User talk:Arthur Rubin

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by .

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This user is no longer active on Wikipedia because of hostile editing environment.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

Looking for suggestions

Arthur, I was hoping to pick your brains with regards to the best way to handle a content dispute and resolution. The primary discussion is on the auto project page [[1]]. I'm trying to decide which method might be most effective in terms of getting other eyes on the topic. I'm considering RfC as well as the NPOV notice board. NPOV is good in that it gets a reasonable amount of traffic but I'm not sure I see this as 100% a NPOV issue (non-NPOV arguments have been put forth). RfC would seem like a good idea but given the conversation is already on the related project page I'm not sure it would work well. Anyway, any suggestions? Thanks. Springee (talk) 03:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a violation of the Canvassing guidelines. Springee's attempts to involve hand-picked editors to help him in a dispute is a part of a larger pattern of disruptive editing. Users who have been inappropriately canvassed generally should avoid getting involved. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Bratland: If he's asking advice from uninvolved editors, that would not be a violation of WP:CANVASS. Although your interpretation of WP:WEIGHT is absurd, I won't intervene unless it appears in WP:NPOV, and probably not then. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Springee chose you and User:Collect for one reason: he sees you as allies from his previous dispute at the Chrysler article. That's exactly what the canvassing guidelines prohibit WP:VOTESTACKing. He doesn't want advice. He wants votes. If my arguments are in error, many other editors are capable of saying so, if Springee would stop bludgeoning the process long enough for them to speak.

If Springee can't take a step back give other editors the space work on finding consensus, all the advice he needs is at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur, do you have an opinion on the most appropriate forum for this dispute? Thanks Springee (talk) 04:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Springee:. Probably an RfC, but, add a pointer in WP:NPOVN and possibly WT:WEIGHT. Perhaps point to WP:BALASP, which goes to the meat of Dennis Bratland's argument. I won't comment outside this page unless attacked by Dennis or invited as part of a clearly neutral invitation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I checked whether that section was stable.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur, on the project page there are two articles under discussion, the Ford truck article and the Chevy article. The additions to each are similar in nature but not the same content. Would you suggest one RfC to cover both or one for each article. Springee (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One RfC, but make sure that people can !vote and discuss the issues separately if they want to. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up question. At what point does this sort of thing become a personal attack? [[2]] Springee (talk) 03:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it's a personal attack, you should ignore it as long as you can, and only bring it up on the appropriate boards once the RfC is resolved. I don't think he thinks it's an attack; if it is, it's only because he hasn't a clue. BALAPS specifically states the appropriate weight can be none. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does the 3RR rule apply to talk page reversions? I feel like this is really going over the line [[3]], see the removal of my talk page comments end of Oct 15-16th. I tried restoring but I'm done now. Springee (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:3RR. 3RR applies to talk pages, except for your own user talk page. JRSpriggs (talk) 07:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Springee and JRSpriggs: So Dennis Bratland should be sanctioned for both WP:TPG and WP:EW violations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur, @JRSriggs:, Fyddlestyx started an ANI regarding the incident [[4]]. I don't want Dennis to be sanctioned since I think in general he is a good editor. Honestly what I would really like is for someone to figuratively slap him up side the head and get him to realize he has been off the mark with the long string of accusations he's made against me regarding the recent RfC etc. There was no forum shopping, no bad faith negotiation prior to the RfC, WEIGHT applies even if facts aren't in dispute, and certainly the results of the RfC should be clear and an official closing shouldn't be required, etc. I'm most frustrated that he is normally reasonable but just seems to refuse to see things this time. Anyway, I'm not going to push the issue to ANI/3RR etc. I'll wait until the RfC is closed. Springee (talk) 10:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Arthur Rubin. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

2017

Brexit invoke date has been announced by the UK government as March 2017. It's quite an important scheduled event which deserves to be included. It's far more relevant than a solar eclipse! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKMMX (talk • contribs) 18:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you provide a source, it seems appropriate for 2017. However, the election, the official notification to the EU, and actual exit date(s) are really discussing a single event, and it's not clear how many listings it should have.

The elections, no.

I'm not that fond of the solar eclipses; perhaps we should propose, in WT:RY, sorting those to "year in science". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Jennings'

hi,

Thanks for your attempt to restore said page, deletion of which i, for one, regret. If you should have a backup, i would be grateful for a copy (here, anywhere, or by PM). Or is the content still available anywhere? (If it is, on WP, i didn't yet figure out how to find/get it). Best Regards from Vienna: wda — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wda (talk • contribs) 11:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

> Article restored to User:Wda/Barry Jennings. ...
THANKS. I'm done with it in the sense that i've made a copy; wouldn't mind at all if it stayed available as User:Wda/Barry_Jennings. "... Evidence that Barry Jennings and Michael Hess Experienced an Explosion in WTC 7 the Morning of 9/11" has also been collected & published by Consensus911.org, so it won't go down the memory hole just yet. Best! --Wda (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]