Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin

Statement by Hasteur
Were some of the comments heated? Yes. Does TRM need the white knight actions of twitbookspacetube? Probably not. Is this rising to the need for an emergency petition for desysop? Hell no. I encourage the committee to reject the case as currently filed as I have read all the way to the back of the issue, and see that while both TRM and AR have acted with less than full civility, it's not an intractable dispute yet. Would TRM and TBST like us to apply the same "We want an apology NOW!" argument to them as well? Walk a mile in the other editors shoes to see if there might be cause for the situation. Trout for TBST for trying to stir the drama pot. Trout for TRM for knowing better than disruptively bringing up the same arguments that a guideline that had been recently reconfirmed as a guideline (even if by no change default) can't be talked down without checking the community's consensus again. and trout for AR for not providing those diffs on the talk page earlier or taking the case to AN or 3O to get an outside view of the commentary. None of this ever needed to boil up to ArbCom or ANI (Action needed NOW). Hasteur (talk) 05:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC) Procedural objection withdrawn as it appears that the disputants have moved the issue here. Hasteur (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

After seeing this "Fire and Fury" mob and TRM's haranging of ArbCom, I request that the committee censure TRM for needlessly causing disruption by shrill exclamations. Unless TRM is volunteering to pay each one of the committee members and clerk's salary for the duration of the case (and especially in light of other casework already on the table) in order for the committee to dedicate time to this dispute, they should calm down. If AR take's leave of their administrative senses, a injunction to prevent action (or suspending of AR's administrative privileges) will happen. Enough people are paying attention to this that it won't ANI-Flu. Any harassment of the committee to get on with it only serves to disrupt the request further and leaves open the option of sanctions on TRM. Hasteur (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Softlavender
Are we playing Wikipedia bingo? We have a frivolous ANI, an WP:ARCA, and now a frivolous RFAR, all on nearly the same subject and all happening nearly simultaneously. Twitbookspacetube, administrators, like other editors, are allowed to strongly disagree with other editors, to name names, to file AEs, and even to claim that they are not being accurate or completely forthcoming. They don't get de-sysopped for that. I recommend that ArbCom decline this case request. Softlavender (talk) 06:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

CBans (by definition) are enacted by the community, not ArbCom; the community enacted that editing ban, not ArbCom, so it's not ArbCom's place to undo it. Especially since there is now a (currently) unanimous motion to undo the CBan at ANI:. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

You are not a blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted user. ArbCom cannot overrule or undo a community-enacted sanction unless there is an appeal by the sanctioned user, usually via email. Even then that would take time and discussion and rounding up votes and opinions from various far-flung Arbs. There is no need for any of that, since there is already a unanimous (with 11 participants so far) motion to undo the CBan at ANI which was proposed by the original ANI filer himself. --Softlavender (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by TheGracefulSlick
You should have seen this coming TBST. Arthur Rubin claimed at ANI he is ill -- not only making this premature but also a sign of bad faith. Unlike some of the editors above, I believe the request for Arthur to present diffs in a timely manner needs to be reviewed at ANI. But to get de-syopped without a meaningful discussion at the aforementioned forum? That should never happen and I recommend Arbcom decline this request.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * My previous statement has been stricken with the knowledge that AR has reappeared and is continuing to make personal attacks on TRM. I encourage Arbcom to accept this case, and evaluate his behavior over the past three weeks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * how about, if you accuse TRM of any offenses (like the alleged "bullying campaign"), you have diffs supplied as well? Either have the diffs or wait until you do before making unfounded accusations, which I consider personal attacks. Please, spare us of the "in 24 hours" or "it's too difficult on my phone" routines.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * you need to strike your previous comment, not simply alter it. TRM has responded to the earlier statement, asking for diffs. Since you are accusing him of bullying yet again, he will most likely ask for diffs another time. So diffs for both the bullying of Wrad and of you would be greatly appreciated.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Kostas20142
First of all, I would like to mention that, in addition to the steps described above by the filer, there is also an open discussion in ANI regarding all these issues described in the filer's statement. It should also be noted that has claimed being ill stating that the first thing when back will be to provide the diffs requested at ANI. And he has not returned yet. Under this scope, ANI is the most appropriate venue for this discussion, and this request is at least premature. Additionally, involuntary ArbCom desysoping is very serious, not something that should be taken lightly. This means that it cannot even be considered as a potential solution unless there is a history of repeated misuse of admin tools and/or status (which is not the case) or there was an extremely serious incident. The 3RR violations, the significant delay in providing the requested diffs, as well as the lack of civility in some o the diffs provided by the filer are indeed serious, but not in a way that makes this process needed. At least not for the time being. They should of course be discussed, but the already-open ANI discussion is the most appropriate venue for now. It is also needed to mention that the admin in question has already agreed that their actions might be sanctionable. For these reasons, I propose that this case is declined. --Kostas20142 (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the statement by Arthur Rubin is much less than convincing. Also, more evidence against them, such as repeated violationsof WP:CIVIL have been provided, that are sufficient to support concerns about whether this user can continue holding admin privileges. In my opinion, the statement of Arthur Rubin itself indicates at least lack of understanding of the situation. Therefore it will be necessary that ArbCom takes up this case, focusing on this user's behavior. --Kostas20142 (talk) 08:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Legacypac
The same admin has made multiple baseless personal attacks and allegations against me while refusing to supply any evidence. They even stripped NPP user right with no evidence of any abuse of the right (it was restored quite quickly by two other Admins). I was completely unsurprised to see this report because it fits the pattern of negative behavior and abuse of Admin powers I've experienced from the only Admin I distrust. I'll supply diffs if the case is accepted. I'm uninvolved in and previously unaware of the dispute brought here. I created this User:Legacypac/AR for ANi and based on this and TRM diffs the community has almost SNOW BANNED AR from editing and there is a strong case we BLOCKED him too but that was closed in favor of the BAN. In face of an, about to be closed, site ban, he went off editing other pages!

Statement by Dweller
Just to note for the record, further to the statement by, that TRM has had little role in the proliferation of matters involving him. The clarification was brought by me despite some effort by TRM to dissuade me from doing so, and he also appears to have had no role in opening this case. Yes, he opened an ANI, but I would strongly dispute that the ANI discussion was "frivolous". --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * TRM's reply to me, above, kind of explodes the idea that the ANI was "frivolous" - it was Arthur Rubin's choice. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * assertion that "Accepting this case would also allow scrutiny of The Rambling Man's behaviour." Lord preserve us. Why does Mjroots suggest this? Because, it seems "his behaviour since that case may well benefit from further scrutiny" Let's just think about this for a minute. TRM has surpassed Eric I'd say as the Wikipedian whose actions are most under scrutiny. Constantly. As any number of post-ArbCom nonsenses at his talk page, ANI and AE bear witness. And because being repeatedly accused of wrongdoing by an administrator who refuses, absolutely refuses, to give any evidence of wrongdoing deserves an ArbCom investigation of the victim. Yes. Definitely. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker
Per WP:RUC, claims of incivility are addressed by redaction. When Arthur Rubin redacted weeks ago, that seems like it should have been the end to any spiraling escalation of WP:DR, or, at least more redaction should have been the next requested step, not all this. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * TRM: Go back, identify specifically and request that he redact more then - since he has demonstrated a willingness to redact, you two should be able to work that out before escalation of DR. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * TRM: Chasing? Making a specific request for redaction is not chasing, it is dispute resolution. The next step, if outside action is needed and the editor will not redact his own identified comments, an uninvovled admin or editor redacting them. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Mjroots
I ask that the arbitration committee accept this case. There are claims of long-term breaches of CIVIL and NPA by Arthur Rubin. Such conduct is not that which would be condoned in an editor, let alone an admin. The question of whether or not Arthur Rubin is fit to hold Administrator privileges needs to be looked at IMHO. Also to be considered is the removal of Legacypac's autopatrolled new page patroller user right, which was swiftly restored by another admin. Is this further evidence that Arthur Rubin is not now fit to wield the mop? Accepting this case would also allow scrutiny of The Rambling Man's behaviour. I am aware that he is no stranger to ARBCOM, and that there was a case last year involving him which led to his relinquishing his Administrator privileges under a cloud. His behaviour since that case may well benefit from further scrutiny in relation to remedies imposed therein. Mjroots (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * - If you've not misbehaved, you have nothing to fear, have you? Also, it strengthens the complaint against Arthur Rubin. If you have misbehaved, then you should be called to account for it, exactly the same as Arthur Rubin is being called to account for his actions. I'm not singling either of you out. There are two sides to every story, including this one. Mjroots (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said to TRM above, it may well be the case that scrutiny of TRM's editing clears him of any wrongdoing. Mjroots (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * - things have moved on since you posted. You may wish to re-evaluate the situation. Mjroots (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Begoon
The belated diffs provided by Arthur do not seem, to me, in any way sufficient. I'm also entirely unconvinced by the long series of excuses about when/where this response could or could not be made. Once, eventually, "diffs" were forced to be posted, I don't see how they really address the fundamental concerns here at all. Regardless of all that, they were certainly not timely, so ADMINACCT has undeniably been breached, imo.

As a community we cannot decide to remove admin privileges, and have that decision enacted by any means other than coming here. That sucks, and we need to change that.

If you decline this case, Arthur will likely suffer no consequences for what is unacceptable conduct for an admin (or, indeed, any editor). That's not a good outcome.

If you accept it, and it broadens, as these things do, it could end with also, or solely, shooting the whistleblower. That shouldn't happen, but there's some history here, and we are all human, so I can't discount it.

I really don't know whether to recommend acceptance, given my concerns about how impartially this could truly be handled here, however good many intentions may be, but I do know we need to change the avenues of resolution for circumstances such as this. You can't do that for the community; the community can only do that for itself. -- Begoon 14:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite
I was not going to recommend that this case be accepted, but given the quite ridiculous statement by Arthur Rubin, I think that it probably should. After trying every option possible to avoid being called out on his comments until being forced to by the current WP:ANI thread (I won't comment on the illness issue), his first sentence seems to accept that he was wrong about accusing TRM of lying - but then basically says "except, yes he was". I am reminded of politicians, knowing they're not allowed to accuse others of lying, claiming that they're "economical with the truth". Not content with this, he then gives a series of diffs which don't address the issues raised by Twitbookspacetube and are accompanied by comments that don't reflect the actual diff, finishing off by doubling down on TRM by claiming that he may well be incompetent at editing ("I'm not sure if this rises to the level of WP:CIR"). This is in no way something we should be seeing from an administrator. A simple "I don't agree with you, but I apologise for accusing you of lying, because I see now that you weren't" would have defused this whole issue a long time ago, and it's ridiculous that AR doesn't seem to be able to do this. Black Kite (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Edit: And now he's continuing to cast aspersions on TRM at other pages . Quite ridiculous behaviour. Black Kite (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Davey2010
This IMHO should be accepted, As I've said at ANI it's unbecoming of any editor or admin, AR's comment above "I'm not sure if this rises to the level of WP:CIR" puts the final nail in the coffin for me, Instead of simply realising they've messed up and apologising they instead try to accuse TRM of being incompetent and thus are digging themselves a deeper hole, IMHO AR should atleast be desysopped, Preferably I would prefer blocked but I think that may well be overkill, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 15:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Iridescent
Please accept this and either get this trainwreck back on the rails or decide it's not salvageable and send the wreckage off to be scrapped. I'm not at all convinced that the conduct of Arthur Rubin, and certainly not that of The Rambling Man, are remotely approaching the level where anything stronger than "could the two of you please try to stay away from each other?" is required—if we blocked or sanctioned editors routinely for the type of comments given as evidence by both Twitbookspacetube and Arthur Rubin, Wikipedia would have about five editors left and most of the current arbcom would be indefblocked—but this is clearly an issue that isn't going to go away. The brief timesink of everyone involved compiling a dossier of the alleged failings of the other party and arbcom reviewing all those diffs neutrally and assessing whether they demonstrate significant problems will be far preferable than a slow-burning war fought across noticeboards and high-profile talkpages with other people constantly being sucked in on one side or the other. &#8209; Iridescent 15:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * (adding) Striking part of the above. That Arthur Rubin is still making accusations without providing evidence despite the fact that by posting here he's beyond dispute aware that his conduct is being monitored precisely with regards to that area, we're squarely into competence is required territory; AR's actions have now reached the point where if there weren't an ongoing arb case I'd have placed a uw-disruptive template and be actively considering blocking. To be blunt, if you accept this case I think it's fairly certain that Arthur Rubin will be sitebanned by consensus within 24 hours of the request being declined (at the time of writing it's only a technicality relating to punitive blocking in absentia that's preventing him being indeffed, and now he's returned to editing that technicality no longer applies), so you'll end up hearing the case anyway when he appeals. &#8209; Iridescent 21:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * (adding and striking more of the above) I appreciate Arthur Rubin is under stress, but I see no way to interpret this diff as anything other than an admission of lying. This is now a trust issue—if you're not going to accept this case at least sort it out by motion. &#8209; Iridescent 18:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
Simply because I don't see it mentioned here, please note that "Arthur Rubin is community banned 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. |undefined" Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks very much as if the community editing ban imposed on AR is well on its way to being lifted, if the SNOW response to TRM's proposal to do so is any indication, so I rather doubt that the committee will have to do anything in regard to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The community ban on AR has been lifted as a result of TRM's proposal to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Just wondering, per OR: "Regarding some of the more recent posts: this case has already, for all practical purposes, been accepted." If so, why no further action, or is there stuff going on behind the scenes to attempt to alleviate the need for a case to be opened? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * @Mkdw: Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Folks, it's now seven weeks since The Rambling Man asked Arthur Rubin on AR's talk page for diffs of him "lying", five weeks since TRM filed a complaint on AN/I , 4 1/2 weeks since this case request was opened, three weeks since a sufficient number of Arbitrators had accepted the case, and a week since I was told "[W]e'll be moving into the case shortly." Unless there are negotiations of some sort going on behind the scenes, this looks like foot-dragging.  I am an uninvolved editor, and I do not believe that the Committee is hesitant to take on the potential desysoping of a fellow admin, but that is what it can appear like to some, considering the timeline.  I urge the Committee to open the case as soon as possible. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Rschen7754
Arthur was topic banned by ArbCom in Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement, and subsequently blocked for violating that request. Considering this, it should lower the threshold for case acceptance IMO. --Rschen7754 01:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Noting that the topic ban was eventually lifted . --Rschen7754 04:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Paul August
Please accept this case. And please note that whatever else Arthur Rubin is or has done, he is an expert editor who has made many productive contribution to our mathematics content, and who, because of this issue, is currently community banned from editing. Paul August &#9742; 13:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Can we please see some action on this? Paul August &#9742; 19:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. I hadn't seen your comment below, and am now sorry for all the pings. Paul August &#9742; 19:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Lepricavark
I agree with pretty much everyone else that the committee should take this case and determine what sanctions might be appropriate. That being said, AR is currently under a severe editing restriction that will likely last at least for the duration of this case, which I assume will be accepted. By the time this case has concluded, AR will have been effectively blocked for longer than the hypothetical non-admin that, as we've been repeatedly told, would have already been blocked. Contrary to the repetitive complaints about admins protecting admins, AR will likely endure a harsher penalty than a non-admin in a similar situation. Moreover, due to what I perceive as an erroneous application of the sanction, AR's indefinite restriction will not conclude at the end of this case. If the ANI thread is any indication, he may have great difficulty getting the restriction lifted after the case closes, especially if the committee doesn't hand down strong sanctions. And if the committee does hand down strong sanctions, they'll be piling onto an already harsh punishment. I'd like to echo what Paul August has said about the value AR provides to Wikipedia, something that has received little attention during the furor at ANI. AR has received a severe, indefinite restriction, a public humiliation, and remains vulnerable to more punishment with the outcome of this case pending. At some point, enough is enough. Lepricavark (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * From my perspective, it would be humiliating to endure the wave of criticism AR has received. I'm certainly not denying that he is responsible for this mess and, as I've said, I hope the committee will examine this case and render the appropriate sanction(s). My primary desire is to see that the punishment fits the crime. Lepricavark (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by User:Robert McClenon
The community has essentially left the ArbCom with no choice but to take this case. However, it almost certainly needed to be taken anyway. I have not researched the original issue between User:The Rambling Man and User:Arthur Rubin. I agree with the comment that TRM has taken the place of Eric Corbett as the single most scrutinized editor of Wikipedia, but Eric brought that status on himself, and TRM has brought that status on himself, including by personal attacks. ArbCom should look both at AR and at TRM. (I respectfully disagree that TRM should be given any sort of free pass due to recent scrutiny.) The scope of this case with regard to AR should not be limited to this interaction with TRM but should include recent uses of administrative tools, and should also include any other editors who may have provoked AR. (It will of course also include whether AR has provoked TRM, which would have been fun and easy but wrong.) Robert McClenon (talk) 04:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by BU Rob13
I'm commenting narrowly to encourage the Committee to repeal and replace (heh) the preliminary community ban that was just placed on Arthur Rubin. At this thread, the community banned AR from editing at all except in connection with this case until the case has concluded. This seems to be an attempt to "help out" the Committee in lieu of a preliminary motion. I see it doing nothing but damage. As far as I can tell, this case is about ADMINACCT, a policy that applies only to administrators. There seems to be no indication from any party that this case could result in anything more severe than desysopping. In past similar cases (e.g. Arbitration/Requests/Case/Toddst1), the Committee has made a preliminary motion to bar the admin from using administrative tools. This allows us to retain an editor while we question whether we should retain an administrator as well.

The community ban places a rather severe cloud over these proceedings. It puts substantial pressure on AR to resign the bit now to avoid a lengthy case if he wants to regain the right to edit. That is not an incentive the Committee should allow to exist. The Committee previously resolved by motion not to handle ban appeals unrelated to its proceedings. While this particular type of ban does not meet the literal text of that motion, it certainly meets its spirit; the ban will interfere with this case by creating perverse incentives for AR to walk away from adminship without being given his due process. Please replace this with an appropriate preliminary motion prohibiting the use of admin tools. ~ Rob 13 Talk 08:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you're making a philosophical statement or a statement about policy. If you're making a philosophical statement, okay. I'd usually agree, but this particular ban would cast such a spectre over this case that I believe it's worth breaking from my usual philosophical leanings. If you're making a statement about policy, you are incorrect. Per WP:ARBPOL, it is within the scope of the Committee to "hear appeals from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users". They regularly did just that for all bans, including community bans, for many years. In late 2015, they resolved by motion to restrict their review to just AE blocks/bans, functionary blocks (CU/OS), and blocks/bans involving non-public information, but the current Committee is not bound by that motion. As a point of policy, they very clearly could decide to alter the ban. ~ Rob 13 Talk 12:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Would evidence supporting a pattern evident in TRM's behavior specific to this case be in-scope? ~ Rob 13 Talk 15:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by EdChem
I recently had a disagreement with Arthur Rubin in which he declared in this ANI thread that I had clearly violated WP:NPA and endorsed an IP's view that I am WP:NOTHERE. I was shocked, and sought input from Bishonen, who commented that the claims did not make sense to her either. Arthur subsequently did strike one of his comments, I requested that he strike the other comment, which he did, and I thanked him. My request that he strike his other comments asked: "that you be more careful in declaring experienced editors as WP:NOTHERE or as having violated behavioural policies like NPA – as an admin, your words carry substantial weight". He did not offer any written response to my comments, nor did he ever offer an explanation or apology. It left me wondering about his admin judgement, and I offer it as an observation for ArbCom in case there are other examples of poor judgement. I hope, in my case, that AR commented without actually understanding what I was saying and so struck his comments when he realised his mistake – and we do all make mistakes.

My other reason for posting this interaction with AR was because of a comment above from, above: The scope of this case with regard to AR should not be limited to this interaction with TRM but should include recent uses of administrative tools, and should also include any other editors who may have provoked AR (emphasis added). The assumption implicit in this statement seemed to me to be that any situations where AR has acted in a less-than-ideal manner were due to provocations from others. I do not believe that I engaged in any violation of NPA, and I think that my record shows I am here to build an encyclopaedia, yet AR declared that I had violated NPA and endorsed that I was NOTHERE without any provocation from me. I don't doubt that admins are the target for a lot of provocation, but that does not make them immune from misjudgement, over-reaction, and outright mistakes. Starting a case with the assumption that AR is in the right and has been provoked in all interactions is neither sensible nor fair.

I made this comment to BU Rob13, expressing disagreement with his interpretation of the ANI thread on AR's now-rescinded ban. I expressed the view that the ban was not meant to pressure AR into doing anything but responding to the concerns raised on hiss return, as he has done. Rob responded and I am now removing the content because of ArbCom evidence limits.

@: See this discussion from talk:TRM for issues with how word counts are handled. Forcing editors into making these kind of edits to make space for relevant new evidence is not helpful to you, and it does not leave a coherent discussion here nor on the main case page's talk page. Amortias is following ArbCom procedures, and it is those procedures that need re-evaluation.

Statement by Purplebackpack89

 * Support decline and restoration of status quo ante prior to the original ANI I support lifting Arthur's community ban, and no additional actions against Arthur or against TRM, with the possible exception of an interaction ban between the two. I would note that neither Arthur nor TRM has behaved particularly admirably in the past few weeks.  Arthur said some things he probably shouldn't have. Meanwhile, TRM hasn't dropped the stick, blown this way out of proportion, and probably violated his civility sanctions.  There easily could be pretty harsh actions taken against either user.  But I think the community would be best served if we just moved on from this, with both editors continuing their work in their respective fields.  However, it should be crystal-clear that future interaction between these two is unlikely to be productive, which is why I am OK with an interaction ban.  I realize that what I'm suggesting is unlikely to leave TRM happy, and may not leave Arthur happy either, but I firmly believe this is the right path forward here.  p  b  p  16:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Kurtis
This case is clearly going to be accepted at this point, and that's probably for the best. I've long been of the opinion that a case need not result in sanctions for it to be of some benefit; if the Arbitration Committee reviews the evidence and determines that this is an isolated incident (excluding the edit warring and topic ban, all of which happened several years ago), then we will have it on record that they've reviewed the evidence and found no real cause for concern. Conversely, if there is indeed a case to be made regarding Arthur's overall suitability for adminship, then the Arbitration Committee will deliberate on how best to proceed.

My sole interaction with Arthur Rubin (as far as I can recall) was almost negligible, yet I still came away with a positive impression. As you can see, I made an edit request in early 2013 over a minor link correction. Arthur Rubin was already participating in discussions on the article's talk page, so he went ahead and handled it himself. I knew of him beforehand, however - he is one of the few editors notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article. Needless to say, he is a very accomplished mathematician, and as Paul August says above, an equally valuable contributor to mathematics-related articles. The benefit he brings to Wikipedia, both as an editor and administrator, should never be in doubt. Kurtis (talk) 03:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Dennis Brown
While it is clear that this case will be accepted, and I don't like posting at Arb, it is equally clear to me that Arthur Rubin is no longer fit to be an admin. This isn't something I say lightly, and rarely have I said such a thing publicly, but the diffs above are more than enough evidence to demonstrate that AR is a net-negative for the project in the administrative role, and has been failing to live up to the standards expected of administrators for quite some time. This doesn't excuse TRM's behavior at times, but the focus of this case should be AR alone as the community can deal with any issues from TRM. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)