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

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

...and no one came?

It looks as if I may owe the Committee a deep apology for pressing so hard for this to be opened. At this point, the presentation of evidence is, I think, pretty much in the hands of The Rambling Man, who is the actual claimant in this issue. I don't know if TRM is planning on participating or not (his views about the Committee are well known not to be favorable) and I don't feel that I can ask him, as we don't get along all that well.

I do hope that someone comes forward to present evidence, one way or the other. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the OP getting indeffed (!!!) has any bearing on it? I mean- perhaps there's a bit of an unsavoury feeling of ratifying trollllling by backing their case? — fortunavelut luna 13:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom changed the scope of the case in order for me to be hoisted by my own petard, basically an invitation to the hawks to come circling once again and dig out a decade of dubious diffs. I'm not interested in that. (P.S. As for not getting along, sure we do. We just hold forthright but often opposing views. No harm, no foul). The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which I believe were in part related to this throwaway comment I made on someone else's talkpage. FWIW I was not talking about facebook or other similar 'social' websites. If arbcom want clarification let me know - but it was not as straightforward as OR's comment appeared to imply. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed my evidence to some number of words. If I've exceeded the limit, please grant me more words. Legacypac (talk) 00:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: We will grant you up to 750 words and a 24 hour extension to complete your evidence submission. Regards, Mkdw ^talk 15:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I count 45 lines with an avg of 10 words each. I think I'm good. Thanks. Legacypac (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac, I have you at 476 words which is well within the limit. If you are done, then we will proceed to the next phase on schedule. Regards, Mkdw ^talk 20:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for me. Legacypac (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence submitted by DocumentError was submitted after the deadline for submission of evidence. For this reason (and only this reason), it should not be considered. Mjroots (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consideration to allow their submission after the deadline was made due to the fact that we had already expressed an allowance of flexibility with another submission within the same time period. Not extending it to another editor would have been inconsistent and not equitable. Mkdw ^talk 19:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I erred in submission of evidence. At the time I provided testimony the 'evidence closed' tag had not been placed on the page so I, therefore, thought it remained open. DocumentError (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Purplebackpack89 and Swarm: The evidence phase was closed at 16:31, 14 September 2017‎. A minor extension of 8 hours was granted to an editor who submitted a last minute request statement and then the page was closed. Your submissions on 17 September 2017 were too far from the deadline for an extension and were removed. However, if you are still interested in the case, we would encourage you (and all other interested editors) to participate in the workshop phase of the case. Mkdw ^talk 16:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkdw: It's unclear to me how non-clerks participate in that phase. Could you explain how non-clerks participate? My main point is that TRM and Arthur are continuing to spar with each other, and if the clerks are made aware of that behavior, it is not necessary for my comments to remain. pbp 19:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Purplebackpack89: Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin/Workshop. The page has instructions on the top and sections for use by editors. I should point out that case clerks handle 'clerical tasks' during the Arbitration case, such as placing templates, and do not themselves participate in the case itself with respect to the evidence, workshop, proposals, and so forth. Their awareness of a current situation outside of the case will have absolutely no impact on the case or its outcome. Mkdw ^talk 20:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mkdw: apologies for somehow missing the notice at the top of the page. I was hit by Hurricane Irma and did not have any internet access until the time of my posting. However, some of the evidence presented in this case was regarding an ("allegedly") abusive unilateral overturning of an administrative action I made. I was not even aware of this problematic event until the time of my response of the evidence page and I thought my statement provided important context regarding the allegations of admin abuse already made. In addition, my comments included an important observation of bias against the last user to submit "evidence". I've looked at the workshop, and it does not seem to be the appropriate place to repost the statement I made. I respectfully request that my statement be reentered into evidence ex post facto, per WP:5P5. Swarm ♠ 01:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If no other parties have an objection, then I would support including your statement given your extenuating circumstances and the fact that you had involved with one of the main issues of the case. Mkdw ^talk 19:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: There are only a few days left in the workshop. I am wondering if you are again without power or if you will be able to participate in the rest of the case? I think this is important with respect to your extenuating circumstances request. Let me know, Mkdw ^talk 22:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please repost Swarm's statement. He made an important point not brought into evidence by any other editor. Legacypac (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored it [to the workshop now], however, I have removed the aside comment as it was beyond the case scope for evidence submissions. Mkdw ^talk 04:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If editorial judgement is available please redact most of this statement as well [1]ona similar basis. Legacypac (talk) 05:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DocumentError is addressing Arthur Rubin's conduct which is defined within the case scope, this includes the claim they were abusing their tools. In reading through Swarm's evidence submission, no new evidence was raised. Instead, they provided commentary on already submitted evidence, which should be addressed in the workshop evidence analysis. Mkdw ^talk 06:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, this is an evidence-based submission that is relevant for committee consideration, Legacypac. However, I will naturally defer to other editors who believe otherwise. Thank you. DocumentError (talk) 07:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]