Talk:Hamid Arabnia

Partial Copyedit

I did a partial copyedit. I call to the attention of the distinguished subject that:

1. If he wishes to use material from his website or other published material he must give us a formal license according to WP:COPYRIGHT
2. Our style has some standard points: for example, we do not repeat the title Prof. after its first use, and refeer to people subsequently as either "He" (or "She") or their last name alone. I adjusted that, and will go back and do others.
3. We include a list of awards; for background information we link to an article on the award. We do not include a list of the person who presented the prize--this is the article about Prof. Arabnia, not them. Each award should really be linked to a third party published source--the details will be found there.
4. We do not include external links to organization or journals the person is connected with.
5. We normally do not consider details on invited lectures of conference presentation as important.

However there are some additional elements we do include:

1. We often include a list of the 3 or 4 most cited or otherwise most important papers.
2. We do usually include a list of important previous positions
3. We include if we can at least the basic personal information on place of birth, year of birth (or, optionally, full date) and the institutions from which the academic degrees were obtained together with their year.

We'd be very happy to adjust the material to get it presented accurately, but there is a difference between an encyclopedia article and a biography on a website: I suggest a careful reading of WP:COI. DGG (talk) 05:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Question Are you claiming that if a person is notable, that you can't link to say a faculty page for that person? While I appreciate the advertising issues, if in fact the person is notable and there is a good reference for that "topic" ( person), it would seem to be a service to the reader to link it, as an article about the person is presumed reliable if authored by that person ( the best source is the source). This is really the opposite of many disclosure policies where an autobiography may need to point to a better maintained conflict disclosure list or other stuff. If you are going to take disclosure seriously, or let authors link to their books, it seems to be a service to the reader to provide the ( presumably POV ) links. By the same criteria, it seems beneficial to defend links to derogatory information if you want scholarlship, not superficial fluff. In particular, this author objected to an informal test result related to a SCIGEN submission. Pending its appearance in credible sources, it should be considered for inclusion. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Stubbed

Per WP:BLP, I have stubbed this article as it lacked any WP:RS for the claims made. Here is a link to the previous version. Please only restore text if you add a reference that supports the text (see WP:CITE). Verbal chat 10:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The only problem is that the references weren't inline citations. It had two external links that supported most of the assertations in the article. Remove the info that isn't presented in those links, but do not stub the article.Drew Smith What I've done 11:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, I'd like to see third party WP:RS and starting from a stub will hope reduce the promotional and essay-like nature of the article. Verbal chat 12:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the websites given. And if you take offense at the promotional nature you should fix it yourself instead of stubbing the article and hoping someone else will rewrite it.Drew Smith What I've done 19:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Drew has a good point but also poses a dilemma, Dr. Arabnia has published over 300 reviewed research manuscripts and most are seminal. How to describe w/o sounding like an autobiography? I will note here that his SAM (Security and Management) Conference annually in Las Vegas is considered an "A" hit in academia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.12.164 (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

It is amazing to see the last comment - I have been a student at UGA for 6 years now. This guy is the most student-centered individual at UGA. He has won various teaching awards and also won an award for "... selfless assistance and support to STUDENTS and scholars from all over the world". He is also credit to have secured the largest level of funding to support students at UGA CS. I will gladly disclose my name if need be. In fact, since year 2006, he has received various award certificates from Student Affairs office at UGA (initiated by the students themselves). It is amazing to see such comments about such a wonderful individual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.4.63 (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I am on the editorial board of 2 journals - in 2010 we received 498 paper submissions. We could only accept 102 papers; the rest had to be rejected. I decided to resign from my editorial duties solely becauuse many of us were bombarded with offensive emails from the authors of rejected papers (some of these authors were quite well known)! To make the long story short, some of these unprofessional/anti-social authors of rejected papers, created wiki pages for three members of the editorial board (including one for me) with outright lies about us. The subject of this wiki page is a professor who is on over 40 journal editorial boards and conferences. I assume that the editorial boards that he is affiliated with must have rejected 1000's of papers each year. I bet that the person who posted the unfounded negative comments about him is one of the authors of rejected papers. The best thing is to ignore such anti-social comments from such individuals. 96.32.183.117 (talk) 02:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)MikeS

I am a new wiki user from Georgia (Hooray :) I had three classes with Prof. Arabnia - he was the best professor at UGA. He was extremely helpful and always had time to see students like me (I am a little slow on the Math side). I remember that a bunch of us lobbied to the department to move his class from 8;00am session to some other more convenient time. We were told that his classes are scheduled at 8:00am sessions because of his popularity among students (otherwise his classes would fill up as soon as students can register). Despite of this (8:00am period which is the least popular) the administration still have to overflow his classes. He is the best and most gentle professor I have had. Also, he is the editor of various computer science journals; many science reporters consult with him before they publish their reports (I have witnessed two cases of this). 00:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

To add a data point: I checked the claim of 300 publications. Here is a link to a search for his publications that does total nearly 300 BUT the number is considerably bulked up by entries that are names of conference proceedings, not actual papers. His CV linked from his home page lists a more plausible 114 refereed publications, respectable but not extraordinary. And 172 editorships. There is definitely something strange about a CV like that; I won't speculate as to what is going on but a claim of 300 publications is suspect enough to doubt the reliability of the rest of the original article absent verifiable references. Stubbing and questioning notability is justified.Philip Machanick (talk) 06:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, this makes me more suspicious of unsigned comments above.Philip Machanick (talk) 06:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

Notability (Summary)

(Personal attack removed)

Usually academic standards are much higher. Wikipedia is not snopes, does not have to signal a scammer, if that's the case. 300 publications (?) and 1000 citations on Google Scholar, and editor of a 0.8 IF paper are definitely not enough for an high profile individual (Wikipedia:Who_is_a_low-profile_individual) Raghnar (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

The page is already proposed for deletion, you need an editor to make up the decision Raghnar (talk) 08:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't delete the links to the conference proceedings

Arabnia's notability derives primarily from the publicity around the many conferences he started, as well as the enormous number of spam e-mails that those conferences produce. The vast majority of researchers that have heard of Arabnia know of his name through his involvement in these conferences and spam e-mail. Delete the reference to these conferences, and there would be no justification for keeping for this article. MvH (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)MvH

First and foremost, you should stop accusing me (or any other editor) as to who I am (this is in reference to your comment on the history page for the article). Second, based on your comment above, you have decided to do the unjust edit which is clearly disinformation to the page because you had received "spam". I have organized one session for one of the conferences (2013) and I know for a fact that the email list being used includes only subscribers as well as email addresses of authors who had submitted papers in the past to the tracks (authors of accepted papers as well as rejected papers) and also those who have attended the meetings. Now, if someone's email address is included into the list mistakenly, there is an unsubscribe/opt-out link that appears in the announcement. Another possibility is that the announcements are also sent to other listservs - many moderators and owners of these listservs decide to post them - this means that subscribers of these third-party listservs would also receive such announcements but that is the decision of the listserv moderators. I know that I receive on a daily basis conference announcements from IEEE, ACM, IMACS, SIAM, ... I also receive announcements from National Science Foundation, CRA, DoE and others on a weekly basis. I may have subscribed to many of them (but I do not know or even remember for sure). Based on your logic, we should identify the program chairs, PC chairs, ... and then change their wiki bio pages to reflect this! In addition, the congress that you are referring to has various focused sessions/tracks/workshops (in 2013, I had one) each is organized by the person who proposed the session (I was one - I had my own committee). It is simply wrong to change someone's bio on wiki because you received unwanted email announcement from a workshop/conference that that person is affiliated with. In terms of my real identity (and this is in reference to your comment accusing me that I am Hamid): I have no problem providing you with my cell phone number if you do the same. Wish you best. Vivek-jones (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we'll agree. I propose to escalate this (i.e. to let an administrator take a look at this). MvH (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)MvH

Is this the extend of your discussion? You should know that the subject is a the biography of a living person. Yes, I would like a wiki administrator to help. Meanwhile, your edits to the page should not appear till we discuss the issue with a wiki admin. Vivek-jones (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't respond because you were going off topic. All I wrote on the main page is fact supported by citations. What I reported is definitely relevant if this page is to exist. This type of stuff does not happen to reputable scientists, but what makes this noteworthy is the sheer quantity of it. If you delete it, there is not enough left to justify a wikipedia page (it's only stub!). MvH (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)MvH

You say "... noteworthy is the sheer quantity of it ...": You do not seem to have read many of the comments posted on this talk page. Arabnia is a victim of cyber harassment. This harasser created 126 web pages to defame the character of the conference and also arabnia (21 of them were randomly selected for investigation and all point to ONE individual). Vivek-jones (talk) 16:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Even if you are right, it is still noteworthy to (a) have so many conference proceedings, and (b) to have so many being delisted. Nothing else on the main page comes close to that in terms of notability. Feel free to add a link on the main page that explains that this action of DBLP is unjustified. But either way, the action itself is certainly of interest. The fact that not everyone agrees with the action of DBLP doesn't make it slanderous to simply mention it. MvH (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)MvH

Lets not forget the larger issue here. Think about all the academic lives that were impacted by the delisting of these proceedings. All that work that went into those publications; which then ended up hurting rather than helping CV's. Regardless of whether that is justified or not, for the many people involved it is certainly noteworthy. MvH (talk) 18:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)MvH

MvH: Good - I do appreciate that you are responding to my concerns but you are selectively responding only to the DBLP (you must not have even read the journal paper that I provided you with which explains the harassment issue.) OK - now as to the DBLP database is concerned: go to: http://dblp.uni-trier.de/ then go to the section on browse conferences/workshops and then click on the letter tabs. Lets take "D". You will find that all the following proceedings were discontinued: DAARC, D-A-CH Security, DaEng, DAGM, DAI, DAISD, DALT, DAMAS, DANTE, too many to list here (probably over 50% of the list of proceedings are no longer included in recent years). Using your logic: you should then identify the chairs of these 1000's of conferences and then add a link to each of the senior editors wiki page stating that their books are no longer included! Why aren't you concerned with the "larger issue" that you raised regarding the many thousands of proceedings that are no longer included in DBLP? Of course, DBLP had to be more selective (higher percentage of journals are included now) but on a monthly basis, DBLP is making decisions as to what they should no longer include into their database - there are just too many publications and so the admins of such databases would have to make such decisions (every year more proceedings will NOT be included). In summary: if you are saying that discontinuing the subsequent year editions of any proceedings or journals in DBLP is noteworthy, then why don't you make a similar issue about the other 1000's of editors? I sincerely would like to know the answer to this. Vivek-jones (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I was also accused of harassment simply for inserting a well-documented and relevant fact, so I'm going to take this with a grain of salt. MvH (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)MvH

I am sorry to hear that. So surely you should understand. Read the journal paper that I provided the link to above. Also, why don't you answer my question above about the subject "In summary: if you are saying that discontinuing the subsequent year editions of any proceedings or journals in DBLP is noteworthy, then why don't you make a similar issue about the other 1000's of editors? I sincerely would like to know the answer to this." I am sorry if I have offended you but I hope that you realize that editing the biography of living persons with selective truth disinformation should not be tolerated and out of many YOU should be championing this (since you were also the victim of harassment). Wish you best. Vivek-jones (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

1000's? That is going to be very time consuming if writing just 1 simple fact is already so hard to do. With so many cases, why don't you help instead of reverting my edit here? MvH (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)MvH

Why don't I help you to identify 1000's of editors and defame their character by posting links on their pages that a subset of their edited books are no longer included in DBLP? You are making my point. My whole argument is that inclusion or not inclusion in such databases should not be part of the biography of any scientist. You are in fact making my point. Vivek-jones (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

MvH: You will need to talk on this "talk" page first. Please read WP:BLP before continuing. If you need practice in how to use Wikipedia please use WP:Sandbox. The journal I refer to meets the criteria for WP:Reliability andWP:Verify whereas your comments do not. If you need practice in using Wikipedia please use: WP:Sandbox. You have made few edits outside of this topic. You clearly meet the criteria for WP:COI. If you are struggling using Wikipedia, please refer to WP:Sandbox. Also, read disinformation . Vivek-jones (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't plan to keep repeating myself: Please forward this to an admin. I posted an undisputed fact, definitely relevant to this page, and supported by citations. That's what WP editors are supposed to do. You are the one who is violating the rules. MvH (talk) 03:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)MvH

But why don't you respond to the main issue raise below (read what disinformation means first and see how you can reply to the main issue raised below which is about the link you had posted): Vivek-jones (talk) 09:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

This is not a personal CV, you don't get to decide what goes in it and what does not. Neither does Diederik Stapel to whom Go to: http://dblp.uni-trier.de/ then go to the section on browse conferences/workshops and then click on the letter tabs. Lets take "D". You will find that all the following proceedings were discontinued: DAARC, D-A-CH Security, DaEng, DAGM, DAI, DAISD, DALT, DAMAS, DANTE, too many to list here (probably over 50% of the list of proceedings are no longer included in recent years). Using your logic: you should then identify the editors of these 1000's of conferences and then add a link to each of the senior editor's wiki page stating that their books are no longer included! There are many thousands of proceedings that are no longer included in DBLP. DBLP had to be more selective (instead higher percentage of journals are included) but on a monthly basis, DBLP is making decisions as to what they should no longer include into their database - there are just too many publications and so the admins of such databases would have to make such decisions (every year more proceedings will NOT be included). In summary: if you are saying that discontinuing the subsequent year editions of any proceedings or journals in DBLP is noteworthy, then why don't you make a similar issue about the other 1000's of editors? I sincerely would like to know the answer to this. Your intentions are clear because after multiple requests, you simply refuse to answer the main question that is directly related to your edits.all of your arguments would equally well apply. I have no personal grudge against Hamid, and I understand that issues have two sides. I'm simply trying to report relevant facts. MvH (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)MvH

Are you OK? I feel that you do not comprehend the issue. See my question above - you have been spending hours on this site but refuse to answer a pointed question that is being posed to you specifically in response to the link you added to the subject of this page. How do you expect me not to conclude your flawed intentions. I give you an example: Prof. Lotfi Zadeh has chaired at least 140 conferences (for your information, he is known as the Father of Fuzzy Logic)- hardly any of the conferences that he chaired are in DBLP. How do you respond to this? Why don't you get into a serious discussion on this page? Please see my comment (09:19, 22 May 2015)and respond to the pointed issue raised (that is DIRECTLY related to the link that you have been trying to add to the bio (cannot be more focused than that). Please reply to the pointed question. Vivek-jones (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

One thing I don't understand is that on the one hand, it's not a big deal (you mention that there are 1000's others (as though that means it's all fine)) but on the other hand it is a big deal (otherwise, why bother reverting my edit?). Perhaps it really isn't a big deal (or perhaps it is?), I'm a bit confused now. I understand that these, how shall we call them, say bottom-quintile conferences, are controversial, but it is nevertheless possible for some of them to have some legitimate purposes. What I don't understand is how it could be so wrong to simply insert a relevant fact; lots of discredited conferences. I don't see how simply writing the facts can be so controversial. It sounds a bit like having an article on Monica Lewinsky that never mentions Clinton. MvH (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)MvH

The issue is not whether the inclusion is a big or not a big deal; it is not relevant. The issue is that a typical academician is on the program, organizing, steering, ... committees and editorial boards of many tens of publishers, conferences, journals, and magazines (this includes probably most full professors in research universities and institutions). Using your logic, one would have to identify what publications of the editors are NOT included in DBLP and point them out in each biography of each subject! This does not make sense. Such information, if posted would be disinformation. In fact, DBLP is not even a citations system nor an indexing system. Due to sheer number of publishers, DBLP (like all other such databases) had to discontinue the inclusion of many publishers (including those proceedings whose chairs included Father of fields). MOST editors/PC members/... publications are NOT in DBLP. May be you should also search each biography subject and find out the specific grant proposals that they had submitted to the likes of NSF, DoE, ... that were not funded (rejected). This would also be factual and is directly relevant to science BUT it would not be appropriate to link them in such people's biography. I hope that I am clarifying my concern to you. Also, read the journal paper that I provided a copy to you - and see that the subject of this page has been a victim of harassment. Because of the above, the editors should be more cautious. In fact, wiki is strongly advising special care for BLP. I sincerely hope that you get the point that I have been trying to make. Vivek-jones (talk) 01:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

You're ignoring the key issue here. Many conferences have no proceedings, or non-refereed proceedings. Those aren't listed in DBLP and those papers don't count as refereed publications. But Worldcomp said it refereed its paper (hence its inclusion in DBLP) but it turned out that it didn't (hence its removal from DBLP). Authors that sent in real papers were duped because they thought their papers would be refereed, but they weren't. Fair or not, either way, the names Arabnia and Worldcomp are now lines in the spam filter; they have become synonymous with sham conference. MvH (talk) 11:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)MvH

Now you are being unreasonable and probably deceptive by posting the above comment. I have refereed papers for worldcomp (in fact many; specific tracks: PDPTA and GCA); my colleagues in the same university also have. I have also had papers rejected by worldcomp too. The 1000's of proceedings that I was referring to in my earlier comments are also refereed proceedings with published books that are no longer included into DBLP. Many (if not most) of IEEE CPS published refereed proceedings are not in DBLP. If you are in academia, then I have to assume that your last comment was posted with deception and misinformation in mind - If you are not in academia, then you just do not know. BUT you can easily check what I am telling is correct - just go to: Go to: http://dblp.uni-trier.de/ then go to the section on browse conferences/workshops and then click on the letter tabs. Lets take "D". You will find that all the following proceedings were discontinued: DAARC, D-A-CH Security, DaEng, DAGM, DAI, DAISD, DALT, DAMAS, DANTE, too many to list here (probably over 50% of the list of proceedings are no longer included in recent years). Using your logic: you should then identify the editors of these 1000's of conferences and then add a link to each of the senior editor's wiki page stating that their books are no longer included! There are many thousands of proceedings that are no longer included in DBLP. Wish you best. Vivek-jones (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the rest of the talk page, it appears that this is not the first controversy here. I've asked an administrator to look at this. I'm OK with whatever they decide. MvH (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)MvH

Let me add a bit more information here. Here is the DBLP policy from https://www.dagstuhl.de/fileadmin/redaktion/Projekte/LZI_DBLP/Meeting_Notes_2012-06-01.pdf I'll copy/past it:

Item 4: Fake conferences

It is discussed how dblp should handle fake conferences or fake journals. A number of dubious venues that are indexed in dblp are inspected. It is discussed that it is hard to distinguish malicious fake venues from good-natured but low-quality venues. There is no reliable index of malicious fake venues known.

Consensus is reached that the new venue application policy will serve as a safety measure against fake venues. dblp should stop indexing a venue whenever malicious practices come to our attention. When in doubt, the venue should be asked to undergo the venue review process.

There was agreement that existing listings even from (by now) well-known fake conferences should not be removed, mainly in order to avoid (legal) confrontations with the people involved. Marcel R. Ackermann remarks that dblp invited Prof. Debora Weber-Wulff to talk on fake conferences at the “computer science and bibliometrics” colloquium series on July 16, 2012 (at Saarland University).

PS. To see what is meant by "(by now) well-known fake conferences" just google "The DBLP Advisory Board decided to discontinue indexing of this conference series". This brings me back to my initial point, Arabnia is well-known precisely because of this controversy. If that's not in this page, then there is no justification for the existence of this page. MvH (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)MvH

Once again, your comments are misleading. Scientists are expected to be data-driven. Just do a google search on "IEEE fake", "ACM fake", "IASTED fake", "Springer fake", Elsevier fake", ... you will see 1000's of web sites claiming many reputable conferences and publishers to be fake with unfounded allegations. In addition, most conferences are no longer included in DBLP. As far as worldcomp is concerned - its mission includes "Providing a unique platform for a diverse community of constituents composed of scholars, researchers, developers, educators, and practitioners. The Congress makes concerted effort to reach out to participants affiliated with diverse entities (such as: universities, institutions, corporations, government agencies, and research centers/labs) from all over the world. The congress also attempts to connect participants from institutions that have teaching as their main mission with those who are affiliated with institutions that have research as their main mission. The congress uses a quota system to achieve its institution and geography diversity objectives." (extracted from their CFPs). This has been an important part of the mission for a decade or more. This also implies that papers submitted from a teaching institution would compete with papers from comparable institutions, ... effectively attempting to give equal chance to investigators who may not have the same level of research funding that tier 1 research institutions have access to. In addition (the following is extracted from their CFPs), it is stated that "Each paper will be peer-reviewed by two experts in the field for originality, significance, clarity, impact, and soundness. In cases of contradictory recommendations, a member of the conference program committee would be charged to make the final decision (accept/reject); often, this would involve seeking help from additional referees. Papers whose authors include a member of the conference program committee will be evaluated using the double-blinded review process. (Essay/philosophical papers will not be refereed but may be considered for discussion/panels)." (extracted from CFPs) - i.e., papers that are of Essay/philosophical are not refereed. I have refereed papers for the congress in the past and will likely continue to do so. I also have had at least one of my own papers rejected by the conference (even after rebuttal, the conference did not change its decision). I should also add that the review process by conferences is quite different when compared to journals. Most conferences cannot use an elaborate plagiarism software, for example (but journals can). As one example, IEEE Xplore (for their conferences) has been excluding (after inclusion) many papers each month; due to plagiarism issues. Should this make IEEE fake? I hope not. I hope that you are not implying that the bios of founders of IEEE, ACM, should have a link stating exclusions from Xplore indexing. How about the current directors of IEEE? Should one go to their bios and write negative statements about them (exclusion of indexing in this or that database)? This would be just wrong and you know it. And it is not relevant. In summary: worldcomp is not a high tier research meeting but it was never founded with this in mind. The congress highly values diversity of mind. I know that worldcomp is not fake. Have a good weekend. Vivek-jones (talk) 01:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

These weren't my comments, they came from what I view as a reliable source. Regarding IEEE, just because a conference is labeled IEEE, that's no guarantee for quality. If a conference sends me an invitation to be an invited speaker in an area of science that I haven't even worked in, then I know it's a bogus conference. Or perhaps it's not as simple as that? I have to admit that your comments sound very sincere. MvH (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)MvH

Thank you for your kind response and I mean it. However, you seem to imply that you have received an invitation to be an INVITED speaker in an area of science that you have not even worked in from the conference that you have issues with (I know you did not say this explicitly, but it is there implicitly)! Can you show any evidence of this (that worldcomp has sent you a note asking you to present an INVITED talk)? On another note - you mention above that "Regarding IEEE, just because a conference is labeled IEEE, that's no guarantee for quality."; I never implied that. The point I was trying to make was that if an IEEE conference (or any other for that matter) is found to be of questionable quality, then should the community of wiki editors identify the PC members, organizing members, IEEE boards, and director of IEEE and then add such negative statements (even if they are based on fact) to their bio wiki sites? Please think of the implications? The impact of such actions would be that no one would any longer offer their professional services to any entity. Once again, I must thank you for your comment. Vivek-jones (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I just was checking the CFPs that I had received more carefully and noticed the list of keynote and invited speakers of the congress in recent years. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY that the congress has been inviting keynote/invited speakers in an unsolicited way. Almost all the keynote and invited speakers are world-renowned scientists (many have their inventions in California museums!) - the following is extracted from the CFP:

I checked my spam folder, indeed, that invitation came from WSEAS, not Worldcomp, I misremembered that. The spam folder "WSEAS" has lines like this: "As you remember we had invited you as Invited Speaker..." whereas the spam folder "Arabnia" (catches about 1 e-mail/day) has lines like this: "You are invited to submit a "LATE BREAKING PAPER", "POSITION PAPER", or ...". MvH (talk) 01:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)MvH

How could one so casually (without even first checking) to indirectly accuse someone on wiki with such allegations? I do appreciate the fact that when alerted you took the time to check and correct your earlier statement and I thank you for that. However, in each of your posts, you add another controversial statement. Example: you are now saying that you received a general CFP (instead of inviting you to deliver a Keynote/Invited talk); there is a big difference between being invited to submit a paper for consideration and being invited to deliver a keynote/Invited talk. As I am typing this, I received two CFPs, one from the mycolleagues listserv and one from IEEE. If you are mistakenly included in the listserv, then there should be a way to unsubscribe/opt-out. I do not wish to unsubscribe because I do want to continue receiving the CFPs. Also, you mention that the announcements are sent to you by Arabnia! Where did you get this information from? Could it be from a track chair? A session organizer? PC members? I never can understand as to why people accuse others so easily. Thank you for checking and correcting your earlier comment. Vivek-jones (talk) 02:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I admit I made a mistake mixing them up, I should have checked my spam folder before writing this. Although "invited to submit a late breaking paper" definitely undermines credibility and is harmful to CV's when applying at good universities, WSEAS e-mail was clearly worse. MvH (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)MvH

In recent past, keynote/tutorial/panel speakers have included: Prof. David A. Patterson (pioneer, architecture, U. of California, Berkeley), Dr. K. Eric Drexler (known as Father of Nanotechnology), Prof. John H. Holland (known as Father of Genetic Algorithms; U. of Michigan), Prof. Ian Foster (known as Father of Grid Computing; U. of Chicago & ANL), Prof. Ruzena Bajcsy (pioneer, VR, U. of California, Berkeley), Prof. Barry Vercoe (Founding member of MIT Media Lab, MIT), Dr. Jim Gettys (known as X-man, developer of X Window System, xhost; OLPC), Prof. John Koza (known as Father of Genetic Programming, Stanford U.), Prof. Brian D. Athey (NIH Program Director, U. of Michigan), Prof. Viktor K. Prasanna (pioneer, U. of Southern California), Dr. Jose L. Munoz (NSF Program Director and Consultant), Prof. Jun Liu (pioneer, Broad Institute of MIT & Harvard U.), Prof. Lotfi A. Zadeh (Father of Fuzzy Logic), Dr. Firouz Naderi (Head, NASA Mars Exploration Program/ 2000-2005 and Associate Director, Project Formulation & Strategy, Jet Propulsion Lab, CalTech/NASA; Director, NASA's JPL Solar System Exploration), Prof. David Lorge Parnas (Fellow of IEEE, ACM, RSC, CAE, GI; Dr.h.c.: ETH Zurich, Prof. Emeritus, McMaster U. and U. of Limerick), Prof. Eugene H. Spafford (Executive Director, CERIAS and Professor, Purdue University), Dr. Sandeep Chatterjee (Vice President & Chief Technology Officer, SourceTrace Systems, Inc.), Prof. Haym Hirsh (Dean, Cornell University - formerly at Rutgers University, New Jersey, USA and former director of Division of Information and Intelligent Systems, National Science Foundation, USA), Dr. Flavio Villanustre (Vice-President, HPCC Systems), Prof. Victor Raskin (Distinguished Professor, Purdue University, USA); Prof. Alfred Inselberg (School of Mathematical Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Israel; Senior Fellow, San Diego Supercomputing Center; Inventor of the multidimensional system of Parallel Coordinates and author of textbook); Prof. H. J. Siegel (Abell Endowed Chair Distinguished Professor of ECE and Professor of CS; Director, CSU Information Science and Technology Center (ISTeC), Colorado State University, Colorado, USA); Prof. Amit Sheth (Fellow of IEEE and LexisNexis Eminent Scholar; Founder/Executive Director, Ohio Center of Excellence in Knowledge-enabled Computing (Kno.e.sis) and Professor of Computer Science, Wright State University, Ohio, USA); Dr. Leonid I. Perlovsky (Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA and School of Engineering and Applied Sciences and Medical School Athinoula Martinos Brain Imaging Center; and The US Air Force Research Lab., USA; CEO, LP Information Technology, USA and Chair of IEEE Task Force on The Mind and Brain; Recipient of John McLucas Award, the highest US Air Force Award for basic research); and many other distinguished speakers." Vivek-jones (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Protection of This Article

This article has been fully protected for five days due to recent edit-warring. Please discuss the inclusion of references and the indexing of conferences and any other issues on this page. Moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard was declined because of the intensity of the edit-warring and because of the complication that the article has been proposed for deletion, which could cause the article to be deleted during moderated discussion. Please be aware that if edit-warring resumes when page protection expires, blocks will probably be necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

To editor Robert McClenon: To editor EdJohnston: I agree to stop making edits to this page. Regardless of what happens with this page, I agree to make no further edits. I am aware that my edit may look like a personal attack but I would like you to know that it is not intended as such, I have no personal grudge against anyone involved. My view is simply that without this information, there is no justification for the existence of this page. I hope you agree with this, but either way, I promise to make no further edits. MvH (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)MvH

To editor Robert McClenon: To editor EdJohnston: Of course, I also agree and have utmost respect for your proposal. Thank you and have a good Sunday. Vivek-jones (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of This Article

Since this article has been fully protected until 28 May, I am asking that the article not be deleted until two days after protection expires, in order to permit editors to improve the article so that it passes verifiability. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I've asked both User:MvH and User:Vivek-jones if they will take a break from this article for five days. If so the protection might be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Per the agreement of User:MvH and User:Vivek-Jones I've lifted the article protection. They have agreed not to edit the article for five days, though they can still participate on Talk. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Newspaper article about online harassment

Less than an hour after adding this information to the article I received an email from Arabnia stating that this addition would be harmful to him and asking for its removal. Given the obvious controversy and WP:BLP issues surrounding this article (e.g. see the recent page protection) I would welcome other neutral opinions, especially on the following questions: Is this newspaper an adequately reliable source for the information I added? Did I accurately summarize the content of the article? If both of the first two answers are yes, should this material be removed anyway per the subject's request? In the meantime I have removed the material from the article (but not hidden it from the history of the article) until it can be properly discussed here. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I too tried but failed to add something to the page that I think is relevant but at the same time also not flattering. One thing I'm wondering about is this: If I had a wiki page, I understand that I wouldn't want every embarrassing fact listed there. So how are editors to decide if something is important enough to be added when it is not flattering? For example, I'm sure Lewinsky doesn't like being reminded of Clinton, but without mentioning Clinton, there would be no justification for the existence of Lewinsky's page. I don't know what the criteria are, so I also can't be sure if my edit should stay or should be removed. I do think though that without this information, there is no justification for the existence of Arabnia's page. Without the controversies, he's simply not sufficiently reputable (e.g. I could find no NSF grants in the NSF award search website, which I think is a must-have for reputable scientists in his area). If you want to save some time it may be best to see what happens with the delete proposal. MvH (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)MvH

The delete proposal is gone (unless someone wants to make a full AfD out of it), and he's the long-term editor-in-chief of a notable journal so I think he has a clear case for notability via WP:PROF#C8 regardless of the inclusion of any other material (which would be my opinion in any AfD). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The journal is not prestigious (see http://spcl.inf.ethz.ch/Publications/Ranking). At our university, professors in CS that don't get NSF grants won't get tenure. The name recognition comes primarily from the controversies. If not mentioned, there's no justification for this page. MvH (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)MvH

There's no point in arguing about it here: either we have an AfD, and discuss it there, or we keep the article. But WP:PROF doesn't require the journal to be prestigious, only well-established. And in my experience the universities that base tenure on grants (an input to the research process, not an output) rather than on quality of publications, or that make them a sine qua non for tenure, are the lesser ones. In any case I have never seen lack of grant funding be used as an argument in an AfD (it's not mentioned in WP:PROF) but I guess there's always a first time. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Though the material about harrassment is well-sourced, it might be WP:UNDUE to include it in such a short article. If we had 20,000 words on Arabnia, maybe a couple of sentences would fit. Still, we should be able to say he is the founder of the WORLDCOMP conferences, assuming a source can be found. EdJohnston (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The undue argument makes sense; the article is at the moment only a stub. MvH (talk) 23:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)MvH

I am not sure my opinion is "neutral" because the so-called controversy about Arabnja was based on a massive slanderous campaign by a persona;l enemy who signed his emails with the names of famous colleagues. The person is at the end of a judicial persecution, evading his punishment. Given the provenance of this "criticism," I doubt it very much that it should even be mentioned in Arabnja's profile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.221.223.178 (talk) 05:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I have attended the conference PDPTA that is part of World Comp for about 15 years. I think World Comp is well run and a valuable contribution to the technical community. Prof. Arabnia goes to great effort to include researchers from all over the world, and World Comp is truly world-wide in attendance -- much more than any other conference I have attended in my 40 years as a professor. It is a REAL conference where I have presented papers, attended the presentations of others, and given tutorials. I have met many influential people there who have attended my tutorial. For example, as a result of my tutorials I have received government research contracts and an industrial R&D contract. I think adding unsupported hateful comments that have negative connotation to anyone's wiki page should not be allowed. H.J. Siegel, Abel Endowed Chair Distinguished Professor of ECE, Colorado State University, USA 105.157.209.81 (talk) 10:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)