PLEASE READ THE BELOW INFORMATION BEFORE POSTING TO THIS PAGE.
I will reply to you on this page unless you request otherwise. Please watch this page if you comment.
Further, please note:
Please use a ==descriptive header== and sign & date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message.
Please use [[wikilinks]] when mentioning users and pages.
I will not reply directly to attacks, innuendo or general incivility. You will be wasting your time if you're here for that. I may however reply via a warning on your own talk page or a report to the Administrators' incident noticeboard. Save your time and mine so that we can both use it to build a better Wikipedia.
Additionally, if you're a good Wikipedian or catch my attention via your actions throughout Wikipedia, you may be awarded by me this Barnstar.
Please note that I archive talk posts so if commenting on an old thread from the archives, consider starting a new thread.
Please note that I am a "regular". Do not template me as I will surely revert. For more info, refer to WP:DTTR.
Ratel, it has been pointed out to me that it was wrong for me to refer you to the policy on vandalism and warn you that you could be banned. As you are probably aware Wikipedia editing can become very frustrating at times and your insistence on including that "luck" quote from Paltridge which I don't think we're likely to see eye to eye on any time soon indeed caused me to feel very angry. I probably should have at that point turned off my computer and poured myself a strong drink but at the end of the day I am an emotional person and rarely make wise decisions in anger. I do not in fact believe your actions were "vandalism" as I am aware that you actually believe the material you are inserting belongs in the article. It's unfortunate that I don't think we're likely to agree on much else but on this much, we probably can agree: I made a mistake and I am sorry. In case you're not aware I then accused Atmoz of vandalism a few minutes later on another page which is a pretty good sign that I really had lost it. Let me know if there's anything else I can do here to make amends. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From a fellow Aussie, apology accepted. You seem to edit here a lot. I'm also ex-IT ... finding employment difficult much? I don't think GP is significant enough to get too worked up over, btw. Outside AU he's unknown. And even here, almost nobody knows who he is. I'm trying to get another copy of the Climate Caper book so I can revamp the content section. I had it for a few days but let it go back into the system; now it seems I need to get it back. ► RATEL ◄23:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your time may be better spent upgrading skills and networking than wikiwarring. I'm guessing I'm quite a bit older than you and facing different hurdles. ► RATEL ◄07:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should know better.
You've been here long enough to know that commenting on the contributors is not appropriate. You've sent the BLP of a Wikipedian you're in a dispute with to AFD, you cited no policies and no guides for deletion, you failed to notify the subject, you canvassed for delete votes via email, and you're making sniping comments at the subject/editor in the AFD. You need to pull yourself together because you're heading quick for a block. Lara04:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I overlooked informing him, but that's an excusable mistake. I cited notability as grounds for deletion, and I'm still convinced of it (the seems to be a degree of US-centrism in the Keep votes: the prizes and honours mentioned are not as big a deal elsewhere, and Erdos is not famous for anything in particular other than being a prolific and colorful character). It's purely coincidental that I Afded a page connected to someone I dislike 9I'm not engaged in a formal dispute with him at the moment, take note). my dislike of his terrible adminning led me to the page, and my first thought was "Ugh, this shouldn't be on wikipedia". I canvassed only you, because of your obvious antipathy to Rubin and bec. I believe there may be a movement amongst admins protecting each other from action like a page deletion (I may be wrong). The sniping comments are your interpretation, to me they are merely the honest truth. ► RATEL ◄04:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTABILITY is a big page. There are specific sections that apply to specific people. It might be helpful to explain how he fails to meet those. Personally, I'd prefer the standard for BLPs be that rather than argue for deletion, people have to argue to keep. As it is, however, it's up to you to argue why the page should be deleted, and thus far it's merely that he doesn't seem notable to you, and then you conflate notability with fame. Lara05:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have closed the AfD both for the bad faith nomination, and also for canvassing via email. You need to ensure that such a display of poor behavior does not happen again. Kevin (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was not a bad faith nom despite the fact that he shouldn't be an admin. The page is a travesty and would not survive on foreign language wikipedias. Nuff said. But the admin brotherhood lives on, I see. ► RATEL ◄05:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you clearly have problems with Arthur being an admin, you are possibly the last person who should nominate the article on him for deletion. On the same note, I strongly suggest that you refrain from editing the article at all. Kevin (talk) 05:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To add to the things you should know better about: continuing to edit Arthur Rubin while you are still in a dispute with him and after your AfD on him was shot down. Blocking seems very much in play. I'd do it myself already if I weren't already too involved. Consider yourself warned. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about you violating OR rules there, huh? reverse yourself please. Secondly, where am I in formal dispute with him? Nowhere. Thirdly, I'm editing a wikipedia main space page per the rules, not Rubin'x User page. There is a difference. What rules am I breaking? Link? ► RATEL ◄05:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not good enough. That's a big page with lots of contents. I skimmed it and there is nothing, nothing about my attempt to improve a crappy page that I was not able to delete. If i cannot get it deleted, at least I can remove the OR and note the broken links, or does that outrage the Friends of Arthur? ► RATEL ◄06:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing
Your canvassing was highly inappropriate. I received an email from you soliciting my support at AfD based on the fact that I had previously supported action against Arthur Rubin. I have taken note that Jennavecia and others also received a similar message from you. This is an explicit violation of the canvassing rules and the prohibition on turning Wikipedia into a battleground. It's not just a matter of rules. The spirit in which the notes were written, with the blatant appeal to perceived potential "enemies" of the subject, runs counter to basic social sensibilities. Whatever axe you have to grind, I suggest that you put it down and find something else to do. You have made it clear that you will disregard basic behavioral rules and social norms to put the axe to the stone. Should you continue down this route, it will be rewarded with blocks as a preventative measure, given that context. Vassyana (talk) 07:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The tone and intent of the message was quite blatant, as were at least some of the messages you sent to others. Trying to spin it as being the innocent provider of neutral courtesy notes is not going to wash. Vassyana (talk) 07:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I approached a whole lot of admins whom I thought would take shame at the presence of a person like Rubin, a politician who has run for office on the Libertarian ticket, and who now aggressively edits climate change articles when he has very strong fringe views on the topic (Libertarians believe anthropogenic global warming is a lie, if you weren't aware). But obviously I overestimated a lot of people, sadly. ► RATEL ◄07:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of his views or actions, your own conduct here is well beyond the pale. Between these two replies, you have me believing that you neither accept any wrongdoing in your actions nor intend to walk away from Arthur Rubin. Please correct me if I am mistaken. Vassyana (talk) 07:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please ask Rubin this question, not me. He stalked me to various pages (Garth Paltridge chief amongst them, as well as commenting against me on noticeboards) after I ran into him on 350 (organisation) (where he was trying to merge-delete a page he ideologically disagreed with). If he leaves me alone I am more than happy to ignore him. ► RATEL ◄08:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I approached a whole lot of admins whom I thought would take shame at the presence of a person like Rubin. This is precisely why your actions were in bad faith and why your canvassing violated policy. You solicited only people who you believed would have a problem with the admin expecting that would give them reason to vote delete on his article which is, as you noted, a separate matter from his editing of this project. You also specifically told me that I was the only person you emailed, which was clearly untrue, but it does indicate that, despite your argument that the email was perfectly fine, you realized that you had acted inappropriately with the emails.
If you have a case against Arthur for wiki-stalking and admin tool abuse, create an RFC/U. Again, you've been here long enough to know this. It seems there may be a shift in winds that makes it much easier to yank admin bits, so pull it together, gather and check your emotions, read some policy pages, then proceed through dispute resolution. Otherwise, go edit some articles (and note that Arthur's BLP shouldn't make your listed of edited articles from here on out). Lara12:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you were the only person, IIRC, that I asked to vote delete. The rest I merely pointed to the discussion. As to RFC/U, I don't have time for all the ensuing wikidrama. But I hope he's learned a lesson, not to stalk and bully and abuse tools. But based on his record, I doubt it. I'll leave his page alone, even though it is full of inaccessible/dead link, OR and more. Someone reading this should take a look. And Arthur, if you're reading this, go bug someone else, m'kay? Or else I'll take Lara's advice about the easier paths to seeking desysopping. ► RATEL ◄14:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw that link added today — 1) where is he called a "genius" in that article? and 2) such great things were predicted, so what went wrong? Because something obviously did. ► RATEL ◄08:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, I added those sources when the article was at AFD previously. The word genius appears in the LA Times article. It's not actually that big a deal - in IQ terms it just means the top 0.1% or so - and I was graded that level myself. As to what went wrong - "many are called, but few are chosen" and conventional success is "99% perspiration", as the saying goes. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]