Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin/Proposed decision

Cut off time
I was typing as the workshop page was cut off, which is of course my own problem, but I did want to note that I supported in principle the fact that AR's behavior as demonstrated in the diffs makes him unfit to be an admin, more or less per Legacy's proposal. Nothing personal, but adminship is a call to serve, not self-serve, and there is never an excuse to not comply with WP:ADMINACCT if you have the ability. That alone should disqualify any admin from having the bit. Without accountability, that makes admin into a ruling elite, not a serving guard of the encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Euryalus' section
Oddly, I was typing this in the workshop talkpage and got cut off at the same time as Dennis Brown. I was inactive (and in fact completely away from Wikipedia) during the evidence and most of the workshop phases, so although I'm back to regular editing I've marked myself as abstaining for the rest of the case. This has no impact on the numbers of arbitrators for the PD, it's just an administrative clarification. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The first sentence of this is a good idea. Some points of view as an observer (per the above I did not participate in the case itself):
 * Was this case necessary? - in hindsight the case could have been dealt with by motion at the close of the evidence phase. It was important to hold the evidence phase so that Arthur Rubin had a fair chance to rebut allegations against him. When it became clear that a) Arthur Rubin was not going to contribute, and b) there was no additional meaningful evidence beyond the case request statements, the Committee had before it a simple decision to desysop or no, and could probably have voted on it there and then. Note that I wasn't on-wiki during the evidence phase and don't know/haven't read if there was any private evidence or behind the scenes debate. If so, that might explain a longer process.
 * Length - The case phases were too long. This is a problem with many cases - the issues aren't that complicated; the evidence doesn't get extended during the case; and the workshop proposals are repetitive. Some past cases really did require lengthy on-wiki debate - for example Gamergate and Lightbreather from 2015. But these are exceptions. As a general reform, we should consider reducing each case phase to one week, and allow extensions by motion where required. That still allows three weeks all up for discussion and voting, which is enough to be fair to all parties.
 * Civility - as a general comment - I think I'm quoting  in saying Wikipedia isn't a "vicar's tea party" and some level of rudeness goes with the territory. A reasonable principle is if you'd get pinged for it in a real life workplace, don't do it here. So: saying a rude word, having a heated dispute, suggesting Bob the Janitor failed to clear vomit from hallway three again and must work harder with the mop  - probably fine. Haranguing your work colleagues about how utterly useless they all are and how you'll make them all pay - probably not fine. Note that these are hypothetical examples, and not a reflection on anyone or on any words used in this actual case. That last sentence bears reading a second time.
 * Participation - It's up to the case parties if they want to contribute or not. Arthur Rubin declined to take part, and that's entirely their call - Wikipedia is not compulsory, even for people named in Arbcom cases. This absence didn't impede the case, which could proceed solely on the strength of other evidence, and on published edit histories.
 * Arbcom participation - if I can make a mild criticism, there was a fairly fast response to the PD (which was on time!), but some slow followup on matters left unresolved by the first round of votes. There was also a delay in closing the case (its still not closed at the time of this post). No harm seems done, but its administratively untidy. I'm guilty of this in past cases as much as anyone was here - we could all work harder at winding things up.
 * Outcomes - given how straightforward the evidence was, the outcome obviously boiled down to the desysop motion, which passed pretty fast. There was no actual "arbitration," but that reflects a case with a yes/no outcome - did the conduct outlined in the evidence reach the level of desysopping? Once that was clear in the voting, the rest of the case kind of falls away. The final outcome is itself a further evidence for shortening the case phases, and dealing with simple cases by motion.
 * Should there be a community desysop process? - at the risk of attracting bomb-throwers, I don't think there needs to be. That's because a) Arbcom almost always accepts case requests alleging substantive misuse of tools, and routinely desysops people found not to meet community standards, and b) there are already procedures for emergency desysop where something faster than Arbcom is required. The Arbcom desysop process also allows all sides to be heard. And FWIW it lets people simply resign their tools when they see the writing on the wall, and depart with a bit of dignity. That seems a reasonable courtesy to fellow editors - to discuss their access to the tools in a fairly calm environment, and informally let them leave "under a cloud" if they wish. The price is that it's slower than (say) an ANI thread. But I think that price is worth paying.
 * Just some idle thoughts. Can't imagine most people are interested in Arbcom minutiae, but for the few that are, please feel free to agree or disagree. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * fair point re how slow this has all been. Per the above I think we could double the speed of Arbcom cases without much loss of utility. But we need to find the sweet spot between "talk before you act" and "do something about a problem right now." I have a higher opinion of ANI than most admins, but its worst decisions are when "do it now" overrides other points of view. If Arthur Rubin (or anyone else) started running amok with the tools and blocking random passersby, they'd be desysopped via emergency procedures, without even the benefit of an ANI discussion.


 * Or short version: We seem to agree on the need for speedier outcomes, but I think it can be accommodated by changes to existing processes instead of building something entirely new. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not always. From memory of the discussion we would have desysopped Neelix by motion, had they not resigned the tools in advance. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reping. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Involved?
Does User:GorillaWarfare's block of TRM and full protection of his talk page mean GW is now INVOLVED? Subsequently, does User:Ks0stm's !voting in the TRM thread at AN make them now involved? It certainly seems to muddy the waters to me. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Literally still had this copied to my clipboard. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 07:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I EC'd with Ks0stm above - I had attempted to strike my comment per the thread on GW's talk page. I struck my question above because it had already been asked and answered in other venues. I still disagree, per User:Black Kite, but of course the Arbs should do what they consider best. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

User rights
, sorry for being pedantic here but in finding of fact #2 & 3, you have WP:NPP rights as a description. There is no NPP right, anyone can do it who can use twinkle (or manually). There is WP:NPR, which is the technical ability to mark a new page as reviewed: removing it from the new pages feed and allowing indexing by Google. I believe that was what was revoked. I'm not following or watching this case, but saw it in passing. Ping me if a response is needed. Thanks for all your work on this :) TonyBallioni (talk) 05:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have corrected the link. Mkdw  talk 15:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Mjroots
, doesn't the date of the CBAN need to be stated in full? Mjroots (talk) 09:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I seem to have missed it. I am not sure if it is a requirement, but it definitely better having it in there. I have included it. Mkdw  talk 15:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

and - having read your comments at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur_Rubin/Proposed_decision, may I respectfully remind you both that the consensus of the wider Wikipedia community is that AR is not now fit to hold administrative privileges. If this fails to pass, it will be taken further by the community. Mjroots (talk) 12:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

- there seems to be a major omission in the proposed findings of fact. Nothing is said about the fact that wider Wikipedia community would already have desysopped AR if it had been within their powers to do so. That it is not within their powers is why we have ended up here. Mjroots (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I understand what you are saying, but it's just speculation. It would all depend on the mechanism used by the community, which I assume would be more nuanced than AN or ANI. We can't state such as thing as a fact. Doug Weller  talk 15:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As Doug Weller said, that's not a fact. It is a plausible interpretation of the situation, but it is entirely unknown how the outcome of this case would have affected things in terms of variable change. Community desysop is extremely controversial and has repeatedly failed to material as a policy because of a lack of significant consensus among the community. The community would need [to] revisit ed and revise the existing policy to allow desysopping before the issue with Arthur Rubin was even touched. No evidence was provided to indicate such lengths would be pursued or successful to then meet the strict requirements we expect from findings of facts in cases. Mkdw  talk 15:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "it is entirely unknown how the outcome of this case would have affected things" - irrelevant. If the community had been able to desysop AR, this case would not exist. Mjroots (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, if the community had desysopped - being able to doesn't guarantee doing it. Doug Weller  talk 16:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Community desysop is extremely controversial and has repeatedly failed to material as a policy because of a lack of significant consensus among the community" is exactly why I'm not supporting a desysop on the basis that "the consensus of the wider Wikipedia community is that AR is not now fit to hold administrative privileges". I may well support a desysop in the end, but that will not be my justification for doing so. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 05:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I fully accept that first statement. There are very good reasons both for and against community desysopping, but the biggest reason against is the danger of it being abused by editors with grudges. There needs to be a system in place to remove the tools from admins who fail to maintain the standards expected of them. The present system works well, and safeguards against malicious attempts to get rid of admins who make themselves useful in areas that are not easy to get involved in. That said, when the community presents very good evidence that an admin has failed to uphold the standards expected of them, ARBCOM needs to take this into account. Mkdw has done so in this case with FOF6. I wouldn't want to see the fallout from ARBCOM not desysopping in a case such as this (appreciating that AR will be desysopped as enough support has already been expressed to do so). Mjroots (talk) 06:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It's quite possible I'll come to the same conclusion as the community, but I would like to do my due diligence and make up my own mind rather than simply rubber stamp the community's opinion, since there are a few very good reasons that community desysop isn't a thing yet. Either way, as you said, the desysop has enough support without my tagging on, and seeing as I support at least an admonishment, there's next to no chance there will be no sanctions out of this. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 06:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

reading your further comments at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur_Rubin/Proposed_decision, it seems to me that your biggest concern is "I am concerned that if the Committee desysops someone for not being active (in this instance following their regular pattern of activity) following one administrative action we are effectively creating a policy which says that administrators must be active onwiki to explain their actions or risk desysoping".

It is a rare occurrence that an admin makes a controversial decision and then disappears. I appreciate that in ARs case he stated that there was a period of illness (I accept this as true per AGF), but when he returned to Wikipedia, he did not immediately address, or even acknowledge, the issue. It took lots of drama at ANI to get him to do that. I'm concerned that taking the line quoted above will allow an admin to use the fact that they will not be desysopped for inactivity to hide behind. This issue really needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis, and examined as part of all the evidence presented. There may be a good reason why an active admin suddenly disappears for a while in many cases. Mjroots (talk) 05:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I echo TRM's comments at "Closure?". Time to put this to bed and allow all concerned to move on. Mjroots (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Legacypac
What was in evidence but missing from the decision was a vote to indef block Rubin passed but was not implemented for technical reasons (in favour of the CBAN? It's a little unclear actually). Should there not be a desyop this is likely going hack to AN and that indef will be back on the table. An Admin that can't edit can't do much Admining. Legacypac (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The vote to block Arthur Rubin did not pass. The length of the block was not well defined in the discussion. For example, the word "indef" alone or as part of "indefinitely" was not mentioned once in that conversation as you perhaps indicate. I think an indefinite block was on the table, but there was no clear consensus with the length or even the block in general. It was closed as "no action"; I also do not think correctly assessed and identified consensus in proposed block discussion. There were more opposed (13) than in support (10) with a growing opposition near the time of the closure. The community clearly wanted Arthur held accountable, but the concerns about the block being punitive, rather than preventative as Arthur Rubin had stopped editing. Hence why there was a clear consensus for the editing restriction instead. Mkdw  talk  16:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the INVOLVED finding - while I leveled the accusation as part of a series of problems, at workshop I accepted Rubin was not wiki "INVOLVED". I'm kind of surprised this made it into the proposed decisions. Legacypac (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I put it in because there was a consensus that the action was "questionable". It wasn't defined in what capacity so this is mostly for clarification that it was not INVOLVED but beyond a best practice. Mkdw  talk 16:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * This has taken everyone except the unaccountable Admin a massive amount of time and effort. Are we still waiting for Still Admin Rubin to participate? Why has he not turned in his tools already? He should also be blocked for wasting all of our time. Legacypac (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Lesson learned - Rubin yanked my meager tools with not a word of discussion or warning and with no reasonable basis. In sharp contrast it has taken MONTHS of discussion and process and plenty of reasonable basis, yet as I write this Rubin STILL has his powerful tools and could even block me or anyone else at anytime for no reason. Sure it might be overturned but it's possible. As a lowly non-Admin that has felt Admin abuse on more than one occasion, I feel the Admins on ArbComm have taken an extremely long time and given Rubin far far too much benefit of process in removing Rubin's tools. He has been given WAY more process than any non-Admin gets around tools or blocking. Is this Admin's protecting their own? Is it apathy? The double standard feels very bad to me - insulting actually. Next time we identify a bad admin we need to block them at ANi and not lift the block until they resign the tools, regainsble only by a successful new RfA. That would be a lot less work, more effective and faster than this drawn out process at ArbComm that sucks up everyone's time except the offending party. Legacypac (talk) 06:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank-you for bringing up the Neelix case. That is another example where the community obviously lost faith in an Admin, yet a number of Arbs wanted a full case instead of getting the obvious desyop done. Admins are extended incredible due process but lowly good faith editors are summarily blocked or have tools removed with no process before hand. It's been months since ANi sanctioned Rubin and lifted the his editing restriction as this case was started. Rubin still has an Admin user box and Admin category on his profile. He is masquerading as an Admin at this point for he has zero legitimacy. Legacypac (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

An RfC is a nice idea but Admins generally and even some of the best don't want any kind of community recall. It will never pass. That leaves us with pushing ArbComm to act more efficiently. Legacypac (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Question from Dax
"And while DGG is recused from the case, the fact that the linked comment was written by an arb (I hadn't noticed that before) feels a little awkward." In what capacity was DGG writing his "becoming involved" opinion? Was it as an arbitrator, or as a fellow administrator expressing a concern/offering advice? If the latter, it doesn't appear that awkward to me Dax   Bane  21:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I made the comment before I recused. At that time some people apparently assumed that because I had restored Legacypac's NPR permission, some people seemed to be under the impression that that I considered that action to be a abuse of admin power & I would likely vote to desysop him. I did not think it an abuse, and said so. There was additional mention of it, & chose to regard this as a request to recuse. As a non-arb comment, I still do not regard it as an abuse, though i do think it was a mistake. The others on the committee of course had seen  my opinion, and they could take it how they individually think appropriate. Even had I decided to remain on the case, it was a preliminary comment, not a vote.   I thought about moving it from the arb section, or saying something additional, but decided that would be more confusing. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my post wasn't very clear (probably because it's more of a vague feeling I have than a concrete objection). As above, DGG was obviously commenting in his personal capacity, and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. What I find awkward about the current construction of that proposal is the possibility of introducing a new usage, "becoming involved", which isn't really well-established current practice, as a significant element of the decision. One thing I've noticed (and tried to avoid) since joining the committee is that sometimes I'll make a comment intended to be a personal one and sometimes people will react to it as if it's significant that an arb said it. Considering that I'm already uncertain about the idea, I felt like using an arb's personal comment to illustrate the idea might exacerbate that tendency. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement from Rschen7754
This is not the first time Arthur has been to ArbCom; see Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement. He was also later blocked under that remedy. The remedy was later removed. (You even clerked that case ) --Rschen7754 03:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rschen! It's all coming back to me now. :) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There was also a 2009 case where it was found that Arthur Rubin had inappropriately threatened to use their administrative tools in an involved situation and had engaged in edit warring. Mkdw  talk 05:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement from Metropolitan90
I would like to know why Arthur Rubin is referred to by the singular they pronoun throughout the proposed decision. (See Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin/Proposed decision, items 1, 2, 4, and 6.) While singular they is appropriate to be used in reference to an editor whose gender is not known (or who self-identifies outside the gender binary), User:Arthur Rubin has an infobox on his page that says, "This user is male." In fact, the temporary community ban quoted in item 5 (Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive961) refers to him by the male pronoun "his". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a force of habit on my part when referring to editors on Wikipedia. A lot of editors here do not share their gender identity. It is usually unimportant enough to justify and warrant the time spent investigating their gender identity to meet a style guide. Discussions are often briefly and without editorial process. This is a minor style issue, but since ArbCom is perhaps one of our more formal settings, I will update the single person pronouns, when the final decisions are voted through, if there are no objections. Mkdw  talk 16:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Closure?
Four days without a single comment from Arbcom? Time to call time on this terrible timesink. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

This complete waste of time has invetiably concluded with Arbcom having to do exactly what the community stated months ago should happen. Let's hope the incoming committee take a more pragmatic view to such open-and-shut cases and don't create so much wasteful heat with absolutely no light. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)