all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here.

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if they so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, no arbitrators are recused and 7 are away or inactive, so 4 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop.

Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Unblocking yourself

3) Administrators are prohibited from unblocking themselves.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

Fred Bauder 20:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Though the second sentence is unnecessary. You don't need to be told not to do that. Dmcdevit·t 08:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 20:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 21:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 22:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Marudubshinki desysopped

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Bot restrictions

2) Marudubshinki may not use a bot.

Support:

Fred Bauder 20:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No more chances. Charles Matthews 20:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Enough. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 22:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

A lot of the prior bot work looks helpful. 2.1 hopefully solves the problem while allowing more useful work to continue. Dmcdevit·t 08:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Bot restrictions (modified)

2.1) Marudubshinski may not run a bot on his main account. Instead, Bot-maru shall be disapproved and removed from Wikipedia:Registered bots. All further bot actions by Marudubshinski must be approved according to bot policy, and must be run only on the Bot-maru account, which may be unblocked upon approval (or go-ahead) at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.

Support:

Dmcdevit·t 08:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Enough Fred Bauder 09:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not inclined to give him more chances to fail to follow bot policy. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 20:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 22:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Enforcement by block

1) Should Marudubshinki use a bot he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Marudubshinki#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:

Fred Bauder 20:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If 2 passes, otherwise 1.1. Dmcdevit·t 08:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 20:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 21:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 22:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Enforcement by block

1.1) Should Marudubshinski violate any of the bot-related remedies, he may be briefly blocked, for up to a week. After 5 such blocks, the maximum block period increases to one year. Should he violate a remedy with Bot-maru, both accounts shall be blocked, and Bot-maru shall be indefinitely blocked until re-approved.

Support:

Dmcdevit·t 08:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Enough Fred Bauder 09:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overly complicated. No bots is simple. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 20:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 21:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 22:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

Close. Dmcdevit·t 07:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close. Charles Matthews 20:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close Fred Bauder 21:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
close ➥the Epopt 23:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]