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!

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]

Recently I visited your website below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_of_Japan And I was quite surprised to find your websites still label Korea's 'East Sea' as 'Sea of Japan,' which is incorrect. Such an error on such a well-known website such as yours comes as a surprise since we regard you as one of the world's best.

Using a proper name for the body of water between the Korean peninsula and the Japanese archipelago is not simply a question of changing the name of a geographical feature. It is part of the national effort by the Korean people to erase the legacy of Japanese Imperialism and to redress the unfairness that has resulted from it. It is an absolute mistake to hear just one side of the story and to blindly follow. If we leave these kinds of things alone, it causes serious problems that disturb the order of international society. For your reference, Dorling & Kindersley(https://www.dk.com), one of biggest textbook publishers,

worldatlas.com, one of prominent online map provider, and one of the biggest mapmakers, National Geographic promised us that 
they would now use the name 'East Sea.' In addition, these websites are already using the name, 'East Sea' on their website after we pointed out the error.

Most of all, the U.S. state of Virginia has revised the guidelines for history and social science education in line with a newly enacted law that requires textbooks to use the Korean name "East Sea" alongside the Japanese name "Sea of Japan"

for the body of water between the two countries on 2017. 

As a member of the Voluntary Agency Network of Korea (VANK), I urge you to use 'East Sea' to describe the body of water in question or to use both Korean and Japanese designation simultaneously (e.g. 'East Sea/Sea of Japan') in all of your contents and maps. According to IHO and UNCSGN, in case of topographical feature shared with two or more countries, yet naming differently in their own languages, all of the names in each language should be marked. Once Korea and Japan agree on a common designation, that is in accord with the general rule of international cartography, we will then follow the agreed-on designation. Thank you for reading and we would appreciate your favorable consideration.

We would be grateful for your explanation as to why you chose to use ‘Sea of Japan’. 

Please email us at wkdgp1013@gmail.com

Yours very truly,

VANK, Cyber Diplomatic Organization in Korea 
http://www.prkorea.com 

*References 

※The Historical precedent for the 'East Sea' 

http://prkorea.com/history/eastsea1.html

※How to name the sea area between the Korean Peninsula and the Japanese Archipelago 

http://prkorea.com/history/eastsea2.html

"Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, 
it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, 
so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches." - [Matthew] -

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 ^{(first RfA to reach WP:300)}

Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

• Following a series of discussions around new pages patrol, the WMF is helping implement a controlled autoconfirmed article creation trial as a research experiment, similar to the one proposed in 2011. You can learn more about the research plan at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. The exact start date of the experiment has yet to be determined.
• A new speedy deletion criterion, regarding articles created as a result undisclosed paid editing, is currently being discussed (permalink).
• An RfC (permalink) is currently open that proposes expanding WP:G13 to include all drafts, even if they weren't submitted through Articles for Creation.

Technical news

• LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
• The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.

Following the Special:Diff/793774084 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)[reply]