Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marudubshinki/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision.. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Questions to the parties
=Proposed final decision=

Administrators
1) Wikipedia administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this–administrators are not expected to be perfect–but consistently poor judgement may result in reapplication for adminship via the requests for adminship procedure or suspension or revocation of adminship. If revoked, the user may have a temporary or permanent limitation placed on reapplying.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Ok Fred Bauder 19:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Submitted for consideration. User talk:Snottygobble 10:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

2) Administrators have been granted the power to execute certain commands which ordinary users can not execute. This includes the power to block users, to protect pages, to edit protected pages, and to delete and restore pages. All of these abilities must be used in accordance with policy (the blocking, page protection, and deletion policies, respectively), and must never be used to "win" a content dispute.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Yes Fred Bauder 19:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Submitted for consideration. User talk:Snottygobble 10:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Sockpuppets (and related principles)
3) The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability–and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize–is strictly forbidden.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Could be edited a bit Fred Bauder 19:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Submitted for consideration. User talk:Snottygobble 10:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Administrators required to follow Blocking Policy
4) Administrators are required to follow the Blocking Policy at all times. Blocking policy strictly forbids the use of sysop powers to unblock oneself.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Could be edited a bit Fred Bauder 19:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Submitted for consideration. User talk:Snottygobble 10:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Administrators may not generally unblock themselves
5) According to the blocking policy, which has the consensus support of the community, "Sysops are technically able to unblock themselves . . . but should absolutely not do so, except if they were autoblocked as a result of a block on some other user (or bot) that they share an IP with. Otherwise, if an admin feels they were not blocked for a valid reason, they should contact the blocking admin, another admin, or the mailing list and ask to be unblocked. Self-unblocking is treated extremely seriously by the community and has resulted in several users losing their sysop privileges."


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Many more words Fred Bauder 19:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed as alternative to above (does this make me a party?). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, proposals are welcome from anyone. Fred Bauder 19:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Bots may not be run without approval
6) According to the bot policy, which has the consensus support of the community, bots (supervised or not) may not be operated on Wikipedia without approval by a member of the bot approvals group.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Accepted Fred Bauder 18:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Administrators
7) Administrators of Wikipedia are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. Their powers are to be used only for appropriate reasons, as set forth in those policies, and should never be used in disputes in which the administrator is involved. (See Administrators.)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Accepted Fred Bauder 19:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, from ../../Freestylefrappe. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Administrators are responsible to the community
8) Administrators use their powers as representatives of the Wikipedia community, and as such the use of those powers is subject to observation by and comment from members of the community. Administrators are expected to respond courteously and constructively to questions about, and criticisms of, their use of administrator powers.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Accepted Fred Bauder 19:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, from ../../Freestylefrappe. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Marudubshinki has run an unauthorised adminbot
1) has repeatedly violated WP:BOT policy by running an unauthorised bot over a period of months, despite numerous requests not to do so. In further violation of WP:BOT, he has run the bot on his main (sysop) account, and equipped the bot to make deletions using his sysop flag.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Accepted as modified Fred Bauder 19:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Submitted for consideration. User talk:Snottygobble 10:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Marudubshinki has unblocked himself
2) Marudubshinki has violated WP:BLOCK by unblocking himself. He did so despite being told not to do so by the blocking administrator.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Accepted Fred Bauder 19:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Submitted for consideration. User talk:Snottygobble 10:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Marudubshinki has used a sockpuppet to evade a block
3) Marudubshinki has violated WP:BLOCK and WP:SOCK by running a unauthorized bot on an alternative account while blocked due to running an unauthorized bot.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Accepted as modified Fred Bauder 19:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Submitted for consideration. User talk:Snottygobble 10:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
4) Marudubshinki continued to run an unauthorised bot during the course of this arbitration case.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Not sure about that but it doesn't matter. Fred Bauder 19:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Submitted for consideration by &mdash; Werdna talk criticism 23:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Marudubshinki desysopped
1) For operating an administrator bot account without authorization while blocked, Marudubshinki is desysopped.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Accepted as amended Fred Bauder 19:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * The amended version is inaccurate. Maru ran an admin bot while unblocked, and he ran a bot through a sockpuppet while he was blocked. But he didn't run an admin bot while blocked; he couldn't have, as his sock didn't have a sysop flag. Snottygobble 05:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Submitted for consideration. Ral315 (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Marudubshinki temporarily desysopped
1a) For operating an administrator bot account without authorization, Marudubshinki is temporarily desysopped. His adminship will be restored two weeks from the closing date of this case.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Rejected Fred Bauder 19:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Submitted for consideration. Ral315 (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Bot-account warning
2) Administrators are warned not to set up bots that use administrative privileges without community and bot approval group approval.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Not allowed anyway Fred Bauder 19:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Submitted for consideration. Ral315 (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Marudubshinki banned for unblocking himself
3) For unblocking himself while in a dispute, Marudubshinki is banned for one day.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Trivial in light of other infractions Fred Bauder 19:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Submitted for consideration. Ral315 (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Marudubshinki banned for sockpuppetry
4) For using a sockpuppet to evade a block and operate an unauthorized bot,, Marudubshinki is banned for three days.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Rejected, desysopped Fred Bauder 19:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Submitted for consideration. Ral315 (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Marudubinski warned against misuse of sysop powers.
5) Marudubinski is warned in the strongest terms not to unblock himself or run unauthorised bots.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Rejected, desyopped Fred Bauder 19:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * This case follows multiple fruitless attempts of warning him. A mere warning is not going to solve anything. - 131.211.210.11 12:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * True, but I think this is sensible if used in conjuction with the short bans and limited-term removal of admin privileges proposed above, the idea being that any offense following this case won't be looked upon kindly.--SB | T 01:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Sean; I think the limited-term desysop, combined with the short bans and this remedy would be fine. I can't speak for the person who added this remedy, but I personally wouldn't use it as the only remedy in this case.  Ral315 (talk) 13:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I submitted this remedy. That was my intention. &mdash; Werdna talk criticism 06:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

BOT assisted edits
6) WP:BOT policy needs to be clarified in relation to bot-assisted edits.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Policy question Fred Bauder 19:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Submitted for consideration by User:I@n. At least some people  (and for the record, myself) consider that bot assisted edits do not require prior approval at WP:B/RFA .  Maru started using pywikipediabot for disambiguating pages during the course of this RFAR and was criticised and blocked for that (block is now removed).  Yet, on the WP:AWB page (which does basically the same thing), it states AutoWikiBrowser is not an automatic bot[1] — edits made using this software are the responsibility of the editor using it. (and by implication, approval is not required). -- I@n 01:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I'd like to note that no one has asked why I was using a sock puppet when all I had to do was ask if I wanted to be unblocked, and why I publicly stated that I had been using it when I did so request. Take a look at the first batch of edits and the edit-count the bot edits boosted that account to having. --maru  (talk)  contribs 19:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Maru, as a complete outsider to this dispute, I think people have been waiting for you to post your side of this situation, of which what you just wrote is a small part. I think it would be in your best interest and the project's for you to post on the Evidence page explaining the reasons for all the actions you have taken that people are objecting to.  My take on the situation, as an outsider, is that you were doing what you thought was the right thing for the project, but you have managed to lead a number of your fellow admins into having serious concerns about your actions.  That is in large part because they perceive you haven't explained what you were doing or why, either when you were asked previously, or during the arbitration process.  I strongly recommend that you post your Evidence promptly.  Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Good advice. I've taken it; I had hoped that I wouldn't need to, but that was too much to. :( --maru  (talk)  contribs 20:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)