Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes

Case opened on 04:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Case closed on 16:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Once the case is closed, editors should edit the #Enforcement log as needed, but the other content of this page may not be edited except by clerks or arbitrators. Please raise any questions about this decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of the remedies passed in the decision to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Involved parties[edit]

• Twitbookspacetube (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

NOTE: Twitbookspacetube has been indefinitely banned by the community and therefore will not participate further in this case.

Prior dispute resolution[edit]

• Link 1
• Link 2

Statement by Twitbookspacetube[edit]

The subject of a recent arbcom case, The Rambling Man (Hereafter TRM), has found themselves suffering abuse and attacks due to a poorly worded sanction that allowed other editors, including the admin mentioned above (Hereafter AR), to game the system and abuse TRM in a variety of ways. The wording is currently subject to an amendment request.

In addition, AR has participated in conduct unbecoming of an administrator in violations of WP:ADMINACCT, WP:3RR, WP:INVOLVED and WP:NPA - as such, I feel that, while a block (Which can be achieved via community consensus) is too severe, but removal of admin tools (Which can only be done here) would be an appropriate remedy. But, what I feel isn't how arbcom makes decisions.

Relevant diffs/links[edit]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

TRM can provide more in their statement if they so desire. Twitbookspacetube 05:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Arthur Rubin[edit]

• History
  • I did make a mistake in stating in Talk:2017 that TRM lied. Although true (or, that, at least, he made implausible interpretations of policies, guidelines, and statements by other editors), what I should have said at Talk:2017 is that there were misstatements, and that the RfC(s) needed to be closed by an admin. I later attempted to redact my statements to the appropriate degree, which TRM seems to consider inappropriate or inadequate.
  • I repeatedly reported (on my talk page, mostly; diffs can be provided, if needed), that I felt the only appropriate places to report the diffs was on his talk page or in an official report. He claims I am banned from his talk page.
  • I did not want to make an official report until I got "all my ducks in a row", because I believed he did not receive appropriate sanctions from previous reports. (Diffs of previous threads can be provided, but I don't think they are relevant.)
• Last Wednesday, before being hospitalized, I reported that I would not edit Wikipedia until I returned with a status update or to make a statement. I did not say that I would not not edit any social media sites before returning to ANI or this report.
• Specific diffs of implausible (or, in some cases, impossible) interpretations:
  1. [14] misinterpreting WP:3RR
  2. [15] [16] [17] [18] denial that WP:RY is a guideline
  3. [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] implausible interpretation that the 3-continent rule of WP:RY is sufficient for inclusion
  4. [25] implausible interpretations of WP:RY that international media coverage is indicative of international importance or significance
  5. [26] [27] clear misinterpretation of editors' comments
  6. [28]; a clear indication that he did not understand that [29] and some others were intended to give him credit for pointing out a problem.
• I'm not sure if this rises to the level of WP:CIR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • [30] is a serious misstatement about the contents of WP:RY; the version ratified as guideline has two clauses which clearly state being "the oldest person" is not "important" for the purpose of WP:RY. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMO, this does amount to a WP:CIR problem. TRM stated he has read WP:RY. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bullying is difficult to prove, but, by mass (not weight), repeating the same argument in multiple venues, TRM convinced Wrad that it was wrong of Wrad to declare WP:RY a guideline (which does appear to be accurate under Wikipedia guidelines), and that the proper thing to do was to revert his action, which is absolutely wrong, as WP:RY had been promoted to a guideline by a properly advertised RfC. His reversion was properly reverted. Wrad then retired. It seems obvious to me that TRM bullied Wrad into doing the wrong thing. Diffs will be provided within 24 hours. On my phone, it's hard to scan 100s of TRM's edits to determine which of them are part of his bullying campaign. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bullying is difficult to prove, but, by mass (not weight), repeating the same (previously rejected) arguments in multiple venues, I feel bullied by The Rambling Man. (I cannot prove Wrad was bullied, but a rational editor in his position would feel bullied.) (I know, WP:Consensus can change, but repeating the same argument hundreds of times is not the way to establish a new consensus.) I could give 10 diffs, but selecting 10 of the hundreds of repeated statements making the same few arguments would be difficult, and it really is the bulk of the hundreds of attacks against WP:RY and edits attempting to maintain the recent year articles that seems to be the problem. I don't have a suggestion as to what needs to be done. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many diffs of TRM repeating the same argument in posts of more than 100 words do you want? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Rambling Man[edit]

Having returned to editing following the over-turning of the CBAN, amongst Rubin's first edits was this which contained new personal attacks, amongst them that I "bullied" an recently retired editor called Wrad. I have requested diffs of this so-called bullying, but I'm not holding my breath, even though Rubin claims to have mastered the art of diff pasting on his cell phone. (I do have diffs where I congratulate Wrad on his edits, where I tell him I'm sorry that he's been bullied off the project etc...) Once again, this is not indicative of a user who understands how to interact with people, let alone an admin. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How odd, despite me making a plain request for diffs where I am allegedly bullying Wrad, this admin has ignored those requests entirely and continued to edit. This is becoming something of a farce. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rubin, still waiting for those diffs where I bullied Wrad, per ADMINACCT. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rubin you're still editing (reverting) at leisure but have failed to respond to my request for diffs per above, where did I bully Wrad? I guess if you don't respond I'll request your CBAN is reinstated. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rubin is this some kind of a joke? Do you have diffs? Do you have anything solid? Perhaps we should ask Wrad how he feels about Rubin? EVIDENCE please Rubin, not just speculation and personal opinion.. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, Arthur Rubin, provide diffs which substantiate your latest claim that TRM convinced Wrad that it was wrong of Wrad to declare WP:RY a guideline . Diffs please Rubin, assuming your fever has subsided. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs will be provided within 24 hours. these were requested nearly a week ago, your ongoing abuse of ADMINACCT is evident. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rubin so diffs of me bullying Wrad then? Please redact your accusation as soon as practicable. By the way, this case is about your misbehaviour and abuse of position, not mine. I'm sure you'll start a revenge strike as and when, but for now, we're just looking at why you fail, time and again, to meet your responsibilities as an admin, coupled with unfounded personal attacks across Wikipeida. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rubin wow, I looked at all those diffs it took you four weeks, an ANI post and an Arbcom case request to provide. Mate, they're junk. I could respond in kind to each of them a dozen times over, or else they're simply not relevant, or you've got the wrong diff. They don't get close to substantiating any claims of yours. Honestly. If you could pull together some genuine response to my questions, my request for diffs (including your latest accusation of "bullying Wrad") then we might stand a chance, but right now, this doesn't end well. Not at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Purplebackpack89 yeah, difference being the numerous unfounded personal attacks and failure to meet ADMINACCT on Rubin's behalf. And mark my words, if Arbcom thought there was infraction of my restrictions, they'd be the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh to jump on it. Reminder: this case is about personal attacks and failure to meet admin responsibilities by Rubin. You are, of course, as Rubin is, free to start you own revenge case. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes[edit]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Recuse GoldenRing (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Recuse --Kostas20142 (talk) 09:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rubin and WP:ADMINACCT: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <9/0/1>[edit]

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• Recuse. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Since Arthur Rubin said he is ill several days ago and has not edited since, I think we should pause this case request until he returns. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. This is worth examining. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept Mkdw ^talk 03:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep statements to 500 words or less. Mkdw ^talk 04:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EdChem: The instructions are quite clear that case requests are for the purposes of statements and not discussion. We are here to determine if this case will be heard (future tense), not for us to hear everything now. These restrictions were intentionally implemented to prevent issues from being entirely litigated during the request phase rather than during the actual case itself. Restrictions on limits here do not ultimately affect whether details or discussions between named parties are excluded or not from consideration. Mkdw ^talk 16:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: We took a pause leading up to and during Wikimania since so many people were unavailable or busy. We gave a bit of extra time for any last minute comments and then we'll be moving onto the case shortly. Mkdw ^talk 20:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This case will be opened up imminently. Mkdw ^talk 19:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul August: You mean like the comment above? The case pages are being prepared. Mkdw ^talk 19:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept we can scrutinise the actions. The onus is on Arthur to provide diffs or not to defend himself, but we need to at least gain an impression of the problem ourselves. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept --kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept, grudgingly - while Arthur Rubin's posts since his return have been unsatisfying, I do get a sense of teapot-tempestry here. Although the usual line is that cases examine the behavior of all parties, I would envision this one to focus on Arthur Rubin; material about TRM that is unrelated to this specific dispute should be raised elsewhere (AE, ARCA, or if at all possible, into an unsent draft email, text file on your own computer, or /dev/null). Also, I really don't want to hear much about how so-and-so was posting on Facebook, tweeting cat memes, texting their parents, out at the bar, desperately trying to feed the dog their homework, whatever. WP:VOLUNTEER. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding some of the more recent posts: this case has already, for all practical purposes, been accepted. You don't need to continue posting in a venue designed to decide whether a case will be accepted - better to save your energy for the evidence page. It hasn't been opened yet for the boring reason that people are busy and some arbs are at Wikimania and mid-August is a good time to go outside and do non-internet things. (Highly recommended for all participants, really.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept as necessary, agreeing with Opabinia regalis about the material that should be excluded. Doug Weller talk 11:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept considering the comments, it seems a case will be need to clarify the situation. I too agree with O.r. about limiting the case. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept and I agree that the case should be limited per OR. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Conduct was serious enough. Drmies (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain, just noting that I have seen this and that it will likely be accepted. While I'm not recusing, I will likely avoid parts of this case that involve TRM, considering he and I are, so far as I am aware, not too terribly fond of one another, and that may be putting it mildly at times. Any issues we consider in this case not related to TRM I'll be active on. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

considering some subsequent discussion, and reviewing the material, I am recusing myself from the case entirely. DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

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.

Passed 11 to 0 at 16:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

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.

Passed 11 to 0 at 16:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

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.

Passed 11 to 0 at 16:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

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.

Passed 11 to 0 at 16:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

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.

Passed 10 to 0 at 16:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

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.

Passed 10 to 1 at 16:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

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.

Passed 6 to 3 with 1 abstention at 16:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

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.

Passed 10 to 0 with 1 abstention at 16:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

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.

Passed 11 to 0 at 16:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

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.

Passed 10 to 0 at 16:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

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.

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.

Passed 10 to 0 at 16:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.