User talk:Peter.dolkens

Regarding list of router and firewall distributions

Hi Peter. I just thought I'd let you know that before making potentially controversial edits (e.g. adding OPNSense to the list), it is recommended to gain consensus with other editors on an article's talk page. I've reverted your edit, and you can discuss it at talk:list of router and firewall distributions.

Also, please do not add untrue or irrelevant messages to users' talk pages, as you did at user talk:Mr.hmm (he has not edited the page in a month and is obviously not engaged in an edit war). Thanks — Quasar G. 22:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Quasar G.: While reviewing his post history, he quite clearly is in violation, making 4 revisions within one 24 hour period on the 9th of March.

Additionally, I have already responded on the talk page, to you, and your other fanatics war on a valid entry to this list.

I will be reporting both you and Mr.hmm to the admins, if there is not a response, or re-implementation of my edits within the next 24 hours, as it is quite stupid to watch a bunch of fanbois for pfSense attempt to censor a competitor from wikipedia.

I'm a fan of pfSense myself, but find your behaviour deplorable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter.dolkens (talk • contribs) 22:39, May 31, 2017 (UTC)

I've removed your inappropriate warning on Mr.hmm's talkpage. That was so far from valid that I consider it to have been vandalism and harassment. Don't do that again. You do not give an edit warring warning for something that was done almost two months ago. He has not even touched the article in more than a month. Meters (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You and other editors have been told multiple times why OPNsense does not belong in the list: it is not notable enough (evidence here). If we included every single extant software package in this list, it would be beyond comprehension for readers. Hence, boundaries must be defined – and the boundaries defined by the Wikipedia community are those seen at WP:GNG.

This is clearly a deep-rooted issue, as seen from the edit history of the page, and this log). Let's try and keep our wits about us and discuss rather than edit war. — Quasar G. 23:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Quasar G.: I'm sure you're aware that things change, given time. If @Meters: can complain about me citing aggressive revisions from almost two months ago, then I'm just as entitled to point out that your own judgements are no longer valid.

When I'm researching specifically pfSense hardware, to replace my router, and half the sites I go to are not only offering, but recommending OPNSense hardware, I would say that qualifies it as WP:GNG. Additionally, when the very articles you have deemed worthy of the list, are now recommending, and linking to OPNSense, again, I would say that qualifies it as WP:GNG

You're absolutely right that there is WP:SOCKS occurring here, but so far, it seems to be coming from yourself, and other more "experienced" editors.

Indeed, the only reason that it doesn't qualify for the list, is because it doesn't have a page. Except you DELETED the page, despite the discussion resulting in a "close call" (I actually believe that the keeps won, but hey, don't let that get in your way).

As I mentioned in the talk page however, there IS a wiki entry in German, so clearly it IS notable. There WAS a wiki entry in English, even if poorly edited, but rather than improve it, you deleted it.

I've already provided a list of independent sources that reference it. INCLUDING the m0n0wall site, which IS in the list.

At this point, it is evident who the real puppets are. Frankly I don't care enough to edit war with you over this. Like I said, I'm not invested in OPNSense at all. I've attempted to notify the admins of the behaviour, as it DID negatively affect me, as a USER of wikipedia.

Unfortunately, it seems there is a cabal of editors (which I've seen discussed previously in the media) who are openly hostile to new users, and content that doesn't conform to their views.

I understand now why wikipedia is not a valid reference for any form of research, as the bias is quite evident, and it is quite easy to be misled with people like yourself at the wheel.

Peter.dolkens (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not shout, I can read the words just as well when they're in lower case.

The deletion discussion was not a 'close call'. As made clear by the closing comment, many of the keep votes came from single-purpose accounts (likely sockpuppets), and once those were discounted, a 'clear delete consensus' appeared. I'm not sure where you provided the sources to prove OPNsense is notable, but could you list them again here? The deletion discussion is two years old, after all, and as you say, things may have changed since then. I'd like to re-assess the software's notability. — Quasar G. 23:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Quasar G.: It was on the talk page - I'll list some of the links I found during my research below.

Additionally, when I reviewed the contribution history of the page, the terms SPA and sockpuppet had been thrown around numerous times - always by people removing the articles/links, but never with any real evidence (for sockpuppet accusations). As for SPA, it just seems a pretty weak metric to my eye; I've had a wiki for years, but never felt the capability to edit/format a large article before. In this case, adding in a simple row, and removing the external-link that was contested seemed like a good place to start to learn - and, well, here we are...

While I see the use of applying weight to experienced editors, it seems very hostile, especially to new content/users, to use "SPA"s as a reason to effectively censor an article that doesn't have high participation.

Additionally, can anyone point me to the WP:rule that states "all items in lists MUST have their own article page", as that is yet another rule that seems very convenient in this debate. Other pages get a "need sources, could use work, please clean me up" etc tag - but OPNSense gets wiped from the face of wikipedia. That doesn't seem very "open" to me.

Now for some links:

* m0n0wall (linked in the article in question) directly says to use OPNSense now on every page: http://m0n0.ch/wall/index.php

* pcengine (who specialize in small-form-factor hardware for running router software) list it as a supported distribution here: https://www.pcengines.ch/alix.htm

* miniserver offer official support for the distribution: https://www.miniserver.it/support/pfsense-opnsense-support.html

* miniserver offer it as the default distribution for some products: https://www.miniserver.it/home-page-products/compact-small-utm-pfsense-opnsense-hardware.html

* pfwhardware provide professional-grade hardware, preloaded with OPNSense, direct from their homepage: http://www.pfwhardware.com/

* applianceshop also appear to specialize in, and distribute OPNSense hardware: https://www.applianceshop.eu/opnsense-small-ghz.html

* German Wiki has a listing for it here: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPNsense (I'd translate if I knew German)

There was coverage, as mentioned in the deletion discussion, on various techblogs - I could link you to various podcasts, blogs, and reddit/slashdot posts too. Not quite sure what exactly it takes to qualify as a "Notable Firewall", given you've got things like DD-WRT and Tomato, which have always been hobbyist distributions themselves. Indeed, Tomato gets 20 pages of results on Google, OPNSense gets 16, and DD-WRT gets 15 - not exactly a notable difference.

As I have stated previously - I'm not associated with the project at all.

In fact, this nonsense on wiki has actually made me look into it far more than I would have if it had simply been in the list, and left alone.

I'll still probably end up with a pfSense box for my next router, as I'm already familiar with that, and quite enjoyed it, but I definitely didn't like seeing what I perceived to be openly hostile treatment of this smaller project, on wiki.

Additionally, some of my "warnings" etc may have been inappropriately applied - I was a little lost in the tomes of wiki etiquette - but it is quite clear to me in looking at the change history of the page, and the contribution history of those involved, that there was strong personal agenda involved, and thus some level of moderator/administrator was required to provide oversight. As far as I could see - step one was providing a "warning" to those involved. Sorry if they were applied incorrectly, though it seems to have gained the desired attention.

Peter.dolkens (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop accusing editors of being socks. If you think there is socking going on then report it to the appropriate board with your evidence. It is not appropriate to continue making accusations. On one one hand we have multiple established editors who edit a variety of articles who happen to have removed OPNSense because it does not have an article. On the other hand we have a long series of WP:SPAs who aggressively attempt to insert OPNSense and have virtually no interest in editing anything that does not mention the at software. The article is now protected for 3 months by User:Black Kite because of "Persistent sock puppetry" If you think the software is notable then write an article that demonstrates its notability with reliable, independent sources. If you do that then there no problem adding this software to the list. If, on the other hand, no article is written and yet another SPA shows up to attempt to include it once the protection ends, teh article will likely just be protected again. Meters (talk) 09:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest and advocacy in Wikipedia

This is a followup to my comment at WP:COIN about OPNsense/PfSense here.

I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing. Your recent edits are promotional with regard to Deciso and its product, OPNsense. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. Editing for the purpose of advertising or promotion is not permitted. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

Comments and requests

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by our WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with Deciso or the developer community for OPNsense, directly or through a third party (e.g. a PR agency or the like)? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, please disclose it. After you respond (and you can just reply below), I can walk you through how the "peer review" part happens and then, if you like, I can provide you with some more general orientation as to how this place works. Please reply here, just below, to keep the discussion in one place. Thanks! 19:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Response

Hi Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Not sure if this is the right place to respond to this - but anyways. My name is Peter Dolkens - quite clearly visible from my username. I'm a Solution Architect for a company that builds booking/participation software for governing bodies, as can be seen referenced on my:

GitHub: https://github.com/dolkensp/
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/peterdolkens/

Definitely not related in any ways to OPNSense.

I stumbled across the page in question months ago while setting up my pfSense router again, and checking if there were any current competitors in the market. I found it strange that the wiki page failed to list the biggest competitor in the market, so updated it accordingly (one of my first, if not my first edits on wiki), only to be confronted by a few users (I forget who at this stage) who seemed strongly opposed to the OPNSense software being listed, despite many other projects (including defunct projects such as m00nwall I think it was, who now referenced OPNSense) being listed happily on the page.

At this point, I can't even remember what the original page was, and have no affiliation with OPNSense, or any company associated with them - I was simply someone conducting research, and updating the community corpus as such. At the time, I did my best to bring the article to the attention of various wiki editors - as I honestly have no idea how wiki works, so I did my best to raise my concerns that the editors in question seemed to have a conflict of interest.

I'd also like to point out that I followed the existing template when adding OPNSense to the list of router software - any claims that I was "promoting" one particular product over the others is ... difficult to reconcile, when I was trying to match content that was already on that page.

The funniest part was - after my research, I decided to set my router up with pfSense again, instead of OPNSense, or any of the other competitors - but I felt it important that they were still listed, as they were perhaps the largest/most viable competitor I could find at the time.

It's been almost a year now I'd guess, and it seems you've stumbled across my name due to there still being ongoing conflict in that page, which would suggest I was right at the time to raise my concerns. It seems from your comments, that the wiki COI page has already demonstrated the hostility of the editors I encountered that fateful day back in <insert month here>.

As mentioned, I don't really know how wiki works that well, but if you wish to contact me, or send further questions, I'm happy to answer. I'll be away for Christmas, but will try and remember to check back when we return in the new year.

Peter.dolkens (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT:

I see now Jytdog that you have cleaned up OPNSense and included them in the listicles - Thanks for getting it up to the standard that Wiki requires.

Very hard for a completely new contributor to do something as simple as expanding an existing listicle, when the community starts demanding I clean and publish an entire article up to Wiki standards, when I'm still struggling to even understand the formatting syntax!

Here's hoping that the more active fanbois that were guarding that listicle leave it well alone now.

Peter.dolkens (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for replying! I really appreciate it. Things have more or less settled down which is very happy. I am sorry to have bothered you, and will be happy to answer any questions you have... Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - I was very confused at first when it said you'd sent me something, but couldn't see your name anywhere on my page. I figured out what was going on eventually though :) I added my own notes from months ago to the AfD page, as I'd already gotten into an almost identical dispute as ComputerRick with the same few editors so had a few things to copy/paste. I'd raised a different type requests for admin review back then, as I was very much struggling with understanding the entire Wiki etiquette at the time, but it was clear that there was a very dedicated trio guarding that page aggressively. As a result, I'd just stepped away from the entire discussion - I'd installed pfSense on my router, so was no longer interested in the topic. Thanks for hopefully ending that dispute! Peter.dolkens (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]