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

Arthur Rubin was/is not accountable
The evidence I present here will demonstrate how Arthur Rubin failed WP:ADMINACCT, specifically "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed". In this discussion, TRM, clearly and repeatedly, requested diffs where he allegedly lied about guidelines. The discussion not only reveals Arthur's refusal to provide said diffs in accordance with WP:ADMINACCT but also saw him double down on his personal attacks and accusations. After two weeks, TRM opened an ANI case where Arthur stated his next edits would finally provide diffs; he, instead, questioned TRM's competency at Arbcom after recovering from an "illness". All the while, Arthur half-heartedly apologized but accused TRM of bullying -- first User:Wrad then Arthur himself. And, this, all without diffs which were requested by TRM!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:RY a guideline
Quick observation: Arthur Rubin's "denial that WP:RY is a guideline" complaint is invalid. questioned WP:RY, because it did not go through a proper WP:PROPOSAL process; it was promoted to one by a !voter in the almost-unattended, buried RfC about it (one of only three commenters), which is clearly improper; and what it says conflicts (or did; I have not read what it says right this second) with longer-standing consensus. It was thus RfC'ed for real ("advertised" widely), and that RfC just closed a few days ago, with consensus to tag it with Essay not Guideline. Consequently, all the other fingerpointing about RY is also just noise; whether someone has an "implausible" interpretation of some WP:PROJPAGE that's just an essay is meaningless and not actionable. I've already said my piece in the other ongoing discussion involving TRM, so I'm not going to repeat the same stuff here, and haven't reviewed all the diffs on the original case page, though I note the lack of ones that have been demanded to back up WP:ASPERSIONS already cast, and, well, 'nuff sed. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Rubin failed WP:ADMINACCT and WP:NPA multiple times
My evidence has already been provided, both at ANI and in the Main case page. There's nothing to be gained from repeating it all here. The Rambling Man (talk)

Rubin has demonstrated similar behavior before
Although I long held the old patroller right, I happened to be inactive when NPP rights were grandfathered. I was invited to apply for NPP on May 29. Swarm granted.

Rubin voted against an Iban in my favor "Oppose, generally per Lugnuts. I might have more to say about Legacy's edits, but that would be appropriate for another section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 22:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)" the Iban was later enacted as a two way iban, when the harassment continued, and has been strengthened on Sept 11 ]. Next Rubin supported a topic ban against me "Needs more work, but generally Support. Those moves I've checked are mostly clearly inappropriate and are mostly not adequately cleaned up. Unless it is appropriate to request deletion of the drafts, they shouldn't have been moved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 22:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)" These shadowing negative comments made him WP:INVOLVED. He maked false assertions User:Legacypac/Promotions or lied about checking my moves, therefore misleading others.

June 11 an Rubin WP:INVOLVED revoked my NPP with absolutely no discussion, warning or notification and a false accusation in the edit summary. I question his action (see entire discussion to end) but he refuses to provide evidence of wrongdoing. To each request for evidence he responds with more unsubstantiated attacks. Three days later he posts in the ANi thread "Note. I removed his "new page patroller" bit as the bit was originally added as a "non-controversial" addition of the bit as a regular NPP, without noting that his actions as NPP were questioned at the time (in a different forum). I won't object if the bit is restored, considering his current activity. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC)"

There was no discussion in any other forum about my NPP abilities or competence, so AR's post was a falsehood and like punishment for requiring WP:ADMINACCT.

Also User:Swarm granted NPP user right and commented extensively in at ANi. If Swarm made a mistake (he did not) Rubin should have taken it up with Swarm, not acted unilaterally.

AR failed to restore the NPP, but said "I won't object if the bit is restored" so I requested NPP again. . My WP:PERM request was denied June 13 (see logs at NPP PERM if interested)  User:Kudpung and User:DGG got involved and after a bunch of back and forth to explain and clarify over at PERM and AR's talk page (linked above) my NPP request was changed to "on hold" and finally regranted on June 14. Massive waste of time. The last post in the AR talk discussion challenges AR to justify his accusations but he archived the thread without accounting [] (see entire discussion for context).

Days later Rubin inexplicably the only editor to oppose an interaction ban I wholeheartedly supported which screams Admin incompetence/inability to properly judge a situation. Legacypac (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin has misused his tools
IMvHO, Arthur Rubin misused his tools when he removed the New Page Patroller user right from at 04:54 on 11 June 2017. He gave the reason as "Unexplained serious mistakes (in fact, he denied that they were mistakes)". This action was reversed by on 14 June.

An admin should excercise due diligence with the granting of user rights, and also with the revoking of such rights. If there was a problem with Legacypac's editing involving the New Page Patroller user right, one would expect to find numerous warnings re misuse of the right on his talk page. Looking through the talk page history up to the time the user right was revoked, I see no evidence of any problems being raised with Legacypac's use of the New Page Patrol user right.

I expect that Legacypac was notified through the Wikipedia system that the user right was removed, but one would have thought that an admin who removes a user right would at least have the courtesy to post on said user's talk page that the user right had been removed, and give an explanation of why it was removed. Arthur Rubin did not do this.

I realise that this is a sideshow to the main event, but it is part of the reason that the Wikipedia Community as a whole seems to have lost trust in Arthur Rubin's ability to wield the mop. Mjroots (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

NPP revocation does not constitute misuse of admin tools
Without commenting on the other matters, to the specific accusation that Arthur Rubin misused his tools by removing NPP rights from Legacypac, I respectfully disagree that such a removal rose to the high threshold of misuse, for the reason following: To, again, clarify: this point is only in respect of the allegation of NPP revocation constituting tool abuse. I have no input regarding other points raised to-date. &#32;DocumentError (talk) 07:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The allegation made by Legacypac that Arthur Rubin's revocation of user rights constituted "unsubstantiated attacks," etc., is not - in my opinion - made with clean hands. On a previous occasion where his user rights were revoked, Legacypac similarly declared that the revoking admin (only) was engaged in "an abuse of Admin powers and a clear breach of AGF" and that only was trying to "exact revenge" upon him , though no such abuse or vendetta on only's part were ultimately uncovered.
 * It is, in my opinion, improbable to believe that an editor is being targeted by a group of abusive admins intent on causing him a minor annoyance through revocation of something somewhat mundane like NPP and PCR rights. Occam's razor and AGF would instead suggest that, most likely, each of these seem to be the case of an Admin making a judgment call in the face of a fast-moving sequence of edits and then applying the absolute minimum sanction possible to protect the encyclopedia pending further scrutiny. No damage was done and the rights were restored.