Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Arthur Rubin and WP:ADMINACCT		31 July 2017	0/0/1

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Indian military history	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	08 Jun 2025	22 Jun 2025

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Arbitration motion regarding Ritchie333 and Praxidicae	Motion	none	20 May 2025
Amendment request: Venezuelan politics	none	(orig. case)	12 June 2025

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Arthur Rubin and WP:ADMINACCT

Putting this on hold until Arthur Rubin returns. Please do not add new statements until then. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Initiated by Twitbookspacetube at 05:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC) Involved parties Twitbookspacetube (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request diff of notification Arthur Rubin diff of notification The Rambling Man Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried Link 1 Link 2 Statement by Twitbookspacetube The subject of a recent arbcom case, The Rambling Man (Hereafter TRM), has found themselves suffering abuse and attacks due to a poorly worded sanction that allowed other editors, including the admin mentioned above (Hereafter AR), to game the system and abuse TRM in a variety of ways. The wording is currently subject to an amendment request. In addition, AR has participated in conduct unbecoming of an administrator in violations of WP:ADMINACCT, WP:3RR, WP:INVOLVED and WP:NPA - as such, I feel that, while a block (Which can be achieved via community consensus) is too severe, but removal of admin tools (Which can only be done here) would be an appropriate remedy. But, what I feel isn't how arbcom makes decisions. Relevant diffs [1] If you bring an ANI complaint, I will provide diffs showing that you are disrupting discussions at WT:RY and Talk:2017, including statements that no rational person with a reasonable understanding of English could believe. [2] strike reference to the specific person. For the purpose of the closure, it doesn't matter who was lying, only that there have been statements which could not plausibly be made in good faith. [3] unless you want to claim that your statements were edited by others, the evidence is there. [4] You have made various absurd claims about WP:RY [5] Your lie that WP:RY is not a guideline applicable to 2017 is still present in Talk:2017. If you will strike that, I will strike my comment. If you redact my comment, without redacting ALL your related (that is, following) comments at Talk:2017, I will recommend you be blocked. [6] My next edits anywhere on Wikipedia under any of my accounts will be a personal status update or the diffs. TRM can provide more in their statement if they so desire. Twitbookspacetube 05:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC) Statement by Arthur Rubin History I did make a mistake in stating in Talk:2017 that TRM lied. Although true (or, that, at least, he made implausible interpretations of policies, guidelines, and statements by other editors), what I should have said at Talk:2017 is that there were misstatements, and that the RfC(s) needed to be closed by an admin. I later attempted to redact my statements to the appropriate degree, which TRM seems to consider inappropriate or inadequate. I repeatedly reported (on my talk page, mostly; diffs can be provided, if needed), that I felt the only appropriate places to report the diffs was on his talk page or in an official report. He claims I am banned from his talk page. I did not want to make an official report until I got "all my ducks in a row", because I believed he did not receive appropriate sanctions from previous reports. (Diffs of previous threads can be provided, but I don't think they are relevant.) Last Wednesday, before being hospitalized, I reported that I would not edit Wikipedia until I returned with a status update or to make a statement. I did not say that I would not not edit any social media sites before returning to ANI or this report. Specific diffs of implausible (or, in some cases, impossible) interpretations: [7] misinterpreting WP:3RR [8] [9] [10] [11] denial that WP:RY is a guideline [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] implausible interpretation that the 3-continent rule of WP:RY is sufficient for inclusion [18] implausible interpretations of WP:RY that international media coverage is indicative of international importance or significance [19] [20] clear misinterpretation of editors' comments [[21]; a clear indication that he did not understand that [22] and some others were intended to give him credit for pointing out a problem. I'm not sure if this rises to the level of WP:CIR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC) Statement by The Rambling Man 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) Statement by Banedon I feel like this is premature. Of the diffs provided by TBST, (1) is crude but is not offensive in my opinion; (2) should be completely fine; (3) is a claim that is either true or untrue, and should not be interpreted as incivility; (4) 'absurd' is not strong enough an adjective to immediately interpret as offensive in my opinion; (5) is an allegation of bad faith and therefore the most offensive, but on its own it's still not crossing any lines; and (6) should also be completely fine. In fact I fail to see how #2, #3 and #6 can be interpreted as offensive. If this is the best evidence against Arthur Rubin I think we're in boomerang territory. However based on the ANI cases and the talk page thread, there's probably a lot more behind this, which I have not examined. Having said that I still feel this is premature. Arthur Rubin's last edit was two days ago, and a response to the allegations. He said he was ill but will answer the allegations in his next edit. Why not just wait for him to respond then? With Arthur Rubin saying that his next edits anywhere on Wikipedia "will be a personal status update or the diffs", which conspicuously does not include "a statement to Arbcom", Arbcom can scarcely take on the case right now. I'd suggest waiting for Arthur Rubin to recover, upon which he has promised he will update the ANI thread [23], and then letting that run its course. After that, if the dispute remains, then it can be brought to Arbcom. Banedon (talk) 06:11, 28 July 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) 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) 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 Arthur Rubin 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) = 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). 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. Statement by {Non-party} Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information. Clerk notes This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals). Arthur Rubin and WP:ADMINACCT: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/1> Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse) Recuse. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC) Since Arthur Rubin said he is ill several days ago and has not edited since, I think we should pause this case request until he returns. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)