Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

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 (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

I was unaware of the previous issues bought up by Ryan Postlethwaite during the declined request. My evidence therefore relates to only the deletion of the articles.

SemB has deleted articles outside of policy, justifying his deletions with WP:IAR. Of his last 5000 deletions, SemB has deleted 282 phobia related articles. The majority of which were deleted without a deletion discussion, proposed deletion tag or meeting the criteria for speedy deletion. For example; Phasmophobia, Metathesiophobia and Theophobia to name a few. A full list is available at User:Ameliorate!/evidence.

Of these, 224 contained no deletion summary other than the default "content was ..." summary. In some instances deletion was possibly correct, in others the articles were legitimate and could have been improved rather than deleted. SemB made no effort to involve the community in these deletions. In addition, SemB admitted to pushing his POV in regards to the articles.

When questioned about his deletions SemB was uncivil and unwilling to fully discuss the issue.

Despite objection from the community SemB continued to delete articles without accordance to policy: [1]

Despite SemBubenny's claims that I am a "phobiaphile" I have created one article on the subject; [2] (note that the article was deleted by SemB a few hours before I created it, I hadn't realised it had been previously deleted until later on the deleted edits were undeleted by administrator Punkmorten after they noticed the deletion while reviewing the article at DYK.) I created the article because DYK was having a Halloween theme and it was listed here as an article that could possibly be created/expanded for the occasion. As far as I know I have edited no other articles on this topic. My only involvement in this matter is bringing SemB's deletions to wider community attention.

I know little about Mikkalai, beyond his own statement that he worked as a computer consultant for the Soviet KGB and his repeated deletions of sourced and relevant materials about Russian state security services [3] [4] [5] [6]. His administrative actions were often questionable.

Here Mikkalai reports about blocking Relata refero and User:Ghanadar galpa for edit warring [7]. However, Mikkalai did not actually block any of the users. Instead, he is blocking User:Soman : [8] Yes, that has finally been corrected [9], but the incident is very unusual.

Mikkalai requested at his talk that people should not communicate with him: [10], [11], and he did it in response to receiving this warning [12].

He also deleted his talk page [13], [14] and did not want it to be restored [15].

Mikkalai is usually moving through a number of articles and removes whatever he thinks should be deleted [16]. The deleted content is often relevant and sourced (see examples above), merely illustrate the subject of an article [17] [18], or at least relevant and could be reasonably defended [19] [20]. Did he explain his deletions? Sometimes he does when asked, sometimes he does not. No wonder, this causes disputes and edit warring [21], which sometimes lead to serious incidents and blocks [22] [23] [24]. Once again, main problem is how this Mikkalai handles the disputes. He may be right or wrong about the content, but he does not always behave as a responsible administrator.

It is sad to see that the ArbCom apparently ignores my statement that I made a "new year resolution" to radically change my editing habits way before this case started. I changed my name, removed all controversial topics from my watchlist, my admin actions are bare minimum. Yet the picture here is of one rogue admin on a rampage. Welcome to Encyclopedia Dramatica ranks: [www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Bureaucratic_fuck#Mikkalai]  :-) Yet another sad thing is that not a single person talked to me. Where is all your AGF/"love thy neighbor"? It is no longer drama for me, my brain works differently now, but IMO dehumanized arbcom is a big danger to community. - 7-bubёn >t 19:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SemBubenny/Proposed decision, Coren wrote: "In light of SemBunny's latest statement. I don't see the attitude of someone who has realized his errors and would be responsive to a final warning."

I don't see how Coren fails to see that I "realized my errors". Exactly because I realized my errors, I clearly stated that I will avoid editing in any controversial circumstances (including but not limited to gray areas of wikipedia policies and disagreements with my actions), and in order to ensure this I did what I decribed above. As an indirect evidence of my changed attitude you may see that the person who considered me "political enemy" in the past (estonia-related topics), user:Martintg, spoke in my defense here. What other assurance do you need? - 7-bubёn >t 03:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I am aware that I am not a very likable person and have often have poor choice of words. Therefore I decided to restrict myself of potentially conflictable human interaction to minimize of the disruption of wikipedia and limit my admin actions to purely technical ones. While I 100% agree with the statement that adminship is not a privilege and is not "on pedestal", I still need some admin tools in my work, basically related to filling numerous gaps in neglected areas of wikipedia. I don't seek for any barnstars or editcountitis top 10 or "featured articlist" glory or whatever. I am truly and only interested in systematic and verifiable arrangement of human knowledge. I even extremely reluctant to spend much time to defend myself here, since I believe my time is more needed elsewhere: every minute I see more and more missing topics, and I am overwhelmed. - 7-bubёn >t 17:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC) reply

While stubs are treated as "lowly" and insignificant by many, I consider them an invaluable tool for interconnecting various pieces of knowledge. In addition, some time ago I have found that creation of small, but well referenced stub is the best way of preventing poor, stupid, and joke articles, thus giving a good starting point by a way of example and decreasing wasted time of many during votes for deletion. Examples from the area immediately related to the case are Fear of bees Fear of being buried alive Fear of bats Fear of the dark Fear of dogs Fear of fish Fear of frogs Fear of mice - 7-bubёn >t 18:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I would also like to indicate that this case was started out of the due process of wikipedia's dispute resolution: not a single time I was a subject of mediation, from the very early times when I was blocked by a nationalistic admin for reverting an aggressive troll, now long-banned user:Bonaparte. I could reasonably explain all other cases of conflict, but I have no reason of whining, seeing indication of whatsoever interest in a truly neutral investigation. - 7-bubёn >t 17:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC) reply

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.