Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin/Workshop

Will Arbcom contribute?
One week in and Arbcom have made no contribution to this workshop. I'm sure they're beavering away behind the scenes, but it would be good to get some indication that the various proposals they will come up with will have sufficient time for the community to assess before we move to the workshop closure in one week's time. Is there any reason why Arbcom aren't making visible their progress on this (and my emailed request on a different matter)? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've been waiting for the community and the involved parties to contribute to the workshop first. Since the evidentiary phase was fairly quiet, I wanted to see where people were at with this case and what potential proposals for resolution would emerge. Generally speaking, it is a fundamental practice in most mediation and arbitration processes that an arbiter/mediator would not lead with first proposals. This is for the parties involved, and other stakeholders, to provide first. The very meaning of 'arbitration' is based around decision principles, not producing agreements and leading negotiations. Other cases may have been handled differently, but that is how I would like this case to run, save for any documentation that requires otherwise.
 * Separately, there has been an aspect of this case where there appears to be a diminished or unwilling interest. It's not for the arbitration process or arbiters themselves to keep it going and ultimately form and impose an agreement with the parties in absentia. Mkdw  talk 21:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Which "aspect"? The ANI thread was clear, Rubin should be de-sysopped.  The evidence phase was clear, Rubin should be desysopped.  The evidence phase was clear, my "behaviour" was never part of the initial case.  If Arbcom can't pick their way through that straight-forward set of community recommendations, what hope remains? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have a small query: considering that the community does not have the powers to de-sysop an admin, why does Arbcom need the community to contribute to the workshop? I thought those who participated at ANI and during the evidence phase already voiced their opinions quite thoroughly. Does repeating them for a third time really make a significant difference?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with TheGracefulSlick here... I'm not sure why arbcom can't look at the linked ANI information and consider that... are we really that rules bound that everything has to be dragged out a second or third time just to satisfy some rules? Really? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There was strong support from the community (at ANI) that this should be handled via ArbCom case. The proposal was put forward by The Rambling Man in good faith. To request now that the case not proceed further and ArbCom to handle this via immediate motion defies the intent community consensus which backed it. A lack of participation from the involved parties has done little to expedite this process either -- so any impatience is selective at this point. Mkdw  talk 22:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where the idea that anyone was requesting that the case be concluded by motion comes from. I was merely pointing out that one reason a lot of the community didn't add evidence was because it was already produced at the ANI. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There was strong support for this to be handled at Arbcom because the community recognized they could not de-sysop AR themselves. The preliminary statements by uninvolved editors described long-term breaches in WP:ADMINACCT and WP:CIVIL that are intolerable from any admin. When evidence, which reaffirmed TRM's opening statement at ANI in July, was requested, the few editors (including myself) who offered to participate again demonstrated AR's failures to uphold his duties as an admin. The ANI, the preliminary statements, and the evidence are all clear: AR's incompetency with the mop necessitates de-sysopping, and that is what I am recommending here.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * People say all kinds of stuff at ANI. Sometimes it's offhand comments and posts made in the heat of the moment, sometimes it's just rhetoric and not serious suggestions, and sometimes it's serious suggestions that get buried in other people's bickering. I hated the structured format when I was trying to present evidence in an arbcom case, but now I've come to appreciate it as providing focus and encouraging solution-oriented proposals. (And ARCA is miserable when someone wants an amendment to an old case whose evidence consists of "go read this long ANI thread".) So, not that it matters much, but at least one person strongly prefers that people provide actual, curated presentations of evidence rather than assuming an ANI thread suffices. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * the problem with your comment is no one suggested ANI was the only place to look though, with TRM's presentation of evidence, it is a nice place to start. Evidence was provided when evidence was asked for; once again, it all pointed to AR's failure as an admin.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So is there a suggestion that Arbcom are just not engaging with this because the evidence wasn't copied-and-pasted into the evidence phase, simply referred to there? Was anyone going to mention that before the case fell dead?  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Mkdw's earlier post hits the nail on the head on that one. It's completely normal in real-life conflict resolution for the arbitrators/mediators/facilitators to wait for the participants to propose solutions. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer the question, but never mind, we're up and running, with others doing the job for you all. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

While I've been in many real life court cases and arbitrations. AR is quiet because he has no defense and he hopes this will go away. TRM is somewhat quiet because he becomes a target if he lifts his head. The filer got indef'd for unrelated reasons, but he just filed the case because someone had to do it. I'm not a party, and I don't want to be at ArbComm. There is exactly one reason this case is in ArbComm - the community can't deAdmin. If we could, it would be done. I'll add that to the workshop. Time for the ArbComm to do their part. Legacypac (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

are you suggesting that we can't proceed with this case because AR isn't participating? That's not what's happened before. Since absolutely nothing has been said about my actions in the Evidence phase, I cease to be a realistic party, unless of course Arbcom are conjuring up some magic behind the scenes with diffs that they won't be prepared to share. If, to get Arbcom to take this case seriously, it requires me personally to make a proposal that has already been made countless times at ANI, then so be it. But honestly, Arbcom didn't need to do any of this. The only reason the community voted in favour of Arbcom was because the community lacks the power to desysop by consensus themselves. That is 100% clear. And no, I didn't suggest it should go to Arbcom. I suggested that Rubin be allowed to continue editing while Arbcom got their act together because, as we can see here, it can take an eternity to get anything done around these parts. So please get your facts straight. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The community is following the procedures required as tedious as it may be. ArbComm also needs to engage here. The presence of two editors who had nothing to do with the ANi thread or this cases now muddying the waters is not very helpful but I believe ArbComm can cut to the core issue, eventually. Legacypac (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have them straight and you've imparted direction at you to some of the things I've said which were not expressly stated as such. Mkdw  talk 17:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know to whom that was directed, but I can't make head nor tail of what you've just stated. Plain English version please. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * sorry, perhaps you missed this, but can you explain what I have them straight and you've imparted direction at you to some of the things I've said which were not expressly stated as such. actually means please? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "I have them straight" is a response to TRM's "So please get your facts straight." but the meaning of the rest eludes me. Legacypac (talk) 20:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * But 's link wasn't to any "strong consensus" that the "community wanted this dealt with by Arbcom", it was a link to the fact that I'd suggestd Rubin be able to edit while Arbcom dithered. My egalitarian approach to allow Rubin, innocent until otherwise proven, be allowed to continue was obvious, but nothing to do with a community demonstrating "strong consensus" for Arbcom to deal with this.  So Mkdw's assertion is entirely erroneous and makes no sense at all.  Does Mkdw actually know what this case is about?  Is there anyone else on Arbcom following this who can help Mkdw here, is this too complex? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In everything I've read and seen in this case, you're often mistaken about a number of basic things and frequently unable to separate what's being discussed, in isolation. Other participants in the case have not had this issue and made much more progress. Any outcome from this case will likely be because of their efforts. TRM, this is usually because you leap to assumptions or make accusations -- most often before the process has begun or concluded. Your antagonistic approach to the case, including failing to even provide a valid evidence submission, is an example. You also blame non-participation throughout this process yet you were absent for almost all of it except late in the workshop. The fact that you have failed to recognize this elementary and textbook double standard is hypocritical of the very complaint you're soapboxing. Even the case request was filed by another party. It is no surprise that you then see anything that does not align with your agenda as being erroneous despite not basing your position on any facts and rely solely on the contributions of others to the case. An example of this is in the workshop section specifically to discuss evidence, where you're unable to separate individual evidence examination and segregated remedy discussions in different parts of the workshop. This also happened again with an FOF which you clearly had not read the associated material and discussions. You place the blame for not understanding the context elsewhere. You also expressed that you failed to understand the point or evidence evaluation. You pressed issues, and when it was determined you were wrong, you were dismissive of the importance. It shows you are arguing for the sake of it and not the objective of arbitration. You have made this case more about attacking ArbCom than you have about the actual dispute at hand. This is evident in this talk page and on various user talk pages where you have discussed this case. It leads you towards being a vexatious participant. Lastly, your predictions, which were already proven wrong during the evidence phase, are ultimately a reflection on the way you conduct yourself with others and not because of the merits of the case. I have much higher hopes of the case which will be decided on the merits of the evidence and workshop phases and not off-topic distractions. Mkdw  talk 21:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, let's analyse this emotional wall of text.
 * including failing to even provide a valid evidence submission if pointing at all the evidence at ANI was deemed invalid, why did not one single individual, clerk or Arb mention that?
 * You also blame non-participation throughout this process yet you were absent for almost all of it except late in the workshop I had provided all my evidence, I had already noted at ANI that Rubin should be de-sysopped, there was nothing more to add.
 * you're soapboxing - oops, CIVIL?
 * Even the case request was filed by another party. now then, this is very important so take time to read. I was midway through an ANI thread (which was demanded by Rubin to get the diffs from him to substantiate his various lies) when another editor launched into an Arbcom request because the community were unable to de-sysop Rubin.  I didn't want to even run an ANI thread (as I noted) let alone come to your door, cap in hand, asking for assistance, because I know that your collective would blow this out of all scale, and try to take me down with it.  And that's exactly what's happened.
 * You place the blame for not understanding the context elsewhere - you really need to work on clarity, in particular your language.
 * It shows you are arguing for the sake of it and not the objective of arbitration. I didn't call for an arbitration case at all, why would think I would? This committee have proven time and again that they are not fit for purpose.
 * You have made this case more about attacking ArbCom than you have about the actual dispute at hand. no, I've reiterated the fact that Arbcom can't do their job properly. This is an "open and shut" case which Arbcom themselves have attempted to use to attack me.
 * It leads you towards being a vexatious participant. this leads directly to you being an involved Arb.

The point being that you have made nothing but odd claims and obfuscated suggestions, none of which has been in any way helpful to resolving this situation, a situation which should have been dealt with months ago. Instead, you and your colleagues took the opportunity to attempt to get at me once again, in this case of admin abuse. You make a bizarre claim above, Other participants in the case have not had this issue and made much more progress, what's the progress? Can you point me to it? I see nothing beyond where we were at in the ANI thread over a month ago. This pathetic slow dance and your notes on bureaucracy are ultimately pointless, but it's good timing that Arbcom have collectively demonstrated a complete lack of ability in this case.

You've clearly lost the ability to view this objectively so I strongly suggest you recuse and allow someone else to step in to do absolutely nothing instead. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am letting you know what has happening during this case. This is something you need to hear. I am here to arbitration arbitrate and at a certain time, decisions are made. That time is now. You may not like them but I will certainly not be recusing myself because of what I've found to be true because of this case. Your reply here, again, goes off-topic to discuss the politics of bureaucracy and ArbCom. Soapboxing is not an uncivil attack on you; it is an accurate description of what you're doing. You have lost the objective and point of this case and many of your replies clearly do not address the issue. You do not even have a section in the workshop indicating your non-party dynamic and participation regarding this case. The case will proceed. Mkdw  talk 14:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I see you failed to answer the pertinent points. Next time you try to sling mud, be prepared to get deflected right back onto yourself.  You didn't even read the response, it's not my case.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , why can't you just answer TRM's questions without deflecting or an overly-complex jumble of words that do not convey an actual response? Maybe TRM is completely wrong but you haven't demonstrated that you understand the details related to this case. The case was originally filed prematurely and was criticized as such. Why would TRM have any part in going to Arbcom too soon when you all completely lost his trust? TRM offered a mountain of evidence I easily located with his diffs to ANI -- evidence which, quite literally, was in his opening statement on that thread. He has been here for the preliminary statements, here for the evidence, and here right now; where has AR run off to? Perhaps TRM would not be so critical of Arbcom if you understood the happenings of this case and stopped bickering with him. I find it terribly disheartening to see you have plenty of time to comment here but so little time to create anything meaningful with Arbs at the Workshop.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My last reply was rather plain. There are some questions I will not be addressing because they simply off-topic and perfect examples of a problem occurring with this case. My original point. This is the wrong venue to be trying issues that are completely separate with the Arthur Rubin case. The fine details of the case are being examined at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin/Workshop. All four sections are details I raised with the workshop participants. The purpose of a workshop is to work on things that need work. These were points that required clarification from actual evidence submitted. Others have also submitted proposals which have been discussed. I am having to spend time here expressly because some of the workshop discussions have become off-topic and have been moved away from their specific purpose. Make no mistake, none of these workshop talk page discussion were started by Arbitrators or other participants.
 * Arthur Rubin's absence is a well understood fact and will certainly be addressed in the final outcome. It doesn't need evidence analysis. Another noticeable absence has been the fact that TRM has not put forward any proposals or evidence analysis of their own. Mkdw  talk 16:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Stop now, I made my statement at ANI and that's all that's required. You should know that you have made a number of false claims in your statements and I will be requesting evidence for each and every one of them once I get more time. You are unfit for this job. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way, you seem to think I actually care what Arbcom decide here? You must be joking. What I do care about is that a body of individuals "voted for" by the community have genuinely failed in their duties once again. at the head of it is your inability to communicate satisfactorily and some bizarre rule set that means you feel enabled to criticise me, despite this case having nothing to do with me.  I did all that was asked of me to get the evidence for the claims made against me, yet you and your pals decided that a case was needed, including throwing me in as a so-called party, even though that was nothing to do with the case in hand. Bravo. I'll be asking for those diffs in due course, so, like Rubin, I expect a sudden dose of flu. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Any threats you make are completely inappropriate for this case. I am sure if you decide to proceed with any action, it will be handled in the appropriate venue and begin with the burden for you to prove all the claims you have made about the process, the case, and individuals on ArbCom. The feedback I provided is evident and found in this case and on user talk pages. I carefully worded it with each incident in mind. Mkdw  talk 17:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh no, don't be mistaken, these aren't threats, these are facts. Your burden will be to prove all the false claims you've made (like Rubin) and as an "Arb", your fall will be the furthest possible.  As for "carefully worded" responses, that couldn't be further from the truth, your commentary is often bizarre and unfathomable, your requirements arcane and unnecessarily bureaucratic and often unhelpful.  You have summarily failed to respond to many of my questions, and still we have no realistic input from Arbcom on this case.  Embarrassing for the committee, in particular for those attempting to obfuscate any kind of realistic outcome for this "case".  Omnishambles.  And despite repeating myself, this isn't my case so stop pretending otherwise.  Your group attempted to name me as a party, which fell rather flat as everyone who cared to comment objected to its pathetic attempt to catch me out once again.  You need to work this out with the real named parties, or else take some responsibility for the position the community elected you.  Right now I'm seeing nothing constructive coming out the "Arbcom" at this time to resolve this cut-and-dry case of repetitive and egregious admin abuse. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You will have to support your claims because almost all of them now amount to personal attacks. Mkdw  talk 20:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Three days to go and ........ nothing
So where is Arbcom these days? Could someone from Arbcom actually give a straight answer as to if/when they intend to actually participate in this Workshop? Or are we to assume that they are all so disinterested that it will simply be yet another huge waste of community time, right back to the ANI which Rubin himself demanded I raise in order for him to redact his lies across Wikipedia? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * This is so simple. Why worry about ArbComm participation when there is nothing to debate? They just need to wait three days and then vote the desyop. Legacypac (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I take the point, but it's completely embarrassing that all this case has brought from Arbcom is a confused set of comments from Mkdw and no proposals of any kind to actual "arbitrate", which I believe was supposed to be the job. I guess because Rubin has gone cold they'll just claim there was nothing to arbitrate.  But honestly, this whole month of wasted breath and time, when Arbcom could just have done the job properly to start with?  I look forward to providing insight in the forthcoming Arbcom elections, there's a lot of material to share with the community.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * There is no real dispute anymore. No real accusations against you, only the loss of trust in Rubin by the community. Rubin must know he is finished for he has put up no defence after the very start. Waiting is hard but they set the schedule. Legacypac (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I guess we'll have to wait three more days to see what the proposed remedies are. After all, Arbcom can hardly claim to be overwhelmed with evidence and workshop ideas on this one, it should be the first ever case to finish actually ahead of schedule.  My original bet stands.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Scope
The scope of the case is Arthur Rubin's potential ADMINACCT violations. Is the unrelated action of revoking new page reviewer from an editor who repeatedly makes mistakes (example from today! ) within scope? If so,, who restored that right, should recuse. He is rather clearly involved with respect to the Legacypac situation. If not, then this should be made clear and that evidence should be struck or not considered. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 14:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * User:BU Rob13, on the other hand, has never made a mistake and certainly never something as serious as tagging a bad page for deletion that had been previously tagged below the fold. My accuracy rate is pretty high User:Legacypac/CSD_log so BU Rob's attack on me here is unjustified and the implication that Rubin's actions justified is incorrect. It is ironic that Rubin's claim here Special:UserRights/Legacypac for the NPP revocation was "Unexplained serious mistakes (in fact, he denied that they were mistakes)" when there had been zero discussion anywhere of NPP activity. Legacypac (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * At the time, the NPP action and the immediate aftermath does tie into the case scope regarding ADMINACCT. The evidence and workshop looked at the circumstances leading up to that decision and the immediate aftermath. Evidence beyond that is hindsight and not admissible or appropriately relevant because it happened well-after the incident. It should be struck. I recommend recuse himself on the specific NPP proposed decision, but as DGG was acting administratively (to restore a permission) and did not directly sanction Arthur Rubin at the time, it is less clear whether their votes regarding Arthur Rubin on this case would be a breach of WP:INVOLVED., do you have any thoughts on this aspect? <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk  17:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I personally do not consider this a violation of ADMINACCT sufficiently serious to involve the committee.  DGG ( talk ) 18:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Alone it is not, but when examining of the accumulation situations over the span of several weeks, it has been one contributing factor. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 18:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, which is why I did not pursue the matter further, but the similarities between his unsubstantiated attacks on me and on the TRM demonstrate an actionable pattern. Legacypac (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * For the same reason I think we also need to contextualize the setting in which the sanction was applied; that is, you seem to frequently find yourself in situations in which other editors are allegedly plotting against you. When User:only removed your user rights you also claimed they were trying to "exact revenge" [sic] against you . Just a few minutes ago, when I complained you'd been deleting my Talk page comments again you declared I was trying to "attack you." At a certain point this starts to get the feeling of repeating a certain word or phrase enough times until it sticks, and that type of politicking should not be what Arbitration is about. For that reason, I think this specific incident has a bit of an aura of WP:DRAMA about it that can be disposed of through normal processes and doesn't require Arbitration involvement. Certainly, the rest of this case, however, probably merits an Arbitration inquiry. &#32;DocumentError (talk) 23:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, contrary to what Legacypac had said, I'm not advocating one way or the other. I'm pointing out that if the Legacypac thing is within scope, then DGG should recuse as a directly involved admin who undid a reverted admin action (the original addition of the right) without a discussion at a central location. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 00:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I misread your point BU Rob13. There was a discussion at Rubin's talk page involving Rubin, DGG and User:Kudpung and maybe another Admin who declined my request to reinstate. Rubin's comments there over 4 days were problematic - repeated false accusations with no diffs. When he agreed NPP could be restored he did it by posting another attack at ANi. This is all in evidence already. Legacypac (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Section titles and note
Many of my draft proposed decisions and notes are similar to ones you have already submitted. There are a few I hadn't included or considered. Given recent circumstances, there are some I will not be putting forward myself and will leave it to others to decide if it's warranted for final inclusion, namely my co-drafter and other Arbiters. I will leave the rest of my comments shortly.

When I was drafting up my proposed decisions, I was attempting to link to certain sections in the workshop. For clarity and ease, I would like to ask you to replace the "template" section titles, in your respective sections, with a custom title that summarizes and reflects the section contents. You can look at Kostas20142's section for examples or how I title things in the evidence analysis section in the workshop. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 17:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Done Legacypac (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I did that before and somebody undid me. I'll redo it  p  b  p  03:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)