This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Android Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Android, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Android and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AndroidWikipedia:WikiProject AndroidTemplate:WikiProject AndroidAndroid Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Apple Inc. Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Apple Inc.Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Business Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance). Computing Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Google High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GoogleWikipedia:WikiProject GoogleTemplate:WikiProject GoogleGoogle High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Google To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Articles for most of the other products listed here and here. Assess : All articles in the Category:Unknown-importance Google articles and Category:Unassessed Google articles using the project's assessment scale Expand : Google Mapathon, Google Talkback Maintain : This WikiProject Merge : Google mobile services into List of Google products Stubs : Category:Stub-Class Google articles and Category:Google stubs Update : List of features in Android and Gmail interface#Product integration. Update logos of Google Marketing Platform products Other : create: Help the Google article for a good article status Improve the Outline of Google Get more members using : {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Google/Invite Members}} Infobox Images with transparent areas needing a different background color New York (state): Hudson Valley Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Hudson Valley (assessed as Low-importance). Invention Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Invention, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Invention on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InventionWikipedia:WikiProject InventionTemplate:WikiProject InventionInvention Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Robotics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Robotics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RoboticsWikipedia:WikiProject RoboticsTemplate:WikiProject RoboticsRobotics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The line "technology innovator" is pure speculation, as there's no factual basis behind it - therefore the term has been removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.250.2.167 (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Police Academy (film) site has an actor named Andy Rubin who is linked to this page. Surely not the same person, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.218.41 (talk) 04:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No -- Andrew Rubin http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0748004/ Police Academy http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087928/fullcredits thundt (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi andy Mrasadahsan (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/10/09/exclusive_pink_danger_leaks_from_microsofts_windows_phone.html&page=2

Sounds like this clever guy from Apple basically got grabbed by M$ three times - two buy outs and a (probably major for Andy) licence to them. 86.139.154.48 (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this person really notable? Outside of a small handful of tech cliques he is not really known at all. Are we going to start including the vice-presidents of every major company in wikipedia now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 17.197.15.154 (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to find any patents by Andy Rubin from his time at Google and patent searches online turn up nothing. I feel like these should be removed, especially since the links to Google are dead for those patents. Worldnamer (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only source is the businessinsider one, which states that it is a rewrite of this wikipedia entry, so there is no valid source for it. I suggest to remove the parts that are autoreferenced from this article. Hervegirod (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I have no problem if someone can found them and re-add them with valid sources. Hervegirod (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Jason Scott, a long time friend, Andy Rubin has received his "Android" nickname in high school,^[1] not at Apple. VADemon (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Google gave top executive $90m payoff but kept sexual misconduct claim quiet" Anna (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BillHPike: Again, per my edit summary, I'm not denying that this is a very notable aspect of Rubin's career. It's covered right in the first paragraph of the article. This isn't being remotely hidden.

The question is what should be in the Infobox. An infobox is not intended to replace the article, or be a compilation of all true facts about a topic. The `known_for` field is optional, anyway. I'd be fine with removing it entirely, but I'd be extremely cautious about including this kind of aspect in an Infobox. Amit Singhal, who also faced sexual harassment allegations, doesn't have them in his Infobox. Steve Easterbrook, a CEO who broke the rules, has it right in the lede but not in the Infobox either. Infobox fields are not intended to be a "rap sheet" of everything bad a person has ever done. And if you think Rubin doesn't deserve the deference, sure, I agree, it sounds like he was almost certainly at fault. But it's about the general standard: that we don't want Infoboxes to be a place used to smear worthier targets. SnowFire (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't entirely agree, but you've presented a fair argument. As a compromise, I've removed the "known for" field from the info box. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 16:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't want to get into a revert war, I'm bringing the matter here. When I first saw User:Turnbulltrump's removal of the Times content, I almost reverted it myself. However, reading the lede, the matter of the sexual misconduct allegations is clearly summarized: "Rubin left Google in 2014 after allegations of sexual misconduct, although it was presented as a voluntary departure rather than a dismissal at first." That summary satisfies the standards of the lede, since the Times content is extensively detailed within the body. Based on that, I didn't revert. However, User:BillHPike did revert, with the summary "Please establish a consensus to remove cited content". Per my analysis above, I reverted that edit, with the edit summary "The lede of the article already discusses the controversy regarding sexual misconduct allegations. The removed, cited material exists, cited, in the body of the article, therefore, it's redundant for the lede.". I thought that was a clear enough rationale, but editor User:SnowFire added the material back again, with edit summary "rvt. the lede is a summary of the article. "it's in the body" is a reason to PUT it in the lede, not a reason to remove it from the lede.". The problem again though is the same: the content is summarized in the lede. The content is extensively detailed in the body. That's precisely how the structure is supposed to be arranged.

Can all involved editors please read the entire lede, then review the details which are in the article? There's literally no reason for the body's content to be repeated in the lede, when the allegations are already summarized in the lede. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:55, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although there has been a dearth of coverage in recent years, almost all non-trivial coverage of Rubin gives great weight to the sexual misconduct allegations. See, for example [1] and [2]. Per WP:WEIGHT, our article, including the lede, should emphasize the same facts stressed by reliable sources.

I'll concede anastrophe makes a fair point about the relative weight in the lede as compared to the article body. Such concerns are, in my view, best remediated, not by pruning the lede, but instead by expanding the article body. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 23:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the existing detailed section in the body covers the matter adequately - I'm not aware of any other facts related to the matter that have been described or uncovered since the NYT article.

As a BLP, we obviously have to be exceptionally careful about the weight, since the matter involves allegations and an internal investigation saying the allegations were credible - while Rubin categorically denies them. The 'sexual harrassment allegations' section in the body is roughly the same length as the 'Google' and 'After Google' sections bookending it - seems weight is adequate as it is. I suppose the one sentence in the lede could be expanded - actually, I think it needs to be expanded, because it only summarized the controversy/allegation, and does not include Rubin's denial. Perhaps "Rubin left Google in 2014 after allegations of sexual misconduct, although it was presented as a voluntary departure rather than a dismissal at first; Rubin denies the allegations". In the context of a BLP, it strikes me as necessary to include that. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 00:21, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anastrophe: I would not revert if you made a change like you describe in the second paragraph, but I would not object if another editor felt the need to revert. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 22:40, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the revised lede that avoids the doubling back to the allegations, but re Anastrophe's latest edit, I'm not sold we need Rubin's denials. I don't think his denials are very prominent or discussed as the details were generally kept under wraps. More generally, lots of people accused of stuff deny it; it's only when the dispute is very notable it's worth covering. Maybe it'd be one thing if the denials were accusing a total frame-up of things that never happened, but "my interpretation of the same event is that it wasn't sexual harassment" is basically de rigeuer. SnowFire (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's all fine, but this is a BLP. Explicitly excluding the four words acknowledging his denial is a biased representation. We're not supposed to 'take sides'. Rubin's denials are explicit and covered in the sources in the article, and while he doesn't say it's a "total frame-up", what he does say is "The New York Times story contains numerous inaccuracies about my employment at Google and wild exaggerations about my compensation. Specifically, I never coerced a woman to have sex in a hotel room. [...] These false allegations are part of a smear campaign to disparage me during a divorce and custody battle. Also, I am deeply troubled that anonymous Google executives are commenting about my personnel file and misrepresenting the facts." That's in the Business Insider sourcing. Whether you view Rubin's denial as de rigeuer is immaterial. Again - this is a biography of a living person. We have to be scrupulous in a balanced representation, whether body or lede. I fail to see any compelling argument for explicitly excluding his denial from the lede of a BLP that he's the subject of, by the addition of four words. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:00, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the ledes to some other notable people accused of sexual harassment. Seemed to be about 50/50 whether denials were included. I get what you're saying about BLP, but I'm not certain that denials always count as a BLP issue. To me, "the incident happened but my interpretation was different" is not something important enough to mention. And Rubin seems to grant that in your quote, i.e. that sex happened at all on that business trip (just that it wasn't "coerced") - which is already shady when Rubin is rich and outranks the other person.

More generally, I'd argue we're allowed to think about this some. Rubin claiming it was a smear campaign makes zero sense precisely because when the Google high-ups were presented with the evidence, they DIDN'T "smear" Rubin. They merely fired him while paying him a lot of money to keep things quiet. It was only years later that the story came out, which is the reverse of a smear campaign, that's keeping things quiet & down-low.

I don't want to edit war over this either and I suppose that erring on the side of deference isn't bad, but I personally still aren't sold that this denial is all that relevant. SnowFire (talk) 15:31, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting to me how you interpret his statement. I parse his statement as is in total - 'I never coerced a woman to have sex in a hotel room', i.e. 'no interaction occurred at all'. Your parsing is 'I had sex with a womain in a hotel room, but it didn't involve coersion'.

The aggregate of the controversy adds up to a 'be cautious' approach in my opinion - it involves allegations, not proof (and no actual evidence has ever been produced publicly, e.g. google's internal report and more); it was revealed by executives and staff who did not want to be publicly identified (probably because they were under NDI and could not otherwise comment on it, so they leaked it). As far as the smear campaign, let's not forget that Rubin's wife also worked at google. The allegations and controversy were revealed, as he said, while in a custody battle with her. It's not implausible that she prodded the leakers in order to give her more leverage - but that remains speculation.

Interestingly, I compared the archive.org version of the NYT article that's linked in the article with its most recent capture on March 4th. The original didn't contain his comments about the smear campaign - the current version does, and it's worded differently from BI's version - "these false allegations are part of a smear campaign by my ex-wife to disparage me during a divorce and custody battle." - emphasis mine. I wonder if it would be smart to update the archive link to the more recent one for clarity...?

All in all, and to wrap up yet another of my too-long, tedious bloviations (a lifelong disability), I'm not particuarly invested in the whole matter (hard to believe with this much verbiage devoted to it). My primary thrust has been generally focused on the issue of libel WRT Wikipedia. Opening avenues for such a claim isn't good, and that's why BLP rules about neutral presentation are so prominent and important. And why I think the four word acknowledgement of his denial juxtaposed with the allegations in the lede is a reasonable 'protection' against such claims.

But - enough. I've said my piece on the matter, and will resume my more typical wikignomish tasks elsewhere. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:55, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]