Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin/Workshop

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Questions to the parties

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Purplebackpack89

Proposed findings of fact

Arthur Rubin's interactions toward TRM have been unproductive

1) Arthur Rubin's interactions toward TRM have been unproductive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support I wouldn't have expected such unproductive behaviour from a new editor or a rogue one, but from an admin? Never. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed by me. pbp 20:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Six editors presented evidence roughly divided as follows: (a) 3 indictments of AR's behavior (by 4 editors) each of which was situational, (b) 1 rebuttal of an indictment, (c) 1 "quick observation" about a specific statement made by AR within the arbitration itself. In other words, there were ultimately 2 unrebutted indictments of AR's behavior, one of which was from a party to this case. I do not believe the evidence presented is of sufficient breadth or depth to permit an unambiguous finding of the sweeping statement "Arthur Rubin's interactions toward TRM have been unproductive." DocumentError (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
• the community was very clear at ANi about this - evidenced by the sanctions imposed and desire to send this to ArbComm. Legacypac (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - TRM should be praised for his poise. He calmly asked for diffs for weeks in accordance with WP:ADMINACCT but was roadblocked by AR's excuses during that time. When AR finally decided to present diffs, they did not even substantiate his claims about TRM's behavior.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support per TheGracefulSlick and TRM. Legacypac (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Legacypac - it appears you're !voting multiple times [1]. Just for ease of bookkeeping, would you mind limiting yourself to one !vote and add supplementary/additional comments within it? Thank you! DocumentError (talk) 00:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Opps fixed. This multiple section thing is so confusing. Legacypac (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

No problem, and thank you! DocumentError (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support That's why it's come here. David in DC (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

TRM's interactions toward Arthur Rubin have been unproductive

2) TRM's interactions toward Arthur Rubin have been unproductive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

@DocumentError and Purplebackpack89: No evidence submissions were provided to support this statement during the evidence phase. Purplebackpack89, your evidence was removed because it was submitted late. Most of it focused on a recent dispute, but I don't see any applicability within the case scope of ADMINACCT. Mkdw ^talk 17:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: I moved your comment below; the layout keeps things separate. The community has a few venues to handle conduct disputes. Ideally, those should be attempted first with regard to incidents. As this case has progressed, it's more clearly centered around ADMINACCT. Mkdw ^talk 18:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Oppose this entirely misses the point of the case. This is not about our interactions, this is about the regular abuse of Rubin's position by failing to provide diffs to back up numerous accusations across numerous venues on Wikipedia over weeks and weeks, despite requests to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed by me. pbp 20:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose no evidence has been presented to substantiate this finding. Evidence shows AR failed to WP:ADMINACCT for his hostile statements. Several Arbs determined the TRM's behavior should not be part of this case. Legacypac (talk) 02:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Evidence was presented by six editors, none of which offered evidence in respect of TRM. Therefore, as per Legacypac, I believe no evidence has been presented to substantiate this finding. DocumentError (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose simply because as a non-admin, TRM is no longer bound by WP:ADMINACCT, whereas AR is. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, @Ritchie3333:, I use "unproductive" to mean actions/interactions far and beyond just violating ADMINACCT pbp 15:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Whatever this aludes to, it is outside the evidence and scope of the case. Legacypac (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• The very worst that can be said about TRM's behavior is that he was brusque and persistent; which under the circumstances I wouldn't even call a problem, let alone "unproductive." Moreover, he was brusque while asking AR for diffs, ie when trying to resolve the situation. No, this is off the mark. Vanamonde (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• (refactored) @Mkdw: I believe defining the case that narrowly isn't going to solve all of the underlying problems. We may be at arbitration or some other resolution board again in a few weeks. pbp 17:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose TRM's reactions to the abuse of AR's admin rights have been appropriate and measured, mostly. They do not warrant any sanction or even admonishment. The problem here is the egregiously improper use of AR's tools. David in DC (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Per others, ADMINACCT is not applicalble to TRM, as he is no longer an admin. Mjroots (talk) 10:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

TRM's and Arthur frequently edit several of the same pages

3) TRM's and Arthur frequently edit several of the same pages, and often find themselves on opposite sides of the issue.

Comment by Arbitrators:

It demonstrates conflict as a findings of fact. Not all findings will have an action like a remedy does. Mkdw ^talk 19:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support this is true but I'm not sure what that brings at all. Many editors have opposing views with many other editors. It adds nothing. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed by me. pbp 01:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support This seems to be an accurate summary of the situation. DocumentError (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

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.

Interaction ban between Arthur Rubin and TRM

1) {An interaction ban should be in place between Arthur Rubin and TRM: these two editors should be forbidden from reverting or responding to each other}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Have previous attempts at dispute resolution or noticeboard discussion, with respect to the conduct between these two editors, been exhaust that warrants the involvement of ArbCom? Mkdw ^talk 01:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Oppose this entirely misses the point of the case. This is not about our interactions, this is about the regular abuse of Rubin's position by failing to provide diffs to back up numerous accusations across numerous venues on Wikipedia over weeks and weeks, despite requests to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed by me. pbp 20:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose TRM was correct to require ADMINACCT. Any other interaction is outside the scope of this case. The problem is with Rubin's unsubstantiated allegations. Legacypac (talk) 02:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: First off, I think it's a mistake to ignore the fact that TRM and Arthur Rubin continue to spar at each other; only a few days ago, they had a minor edit war with each other. I'm not seeing any solution from you that prevents either a) their recent spat of behavior, or b) Arthur's original accusations. You seem to be in the camp that favors removing Arthur's mop, even though doing so won't prevent him from edit-warring with TRM or making remarks toward him. Also, let me ask you this: has Arthur misused his tools toward TRM? pbp 23:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

We don't need ArbComm to impose an IBAN or edit warring sanctions. Escalating blocks against AR for making unsubstantiated allegations may be an additional appropriate remedy, but it is very very rare to see an Admin blocked or site banned - yet that is exactly what happened at ANi. AR misused his tools against me. Legacypac (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

You primarily see this as a problem between AR and you. There's a whole lot more going on here than just that. And if we're at a very high-level problem-fixing place, we might as well fix the whole problem. And that includes precluding any tendentious actions between TRM and AR. Just a few days ago, I tried to hat a discussion where TRM and AR were yelling at each other. TRM removed the hat, and the two went on yelling at each other. Then they had an edit war. That has GOT to stop. And it frankly shows very bad judgment on both their parts, in that they KNOW there are currently a lot of eyeballs on them, and they STILL can't tone it down. pbp 00:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

You mischaracterize my position. I just answered your question about tool use. My evidence shows AR has engaged in a pattern of strikingly similar abuse to how he made false accusations against TRM. AR is still an Admin. If he is engaged in the negative activity you describe, he should no longer be an Admin. Legacypac (talk) 03:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support for 30 Days An IBAN is a non-punitive intervention that does not imply a transgression by either party. Both editors are active enough in a variety of pages to make such a measure of limited encumbrance to either. Except in the most dire emergencies, which this is not, a measured escalation of mediation approaches should be applied before moving to build a gallows. DocumentError (talk) 02:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Entirely misses the point of this case and the evidence provided. AR soured discussions with TRM by making baseless allegations without evidence. If you find an edit war, report it to the appropriate noticeboard.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose TRM ought not be restricted over the details of this case. Maybe AR should be but we can hope that the results of this case will, upon reflection, prompt behavioral changes by AR. If not, it can be dealt with in the future. There's no reason to pre-suppose incorrigibility at this point. David in DC (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Block if no cessation to reverts/responses

1) Failure to cease reverting or responding by either editor will result in escalating blocks, starting with one week and doubling each additional instance thereafter.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose this entirely misses the point of the case. This is not about our interactions, this is about the regular abuse of Rubin's position by failing to provide diffs to back up numerous accusations across numerous venues on Wikipedia over weeks and weeks, despite requests to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed by me pbp 20:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• Weak Support within the limits of a very short-term IBAN. DocumentError (talk) 02:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose this is a remedy outside the evidence presented and inappropriate. Legacypac (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Escalating blocks for personal attacks

2) Any personal attacks by Arthur on TRM will result in escalating blocks, starting with one week and doubling each additional instance thereafter. Same for TRM on Arthur.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose this is nugatory. WP:NPA applies to all users. It's just that in this case, an admin conducted a series of personal attacks, failing to comply with WP:ADMINACCT on the way by failing to provide evidence of any assertions. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed by me, in the event the IBAN fails. pbp 00:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose personal attacks are at the core of this problem, but we are here because Rubin failed to WP:ADMINACCT, misused tools, and generally conducted themselves in a manner unbecoming an Admin. Legacypac (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose "Personal attacks" leaves too much open to interpretation. For instance, saying that someone is engaged in "bullying" is a personal attack (one of the specific charges against AR) if no bullying occurred, but can also be used as an accurate description requiring admin action in cases where bullying occurred (otherwise we wouldn't have WP:BULLY). Were this phrase to be invoked, it would require a measured and contemplative analysis as to the spectrum of events leading up to someone using it and not simply instant blocking. DocumentError (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposals by Legacypac

Proposed findings of fact

Rubin's actions are unbecoming of an Admin

1) The evidence supplied in this case and at ANi leading up to it demonstrates Arthur Rubin has made a variety of unsubstantiated serious allegations that damaged other editors, misused his Admin tools, acted in an WP:INVOLVED capacity, and failed to WP:ADMINACCT. The community has lost confidence in Arthur Rubin's ability to act in an Admin capacity as shown by the sanctions at ANi and evidence presented.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Arthur Rubin, however incorrect, was not involved during the ANI case, nor when they revoked Legacypac's NPP user rights. That's not how WP:INVOLVED is correctly applied. Mkdw ^talk 23:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Please familiarize yourself with the evidence page submission by Legacypac, who also proposed this FOF, to understand the context of INVOLVED. You should also read #INVOLVED where this was discussed. During the evidence phase, Legacypac introduced this ANI with respect to NPP and INVOLVED. It's the basis for adding INVOLVED in this FOF, but at the time, Arthur Rubin had yet to engage in a dispute with Legacypac during that ANI and when they removed NPP (also during that ANI). In both cases, Arthur Rubin acted as an administrator responding to the noticeboard. There is some disagreement about how INVOLVED is applied but this issue is raised frequently and often incorrectly. The reason admins don't close ANI's they vote on is about super-voting a decision and consensus procedures. It is not because of the INVOLVED policy. There should be as much separation as possible, but in terms of ANI, admins regularly comment on ANI threads and administratively act within the same case. Arthur Rubin also logged the removal in the ANI thread. Other aspects of the FOF are supported by evidence Legacypac submitted. Mkdw ^talk 22:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: I do think the wording "questionable" could be used regarding the process surrounding the NPP removal since that was the core debate that occurred following that action. Particularly with comments from DGG at the time. This might be more suitable in its own FOF to help separate the issues. I have inquired with Swarm since there was already contention about late submissions, and so wanted assurances the submission would have purpose with this case. See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin/Evidence#Notice. Mkdw ^talk 00:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I linked the policy and not the dictionary definition of "involved". There is a difference between the two. The meaning was clear in the discussion context if you were familiar with the case and discussions about WP:INVOLVED. As I have said before, I suggest you read through the evidence submissions and evidence analysis sections to catch up. There's an entire section called #INVOLVED. In any case, the point is clear now. Your expectations should be set that references will be made elsewhere in the case and you should be familiar with the critical discussions. Mkdw ^talk 15:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@David in DC: Do you mean CBAN instead of block? AR was last blocked in 2013. Mkdw ^talk 04:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I've fixed that. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support this is the only matter at hand. Rubin's continual abuse of his position as an admin has resulted in a complete loss of trust in him from the community. False accusations and refusal to provide evidence after multiple requests cannot be allowed to go unaddressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Mkdw another confused comment from you, Arthur Rubin, however incorrect, was not involved during the ANI case, what? I presume you don't mean the ANI case which saw him community-banned? Or do you? You're really not making this easy for any of us. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Mkdw please be more precise in what you write. Rubin has been involved in more than one ANI thread, so when you write about such things, you should be absolutely clear; this seems to be a recurring theme in this case. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support as proposer Legacypac (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that this is going to solve the problem The problem is primarily one of personal attacks and sparring between Arthur and TRM. You don't need a mop to attack, spar and edit-war. This proposal will punish (and, yes, that is the word I want) Arthur for taking away Legacypac (mere coincidence that he's proposing this?)'s user right. The removal of Legacypac's user rights should be treated as the ancillary issue they are. pbp 00:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

With respect - I just typed this in because the Arbs require someone else to make the proposal, I'm far from the originator of the idea of removing tools. It's a heck of a lot easier to "attack, spar and edit-war" wearing Admin armor so yes, removing tools should cool things down. AR is the only Admin I don't trust at all period because every time I encounter AR he acts in an unreasonable way. Legacypac (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Evidence overwhelmingly points to AR's failure as an admin; he no longer can be trusted with the position.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - I agree with PBP that this would not solve any problems that may or may not exist. DocumentError (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Although previous behavior is not part of the scope of this case, it does enter into my support for this proposal. Arthur Rubin has been a problematic admin for quite some time, (no admin should have a block log such as this) and the current (well, not so current now) situation is simply the most recent incident. To accuse another editor of lying multiple times, and then duck for weeks the request for diffs to support that accusation is simply not behavior that we can have from someone who is expected to have "the trust of the community". Frankly, I was expecting AR to see the writing on the wall and resign the bit, but since that hasn't happened, this is necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mkdw Admins do not close ANi or other threads they vote on, and they don't hand out sanctions after voting on sanctions. Regular editors are not supposed to close discussions they are involved in. ArbComm members recuse for being involved with a party a any dispute. Your characterization of WP:INVOLVED differs from what I see as normal practice. Legacypac (talk) 00:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mkdw I now see where Rubin was not WP:INVOLVED in the ANi that I filed. He did vote several times against my position and did impose a sanction out of the blue no other editor had considered or suggested. Unfortunately User:Swarm's evidence was removed, but Rubin also made an unfounded accusation against Swarm (that Swarm errored in granting the NPP) while removing the NPP. This is in the evidence diffs but not highlighted specifically.

@TRM I see where I confused you by summing up together evidence of actions against you and me. Sorry for the confusion. Legacypac (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support I learned about this case in the ANI thread that lead to AR's blockCBAN. I think this proposal summarizes the sense of the community that came out of that ANI. David in DC (talk) 17:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support. The failure to respond to TRMs requests is the major failure. That it took a CBAN to get a response is very clear evidence which proves the fact. Removal of Legacypacs user right is a minor failure, but further evidence supporting the statement. Mjroots (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@there was also consensus for a BLOCK but it was not implemented for some technical reason. Legacypac (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Rubin again attacked TRM and failed to participate in case breaching ADMINACCT

2) Prior to case acceptance [2] , in the opening statement, Rubin made an additional unsubstantiated personal attack against TRM claiming that TRM lied. Since acceptance, Rubin has not participated in the case nor presented any evidence to counter the evidence presented by other participants. This is a further breach of WP:ADMINACCT.

Comments by Arbitrators:

An aspect discussed was that Arthur Rubin was unwell during some of this time. However, it has been made abundantly clear that they have since returned to active editing but not returned to the issue. Mkdw ^talk 16:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Parties:

Comments by others:

• Support as proposer Legacypac (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mkdw correct, after the ANi started, one excuse for the delay was illness. The ANi was put on ice for sometime as a result. Since his initial response in this case, I'm not aware of any illness claims. Legacypac (talk) 01:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support To this day, AR hasn't sufficiently backed up the accusation of lying. Bad from any editor. Inexcusable in the case of this admin. David in DC (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated assertion against User:Swarm

3) Rubin overturned Swarm's decision to grant Legacypac NPP and made an "unsubstantiated assertion of negligence" (to quote Swarm) against Admin Swarm. Rubin failed to notify Swarm and has never discussed his overturn or allegation of negligence with Swarm or addressed his actions during this case. [3] [4] and supported by evidence diffs.

Comments by Arbitrators:

@Legacypac: You may update your links. It was moved to #Affirmation_of_Legacypac's_comments. Mkdw ^talk 06:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Parties:

Comments by Others:

• Support as proposer. I believe the evidence confirms this finding. Legacypac (talk) 02:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposals by TheGracefulSlick

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Arthur Rubin breached ADMINACCT

1) By failing to provide diffs, apropos his allegations directed at The Rambling Man, in a timely fashion, Arthur Rubin breached WP:ADMINACCT.

Comment by Arbitrators:

There should be mention that this was raised by also the community as an important component. Mkdw ^talk 17:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support to the fact: he never provided diffs to support his allegations. They were, in fact, lies. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support - This is the core of the case, and I believe is an accurate statement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Support Rubin not only failed to provide diff, he could not because he was lying. These lies destroyed the trust of the community. The community site banned him, only lifted pending this case where the expectation remains that his tools be removed. If his tools are not removed, the community would be quite justified to INDEF Rubin. Legacypac (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Support - that it took a CBAN to be imposed to get him to respond speaks volumes. Mjroots (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Support Even the responses after the CBAN did not back the accusation. I'd be cool with deleting "in a timely fashion," too. David in DC (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Misuse of tools

2) Arthur Rubin misused admin tools when he removed the New Page Patroller user right from Legacypac.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support a recurring theme: refusal to explain one's actions. Not good enough for an editor, let alone an admin. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Oppose for the reasons described in the evidence I presented (edit: and described more fully in the analysis section, below). I don't believe there is unambiguous indication that abusive use of admin tools occurred in this instance. DocumentError (talk) 02:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support backed up by the evidence presented. User:Swarm's evidence related to this was removed but DocumentError's evidence allowed to stand. DocumentError is in error here. Legacypac (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - I found no evidence that there was any need whatsoever to remove the user right. Lack of communication compounds the error. Mjroots (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Not only no evidence, but no reasonable explanation for the action was given. Again, a violation of WP:ADMINACCT. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

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.

De-sysopping

1) Arthur Rubin should be de-sysopped. He must also be warned to provide diffs with serious evidence to corroborate any alleged findings about an editor's behavior or be at the risk of breaching WP:NPA again.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support the only reason this hasn't happened already is because the community cannot enact a desysop themselves. The first thing Rubin did when his community ban was lifted (at my suggestion) was to continue with further unfounded personal attacks. This is not the action of someone who has learnt the error of their ways. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Strong Oppose I think this is an excessive response to a situation which - most probably - has already been resolved merely through the awareness created by bringing it to the attention of ArbCom. DocumentError (talk) 02:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• DocumentError I strongly disagree with that assertion. Arbcom's awareness of the situation did not deter AR; in fact, he flung new accusations at TRM during the preliminary phase, again, without diffs.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)'

I don't see accusations made without diffs - could you provide diffs to the diffless accusations? (I may have just missed them, in which case I apologize and thank you for pointing them out.) DocumentError (talk) 00:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

DocumentError certainly. Here AR accuses TRM of bullying Wrad into retirement. AR redacted the baseless allegation but replaced it with another diffless accusation. Not to mention AR's very first comment at Arbcom accused TRM of having competency issues...without diffs that substantiate the claim! I touched on all of this in the evidence phase.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support for reasons stated above, and disagree with DocumentError that the "situation ... has been resolved". The lack of resolution is ultimately the reason for this case, because the diffs finally provided by AR were in no way supportive of the accusations he made. The idea that a problem is solved simply by bringing it to ArbCom's attention, without ArbCom actually doing anything about the problem ,can only be the case if the problematic editor makes a statement accepting responsibility and pledging better behavior in the future. That hasn't happened, so the DocumentError's suggestion is extremely unlikely to be true, and ArbCom action is still needed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support this is the core of the case. If the community could desysop it would be done already. If ArbComm does not act on this, the community will likely INDEF Rubin, because it does not trust Rubin with the tools. Legacypac (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Sadly, the community has lost faith in ARs ability to wield the mop. If he won't voluntarily resign the tools, then it becomes necessary to remove them from him. Mjroots (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Should have been a simple motion after the rather clear ANI case. Fram (talk) 06:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support This resolves the root cause of the problem. I think a block would go too far, but I agree that the community could, fairly, impose a block another CBAN if ARBCOM fails this test. Desysopping seems to me a far better resolution.David in DC (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Fram and Mjroots. Can we please just do this and get on with our encyclopedia? This is the only reason we're here. We didn't block AR at ANI only because we banned him so he could defend himself, and then when the case was accepted we unbanned him because he also makes good edits. If he's not desysopped he'll probably just end up blocked, and we'll have to go thruogh another ANI, and lose AR's good contributions, and lose faith in our arbs. I'm not suggesting Arbcom is beholden to the whims of the ANI regulars but honestly. This should be an easy one. Yall just desysopped Magioladitis for less. Please excuse my cowardice editing logged out. I lack the tenure to call out a sitting Arbitration Committee. Partial disclosure: I have not participated in this case or the preceding ANI threads. I am just a lurker with opinions. 67.5.147.223 (talk) 07:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Require diffs in the future

1) A failure to provide diffs will result in a one-week block; the duration of said block will increase for each instance thereafter.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This would amount to a punitive block rather than a preventative block. Other types of recourse such as warnings or other proposals are more appropriate. Mkdw ^talk 17:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Oppose as written, but Rubin should be monitored for unfounded attacks on individuals or deliberate mischaracterisation of edits beyond the normal scope of WP:NPA. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Mkdw that's as may be, but one of the first things Rubin did when his CBAN was overturned (at my suggestion) was to accuse me of yet another lie without any kind of foundation. This kind of serial behaviour and failure to acknowledge that it's not just an ADMINACCT issue, but an NPA and CIVIL issue needs serious consideration for sanction. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Oppose While I believe this proposed enforcement was made in a GF effort to suggest a remedy to the situation, the enforcement mechanism itself is written so broadly that it could be used abusively through the relentless demand of diffs. DocumentError (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't believe that the specific behavior of AR is in need of a specialized sanction: any editor who accuses another of misbehavior and doesn't provide diffs when requested to does so at the risk of being blocked, for WP:Casting aspersions, WP:Disruption, etc. It's my feeling the violation of WP:ADMINACCT is the locus of the case and it's most important aspect, and that relieving AR of the status of admin would be a sufficient sanction. If he should repeat the same behavior in the future it's very unlikely that he would avoid a block, given the notoriety of this case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose not because this is not needed, but because the community can deal with this directly. I'm opposed to having to take further infractions to ArbComm. Legacypac (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I can't say it any better than BMK has. David in DC (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Kostas20142

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Same comment as #2. Mkdw ^talk 17:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Editor conduct

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is a common principle in ArbCom cases and will likely be included. I had an identical version of it in my drafting notes. Mkdw ^talk 17:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Administrator conduct

3) Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Support This is the crux of the matter and should be stated explicitly. David in DC (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Administrator accountability and trust

4)Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools. Any editor may question or criticize administrator actions in good faith. Administrators are expected to explain their Wikipedia-related conduct and their administrator actions and to justify them when requested. Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their administrator rights removed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I was working on a draft version:

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.

At #Accountability and trust, it was discussed that administrators are accountable for their conduct and administrator actions. Including both is important. In some ways, it combined the intentions of 3 and 4. Mkdw ^talk 17:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Support This is indisputable. Or at least it oughtta be. David in DC (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

locus of dispute

1) The dispute centers on the conduct of Arthur Rubin and the interaction of The Rambling Man with him.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Oppose - No, the locus of the case is clearly Arthur Rubin's behavior. The scope of the case was open to evidence of TRM's sanctionable behavior -- if any -- but no evidence was produced to show that anything done by TRM warrants sanctioning, Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per BMK. Legacypac (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Nope. The evidence provided was centered around AR's behavior.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support This is a two-way street and TRM escalated matters. pbp 03:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Could you point to specific evidence presented in this case -- or even in the AN/I -- which showed TRM "escalating matters"? If I recall correctly, TRM didnt even want to bring this case, it was brought by a third party, now banned. TRM even initiated the recall of the TBAN placed on AR by the community, once AR responded to the complaint, explaining that it wasn't fair to prevent AR from editing once the purpose of the ban had been served.
  Anyone who's been around the noticeboard for some years will know that TRM and I have a history, so this is not one of his "Wikifriends" standing up for him, this is a cleared-eyed evaluation of the evidence, and if there's something I've overlooked that shows "escalation" I really want to know about it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• If by "escalated matter" means consistently and methodically requested diffs, brought it to ANi when Rubin told him he would only provide diffs at ANi, than very reluctantly participated at ArbComm, then it was good escalation to resolve the underlying problem. If you mean something else, the evidence does not support that. Legacypac (talk) 06:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - The locus of dispute is ARs failure to respond to reasonable requests made by TRM. Mjroots (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - per those above Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Oppose False balance. AR's behavior as an admin is the crucial issue. David in DC (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin

Arthur Rubin:uncivil

2.1) During his interaction with The Rambling Man, Arthur Rubin was uncivil, made threats, personal attacks and unsupported allegations, and failed to assume good faith. This includes the preliminary phase of the case

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Support - Supported by the evidecne. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support yes supported by the evidence. Legacypac (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin and Legacypac

2.2) Arthur Rubin had voted at ANI discussion as a neutral party and was not WP:INVOLVED when revoking Legacypac's NPP permissions. However this action was ill-advised questionable and unsupported. Combined with failure to respond to relevant inquiries, it demonstrates a problematic behavior.

Comment by Arbitrators:

As I mentioned to Legacypac above at #Rubin's actions are unbecoming of an Admin, I've been considering the wording 'questionable' rather than ill-advised. I will also be including the fact that it was overturned. The issue of conduct I think is more strongly addressed in its own FOF. Mkdw ^talk 18:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Seems you are right -reworded--Kostas20142 (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Questionable is true. Rubin's actions were questioned and overturned. Wrong, abusive, and unbecoming are also correct. The false accusations against me he posted on talk and ANi are equally problematic, and unlike the restored NPP, can not be fixed. Legacypac (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin fails WP:ADMINACCT

2.3)By failing to provide diffs supporting his allegations against The Rambling Man, as well as due to the behavior at sections above, Arthur Rubin has lost the community's trust and therefore fails WP:ADMINACCT. This issue has also been considered by the community as an important component.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Support - Loss of the communitys trust is not just "important", it's the only really significant component. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support as I said at ANi, Rubin is the only Admin I don't trust. Legacypac (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Considering AR has never admitted to his mistakes -- without new allegations that is -- speaks volumes. An admin who cannot readily accept a mistake and instead continues to attack a fellow editor, is not someone the community can trust.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - This is proven by the recent ANI discussion where the community as a whole were calling for ARs head on a plate. That the community is unable to remove an admin's tools and that AR won't voluntarily hand them in, is why we are now here. Mjroots (talk) 11:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - He's been given enough chances to tell his side of the story now Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Can't improve on what everyone's said above. David in DC (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin:No participation

2.4) Arthur Rubin has shown no interest for the case once it was accepted. This demonstrates a complete lack of will to explain his actions or to contribute to the resolution of the problem.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Support - Again, obviously supported by the available evidence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support this is very clear. Another failure of WP:ADMINACCT Legacypac (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

The Rambling Man

The Rambling Man and Arthur Rubin

3.1)During their interaction, direct or indirect, The Rambling Man has occasionally been uncivil.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Oppose - No evidence supports this, and, frankly, given his previous ArbCom sanctions, it is unlikely that if he had been uncivil, he could have avoided being blocked for it. His behavior was under a microscope. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose the evidence presented did not support this. Yes he got upset and went overboard during the workshop but he is already serving a boock for that. I understand why he is upset though. Legacypac (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Neutral - I want to make it totally and abundantly clear that "a bit incivil" != "needs a block". Absolutely not. Look, experienced editors occasionally flare up and bite each other's heads off for about an hour tops. It's allowed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The Rambling Man:previous case

3.2) From 3 September to 13 October 2016 an arbitation case was held to examine The Rambling Man's behavior. The decision included the following prohibition: "The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors.
If The Rambling Man finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve.
If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked for a duration consistent with the blocking policy. " which was later amended as " The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence." For full text please refer to the original case

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Oppose - Irrelevant to this case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose not supported by the evidence presented. Legacypac (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support He clearly went over the top on this pbp 05:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Kostas20142 - Isn't the year of the case needed in your statement? Would do it myself but think that possibly to do so is against the convention here. Mjroots (talk) 11:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Fixed --Kostas20142 (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The Rambling Man:unproductive participation

3.3) During this case, The Rambling Man has failed to contribute productively to the procedure. His participation began late at the workshop phase and was characterized by a competitive nature, and focused more on attacking the committee than actually resolving the dispute. This behavior led to enforcement of the amended prohibition above.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Oppose - Unlike Arthur Rubin, TRM is not an admin, and has no obligation to justify himself to the community, as AR does. Therefore, this is irrelevant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose someone who has be unquestionably abused by an Admin should not be sanctioned for objecting to that abuse, even if they were not so nice about it. Legacypac (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose particularly as TRM has been unilaterally blocked for the remainder of the case Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Arthur Rubin prohibited

1) Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) is prohibited from posting speculations about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence. If he is tempted to violate this prohibition, he must disengage and either drop the issue or seek dispute resolution appropriately.
If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, Arthur Rubin does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked for a duration consistent with the blocking policy. The first four blocks under this provision shall be arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Should a fifth block prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the remedy may be reviewed.
The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect Arthur Rubin's talk page for the duration of the block.
Nothing in this remedy prevents enforcement of policy by uninvolved administrators in the usual way.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The community has the means to address this issue, especially if it persists. The remedies that surround admonishment and de-sysopping are the most relevant in terms of where ArbCom should be coming in. Mkdw ^talk 21:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Oppose - See my comments for the similar sanction suggestion elsewhere. The proper remedy in this case is the desysopping of AR, because his violation of ADMINACCT is the crux of the case. Anything else is not necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as noted elsewhere, let the community deal with this when Rubin is not an Admin. Legacypac (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin:desysop

2) For his persistent breach of core Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPA and for his pattern of behavior which is incompatible with adminship and lead to irreversible loss of trust by the community, Arthur Rubin is desysopped. He may regain his rights only after a successful request for adminship.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I have had some very preliminary discussions with other members of the committee regarding some of the draft proposed decisions. Based upon those discussions, de-sysopping will be on the table for the committee to vote on. Mkdw ^talk 21:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Support - The one and only sanction supported by the evidence in this case. AR has lost the trust of the community by repeated violation of ADMINACCT, and should no longer hold the bit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Support the only reason this is at ArbComm - the main event - anything else is just distraction. Legacypac (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Support - The community is unable to do this, even though they do not trust him anymore. AR won't hand in the mop, so ARBCOM must take it from him. Mjroots (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Support - as I said on my talk, I've no direct opinion or experience of AR, but if other respected admins who've had nothing to do with the dispute say "he is no longer fit to be an admin", then barring evidence to the contrary (which we don't have), I'll take their word for it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Support In light of all of the evidence, and of the community's demonstrated loss of trust in AR, this should be the central result of the case. David in DC (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The Rambling Man admonished

3) The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is strongly admonished for his behavior during the case (especially towards the committee) which violated their already existing prohibition.

Comment by Arbitrators:

@Beyond My Ken: I have to disagree regarding the conduct point only. Calling the case numerous times a "fucking joke" and "Incompetent, impotent, inadequate." was beyond the expectations of conduct for any Wikipedia editor. Leniency was shown and no actions taken at the time. Things escalated during the workshop phase; the most concerning comments occurred after the evidence phase had already closed. It crossed the line when only days after an ARCA specifically prohibiting TRM from talking about the general competence of editors, made the comment "...who can help Mkdw here, is this too complex?".

All that being said, TRM has already been blocked. I do not think further action is required by the committee if TRM was blocked on the points I mentioned above. I will not be putting forward this proposal or voting on it. Others on the committee will have to decide. Mkdw ^talk 21:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Oppose - TRM's behavior in this case has, overall, been fairly moderated in tone. Certainly, there is absolutely nothing in evidence to support this kind of sanction against him. My feeling is that this is an attempt to be "fair" by sanctioning both parties, but that is the easy way out, and is totally inappropriate in this instance, as well as fundamentally unfair given the evidence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Mkdw: Thanks for that information, I was unaware that TRM had been blocked. I don't think it particularly changes my opinion, however, because it's something that happened during the litigation of the case, and was not behavior that was part of the case itself. As I wrote elswhere, TRM crossed a line and was blocked for it, and if it had happened earlier (especially under the stricter version of his sanctions in effect at the time) he would have been blocked then as well. TRM has been sanctioned, with a block, for his behavior in the workshop, so it should have no bearing on the outcome of the case itself, which is about behavior that occured beforehand. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Oppose per BMK and noting the 2 week block imposed is more than sufficent. Legacypac (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - The block imposed was punitive enough. TRM's behavior was, for the most part, kept in check. A warning or a temporary one or two-day suspension from the Workshop talk page would have been an appropriate and much more measured response to any apparent behavioral issues.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - Looks like some people don't like editors saying "fuck" on their own talk page out of the way of everyone else. Do you say "golly gosh that hurts" when you hit your thumb with a hammer? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The Rambling Man advised

4) The Rambling Man is advised to be extremely cautious when participating in discussions under any sort of pressure or have a strong negative opinion on the procedure or the participants and to stay focused on the actual topic and not the participants-procedure should be discussed in the appropriate venue. If needed he should seek advice by other editors on how to achieve that. The Rambling Man is reminded that failing to follow this remedy might lead to further blocks or community imposed sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Oppose - No evidence has been provided to support this sanction -- again, it appear to be an unwarranted attempt to be "fair" by sanctioning both sides of the disputes. In reality, this is unfair, in that the evidecne ion support of AR being desysopped is abundant, while the evidence against TRM is essentially non-existent, seeming to rely on his previous sanction as a justification. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose the focus of this case needs to be the path to desyoping Rubin. No evidence supports any other path or side trip. Legacypac (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose this strikes me as bullying or intimidation Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support I certainly hope he learns something from the 2 weeks he's been slapped with. Further edit-warring or sparring with AR, or with anyone else, is probably unproductive. pbp 17:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Editors advised

5) Editors are advised to seek the appropriate dispute resolution in a timely manner when involved and to try to help resolving them at an early stage when uninvolved. By doing so the escalation of the dispute can be prevented and unnecessary drama can be avoided.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Oppose - Irrelevant boilerplate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Oppose there is no dispute not resolved at ANi etc except the desyop and that only because ArbComm needs to do that. Legacypac (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Oppose - The only reasonable sanction here is the desysop of AR, go this is irrelevant to this situation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Oppose it will be imposable for Rubin to act as an Admin when he is not an Admin. There should be no other sanctions to enforce. Legacypac (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Strong oppose - every time a remedy is put forward saying "x may be blocked for y up to a period of z", an admin will unilaterally block x for z over something tangentially related to y and play the "arbcom trump card" to stop it being reverted. No thanks. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

ADMINACCT

WP:ADMINACCT states, "Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, as unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." [Note: My underline highlights]. The only administrative tool actions being called into question are with respect to Legacypac. ADMINACCT is framed around administrative actions. Editor conduct is instead covered by other policies such as WP:NPA. ADMINACCT does appear to re-enter relevance if core policies, like NPA, are seriously breached by administrators. Mkdw ^talk 20:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

ADMINACCT is part of WP:ADMIN. I already stated ADMINACCT has relevance regarding conduct when there are serious breaches (see my last sentence). I also address some of this in #Accountability and trust below. I'm not sure what you disagree with when you say, "no". Mkdw ^talk 20:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

"ADMINACCT does appear to re-enter relevance if core policies, like NPA, are seriously breached by administrators." Are you suggesting "seriously breached" has "nothing to do with 'serious breaches'..."? That's not how I read it grammatically or literally. Mkdw ^talk 21:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

"Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their administrator rights removed". This is the section of ADMINACCT that I am addressing when I talk about serious breaches and their conduct being particularly relevant to recourse. I am addressing any failures to respond below and consequences for conduct here. They should be separated as two aspects. Mkdw ^talk 21:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

No, per WP:ADMIN, admin's accountability does not stop at their admin actions, to whit: Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. Rubin was clearly in breach of this around a dozen times with the initial lie, and then added further unfounded lies after his CBAN was lifted (at my own request). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Nothing to do with "serious breaches", that's not mentioned. Look again. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, the point is that Rubin was accountable before any "serious breach" occurred. The serious breach just makes the situation 100 times worse. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Allow me to repeat: Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct.... No mention of "serious breach" or similar. Rubin failed this around a dozen times. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Whatever. It's multiple breaches of multiple policies. Should be simple enough to decide upon. Next decision is whether to monitor such future behaviour as regular NPA breaches are also unacceptable, particularly from problematic users. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment by others:

NPP

On June 11, 2017, Arthur Rubin removed the New Page Patrol user rights from Legacypac. Arthur Rubin did respond to inquiries about the removal here. Mkdw ^talk 20:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Failing to take responsibility for one's actions is not the same as "responding to inquiries". Rubin "responded to my inquiries" by making excuse after excuse about not being technically able to respond, not having the right kind of phone, then being ill, then returning, only to continue with NPAs. A response does not equate to an explanation. Fail. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The response by AR was insufficient and did not provide evidence of a policy-based justification for his actions. Admins are not expected to be perfect, but they are expected to recognize when they've made an error, and correct it when it is possible to do so. Simply responding to a complaint is not enough, the ensuing discussion has to show proper responsibility on the part of the admin, which is not the case here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• In way of analysis of the evidence I previously offered, I note that (a) other editors warned Legacypac about excessive deletion tagging [5] prior to Arthur Rubin suspending NPP privileges, and, (b) [as diff'ed on the evidence page] this came following the suspension of other Legacypac user rights by only at an earlier date on a similar issue. Taken in whole, I believe adequate counseling was offered to Legacypac by the community at the point Arthur Rubin intervened to apply a brief suspension pending discursive inquiry. At this point, AR engaged thoughtfully and proactively, offering prompt responses to six different questions and statements regarding the suspension from both Legacypac and others. [6] The restoring admin ultimately noted that the discussion at ANI, which prompted the suspension, "was extremely complicated." [7]

This seems to be a case of genuine disagreement about the correct sanction to apply. The charge of misuse cannot be judged as to whether or not Legacypac should have had his NPP rights suspended (he probably shouldn't have), because Adminship does not demand perfection and mistakes are permitted. The question is if AR acted out of bias, incompetence, or insanity. The evidence (previous warnings, previous suspensions, engagement and discussion, and all in respect of an "extremely complicated" issue) does not seem to support that. DocumentError (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

DocumentError's 3rd party hindsight justifications are both incorrect and bear no relation to anything Rubin said about his actions. Rubin just kept throwing up new accusations he could not back up with evidence, doubling down on his incorrect user right suspension with personal attacks.

A confused question from an inexperienced editor/troublemaker is not a "warning" to me. Correct, Admin accepted, CSD tagging of userspace spam (the linked complaint) has pretty much nothing to do with NPP rights. Third, the sea of red across thousands of pages at my User:Legacypac/CSD_log (and see the 5 archived pages since June 2017) speaks to my skill at applying CSDs correctly proving all the rest of DocumentError's unsubstantiated claims quite false. Legacypac (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm ... I don't think I made any "unsubstantiated claims." The claims I made were that: (a) another editor warned you about deletion tagging (repeating substantiation that another editor [rightly or wrongly] warned you: [8]), (b) that your user right suspension by AR came after your user right suspension by only (repeating substantiation that your user right suspension by only occurred in 2015, which is chronologically earlier than the year 2017 in the Gregorian calendar: [9]). In the Evidence phase you also invoked the word "unsubstantiated" against AR [10]. Respectfully, I'm concerned your frequent accusations of "unsubstantiated claims" are, themselves, unsubstantiated. DocumentError (talk) 03:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

A 2015 suspension of Pending Changes Patrol rights where there was no evidence of wrongdoing that lasted but a few hours was not cited by Rubin in Rubin's lack of defence for Rubin's action. I've ignored DocError since 2014 because of his many attacks on me. Legacypac (talk) 05:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Nor did I say it was. "I've ignored DocError since 2014 because of his many attacks on me." - I think this case has now officially jumped the shark. Aside from the fact shotgunning charges against another editor is wholly inappropriate for Arbitration, it's doubly so since you're making allegations against me without diffs - one of the very charges you're supporting against AR [11]. I've said my 0.02 in this case so I'll leave it there. Goodnight. DocumentError (talk) 06:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

INVOLVED

Arthur Rubin voted at ANI regarding an IBAN. They voted as a neutral party at the time and there was no direct dispute between Arthur Rubin and Legacypac. Arthur Rubin removed the NPP user right due to the ANI report and provided a note there. This action while ill-advised (as evident by lengthy discussion link provided by Legacypac), and was not supported by others, however, did not constitute a breach of INVOLVED. WP:UAL protocols apply. Mkdw ^talk 20:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Arthur Rubin voting at ANI as a neutral third party, at the time, does not make them involved under the INVOLVED policy. Nor does it mean anyone else who voted at the ANI is now involved with you. That is not what that policy means or how it is applied. Mkdw ^talk 23:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Mkdw please rephrase. Rubin voted several times at ANi making him INVOLVED. He then 3 days later revoked NPP user right from me. That is acting as an Involved Admin who should not be acting on an ANi thread he voted on. He did not post at ANi about the revokation until after I noticed and objected and discussion ensued. Further, he made a series of unsubstantiatable personal atacis against me on his talk page. Legacypac (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Accountability and trust

Administrators are held to a higher standard level and must retain the trust of the community at all times. There are a lack of diffs and evidence available because of the inherent nature of the assertion that Arthur Rubin did not respond to inquiries and questions regarding allegations they made over the course of several weeks and including this Arbitration case. Mkdw ^talk 20:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Administrators are held to a higher standard level and must retain the trust of the community at all times. The absence of any diffs or evidence proving otherwise, supports the assertion that Arthur Rubin did not respond to inquiries and questions regarding their conduct over the span of several weeks and including this Arbitration case. Mkdw ^talk 21:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

The Rambling Man, calm down. You're missing what's being said here. When I say there's a lack of diffs and evidence, I am strictly talking about diffs demonstrating Arthur Rubin did respond. They did not -- so obviously there would be no diffs showing a response. No one is making the statement that there were no attempts or questions being asked of them -- for which there are lots of diffs and evidence. Mkdw ^talk 21:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

If it needs to be re-worded, fine. Yes, I'm staying a negative vacuum is difficult to prove. It needs to be addressed if any FOFs are written up that fail to provide any evidence or diffs. Mkdw ^talk 21:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This is absurd. There is no "lack of diffs and evidence available". All the evidence was at ANI where I provided more than a dozen diffs. This seems to be a non-sequitur in any case, the heading being "accountability and trust" has nothing to do with lack of evidence. There's no "assertion", just plain fact. And moreover, there's the fact that post the relief of the CBAN, at my instigation, the first thing Rubin did was to add more unsubstantiated lies. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I am calm but your phrasing is too ambiguous. There are plenty of diffs available that assert he didn't respond, and that is all that is required. Or are you making a motion that says "It's hard to prove a negative", if so, bravo, but I fail to see how that helps in any way. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

No, that's absurd I'm afraid, once again. It's indoctrinated in policy. There are no diffs that show Rubin's adequate response. It doesn't need to be noted as a "lack of evidence", it's purely a lack of obligation to his responsibility as an editor (NPA) and and admin (ADMIN/ADMINACCT). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, this can all be cleared up with a view of Rubin's contributions to Wikipedia over the past few months. That's your "evidence". It's not to do with "lack of evidence", it's to do with lack of responsibility, lack of accountability, sudden disappearance, sudden reappearance, repeated violations, lack of contrition, etc etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The community's response at the AN/I report brought by TRM -- which would possibly have resulted in a desysop if a community-based desysyop procedure was available, but did result in a temporary topic ban intended to force AR to reply to TRM's reasonable request for supporting diffs -- is more than sufficient evidence to show that AR has lost the trust of the community, which, when it occurs, should always result in a desysopping by ArbCom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Version 2 is much clearer. It would be even better if it said "any diffs or evidence otherwise from Rubin Legacypac (talk) 21:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Coming in from the peanut gallery here, but I've seen a fair few cases in the past where there were allusions towards a community-based desysopping procedure. How about this as a rough idea: If an admin's actions are severe enough to warrant a CBAN then they are automatically desysopped by a crat (or steward, if crats can't perform the action) and must reapply for the mop again by way of WP:RFA? Dax Bane 10:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Affirmation of Legacypac's comments

I'm only marginally involved in this case due to the NPP issue, which I was previously, and unacceptably, not made aware of. I will simply confirm that with due diligence, I granted the NPP user right to Legacypac. As evidenced above, this admin action was unilaterally overturned without any notification or consultation, based on an unsubstantiated assertion of negligence on my part. While the situation was rectified without my input, I think it's undoubtedly abusive to overturn an admin action based on such an alleged, unsubstantiated admin wrongdoing, without making said admin aware. No admin who does this should retain the tools. (Redacted) Swarm ♠ 06:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

I am moving this here because the submission did not supply any new evidence. Instead, it provided relevant commentary/affirmation on submitted evidence. Mkdw ^talk 06:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac and Swarm: I've re-read Arthur Rubin's comment at ANI when they removed the NPP permission from Legacypac. In looking at the comment, it is further detailed by the edit summary, "I removed NPP bit as the addition was apparently done without considering his actions at the time". The WP:RAAA policy has three key words: "reversing" used in the section title; "disagree" and "challenged" used in the body of the policy. It appears clear to me that Arthur Rubin was clearly reversing and challenging an administrative action performed by Swarm. Therefore, Arthur Rubin did not adhere to RAAA, regardless in own belief for cause and consideration, when they removed the permission. Mkdw ^talk 06:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Support Swarm's statement. As I wrote elsewhere in this case, Admins need to exercise due diligence when granting user rights, and also when removing said rights. That ARs removal of Legacypac's user right could be in breach of RAAA compounds the error. Mjroots (talk) 11:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

considering some subsequent discussion, and reviewing the material, I am recusing myself from the case entirely. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: