Jump to content

User talk:Arthur Rubin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 99.192.77.211 (talk) at 13:04, 1 September 2013 (→‎MOS:IDENTITY proposal 2: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Status

Retired
This user is no longer active on Wikipedia because of hostile editing environment.


TUSC token 6e69fadcf6cc3d11b5bd5144165f2991

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

BLP

I hate to do this, but please remember that WP:BLP applies everywhere, including edit summaries, and this edit summary I believe crosses the line. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have said "proponent of fringe scientific theories", rather than "kook". I certainly should have said "because I think he's a kook" rather than "because he is a kook". But, in his case, I really don't think "kook" is that far out of line.
I don't think it appropriate to revdel my own comment, but I'll certainly add a dummy edit to clarify, in case it is found appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't think it rises to the standard that requires revdel; for me, that standard is quite a bit higher than "inappropriate". I know how frustrating the fringe scientists can get for you, especially since you've been under completely unwarranted attack on at least that page, and so I wanted to let you know that you need to be careful to dial it back sometimes. The same thing has happened to me on other topics (where my frustration with repeated bad editing slips into an outburst), and thought it's better that you hear it as a "warning" from me than as a complaint on a noticeboard somewhere. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Kook" in this context is Arthur's opinion and as far as I know there is nothing in WP:BLP that prohibits an editor from expressing a negative opinion. WP:BLPTALK speaks of contentious information from unreliable sources in the context of keeping talk pages free of speculative/unconfirmed information, but I think it's a stretch to say that covers calling someone a kook or an asshole. It may be afoul of civility standards or NPA but it's not a BLP issue. Now, you may think I'm being pedantic but I think the distinction is important as BLP issues tend to attract blocks quicker and more harshly than other offenses. I'd hate to see Arthur get blocked if he inadvertently made a similar comment in the future and another admin saw this as a pattern of BLP violations. Noformation Talk 08:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodded Nuclear Pasta

I have objected to your proposed deletion of Nuclear pasta. Evidently, this term has been used by a number of scientific institutions, including the American Physical Society [1], the University of Tokyo [2], the University of Illinois (same link), and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory [3]. I'm actually glad you put this article on my radar as nuclear pasta seems a delicious (excuse the pun) topic for DYK. Cheers! Altamel (talk) 02:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearing edit

Hi, Arthur. The other day I was reading one of Collect's comments in the Tea Party Movement drama and I noticed he wrote "nit" when he meant to type "not", so I corrected it. I'm not Collect, or any other named editor involved there. I edit using my IP address lately. (There's more than 71,000 of us living in Centreville, VA.) Thanks. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. "Nil" is a noun, and "not" is an adverb, so he could have had something else in mind. In any case, you don't edit someone's comment without telling the editor that you're doing it, and rarely, even so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the diff of my correction, in case you'd like to review it a little more closely. In all other particulars, you are quite correct (excepting, of course, your bringing "Nil" to the conversation). <g> and Cheers! as Collect might say. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Block of 99.119.131.212

Howdy- I noticed that you recently blocked the IP address 99.119.131.212 (talk) citing nonconstructive edits. From my POV, the main problem with the user was his changing wikilinks, which I would have been happy to explain to him. I don't see how that warrants a block, much less a 3-month block, particularly if that user not given any warnings. I was hoping for clarification about a block. I couldn't find an AIV about the user. To me, this IP showed some hope and potential and I just want to make sure he is getting his full fill. Thanks. Have a good one. PrairieKid (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) That IP's bigger violations are external link spamming and a multi-year campaign at block evading IPhopping. Here is some of the historical context for this problem user. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to the tps! (Arty,) I don't know what is now your personal... grudge against the editor. I don't see why all of his edits should be reverted. The discussion he opened at Rand Paul's talk page (I feel) is valuable. I see reasons to add the content, and reasons not to. Even if the discussion wasn't good, the fact that the IP began any discussion (and about a sourced and notable event) is commendable. I don't think I have ever seen a talk page edit be reverted, unless it was pure vandalism. I just wanted some understanding of your reasoning and to ask that you allow the discussion to continue. PrairieKid (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I used to only revert his edits which were clearly in violation of the guidelines, and then only those which were probably in violation of the guidelines. But that way lies madness. He's still a blocked editor, and his comments are, more often then not, completely inappropriate for even potential improvements of that article. If you want to restore his edits, that's fine, but please re-sign them yourself. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
" "
In addition, whereas YOU see his talk page comments as good faith efforts to begin conversation, those familiar with the history see it otherwise for nearly all their talk page remarks. Originally, the IP went on an external link spamming spree, to advance the IP's own political views. After I started framing the problem as one of external link spam (with casual edits and zero discussion), the IP started trying to weasel out of that characterization by paying the article talk pages lipservice.... typically by starting a new thread with a few words of glue, and the external link they want to spam us with. If they stuck around to actually discuss how to improve anything with these RSs, things would be different. But look at their gattling-gun rate of edits (check user contributions). It would not be unreasonable to characterize the editing pattern as compulsive ADD/ADHD editing. The hard work of collaborative editing to build a consensus is not what they are interested in. If it were, then the IP would wait out the blocks like everyone else is supposed to do. Instead the IP tells us all to fuck off, by IP hopping as fast as the live blocks roll in. Socking to avoid enforcement is considered a "serious breach of community trust", or words to that effect. I agree with Arthur, the IP's edits are revertable on sight. If you think any of their material merits serious work, i.e., the sweat work of meaningful discussion so as to win consensus on ways to improve articles in collaboration with other editors, I think that would be wonderful. External link spamming, block evasion, and IP hopping sockpuppetry, however, are harmful to the project. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for the clarification. I should have looked deeper into it. I think I still will look into that original discussion, and may still add the content, as I do see it as (for the most part) valuable. I apologize if I seemed a little angry there. (I wasn't, but reading my comment, I realize I sounded a little hostile.) Again, thanks all. (On a side note- I really needa get me some tpses. I think this talk page discussion was certainly enhanced by having more than 2 editors involved and, again, I appreciate the feedback.) 20:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
You didn't seem angry to me, at least. Just unfamiliar with that particular ed. And you're not alone.... this very conversation often takes place with other eds when they cross paths with this subject for the first time. Happy editing, NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


3RR Warning

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at 9/11 Truth movement shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — TySoltaur (talk) 19:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did justify my edits on the article talk page. 13 days ago. You have not edited the article talk page at all. And, as you remove warnings from your talk page, there is obviously no point in leaving them there, except for the record to support an indefinite block. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"indefinite block"? You're one of the few people that apparently likes to revert people's entries (I've seen your history, and a lot of people seem to feel the same way as I), and if you'd check my history, few people disagree with my sourced edits. But, whatever, dude. Whatever floats your boat. TySoltaur (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An indefinite block is appropriate, even for a minor infraction, if you show no signs of discontinuing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Svante Arrhenius

Why did you remove the link to the wiki of Svante Arrhenius? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polar_amplification&diff=568894679&oldid=568855544 Prokaryotes (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Prokaryotes: It was originally added (twice) by a blocked IP who frequently adds links without checking whether they make any sense or serve any purpose. If you will confirm that it's the right person, go ahead and restore. Your edit summary doesn't indicate that you checked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, i don't know if this ip is blocked (how should i?) and primarily it is irrelevant, since the edit in question is legitimate. Prokaryotes (talk) 10:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

99.112.214.152 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
99.112.215.164 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
108.73.114.181 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
99.119.128.14‎NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
99.181.130.64
99.119.130.219
99.112.215.71
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
98.218.177.155 (talk · contribs) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then again the last one might not be. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, looks like a different type of single-purpose-editor. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ABF

You seem to be making incredible assumptions of bad faith, i.e. [4]. Those are legit edits, and even if it were made by a sock, it should remain in the encyclopedia. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. The IP is a sock of a blocked editor, and his edits may be removed on sight. If someone wants to restore and take credit for them, that would be acceptable. As I've noted earlier, I used to check each edit for correctness and acceptability, but he makes too many edits to check all of them. When I checked, (February through April, 2013), most substantive edits were either hopelessly unreliable sources, or misinterpretation of the source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I watch for this sock also and agree with Arthur. If you fact check the sock and care to adopt any of their work as a genuine improvement on your own hook, great. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Disputed?"

With all due respect, how on earth is it "disputed" that ALEC is a US conservative organization? I included several reputable sources for that. "Conservative" isn't slander; it's a meaningful term that is well defined in political science and adopted by conservatives. ALEC is a self-described organization of "conservative state lawmakers" that favors "conservative public policy solutions". Here's another recent reference from a long-time ally of ALEC, the Heartland Institute, talking about "Conservative state legislators gathering earlier this month at the American Legislative Exchange Council’s annual meeting."

Here's a reference from the LA Times. Here's one from NPR. Here's Reuters. Here's the [http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/04/conservative_group_denies_it_m.html Here's the Idaho Statesman.

And this isn't some recent fad. Here's a 1993 reference from the Washington Post. Here's a 1992 reference from the Denver Post. Here's a 1987 reference from the Spokane Chronicle.

It sounds like you're inserting your personal point of view to veto reliable, authoritative sources. --The Cunctator (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Divisibility rule

I revived a part of your comment that got overwritten by a later editor. Unfortunately this topic-area is a bit far for me to be able to comment on the substance:( DMacks (talk) 06:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Meetup

Help build the Wikipedia community in Southern California at "Come Edit Wikipedia!" presented by the West Hollywood Library on Saturday, August 31st, 2013 from 1-5pm. Drop in for some lively editing and conversation! Plus, it's a library, so there are plenty of sources. --Olegkagan (talk) — Message delivered by Hazard-Bot at 01:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur, I can't figure out why Newitz should not be wikilinked? – S. Rich (talk) 04:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he should be. So far, it's been added by socks of the same blocked editor. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about if I add the link. Then these reverts won't take up your/our time. (The G'libs are on my watchlist.) – S. Rich (talk) 05:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

Information icon Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Harassing an administrator?. Thank you. —Guy Macon (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

False accusations

Hi, Arthur. In case you missed it, left a request for you here. Thanks in advance, Xenophrenic (talk) 11:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm researching the specific editors, now. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP changing to username in the history?

Over at Promised Land (2012 film) I reverted the IP sock I mentioned at ANI, but the history of that page now says that I was reverting two editors with usernames, not one IP editor. I know that they were IP edits when i reverted them; the "Undid revision 570485428 by 99.119.130.219" is auto-generated.

I was under the impression that the page history (other than revdels) was not changeable. was I wrong? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The history seems to me to be as follows:
  1. 07:11, July 23, 2013 WP:REDLINK claim by 99.109.127.94
  2. 18:19, July 23, 2013 your revert of 1
  3. 07:01, August 19, 2013 miscellaneous edit by another IP
  4. 03:40, August 28, 2013 absurd claim by 99.119.130.219
  5. 14:35, August 28, 2013 my revert of 4
  6. 18:59, August 28, 2013 Gareth Griffith-Jones reinstating 4
  7. 04:19, August 29, 2013 you undid 4
  8. 04:22, August 28, 2013 Rusted AutoParts reinstating 4
  9. 05:13, August 29, 2013 you undid 4
  10. 08:16, August 29, 2013 Gareth Griffith-Jones reinstating 4

Now. WP:Echo probably reports, to the respective editors, that you reverted 6 and 8, even though you were undoing 4 and your edit summary demonstrates that you were undoing 4. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. I went directly to the edit from my Echo notification. Now that I know that this can happen, I will simply go to the page history and edit from there. Needless to say, when I am reverting an IP-hopping sockpuppet, I don't want to revert some other user without realizing it. Thanks for figuring it out for me. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help me; bot to revert all edits of an editor

Yes, sometimes experienced admins need help, also.

Is there a bot I could use to revert all edits of an editor, preferably with edit summary "reverting sock of blocked editor"? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there isn't, there should be. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a useful thing. Perhaps we can request that it be created?
If you end up requesting a new bot or script, I think that the edit summary should have a tag that you cannot remove showing that it is the work of the bot plus a section that you can edit so it is suitable for blocked socks, spammers, etc. Also, a big "Are you sure? It is your responsibility..." warning. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For a name, I suggest "IpecacBot". Seems like use should be restricted somehow. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal of legitimate content on climate violence link

As per your request, you can now explain why this study is not legitimate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Effects_of_climate_change_on_humans#Removal_of_study_on_violence Prokaryotes (talk) 12:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For your tireless maintenance of difficult topics. bobrayner (talk) 10:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:IDENTITY proposal 2

AR, you forgot to sign the proposal you posted. I'll leave it to you to add it on. 99.192.77.211 (talk) 13:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arthur_Rubin&oldid=571073628"