Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Amortias (Talk) & Mdann52 (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Mkdw (Talk) & Callanecc (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 3 recused. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0–1 6
2–3 5
4–5 4

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Proposed motions[edit]

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Motions require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending. It can also be used to impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic. Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed, unless there are at least four votes to implement immediately. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned.

Support:
  1. Mkdw talk 04:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. kelapstick(bainuu) 06:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Doug Weller talk 12:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 03:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Drmies (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Keilana (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Editor conduct[edit]

2) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Support:
  1. Mkdw talk 04:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. kelapstick(bainuu) 06:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Doug Weller talk 12:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 03:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Drmies (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Keilana (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Administrator conduct[edit]

3) Administrators are expected to observe a high standard of conduct and retain the trust of the community at all times. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. Sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the expectations and responsibilities of administrators, and consistent or egregious poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator tools.

Support:
  1. Mkdw talk 04:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. kelapstick(bainuu) 06:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Doug Weller talk 12:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 03:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Drmies (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Keilana (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Conduct on Arbitration pages[edit]

4) The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.

Support:
  1. Mkdw talk 04:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. kelapstick(bainuu) 06:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Doug Weller talk 12:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 03:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Drmies (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Keilana (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Locus of dispute[edit]

1) The locus of this dispute centres on the conduct of Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) and their accountability under WP:ADMINACCT.

Support:
  1. Mkdw talk 04:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. kelapstick(bainuu) 02:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 03:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Doug Weller talk 10:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Keilana (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

User permissions[edit]

2) Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) questionably removed WP:NPR permissions from Legacypac (talk · contribs) during an ANI discussion, directly reversing and challenging an administrative action performed by Swarm (talk · contribs). Arthur Rubin did not adhere to WP:RAAA when he failed to notify, and discuss in advance, the reversal with Swarm. The permission removal was later overturned via discussion.

Support:
  1. Mkdw talk 04:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I appreciate Callanecc's concerns, but IMO yanking people's user rights is one of the more aggressive things one can do with the admin tools - even blocks are usually limited in time, so you don't have to go cap-in-hand back to the admin corps looking to get the decision reversed if you don't want to. Supporting a topic ban is participating in a social process, revoking user rights is a power move. I have no objection to dropping the RAAA sentence, though; to be honest I think the pendulum has swung a bit too far when it comes to "reverting" admin actions. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Doug Weller talk 10:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. kelapstick(bainuu) 22:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mkdw's comments below regarding the difference between a new action and reversing an action are enough for me. Though, I still stand by my comment that AR could have reasonably believed that Swarm would not object the removal (AR's comments suggest that he didn't do it with that in mind though). I also stand by my comment that this is more in mistake than admin abuse territory. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. (per OR: re yanking) Drmies (talk) 01:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Keilana (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Thinking about this further, I'm not comfortable with the precedent we're setting. We're essentially saying that if you change another admins action you are required to follow RAAA. That is not what is done at the moment and IMHO shouldn't be. Consider changing the protection of a template from full to TPE, or unprotecting a page which has been protected for a couple years, or removing a user right which has been misused (not that this happened here). AR identified that there was an issue that the Swarm may not have been aware of (see my comment below about how one could come to the conclusion that this wasn't likely to be objected to) and pulled the user right. Removing the user right during a discussion which was about a related ban wasn't best practice it certainly wasn't way out there in terms of actions which are undertaken. This was definitely a mistake (and I've outlined below ) but it wasn't administrative abuse. If we were to drop the bit from "directly reversing..." to "...reversal with Swarm" I'd support.

In addition, as I mentioned below, it seems that a larger issue here is that AR did not adequately explain and support his action with evidence (as opposed to just making unsupported accusations). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Abstain:
Comments:
I'm not convinced on this one. Given that four (ish) days after Swarm granted the NPR right he voted to support a ban on Legacypac from moving stuff from draft-space to mainspace, it seems that Arthur's comment when removing the right was somewhat accurate. RAAA requires discussion when an action is likely to be objected to. While voting to support the move ban may not be the same as supporting removing NPR it is close enough to be excused as 'not likely to be objected to'. So, it's really only the RAAA sentence I'd rather wasn't there, I can live with "questionably".

The biggest problem here looks, to me, like Arthur removed the right without offering a substantiated reason (only allegations). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I need to read into this one a little more, based on Callanecc's comments.--kelapstick(bainuu) 02:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Callanecc: I have to disagree with your oppose and rather strongly. Arthur Rubin was challenging and reversing an administrative action. The examples you provide are not challenges and reversals; they are new administrative actions that change the current restriction. This distinction is very important and the FOF, as explicitly written, does not cover the examples you provide. It is why the wording closely mirrors what's stated in WP:RAAA. This was addressed in the workshop. Arthur Rubin's edit summary made the reason for their removal very clear, "I removed NPP bit as the addition was apparently done without considering his actions at the time" and their comment, "...addition of the bit as a regular NPP, without noting that his actions as NPP were questioned...".
This FOF does not speak about the two issues which you cite in your oppose: 1) RAAA is required in all situations when administrative action replaces an existing one 2) Arthur Rubin misused their tools when they removed the user permission. Mkdw talk 04:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This distinction about replacing an old action versus taking a new one seems a bit artificial to me. A surprising number of situations are ambiguous about whether or not an "administrative action" has been taken. (My least favorite pattern here is when admin A has obviously looked into an issue and declined to take action, and then admin B comes along, either doesn't notice or "doesn't notice" the previous decision, and does whatever they want.) But to be honest, I think the current status quo is too strongly in favor of preserving the first mover's decision. I don't like this framing of the issue because removing someone's user rights without good reason is a lousy way to treat someone over whom you have power, even if it's a fairly trivial sort of power, and this stuff about reversing admin actions makes it sound like the injured party is the un-consulted original admin rather than the editor who was actually affected. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INVOLVED[edit]

3) Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) was not in violation of WP:INVOLVED at the time WP:NPR permissions were removed from Legacypac (talk · contribs) on 11 June 2017. The following discussion at ANI and on Arthur Rubin's user talk page was the point where Arthur Rubin was "becoming involved".

Support:
  1. Mkdw talk 04:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It's important that we, as a Committee, make a clear interpretation of what makes someone involved. Contributing to a discussion such as this does not make an administrator involved. Regarding the "becoming involved" I believe that's just there to address some of the concerns which were raised prior and during the case. That is, when AR became involved - this FoF does not make a judgement that AR was involved but that he was moving closer to the line. I'd be happy to drop the last sentence if that's what people would like. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Callanecc. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Calla Keilana (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. also per Calla. Doug Weller talk 05:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I don't think it's necessary for us to rule on this, given the other findings in the case. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree with Kirill that this is not necessary to support the decision. To the extent that there's a need for a clearer interpretation of the policy, I don't think that's an issue for us to decide in relation to this narrow case where "involvedness" is a side point. Either a case where it's central will come up, or (hopefully! please spare us! ;) the community will iron out any ambiguities on its own. (That being said, I don't actually think that ambiguity on this subject is a significant problem at this point.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Kirill and OR Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
The question of whether Arthur Rubin was involved when he removed NPR is basically centred around whether these edits [1] [2] make him involved or if an interaction in "purely in an administrative role" (per WP:INVOLVED). My thinking is that voting to support/oppose an edit restriction is an administrative interaction so does not make one involved. However, this might be an area where some discussion is required first, whether from arbs (here) or community members (on the talk page). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While I would not consider the comments Callanecc notes above as making Arthur Rubin involved, generally it is inadvisable to take action on discussions in which you are taking part. Although there are exceptions, and I would not consider this one of them. Having said that, I wouldn't consider this an inadvisable action, but not significant enough to be of concern.--kelapstick(bainuu) 03:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about this one as written; I don't like to introduce the notion of "becoming" (as distinct from "being") involved. And while DGG is recused from the case, the fact that the linked comment was written by an arb (I hadn't noticed that before) feels a little awkward. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had several concerns about this particular issue in particular. It is raised in nearly every ArbCom case with respect to administrative conduct. The most recent with Winhunter case request where this again needed to be clarified.
  1. There is obviously a discrepancy between community expectations and etiquette and with what the policy states as written.
  2. ArbCom does not decide on matters of policy. Enforcing the community expectation over the written policy effectively creates a new policy at the hands of ArbCom.
  3. If Arthur Rubin is determined to be INVOLVED based upon those two interactions, it means any admin who comments or votes at ANI may never act administratively against that editor who is the subject of the discussion, ever again. That is an enormous expansion of the policy.
In regards to "becoming involved", I simply quote what was essentially the de facto outcome of the NPR issue when it was overturned and closed by an admin. Incidentally, they were an Arb but it was not an ArbCom action. Mkdw talk 15:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mkdw: I wonder if we could simply drop the last sentence? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that is possible as it's the least consequential aspect of the FOF. I do think this is worth voting on as it was a major claim in the case. I also have to ask, if this FOF is opposed, in most other settings, it would not mean the FOF passes; rather an oppose outcome on this FOF would mean the committee believes Arthur Rubin was WP:INVOLVED. It's a negative vote, not an abstention on the FOF. Correct? Mkdw talk 05:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It could mean that the Committee either thinks he was involved or just that they don't like it as worded. Without another proposal that he was involved the Committee believes he's involved conclusion can't really be made. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rubin's interactions with The Rambling Man[edit]

4) Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) made several claims against The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) over the span of several weeks. Numerous requests were made, such as the 18 July 2017 request on Arthur Rubin's user talk page, for them to supply evidence in the form of diffs or examples to support their claims. On 25 July 2017, an ANI report was started by The Rambling Man regarding the issue. Leading up to and during this time, Arthur Rubin did not adequately respond to concerns raised by the community until 3 August 2017, one week after the Arbitration case request was filed.

Support:
  1. Mkdw talk 04:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. kelapstick(bainuu) 02:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Doug Weller talk 10:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Keilana (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 03:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Community ban[edit]

5) Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) was temporarily community banned on 3 August 2017 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." The community ban was lifted on 7 August 2017, around the time the Arbitration case request was on the verge of being formally accepted.

Support:
  1. Mkdw talk 04:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. kelapstick(bainuu) 02:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 03:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This is an accurate statement of the facts, but I can't let this pass without reemphasizing my comments from the case request that this is a volunteer project, and the amount of digging around into other aspects of Arthur Rubin's online presence done during that ANI discussion was nosy and inappropriate. IMO this was an overreaction and should not be considered a useful precedent for future similar incidents. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Doug Weller talk 10:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Agreed with Opabinia regalis' comment. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. per OR. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Per Opabinia. Keilana (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Community confidence[edit]

6) Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs)'s general absence and inability to adequately explain their actions and conduct has shaken the community's confidence in them. Arthur Rubin has had multiple opportunities at varying intervals of the dispute to support their claims and conduct. He repeatedly did not do so, such as their non-participation in the Arbitration case, despite actively editing other areas of Wikipedia. These factors strongly contribute to a lack of accountability regarding their responsibilities under WP:ADMINACCT as an administrator.

Support:
  1. Mkdw talk 04:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. kelapstick(bainuu) 02:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sure. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 03:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Doug Weller talk 10:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I believe the Fs support this F. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Keilana (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
As written, this seems like a judgment/interpretation more than a finding of fact. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote it in terms of the community and titled it "community confidence". The committee will have to make its own judgements -- the community has already expressed theirs which is why I believed it was an FOF. Mkdw talk 05:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Admonished[edit]

1.1) Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) is formally admonished by the committee for repeatedly not meeting the community expectations and responsibilities outlined in WP:ADMINACCT.

Support:
  1. If the desysop does not pass, 2nd choice. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm definitely in favour of, at least, an admonishment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. At least, per FOF 6. As of right now, this is my first choice, though by a hair. Still mulling it over, though, and I may very well end up with desysop as my first choice. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 03:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice. kelapstick(bainuu) 22:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Conditional second choice if 1.2 does not pass. Mkdw talk 19:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. With 1.2 passing, no need for this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Desysop[edit]

1.2) Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) is desysopped for repeatedly not meeting the community expectations and responsibilities of administrators as outlined in WP:ADMINACCT. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

Support:
  1. Mkdw talk 04:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice. Arthur Rubin is a good editor with a long history of commitment to the project. Unfortunately, this particular series of incidents makes it look like adminship isn't a good fit at this point. Nothing wrong with that; it's a hassle and a timesink and I completely sympathize with his apparent lack of desire to get involved in the mudslinging matches that sometimes pass for "dispute resolution" around here. However, as an admin, you either have to stick to uncontroversial actions, willingly revert yourself/retract your claims when they're not worth the fight, or commit to engaging with people when your actions are questioned. If you're not in a position to do that then it's better to just stick to editing. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I agree with OPabinia's comments. Doug Weller talk 10:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. kelapstick(bainuu) 22:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. First choice. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. There is a history (including WP:ARBTPM) of behaviour which is inconsistent with expectations, we've got an example of a substandard administrative action in this case and a pattern of AR making accusations without providing evidence to support them (one which which was his justification for an administrative action. As I've mentioned below my reason for supporting this don't necessarily line up with those of my colleagues. But, there is enough to push me over the line. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Again, per OR. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Per Calla and Opabinia. Keilana (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
I'm still thinking on whether to desysop or leave at an admonishment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per Callanecc. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 03:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll list here the things I'm considering here as a bit of a reason why I'm wavering:
  • When taking administrative actions one must make themselves available to answer questions and to justify their decision, this is especially the case when the decisions to be made are controversial. If they are not likely to be available they need to either reverse the decision when concerns are raised about it, or not make controversial decisions.
  • I'm a little concerned that making a decision based purely on my dot point above is getting a little too close to second guessing the community regarding activity requirements. In the many discussions which have taken place regarding administrative activity nothing like this has received consensus. I am concerned that if the Committee desysops someone for not being active (in this instance following their regular pattern of activity) following one administrative action we are effectively creating a policy which says that administrators must be active onwiki to explain their actions or risk desysoping.
  • During initial discussions the community expressed concern about AR continuing to hold the admin right. While arbitrators should consider this, it's important to note that there is not a community desysop procedure. One of the reason for this is that there hasn't been consensus around how this would work and how the process would ensure that decisions which are made have been properly and carefully considered (rather than initial reactions without deeper consideration).
  • Together the Legacypac issue and the accusations about TRM suggest that AR has a tendency to make accusations without providing supporting evidence. Mkdw, I wonder if a sanction around preventing AR from making accusations without evidence might be an option to address this issue?
While AR's performance has absolutely been below standard, I'm not convinced that it rises to the level of a desysop on what is the first time AR has been to ArbCom (from what I can find).
I'd like to add "especially" to responsibilities of administrators especially as outlined as if I were to support it would be more general conduct unbecoming (accusations without evidence) rather than purely per ADMINACCT (ping Mkdw in addition to the above). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would not recommend people vote for desysop if they believe it is because Arthur Rubin was inactive. Arthur Rubin had numerous opportunities to address the concerns of the community, including not participating in this case while actively editing the project. There were a few absences, but for the most part, Arthur Rubin avoided accountability for their actions while continuing to edit. I believe the accumulation of these actions against ADMINACCT are the basis for desysop. The community has, by policy and expression, made it clear that administrators are held to a higher standard. While the unsupported claims were of concern, the greatest concerns surrounded their avoidance of the dispute resolution process at multiple intersections. Mkdw talk 04:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that that is a concern. But what also contributes is behaviour which is generally unbecoming (unsupported accusations against TRM for example). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.
Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

Motion to close[edit]

Implementation notes[edit]

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by kelapstick(bainuu) 04:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 17:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC) by WOSlinker.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Purpose of Wikipedia 11 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Editor conduct 11 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Administrator conduct 11 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Conduct on Arbitration pages 11 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Locus of dispute 10 0 0 PASSING ·
2 User permissions 10 0 0 PASSING ·
3 WP:INVOLVED 6 3 1 PASSING ·
4 Arthur Rubin's interactions with The Rambling Man 10 0 1 PASSING ·
5 Community ban 11 0 0 PASSING ·
6 Community confidence 10 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Remedies
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1.1 Admonished 7 0 1 NOT PASSING Cannot pass Fails due to second choice votes.
1.2 Desysop 10 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
0 Enforcement of restrictions 0 0 0 PASSING Cannot pass Passes by default
0 Appeals and modifications 0 0 0 PASSING Cannot pass Passes by default
Notes


Vote[edit]

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority needed to close case. The Clerks will close the case immediately if there is an absolute majority voting to close the case or all proposals pass unanimously; otherwise, it will be closed 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast.

Support
  1. The only thing that hasn't passed is FoF#3, and it's not critical to any proposed remedies. This should be wrapped up. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I agree, we need to finish this. Doug Weller talk 20:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. agreed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The case has 11 active members and I would have preferred to have more input and participation. The current votes were placed fairly soon after the proposed decisions were posted. I believe the outcome is correct and it will be fulfilled, but was kept open longer than perhaps needed. Mkdw talk 20:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sorry for my own delay in voting. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I'm comfortable with closing this as-is; controversial remedies shouldn't be left with inconclusive votes, but I don't think it's necessary for proposals that aren't central to the logic or impact of the decision. Opabinia externa (talk)
  7. Swapping to support. As of Doug's vote just then, there are no proposals left still pending, so we're finished. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
We shouldn't be closing cases with proposals still pending (with VERY limited exceptions). There are still six arbs who haven't voted (even if just to formally abstain) on FoF 3. @Casliber, Doug Weller, Drmies, Keilana, and Ks0stm:. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
We certainly have waited too long, partially in hope that those who hadn't participated would take part and also hoping that some resolution to the one FoF that wasn't passing would occur. I've got no solution for the former but we should consider how long we wait after all the remedies have a majority vote, assuming that anything else that hasn't got a majority vote isn't vital to the remedies. Doug Weller talk 13:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur_Rubin/Proposed_decision&oldid=869135849"