Jump to content

User talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 2017

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 2010←Archive 2015Archive 2016Archive 2017Archive 2018Archive 2019Archive 2020

Steamboat Bill, Jr.

Hi, Arthur. I saw your comment endorsing the close of the move request, and I thought you'd want to know that a couple of editors who did not get the result they wanted started an appeal. You may wish to place your comment at the bottom of Wikipedia:Move_review#Steamboat Bill, Jr. with your choice ("Endorse" or "Oppose"). --Tenebrae (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Signature

Thanks for the suggestion, and the provided link. I always used to sign my posts/comments. But I think my signature was broken. Few seconds ago, I tried my signature in sandbox, it worked there. Hopefully, it will keep working. Thanks again :-) usernamekiran (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of List of works of fiction set in 2029 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of works of fiction set in 2029 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of works of fiction set in 2029 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. KAP03Talk • Contributions 16:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

This message has been sent because List of works of fiction set in 2012 has also been nominated for deletion.

Books and Bytes - Issue 20

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 20, November-December 2016
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs)

  • Partner resource expansions
  • New search tool for finding TWL resources
  • #1lib1ref 2017
  • Wikidata Visiting Scholar

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is clearly HughD and that means he was likely violating his block.

Arthur, as I noted before I was suspicious of a series of "Amazon Technologies" based IPs from around the world who happened to show an interest in articles I was editing. I think the latest member of this clan is clearly HughD [[1]]. This whole paragraph reads exactly like the tripe Hugh used to dish out on talk pages. Support inclusion. Thank you for your prodigious research. The sources are reliable. The weight of reliable sources is overwhelming. Our policy of due weight compels inclusion of the noteworthy role of the subject of this article in the noteworthy historical events. The proposed content summarizes reliable sources. Exclusion of the proposed content is grossly non-neutral. [[2]] The same with the extensively hyper linked comments here [[3]]. This IP address just happens to be involved with just two articles and two that I'm recently involved with. Seems odd. Here is the sock investigation from a while back. [[4]] Springee (talk) 12:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Springee: Technically, HughD's block has expired, and I don't think I should block him. Prepare evidence that it is him and (1) he was evading his block and/or (2) that he's violating his restrictions. Then report on WP:ANI or to The Wordsmith. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

ALEC

Hi. I'm reaching out to you since you have been one of the top contributors to American Legislative Exchange Council. There are a number of recent discussions at Talk:American Legislative Exchange Council that could benefit from additional input. You are invited to participate. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention here.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: I had been topic-banned from that subject. In order to avoid being topic-banned again, it's probably best I stay away. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I had forgotten. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

February 18 Wikipedia Day event in DTLA

LA Wikipedia Day Celebration (February 18)

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

Please join us at our Wikipedia Day celebration at the Ace Hotel in downtown Los Angeles on Saturday, February 18, 2017 from 11 am to 5 pm! This event will feature lectures, panel discussions, lightning talks, open space discussions and collaboration, and--most importantly--cake! Please RSVP on the event page if you're thinking of joining us.

I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Common era

Please read epoch (reference date). It says that "epoch" is the start date of an era. "Start of the start" is nonsensical. [You may have fallen for the common misuse of the term epoch as a synonym for era?]. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Footnote to above - interesting to read the disambiguation article epoch: although most uses of the word refer to an instant in time, some (notably geology) use it for a span of time. These tests are set to try us! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah ... the epoch of the epoch known as the Anthropocene was marked by mass confusion... :) Vsmith (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13
Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
  • Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
  • A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't know if you've seen this...

...but AOL is about to close dmoz down, in about a week and a half. :-/ I have not been editing there for a long time, myself, but I have some good memories from that era. Just thought you might like to know, if you didn't already. (As I have not logged in for a while I don't know who else has been active.) Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 23:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. It was announced on the editors' forum only a week before the public announcement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

ANI / TBAN

Hello Arthur Rubin. Some of the editing by @Snooganssnoogans: at ANI appears to fall under your TBAN. I think it would be appropriate for you to strike through your remarks and stand back from that matter entirely. Please consider. SPECIFICO talk 00:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

My politics ban was relaxed to 1RR. If it falls under another ban, that would be different, but I don't see anything mentioned related to that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Congrats. Thought I'd ask. SPECIFICO talk 01:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes

added TheDJ
removed Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
  • The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
  • An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
  • After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

  • After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
  • Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 21

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 21, January-March 2017
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

  • #1lib1ref 2017
  • Wikipedia Library User Group
  • Wikipedia + Libraries at Wikimedia Conference 2017
  • Spotlight: Library Card Platform

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Century articles

With regards to this and this, how do you see the change as an improvement? Your revision leaves an empty section with a see also hatnote, whereas before it had actual text directing the reader. The edit summary isn't particularly enlightening... Thanks, Laurdecl talk 02:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Laurdecl: It should be a hatnote. Directions to the reader should be distinguished from text about the subject. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
But "see also"? Perhaps it should be {{main article}}? The purpose of see also is to direct the reader to a related article, but there isn't even any text in the section. Also, we're not saying that the timeline article is related, we're saying the text is at the timeline article. Laurdecl talk 03:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, {{main}} seems a better choice. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

David Gross

Hello! Could you please check this bizarre edit war: [5], [6], [7]? Would blocking IP edits from editing this article due to vandalism be a good solution? --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Apology

When I wrote them on 1999 and 2001, I didn't notice that in the article 2000, it explains why. I'm sorry, Arthur. I tried to help.

Iamthemostwanted2015 (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)Iamthemostwanted2015 Iamthemostwanted2015 (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).

Administrator changes

added Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim
removed Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

  • Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Reversion of my edit in 2000

Thank you for reverting it. I initially reverted the edit of the user who added that as they removed content but thought that their edit might be worth possibly keeping so I added it back. I did not see the weight initially as invalid (the weight didn't 'click'), a minor oversight on my part that you fixed (and I thank you for that). Thanks for catching that and happy editing! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Come and join us at the Wiknic

LA Meetup: 6th Wiknic, 7/15 @ Pan Pacific Park

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

You are cordially invited to the 6th Los Angeles Wiknic, a part of the nationwide Great American Wiknic. We'll be grilling, getting to know each other better, and building the L.A. Wikipedia community! The event is planned for Pan-Pacific Park and will be held on Saturday, July 15, 2017 from 9:30am to 4pm or so. Please RSVP and volunteer to bring food or drinks if possible!

I hope to see you there! Howcheng (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Invitation to San Diego wiknic and bonfire

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Meetup/San Diego/July 2017 Wiknic . RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

Administrator changes

added Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn
removed ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Change in New Page Reviewer Rights

I don't recall ever having interacted with you but you just changed my rights. I can't read the summary. Could you justify this change? It impacts my ability to do deletion and cleanup because pages I mark for deletion no longer get marked automatically as reviewed. Legacypac (talk) 05:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

That is exactly why I removed the rights...your deletion requests are often inappropriate. If they are not marked reviewed, they are more likely to be reverted by those reviewing. And I found you through the WP:ANI threads. If you want to complain about the change, do it in those threads.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
You are experienced enough to not believe every unsubstantiated allegation you read at ANi. Please show me where my "deletion requests are often inappropriate". [8]. [9] Legacypac (talk) 06:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
So, while the discussion is still running, your have already started hammering him? The Banner talk 16:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
@The Banner: I investigated a number of Legacypac's promotions to mainspace, and most do not meet any reasonable criterion for such promotion. I can't say it's conclusive he's violating the rules, but he admits to actions which create disruption. I would require more time to determine whether a topic ban is appropriate, but it's clear his edits need to be watched. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not taking actions that are disruptive. I am plowing through backlogs in AfC. Your accusation of improper moves might justify me not being autopatrolled, a right I've not sought because I like having my moves to main reviewed and added to projects etc. Here is my move log. [10] If there is really such a problem, you would expect to see a lot more red. Remember in addition to regular NPP everyone who has ever lost a dispute with me is pouring trough my edits looking for issues already. If you believe a specific page is unsuitable, use AfD. Also, I use twinkle which automatically marks pages tagged for deletion as reviewed. If you have an issue with twinkle functionality, my user rights are not the correct venue. Legacypac (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
So you are not sure if there are any policy/guideline violations at all, but you still act against him. Why? The Banner talk 19:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  1. Being disruptive is against policy.
  2. Moving BLP violations (or copyright violations) from draft to mainspace is a violation of WP:BLP or WP:COPYRIGHT; even though the status before is in violation, the status afterwords is worse. My action specifically reduces the damage caused by these moves. Removing the other bit would also help.
  3. It may not be complete, but Legacy had agreed to restrictions (or had restrictions imposed) and then pushed around the edges, demonstrating either WP:GAME or WP:CIR problems.
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
1. say what?
2. No one has shown I've moved a BLP violation to mainspace. Making false allegations like you just made IS against the rules. I missed one copyvio that was caught by someone else. I did not introduce the copyvio I just missed it while checking for any problems. On the flip side I've found copyvio other reviewer missed. So where is there a pattern?
3. What are you talking about? Again broad allegations without proof. Legacypac (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi Arthur, I'm not currently concerned with what's going on at AfC - that's more of DGG's domain - but I believe that on the balance, Legacypac's New Page Reviewing is a net positive; there are a lot of people doing a worse job, and the vast majority of them who asked for the right are not doing any reviewing at all. Also, there is a current issue at which the WMF is not enthusiastic about updating the Page Curation software, based on what they feel is a too-strict interpretation by the community over our work at NPP. This is a major critical issue and I would like to avoid more humiliation for Legacypac by him being dragged into the arguments being used by the Foundation. I move we reinstate the right, but of course the final decision rests with you. I feel we can resolve this here without the background noise of peanuts being munched at AN or ANI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
We are not editing subject to the approval of any particular staff member of the WMF; on the contrary, provided that the overall editing of the enWP falls within the fundamental policy of the foundation, they exist in order to facilitate our work, not the other way round. As I see it, their appropriate role in development of editing tools for use here is to do what is practical to fulfill our reasonable requests. The difficulty here is that in the area under discussion, dealing with with new less-than-satisfactory articles, neither we nor they have yet found any good way to solve the problem. I do not have one myself: I can propose various things that might help, and some of other suggestions might help also, but none of them would come near what is needed. This problem has been here for many years, and for many years we've essentially ignored it because there was nothing much we could do about it. Now that we're trying to face it, our inadequate attempts to solve it are interfering with each other.
It is my personal opinion that none of us ever will--the fundamental principle that anyone can edit is basically incompatible with the requirement of maintaining a quality encyclopedia. At the beginning, this was not visible as a dilemma, for there was no delusion that we were actually trying to make a quality encyclopedia, just to make --or play with making--an encyclopedia of some practical usefulness. Everyone recognized then that, while it might be useful, it would not fulfill the basic requirement of a traditional encyclopedia, of being of sufficient quality to be an authority. That's still the official view--we still object when people treat us as having a higher level of reliability than our methods can actually attain. We are right to object, because our methods cannot really do that and our work is being misused.
Unfortunately, because of our great scope and universal availability, and the deceptive appearance of reliability that our format produces, the public, which does not itself collectively have very high standards of reliability, insists upon treating us as if we were reliable. We have therefore tried over he years to meet the public's expectations. To some extent, this is a good thing to do ; certainly we have o reason for deliberately being unreliable. But we will never come near the goal of quality as long as we have collective amateur editing. We're nearer than I or any of us originally thought, but its not because of our accuracy. Anyone who wants an accurate encyclopedia must work under other methods.
The WMF, like any formal organization, will never be really supportive of uncontrolled work done under its auspices. No person who is really qualified to set policy in a formal organization, is simultaneously ab;e to honestly work on an equal basis in an anarchic environment like that of enWP. Some people can switch modes, but they can't do both simultaneously. The only model for how the professional organization of the WMF can treat us amateurs, is like irresponsible children--to humor us a little, and try hope we grow up enough to become educated and socialized, and teach us discipline without our noticing & resenting it. But most of us are not children, and that sort of pretense does not work with strong-minded and idiosyncratic adults, most of whom are here precisely because they can get away with self-importance they cannot realistically pretend to in more organized environments.
One danger is that the WMF, in trying to improve our standards, will drive away the volunteers. (It will be very hard to drive some of us away, but it's not impossible) Worse, it will also destroy the positive aspects of our values--the spontaneity and experimentation and freedom from consequences that children and adolescents enjoy (as do adults trying to recapture their childhood.) Our values are that we will muddle through, making many errors but finally creating something new and important. To some extent, it's the fundamental value of free culture. Unless it's preserved, there's no reason for there being WP except as a fosile, and no reason for the WMF except to maintain the fossilized remains.
I know I'm not answering the current question: I cannot do that. I do know that most of the attempts to deal with this problem on a large scale have totally failed. I cannot do better--I and many of us here can work adequately with a few articles at a time--nobody can work adequately with hundreds. There are a few people here attempting to singlehandedly deal with it. Legacypac been too reckless in what he accepts, but there There are others reckless in what they remove, including a few very well established admins, who singlehandedly are deleting such drafts in bulk, even though nobody has ever authorized this. They too make multiple errors, in the opposite direction. There have been some whose standards are just erratic. There are some, like perhaps myself, who have focussed excessively on only one aspect, such as promotionalism. There are some who have tried various forms of the X speedy standards and ended up with proposals to delete thousands of articles, almost all of which if examined are found to be acceptable exceptions. Most of us do know that articles and contributors must be dealt with individually and personally; since absolutely nobody has time to do it, some have resorted to harsh impersonality. (I have sometimes been thought willing to discuss and admit error, but I can only do this because most of the people I deal with summarily do not think to complain--if they held me to proper standards I could not meet them.) Knowing I'm fundamentally no better, I have tried not to be intolerant of even those I think downright abusive, nor am I naming them here.
There is a point where someone in trying to help makes more problems than they solve. I think it's wrong to seize on only one example. But that's the way WP works==if there's a problem, we find a victim. If we can do nothing positive ourselves, we judge others. So to respond to Kudpung's posting, the remove of the rights from Legacypac must be reversed. And, since we're on that topic, the same goes for Swister Twister. I thing we must restore NPP and AfC to both of them. I consider the removal obvious excessive zeal, which in turn, makes more problems than it solves. The extent of the discussions at various places is sufficient justification. DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
@DGG:. Although I supported removing Legacypac's rights at ANI as his use is creating disruption, I removed NPP as being improperly granted, as his actions at the time were questionable, and it was only supposed to be granted to those signed up as a NPP who weren't under a cloud. If you think he should have the NPP bit under the current rules, I have no objection to it being regranted while its (the bit's) removal, and other potential sanctions against him, are under discussion at ANI. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
For every argument you have a new accusation. To me it starts to sound like an abuse of powers. The Banner talk 09:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I have restored NPP. Though the discussion there was extremely complicated and involved other editors also, I am not aware there is any ongoing discussion at ANI. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
@DGG: The discussions at ANI, brought by Legacypac, seem to have stalled, without consensus for even warning any of the three editors. As only Newimperial has any idea what he may have been doing wrong, we'll undoubtedly get back to ANI shortly. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I was going about my business when Godsy returned to stalking me. I was satisfied with the block and spoke against further actions against him. Signedzzz hates me because my reports lead to a three month ISIL topic ban and a short term edit warring block last year. Lugnuts hates that I took him to ANi for being uncivil and making false allegations several years ago. Newimpartial's has been told by multiple admins to get out of everywhere he has been commenting around deletion and my actions. BMK called him a "clueless newbie". Remove those 4 editors prolific posts from the ANi and there is precious little left said against me.
In response to alleged improper granting... Swarm made several substantive posts in the ANi and (as far as I can tell) granted NPR shortly afterward. If you disagree with Swarm's grant of rights, take it up with Swarm, don't wheel-war.
While we are looking at failure to admit problems... I understand an WP:INVOLVED Admin who voted in ANi and made unsubstantiated allegations at an editor, should not be revoking a user right against the same editor some hours later. Admins should not sit as prosecutor and judge on the same case.
When I make mistakes I acknowledge and correct. In all aspects of Wikipedia my involvement is getting closer and closer to policy and consensus. I'm one of the good guys here. Legacypac (talk) 20:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Legacypac, among the four editors complaining about your actions, only NewImperial's complaint was withdrawn, after being, well, hounded, by BMK. The other three editors' complaints about your edits have reasonable support, and will be brought up again unless you make changes in your actions. This seems unlikely, as you appear not to understand the complaints. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Arthur, it does begin to look as if you are becoming involved. (As for me, my first impression is that he does make more mistakes than he ought, but it's no worse than average; we can't solve the problem by singling out people this way. NPP is only a preliminary step--it can't be judged by the standards we use at Deletion Review. But I'm going to only discuss the general issue for this--I am not analyzing individuals performances in detail--to do that fairly it is necessary to look at all the work, not the selected worst examples. I have a few of my own I'm not proud about, and I simply don't believe anyone who does much work in the area and things they're immune to even gross error. We could get a higher level of accuracy, if we we able to each of us do one or two a day, & take the time to do a detailed analysis--and a detailed and polite explanation about even the worst submissions. I personally do about 10 an hour, and never for more than an hour, and that's too fast to do it right. ) DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Arthur you have had plenty of opportunity to substantiate your allegation here but have not done so. I'm respectfully request you delete this comment at ANi.[11] If you make any more statements against me at ANi your conduct may be examined at an appropriate venue. Legacypac (talk) 04:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 22

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 22, April-May 2017

  • New and expanded research accounts
  • Global branches update
  • Spotlight: OCLC Partnership
  • Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

DMOZ

I wonder if the community at DMOZ would be interested in joining the Wikimedia Movement? I bet we could get support for such a proposal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

There are multiple factors involved. I can say it's being discussed in the new internal fora, but I don't think the operational models are compatible. The admin team is negotiating with AOL for access to internal DMOZ status not available to the general public, and the "DMOZ contract" may prohibit release of that data to the general public. Also, the COI model is completely different from that mandated here by the Foundation. For example, I would have been permitted to list my own website if I made the connection known to the "meta" editors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
@Doc James: — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
DMOZ content is under a CC BY license so it is movement compatible.
With respect to COI, you can try to list your own website on WP as long as you disclose your relationship aswell. Here on Wikipedia you are allowed to hire someone to write a WP article about you or your business even.
Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Do you recognize this IP?

See User talk:124.106.241.36, who you blocked recently, using the word 'evasion'. Can you say any more? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: The IP is changing "English" to "British" whenever it appears in a description. I think that makes him/her close enough to the editor indef-blocked for doing that to count as block evasion. They share other characteristics, as well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

AN/I

As you participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Proposal: One-way IBAN on Godsy towards Legacypac, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposing IBAN between Godsy and Legacypac. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:DTTR

This kind of templating is wholly inappropriate. As an administrator, you should know that. CassiantoTalk 16:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Cassianto: You realize WP:DTTR is an essay, don't you? I would rather he stop making edits in violation of policy and consensus, and edit-warring to keep them in. I would prefer that he stop editing 2017 unless he can get consensus, but he has violated WP:3RR, and I'll file an WP:AN3 report when I get to my desktop, if I have to. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh Rubin, where to begin. (a) DTTR, (b) INVOLVED (c) a war takes more than one side, did you warn the other editor(s)? (d) the situation was resolved, once again another admin action that's completely unnecessary (e) you clearly misunderstand SEAOFBLUE, there's no need to deliberately link to a redirect there (f) Where did I violate 3RR? Diffs please. Honestly, you should know much better. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, an essay it might be, but it's also worth noting that to adhere to DTTR means you'll be acting with respect towards the other editor of long standing. Something you clearly know nothing about. CassiantoTalk 17:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Leave me alone

Regardless of the outcome of your report and all the other places you've mentioned me, please now leave me alone, I don't want to be pinged by you, I don't want you to talk on my behalf, and if you need an admin action to be conducted, please get someone else to do it. You are not welcome anywhere near me any longer as it's clear to me that you cannot conduct yourself as a neutral admin. There are many other, more able admins who can deal with this kind of thing without all the infractions you've made in the in the past 36 hours. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

About new proposed shapes for Base-16 and Base-256 numerals

Our main idea is to show that newly proposed shape (as evolution of older ideas) is practically applicable and feasible for computer science. Therefore I'd like somehow to stress, that new shapes can represent Base-256 numerals using single and consistent characters. As our idea was reviewed and published in IJCSET, I believe it is not "madeup" and has as much reliable source as ideas proposed by other computer scientists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valdis.vitolins (talk • contribs) 10:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Valdis.vitolins: I may have been wrong to say it is not "reliable", but it seems uninteresting. I left your comment in Hexadecimal; I'll complete moving it to the top along with the previous failed proposal.
If you are Valdis, it's inappropriate for you to add the material, per WP:COI. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Stalking

I see you've now started stalking my edits. I'll add it to the list of admin abuse. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

You have shown lack of understanding of WP:RY; why should I believe you understand categorization? As for specifics: not everything with "Institute" in its name is an institute. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
You're stalking my edits with no good reason. As I said, this is noted and added to the list of your misdemeanours. Abuse of your position as an admin is not to be taken lightly. Please do something constructive instead. As for "lack of understanding of RY", are you therefore stalking the edits of all the other editors who have commented against the current way RY works? Or just me? Are you going to undo your lop-sided admin action at the RY guideline or do we need to report you for that as well? P.S. for clarification "Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport in the UK" is an institute whether you like it or not. That there are more refined categories is not in dispute, but claiming my categorisation to be erroneous is yet another false accusation. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes

added Happyme22 • Dragons flight
removed Zad68

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

  • A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
  • A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
  • Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Apology

Hi Arthur, Apologies for the "lovely" edit summary this afternoon - In short a couple of the editors there had already discussed and argued at length above my RFC and in turn one editor was blocked so I didn't want my RFC going the same way, I have no objections to discussions and debates but I didn't appreciate the RFC going from discussions to what I believe was more or less baiting so I wanted the whole thing hatted so that way they could take their issues somewhere else but regardless of all that I shouldn't of got so pissed off with you so my apologies for that,
Happy editing :), –Davey2010Talk 20:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

21st Century

After reviewing my revision of the article, I found no instance in which I purported false information. Consequently, I will be reverting the article back to the condition in which I left it. However, per your reasonable request, I will provide a credible, external source (via an in-text citation) to substantiate my claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felixkennedy (talk • contribs) 16:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

RE: 21st Century

I apologize for having accidentally referenced the end of the 21st century as taking place on December 31st, 2099 instead of on December 31st, 2100. However, as this was merely a factual mistake and not an intentional attempt to disrupt the article's integrity, it does not constitute vandalism. Moreover, after visiting both of the websites that you've supplied as sources, I cannot locate any instance on either page in which your statement (albeit accurate) is corroborated. I would like to remove those sources and add the source that I presented in my most recent edit of the article. Before doing so, I would like to confer with you so as to avoid any further editing war. Please respond either here or on the article's talk page as soon as possible. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felixkennedy (talk • contribs) 17:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

There are a number of editor IDs (the actual number of editors may be smaller) whose only mainspace edits are changing the range of years of centuries and millennia, sometimes also editing a 2005 version of the article. I apologize for considering you among that set, but introducing factual errors is bad, even when unintentional. See the talk page for further discussion, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Event 2017 on wiki page

Hey why you change took off event I post it about protest in Jerusalem? GAJJR (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Is there a day when there aren't protests in Jerusalem? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Diffs

I'm still waiting for all these diffs where I have purportedly lied about guidelines. I have requested them from you four or five times now. You are supposedly an admin, you should know better. If I don't get them today then I will redact your accusations. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Your lie that WP:RY is not a guideline applicable to 2017 is still present in Talk:2017. If you will strike that, I will strike my comment. If you redact my comment, without redacting ALL your related (that is, following) comments at Talk:2017, I will recommend you be blocked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I didn't ask you to repeat your accusation, I asked for diffs. Five times at least. Now please do that or I will recommend you are desysopped for making unsubstantiated claims and perpetuating lies. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
You can recommend what you want. I cannot easily copy diffs on my smartphone, but, as the text containing the misstatements is still there, unless you want to claim that your statements were edited by others, the evidence is there. Diffs are only necessary for _formal_ complaints. If I recall correctly, I reported that the complaint that you violated your restrictions was bogus -- although your comment on that defense may very well have been a violation of your restrictions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay, you have accused me of being a liar, several times in several places, so we are now formally at the stage where you have made a direct personal attack on me. If you really wish for me to formalise this at ANI because you lack the ability to provide diffs then that is your call. Redact the lot or I guess we'll have to take this to the drama boards. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Having said that, calling an erroneous edit from a good faith new editor "vandalism" seems symptomatic of your approach here. Perhaps we'll just go to ANI in any case to take a closer look at these, and other recent edits of yours. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I think maybe you've lost the point of my concern, you have accused me on numerous occasions of "lies" "outright lies" "serious misstatements" with regard to the status of the RY guidelines, all the other issues you're trying to bring into the debate may be interesting but are not of any relevance in this situation. You have this last chance to provide diffs of the lies and diffs of the retractions. As I have repeatedly said, you can then (of course) bring your grievances against me at ANI or whatever, but my issue is simply with your poor behaviour as an admin, having been asked eleven times for evidence to support your egregious personal attacks. If you don't do that, then ANI. Simple, and I will have the time tomorrow morning, so by all means set your alarm. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Not good enough. Especially given your pointed edit summary. You provide the diffs of my lie(s) and the diff(s) of me redacting them, or we go to ANI where you will be required to provide them. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, this is your final chance (and I have also noted your talk page abuse), provide the diffs where I lie and provide the diffs where I redact said lies, or else I'll open a thread at ANI to demand you do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
If you bring an ANI complaint, I will provide diffs showing that you are disrupting discussions at WT:RY and Talk:2017, including statements that no rational person with a reasonable understanding of English could believe. I would rather that you stop the disruption, as some of your arguments are, although IMO damaging to Wikipedia, not entirely without merit. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
So you can provide diffs? Then I need you to provide those diffs which substantiate your multiple claims that I am a liar, plus the diff(s) in which you claim I redact such "lies". Your version of "disruption" pales into insignificance compared to your unsubstantiated personal attacks at various venues across Wikipedia. Now that really is disruptive. So, once again, I'm more than happy for you to discuss the recent events at RY at ANI (after all, the wider community are currently finding very much against you and the other "regulars" at Talk:2017 , so more eyes would be especially helpful) but you must provide the requested diffs, particularly as you are purportedly an admin - your actions are open to more scrutiny and you need to supply this evidence in a timely fashion. See WP:ADMINACCT. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
As you pointed out, detailed discussion of your misconduct is inappropriate at Talk:2017 and at WT:RY, as is discussion of my alleged misconduct. Your talk page and WP:ANI are likely the only appropriate places to discuss your misconduct. And you claim I am not allowed to post on your talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
No, we're talking about your misconduct, your personal attacks. Place the diffs here please. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
No. The only place I will put the diffs are on your talk page (with your permission) or in a report. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Are you sure you're aware of ADMINACCT? This is precisely the place to discuss your misconduct and inappropriate, unfounded personal attacks lodged at various locations across Wikipedia. And you threaten to post diffs to demonstrate my "disruption" as some kind of rebuttal to the numerous personal attacks you've made on me? Whilst claiming you can't post diffs because you aren't technically capable of doing so? I think we've reached the point where the community need to look at your behaviour as an admin in more detail. I'll attend to that in due course. Naturally, you'll follow my simple request (which I have now made at least seven times) with your own vengeful attempt to see me blocked for "disruption", which no doubt will be backed up by your fellow RY project oversighters. All that drama just because I asked you seven times for the diff which has resulted in you accusing me of being a liar all over Wikipedia. Truly disappointing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
You have clearly demonstrated yoi are incapable of understanding basic English. I said that I was unable to post diffs from my smartphone; and that I could post diffs from my desktop computer, but wouldn't, except in an appropriate location. Notice also I haven't archived any of your threads, so it is easy to see exactly how disruptive you are being at my talk page. However, you are being disruptive. I don't want to file an ANI report without overwhelming evidence, as you clearly should have been blocked for violating WP:3RR at WP:RY after 2017 was protected following your WP:3RR violation there. (By the way watch your reverts at 2017. You seem to have avoided violating WP:3RR today, but you had another clear violation on July 17, between 0900 and around 1800 UTC.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Another personal attack. I am perfectly capable of understanding basic English, but thanks. So no diffs to back up the claims of me being a liar, and then the diffs of me "redacting the lies", then we'll go to ANI. You can do your retribution bit, obviously, but I must get an answer to this series of personal attacks from an admin who should and must learn to do better. And you have refused that request eight times. So I'll let you know when I've posted the request for the diffs at ANI. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
No personal attacks by me here. I corrected "lies" to misstatements before it was brought to my attention, and all my other comments relate to your mistaken or disruptive actions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Not at all, stating (at least twice) that I am "incapable of understanding basic English" is just another personal attack lodged amongst all the others I've recorded. You have failed to correct lies everywhere, just in one or two places, you have failed to apologise for calling me a liar and you have failed to respond at least eight times to fulfil your obligations per ADMINACCT. I think that's enough to get the ball rolling at ANI. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Interestingly, and I'll expand on this at ANI, Snow Rise (with whom I've had plenty of disagreement) actually wrote of the current RY guideline that it is not in reality a Wikipedia guideline in any remote sense and all indication within it that suggests it is a guideline needs to be removed immediately and carries on to say Since the page was never made a guideline through the legitimate process.... Irn goes on to say making it a guideline appears to have been one user's decision, which was executed without discussion, definitely not in line with the process spelled out at WP:PROPOSAL. Beeblebrox said It should never have been unilaterally marked as a guideline years ago... I find it curious that these overt and clear dismissals of the status of the guideline are not met with your accusations of lies etc, while it's very easy to see, yet the edit(s) you claim I made which were "lies" remain to be even "quoted", let alone "diffed". Something smells very fishy here, very fishy indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm back online for a few days; would you like to address the issues I've raised above or should I simply start that ANI thread tomorrow about your at least eleven refusals to give me those diffs? As you are apparently an admin, that needs to be addressed, regardless of any other angles of "disruption" with which you may wish to try to obfuscate it? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I will give you the diffs ONLY on your talk page. I would need to take some time to put all of them together, as I see you have made an edit today which, according to your edit summary, could not possibly be consistent with the guidelines you now agree are in place. Possibly Wednesday, if you will allow me to place the list on your talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
As for the edit I made today, it was BRD, eight Wikipedias not nine? Are you joking? But focusing on the actual point, your relentless personal attacks and accusations, I'm only looking for the one(s) where you said I lied, and the one(s) where you said I redacted it. If you can't be bothered to comply with your ADMINACCT accountability, we'll go to ANI tomorrow. And diffs can be placed anywhere, so please stop this imaginary "I will only place the list on your talk page" nonsense. You may be asleep when I post the report, but I will definitely let you know, per the requirements. It's very simple for you to respond civilly to these request for evidence of these "lies" and to retract the fact that you have, on multiple occasions, accused me of not being able to comprehend basic English. These are not the behaviours we should expect from admins so I will be asking the community to examine this in detail, with a view to remove your sysop status and admonish you for unfounded, un-evidenced personal attacks. You've had more than fair warning. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Simple English and one other language were added after death. Seems another serious misstatement on your part. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I shouldn't have said you lied at Talk:2017. I should have said someone lied about the guidelines. Redacting more than that would have significantly changed the meaning of the replies, so would be a serious violation of WP:TPG. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep going. This is gold dust. See you at ANI tomorrow. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

ARBCOM notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Arthur Rubin and WP:ADMINACCT and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Twitbookspacetube 05:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Arthur Rubin. I've just placed the ArbCom case on hold until you return, since you've indicated you're ill and will be away. Once you're well enough to return, please feel free to add any statement and unhat the case. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi GorillaWarfare, as Rubin is active on other social media sites, including posts today, how do we proceed because it seems apparent that this avoidance of scrutiny may be indefinite and is not strictly related to any "fever". — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Rambling Man (talk • contribs) 21:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).

Administrator changes

added Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 (first RfA to reach WP:300)
removed Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

ANI complaint against Arthur Rubin

(copied here for centralized record keeping from DerbyinNZ's talkpage using my phone)

I'm asking you to copy my statement from the Arbcom complaint against me to the ANI report against me, and add the following to my sentence about adding diffs from my phone: It's possible to add diffs from my phone. It takes many times longer than on the desktop, but it's possible. What is not possible is recovering from an Edit conflict. Control-C, Control-V, and control-A (select all) are possible, but not shift-click (select to cursor).

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Tap and hold within the text to highlight a word, drag the first cursor to the start of the block of text you want to copy, drag the second cursor to the end, copy, paste. As I'm sure you already know perfectly well. ‑ Iridescent 19:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Alternatively you can go to [12] choose Edit Source than Select All and Copy. On the ANi page you can choose edit and paste on your phone. In the unlikely chance of an edit conflict in an essentially concluded ANi thread, just paste again. I rarely use a desktop and do just fine on my phone. Good luck. Legacypac (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Or just type at ANI what you want to write in there using your phone. This page, for instance, is outside your editing restrictions, but because you're an admin, you're safe from any kind of sanction. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Or better still go to Bishonen and ask for a self-requested indef block. –Davey2010Talk 20:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

20th century

All these articles are getting out of hand. Please see this: [13], weigh in...Modernist (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Modernist: Arthur Rubin is currently community banned from editing Wikipedia, with a very few exceptions. He will not be able to "weigh in" there.

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I have asked for clarification of the duration of your CBAN as the enacting admin seems to have misinterpreted my intent when proposing it. As you are party to this thread, participation in the thread is permitted without breaching the CBAN. Mjroots (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I have simply asked for it to be removed now we're in Arbcom territory. It's much fairer to allow you to continue until any such time that others decide you can't. Mjroots, I suggest we combine forces (somehow) to just get the CBAN annulled. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: - Sorry, but no. There is community consensus that Arthur Rubin should have been blocked, but he can't be blocked due to WP:PUNISH. The CBAN is a de facto block, but one which does not make it difficult for Arthur Rubin to participate in the ARBCOM case if it goes ahead. Mjroots (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Well how bizarre. The CBAN was really imposed to ensure Rubin fronted up to the ANI/Arbcom case, and nothing else. A de facto block is meaningless as it isn't a real block, not lodged on any block log, and effectively meaningless. And as the C in CBAN suggests, if the C now decide otherwise, it can be dropped. So, "Sorry, but no" is just silly. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
He should have been actually blocked with that logged not effectively blocked. He had no problem WP:PUNISHing me so why is anyone worried about that policy? But now he should be free to edit, giving him a chance to prove he has learned something about not making unsubstantiated personal attacks ... or not. Legacypac (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Due to overwhelming community consensus at the discussion here: [14], this ban is now lifted. As this discussion is now in the hands of Arbcom, this can be handled there. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Community editing restriction

Following the discussion at AN/I, you are subject to the following restriction imposed by the community:

Arthur Rubin is community banned from editing any pages on the English language Wikipedia, with the exception of his own talk page, WP:ANI and any edits connected with the current request for arbitration and any case that develops out of it, broadly construed.

GoldenRing (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Just to make it clear, the edits you made to another editor's talkpage are outside this restriction, and you could have been blocked for it. If you need anything copying from one location to another (as long as the destination page is inside your restriction), make the request here, and someone will action it - I am sure there are enough talkpage watchers here by now. Further violations of the restriction will result in a block. Thank you, Black Kite (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
    You gave requesting input from another editor to the ANI as allowed. As I have pointed out many times, I cannot copy part of another post (although I can probably copy an entire Wikipedia page) on my phone. I guess I'll post a response in about 16 hours, then. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Following a discussion at AN, I have amended my close; this restriction will now end when the current request for arbitration is either rejected or the case that develops from it is closed. GoldenRing (talk) 10:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Due to overwhelming community consensus at the discussion here: [15], this ban is now lifted. As this discussion is now in the hands of Arbcom, this can be handled there. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC) [Copied from below, for clarity sake. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)]

19th century

Arthur, I've just really noticed this article for the first time and I'm concerned about your edits to it: revert everything. Now either this article is already perfect, or there's something funny going on. Bulk, undiscussed reversions are hugely discouraging to new editors. Especially when some of the topics here are clearly significant (California gold rush maybe the most obvious). Some changes were also things like adding Karl Marx as an author for the Communist Party Manifesto (which was already there). Looking back over the history, the article seems to have much the same pattern as far back as I've looked. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Arthur_Rubin reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: ). Thank you. –Davey2010Talk 01:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement toward ANI complaint

I don't appreciate being bullied, and I perceived TRM actions as bullying Wrad and me, among others. My delay in replying is, in part, due to the question if I wanted to participate in Wikipedia while supports his bullying. That does not provide justification for my actions.

However, at Talk:2017, I redacted the claim that TRM "lied" to "made misstatements" about policies and guidelines. This was clearly true, as his claim that WP:3RR violations require the reverts be on the same material is clearly wrong. I attempted to redact further to state that someone was making misstatements in Talk:2017, as the identity of the author of the false statements is irrelevant to my request for an admin close at the RfC(s) in Talk:2017. I refused to post the diffs of what I saw as misstatements on Talk:2017 because they are not relevant to that forum.
I apologize for calling TRM a liar, although I honestly believe some of his interpretations of WP:RY to be implausible to anyone who read the material and talk page history.
The best place for the apology would be TRM's talk page, but he asked that I not post there.
And, for what it's worth, I discovered I could prepare diffs on my cellphone. What I cannot do is recover from an edit conflict, except by first preparing my post as a separate page, and using subst: to insert the material.
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Right, a new set of personal attacks. Provide diffs of me bullying "Wrad" please. Explicitly. This is the editor whom I thanked for making such a considerate and bold move, and who retired from the project at the hands of the real bullies, after all. Other notes:
  1. You are making yet more claims which require diffs, now you can do that on your phone, supply them please.
  2. You refused to post the diffs I requested anywhere, I didn't restrict their posting to the 2017 talkpage, the only forum I disallowed was my talkpage, perhaps the "best" but by no means "the only" venue in Wikipedia for the diffs/apologies etc.
  3. Apologising and then saying you were still right doesn't cut it.
  4. The redaction was incomplete, you've still left accusations littered around Wikipedia.
  5. The part you did redact, you used the edit summary "redact true statement".
  6. Apologising for your actions could have gone anywhere.
So, in summary, your apology is meaningless because it's caveated to the nines with "but I'm still right" combined with your refusal to properly redact all the other accusations and personal attacks you've left all over the project. I look forward to the Arbcom case examining this in full detail. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I admit I said I wouldn't revisit but good faith has expired, as I was the first to get your CBAN overturned, yet you immediately accused me of "bullying" and specifically named a user called Wrad. I have asked you a couple of times to provide diffs of me bullying Wrad but you have provided nothing and just continued to edit Wikipedia. You are still an admin and still held to ADMINACCT, regardless of the Arbcom case, so please please provide diffs for me bullying Wrad in the next 24 hours (fever allowing). The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Wouldn't hold your breath The Rambling Man - He'll come up with some bullshit excuse!, Perhaps he's got a headache today. –Davey2010Talk 22:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

US Zines

Hi, Arthur.

I'm a French Wikipedia user and my contributions are primarily about French History or, in the current time, Lovecraft and the "Cthulhu Mythos" : thus, I wrote the French Elder Gods page and I'm planning to participate in most other related pages (currently, I upgrade all the bibliography).

Naturally, I rely on a sizable collection of Lovecraft Studies and Crypt of Cthulhu zines, many books from S. T. Joshi, Robert M. Price, Steven J. Mariconda, etc. and some rarities. I'm trying to collect several other studies written by HPL scholars but, alas, some sellers offer shipping only to addresses within the U.S., international shipping is not available...

So forgive me for being so bold but would you be kind enough to receive at your home just one of my purchase, i.e. a small package of US lovecraftian zines (without compromising your privacy, or course) ? Needless to say, in order to send the package to Paris, I will pay you the global shipping costs using Paypal.

Do not hesitate to ask for more clarifications or to refuse if it doesn't suit you (I won't take offence !).

Best regards, --Guise (talk) 12:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

PS : I have asked the same favour to another US administrator but he wants to protect his anonymity, and that is legitimate.

Bullying by TRM

I must redact the claim that Wrad was bullied. Please let me know where it is repeated, and I'll make a note of it. (Since my claim was repeated by others in multiple fora, I'll need a list.)

I should add, though, that I feel bullied by TRM's multiple attacks against WP:RY and edits (and an occasional editor) supporting the (at least, for a time) consensus interpretation of WP:RY. He only presents one or two different arguments, and repeating them everywhere constructive suggestions as to what should be done with the articles is not in keeping with Wikipedia policies.

I don't have a solution, but this is not good for Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

What isn't good for Wikipedia is an editor, or editors, ignoring suggestions to improve 'their' problematic guidelines in favour of littering Wikipedia with content that ends up needing to be redacted. The solution is obvious to a rational person: work with people on improving something instead of pretending its fine and fighting against it. You don't own the guideline or the article. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 10:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
TRM has not made constructive suggestions for improving WP:RY. Perhaps my suggestions aren't constructive, either, but they haven't been argued on their merits, except for my last suggestion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
That's a "misstatement" in extremis. But we'll deal with that in your upcoming case. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
At risk of sounding rational here, why don't you both work together and come up with something better? I mean, all the cock-jousting aside, surely you are both on the same page when it comes to the crux of the matter which is that the guidelines in their current form are problematic. I mean, I've seen no counter argument to improvement beyond the appeal to tradition logical fallacy "its the way we've always done it", which surely you can understand gives the impression of ownership. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I've started a section in WT:RY stating what I believe the intent to be, and possible proxies for significance. Perhaps RTM will contribute there. He apparently doesn't want to talk to me, and he has (what I consider) bizarre interpretations of WP:RY, so that, even if we could agree on wording, we probably wouldn't agree on meaning. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I'll wait for the RFC on the guideline status and your impending Arbcom case to conclude before making any consideration to work with a user who continually referred to me as a liar and incompetent. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
At least on the incompetent front, that'd be getting as you give, TRM. You've long made comments casting aspersions at other's competency. And when I saw the "bullying by TRM", I figured we were talking about the bullying you've been doing to Arthur throughout this process. You've taken this a lot farther than you should have; it would have been much better for the community had you just swallowed down the slights and moved on. pbp 16:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, I guess ARBCOM is going to take this. What a shame. I'm seriously considering filing a brief urging no action against either TRM or Arthur. Arthur said some things he probably shouldn't have. Meanwhile, TRM hasn't dropped the stick, blown this way out of proportion, and probably violated his civility sanctions. There easily could be pretty harsh actions taken against either user. pbp 16:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Per the request for locations where the claim Wrad was bullied see this very talk page Aug 7 [16]
You have also failed to retract the false accusations against me on this talk page and at ANi. It is far to late to try to support them, that ship has sailed. Legacypac (talk) 19:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

On this day, 12 years ago...

Hey, Arthur Rubin. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Lepricavark (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 23

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 23, June-July 2017

  • Library card
  • User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Spotlight: Combating misinformation, fake news, and censorship
  • Bytes in brief

Chinese, Arabic and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Arthur why...

would you post a fact at Timeline of the far future and then demand it be cited? Surely you wouldn't post a fact unless you had a citation to back it up. This is a featured list. Serendipodous 17:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I've undone this bizarre set of edits, suggest any further discussion takes place on the talk page before contiuning such disruptive behaviour in the face of our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
The article Proxima Centauri states that it will no longer be the nearest star in about 25,000 years, but gives no idea of precision. I don't have access to the source to verify what it says. If you read the "reason" field you would see what I was looking for. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Please don't use articles as a sandbox. You should know by now that this kind of thing warrants a talk page discussion, not a "bold edit" from someone with your experience. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
The change from Alpha Centauri to Proxima Centauri in the 36,000 entry was unsourced and wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Arthur, take a break from this. Wait until Arbcom have decided your fate, right now your edit aren't uppirting your case one iota. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
You (collectively) are restoring demonstrably false, unsourced, statements in the 36,000 entry. Why? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
This is looking more and more like a case of CIR. Take some time out, for your own good. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Case opened

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 13 September 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Mkdw talk 05:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

Administrator changes

added Nakon • Scott
removed Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
  • Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
  • In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

  • Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

2017

Hi Arthur Rubin please do not remove add update, in 2017 wiki page, thank you. GAJJR (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@GAJJR: Please do not add inconsequential events to 2017. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Arthur I am autisic please don't remove I didn't anything wrong you removed August 8 and September 1 event on 2017 please do not do this again if you do it again you will be block edit 2017 thank you GAJJR (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Arthur you need stop removed when I edit just leave Fuck alone GAJJR (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

LA event this Thursday

LA Meetup: September 7 edit-a-thon near DTLA

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

You have been invited to a meetup and edit-a-thon at the LA84 Foundation in Jefferson Park (near DTLA) on Thursday, September 7, 2017 from 5:45 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.! This event aims to improve coverage of female Olympians and Paralympians (some of whom will be attending!). There will be a deejay and food/drinks, and kids are welcome.

I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Join our Facebook group, follow our Twitter account, and like our Facebook page!! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

AN3 report

I've closed the above report by warning you both. I intend to check in on your contributions for the next while and if I see more edit-warring from either of you it will be a block without further warning. Given that you have been in dispute with TRM, it might make sense to stay well away from him in future, don't you think? --John (talk) 14:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Murder of Ross Parker and 2001

Hi, I noticed your revert on the 2001 page and just wondered your reasoning? Other years feature murders of equal or lesser significance and in some cases just rulings relating to murders, whereas this is not only significant, it's also brutal, racially motivated, completely unprovoked and the victim is a minor. One current 2001 entry is the expiration of the Mac OS X beta, the Parker is unquestionably more significant than that for a start. The Parker case was actually on the front page yesterday as a selected anniversary, so people clearly agree it's of considerable significance. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Shakehandsman: For a while, I've mostly removed new additions to these articles, rather than going through them in detail. I don't think launch or expiration of operating systems are appropriate in these articles, either. Thinking about Parker, you may have a point, although the article was obviously first written as a biography and then repurposed. I'm in UTC-7, so it's now 0123 local, so I'm going to bed. Perhaps I'll restore it in the morning. I shouldn't edit this late. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for reconsidering and reverting, glad you agree on the OS X beta expiration thing too, I'll delete that now.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

100 (number)

Hello! Please explain me why do you believe that the number 100 is divisible by 25 prime numbers. It is absolutely wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by the greatest thinker (talk • contribs)

@The greatest thinker: I don't see how you could interpret the sentence that way, but I changed the word order to make it more clear. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks! Now everything is clear to me. (My native language is russian.)

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

Administrator changes

added Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem
removed Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
  • A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Desysop

Hello Arthur Rubin, following an official request from the Arbitration committee, your administrator group access has been removed. This removal is in accordance with the prescribed remedy of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin. Should you wish to regain administrator permissions, you may do so by requesting community approval at WP:RFA. Please note, extended confirmed user access should be automatically added after you make your next edit, should it fail to process please let me know or post at WP:PERM/EC. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 18:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 24

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 24, August-September 2017

  • User Group update
  • Global branches update
    • Star Coordinator Award - last quarter's star coordinator: User:Csisc
  • Wikimania Birds of a Feather session roundup
  • Spotlight: Wiki Loves Archives
  • Bytes in brief

Arabic, Kiswahili and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

from badkittydemon

Hi I'm badkittydemon. I put my sources and it is established sciences. Sorry if it doesn't seem to meet the requirements, or is not considered correct. That these processes directly involve the chosen topic and challenges long established beliefs still provides no disproof for cruelty and jeering to occur, however I have direct simple scientific principles from those premises which are widely accepted and very well known. Sorry you are unable to accept these theories which is what our current system has that lacks explanation for proven processes. Thank you I sincerely hope for more of the constructive and positive transmission contacts. PS this is how it wanted me to reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badkittydemon (talk • contribs) 15:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

50/50

Per this, yes we don't use Wikipedia for RS but no, there was definitely no consensus against its inclusion. The discussion was very much in favour of its inclusion yet wasn't closed properly by an admin, and we can't ask you to help with that any longer. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).

Administrator changes

added Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93
removed Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

User talk:124.106.252.87

Your sock report is a redlink on the IP's page: diff. Thanks for filing this! Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

2017

There’s was a Inauguration Day on 2017. You remember? RedProofHill123 (talk) 13:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@RedProofHill123:Normal inauguration days are not, and, except for a few instances, never been in year articles. Rarely, elections are listed, but an inauguration would only be listed if it is not a natural consequence of the election, or if something unusual happens. I don't think they are even listed in 2009 in the United States. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Conduct unbecoming an Admin or any editor

Shamefully you have not graced the arbcomm case with your presence and you have not resigned the Admin tools, forcing us through evey inch of process to deal with you. Since ArbComm has found you indeed made false accusations that could not be supported (aka Lies) an apology is in order to User:The Rambling Man and myself. You have demonstrated a general lack of integrity with me and others that is inexcusable. Futher, your conduct illustrates the painfully slow process of dealing with an admin who has exhausted the community's trust so I've raised this issue at AN]. Legacypac (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: fwiw, I don't know what it was Arthur Rubin did to you, but you're not coming across as likeable. Woscafrench (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Woscafrench if you can't be bothered to read the ANi and the ArbComm case, keep your opinions about my likability to yourself. Legacypac (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I think it not unreasonable to question whether you should do the same thing. Given the transparently incendiary nature of some of your comment above, I think it might be reasonable to ask that you behave in an acceptable manner yourself if you are going to demand others apologize for acting in ways similar to that behavior you are demanding an apology for. John Carter (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Legacypac, your snotty comment about Woscafrench not "being bothered to read the ANI and Arbcom case" is quite inappropriate when you failed to provide a useful link to either discussion. All you did is link to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard . Search of the archive there is a big time sink. Links to the actual relevant ANI thread and ArbCom thread would be helpful to thers who see the desysop in the Admin newsletter and come here to see what happened. Edison (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale! — MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:08, 26 November 2017‎ (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Arthur Rubin. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).

Administrator changes

added Joe Roe
readded JzG
removed Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 25

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 25, October – November 2017

  • OAWiki & #1Lib1Ref
  • User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Spotlight: Research libraries and Wikimedia
  • Bytes in brief

Arabic, Korean and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Christmas Arthur

I've left it a bit late for the seasonal greetings but I appreciate your work and always read your comments carefully. Thank you. JRPG (talk) 23:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Nope

Per this, apparently not. So once your tag-team edit-warring has concluded, we'll see the inauguration (note the spelling) listed. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Any rational person can see there is no consensus for inclusion. Furthermore, there is now "fake news" in the entry. The inauguration was attended by about 100,000 (real news) or 1.5 million (fake news). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Ah, another personal attack! Thanks, added to the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arthur_Rubin/Archive_2017&oldid=1190246214"