Write a new message. I will reply on this page, under your post. This talk page is automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Any sections older than 28 days are automatically archived to User talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 2024 . Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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 ^(TALK_CONT) 03:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of templating is wholly inappropriate. As an administrator, you should know that. Cassianto^Talk 16:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Cassianto^Talk 17:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

Happyme22 • Dragons flight

Zad68

Guideline and policy news

• The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received support; so did concrete proposal #1.

Technical news

• Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
• A new bot will automatically revision delete unused file versions from files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.

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.

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 :), –Davey2010^Talk 20:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Keep going. This is gold dust. See you at ANI tomorrow. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]