and should contain a brief description of censorship on Digital Spy. The evidence for this being an issue are these.

• Numerous stickies in the forums regarding removal of 'libellous' threads and threads which are potentially libellous.
• Removal of various threads for violations of Digital Spy policy.
• The closing down of DSU as a result of a concerted effort by the owners of Digital Spy.
• The prevalence of extra forums dedicated to providing an uncensored environment for 8,000 Digital Spy users.

What do people think of this idea? Ramore

I'd like to add to that if I may, that I have several emails from James Welsh in which he agrees about the censorship, and explains the full story of the closing of the original DSU, and his part in it.

I don't see why the DSU incident should be ignored as it was carried out by the owners of Digital Spy under the Digital Spy brand name, that makes it a part of Digital Spy's history and should not be ignored because some users who hate the site are intent on erasing it's perfectly legitimate place in DS's history. Diabolik66

It has no place here, unless full sources can be cited it doesnt belong. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 13:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I can produce emails from James Welsh regarding the incident and post various links to stickies about libel that have been posted in the forum if you want. I can also produce communication from the host who removed the site and communicatins between them and James Welsh.Diabolik66

There are also two other well-known instances of censorship that should be included, namely the threats of legal action from Chris Parker and Jodie Marsh against DS, which resulted in a clampdown on the forums. Ramore

Emails can be faked, you have to refrence websites as your sources when citeing. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 13:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Addressing the "evidence" in order:

• Why shouldn't libellous or potentially libellous threads be removed? Digital Spy is a business and as such must protect its interests
• So what? You agree to abide by this policy when you register, so it's perfectly reasonable to expect threads that contravene this to be removed
• I cannot comment fully on this, since I am not privy to the full and exact details. I do, however, know that the site in question made use of the Digital Spy Logo, which was a breach of coopyright.
• I doubt that there are 8,000 unique users of these forums.

Marks87 13:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting you should mention about the breach of copyright Mark, because that has NEVER been in then public domain, which suggests to me that you have a close relationship with a certain James Welsh (the only way you could have heard about it), and since you posted in athread the other day that you were considering applying for the Moderator job, it kind of questions your "impartial" credentials somewhat.

Regarding the emails - if the emails were published on a website, that would make them a valid source would it?Diabolik66

Well that's funny, because I read about the breach of copyright on your website. However, you're going to continually insist I never and that I do have a "close relationship" with James Welsh so I see little point arguing about it. But let's get one thing clear - I do not know James Welsh and have not knowingly had any contact with him. (I say "knowingly" because he may have answered e-mails I sent to DS forum support.) Marks87 14:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No Mark, as usual it's that pernicious twisting of the truth that you do so well. The only email that has ever been published regarding the removal of DSU from the host was the one which singled out copyright infringement, libel, defamation and spam. The only part of the email the host agreed with was the copyright infringement. In your messages above you clearly stated that DSU was removed because it was libellous (which was a lie), and have now changed it to the ONLY part of the email that the host agreed with, which gives credence to the argument that you have a direct hotline to Welshie and puts your impartiality in question. Why else would you stop lying and suddenly start telling the truth if that was not the case?

Regarding citations, if I created a site called "The truth about DSU" and detailed the sotry with the emails, how does that differ from just copy and pasting thm here? Diabolik66

Well, for a start, you have just contradicted yourself:

"Interesting you should mention about the breach of copyright Mark, because that has NEVER been in then(sic) public domain..."

"The only email that has ever been published regarding the removal of DSU from the host was the one which singled out copyright infringement..."

Secondly, you don't actually need to be privy to exact details to know that making use of another site's logo is a breach of copyright. Thirdly, I was basing my "libellous" argument on an e-mail that you published on your site. Are you now admitting that e-mail was fake? It seems that way to me Marks87 14:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No Mark, once again the pernicious twisting of the truth rears it's ugly head. I don't understand why you bother arguing a case if the only argument you can muster is a pedantic attack on the phrasing of someone's messages. I suppose that's the life experience of the four alls of your bedroom at work. Anyway, regarding my oringinal message. When I said "the only email was the one which singled out copyright infringement, libel, defamation and spam", I meant that the only email was the one which singled out copyright infringement, libel, defamation and spam. notice my use of a comma "," rather than a full stop ".". This implies that "copyright infringement", "libel", "defamation" and "spam" were a grouping rather than "copyright infringement" as a singular. I suppose with your poor grasp of the English language that we've spoken about before is evident, but I thought that was obvious.

Your pedantic attack, incidentally, is just an attempt to deflect from the crux of my message, which was, and I reiterate, that you were lying when you said (above) that DSU was removed from the host for being "libellous". I stated that in the email that I posted in the forum, that copyright infringement, libel, defamation and spam were "singled out" which I would have thought that to most people who can read, implies that the four of them were singled out, as the email stated.

The crux of my argument, therefore, is the same. Being tht "copyright infringement, libel, defamation and spam" were lumped together in the email, and that the host agreeing with the copyright infringement part has NEVER been published outside of this (again perfectly obvious in my message), and given that you earlier lied when you said it was removed because it was "libellous" and then chnged your tune to copyright infringement", the implication is that you must have had insider knowledge. That information did not come from me, therefore it can only have come from Welshie.

And furthermore, where you've said that it doesn't take genius to work out that the logo was copyright infringement, you clearly stated before, and elsewhere too, that you believe DSU is/was libellous, therefore the only logical reason for someone who does not know the story but shares the same belief, to change this belief, is because you had extra information that this was not the case.

Just to clear that little half-truth up for you there. Diabolik66

That isn't how I read the message (I mean the one from Marks87)! Ramore

The message from "Diabolik66" makes little-to-no sense. Just because something has been grouped together with other, similar things, it doesn't mean it's not present. Quite the opposite, in fact. Furthermore, I know that I read, on your site, a piece of text that you claimed was an e-mail from your webspace provider. This clearly stated that an allegation of libel had been made and that legal action would be taken if necessary.

As a side note, I find it a tad ironic that this sentence:

"I suppose with your poor grasp of the English language that we've spoken about before is evident, but I thought that was obvious."

doesn't make any sense!. Marks87 16:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I am having no trouble reading these messages, as the other user says, this is just nitpicking that avoids the point. Ramore

No Mark, as you well know, the text of the email said: "A site hosted on host.sk's service... contains numerous comments about Digital Spy Ltd's employees and customers that are libellous, defamatory and abusive... site also uses our logotype without authorization and its administrators have engaged in spam..."

This does not in any detract from what I said originally and have repeated in most of my messages, which is that you first lied by saying that the site had been removed as it was "libellious" and then when challenged over this assertion, changed it to "copyright infringement". If you were basing your assertion on this email, then you would have seen that "libel" does in fact come well before "copyright" and maintained your original assertion. However, you changed it to something which appears several sentences away from the libel accusation and is the only reason why the host took action, which still implies that you have insider knowledge of the event, espeically considering that the only people that would have known about the host taking this action because of the coyright infringement are myself, the moderators of DSU, and the owners of Digital Spy. Ergo, you must have inside knowledge.

No matter how many times you childishly pick around grammar and spelling, the main point in the argument remains the same and is easily understandable by people who understand English. Diabolik66

It's not me "...childishly pick(-ing) around grammar and spelling." I know what I saw on your site and it most certainly wasn't that, which implies that either:

1) On here, you are lying about the content of the e-mail. Or

2) You posted a fake e-mail on your site.

Which is it? Marks87 17:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No Mark, as you well know, that is not the case. The full text of the email James Welsh sent to host.sk, looks like this:

> -----Original Message-----

> From: James Welsh [1]

> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 10:36 AM

> To: 'admin@host.sk'

> Subject: Abuse Report

> Importance: High

>

> Hi,

>

> A site hosted on host.sk's service,

> http://digitalspyuncut.host.sk/, contains numerous comments

> about Digital Spy Ltd's employees and customers that are

> libellous, defamatory and abusive. The site also uses our

> logotype without authorization and its administrators have

> engaged in spam- and abuse-attacks both on message boards

> owned and operated by Digital Spy Ltd, and against our customers.

>

> We would prefer to resolve this without resorting to legal

> measures but are considering doing so unless the material,

> which is in breach of your ISP's Acceptable Use Policy, is removed.

>

> Any assistance you can render would be appreciated as the

> abuse and hate being generated on the above-named host.sk

> website is causing disruption to our business.

>

> Thanks in advance,

>

> --

> James Welsh

> Digital Spy Ltd

>

> f: 087 0135 3441

> e: jwelsh@digitalspy.co.uk

> w: www.digitalspy.co.uk

I'm sure you have your reasons for these relentless lies, but I can't really fathom it out (except the obvious one). Diabolik66

You are all going off topic here, this isnt a place to settle your debates, i have put off topic templates on this page yet you blatently ignore them. Please stay on topic. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 18:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Aplogoies for going off-topic, however I do feel it does have some relevance. It merely confirms that text which someone claims is an e-mail cannot be seen cited as a source. Marks87 18:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what conversation you've been reading dundee_mark, but all I can see is that you've been telling porkies and then been proved wrong! Ramore

First and foremost, my Wikipedia name is Marks87, not "dundee_mark". Secondly, I know what I read, but if you and "diabolik66" want to keep saying I'm lying, that's your prerogative. You are, however, wrong. That is my final comment on this matter. Marks87 19:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Just for you little Marky, I have unlocked the forumer site and given all-user view access to the forum where the original thread is contained.

http://digitalspyuncut.14.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=421

As you can see, this is the exact text of the email I copied bove, was posted on Apr 28th 2006 and remains unedited. Not that I need to prove myself or anything because the people readin this page are well familiar with your little twists of the truth, but just in case ther was ANY question as to my integrity, you little liar ;-). Diabolik66

I would like to apologise to Diabolik66. I was adamant I read a different e-mail on his site, but it would appear I was wrong. Marks87 15:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

But further up this page you created a whole section to tell everyone you are dundee_mark! Which is it to be, you're deliberately dragging this off topic! If you have a point you are trying to make, you're losing it, it just looks like you're trying to correct people's grammar! This is deliberate confusion. Ramore

That is nonsense that the emails have to be on a website, you could just publish anything and call it an email!

And nobody is saying Digital Spy are acting wrongly, we are saying this policy, which does affect a lot of people, should be publicly acknowledged. Ramore

See WP:CITE! Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Firstly - "I propose that this section be entitled 'Censsorship'" is probably not a good idea given it is not even spelt correctly. Secondly WP:SOCK should be read by all - there are too many brand new registered users here voicing an apparently unified opinion. Either they are all the same person or folks are being directed to post a unified view here by an outside source. Vote stacking or faking consensus by having 5 new accounts all saying the same thing is not consensus.

I'll be honest here the conduct surrounding this whole issue has been poor. The arguments being put forth for this site being notable have no strength - notability needs to be cited and sourced, and far preferably from a national media outlet for trust to be put in it - an email, which may or may not be real, which was up for a short amount of time on a forum before being removed, in no way meets these criterion. It is that simple. SFC9394 14:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Once more, nobody is arguing that DSU is a notable site (I don't believe it is), but the censorship of Digital Spy is, evidenced by the various forms it has taken, and that their getting another site closed down is just an illustration of it. At least that is what I am arguing, anyway. Ramore

"Censorship of Digital Spy" is absolutely no different from virtually any other website who want to live within the law (ie. not an address ending in .tk and who disappear in 2 weeks). Here at WP we have to fully comply with libel laws just exactly the same as at DS - censorship is an emotive word, not fitting of what DS are doing (which is no different to any other law abiding website). Is that notable? I don't think so - other websites and media outlets get asked to remove (or proactively remove themselves under legal guidance) content all the time - DS is no different and nothing special. The area would rise to notability if a formal legal action was taken (see News of the World which has a list against it, which will likely be added to (one way or another) once the Tommy Sheridan case is completed). Someone removing libellous content is not a notable event (I remove material here at WP if I see any) - and does not in my opinion constitute a notable section in the article. SFC9394 14:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This is crap. It's not consensus if the majority agree on something? So far the only people who disagree are SFC, Marks87, tgheretford and Sonic. I notified other people to have their say on the subject, and you are getting different opinions on it. They're told that unregistered users won't make a difference, so they register and it still mean nothing?

They are not singing the same tune, I am saying there should be an article called Censorship, diabolik is pointing out where marks87 is not being honest, Bender is suggesting something completely different, and a few others are suggesting completely reinserting the links. I don't see anyone questioning Marks87 who appears to be a new user too (I don't know how to check his history), but as he's not going against what the 'established' users think, then he must be ok yes? Ramore

On the contrary, I am pointing out where Diabolik66 is not being honest.

And for the record, I have been a registered user for a few months now. I just haven't got round to creating a user page. Marks87 19:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't argue it Ramore, we all know what he's like. Just to set the record straight, you can see the original thread I started about the email from Welshie at the link below. As you will see, despite what the cake says, it was posted in its entirety on 28th April, 2006 and has not been edited since.

http://digitalspyuncut.14.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=421

I suspect he won;t reply to this now he's been proved beyond doubt that he's the liar... As if we needed telling ;-). Diabolik66

Then you are failing dismally, because all you've managed to do is make yourself look quite childish while not proving anything. What is this dishonesty you are trying to prove because I can't see it amongst the many posts you've made that don't say anything except unnecessary questions about what the person before you has written? Ramore

I appreciate that WP and its policies & guidelines can be a little confusing, overwhelming and annoying, especially for folks who don't know the place well - it took me quite a while get to know how the place runs and fits together. I can point you in the direction of a few pages which may help - Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Single purpose account, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Someone doesn't just have to register an account to suddenly have full say in what is going on. That is not to say that their views are disregarded out of hand, but if they are only here editing very specifically on one thing, with one specific view (and if it is in a situation like this with online communities, where “rallying calls" can potentially be made), then other editors are less likely to put as much weight in what they are saying as with that of an established editor. Basically the system is to try and ensure in a dispute like this someone doesn’t just go and get 100 of their mates to sign up for new accounts then flatten any opposition to what they want to include – which could then lead to articles being potentially skewed, our just simply full of untruths – this type of thing is very possible in the “major” article types in politics and religion, and so has to be curtailed. I hope you can continue to make positive edits here, obviously people get involved with the project due to their interest in specific areas – but in time that interest will likely broaden into other areas and an addictive hobby is born! To check someones contributions you can just navigate to any of thier pages (doesn't matter whether it exsists or not) and click on "User Contributions" on the left hand bar. SFC9394 20:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

i was just upset that the DSU link kept being removed. DSU is tide to DS in many ways,

the posts on here are proof of that also D_M likes to get his name in where ever he can. It has been nice to see mark trying to argue without the censorship of DS, as we would all have been banned by now, at the hands of D_M, the little button pushing prat. Bender 15:00 15.07.2006

Dispute - 16 July 2006

Another edit that I had to dispute, is this comment "Notable membership trends include a significant gay membership and a preponderance of left wing views." that is neither verifiable or neutral really necessary or worthy enough for inclusion in the article? --tgheretford (talk) 10:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I have just removed the claims - they are unsourced - if the person who added them wants to add an independent respected source to back up these claims then they can be included in a fair wording form. What is "a significant gay membership"? Just that some poeple who post are gay? National average? Higher than national average? How about "a preponderance of left wing views" what does that mean? All who post are left wing? Most? More than normal? The wording is just weasle words, not sourced, not clear and of a questionable motivation. Discussion is encouraged, but I would say that neither claim is verifiably true (or indeed clear enough to be notable) SFC9394 11:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

RE DISPUTE 16 JULY 2006

Hi :)

My motivations are non other than my concern that Wikipedia should be in the business of actually describing what something is, rather than articles being an attempt to portray a certain image of something, as if it was an advertisement for the website. I am concerned that there are actually other contributors whose motivations are questionable here ('worthy enough for inclusion in the article' springs to mind). The statement I added is blatantly obvious to anyone who posts on the forums, (especially the left wing views) nevertheless User SFC9394 makes some points which are fair enough. I will try to find the time to look up links to be used as supporting evidence some time in the next few days. Once I have done so, and if what I have found is suitably demonstrative I will add the removed statement again, though perhaps with modified wording to better explain the statement, noting the points made by SFC9394.

Though don't expect that I will leave this unchanged due to not being able to do the impossible. Obviously there are no 'official' statistics as to the sexual lifestyle of digital spy forum members with percentage figures. However it is common knowledge that the owners and moderators of the website are themselves homosexual, with an interpretation of the websites terms and conditions which considers as homophobic (and thus a bannable breach of said t&c's) expressions of agreement with the Abrahamic religions (ie stating that you hold Christian, Muslim or Judaic beliefs). It naturally follows that people who are homosexual will gather in numbers where they are protected like this, added to that the fact that regular culls of new or unaware 'non conformists' are made whenever discussion turns to topics such as gay marriage or gay adoption. Though I would not endorse such crude language, it was interesting to see the sole entry for Digital Spy at Urban Dictionary dot com, made in 2003, was "A gay benders website".

There are actually a couple of issues which I will also see if I can look up evidence for and add if appropriate. The website forums are rabidly anti religion, with Islam increasingly being the main target of attack. I would estimate the proportion of atheists at around 75%, with agnostics around 15% to 20%. The percentage of children and teenagers using the forums has always been high, and in recent times has risen even higher. I would estimate the current number at around 60% to 65%.

I am also of the opinion that all mention of sites which sprang up as a direct alternative to DS should not be removed. Surely they should be given a short mention. These I believe were originally basically protest sites, with lots of people being unhappy with the perceived bias of the moderators and their perceived engineering of the demographic of the forums with the use of bans which people felt had no basis under the websites terms and conditions.

Adam

Link spam (IE: Links which fail WP:WEB & do not belong here) will not be tolerated in this article. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 07:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for comments

This article is currently listed on WP:RFC/ART. I am here via the RfC, but can find no section on the talk page which is obviously about it. So I made this one :) I presume the paragraph under dispute is this one. I see two problems. First: is it stuff you would expect to find in an encyclopaedia? I personally don't think so. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Second: who says this is the case? We need to cite sources, and those sources need to be reliable sources. (The Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_and_self-published_sources section is probably particularly relevant to an article about a website.) The claims in the paragraph are unsourced and almost certainly unsourceable. So they shouldn't be here at the moment. NB: The entire article is unsourced and I personally think the same reasoning should apply to the lot; but the RFC was specifically about that paragraph. Telsa (talk) 09:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree on both the comment and regarding the whole article being uncited. I added a template. If the information on the page can't be given appropiate citations, it may become a candidate for deletion. I personally don't think that should happen in my opinion but that is what Wikipedia deletion policy suggests. --tgheretford (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have cited sources for things and stuff which could not be cited i have removed as well as forum stats have been removed (They can be found out on there website + its hard to cite them when they change very often) + i removed the features section (it just makes the article sound like an advert + it can be found out on the website its self) (So i have removed the dipute tag now :-)) Matthew Fenton (contribs) 18:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, the article has shrunk quite a bit removing all the non verifiable content, but at least everything is verifiable so I can agree on how the article is at the moment. Thanks. --tgheretford (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks much better, yes. Fast work! Telsa (talk) 06:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)