Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20 PowerBASIC
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | PowerBASIC |
| Status | closed |
| Request date | Unknown |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
| Parties involved | Powerbasic company (AKA owner Mr Zale) and RealWorldExperience (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC) |
| Mediator(s) | Xavexgoem (talk) |
| Comment | closing; partially resolved, little input atm. Keeping on watch. |
[[Category:Wikipedia Mediation Cabal closed cases|PowerBASIC]][[Category:Wikipedia Mediation Cabal maintenance|PowerBASIC]]
Request details
editAll my contributions to this wikipedia entry have been systematically deleted by the powerbasic company for over a month. After leaving a month cooling off period, I wrote several extensive pieces on the talk page to verify my contributions. I have submitted to the COI Noticeboard and made my case on the relaible sources page. I have asked for a third opinion, but have been unable to find help from anyone that understands the computer science details involved.
Who are the involved parties?
editPowerbasic company (AKA owner Mr Zale) and RealWorldExperience (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
What's going on?
editI assert that: 1. Support is an important and substantial part of a software compiler
2. I have proved numerically, company support amounts to less than 1% of forum contributions
3. The Company forum requires users to use their full real names - no exceptions. This is very important for users that need to remain anonymous for whatever reason
4. Company cannot prove that "email support" is provided
5. Company has a clear policy of charging for support
6. There are inconsitencies in the nature os Integer variable types that have significant impact and are hidden by the company
7. While chat forums are not a verifiable source in general, a statement made on the company forum, signed and dated by Mr Zale is a credible and verifiable source for the contents of that statement.
8. Code contained in a post is a source of verification in and of itself as the code can be compiled by anyone and checked
9. The company is relying upon the ignorance of admins in general when it comes to technical issues and seeking to conceal very relevnat information.
10. None of the claims made about the compiler are valid without accepting that they can be verified by using the product. If that is the case then any aspect of the compiler can be verified in the same way.
11. Mr Zale, company owner, is posting through multiple ghost writers posing as employee's. How many employees are buy defending the product at 6.40am on a Sunday morning?
It seems that third parties have a knee jerk reaction that "internet forums" do not constitute verification. If you read my post on the relaible sources page, you will realize that I am not arguing for this.
What would you like to change about that?
editI would like someone with a computer science background to adjudicate this. I would like them to look at the arguments for using the forum's repository of source code and the facts derived, as a source for fact in this wikipedia entry. It is not possible to say anything about a software compiler if the results achieved from using it are deemed unreliable sources of fact. Therein lies the double standard by which the powerbasic company is seeking, on one hand, to include all the facts they approve, and at the same time delete the facts they do not.
Mediator notes
editKeeping on talk Xavexgoem (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)