User talk:Arthur Rubin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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 2017 . Sections without timestamps are not archived.


I'm not spending as much time here as I would like, with taking care of my wife, four three two cats, and looking for paying work. If I don't respond to a problem, it doesn't mean I haven't noticed it.

TUSC token 6e69fadcf6cc3d11b5bd5144165f2991[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!


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)

21st Century[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 16:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

RE: 21st Century[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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)


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)

To Arthur Rubin[edit]

Recently I visited your website below: 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(, one of biggest textbook publishers,, 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

Yours very truly,

VANK, Cyber Diplomatic Organization in Korea 
※The Historical precedent for the 'East Sea'
※How to name the sea area between the Korean Peninsula and the Japanese Archipelago

"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] -

ARBCOM notice[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 21:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017[edit]

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


Administrator changes

added AnarchyteGeneralizationsAreBadCullen328 (first RfA to reach WP:300)
removed CpromptRockpocketRambo's RevengeAnimumTexasAndroidChuck SMITHMikeLynchCrazytalesAd Orientem

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

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

Community editing restriction[edit]

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)
    • To be clear, the intent of allowing you to edit at ANI was to allow you to participate in the complaint raised against you. Mjroots (talk) 07:00, 5 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: [1], 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)]

20th century[edit]

All these articles are getting out of hand. Please see this: [2], 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.

ANI complaint against Arthur Rubin[edit]

(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 [3] 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)

Notice of noticeboard discussion[edit]

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: [4], 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)

Statement toward ANI complaint[edit]

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)

19th century[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Bullying by TRM[edit]

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. (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. (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 [5]
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)

US Zines[edit]

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.

On this day, 12 years ago...[edit]

Balloons-aj.svg 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)