User talk:Arthur Rubin

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This user is no longer active on Wikipedia because of hostile editing environment.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

Removing original photos

hi, I disagree with you removing my original photos from several pages. I think that they nit nay comply with the terms of use, but they provide an accurate view of the subjects. Thanks --The Educated 10:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brow276 (talk • contribs)

Most of them are unnecessarialy pornographic or inappropriate to the article. I left one of the six, as appropriate and, although pornographic, the only relevant photo. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI Arthur: One of those pictures is clearly a copyvio, the others most likly, too. So ignore that "user". --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

image removed from science fiction article

Hi Arthur,

You removed an image I posted (cover of Canticle for Leibowitz) to the article on Science Fiction. I can understand the rationale behind it, I suppose - not fair use because the article is not about that novel - but what I don't understand is how the other two images in that section - covers of The Left Hand of Darkness and Neuromancer are in fact permitted to be there, since that rationale would seem to apply to them as well. I'd also be curious to hear why the in-text reference to Canticle was superfluous enough to be deleted; it seems like a fairly canonical novel for the subgenre. I'm relatively new to this, so any information you can offer would be helpful. Thanks! Sindinero (talk) 03:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct. I'll take care of the other images (after verifying that copyright has not been released), please re-add Canticle for Leibowitz to the appropriate section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You should be able to find some illustrations of science fiction works that are old enough that copyright has expired, e.g. the illustrations at Jules Verne. JRSpriggs (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

conspiracy theory

Hi Arthur, you said at the Climategate page 'For conspiracies, I accept that the some sources support conspiracy theory, and few (if any) contradict it.' This is wrong.

1) If you look at V's sources [1] he has provided only one, Information World Review, that actually uses the loaded term, 'conspiracy theory'. All of his others use 'conspiracy' without a 'theory' straight after it, i.e. in the sense of 'allegations of a conspiracy'. I would then ask is an IT magazine, IWR, a reliable source in any case?

2) Even if it is, the fact that 'conspiracy theory' is largely pejorative and used almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning it is, therefore, a statement of opinion, not a statement of fact, and reliably sourced or otherwise, it must be attributed, per NPOV.

What am I missing here? Alex Harvey (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Architect and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Hi, I don’t know if you remember the whole affair about the reliability of an English/Italian journalist regarding the article “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth”

I was citing Paolo Attivissimo, an English/Italian journalist, as a source for investigations on this group, and there was a dispute on the reliability of said journalist.

You were asking for some source which could be compared to the Skeptical Inquirer, so here’s what I have:

He publishes articles on “Le Scienze”, which is the Italian edition of Scientific American.: http://lescienze.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/maggio_2011,_n.513/1347688

Again, the Italian Police cites him as a reliable source regarding hoax debunking:

http://www.poliziadistato.it/poliziamoderna/articolo.php?cod_art=2168

He cooperates with NASA http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/PaoloAttivissimo.html

(side note, he’s here with astronaut Walter Cunningham, since he’s also a translator: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lrosa/5627235560/ )

He is interviewed on RAI (Italian Public TV ) regarding hoaxes:

http://www.rai.tv/dl/replaytv/replaytv.html#day=2011-05-08&ch=1&v=63091&vd=2011-05-08&vc=1

And on Mediaset (Italy’s main private TV, Berlusconi’s one to be clear): http://www.video.mediaset.it/video/matrix/full/224853/notizie-e-bufale.html#tf-s1-c1-o1-p1

He has his own program on Swiss national radio: http://www.rsi.ch/home/networks/retetre/disinformatico (The Italian speaking part of Switzerland, where he lives)

He writes for the Italian edition of Wired: http://www.wired.it/search?a=Paolo%20Attivissimo

He wrote for The Register: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/23/italy_blog_law_outrage/

So let me know if that is sufficient to consider him a reliable source, and his blog, being the blog of a journalist and expert, can be cited as a source. Thank you, and good travelling.Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 16:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Nine

Regarding your latest tagging of "Nine independent committees investigated the allegations and published reports detailing their findings", I am once again at a complete loss trying to understand why you say this statement "failed verification" and is "disputed". As both an administrator and a mathematician, I assume you are familiar with WP:CALC. The source describes eight separate inquiries and the source itself is the ninth probe, this one by the Commerce Department Inspector General, which is covered in spades by secondary news sources.[2] How does 8 + 1 = 9 fail verification or represent a dispute? Is there a good reason you added these maintenance tags? Please remove them. Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The source names 5 "separate" inquiries, unless you want to include the Senate committee report which did find wrongdoing, albeit clearly wrongly. I don't see how you can possibly get 8. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It appears I was wrong. It does mention 8 inquiries, but doesn't say that they found no evidence of fraud. The report only says the inquiries didn't find anything wrong that that committee was asked to investigate. Hence, we can say there were 9 inquiries looking into particular aspects of the dispute. We cannot say that none of the 8 found evidence of scientific misconduct or fraud. We can only say none of the 6 published reports found evidence of scientific misconduct or fraud. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Whether the investigations found evidence of fraud has nothing to do with the number of reports or your tagging. Did any one of the nine investigations find evidence of scientific malfeasance? This is not the first time you have appealed to evidence that doesn't exist, and I'm getting tired of it. Why do you keep doing this? If you believe that the reports found this evidence, then you need to produce the source saying it. All the secondary sources are clear on this subject. What boggles the mind is that you would waste your time and mine posting this. You know that the reports did not find evidence of scientific malfeasance. So then, why did you even write this? After dealing with this kind of response from you for the last few weeks, I'm getting the impression that you are trying to waste my time. Either that, or you don't understand what you are saying. Is there a third option? Viriditas (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Absurd. That none of the published reports of investigations found evidence of fraud doesn't mean that undocumented investigations didn't. You can't include the count and add the misleading statement that none of the investigations found evidence of scientific malfeasance. One of the investigations found evidence of admission of malfeasance, namely deleting emails to avoid a later FOIA request. It's just not scientific malfeasance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

What "undocumented investgation" found evidence of malfeasance? Can you please stop referring to specific reports without using the names of their reports? This gives the appearance that you are playing rhetorical games and are tendentiously arguing for the sake of arguing. When you refer to specific evidence, always refer to it by name. Viriditas (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, the undocumented inquiry did not publish' a "detailed report"; we have no idea whether it produced a detailed report. If you want to include the 9, you would have to say that "some produced a detailed report", and that none of the published reports found evidence of scientific misconduct or fraud. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

No, Arthur. Your trivial objections have no bearing on the meaning or the wording used. These are detailed reports that were produced and published in the normal, general use of the term. Your continued objections to basic words that an average reader would understand are simply objecting for the sake of objecting, which I find disruptive. Viriditas (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

How can an undocumented investigation have a published report? No, you are either synthesizing or creating "information" out of the reports. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Arthur, what undocumented investigation that lacks a report are you referring to here? Please name it. Viriditas (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't need to do that. If you mention 9 investigations, and state that no investigations found evidence of malfeasance, you need to demonstrate that each of the 9 investigations did not find evidence of malfeasance. All we really know is that the original 6 investigations did not report finding evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. In investigation where the report isn't published, we shouldn't comment on what they found, unless they publish a summary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason you are still mentioning an unnamed investigation when I have asked you to please name the investigation you are referring to here? What is the name of the investigation "where the report isn't published"? Arthur, do you realize that you are not communicating effectively? If we are agreed that there were nine investigations, then that resolves the problem of your tagging. Notice, you have now moved the goalposts and changed the topic, and that is fine, but you need to work on addressing one problem at a time. You sound like you agree that there were 9 investigations, correct? Viriditas (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2m011 (UTC)

Nope, I didn't move the goal-posts. You moved the ball out of bounds when you said there were 9 investigations. Once you specify that, any rational person would assume that, when we go on to say that "no investigation found evidence of fraud", that it refers to all 9 investigations. Your source, the NOAA investigation, found an undocumented prior NOAA investigation. We don't know what it found; only that your source reported that it didn't find anything of interest to your source's investigation. If you mention the 9 investigations, you need to have evidence that none of the investigations found "fraud" or "scientific misconduct" (or whatever you want to say in the lede). We don't know that.

Just leave it as 6 in the lede, or don't count them at all. If you do that, the rest of that section of the lede is more-or-less correct, although I still see NPOV problems. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

There's no need for a false dilemma, Arthur. Do you or do you not agree that there were nine investigations? Yes or no, please. I would like to address one topic at a time, Arthur. Once you've answered that question, we can move on to your other points. Please do not continue to ignore previous points and change the topic. The way to proceed is to address each point and work towards resolution. Otherwise, you give the appearance of trying to create a dispute where none exists. Viriditas (talk) 06:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree there were 9 investigations (although it's a little bit of synthesis; your report only mentions 7, and we have another one not mentioned there). However, there are at least two of which we know nothing about the results. Hence, the "detailed reports" and "found no evidence of ..." need to refer to those specific reports about which we know the reports.

It would be preferable if you worked on the body of the article, either as a draft (if you agreed not to edit the article for a while) or in the article itself, rather than adding new material in the lede not appearing in the body. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The report lists eight inquiries and the report itself represents the ninth. Why do you say the report only mentions 7? Which two do we not have results about? Please stick to discussing this subject and avoid adding additional tangential discussions until we resolve the first one. I believe I have already made this request. It is very frustrating having to discuss this with you, because you always launch into 10 different topics before finishing discussing one. So, we agree that there were nine investigations? However, you say the report only mentions seven. I see eight plus one. Why are we not on the same page? Viriditas (talk) 07:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I do only see 7 other investigations mentioned. Perhaps you could specify, in detail? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Yopienso, last thread on the page. Then, please explain your reasoning here. Viriditas (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

CRU email controversy

Hi Arthur. I recently asked Viritidas, Alex Harvey, and Pete Tillman to consider taking a fortnight off the CRU email controversy article, as tensions might have built up a bit too much recently. SBHB has also agreed to take two weeks off the article; I was wondering if you might do the same. Regards, NW (Talk) 02:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

99.181.137.81

What's up with the reverts?   Will Beback  talk  08:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The individual reverts have individual reasons, almost given previously, but most include WP:OVERLINK, the removal of easter eggs, or the anon's attempt to link inappropriate wikilinks. Any specific one you have in mind? You'll probably note I didn't revert all of their edits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

[3][4][5] There are definitely some odd edits in there, but reverts without comments should only be done in cases of clear vandalism. Over-linking isn't vandalism, by any stretch, nor is writing non-harassing notes to other editors. I understand that the anon and you have a history. Since he hops IPs there may not be much we can do about it, and since he has no stable talk page it's almost impossible to have a sensible discussion. Nonetheless, he's not a vandal.   Will Beback  talk  08:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

1. Should have been per WP:CANVASS. I commented later on the talk page.
2. Per easter egg. I see only said that once in an edit comment, but no one has yet brought it up on the talk page. I believe it's been discussed with the anon on another talk page, but since the anon makes so many bad edits, I can't locate it.
3. Per easter egg. I did discuss it on the talk page before the latest set of reverts.

and isn't repeated violation of WP:BRD considered revertable, even if not vandalism? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

BRD is an essay. Violating it is not a violation of any policy or guideline and it is not vandalism. The idea that it's OK to revert a failure to BRD makes no logical sense anyway. Easter eggs are not vandalism either (unless they're obviously crude or something). Canvassing is not vandalism. The rollback button is only for vandalism.

I understand the frustration with this editor. The only long term solution to disruption by someone who floats among IPs is to document the problem and to request a ban if it meets the threshold. That doesn't mean the editors can be blocked any easier, but it does make the issues clearer. However until that time this editor is free to edit and his edits, however unwise, must not be treated as vandalism unless they meet the standards found at WP:VANDAL.   Will Beback  talk  09:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Will. You're an admin and you perfectly knew that reverting someone's comment (be it an IP or registered) is against talk page guidelines because none of those comments are close to vandalism. They might appear to be WP:CANVASS, but the wordings are neutral and open. Reverting such messages aren't permitted by the talk page guidelines. Furthermore, your reverts violated WP:INVOLVED and that is a policy. You lost an argument at Talk:Sustainability so you should drop your stick and not going after talk pages of people who did not agree with your views. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

[6]?   Will Beback  talk  06:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it's innocuous, but it appeared, at first, to change the formatting of your comments to combine them, a clear violation of WP:TALK, unless the IP is you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The real problem, which can't be readily reverted, is his practice of using the edit summaries to communicate whatever it is that he's trying to say.[7] I don't know what to do about him. He's not violating any particular policies or guidelines, but he's getting annoying even though I do think he's trying to help.   Will Beback  talk  06:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I just got a complaint from the anon about another of your reverts.[8] You might consider just ignoring him.   Will Beback  talk  05:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Then he showed me this edit.[9] It really does seem like you are following him and reverting innocuous edits. I really think you need to just ignore him and let others act if he is actually breaking WP rules. Don't let yourself be brought down by inappropriate responses to a minor account.   Will Beback  talk  05:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

3rd millennium

You have used the wrong warning on my talk page, clearly. 88.109.29.126 (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Not if you're the same person who previously edited as 88.109.19.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

financial repression is a tax

see Reinhart and Rogoff (2008), Reinhart and Sbrancia (2011) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghileman (talk • contribs) 14:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it can be a "tax" in the same sense that inflation is a "tax". However, I probably shouldn't have reverted, just tagged the section as unsourced and irrelevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

This article lists the inflation tax, so it seems appropriate to also list the related financial repression tax. For a discussion of why financial repression constitutes a form of taxation please page 143 of Reinhart's and Rogoff's (2008) This Time is Different. Ghileman (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I checked your citation, which apparently is to the e-book. Page 143 thereof does not support your contention, and in fact may rebut it. It states, "Under financial repression, banks are vehicles that allow governments to squeeze indirect tax revenue from citizens by monopolizing the entire savings and payment system, not simply currency. Governments force local residents to save in banks by giving them few, if any, other options." The discussion is in the section "A Preamble on the Theory of Banking Crises" with a subheading "Banking Crises in Repressed Financial Systems", hardly a discussion of tax. The e-book uses the word tax infrequently and colloquially. Suggest you revise your positions, and certainly your citations. Oldtaxguy (talk) 02:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Ceci n'est pas une étoile de la grange

I've never got excited about the whole "barnstar" concept, but I just want to acknowledge your good work defending List of numbers amidst the recent editing chaos. Jowa fan (talk) 09:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

BLP protection request

Hi Arthur,

Since you are an admin, I thought I would ask if you could protect a BLP from persistent vandalism. It is the Rick Santorum BLP, which is understandably under attack since he is a Republican presidential candidate. An outspoken political activist, Dan Savage mounted a campaign a while ago to coin a new crude definition for 'santorum.' IPs have persistently been trying to put that crude definition into the article through various means. I don't have a problem with established users arguing that the content should be in the article, but I do with the drive-by IPs. Thanks for your consideration. Drrll (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. I'll keep an eye on it, but I don't think it warrants protection. Yet. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Confused

Any clue why the IP came to my page to whine about you? I've never edited that article before, at least, I don't think so, since it's not on my watchlist. Don't think I've run across the IP either. Should I kick your ass or something? Warn you? Do a dance? Bring you a cup of coffee? I'll challenge you to duel, how about that? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see. I put one of those Welcome Templates on his page. Teaches me a lesson about being nice. This is what happens. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It may have been the Welcome Template, but he's also spammed talk pages of editors I've been in disagreement with, or who have agreed with the user (under a different IP) on a different topic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to revert

Hi, I noticed your revert, followed by a revert of the revert. It is fine by me to undo my edits if you disagree. I am fairly used to it lately :), I won't take it personally. Thenub314 (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

If I had intended to revert your edit, I would have given a reason. I was reverting more nonsense edits by the IP-hopping 99.* semi-vandal on global warming. (I believe the IP has good intentions, but has no ability to comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I give reasons for the first time I revert it, but not for successive nonsense edits.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Dear Arthur Rubin  !

Dear Arthur Rubin , based on your assertion :" Concur that they appear not to be used by anyone other than Boubaker...." Please check here [10] and just say if it is OK or not. Thanks --Techala (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Innuendo

Dear Arthur Rubin,

I saw that your removed my section abouta blog about the ICD. I am aware that the section strictly speaking was not in line with Wikipedia policies so I won't argue that it should be undone. However I put it there because the article itself, which was started by someone at the ICD, is full of references to their own website, and because most of what is out there about the ICD likewise seems to refer back to themselves. The truth is, I only ever heard of them because of receiving some very efficient spam which targets university addresses and which is quite difficult to block. Googling them, it seems that spamming is in fact a very deliberate strategy that involves over 70 interns, and I'd like to unveil that. In any case, I get your point.

In a different vein, I think that the references section of that article could be improved, as it is not clear from the references exactly what they refer to: to their website, or to other sources. I'd like to change that, but since I did not start the article I want to be sure that I am not messing up someone else's work that has already been approved. Do you have any suggestions of what I might do? Best SkaraB 13:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

RfC

Hi, you are a member of WikiProject Mathematics and you are the first one who commented on this deletion, could you please comment here, thank you.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  18:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Wealth

Hi, do you mind explaining to me in simple English how the world's wealth was able to increase so much over the past two centuries. Also, will the enormous wealth of today be maintained? Pass a Method talk 23:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Wealth per capita has increased primarily due to two effects:

• Increased population allows greater specialization, that is, more division of labor leading to more efficiency.
• Accumulation of technology, that is, knowledge of how to do things, and do them efficiently.

This should continue unless something interferes with these processes. Right? JRSpriggs (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Dear Arthur Rubin !2

Dear Arthur Rubin , based on your assertion :" Concur that they appear not to be used by anyone other than Boubaker...." Please check here [11] and just say if it is OK or not. Thanks --Techala (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

CRU tag team reverts

Arthur, you once again performed a tag team revert on Climatic Research Unit email controversy without acknowledging or responding to discussion on the talk page. Your edit summary, consisting of concur with Tillman. The quote is excessive; if you feel it's relevant, please summarize does not even touch upon the points raised in that discussion. Furthermore, how can you summarize a quote? Your edit summary (and rationale for reverting) is nonsensical. Please consider this the last warning and do not do this again. Use the talk page to discuss your edits, not the edit summary. So far, you have not responded to that discussion at all. Viriditas (talk) 09:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If there is a "tag team", you are the principle member. You still have not supplied material in the article (either references in the lede, or text in the article) for your rewrite of the lede. You may have supplied references on the talk page, but you have supplied so many clearly inappropriate references, that it's hard to tell. This quote might be justified, but in the wrong section of the article. I've commented now on the talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I will continue the discussion on the talk page, however, I have already demonstrated that it is in the correct place. Viriditas (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

"In case of known edit warriors, such as yourself"

Arthur, please take a moment out of your busy day to count the number of reverts you've made to the Climatic Research Unit email controversy since January 1, 2011 and then compare it with the number I've made. I count somewhere on the order of 17 reverts from you. On the other hand, I've made a little over 10. Viriditas (talk) 10:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You have made far more reverts than you're counting. On the other hand, I'm probably making more reverts than you're counting, so we may be about even. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Adding the names of editors to talk page headings

Re: User_talk:Tillman#June_2011: Arthur, as an administrator, you should know better than to restore the name of an editor to a talk page heading after that editor has objected to its placement per WP:TALKNEW and WP:NPA. If you aren't willing to uphold Wikipedia policies and guidelines in your role as an administrator, you may want to contact a steward. I can understand that you must feel tired and stressed from the demands and responsibilities, but your recent actions and comments have me concerned. In addition to restoring personal attacks, it troubles me to see you admit that you can't write from a NPOV.[12] Please make an effort to incorporate the policies and guidelines into your role as an administrator and uphold them, even if you don't believe them. Viriditas (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Wrong, on both counts:

1. It's your edit; removing your name in the title makes it ambiguous, although it may be possible to fix it by describing the "problematic" edit in more detail in the title. Hence, your edit damaged the talk page, even if some change were required by the policy.
2. It's not addressed to you, it's about your edit to the article. Tillman's request (earlier on the page) for another specific editor to reply to one of his questions is a violation of that provision, or possibly even asking anyone but you to reply might be violation.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not wrong at all, Arthur, it is both policy and guideline; policy in the sense that personal attacks are condemned and editors should always focus on content not the contributor when discussing how to improve an article, and guideline which recommends avoiding using the names of other editors in talk page discussions about content. Finally, when an editor, any editor, asks you to stop addressing them in the header of an article talk page, you stop. What you don't do as an admin, is restore the attacks. It sounds to me like you no longer want to be an admin, in which case, you should ask a steward to relieve you of the burden. Viriditas (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You're using a definition of "address" which I'm not familiar with. In fact, few of your sentences have accuracy in them.

1. There is neither policy nor guideline which states that the name of an editor should not be used in a section heading when necessary to describe the edit in question.
2. You are using the term "address" in a way inconsistent with normal English language usage.
3. What you removed was not an "attack", and it's removal changed the meaning of Pete's first statement. Pete's later statement that you are engaged in WP:TE might be considered an attack, if it hadn't been backed up by links earlier in the talk page. It's not irrelevant to discussion of article improvement, as it relates to (your) other edits to that article. It's not true that the value of edits to an article should be treated independently of other edits to the same article.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas

Hi Arthur - I just added a post to the existing AN/I thread that Viriditas started providing some diffs and asking for people to comment on his behavior. I figured I would let you know, since you also seem to have had some problematic contact with him. I know it would normally be more fitting as a WQA post but WQA asks you not to post if there's a thread elsewhere already dealing with the same issues. I'm not very familiar with the dispute resolution processes in general, but am hoping that getting a few additional outside editors commenting will yield productive resolution. Since you have had prior contact with him, I'd appreciate it if you could chime in with your thoughts on the ANI thread. Kevin (talk) 06:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)