Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marudubshinki

Case Opened on 10:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 23:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

• Snottygobble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• I@n (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SCZenz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Marudubshinki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by User:Snottygobble

Marudubshinki was promoted to admin in October 2005. On 10 May 2006 he began running an unauthorised, unsupervised bot at Bot-maru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This was blocked on 22 May, and a WP:B/RFA request denied. He then began running the bot on his own account. In addition to these violations, the bot ran way too fast, and made mistakes. Marudubshinki was asked many time to stop violating WP:BOT policy. His responses can be summaried by this exchange between Marudubshinki and SCZenz:

Hi Marudubshinki. Can you please stop running unauthorized bots in any form? There's a reason for the authorization process, which is that if more people think about what the bot is doing and then it has a trial period, mistakes are less likely to be made. It is against policy to run unauthorized bots; see Wikipedia:Bots, please. -- SCZenz 08:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That is true, but I find running a bot to be extremely useful. Finding all these bugs are simply handy side-effects. --maru 11:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

On 28 July, following discussions at User talk:Marudubshinki and WP:AN/I (now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive124#User:Marudubshinki running unauthorized robots), I@n blocked Marudubshinki indefinitely with edit summary "(blocked per misuse of bot - see note on users talk page)". During the AN/I discussion it came to public notice that

1. Marudubshinki had previously unblocked himself despite being explicitly told not to by the admin that blocked him. In that previous case the block was for running an unapproved bot; Marudubshinki unblocked with edit summary "(bot's shut down)", then restarted his bot the next day.
2. Marudubshinki had lent his bot his sysop flag, allowing the bot to make deletions.

Essjay described this as

...greatly concerning, as the use of bots with admin privs is opposed very strongly on en.wiki... and by the Foundation.... Given that he's been warned numerous times not to run a bot under his admin account, has refused to comply, has added features which utilize his admin status without approval, and has unblocked himself in order to re-start the bot, I'm inclined to request a desysopping.

A number of editors expressed similar opinions re: desysopping, but nothing was done to instigate that remedy. Marudubshinki was told that he must not unblock himself, and that he would not be unblocked until he agreed to abide by the WP:BOT policy. He was also told that he was extremely close to losing his sysop flag.

On 18 August, Marudubshinki placed the {{unblock}} template on his talk page, with reason

The editors concerned wanted a promise from me to go and sin no more against the bot policy. They have it. --maru 00:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I@n then unblocked, and posted a message to that effect at WP:AN/I#User:Marudubshinki. One of Marudubshinki's first edits after unblocking was to add to his user page a disclosure that he sometimes uses the alternative account Rhwawn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). An examination of Rhwawn's contributions revealed that Marudubshinki had created the account three days after he was blocked, had used the alternative account to evade his block, and had made over 500 unauthorised bot edits through the account. Snottygobble then restored the indefinite block with edit summary "evasion of previous block - see AN/I discussion", leaving on Marudubshinki's talk page the message:

I have blocked both your accounts indefinitely while we thrash out the implications of you running unauthorised bot edits through an alternative account created to avoid an indefinite block applied for running unauthorised bot edits. --Snottygobble 01:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Following further discussion at WP:AN/I#User:Marudubshinki, User:ZScout370 unblocked Marudubshinki with edit summary "reducing to time served; but user is reminded to not run any automated edits until a new account is set up and approved)".

The AN/I discussion showed some support for Marudubshinki to be deprived of his sysop flag; and also some support for Marudubshinki to be given one last chance. The ArbCom is now asked to consider this question.

Snottygobble 00:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:I@n

I concur with Snottygobble's summation above. A timeline of applicable actions of Marudubshinki and others can be read here on the /Evidence page.

I first encountered Marudubshinki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) on July 27 when I noticed a page on my watchlist was updated with an edit summary of "(robot: Reporting unavailable external link)"[1]. The bot had incorrectly identified an external link as being unavailable because the link had a pipe "|" character immediately following a url address. This was a perfectly normal occurrence when the url was inside a template such as {{cite}}. I had a dialog with Maru on his talk page concerning these edits and suggested that he should fix the bot[2]. I found Maru to be strangely dismissive[3] of what seemed to me to be a reasonable request. I noticed many similar incidents in his talk page.

In this edit on August 18[4], Maru said "Henceforth I promise not to run fully automatic bots without a bot flag; I shall go and sin no more. Is that sufficient?"

I feel that Maru's violation of WP:BOT policy and deliberate evasion by use of a sockpuppet to be behaviour unbecoming of an administrator. He cannot plea ignorance as he has been blocked 5 times over several months (once on User:Bot-maru, three on his main account and once on sockpuppet account User:Rhwawn). He has been requested to modify his behaviour on numerous occasions and promised to do so, presumably to get his block removed. I see no reason why he won't continue to violate policies in the future. He has unblocked himself in violation of WP:BLOCK ("...Sysops are technically able to unblock themselves ... but should absolutely not do so") policy.

Maru is a valuable editor. Arbcom needs to consider whether his sysop rights should be removed or retained.

Statement by SCZenz

I am involved party, as I was involved in encouraging Maru to reform his bot use from a relatively early time. His bot scripts had a tendency to break things or upset people (i.e. by changing talk page comments to fix typos), and he was at times rather insensitive to requests to change them (for example, he argued at some length that changing talk page comments was ok, despite many requests. They also ran too fast for unauthorized bots. I blocked a preliminary bot account he had after it persisted in unwanted behavior despite requests, and told him it could be unblocked if it behaved properly for an unapproved bot. He never dealt with this, but instead started intermittently making the same edits from his main account, resulting in this colorful blocking history. In short, it took an extraordinary amount of time and drama to convince Maru to follow bot policy, even though he was fully aware of it.

Then of course there are the issues of self-unblocking, running bots with admin powers, and evading blocks through sockpuppetry as described above.

In short, Maru has shown extraordinarily poor judgement and set a very bad example for other users when as an admin he should have been doing the opposite. All this must be balanced against the fact that he is a solid contributor aside from these issues—in particular the question of whether we might lose his contributions entirely if ArbCom reacts strongly to misbehaviors that may now have ceased.

Comment by Cyde Weys

I was the one who originally advised on ANI that Maru be indefinitely blocked (per the bot policy) until he stopped running his unauthorized bot. I thought that was the end of it, but evidently it wasn't. I'm very saddened that Maru went back to the same stuff that got him in trouble in the first place and would ask the ArbCom to take action, since apparently no one else can get through to him. --Cyde Weys 02:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)

• Accept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 09:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Charles Matthews 16:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Dmcdevit·t 05:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. - SimonP 18:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles

Administrators

1) Wikipedia administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.. Occasional lapses from optimal behavior are acceptable, but consistently poor judgement may result in desysopping.

Passed 6-0 at 23:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC).

Sockpuppets

2) Use of more than one account is acceptable. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability is forbidden.

Passed 6-0 at 23:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC).

Unblocking yourself

3) Administrators are prohibited from unblocking themselves.

Passed 6-0 at 23:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC).

Privileges and responsibility

4) Users who have a long track record of being unable or unwilling to use privileges responsibly will be denied use of those privileges and denied those responsibilities.

Passed 6-0 at 23:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC).

Findings of fact

Marudubshinki has run an unauthorised adminbot

1) Marudubshinki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 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.

Pass 6-0 at 23:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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.

Pass 6-0 at 23:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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.

Pass 6-0 at 23:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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) Marudubshinki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is desysopped.

Pass 6-0 at 23:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Bot restrictions

2) Marudubshinki may not use a bot.

Pass 5-1 at 23:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee. Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Log of blocks and bans

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.