• Planned presidential transition of Donald Trump (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An IP editor representing themselves to be a security officer with the Trump transition committee has requested the street address of the Trump transition office be deleted from the article due to safety concerns. I have opened a RfC here to resolve the question. LavaBaron ( talk) 21:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

AFAIK, that goes right to Oversight. MSJapan ( talk) 06:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• Visual TimeAnalyzer (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Security Task Manager (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Waitingwonder2 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm way out of my comfort zone reading about software, but I was slightly struck by the tone of Security Task Manager and see that it was created by a user with few edits who also created Visual TimeAnalyzer; both of these programs were developed by Neuber Software (our article about this company was deleted at AfD, and apparently had some spam problems: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neuber Software GmbH). Could someone more au fait with this kind of thing than I please take a look? Josh Milburn ( talk) 02:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Stale account - the articles were created in 2010, and the user hasn't been back since. Did some digging, found nothing, AfDed both of them. MSJapan ( talk) 04:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Articles deleted at AFD. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 08:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Markus Rothkranz (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Boskit190 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Xandyxyz ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - his sock
• Checkiloo ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This article was under scrutiny at COIN archive 101§Xandyxyz (undisclosed paid editing). An editor in the case named Xandyxyz was indeffed as a sock of Boskit190. Now an SPA is at work on some rather odd edits. By the way this is the second time today I've been working on something that bears a connection to Orangemoody. - Brianhe ( talk) 22:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I've mentioned this at FT/N. - Roxy the dog™ bark 08:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

... And it has vanished. - Roxy the dog™ bark 10:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Green Party of England and Wales leadership election, 2016 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• RogerGLewis ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Some input from other editors would be appreciated in this case. The question concerns what endorsements to list for the Green Party leadership election. User:RogerGLewis has added various endorsers for one candidate, David Malone, but describes a relationship with Malone's campaign on the Talk page. I have twice removed the material as I felt the endorsements were not notable and insufficiently supported. Is there a COI issue here? And, irrespective, what endorsements should be listed? Bondegezou ( talk) 15:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Personally in a situation like this I go with 'Is the endorser notable?' as an easy cut-off. Basically, do they have a wikipedia biography. Otherwise you just end up with a list as long as your arm with non-notable endorsements. The question of 'should endorsements be listed' is a content discussion for the article talkpage really. As assuming the facts can be reliably sourced, it is rarely going to be a controversial addition. Someone working for a candidate insisting on including *ALL* their endorsements in order to engage in candidate puffery would be an issue, but absent a discussion saying not to... Only in death does duty end ( talk) 16:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Bondegezou Only in death does duty end Regarding Lists and notability I feel these references are worth applying as a test. ^[1] Notability[edit] While it is best to re-establish notability within the list, it is not always necessary. Some lists are notable because the topic itself is notable. If the topic is notable then a list dealing with the topic is notable and vice versa. the opposite is ^[2]

if a topic does not meet the notability guideline, then a list on the topic is also not notable.

For more complex lists where there is a qualifier, such as List of birds of Canada and the United States other factors come into play. ^{[3] [4]} It is clear that a wikipedia article on the subjects of the list is not necessary where the subject is noteable in itself and deserves an article here there is no challenge to the notability of the article. For lists containing entries not suitable for articles in themselves their belonging to a sub set of a notebale group or article is sufficient for inclusion in a list. This suggests that the Wiki Article on the persons involved is not the only criteraia to apply, if applied at all and common sense is cautioned. The title is not expected to contain a complete description of the list's subject. Many lists are not intended to contain every possible member, but this does not need to be explained in the title itself. For example, the correct choice is List of people from the Isle of Wight, not List of people who were born on or strongly associated with the Isle of Wight and about whom Wikipedia has an article. Instead, the detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead, and a reasonably concise title should be chosen for the list. Best practice is usually to avoid words like notable, famous, noted, prominent, etc. in the title of a list article. Similarly, avoid titles like List of all Xs. ^{[5] [6] [7]} A leader to the list stating criteria is what is advised in all of the souces of guidance wikipedia offers. ^[8] I think you failed to give due weight in your reasoning to this aspect of Only in death does duty end opinion Bondegezou ´´ assuming the facts can be reliably sourced, it is rarely going to be a controversial addition. Someone working for a candidate insisting on including *ALL* their endorsements in order to engage in candidate puffery would be an issue, but absent a discussion saying not to... Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

On Common sense see here. Common selection criteria[edit] As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, only certain types of list should be exhaustive. Criteria for inclusion should thus factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence. For example, all known species within a taxonomic family are relevant enough to include in a list of them; but List of Norwegian musicians would not be encyclopedically useful if it indiscriminately included every garage band mentioned in a local Norwegian newspaper. While notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject, it may be too stringent for narrower lists; one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles, so common sense is required in establishing criteria for a list. Avoid red-linking list entries that are not likely to have their own article soon or ever. ^{[9] [10]} RogerGLewis ( talk) 08:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC) RogerGLewis ( talk) 09:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC) Thanks.

All the endorsements added by User:RogerGLewis are individuals who do not have Wikipedia pages of their own. Most of the other endorsements listed in the article are individuals with their own Wikipedia pages (with a few exceptions discussed on the Talk page, which I wouldn't contest the removal of). I have explained my reasoning, along the same lines of yours, on the Talk page, but RogerGLewis has repeatedly re-added material and so I've left the article with those endorsements in until getting more people involved in the discussion.

I'm not that clear as to what RogerGLewis's involvement with the Malone campaign is (you can see his description on the Talk page), but he argues that he should not be picked out for it (see User_talk:RogerGLewis#Notice_of_Conflict_of_interest_noticeboard_discussion). Further opinions on that question also welcome. Bondegezou ( talk) 16:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

RogerGLewis is making a lot more edits to the article now. Input to aid this editor contribute most helpfully would be much appreciated. I am concerned about WP:NPOV and WP:RS as well as WP:COI. The editor is, shall we say, unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies. Bondegezou ( talk) 20:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I would greatly appreciate some further input regarding noteable endorsements, I have made my arguments on the Talk page and clearly :Bondegezou and i can not agree what is noteable with respect to seniority within the green party. Regarding what position an official of the party must hold to be considered noteable in a bottom up party with high democratic ideals Local Party Chairs are notebale and influential in the party more so than in other parties. The Wikipedia Page argument is in my opinion not strong enough to hold as an absolute Ian fraser is an award winning Journalist and Broadcaster for instance and does not have a Wikipedia Page the link to the Glasgow Herald Biog page for Mr Fraser is however clearly indicative of his journalistic standing. I also make the Argument that linking to the original endorsement page for the Bartley/Lucas campaign is an edit made from an untraceable IP address in Bromley, the indiividual endorsements are not supported by independant varifiable sources. I am not saying they are not genuine endorsements but the link offered falls foul of WP:SELFSOURCE Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met: The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities). It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. The article is not based primarily on such sources. These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook.. RogerGLewis ( talk) 14:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Alleging that links to actual endorsements on endorsees twitter and face book acounts and personal blogs is not sufficient evidence of endorsement is In my own opinion creating a double standard and also an un attainable standard given modern communications, sworn Affadavits clearly are not practical, the links provided point to the evidence the evidence is clearly not false. This is a stub article which needed a lot of work. Under the campaign section all that was mentioned was Brexit and the campigns for leadership of other parties nothing of the Green Party Leadership campaign and its issues and discussions. There are several edits I have ffered in that regard which Bondegezou has removed, The Section is very very weak and nothing I have offered actually idicates a preference for other candidates I have stated that I am doing what I can to promote Malone, Ali and Womack as the Green Leadership team, I am not a member of the Green Party I do not have a vote and Isupport David Malone as his economics accords with my own Monetary reform activisim and I have been an advocate of the green policy EC661 since the 2015 Elelection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerGLewis ( talk • contribs) 14:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I would recommend you review and consider WP:V and WP:NPOV, as well as WP:COI. These explain what material should be on Wikipedia and how it should be presented. It would also be valuable if you would respond to the points made by those editors who have joined the discussion and offered the third opinions you asked for. Bondegezou ( talk) 15:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

With respect to all editors involved, I don't see a substantiated COI issue here. This looks like a content dispute which is to be conducted on the article's talkpage. - Brianhe ( talk) 15:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC

Brianhe I acknowledge your input and agree it is a content dispute and I have read the relevant articles on Notability and the cited comparable articles such as the Scottish Indie referendum and Jeb Bushes campaign in 2016. The Green Party is a sui generis case in a sense in that the number of candidates, the voting system and the RON option in STV AV systems are all quite different to other first past the post or single issue campaigns in referenda. Distinguishing the Green PArty of Engalnd and Wales as a specific class of campaign and the make up of the green party itself with co leaders or co deputy leaders and gender balance as well as LGBT inclusion policies with also the Greens of Colour BAME grouping means that each of these contituencies as well as the local party constituencies do have key roles that make party officers noteable.This structure in the US Democratic party would seem lowly given their Hierarchical top down constitutions of old fashioned patriarchal establishment parties. The Green party simply is not like that and one of the campaign questions is it it worth adopting a patrifocal structure to get elected or should Matrifocal and grassroots up ideals prevail as a point of principle. I will endeavour to work out a workable solution and metric with Bondegezou and continue my efforts to improve the article and get it into some sort of balance based upon consensus I have asked other greens interested in Wikipedia to get involved as well, of course electroal reform is a core issue in Green Party politics. RogerGLewis ( talk) 19:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC).

User:Brianhe closed this discussion, but agreed to re-open it on my request.

While there are content disputes, I don't feel the COI issue has been resolved. Specifically, User:RogerGLewis made the followings comments at Talk:Green Party of England and Wales leadership election, 2016, having added a set of endorsements for candidate David Malone:

"Here are the endorsements I have listed I am awaiting a further list from David Malone and crosschecking both his endorsements of deputy leadership candidates and other endorsements he has also recieved" diff

"I am assisting David Malone with his campaign media and there is a legnthy list of other endorsements which i hope to be updating over the next few days." diff

But also said: "I am not a member of the Green party and whilst I support David Malone this is based upon my own area of political involvment [...] With independant endorsements suitably cited it is actually irrelevant whether or not I personally support or am employed by Malone. In fact I am not employed and do not act in any official capacity for Malone but have been doing some social media support for Malone purley on a voluntary and independant basis." diff

The former comments imply an active involvement with a campaign team, a clear conflict of interest, although the last quote may suggest otherwise. Further comments from RogerGLewis have not explained the earlier quotes, but have denied a COI or indeed the validity of the concept. The most detailed are at User_talk:RogerGLewis#Noticeboard_issue. RogerGLewis: what did you mean by the first two quotes? Are you in regular contact with Malone about his campaign?

O wise minds of COIN, input on the content dispute of course welcome, but what do you think of the COI issue? Thanks.

PS: RogerGLewis, please note WP:CANVASS. Bondegezou ( talk) 21:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Bondegezou talk I have spoken to David Malone 3 times since the end of June I have also spoken with Andrew Williams who has been editing on this page we both had a conference call with David at the beginning of the campaign to discuss informally how social media works in the modern political process ( This I have counted in my 3 conversations via Skype ) I have never met David Malone in person and shaken hands let alone broken bread or shared a cup of tea or had a Coffee purchased for me at whatever coffee houses there are in Scarborough.I participate and have done since 2011 in the active and lively comments section of Davids Blog where Davids running was announced other readers there have gone further than me in that they have joined the Green party specifically to vote for him, I do not engage in party political politics and have political opinions which are negative against the illusion of choice democracy that masquerades as real democracy, I have explained this elsewhere but a discourse on my own politics is surely not necessary is this the new inquisition, ( see Ekklesia, for good faith assumptions and also) ^{[1] [2]} I am not formally directed by or allied to the Malone Campaign and have no financial, political or filial interest in the outcome of this Election and therefore no conflict of interest within the Wikipedia definitions and the wider professional and legal definitions of the term. I am a Member of the RICS and have studied Conflicts of interest as they apply to my professional Field of expertise as a past admissions assessor for the RICS membership board I have professional experience of interviewing candidates on their obligations with regard to conflicts of interest. I have also studied Ethics and Jurisprudence as part of my Philosophy studies. I do not have a conflict of interest.Should my editing indicate a possibility of Bias I could understand your continuing questioning on this issue, Andrew Williams sent me an e mail this morning saying he is returning from Hols at the weekend and will sort out the links for the endorsements I have added should they indeed need sorting out?, perhaps you would hold this in abeyance and settle the question of Notability and Source reference with Andrew. I have accepted your explanation on Ekklesia ^[3], and possible connection COI to the Bartley/Lucas campaign in good faith, I see no reason why you will not reciprocate in kind, but that is a matter for you. I respect that you must act according to your own volition. I have exchanged comments on blogs with Clive Lord and I have also posted a series of Blogs on my own blog which I have of course not referred to as it would be improper to do so, I have promoted and engaged in discussion on the Leadership to ensure that Monetary reform and Green Party Manifesto Policy EC661 I blogged about this policy in 2015 ^[4] and have many posts in comments sections on many publications referring to it and explaining its import to Political Economy, I support David Malone as he wishes to expand and explain this part of green policy and that coincides with my own political objectives as informed by my own activism which is unaffiliated to any organisation or other individual although I do identify as a supporter of various campaigns including the Malone Green Party Leadership campaign Supporting a candidate and declaring support does not constitute a conflict of interest, one also realises that ones editing should not be biased and I think it is safe to say there is no indication of Bias in my interventions here whilst I do have concerns that the Article is unbalanced and gives a bias in the Direction of Lucas/Bartley which I am sure they would also be horrified by. With respect to Lists and wikipedia not being one, I expect that David Malone will receive more votes than Natalie Bennet secured to win the leadership in 2012 Bartley and Lucas will similarly get more votes, Williams is likely also to poll a larger number as well Clive Lord Martie Warin and Simon Cross will also I think poll between them more votes than the winning tally from 2012. As the turnout is unlikely to be lower than 2012 and the membership is enlarged to 60,000 and with declared support for Davids Campaign already having been counted in the order of several hundred messages, 5 endorsements hardly count's as a list and as I have said before it is absurd to have an article which suggests that The front runners and other Candidates have no notable endorsements In politics notability must also be in the eye of the beholder, for instance Nigel Farage would not consider an endorsement from Marie Le Penn or Tommy Robinson for instance to be noteable , in a good way at least. No candidate would wish to give the impression of scraping the bottom of the barrel by citing a bloke up the pub , that said he thought the policies of x were mint. I 'have expanded on my reasoning elsewhere regarding the distinguishing features for a sui-generis approach to the extant election. Again I invite you to await input form Andrew when he returns from Hols. Meanwhile shall we do some constructive work on a metric for more Democratic elections for parties like the Greens.I will have a look at the Labour Leadership , UKIP leadership and other STV AV examples and put something up for discussion in the Elections and referenda talk page if you think that is a good idea? RogerGLewis ( talk) 07:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC) Bondegezou ( talk /info/en/?search=User_talk:Andrewdwilliams#Green_Party_of_England_and_Wales_leadership_election.2C_2016 Andrew Williams asked to comment.invited to comment ? RogerGLewis ( talk) 09:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

No comment on the substance of the matter at the moment but can people please stop starting big paragraphs with a space - the Wiki converts this into a very hard to read font and it's painful on the eyes. Timrollpickering ( talk) 12:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

RogerGLewis, thank you for taking the time to answer me. As a minor point, I would echo Timrollpickering's point and suggest you look through some Wikipedia formatting tips because it can be hard to follow what you're saying! I also suggest sticking to one point at a time. Here, on the conflict of interest noticeboard, let's focus on the COI issue. Other issues can be discussed at the article Talk page.

It seems to me that you have some small relationship with the Malone campaign that does constitute a small conflict of interest. COI is often not an all-or-nothing affair, nor is having a small conflict of interest a barrier to contributing. To quote WP:COI: "That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation. It is not a judgment about that person's state of mind or integrity." I hope others more experienced with COI issues can weigh in here with their thoughts.

I do not wish to banish you from the Green Party leadership election article, but I do urge you to read, consider and take to heart WP:COI and to acknowledge that you have some small relationship with a candidate's campaign that does constitute a small conflict of interest. Most people editing the article have no relationship whatsoever with any of the candidates. (Despite your insinuations, I have zero relationship with any of them.) Given the situation, it would be wise, I suggest, for you to tread carefully with the election article. Make use of the {{ request edit}} template as appropriate.

I disagree with certain edits you've made on other grounds, regardless of COI or no COI, and will continue those discussions on the Talk page, and I thank others here for their input on those discussions. However, I note that you are currently pushing content that others have opposed and that, it seems to me, goes against standard practice and policy, and that content promotes Malone's candidacy. Given an attested relationship with Malone's campaign, albeit a small one, that looks questionable to me. Bondegezou ( talk) 17:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Bondegezou ( talk Hi, on the COI I disagree with you I have given full disclosure and do not accept that I have a conflict of interest or that the edits I have made are partial to the Malone Campaign over others, the evidence in the history bears me out on this and I am suprised that you should alledge that. On the Insinuation regarding your ecclesisika edit history, I havenot made an insinuation I asked you out right you stated your position and I accepted it in good faith. I pointed out that Wikipedia policy as I have quoted at legnth advises Good faith. On COI the position of Brianhe ( talk did not change regarding COI , he said there was no evidence of COI, he did agree for you to seek other input on the question to which I have no objection and I have set out my position at legnth and remain happy to make representations to other editors regarding COI, even small COI concerns. There are a number of points I have made regarding the issues that remain unanswered oin the talk page, I look forward to discussing them and i am trying to get other Greens to pitch in to raise the standard. See you at the Article Talk page I look forward to learning from you there, I am the first to admit that my skills in formatting with this platform are rudimentary but I promise to be a good student. RogerGLewis ( talk) 18:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The principle dispute has been your addition and repeated re-addition of 5 endorsements for Malone. You have not added endorsements for any other leadership candidates (except within a revert of my edit). Most of the deputy leader endorsements you have added have been for candidates Malone supports. Many of your other editors have been critical of the rival Lucas/Bartley leadership candidacy. You have added and re-added disputed material that promotes Malone, while having some connection to the Malone campaign. Bondegezou ( talk) 21:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Bondegezou ( talkThe reasson I have undone your edits is fully explained on the talk page and making an entry and re instating it with cogent arguments does not support a conflict of interest argument.Adding endorsements for other candidates is quite equally your responsibility if it is to be mine again this is covered on content and does not go to conflict of interest in any way. On Policy of inclusion and editing on articles which people know about I offer the case of Peter Kropotkins entry on Anarchism in the Encyclopedia Britanica. ^[1]Between 1882 and 1886, in France, Prince Kropotkin, Louise Michel and others were imprisoned.here the authour of the entry refers to himself.

"ANARCHISM (from the Gr. av-, and apxi?, contrary to 

authority), the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government — harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being." Full text of "Peter Kropotkin entry on 'anarchism' from the Encyclopaedia Britannica (eleventh ed.)" ^[2] With respect to my editing on the article I am an Expert observer interested in a policy area of monetary reform in which I am also an Expert, whilst I support and have declared support for David Malone I am not interested in any conflict of interest sense in the outcome of the Green Party Election. Any other arguments as stated here "::With respect to all editors involved, I don't see a substantiated COI issue here. This looks like a content dispute which is to be conducted on the article's talkpage.´´ - Brianhe ( talk) 15:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC . 08:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC) RogerGLewis ( talk)

Resolution

Discussion largely moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:RogerGLewis_editwarring_against_consensus.2C_possible_COI and a resolution has since emerged at Talk:Green_Party_of_England_and_Wales_leadership_election,_2016#Should_the_.27endorsements.27_list_contain_only_notable_endorsements.3F. I suggest closing here. Bondegezou ( talk) 13:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• DataCore Software (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 64.129.87.118 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:58B:100:4B0B:484F:1CD8:FBD1:9E1D ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:58B:100:4B0B:6958:6F7:F5E4:BC21 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 209.60.65.6 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:58B:100:4B0B:BDA4:4EF4:7F7E:D398 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Editingwords16 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Davykamanzi ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - paid editor with incomplete disclosure(s)

These 4 (now 5) IP and IPv6 accounts were created to revert changes on DataCore page and add DataCore references to other pages as well like f.e. Software Defined Storage. One of the IPs confessed on the Talk page he has interest in DataCore while others are pure throwaway ones. NISMO1968 ( talk) 03:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, I think other editors on that page who have an interest in competitors of DataCore should disclose their COI also. Editingwords16 ( talk) 15:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I am dealing with this, per an OTRS request., ticket Ticket#2016081110014741 DGG ( talk ) 21:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I've been reverted once by an anon editor geolocating to the vicinity of corporate offices. More eyes on this article might be needed. – Brianhe ( talk) 21:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I e just added one more IPv6 and one acc reverted you. NISMO1968 ( talk) 17:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The buzzword level in that article is excessive. "Hyper-converged Virtual Storage Area Network"? This turns out to be a real thing, and there's a definition of it at Hyperconverged.org. [5]. There's Convergence 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0, although these are marketing terms, not accepted terminology like RAID levels. There's "The Gorilla Guide to Hyperconverged Infrastructure Implementation Strategies", and a self-published "Hyperconverged Infrastructure for Dummies". The technology is interesting, and could use explanation on Wikipedia. Preferably with diagrams. But this article isn't helping. It's a collection of buzzwords in search of meaning. I put a note on Talk:Storage_area_network asking that someone add a section on that subject. An section or article on the technology with a mention of the vendors (there are others beside DataCore, including Microsoft and VMware [6]) would be appropriate. Basically, these guys are one of at least 13 players selling various new approaches to connecting up disks/flash drives, servers, and virtual machines in large data centers. They didn't originate this stuff and aren't the biggest player. Someone needs to tone the marketing language down a lot. John Nagle ( talk) 07:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

to make things worse most of the content is a definite copy-paste from some marketing bs and pretty much every sentence or claim needs citation source added. IMHO of course! NISMO1968 ( talk) 02:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

A declared paid editor, Davykamanzi, has been at work recently on this article. I have asked him for clarification on his status article-by-article, which doesn't appear to have been disclosed yet in accordance with ToS. - Brianhe ( talk) 21:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Text is getting better obviously but is still peacock language and no reliable sources given. Datacores attempts to push their content to Wikipedia using all possible and impossible transports like sock puppets and paid editors are encouraging at least and best. NISMO1968 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@ Brianhe: Article-by-article disclosure is now available on my talk page. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 21:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@ Davykamanzi: Just so I'm getting this right, your disclosure says this edit to Human was paid? Who was the client/employer? - Brianhe ( talk) 22:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@ Brianhe: Disclosures are available on the talk pages of every article I've done paid editing on. In the case of the Human article, the client went by the name "Goro Goro"; I never got his/her real name. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 20:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@ Davykamanzi:Could you double check what you just said? I see no disclosure at Talk:DataCore Software for instance. - Brianhe ( talk) 23:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@ Brianhe: I've provided disclosure on that page as well now. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 07:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Silver_sulfadiazine (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Doc James ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Despite multiple discussions re perceived bias (see talk page of article) user above is unwilling to compromise by simply placing refs to a Cochrane review outside of lead of article. Same user is a contributor to editorial about Cochrane and Wikipedia. Apparent COI, possible arbitration needed. The majority of the article on this drug is dedicated to a Cochrane study on it at this point. Jackbirdsong ( talk) 16:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes Cochrane is one of the most well respected organizations in medicine. They produce high quality independent systematic reviews and meta analysis.

You are also removing the 2016 review from the journal Burns from the lead. [21]

Instead you are proposing the use of 40 year old primary sources? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS is a very stringent and highly respected content guideline, widely endorsed both internally and externally. Cochrane passes it handily. Editors on a talk page of a medically-related article can't really just agree to locally ignore it - David Gerard ( talk) 01:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

With respect to COI, are you saying because I have spoken at the National Institutes of Health I am not to use NIH resources like pubmed? Or that I spoken at the World Health Organization that I am not to use World Health Organization resources, or that we have a publication pending in the Lancet I am not to use Lancet publications? Sorry that is simply crazy. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Recommend closing this as a meritless claim of CoI against Doc James. Any content issues can be worked out through the usual means including the RfC proposed on article talkpage. - Brianhe ( talk) 01:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

(EC) Possibly a pointer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Evidence based content for medical articles on Wikipedia? ... there's no conflict of interest here that I can see. I've read the article talk page and looked at the edit history. Doc James preference gets my vote; one of the more important things to say about this product might well be that which is said by Cochrane. Given the absence of COI, I suggest this thread now be closed. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 01:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Character theory (media) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi,

I reverted an edit on this page which removed a section referring to a character theory I am noted for. I have been subject to significant cyberbullying and harassment in my occupation as an Internet trolling and cyberstalking expert and I think this page should be semi-protected as the section relating to me has been wiped by many people who breach WP:Civil and WP:COI by doing so. -- Jonathan Bishop ( talk) 15:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@ Jonathanbishop: Can you describe the conflict of interest? - Brianhe ( talk) 16:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I provide services to victims of cyber-bullying, including raising awareness of those who have trolled them. In the past this has included 'PontyTown', 'Urban75' and most recently 'Kiwi Farms' and 'Quackometer'. Immediately following people from those websites have vandalised this page. In terms of Kiwi Farms the actions of the users have included contacting my local newspaper and saying they will mutilate babies in local hospitals. The conflict of interest is there for based on retaliation against me because of those victims I help. The following links highlight the timing for the current vandalism: [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] -- Jonathan Bishop ( talk) 19:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I note that two of the users deleting the content at present are associated with the skeptic movement so is likely that they do not like the fact I am helping highlight the actions of Andrew Lewis of Quackometer, whose worldview they share - User_talk:Ravensfire User_talk:JzG. -- Jonathan Bishop ( talk) 19:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

You just have to look at the reasons given to remove it. They are saying my theory must be removed because there is no independent source, even though there are peer-reviewed sources. That criticism could equally apply to Character theory (media)#Campbell, Fletcher and Greenhill's character theory - mine has been cited more by others than theirs has, proving the removal is malicious and biased because they are applying different rules to my character theory than they are to others on the page. -- Jonathan Bishop ( talk) 20:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I just deleted the other character theories which had sources that related only to articles authored by those who described those character theories. I'm sure this is fine because if mine was deleted for not having independent sources it is fine for these to be deleted for the same reason? -- Jonathan Bishop ( talk) 20:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

There's normally no issue witht hat, though doing so out of obvious spite at your theory being removed is clearly a problem. You'd have been better off suggesting their rmeoval on Talk, where I doubt it would have been especially controversial. Guy ( Help!) 21:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• The main COI here is Jonathan Bishop, who has clearly abused Wikipedia for self-promotion ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Character_theory_(media)&diff=prev&oldid=739867511 is particularly egregious). Apparently - and I knew nothing of this until his comment on my talk page - he has been supporting Angel Garden and Steve Paris, two people who have been on a crusade against skeptic Andy Lewis for years because he oppressed them by taking a while to approve a comment on his blog (yes, really, that does seem to be the root of it). I have never met Lewis. We have a small number of mutual acquaintances, and one mutual friend. That is not a COI in any meaningful sense.

I did remove a number of citations to Bishop's websites all added as far as I can tell by Bishop himself, or by user:DigitalDisconnect, who I strongly suspect is an associate. This was a straightforward janitorial matter. Guy ( Help!) 21:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

So I am not allowed to make allegations but you are? I have no idea who user:DigitalDisconnect is. But if they have done anything that could be considered favourable to me I'm certain according to you Guy it will have broken at least one of Wikipedia's rules -- Jonathan Bishop ( talk) 23:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I assume you are friends with Joshua Conner Moon then? Because I have been exposing him people have turned on me, even going to the trouble of sending death threats to people that know me. If you have gone to the trouble of removing content about me, what reason have you given? Have you removed other content meeting the same description? No you have not, because you have decided to harass and bully me. You should not be editing any form of encyclopedia if you cannot be fair and objective! -- Jonathan Bishop ( talk)

For the avoidance of doubt, I have never communicated in any way shape or form with Jonathan Bishop, my interest in political pluralism (where I have made a few edits) is purely incidental/philosophical DigitalDisconnect ( talk) 13:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanbishop ( talk • contribs) 23:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Admins may also be interested in the deleted history of Jonathan Bishop (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Bishop (3rd nomination) says enough for non-admins to understand the issue. Look at some of the archive COI and spam reports linked at Special:WhatLinksHere/Jonathan Bishop, e.g. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 26 § Jonathan Bishop. Guy ( Help!) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Admins may also be interested to know that Guy is making reference to content that Admins blanked for me as a courtesy. This proves to me that Guy has a vendetta against me and Admins should not take anything he says seriously as he is going against a decision they made previously. -- Jonathan Bishop ( talk) 23:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:Courtesy blanking is merely intended to keep the material from being found in search engines. It is not intended to remove the material from consideration when the historical editing record needs to be publicly considered; administrators fuller forms of redaction when that is the goal. There is nothing inappropriate in referring to courtesy-blanked material in this way. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 00:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The material in this article seems to be covered, better, at Personality type. There's a huge literature on this subject, going back at least to Carl Jung's Psychological Types. I put a note on the talk page suggesting a merge. John Nagle ( talk) 21:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, and all of it sourced to vastly more reliable sources. Guy ( Help!) 22:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Excellent idea! What better way to keep Jonathan Bishop's character theory off Wikipedia than to merge the article into one where his won't be notable enough to be included? You genius you! Pat yourself on the back for targeting me while presenting as objective -- Jonathan Bishop ( talk) 23:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Your logical fallacy is: begging the question. It's not notable enough for this article either, so the merge is irrelevant. Guy ( Help!) 09:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Jonathanbishop, your paranoia is showing. I assume you are friends with Joshua Conner Moon then? On Wikipedia, as everywhere else, the law of holes applies. I had never even heard of Joshua Conner Moon - but looking at your links above, he is just about the last person in the world I would defend. Guy ( Help!) 09:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Update: I had forgotten just how surreal the "harassment" claim against Lewis by Garden and Paris was. It's relevant here because Bishop apparently considers this to be an entirely legitimate claim. As an "expert" in online harassment, he considers Lewis to have harassed and bullied these two. In reality, the shoe is firmly on the other foot. Even knowing that he wanted nothing to do with them, they still turned up at an event where he was speaking, forcing him to leave to avoid a scene. They sued him for libel because he failed to publicise their claims of a victory against a Waldorf school in New Zealand. Now I thought that must be a bit of rhetorical exuberance but in fact the judgment supports the statement absolutely. Their chief source of grievance against lewis is that he did not give them a platform, and then that he made a couple of tetchy comments when they would not stop demanding that he publicise their claims. Bishop considers himself an expert on online harassment. I do not know anybody with any expertise in this who would agree with him that Lewis, rather than Garden and Paris, were the problem here. Note that they fired their legal representatives - this is rarely a good sign. Guy ( Help!) 22:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I removed several cites to Bishop's websites. These sites have in the past claimed to be affiliated with Swansea University. Turns out they aren't. Guy ( Help!) 22:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

And why did you remove them? You removed them because you do not like the fact that I have been helping people recover from cyberbullying from radical skeptics. You have removed them because you claim I have been editing Wikipedia with sockpuppet accounts I have not. You are bullying me and it is you that has WP:COI not me. You are relying on WP:COI to remove mention of me from articles that other people have added me to. You are thus committing WP:Wikihounding by proxy, because you have removed multiple edits because you think they were made by me when they were not but in any case that action still breaches WP:Wikihounding because the intention was still WP:Wikihounding of me, even though it was not me you were WP:Wikihounding! -- Jonathan Bishop ( talk) 02:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

And being a cynical bastard, I think VCHunter ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is very likely a sockpuppet. Guy ( Help!) 22:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

You are harassing me again. In the last month I was cricised for always posting in my real name or when I use "Anonymous" linking to my real name. Now I am being accused of sock-puppetry. Which is it? If people want to abuse me - or send death threats to people who know me as they did last week - they could at least keep a consistent narrative -- Jonathan Bishop ( talk) 23:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I concur with you, Guy. VCHunter's contributions look a lot like he/she/it wishes, fairly singlemindedly, to shoehorn Jonathan Bishop into articles. Rather than flannel and misdirection, Jonathan, you could usefully state one way or another whether VCHunter is one of your accounts. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 01:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

"VCHunter is one of your accounts" - clearly if there is anyone on Wikipedia that does something to my benefit then they must be me because it seems the whole world wants to make me suffer one detriment or another. In fact, no VCHunter is not "one of my accounts." Maybe I should write to my MP and ask them to pass a law to make it illegal for anyone to do anything that might be to my benefit and introduce a defence to any crime that it is fine to do it if the person it is being done to is me. That way no one will edit Wikipedia to refer to any of my work in a positive way because they would so afraid in case they are caught -- Jonathan Bishop ( talk) 16:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

As a matter of standard practice, in cases like this sockpuppets and meatpuppets are generally treated as one anyway. Guy ( Help!) 09:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Jonathanbishop: And why did you remove them? You removed them because you do not like the fact that I have been helping people recover from cyberbullying from radical skeptics. Bullshit. I removed them because I concluded they were WP:REFSPAM. And your comments here have pretty much confirmed it, thanks. I didn't even bother checking the fake institutional affiliation and other problems with them: the fact that crocels is not a WP:RS was enough. Guy ( Help!) 09:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The majority of the sources are primary sources. See Character_theory_(media)#References. Recommending AFD or merge to Personality type. QuackGuru ( talk) 01:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

So where the ones referring to my character theory! The reason they were removed by Guy was out of malice. The fact you are called talk suggests to me you have the same WP:COI which is you want to cause me serious harm because I dared help people who were cyberbullied by Dr Andrew Lewis -- Jonathan Bishop ( talk) 03:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

If these websites are making false claims that they are associated with a University and we can reliably show they are false, then whether they are primary or not isn't as important as the fact that they are unreliable. If they are continuously added to articles, I would suggest blacklisting them as spam, as the intent is to sell an idea using a fraudulent premise to lend credibility to those claims. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

What you fail to realise is it is being claimed I added these references when I did not. Stop accusing me of things you have no proof of. Prove I have made these edits. You cannot because I have not! -- Jonathan Bishop ( talk) 02:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

So you didn't make this edit?? -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 02:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes I made that edit, with my own account. I have not made the edits that Guy claims I have though. I don't think WP:COI applied in that case because I was adding a page to a company that has a separate legal identity from me and I did not try to claim that this system should be seen as above all the other applications listed there. The Q-Methodology community is a close-knit one without the competitiveness seen in other disciplines. Everyone knows each other. -- Jonathan Bishop ( talk) 03:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The COI guidelines cover a wide range of relationships, not merely being the specific legal entity that is invoked. That edit is a clear example of COI, as are the edits where you reinsert material about yourself to articles (and that is true whether or not some other also has a COI.) I suggest that you carefully review the COI guidelines to better understand what is being addressed here. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 03:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I could name to you a Canadian Professor who uses a sockpuppet account to edit his own Wikipedia entry. However, because that professor is not called "Jonathan Bishop" I'm sure what he is doing does not breach WP:COI -- Jonathan Bishop ( talk) 16:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

You are free to review the archives of this noticeboard and see that we do, indeed, find many people in breach of the COI guidelines who among them have a wide variety of names. If you wish to bring up COI concerns on this noticeboard regarding that supposed Canadian professor, I would recommend reviewing the rules at WP:OUTING before doing so. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 17:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I will do, and I will check and the same time whether this conversation falls within WP:OUTING because Guy has tried to claim accounts that are not mine are me. Is there are policy for determining whether an account is a sockpuppet account that runs in parallel to WP:OUTING? If there is I think Guy should have followed this before assuming accounts that are not mine are linked with mine as it is quite clear he has attempted to out accounts that are not mine as if they are -- Jonathan Bishop( talk) 17:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I did what you said Nat Gertler and it was reverted. It seems when others like Guy make allegations about me it is not outing but when I do it is! -- Jonathan Bishop ( talk) 18:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I shall try to be clearer in the future. You should review and follow the rules at WP:OUTING. You claimed that because he had typed a name, that means that he outed himself; I have typed your name several times now, and am not claiming to be you. Any "bobby did it first" excuses are things I would not accept from my school-aged children; don't expect them to be taken seriously here. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 18:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note also while this is a COI/N and we will consider COI issues, the particular issue surrounding those websites isn't dependent on people adding them having a COI. If the website is unreliable it shouldn't be used as a source no matter who adds it. (Now if the website is being added by people with a COI, that may suggest a block of these editors if they keep up at it, but that's just in addition.) Nil Einne ( talk) 04:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The removal of me from Character theory (media) and whatever other pages I was on is in effect WP:Wikihounding by proxy by Guy. Guy thinks all the pages he has removed me from were edited by me using sockpuppets, when this is not the case. He holds a gripe that my professional life has included helping people who have been bullied by people he supports. So even though I did not add myself to all the articles he has removed me form he has broken WP:Wikihounding because he assumed I did and that was why he removed me from them. Either Guy should provide evidence I edited these pages or he should revert all the edits he made in bad faith, contrary to WP:AGF. Guy is the one with the WP:COI not me. It was Guy that removed references to me because of his devotion to Dr Andrew Lewis and other skeptics. Guy has not acted in an objective manner. Guy has systematically removed mentions of me by claiming I am using several sockpuppet accounts that I have not! -- Jonathan Bishop ( talk) 02:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Literally no one here is going to do anything about the material about you/your pet theory being removed from articles when it was sourced to your own website - a site that has in the past falsely claimed association with a University to the point where the University had to cease and desist you, its fringe/non notable material of zero impact. You also insist on claiming harrassment/bullying when no reasonable person would consider it such. To the point where you mightily resemble Garden/Paris. Even should Guy in some fit of mania decide to reinstate the material, I and any number of other editors (who are now aware of it because you have escalated this beyond all necessary reason) would rip it out again with the same justification. You need to do 3 things - learn what a reliable independant secondary source is, find one to support the material you wish added to the article, propose its inclusion on the article talkpage. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 04:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

To help abbreviate a long argument I foresee occurring about five years from now, it's likely that more than just one supporting source will be needed, giving the likelihood that any one source provided will be a borderline phony paper in a cryptovanity journal. E Eng 06:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

It is impossible for me to know which pages referred to me and thus which I was removed from unless I go through each one of Guy's edits. The only pages I knew I was on was the Character theory and Cyberbullying page. You can see from the Cyberbullying page [32] I was removed by Guy saying it was self promotion. It is my view that Guy is saying I am editing with an account I have never used so he can remove any mention that has been made of me on Wikipedia. He is removing content he things I added not because he cares about the integrity of Wikipedia but probably because he wants to get at me because I helped a couple overcome the abuse they suffered by a skeptic whom he knows -- Jonathan Bishop ( talk) 15:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

If you cannot be bothered to actually find the edits that you are apparently complaining about, you should at least take a real look at the one edit you linked to and specified. In the edit summary, Guy is not "saying it was self promotion" as you claim; the edit summary is solely " WP:SELFPUB", which is a comment on the reliability of a source that was linked to in the deleted material, where a document placed on jonathanbishop.com was being used as a reference. It is not a comment on the editor who placed the material. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 16:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

To avoid any doubt, this and your earlier statements means you are explicitly saying that you are not VCHunter ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and DigitalDisconnect ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is that correct? Are you also saying you have not used any other accounts besides Jonathanbishop ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and editing anonymously (without signing in) to edit wikipedia? P.S. I'm not sure if anyone actually thinks your the same editor as DigitalDisconnect, but it's useful to get that out of the way since it appears you are volunteering that. Nil Einne ( talk) 04:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I am saying! -- Jonathan Bishop ( talk) 15:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not Jonathan Bishop, and have never been him either. I do not appreciate my edits being removed from people who assume I am and have a personal vendetta. -- VCHunter ( talk) 15:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

A bit of calm is indicated here. Clearly, Mr. Bishop is a new editor and has no idea how Wikipedia really works. That's not unusual. To Mr. Bishop: what's going on here is this. Wikipedia is very widely read, and many people trying to promote their business, product, or self try to put material into Wikipedia which appears promotional. Wikipedia does not allow this. If it did, it would read like PR Newswire and would be useless. So Wikipedia has defenses against promotion. One of them is this Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. There are regulars here who deal with what looks like promotion, editing articles to achieve more of a neutral point of view backed by reliable sources. Both of those terms have specific meanings on Wikipedia, established after years of argument. See WP:NPOV and WP:RS. There are also policies against editing articles about your own work. See WP:COI. The people who are dealing with your issue here are not harassing you. Most of them have probably never heard of you. It's just a routine part of the Wikipedia process that makes Wikipedia a useful curated encyclopedia rather than a collection of random junk. You might have more success writing for Medium, and like anyone else, you can promote your ideas on Reddit or various blogs. Thanks. John Nagle ( talk) 05:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Either I am a new editor or I use sockpuppets to self-promote - which is it? Any references I have made to my own work with my Jonathan Bishop account are open and transparent. It seems that Wikipedia operates a different conflict of interest policy to the dozen or so professional bodies I am a member of who are more concerned about not acting in a way to other's detriment for oneself, friends or associates. The fact that Guy has acted not in the interests of WP:COI but solely to get at me would breach my professional bodies codes of conduct, even though it seems what he has done to make me suffer a detriment for malicious reasons linked to accounts that are not mine seems to be acceptable under Wikipedia's rules -- Jonathan Bishop ( talk) 17:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Clearly, Mr. Bishop is a new editor...

"No" to the former, since his first edit was in January of 2006. I think ten-and-a-half years is long past the point of calling someone "new".

...and has no idea how Wikipedia really works

No argument there. See his contributions at:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Bishop (2nd nomination) (August 2008)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Bishop (3rd nomination) (Sept 2008)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle of Friends (social network) (Sept 2008)
• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive51#Jonathan_Bishop (August 2008)
• Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_26#Jonathan_Bishop (Sept 2008)
• Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests/Archive_67#Character_theory_.28Media.29_-_Removal_of_content_relating_to_myself (January 2010)
• Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_73#Character_theory_.28Media.29 - (April 2014)

Also informative: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive174#Jane_Davidson

So why do you think your explanation will work this time, as opposed to all the other times it hasn't sunk in? -- Calton | Talk 07:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I think it is time Mr. Bishop was shown the door. His differently-rational assertions of malice as the only possible justification for removing his vanity text is, for me, the clincher. This is not someone who is here to build a great encyclopaedia, it's someone who is here to boost his reputation. Guy ( Help!) 09:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

You removed content produced by accounts that are not mine thinking they are. You are still referring to my "vanity text." I know it might be inconceivable that there are people out there who care what I have to say, but you had no right to unilaterally remove content posted by accounts you believe were connected without first establishing whether those accounts were connected. You cannot prove those accounts are mine so you should not have sought to diminish other's contributions relating to me without proof they were self-promotion. For something to be "self" promotion it has to be done by oneself. They accounts you are claiming are mine are not, therefore it cannot be self-promotion but other-promotion, if that! -- Jonathan Bishop ( talk) 17:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Notes: Yes, Bishop is not a new editor. I should have checked that. AN/I just took a look at this (see WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Guy), decided Bishop was forum-shopping, and sent the problem back here. So we have to deal with it, which means fixing the content problems.

Over at Talk:Personality_type#Proposed_merge, I proposed merging Character theory (media) into Personality Type. One opposed vote comments that this would make a mess of Personality type, which is a high-importance article. They have a point. Looking at the Character theory (media) article again, it seems to combine two unrelated subjects - characters in literature and user behavior in online environments. The main article for the first is Character (arts). That starts with Aristotle and goes forward. It could be expanded a bit, perhaps using the types of characters already listed at Vladimir_Propp. There's no definitive list of literary character types; various sources list from 4 to 16 types. Anyway, the literary angle should be covered at Character (arts). That's a standard topic students are assigned to study, so we need to be clear and mainstream there.

Once the literary angle has been dealt with, user behavior in online situations may deserve mention. There are lots of Wikipedia articles about "users" in various contexts. Not sure where this fits. There's Cyberbullying, which might be relevant. Comment? John Nagle ( talk) 18:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Jonathanbishop Yes, vanity text. Your pet theory which you edit warred to include alongside theories by credentialled academics - it's that edit warring and this argumentation that make it vanity. As to whether there are people who care what you have to say, I have no opinion. All I know is that nobody has written about it on Wikipedia other than you and a couple of your mates. Guy ( Help!) 18:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I just did some work on character roles at Character (arts). There's already an article on character theory: Actant. These articles now cover the literature-related material from Character theory (media). Do we still need that article? Comments? -- John Nagle ( talk) 18:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the Goffman section from Character theory (media), as after inspection I fail to find anything even close to this in Presentation of Self.... You have dealt with Propp. Bartle has its own article. I have added Campbell et al to Online_community#Classification. That being the case, I give you Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Character theory (media). -- Tagishsimon (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Other accounts

In the second AfD, the following editors !voted Keep:

• Cardydwen ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ( WP:SPA)
• Politicool ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Morgsie66 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ( WP:SPA)

I do not think these are socks, but I do think they are associates of Bishop. Politicool, for example, promoted an agenda against a Welsh politician citing Bishop's websites: [33]. Politicool's 11th edit, less than 24h after his first, was a Keep !vote on an AfD for the article on Bishop: [34]. Politicool also made non-NPOV edits including to WP:BLPs citing Bishop, e.g.: [35], [36]. Politicool added Bishop's work to two high profile articles on legislation: [37], [38]. I believe that Politicool and Bishop are associates, and it was Politicool's ref spamming that I found first when reviewing the links to crocels. Guy ( Help!) 09:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• For the record, as a former SPI guy, I did some research on those and agree they are more likely associates, and not likely to be the same person. There is too little meatpuppet on that bone to worry ourselves with it as the amount of real crossover approaches zero. The behavior is the core issue, and I'm beginning to agree with Guy's assessment above. This is starting to look like an issue of WP:NOTHERE, with the unfounded attacks on Guy being a prime example, and his contribs backing that up. I would also like more consideration on simply blacklisting that unreliable website, which would prevent future issues. I think there is valid reason (and likely support) to do so. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
• And consider the most recent edits from VCHunter ( talk · contribs) which cite Bishop: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4. There are more but I stopped at four. Johnuniq ( talk) 11:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

For the record, all I have done is point out that Guy removed content relating to me in order to get at me. Guy motives are not in the spirit of Wikipedia's rules they are malicious towards me because I have helped victims of one of his heros - Dr Andrew Lewis -- Jonathan Bishop ( talk) 17:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• "It seems the whe world wants to make me suffer" -- can we all just go back to ANI and ban this prickly? E Eng 17:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • A ban isn't warranted. I'm debating unilaterally blocking. I'm more interesting in blacklisting the website first, something that would need more support. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

So you are going to ban someone because they have strongly criticised the way they have been intended to be treated by another user? Guy's intentions have not been to act in the interests of Wikipedia but to bully me because my professional life involved helping someone bullied by Dr Andrew Lewis whom he identifies with. Even if this were not the case, the fact is that Guy has removed content placed by accounts that are not mine because he thought they were. He has removed the content of accounts that are not me using allegations of sockpuppetry that he cannot substantiate. Are you saying there is no process for editors to establish accounts are sockpuppets before they unilaterally remove content they believe is self-promotion even though they have no proof the accounts are linked or connected with the person they believe is self-promoting? -- Jonathan Bishop ( talk) 17:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

This is it. And the accounts don't have to be linked to be self-promoting or promoting. They are separate issues. I'm trying to figure out why I shouldn't block you under WP:NOTHERE, particularly when I've read that Swansea says you have no part of their school, and I see you claiming it [39] in more places than your website, which you are trying to use as a source. I'm about at 95% towards blocking you and just being done with it, but wanted to hear why I shouldn't, what you have contributed besides links to your own work. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• NOTE: The editor in question has announced his intention to abandon Wikipedia on my talk page. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 18:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

"Keep your encyclopedia to yourself - it doesn't deserve to be associated with me in any way whatsoever," sayeth the great man. Finally he's getting some clue. E Eng 20:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• • That has no real effect here. People claim they are leaving, then come back all the time. Not saying that he is using it to evade sanction, but it is done regularly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I understand that. I still thought it worth noting in terms of setting expectations of response from him, and pointing to it as it was not where on would normally look for a resignation announcement. He has continued to post to my talk page since. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 19:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you make sure all my domains are permanently blocked so they can never be used ever? Thanks -- Jonathan Bishop ( talk) 19:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• That isn't how it works. We don't just blacklist on your request. I was talking about blacklisting one deceptive website. Any blacklisting will be done per our standard methods, we aren't a jukebox. And for the record, I have NO idea who you, although you seem to think you are pretty darn important. I have no idea if Guy does. This "Wikipedia is out to get me" is a bit of self-aggrandizement. You haven't been treated any different than anyone else doing what you are doing. With all due respect, you need to get over yourself. We have editors who really ARE someone outside of these walls. They get treated the same as everyone else. You aren't a special little snowflake here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

That is not how it works. The sites that Guy removed meet the criteria for WP:RS to at least the same standard as others on that page. I don't want you linking to any of my websites. If some of my content is not good enough for you then from my point of view none of it should be! If I wasn't notable enough for you in 2009 then from my point of view I never should be! Crocels's publications at at the standard of other academic organisations with ISBN numbers and ISSN numbers. If they are not good enough for Wikipedia in 2016 then in my view they never should be! My current CV is equivalent to that of most Associate Professors and start-up entrepreneurs so if I am not good enough for Wikipedia between 2009 and 2016 then I never should be! -- Jonathan Bishop ( talk) 20:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

As a simple matter of fact, no the don't. Not even close. You have provided only one thing of value to Wikipedia: you have alerted me to the fact that IGI Global is a print-on-demand vanity press, which gives me another list of crap sources to clear out. Guy ( Help!) 21:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

You're telling us how "it" works??? E Eng 20:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

So Alexa's 980,616^th ranked website [40] is too good for the 6^th ranked? [41] Okay, got it. If you are leaving before you get blocked, now is a good time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me -- Jonathan Bishop ( talk) 21:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Guy, you know all the material, can you craft a list of topics for a tban at WP:AN, as well as filter out a few choice diffs? I can review and will personally make the proposal there since I'm uninvolved. It would include "in all spaces" but I can sweat the nomenclature, that's what I do. My talk page is fine. A tban at WP:AN is guaranteed to stick whereas a block can be debated or lifted by a single admin. I'm not going to debate any more, it's a fools errand. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Columbo moment

Just one more thing...

• MultimediaGuru ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The plot thickens. Or perhaps congeals would be a better word. Guy ( Help!) 21:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Not seeing the connection at first glance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Lots of cites to Bishop, and blocked for personal attacks after a retaliatory removal of content. Guy ( Help!) 23:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Sanction proposal

Please leave this section for use of admins collecting evidence for presentation. Comment in a section below. Thank you.

Users affected:

• Jonathanbishop ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• VCHunter ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Topic area:

• Online harassment and trolling, broadly construed.
• Any citation to Jonathan Bishop, by name, or through his various websites.

Diffs for Jonathanbishop:

• In mainspace: reinserts self-published material removed by others; retaliatory removal ( WP:POINT). Self-citing: [42].
• WP:ABF when his pet theory is removed: 2014, 2016. Establishes that this is a long-term behaviour.
• See user contributions for evidence of edits suppressed due to outing, in obvious and admitted (see [43]) retaliation.
• WP:NPA: [44] (noting edit summary), [45], [46], [47]

Bishop rarely edits articles at all, at least under his own name and in fact he has come to admin attention only as a result of his spectacularly inappropriate reaction to removal of his name from an article.

Diffs for VCHunter:

• [48], [49], [50], [51], [52] (last 3 are consecutive edits to mainspace, three separate articles, all promoting Bishop), then a hiatus for over a year followed by these first edits in 2010: [53], [54], [55], et. seq. Only two mainspace edits in 2011, this is one: [56]. Another hiatus, first edit back: [57], followed by [58] spamming Bishop's websites, and so on and so on, continuing to his last mainspace edits [59] and [60]

Notes

Oddly enough, I would include the topic of Jonathan Bishop, based on deleted contribs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, sounds good to me. And this will apply completely into the future? -- Jonathan Bishop ( talk) 21:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Should the citations clause be extended to include "and publications"? He does, after all, have several print books on the market, might reasonably have more, and has cited himself on topics beyond trolling (the Robin Hood material.) (Non-admin comment.) -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 22:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Hard to say. Certainly every book by him that I have looked at, turns out to be print-on-demand vanity publishing. The only writing of his that is not in a vanity press which I have found on WP is a single article in a law review. Guy ( Help!) 22:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

For someone that is an objective Wikipedian you've put a lot of effort into monitoring me and investigating articles in which I was mentioned. Seems further evidence of WP:STALK/ WP:Wikihounding to me. Lucky for you the administrators are on your side, but unfortunately for User:VCHunter they are not on theirs, thanks mainly to you. Why do you hate me so much you'd force admin to bring down any other Wikipedian who is not me out of spite? Cheers, Jonathan Bishop ( talk) 23:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Strange man. Having discovered what appears to be a years-long pattern of abuse, of course admins are going to spend time investigating it. Would you rather we simply fired fomr the hip and banninated people? We're expected to do our homework. Guy ( Help!) 08:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Anything that reduces Wikipedia / Wikimedia Foundations's qualified privilege in relation to content produced through its platforms about me does not have my objections -- Jonathan Bishop ( talk) 22:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

You, sir, are a fucking idiot. That is an implicit legal threat, and as any person with even a rudimentary grasp of the facts is well aware, the Wikimedia Foundation has nothing to do with this: we are editing and commenting as individuals. Guy ( Help!) 22:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Guy, don't you think you should be following WP:AGF and WP:Civil? Your attitude suggests to me that you have all along been acting maliciously, even to the point of getting admin to restrict the editing rights of an account which is not mine. I note on User:Dennis_Brown's page he admits he "registered my first account in 2006" - sounds like an admission of WP:Sockpuppet to me. Cheers, 23:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanbishop ( talk • contribs)

WP:NOTSUICIDE. As for Dennis Brown, again you show you don't understand WTF you're talking about. You said you were quitting Wikipedia, so will you please do that? There's zero chance of your being useful here. E Eng 00:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

So in other words what you are saying is that if the rules do not put sysop prerogative in your favour you will ignore those rules so you can claim sysop prerogative is in your favour? -- Jonathan Bishop ( talk) 01:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, just an average editor who despises self-absorbed wannabe pseudoacademic dolts who waste everyone's time and lack the clue to make themselves scarce well after it's clear they've screwed the pooch beyond all redemption. E Eng 01:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

We all look forward to being called internet bullies in your next book. If you send us all copies then at least someone will read it. E Eng 23:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not a book, or at least not yet, just an issue of their magazine [61]. There is a call for papers, so I guess anyone could try submitting one if they are interested. Nil Einne ( talk) 12:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Best to just ignore JB and get this paperwork done so I can file it tomorrow. As I said on my talk page, don't cast pearls before swine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

An admin breaching WP:Civil, whatever next. Cheers, Jonathan Bishop ( talk) 01:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

A clueless self-promoter pretending to take the high ground, whatever next. Cheers, E Eng 01:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a researcher studying conflict resolution online. I've been reading his references. One of his cite authors, Fletcher, et. al., study on-line conflict. See [62]. He himself says he studies online bullying. It may be that we're being had. John Nagle ( talk) 04:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't think, John Nagle, I hadn't anticipated that. E Eng 05:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's particularly likely because the behaviour here doesn't seem particularly at odds with what you see on their website, or for that matter their involvement in the Lewis case. (And before Bishop makes a big deal over this, I'm pretty sure I'd neither heard of the Lewis case nor Lewis himself before yesterday. Actually the only thing I may have heard of is the parents since I live in NZ.) Actually, the fact that they think Lewis is similar to Moon says it all (although this is mostly from what went on here). I did almost say to them that as someone who studies online communities they should understand that even if they were right, when everyone else thinks they're wrong continuing to insist they were right was not likely to achieve anything but I don't think it would have helped. Nil Einne ( talk) 12:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

International Journal of Internet Trolling and Online Participation -- oh my God! E Eng 14:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

That's a real thing, and can be read here: [63]. I put a note on the talk page for Internet trolling about it. John Nagle ( talk) 19:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Published by Bishop, edited by Bishop, with at least two articles per issue written by Bishop. Why, that doesn't look like a vanity journal, at all. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I already noticed the irony. Bbb23 has blocked him for WP:NOTHERE. I can't say for sure, but I'm guessing there is more to the situation than meets the eye, and we can probably shelve this proposal, put it in a sandbox in the unlikely event JB is allowed to come back. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

VCHunter remains unblocked however. Unlike the other accounts where the connection seems less clear and they may simply be meatpuppets, VCHunter does seem fairly suspicious to me. Is there enough evidence for an CU supported SPI? There is a single recent edit from VCHunter which I guess may be enough for a comparison. Nil Einne ( talk) 07:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

As noted above, Bishop is blocked but most of the abusive editing to mainspace was by VCHunter. I think we need to move ahead with the topic ban. Guy ( Help!) 10:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

VCHunter's last edit in article space was on 9 February 2016. Too far in the past to justify a block, per WP:BLOCKDETERRENT. John Nagle ( talk) 16:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Hence I propose a topic ban. Guy ( Help!) 20:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Postscript

Bishop is trying to bleasure ^[1] the Wikimedia Foundation: [64]. Guy ( Help!) 20:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Shocking. As a so-called "expert" in Internet Trolling we shouldn't be surprised that he is good at trolling. Ravensfire ( talk) 20:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

He's also preparing a special editiong of his International Journal of Me, Me, Me, It's All About Me: [65]. Guy ( Help!) 23:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Or maybe he's just inspired by Doofenshmirtz! Ravensfire ( talk) 02:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)