The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Userfy to User:Zazpot. --MelanieN (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EOMA-68[edit]

EOMA-68 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is subject to heavy WP:COI editing. I am really struggling to find any sources which meet the required tests of being both reliable and independent. The sources we do have are mainly the company promoting the thing, posts on other wikis by the editor who is the main proponent on Wikipedia, and blogs. I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Guy (Help!) 21:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i've told you already until i'm blue in the face, Guy: there *is* no "company" behind EOMA68. if you actually bothered to do your research into the 5-year history behind the project, you'd know that fact. nevertheless, with all the references having been deleted or justified for deletion in the minds of people whom i can only describe - accurately - as "wikifascists", you're absolutely, absolutely right. as the author and Guardian of the EOMA68 Standard, i SUPPORT the deletion of this article as it is simply taking up too much of my time, and risks bringing the EOMA68 Standard into disrepute due to attempts to do "technical writing by consensus". The discussions *about* the page are far in excess of the length of the actual page, which is totally ridiculous and utterly inappropriate. has the Q-Seven page had this kind of ridiculous vilification, blatant lack of trust and false information entered by SIX separate individuals in the span of under ten days? What about the PC-104 standard? or the 96boards standard? total hypocrisy and violation of Wikipedia's own policy. Therefore i SUPPORT deletion of this page until Wikipedia editors and Administrators start acting with integrity, trust, and plain common sense. Lkcl (talk) 01:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lkcl, please do not call other editors names. See WP:Etiquette. Thanks. zazpot (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
soo.... *i* am not allowed to quotes call other editors names quotes (when in fact i am simply describing a perspective *on* an Administrator's inappropriate behaviour) but that Administrator is permitted to make serious allegations and commit severe breaches of Wikipedia policy, and even states brazenly "i've been here longer than you have"? (i'm referring to JzG's "warning", where he makes several clearly-biased and factually-wrong accusations) Lkcl (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lkcl, please see two wrongs don't make a right. This isn't aimed at you personally: for an editor to call other editors names like "wikifascist" - even if they disagree about editing decisions - is much more offensive than I could turn a blind eye to, regardless of who did it. Had JzG done it, I would have called JzG out on it. Please note that by calling you out on it, I am not defending JzG's edits. I appreciate that feelings were running high in the EOMA68 edits on the evening of 6 September and early morning of 7 September, and I have remarked elsewhere that I found some of JzG's edits that evening regrettable. I feel that both of you made have made some belittling and regrettable remarks to each other. But I am asking you (and everyone here) to turn the other cheek, and put that behind us. Fundamentally, we're all people here. We all have feelings (and those feelings can be hurt). And we're all Wikipedians: we're in this together. So, let's all try to keep cool and treat each other with respect: you, me, JzG, and everyone else who is participating in this discussion. Sound good? It does to me. I really hope we can all do that :)
On a personal note, assuming you are who you say you are with respect to EOMA68, please don't treat any of us on Wikipedia in a way that would make me regret having backed your crowd-funder, even if you do feel wronged. I backed it because it seemed like a project that - from the technology right through to the developers of that technology - was taking a valuable moral stance: a project that respected computer users and wanted to create a solution in which people would not be abused by computer vendors. Abuse can come in many forms, however. Vendor lock-in is one form of abuse, and I appreciate you are trying to solve that; but calling people names or being dismissive of their concerns can also be abusive or at least feel abusive. I have friends who are not Wikipedians, and who backed the crowd-funder for the same reasons I did. We are all following EOMA68 discussions in various places online. I'm sad to say that we are all starting to wonder if we made the right choice. I hope you will take all this in the spirit that I intend it: i.e. not as an attack, but as a desire for mutual respect and understanding, and for calmer discussions. Thanks. zazpot (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
zazpot, i appreciate what you're saying... but it works both ways. i do not expect to be treated with such distrust and enormous disrespect (in direct violation of wikipedia's own policies) such that i feel it is necessary - with good justification - to even use the word "wikifascist" to describe JzG's behaviour. more importantly even than that, simply asking "stop calling people names" when the "names" are in fact an accurate summary and assessment of someone's behaviour has a dangerous side-effect of being denial of their behaviour. thus, by asking me to "stop calling people names" it is in fact endorsement of JzG's completely unacceptable behaviour, in direct violation of what you have just asked me to do! so, on the one hand you are asking me to be "respectful" (when others are not), yet i do not see any evidence of JzG altering his behaviour to be correspondingly respectful. this is an extremely common thing on wikipedia: people with Systems Administrative privileges are "protected" - people are too afraid to call them out, for fear of reprisals (having their accounts terminated, blocked, etc.) so their behaviour is never questioned, even if it is unethical. I have absolutely no such fear: i speak truth, and i do not back down if i see something as being important to bring to people's attention. i have no "vested interest" in Wikipedia, nor any kind of reputation to uphold except that of speaking truth. Lkcl (talk) 23:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lkcl, you say you want to delete the article for two reasons: it is simply taking up too much of my time; and it risks bringing the EOMA68 Standard into disrepute due to attempts to do "technical writing by consensus". I think I can address both those concerns, which I hope will convince you to change your mind to keep. To address the first concern, I would like to point to WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and (again) to WP:COI. That is, you are not required to spend any of your time on the article; and in the long run it would probably be for the best (both for your stress levels, and to alleviate other editors' concerns about WP:COI) if you adopt a hands-off approach to it: maybe check in once a month or something and add a note on its talk page of any inaccuracies you perceive, and other editors will weigh these up and do their best to address them within Wikipedia's guidelines. To address your second concern, I wish to point to WP:NOR, and to my previous point about helping other editors to address inaccuracies in an unrushed manner. Please sleep on these suggestions, which are well-meant, and, if you are amenable to them, please switch your preference to keep. Thank you. zazpot (talk) 10:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
i genuinely appreciate your efforts as well-meaning and well-intentioned, zazpot, but please bear in mind that we did not properly complete the review of COI that i told you was needed (and would be beyond the ability and authority of a single Wikipedia Administrator to resolve). i also simply do not have time to even "check in" on a regular basis on a *talk* page for goodness sake, to correct continuously-false information. six *separate* editors providing easily-demonstrably false factual statements in as little as ten days, man! no, it's much easier for me to place a warning at the top of the standards page on elinux.org, warning people that false information is being added, and false declarations are being made in direct violation of Wikipedia's own policies ("to assume good faith and to trust editors" is the main one that's been violated here). now, i do appreciate your offer to take responsibility for editing the page: however as i've already stated from experience of dealing with three prior separate highly-technical "unusual" pages (this will be the fourth) i have absolutely no confidence from the 100% *FAILING* track record of wikipedia's "multi-editor" approach to produce informative (and technically factually accurate) articles. three of those articles i was entirely independent: they *still* resulted in what can only be described as "wikifascist behaviour" (defined as the "hypocritical, reactionary application of wikipedia rules with blatant and unethical disregard for the harm caused"). anyway - again, i'm taking up far too much time here, i have over 2,000 people relying on me to deliver on my promises to them. Lkcl (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have been a (German) Wikipedia editor since 2004, and I have just started to improve this article about an admittedly young subject. Unfortunately, my edits were reverted citing WP:COI although I have no conflict of interest. Why can Guy not wait for this article to evolve? Please do not disturb. --Thüringer ☼ (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The COI edits were made before the change you made, and were substantial. However, the sources you added still were not reliable and independent. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, your definition of COI seems to include everybody with the slightest bit of knowledge on the article's subject. Your definition might be reasonable for political or profit-oriented subjects, but this one is neither. --Thüringer (talk) 23:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
he hasn't bothered to look up the history of the project, Thuringer. this is hardly surprising as it's only just come to prominence with the Crowdfunding campaign, but that's no excuse. anyway: just keeping the page from containing factually plain wrong statements is taking up far too much of my time: the simplest thing to do is walk away from Wikipedia, and to protect the standard and not have it brought into disrepute the simplest thing is to support the page deletion. Lkcl (talk) 01:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The features that make EOMA68 notable are not able to withstand controversy because there are too few secondary sources. Instead of limiting the article to technical details that don’t need to be on Wikipedia, we should delete it for now IMHO. Pelzflorian (talk) 06:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added more secondary sources now. Some of them are not in English because this standardization effort (which started 5 years ago) has received international media coverage. --Thüringer ☼ (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thüringer, per WP:AFDFORMAT, please can you clarify whether your preferred resolution is "Keep", "Delete", or something else? I guess, from your "do not disturb" comment above, that your preference is "Keep", but I would be grateful if you could confirm that here. Thanks! zazpot (talk) 09:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thüringer’s and Zazpot’s arguments convinced me that there indeed are sufficient reliable sources to keep the article due to media coverage. I’d like to see reliable sources for it being an open standard (CC-BY-SA does not mean open standard; there could be patents) but the article does not need these to remain. Pelzflorian (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pelzflorian, you were one of the people who made factually-false edits. you should have consulted with me before making the factually-false edits that you made. regarding patents: if you'd *asked* me - or did even the smallest amount of research into my background - you'd *know* that it's a genuinely open standard. i'm a SOFTWARE LIBRE DEVELOPER. do you know what that means? it means we DON'T LIKE patents! for safety reasons i had to research this, to find a way.. why am i even spending time talking about this?? Lkcl (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the false claim (on the COI noticeboard; I never edited the EOMA68 article) that you added the “designed for reducing e-waste”. I am sorry for that; I mixed up who did what and blamed you wrongfully. As to being an open standard, Wikipedia is more about verifiability than about mere truth. Since you have researched and IIRC posted about patents somewhere, it would be helpful to know why/if you believe noone else has patents on interfaces used by EOMA68 (because of the age of these interface standards?). I am not familiar enough with patent law, but I believe an explicit disclaimer of any patent rights you may have (even if you do not have any) also is legally safer than relying on your mere claim that you have no such patent rights. Please correct me if I’m wrong; IANAL and I do not know how to disclaim. Pelzflorian (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. There is no need to hurry; not having enough time for work on EOMA68 is much more harmful to EOMA68 than incomplete Wikipedia articles and false claims on Wikipedia. Pelzflorian (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pelzflorian, that's great! As for whether EOMA68 is an open standard, and whether its Wikipedia article should comment on that, I agree this is worth addressing. Let's do that here. Thanks :) zazpot (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(If you wish, you may disagree that some of these are reliable or independent sources. But in order to justify removing the article for failing WP:GNG, you would have to demonstrate consensus among Wikipedians that no more than one of them is a reliable and independent source, and I doubt that such a consensus will emerge.)
Additionally, numerous Wikipedians have invested time into improving the article and addressing the WP:COI concern. It would be a pity for Wikipedia to lose that effort.
As for the WP:TOOSOON claim, I think this is amply rebutted by Wikipedia:Don't_demolish_the_house_while_it's_still_being_built. zazpot (talk) 09:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
they've *NOT* addressed the COI concerns at all! the "review" comprised an accusation that i'm an employee of a non-existent corporation, Zazpot! the "improvements" comprised reversion of factually-correct very specifically technically-worded information with factually false statements. to continue to have this page even exist serves one and only one purpose: as a demonstration and case study of how experienced Wikipedians (with no technical knowledge of a new subject) should *NOT* approach a technically-complex new topic. ever. Lkcl (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
also, JzG and a couple of other experienced Wikipedia editors have already noted that *all* of the news articles listed are... what's the phrase... "unreliable" sources. you can review a full list of all the "unreliable" sources here - i maintained a complete list as i could find them: http://rhombus-tech.net/crowdsupply/#articles_online - there's 64 of them which will need to be reviewed (that's just the ones that i could find or had been made aware of). None of these "matter" because they're *all* "unreliable sources" - many of them are done by experienced technical journalists, or by people who are respected in the technical journalism world... but because the technical journalism world is small e.g. compared to "The Guardian Newspaper" every single one of them can be disregarded. The Radio Shows - they're covering 200 stations across the U.S. but they're *talk* shows where i was featured. I'm fairly certain - without checking if it's correct - that someone knows a "rule" on wikipedia which says "if you're talking about your own stuff on a live radio talk show it's to be considered unreliable therefore is not notable". soo... after every single "not-notable" source is removed, we're left with articles which *only i* have written, because this is at an early phase of the standard's history and development. thus we may logically conclude that the entire article is "not reliable" and thus should be DELETED. it's too early, basically, Zazpot. i've taken a copy (snapshot) of the article at its best (before the cluster**** of factually-inaccurate editing began), put it on the elinux.org "talk" section so that it can be maintained there, so people's work is at least preserved, but right now it's best that this serve as a case study in how long-serving senior Wikipedia Editors and Adminstrators should *not* interact with long-serving technical experts (in their field). Lkcl (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! cool - thank you, i didn't realise there was an italian tom's hardware article. make that 65 "unreliable" sources. added it to the ikiwiki on rhombus-tech - thanks for alerting me to it. Lkcl (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of deleting the article I suggest keeping it small and limited to verifiable facts. I believe the media coverage Zazpot and Thüringer cite justifies notability and provides enough reason for this article to exist. False claims may appear from time to time, but deletion is not a good way for Wikipedia to resolve that (whether deletion would be good for EOMA68 does not matter here). Pelzflorian (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Don't_demolish_the_house_while_it's_still_being_built addresses only the promotion allegations, not the lack of notability IMHO. Pelzflorian (talk) 12:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
i wasn't the one that created the page, msjapan. i'm on record as being extremely alarmed when i heard that the page was being created, as i am keenly aware that Wikipedia has a long-standing track record of failing to accurately reflect the state of highly-technical subjects. i therefore stepped in to ensure that neither EOMA68 nor Wikipedia were brought into disrepute by well-intentioned people putting up false and misleading statements. those efforts have been interfered with, in ways that clearly violate Wikipedia policies. Lkcl (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the coverage is mostly about EOMA68 being announced. Is that insufficient for notability? People may look up EOMA68 on Wikipedia to find out what it is about from a hopefully neutral source. Wikipedia could say that it is a proposed standard for plug-in computer cards. Pelzflorian (talk) 07:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
i've had to add a warning at the top of the elinux.org page because of the amount of misleading information. the EOMA68 page's very first paragraph contains no less than SEVEN false and misleading statements. that's a staggering (likely unprecedented) level of inaccuracy for something that's supposed to be "a place where people find information from neutral sources". Lkcl (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is insufficient, either on the grounds of Wikipedia is not for promotion, or existence is not notability, and frankly, it doesn't really meet the general notability guideline either. MSJapan (talk) 03:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You convinced me. Thank you. Existence is not notability/Continued coverage applies; media coverage was only temporary and lasting significance cannot yet be determined. Regardless of the general notability guidelines, it seems we really should delete this article. I do think it can be revived after release and more coverage though (not from a snapshot; we want to preserve its history). Pelzflorian (talk) 06:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pelzflorian, if your preference is for the article's history to be preserved so that it can be resurrected in future with its history intact, you might prefer to vote "Userfy" instead of "Delete"? Your vote is completely up to you, of course, but I thought this would be worth mentioning in case you weren't aware of the "Userfy" option. I would be happy for the article to be userfied to my namespace if a consensus emerges for "Userfy". zazpot (talk) 13:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ah! didn't know about the userify option, yeah that's a good idea, plus, also, you appear to be a sensible person who both listens to and can write statements that contain consistent logical reasoning, so i'd trust you to... what's the word... be a "curator" of the article on a user-page. Lkcl (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
thanks john, appreciate the heads-up. Lkcl (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
it's not a computer card standard! ye gods how many times does it have to be said when the page is right there on elinux.org! i'm actually going to have to add a FAQ entry to deal with this. i appreciate that you've pointed out this really interesting historical observation, but please for goodness sake read the standard! Lkcl (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to me it seems like it is *also* (not only) a computer card standard. Either way, being first does not mean it warrants its own article just yet. In the future it most likely will IMHO, so it seems best to userfy. Note that notability means fulfilling Wikipedia’s notability policy – if this discussion were about perceived importance, I would not switch sides all the time ;) . Pelzflorian (talk) 10:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More