Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marudubshinki/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by User:I@n

First assertion

1) Marudubshinki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a good editor and contributor to Wikipedia; 2) Marudubshinki's bot has made several thousand useful edits to Wikipedia articles.

Second assertion

That administrator Marudubshinki 1) operated an unauthorised bot on three separate accounts; 2) used the bot for sysop tasks (deleting pages); 3) unblocked himself and continued doing the same tasks which were the cause of the block in the first place; 4) used a secret alternative acount to evade a block on his own account; 5) ignored or argued against reasonable requests to stop the bot or to fix the bot when it started making errors; and 6) used the bot to fix spelling mistakes on user and article talk pages despite requests by others not to do so.

In doing so, Marudubshinki has violated the following policies: WP:BOT (operating an unauthorised admin bot), WP:BLOCK (unblocking himself) and WP:SOCK (operating a sockpuppet account to avoid a block).

Third assertion

That Marudubshinki's behaviour has been unbecoming of an administrator, and raises a serious question of trust. ie. Can his peers be confident he will abide by Wikipedia policies now and in the future?

Marudubshinki's actions happened over an extended period despite him being asked to stop and being warned that his actions were being monitored. These were not one or two isolated incidents.

Timeline

The following is a chronological list of the major events and blocking actions of administrators and Marudubshinki in relation to this case.

1. Marudubshinki ran an unauthorised bot account, Bot-maru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from 10 to 21 May[2]
2. On 21 May, Bot-maru was blocked indefinitely by User:SCZenz because it was modifying user and article talk pages despite numerous requests to stop doing so[3][4][5].
3. Maru was informed that he was using an unapproved bot and to obtain bot approval at WP:BRFA before continuing[6]
4. On 30 May[7], he started using the bot on his main (sysop) account.[8]
5. He was informed numerous times that the bot was making mistakes[9][10][11]
6. On 5 June, he was blocked by User:Mike Halterman with a block reason of (Simetrical brought to my attention in IRC that your unapproved bot is making newpages unreadable. Unblock yourself when you come back to the computer. Thanks! :)
7. On the same day, he unblocked himself with a unblock reason of: (note that I am unblocking myself, but the blocking admin explicitly said that I could, as did some others on my talk) Unblocking; bot programs have been killed)
8. On 9 June, he started running the bot again.[12]
9. On 13 July, he was blocked a 2nd time, this time by User:Amidaniel with a block reason of: (Please request approval before running your bot.)
10. On the same day, he unblocked himself with an unblock reason of: (bot's shut down).
11. On 16 July, he started running the bot again.[13]
12. Maru's bot was deleting pages using sysop rights (see deletion log):
    • 03:21, July 23, 2006 Marudubshinki (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Shan bhai" (Robot: Redirect target doesn't exist)
    • 03:21, July 23, 2006 Marudubshinki (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Shan bai" (Robot: Redirect target doesn't exist)
    • 03:21, July 23, 2006 Marudubshinki (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "1st and 15th Entertainment" (Robot: Redirect target doesn't exist)
    • 03:21, July 23, 2006 Marudubshinki (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "MDPE" (Robot: Redirect target doesn't exist)

    Quoting User:Essjay: This is greatly concerning, as the use of bots with admin privs is opposed very strongly on en.wiki (with the possible exception of Curps, though his is not without it's critics, and may or may not still be running) and by the Foundation (an adminbot on another wiki was desysopped by Anthere not too long ago).

13. On 28 July, he was blocked a 3rd time (4th including the Maru-bot block) by User:I@n with a block reason of: (blocked per misuse of bot - see note on users talk page).
14. He was told that he would be unblocked when he gave an assurance that he would abide by bot policy[14] and to not unblock himself[15]
15. On 18 August, Maru edited his talk page[16] with an unblock request: {{unblock|The editors concerned wanted a promise from me to go and sin no more against the bot policy...}}. In the same edit he also said "Henceforth I promise not to run fully automatic bots without a bot flag; I shall go and sin no more. Is that sufficient?". User:I@n unblocked him immediately after as a result.
16. Shortly after, Maru edited his user page[17] with a note that he had an alternate account Rhwawn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
17. User:Snottygobble determined that the Rhwawn account had been used for multiple unauthorised bot edits between 31 July to 18 August and blocked him for a fifth time for block evasion and bot misuse.

Evidence presented by Snottygobble

Marudubshinki ran an unauthorised bot

1. From 10 to 20 May, Marudubshinki ran an unauthorised bot account, Bot-maru, which made over 3000 edits. [18]
2. Marudubshinki's bot modified user and article talk pages, including correcting other editors' spelling, and was asked numerous times to stop doing so.[19][20][21].
3. Marudubshinki was asked to discontinue running his bot until he had obtained approval for it at WP:BRFA. [22]
4. On 21 May, SCZenz blocked Bot-maru indefinitely as an "unauthorized bot changing talk pages against community consensus". [23]
5. On 22 May, Marudubshinki applied for approval for his bot, but approval was not given. [24]
6. On 30 May, Marudubshinki started running the bot from his main (administrator) account.[25]
7. At 12:34 on 5 June, Makemi pointed out the Marudubshinki's bot was creating redirects that didn't work, because of a unicode problem.[26] Marudubshinki responded at 4:36 acknowledging the problem [27], but did not shut the bot down.
8. At 12:50, User:Simetrical wrote: [28]

   "Please stop making mass automated edits. You're violating WP:BOT in a big way. You should not run any large-scale automated process without asking at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approvals, and if you don't have a bot flag, you need to get one if you want to edit more than once or twice a minute. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)"

9. At 13:10 the bot was still creating incorrect redirects, prompting another request to stop from User:Neurillon.[29]
10. At 13:15, Raul654 blocked Marudubshinki for one hour for "Using a bot on his own account and running way too fast".[30]
11. At 13:49, Mike Halterman blocked indefinitely, with edit summary "Simetrical brought to my attention in IRC that your unapproved bot is making newpages unreadable. Unblock yourself when you come back to the computer. Thanks! :))"[31]
12. On 6 June, Marudubshinki unblocked himself with edit summary "note that I am unblocking myself, but the blocking admin explicitly said that I could, as did some others on my talk) Unblocking; bot programs have been killed."
13. Marudubshinki resumed "robot assisted disambiguation" (possibly supervised) on 9 June,[32] . The bot was again running unsupervised by 11 June.[33]
14. Later that day, Maru was asked not to run his bot on his normal account,[34], and shortly afterwards told that his bot was "messing up pages".[35]

This evidence is incomplete; further evidence can be provided for the period from 11 June to 28 July, but it looks much the same as the above, so I think the above should suffice.

Marudubshinki lent his unauthorised bot his sysop flag

Between 27 June and 23 July, Marudubshinki's unauthorised bot used Marudubshinki's sysop flag to delete thousands of pages. [36]

Marudubshinki unblocked himself

1. On 13 July, AmiDaniel blocked Marudubshinki indefinitely, with edit summary "Please request approval before running your bot.".[37] AmiDaniel then left a message on Marudubshinki's talk page containing the following text:

   "You should not run bots from main accounts (certainly not from admin accounts), should not have it simply removing/adding whitespace, and you need to go through bot approvals like everyone else. Please email me or add {{unblock}} to have the block removed--do not unblock yourself. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)"

2. Ten hours later, Marudubshinki unblocked himself with edit summary "(bot's shut down)".[38]
3. The following day, Marudubshinki restarted his bot.[39]

Marudubshinki used a sockpuppet to evade a block

1. On 28 July User:I@n blocked Marudubshinki indefinitely with edit summary "blocked per misuse of bot - see note on users talk page".[40] I@n left a message on Marudubshinki's talk page containing the following text: [41]

   ... Create a bot account, get it approved at WP:BOTREQ and you can continue on your merry way.... In the meantime, this account is blocked until you give an assurance that you'll comply with the above.

2. On 18 August, Marudubshinki responded on his talk page with the following: [42]

   Henceforth I promise not to run fully automatic bots without a bot flag; I shall go and sin no more. Is that sufficient?

   ...

   {{unblock|The editors concerned wanted a promise from me to go and sin no more against the bot policy. They have it. --[[User:Marudubshinki |maru]] [[User talk:Marudubshinki| (talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Marudubshinki | contribs]] 00:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)}}

3. I@n then unblocked, and one of Marudubshinki's first subsequent edits was to add to his user page a disclosure that he sometimes used the alternative account Rhwawn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).[43]
4. An examination of Rhwawn's contributions shows that this account was created three days after Marudubshinki was blocked, and was used by Marudubshinki to evade his block. Marudubshinki used the account to make over 700 unauthorised bot edits during the time that he was indefinitely blocked for making unauthorised bot edits.[44]

Evidence presented by User:LifeEnemy

First assertion

Marudubshinki deleted the page myg0t in blatant violation of policy. The AfD was opened at 00:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC) and closed by Marudubshinki 06:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC). As other users have noted, this is less than 6 hours later. WP:DP expicitly states that all AfDs should remain open for a minimum of five days, except in the case of speedy deletion, which that particular myg0t article did not fall into, since it was an objective and informative article, and not 'patent nonsense'. This very short AfD also occured during the middle of the night for European and East coast US editors, giving many of them no opportunity to voice their opinions or to even notice that the AfD had been opened. The AfD record can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Myg0t, and the deletion log is at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Myg0t.

For completeness, the first VFD, consensus delete, is here: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Myg0t; the second VfD, consensus delete is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myg0t (2nd nomination); the first deletion review undeleted; the second review (of Marudubshinski's deletion) is here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Myg0t (second), an unambiguous endorsement of the deletion; endorsed again in July [45]; hours later another request was speedily closed [46]; since unanimously endorsed again [47]. The article has been deleted eighteen times by (I think) sixteen different admins, each time being re-created until finally the earth was salted. And guess what? Someone just listed it at DRV again. Whatever Maru's sins, deleting this article is not one of them, there are an awful lot of us who think that vanity articles on groups of trolls are really not the business of an encyclopaedia. Guy 21:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The latest successful DRV means that the AFD (filed a few weeks later) should not have been speedied. Also, "If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user." Thanks, cacophony 05:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

So, you're saying that we can always be straight out sure about the outcome and ignore Wikipedia's rules? Cool, never heard of such practice. --nlitement ^[talk] 13:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah man, jeez. Besides, the point of this case (and evidence) isn't to get myg0t put back up, but to provide another instance where marudubshinki blatantly violated policy.

Also, doesn't vanity mean it's created by myg0t? There were tons of users who created that article, most of which aren't myg0t members. --LifeEnemy 03:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by TheGreatTK

First assertion

Maru deleted myg0t mid-AfD, and refuses to explain why in an even remotely civil fashion.

• The entry on the deletion log for the page is useless "Sayonara!" [48]

note - these are archived talk pages, original diffs not available

• When questioned, defends his actions in a more or less "I'm an admin, so i'm right" manner. [49]
• Didn't bother to respond to a good-faith request to explain his actions (nearly a month ago)[50]

Evidence by Maru

First assertion

1. re myg0t: myg0t has been hashed out inumerable times, both on my talk page and elsewhere. I believe it is a total non-issue so far as this Arbcom case is concerned. As for TheGreatTK's accusations, I've wasted far too much time explaining and re-explaining that deletion; if he wants an answer, he RTFA and see what I said the first ten times I was asked. If I'm a bit rude and terse where it comes to this issue, it is because I am heartily sick of the issue - it's over and done with guys. Work on the Encyclopedia Dramatica article and maybe one day myg0t will even be somewhat notable.
2. re Self-unblocking: I've unblocked myself twice. The first time Mike Halterman explicitly said I could unblock myself, and so I did. He said in part, "Unblock yourself when you come back to the computer. Thanks! :)" This seems pretty clear and uncontroversial to me. The second time is a bit more difficult to explain. I don't remember whether I mistook Halterman's second block for AmiDaniel's (which I did undo) or what, but I do remember thinking that I was allowed to unblock myself that time, so I didn't bother to go on IRC or anything, just did it. (Mistakes happen? I'm only human?) Obviously I was wrong there.
3. re Sock puppeting: I did indeed create the Rhwawn account, and said as much entirely voluntarily since I didn't want to mislead anyone about who was doing the questioning. I had thought my motives were obvious, but I haven't seen anyone even so much as guess, so I'd better list them here. I needed to ask the Board candidates questions since I had sworn a long time ago during the Answers.com mess not to vote for any Board candidate who supported advertising, and using a sock puppet would help me in a number of ways: first, watchlists are useful; secondly, a (single) username as opposed to multiple IP addresses would make the conversations easier to follow. And I didn't think they'd bother to give decent lengthy answers to some random anonymous user. So. Once I had tested the common assumption that AFD is hostile to clueful newbies (it isn't) and had begun the questioning, the next problem was to be able to vote. Obviously I couldn't get the 500 or 600 or however many edits it was just by doing miscellaneous fixes that I notice via normal browsing on Wikipedia and questioning candidates, so the obvious solution was a bunch of bot edits. I'm not ashamed of them, they needed to be done, the Mono disambiguations especially, but nevertheless they were what they were.

Evidence from JzG

First assertion

Two users above complain regarding the deletion of Myg0t (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This is not in any way relatd to the behaviour which led to this arbitration, and the deletion has widespread support. As the deletion log shows, it has been deleted around twenty times by, I think, sixteen different admins:

   * 00:59, 13 May 2006 Marudubshinki (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Myg0t" (sayanora)
   * 00:05, 1 May 2006 Dbenbenn (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Myg0t"
   * 17:07, 4 April 2006 Naconkantari (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Myg0t" (Deleted to make way for move.)
   * 17:16, 7 December 2005 Titoxd (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Myg0t" (1 revisions restored)
   * 17:16, 7 December 2005 Titoxd (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Myg0t" (CSD G4 - content was: '{{deletedpage}}')
   * 20:23, 22 October 2005 Rd232 (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Myg0t" (redelete nonsense etc per multiple VfD)
   * 19:22, 18 October 2005 Merovingian (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Myg0t" (dead for two months)
   * 21:28, 15 August 2005 Ryan Delaney (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Myg0t" (content was: 'they fucking own fags, and ppl at CS Fuckeveryone One year' (and the only contributor was '72.16.42.148'))
   * 18:05, 6 August 2005 SimonP (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Myg0t" (protected blank several months ago to prevent recreation)
   * 18:22, 2 April 2005 MacGyverMagic (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Myg0t" (content was: '{{d}}ÃÃÃñÕÕÕÔù')
   * 00:07, 2 April 2005 Hadal (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Myg0t" (recreation of article previously deleted via VfD)
   * 22:38, 19 March 2005 Dbenbenn (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Myg0t" (per Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Myg0t (2nd nomination))
   * 00:32, 27 February 2005 Curps (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Myg0t" ({{deleteagain}})
   * 06:52, 10 February 2005 MacGyverMagic (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Myg0t" (content was: '{{mediawiki:noarticletext}}')
   * 19:08, 9 February 2005 Curps (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Myg0t" (content was: '#REDIRECT Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not')
   * 18:55, 9 February 2005 Bearcat (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Myg0t" (content was: 'The harassment authority, as they call themselves. [http://www.myg0t.com www.myg0t.com] A famous online gaming group that likes to ruin online games...')
   * 15:40, 30 January 2005 Niteowlneils (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Myg0t" (previously VfDed-recreated)
   * 21:08, 28 January 2005 Stormie (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Myg0t" (Recreation of previously deleted page: see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Myg0t)
   * 15:34, 16 January 2005 Silsor (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Myg0t" (content was: 'myg0t - A group of leet h4x0r individuals that basically pwn teh intar-webz0r {{nonsense}}')
   * 16:28, 5 January 2005 Thue (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Myg0t" (recreation of vfd'ed article)

The first VFD, consensus delete, is here: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Myg0t; the second VfD, consensus delete is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myg0t (2nd nomination); the first deletion review undeleted; the second review (of Marudubshinski's deletion) is here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Myg0t (second), an unambiguous endorsement of the deletion; endorsed again in July [51]; hours later another request was speedily closed [52]; since unanimously endorsed again [53], and again [54].

Maru having left the project this is arguably moot, but the deletion of this article is unquestionably something which had widespread support and is within normal administrative discretion. Not that ArbCom is ever likely to make this yet another deletion review of this article. Guy 15:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Evidence from cacophony

First assertion

Marudubshinki violated policy by allowing an AfD for myg0t to be put forth less than one month after the article was undeleted, with clear consensus to undelete. Again, there was and still is unquestionable widespread support to undelete the article.

Second assertion

Marudubshinki further violated policy by closing said AfD a few hours after it opened, instead of the mandatory 5 day waiting period stipulated by deletion policy.

Third assertion

Marudubshinki further violated policy by speedily deleting the myg0t article, despite the fact that it had no canidate for speedy deletion.

First of all, I'd like to note that this AfD is for any and all grievances against Marudubshinki, not just the first ones brought up. Second of all, how many times the myg0t article has been deleted and restored is completely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the latest action before the AfD in question, which was a successful DrV. Third of all, I'd like to express my discontent with the fact that much of the evidence for this was deleted when the talk page for myg0t was just recently wiped and blocked from recreation. cacophony 23:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)