This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

1) Would it be possible to restore talk page of Mikkalai/SemBubenny? He apparently deleted the page. I wanted to provide a couple of diffs in Evidence but could not. I asked Mikkalai but he did not respond [1]. Biophys ( talk) 03:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Biophys ( talk) 03:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC) reply

There is an archive going back to 2003 at User talk:SemBubenny/ar1. I don't know if anything important is missing, but from the logs it appears to be fairly complete. Kusma ( talk) 09:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you. I asked Mikkalai and Tiptoety first, but none of them gave this link. Biophys ( talk) 15:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC) reply

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Of the 282 deletions of these phobia articles you cite in evidence, which most appear to have been deleted by SemBubenny back in 2006, could you give us numbers of how many remain deleted (or turned into a redirect to -phobia), and how many have been recreated and exist at this point in time.

We need a sense of the degree to which SemBubenny got it mostly right or got it mostly wrong. Martintg ( talk) 02:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• All articles deleted by SemBubenny without due process should be restored, so we can look at them. These are not only "phobia" articles. The restoring articles should be also one of the remedies. If these articles are so bad, they should go through normal AfD process. Biophys ( talk) 04:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Do we really want to restore every single article and put them to AfD? A quick scan of a handful reveals some were restored only to be AfDed anyway. If most of these deletions haven't been overturned through recreation or restoration, then it is highly likely that most of these were probably hoax articles created by some passing vandal anyway, so in that case SemBubenny has saved us a whole truck load of time and energy per WP:IAR. Martintg ( talk) 06:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SemBubenny/Evidence/Deleted articles (work in progress). Tiptoety ^talk 21:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply

1) There is no deadline, therefore unless of the utmost importance or very trivial, issues should be brought to the attention and discretion of the community, even if it creates a delay

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Should be common sense anyway, but it can't hurt to state it clearly. So Why 18:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I suggest rewording it to emphasize consensus. Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

2) Exceptions should leave the rule intact; it is permissible to ignore the rules, however when ignoring the rule one is acknowledging that the rule exists and they have a very good reason for ignoring it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I don't believe we should cite a user essay in a Finding of Fact Proposed Principle, though I agree with this on principle. Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

1) SemBubenny has misused the deletion tool, deleting articles where it was not warranted or where there was no consensus to do so

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It is either this one or the one below ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) ( talk)} 13:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Seeing as he did not apply WP:CSD correctly in a huge number of cases (see /Evidence), I think this can be assumed to be the correct finding of fact. So Why 18:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Suggested alternate wording - SemBubenny has deleted articles out of process. Perhaps a tad lengthy, but I figure it would be a more comprehensible generalization. Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

2) SemBubenny has not misused the deletion tool and has deleted articles in appropriate accordance with policy

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It is either this one or the one above. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) ( talk)} 13:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

eh, I'd not post the alternative to what you actually think. it distracts from what we should be looking at. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 16:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC) reply

At least he wants to acknowledge both possible sides of this dispute. In any case, I doubt there is any dispute regarding SemBubenny's misuse of the deletion tool, so I oppose this. Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

3) SemBubenny has been uncivil, uncooperative and uncommunicative

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This also relates to when he was rolling back any edit made to his talkpage. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) ( talk)} 13:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

add a couple of diff's to this for completeness. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 16:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Looking at the evidence, Sembubenny is sometimes unresponsive and dismissive of criticism. Per Rocksanddirt, this principle will need differences. I suggest the ones you have already provided at the evidence page. [2] [3] It might be a good idea to find a few more, if anyone is willing to look. At the moment, I'm a bit busy. Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

1) Deletion can be used to clean up Wikipedia but it can also hurt the project. All deletion has to be within policy to minimize this risk.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Well, that's the basic rule, but sometimes people need to be reminded of it. As with all things I wrote, the wording can be tweaked. So Why 13:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Seems right, per WP:PRESERVE. Deleting human knowledge from the project is the antithesis of its goal. That said, transwiki-ing a short, definitional article to wikitionary should actually occur when that's a claimed reason for deletion from wikipedia space, and not be left undone. Merging these into something like List of phobia would have also been a sensible approach. Just my 2 cents as I don't know what the content was here. -- Kendrick7 ^talk 21:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC) reply

The deletionist-inclusionist debate has been ongoing since the beginning of Wikipedia. I guess this proposal is asking the ArbCom to make a finding in regard to this debate. Martintg ( talk) 23:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC) reply

No, it's not. It's what it says: Deletion can hurt - it does not have to, but it can. Deletionism vs. Inclusionism is a debate over content, over what to delete and what to keep. This finding is just about the how - i.e. that it has to be done within policy to minimize the risk of harmful deletions. Regards So Why 08:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Can you quantify the harm? Martintg ( talk) 09:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC) reply

How could one do that? If content is deleted, it's usually gone. Only few editors fight such deletions after all and if they do, many get overturned. There are even admins here (like SemBubenny) who openly declare that they will delete first and then restore when challenged. But that's not what deletion is for. My point is simple, which is why I wonder why you see such a problem with it: We got policies for deletion and we got them for a reason. And that reason is that otherwise things get deleted that could be useful to our project. Just see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Overturned speedy deletions for a short list of examples where perfectly good articles were deleted outside policy and overturned. Seeing that this example only chronicles few occurrences and that only a very few editors really take articles to DRV, the amount of perfectly fine articles deleted outside policy is probably much much higher. So Why 16:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC) reply

That is a very basic, common-sense principle, which we all should abide by. Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

2) WP:IAR is not a reason to circumvent policy that has been created to limit administrators' ability to use their rights.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is likely to be more controversially sounding, but it's logical actually. If policies were created to limit administrative actions, invoking WP:IAR defeats the whole purpose of creating these policies they way they are. IAR should be used to improve Wikipedia, not to be used as an excuse to cirvumvent the rules. So Why 13:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply

As a general principle, I agree with this. Process is important, especially in an area like deletion, where the wrong decisions could lead to discouraging editors from contributing. That said, I can think of a few occasions where IAR can apply when using admin buttons (deleting a G3 vandalism page as G1 patent nonsense, for instance - not relevant to the case at hand, but as an example of the application of IAR in admin actions). But the basic point is, SemBubenny's actions have been out of process and he has failed to respond to criticism in a manner appropriate for an administrator, so this is warranted. Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

3) Whenever an administrator deletes a page, they have to specify why they do so. Deletion can easily discourage new editors so they should be able to understand from the deletion summary why their page was deleted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Says it all. Some admins use short, cryptic reasons or incorrect CSD reasons and that does not help people understand, why their pages were deleted. So Why 13:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply

This principle is common sense. Communication is not optional for administrators. Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

4) The deletion policy was also created to limit the circumstances in which an administrator is allowed to delete pages from Wikipedia. If an administrator thinks a page needs to be deleted, they have to apply the same policy as every other user. If a page does not fulfill the narrow criteria for speedy deletion, they are not allowed to delete it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not sure the deletion policy was created for the purpose of limiting deletion circumstances, and the deletion policy presents a wider array of deletion criteria and circumstances than WP:CSD does. However, the core issue of following the deletion policies is quite correct. Risker ( talk) 02:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is probably the most controversial proposal I can make here, so I don't expect unanimous support (or it being adopted at all) but I feel this case proves the importance of such a principle. Some admins, like the admin involved here, think it's okay to delete pages they do not think have encyclopedic value, no matter if they fit the criteria for speedy deletion. The whole point WP:CSD was created for, was to list circumstances in which deletion can be decided by an admin alone. By simple logical deduction, it also means that it was created to limit administrators to those cases; if a page does not fit these criteria or is deliberately listed under WP:CSD#Non-criteria, then the page has to be deleted using WP:PROD or WP:AFD, even if it does seem like a waste of time. But it's safer to follow process without need 99 times than delete 1 potentially good article and lose us a potentially great editor. So Why 13:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply

The circumstances warrant this principle, per SoWhy. Perhaps there is an alternate way of wording this to make it slightly more succint, but I definitely think we need to emphasize the importance of process here. Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

1) SemBubenny did delete pages he did not deem valuable for the encyclopedia outside deletion policy even after being told to not do so.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Support, so long as the phobia articles are specified. Master&Expert ( Talk) 01:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply

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.

1) SemBubenny is cautioned not to delete pages outside policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Suggest rewording title to "SemBubenny cautioned". Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

1) Any admin who deletes pages outside policy should be warned to stop such deletions. If they continue, they can be blocked by any uninvolved admin for a period up to a week (starting at 24h). Longer blocks need the approval of the Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This will lead to unnecessary drama, and possibly too many "questionable" blocks. I am afraid that asking other administrators to determine which deletions are outside policy, which ones are within policy, and which ones fall under IAR would have backlash. Tiptoety ^talk 02:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply

It would be a last resort proposal, for such cases in which an admin was asked to stop and discuss and in which he/she continues nevertheless. I agree that one must be careful with that, but I do think there needs to be a strong message sent that you cannot go around deleting pages for "whatever reasons you want". But of course, these are only suggestions and I'd be glad if someone came up with a better way to enforce it. Regards So Why 11:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply

not in favor of this. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 16:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure what a remedy of this sort would solve. As Tiptoety says above, it would lead to drama, which can easily be avoided otherwise. Also, I don't know how blocking an admin for deleting pages out of process will prevent anything, as I don't believe technical blocks prevent admins from deleting pages (or do they? Perhaps I am mistaken). A remedy of this sort would be arbitrary and punitive. Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

2) In severe cases of breaking the proposed principles on deletion (above), the Committee can temporarily remove administrator access for the user in question. The Committee can then decide to make this removal permanent if needed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Suggest that the principle should be more general; the Arbitration Committee may temporarily remove administrator permissions for a variety of reasons and, upon investigation, determine whether or not to make the removal of permissions permanent. (You might also want to retitle it Removal of administrative permissions). Risker ( talk) 06:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

unfortunately, in order for the committee to act in these types of cases, a full hearing is usually required. excessive dhrama and time wasting are then the order of the day. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 16:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Per Rocksanddirt, a hearing is generally required before the committee desides to desysop (though there are exceptions, under certain circumstances). However, SemBubenny appears to have been warned about this many times prior and has opted against taking heed. This sort of cycle cannot continue; he must learn to respond to criticism in a positive manner, which is expected of sysops. I hope the desysopping of a long-standing, valued administrator is not the culminating result of this affair, and I have confidence in SemBubenny. If he is given yet another (final) chance, I hope he will take the community's best wishes to heart, and a desysop will not be necessary in the future. Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

1) Wikipedia administrators are trusted members of the community. They are expected to abide by basic policies and guidelines, especially when using their sysop powers.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This principle is pretty much standard for any arbitration case that reviews somebody's use of administrative powers. Master&Expert ( Talk) 01:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply

2) Wikipedia is a collaborative project. It is important for editors to respond to messages regarding them in a timely and constructive manner. This is especially important for administrators, particularly with regards to administrative actions undertaken. This includes using appropriate summaries for their actions, and responding to concerns in a timely and civil manner.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

While SoWhy already addresses this above, to an extent, I figured it might be a good idea to generalize the importance of communication on Wikipedia, especially with regards to administrators. Master&Expert ( Talk) 01:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Completely agree. While mistakes can be harmful and BITEy, unwillingness to communicate undermines the very idea of an encyclopedia built through cooperation and admins should be more inclined to follow this than normal users. So Why 10:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

1) SemBubenny, formerly known as Mikkalai, is a long-standing and valued contributor to Wikipedia. He first started editing Wikipedia in 2003, and became an administrator in early 2004. He has made over 120 000 logged-in edits - a significant portion of which involves creating new articles - and performed over 8000 sysop actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

SemBubenny has been here longer than most people have even heard of Wikipedia. While it is accurate to say that he has been involved in his fair share of controversy (otherwise he wouldn't be going through arbitration), he has done a lot of great things for the site. I feel an FoF to recognize this should at least be proposed. Master&Expert ( Talk) 01:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply

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.

1) SemBubenny is admonished to follow the deletion policy closely, to explain his sysop actions clearly, and to respond to criticism in a polite and constructive manner.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is about right. See my section for a slightly reworded version. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

SemBubenny has done many good things as an administrator, blocking many a vandal and properly deleting several pages within policy. Still, the pattern of deleting phobia pages out of process needs to end, and SemBubenny needs to become more open to communication and criticism. In reflection of all the good things he has done for the site over the years, I feel an admonishment is the most ideal remedy. Master&Expert ( Talk) 01:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply

1) Administrators are trusted members of the community. They are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship, as administrators are not expected to be perfect, but consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators are expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Drawn from several prior cases. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is essentially what I had proposed above; the difference is that Newyorkbrad's version is more detailed. Master&Expert ( Talk) 03:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Support. This is standard. Biophys ( talk) 18:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply

2) Administrators are expected to provide timely and civil explanations for their actions. All administrative actions are logged and offer a "reason" field to be used for this purpose. While all editors are expected to reply to good-faith queries about their activities placed on their talk page, administrators are particularly expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their administrative actions and to justify them when needed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Drawn from several prior cases, including Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Some sort of principle based on the importance of communication on Wikipedia is needed for this case. Brad's version emphasizes the relevance of communication for administrators - which is appropriate given the arbitration case reviews Sembubenny's unresponsiveness to the concerns of others regarding his CSD work. Master&Expert ( Talk) 03:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, agree. Biophys ( talk) 18:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply

3) Administrators should bear in mind that at this stage in the evolution of Wikipedia, they have hundreds of colleagues. Therefore, if an administrator finds that he or she cannot adhere to site policies and remain civil and open to communication while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem by poor conduct of his or her own.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Drawn from C68-FM-SV. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Interesting principle. I like it - it's relevant and it's an ideal thing for an administrator to do. Master&Expert ( Talk) 03:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply

4) Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Undeletion policy, and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion together provide policy and procedure for deletion and undeletion of pages. Wikipedia administrators are expected to use the deletion and undeletion abilities granted to them in a fashion consistent with these policies. Administrators who wish to delete articles that are clearly outside the criteria for speedy deletion should list those articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or Proposed deletion. This does not negate the right of administrators to delete blatantly inappropriate content even if it falls outside the formal CSD criteria, nor constrain application of our policy on biographies of living persons.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. First three sentences drawn from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war. Last sentence is new, although the BLP aspect is presaged by several prior decisions. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply

The flexibility in the last sentence is important to me, but I'm certainly open to improve wording (though SoWhy's proposal may go too far in the other direction). N.B.: this proposal was drafted a few days ago, and was not written with the current "hidden pages" controversy in mind. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Detailed albeit clear - I support this principle. Master&Expert ( Talk) 03:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Essentially my proposed principle #4, although better worded. Although I do not think there are cases when immediate deletion is really needed apart from criteria G10, G11 and G12. The first part of the last sentence is a bit vague because "blatantly inappropriate content" is a subjective thing that every user views differently. I think WP:CSD restricts deletions of such content for a good reason and I oppose that part because it sounds like IAR-deletions are just fine if the admin thinks it's "blatantly inappropriate content". Maybe word it as "This does not negate the right of administrators to delete blatantly inappropriate content even if it falls outside the formal CSD criteria and immediate deletion is necessary to prevent damage to the encyclopedia". Because if it does not fall under G10, G11 or G12 and no other criterion and if there is no risk in having it on for 5 days, then there is no reason to IAR-delete it. So Why 10:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

5) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) SemBubenny ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), formerly known as Mikkalai, has edited Wikipedia since November 2003, and has been an administrator since February 2004. He has made more than 120,000 edits to Wikipedia, has taken more than 8,000 administrator actions including blocks, deletions, and page protections, and has shown a high level of dedication to the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes - important to frame issues in context of dedication to project and minimise adversarial nature of case. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Indeed. Clearly a very commited editor. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) ( talk)} 02:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

2) From time to time, SemBubenny has failed or refused to communicate with editors who have raised questions about his administrator actions. This has included periods during which SemBubenny would routinely blank posts made to his talkpage without responding to them, as well as instances in which he responded uncivilly to questions or criticisms.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. (The proposed decision should insert links, such as the ones identified by Wizardman below.) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3) Over an extended period, SemBubenny repeatedly deleted articles concerning certain actual or alleged specific phobias. The deletions were made unilaterally, as speedy deletions, rather than after discussion on AfD or otherwise. SemBubenny believed in good faith that these articles were unencyclopedic, but many of them did not fall within the criteria for speedy deletion, and many of the deletions were unaccompanied by a clear rationale.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. (The proposed decision should insert links, such as the ones identified by Wizardman below.) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Possibly add that he continued to delete the articles after being asked not to (dare I call the discussion on ANI a consensus not to?) and after he said he wouldn't. Or perhaps that is covered by #4? ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) ( talk)} 02:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

4) After SemBubenny was questioned regarding his deletions of various phobia articles, he restored some of the articles he had deleted, but continued to delete others. However, more recently, he has agreed to discontinue his practice of speedily deleting phobia-related articles, and since that time, he has not deleted any more such articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. (The proposed decision should insert links, such as the ones identified by Wizardman below.) As a matter of form and style (about which perhaps no one would care), I am not sure whether 3 and 4 should be single finding or two separate ones. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I'd keep them separate for clarity, as they reflect two different behaviours. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

1) SemBubenny is thanked for his many contributions to the project but is urged/cautioned/admonished:

(A) To speedy-delete only articles that fall within the criteria for speedy deletion or are otherwise blatantly inappropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia, and to err on the side of caution in cases of doubt, unless the article contains BLP violations or implicates matters of similarly high concern;

(B) To provide clear explanations of his administrator actions and to respond promptly and civilly to questions and comments regarding such actions; and

(C) Not to take administrator action regarding any matter where he would be unable or unwilling to reasonably discuss any questions or concerns that may arise regarding that action.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Not sure about which verb to use. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

The items under A, B and C are requests, hence "urged" would be the verb, probably with an adverb like "strongly" to qualify it. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

This sounds reasonable. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) ( talk)} 02:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Note that I am asking for comments regarding all my proposals over the next 72-96 hours; after this time period the ones that seem to have support (or ones that aren't being opposed) will be moved to the proposed decision page. Note that the proposed decision will also include proposals from others, which I point out where they are on this page. I'm leaving the comments open below despite the proposals being above in some cases to keep everything tidy. Wizardman 05:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Looks fine to me for reasons above and below. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Here is yet another standard remedy that is directly relevant to this case. Support. Master&Expert ( Talk) 16:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

2) (NYB's proposal above)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3) (NYB's proposal above)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

4) (NYB's proposal above)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

5)(A) (NYB's proposal "Deletion" above)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

(B) (SoWhy's proposal "Admins need to specify clear reasons for deletion" above)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) The locus of dispute in this case involved the deletion of articles related to phobias by SemBubenny ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as well as civility in relation to these articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Note that on the FoFs/remedies I am purposely avoiding showcasing my preferences, as that isn't necessary until the proposed decision phase. Wizardman 05:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

As a matter of form, I don't know that a locus finding is needed here. In any event, I think the locus might be slightly broader than just the phobias articles; I don't think this case would have risen to the ArbCom level if this were the only issue with SemBubenny's adminning. (Adminning which has positive as well as negative aspects, I hasten to add.) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

That would be the locus, yes. Support. Master&Expert ( Talk) 16:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

2)(A) SemBubenny has deleted articles out of process, deleting articles where it was not warranted or where there was no consensus. [4] [5] [6] SemBubenny has restored some articles, [7] [8] but upon both deleting and restoring phobia articles, SemBubenny does not provide a rationale for these actions. [9] [10] These deletions have continued even when the user was told not to do so. [11]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Fair enough, though I'll offer a slightly expanded version in my section. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Support. Master&Expert ( Talk) 16:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

(B) SemBubenny has been uncivil, [12] uncooperative, [13] [14] and dismissive of criticism. [15] [16]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Support. Master&Expert ( Talk) 16:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

(C) (Master&Expert's finding above)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

1) (SoWhy's remedy above)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) SemBubenny is admonished for his actions regarding the use of the deletion tool. He is asked to follow the deletion policy closely, to explain his sysop actions clearly, and to respond to criticism in a polite and constructive manner.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Tweaked a remedy proposal above. Wizardman 05:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I've offered a slightly revised wording above. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Very clear and fully addresses the locus of the dispute. Master&Expert ( Talk) 16:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

3) SemBubenny ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrative privileges are revoked. SemBubenny may apply to have them reinstated at any time, either through the usual means or by appeal to the Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Too harsh at this time, especially since the problem seems to have stopped. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

I'm neutral on this. On the one hand; SemB is desysopped: Wikipedia loses an admin that has served the project since 2004 but he can't make any more bad deletions. On the other hand; SemB is admonished but allowed to keep adminship: Wikipedia retains an admin but then someone needs to watch SemB's logs for violations of any "don't make bad deletions" remedy. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) ( talk)} 15:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

After more thought I oppose this. Second chances where second chances are due and if SemB never makes another bad deletion again then pre-emptive desysoping at this point would be, overall, a Bad Thing™. (It's easier to reverse a bad action than to make a positive action). ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) ( talk)} 02:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

This proposal is something we do need to discuss. SemBubenny has been here for a long time, and has done many great things for Wikipedia - both as an editor as an administrator. His deletion of several articles out of process, and moreover, his lack of communication regarding the deletions makes this a reasonable remedy. But I'd rather not see it happen at this time; I feel more comfortable giving SemBubenny a "last chance" in the form of an admonishment. Master&Expert ( Talk) 16:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

1) Should SemBubenny continue to delete phobia articles outside of process, the user may be brought back to arbcom where a motion to desysop can be requested.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I support this over the immediate desysoping above. However, if SemB started deleting articles out of process again I think referral back to ArbCom would go without saying. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) ( talk)} 02:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

I think it is time to make it clear that SemBubenny is on his last chance. I think he's a great administrator but this needs to end. Master&Expert ( Talk) 16:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Sorry for coming late to the party, but I'm just now catching up on my reading. This isn't going to work properly. Enforcement is an action that the community (or trusted members of the community with certain permissions, such as administrators) can undertake with ArbCom's approval. All this enforcement devolves into is "ArbCom will not summarily reject a request to desysop by motion." Significantly absent are who is going to be doing the requesting, and how they should go about doing it. This is at most, a remedy, and possibly more of a finding of fact - the ArbCom is submitting as fact, that it will consider a motion to desysop in the future under certain conditions. Final warnings are great fine and all, but it isn't enforcement. Something closer to actual enforcement would go along the lines of: "any user may request that a steward desysop Sembubenny if Sembubenny continues to delete phobia-related articles out of process" or "Stewards are directed to desysop Sembubenny at the request of any Arbitrator - Arbitrators may request a desysop if Sembubenny continues to delete phobia-related articles out of normal processes." Some tightening up of what is considered "normal process" (AfD) might be helpful as well, even as a throw away, stating the obvious, FoF.-- Tznkai ( talk) 06:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

There are a number of issues:

1. Tools being used in a way the community isn't happy with
2. Lack of communication or dismissive responses
3. The comment per SemBubenny's statement, that he/she says they had already decided to change and taken steps to do so
4. The past "history" -- SemBubenny feels that anything he says will be responded aggressively and has therefore switched from a strategy of discussion, to a strategy of "be bold [and at times hostile or strong words/tone] but don't argue or revert if others disagree" ( crude version less crude version).

A lot of the diffs show past history, rather than current issues. Those showing current issues include: [17] deleted without discussion, [18] edit summary, and the above crude statement/s.

I will guess that part of SemBubenny's view is that too much slack is given to horribly bad content and admins just cannot sort it out without acting this way, even if others may not like it. But that just is a guess.

Administrators do have to communicate. It's not something they can "opt out" of, by saying "just revert me if you disagree", because to many users it is very disheartening to have admin deletions and the communication is needed. (Eg, to find ways to explain what was a problem, to improve their work, or fix things in future.) Even though most problem deletions seem to have ended, it's not completely finished, the "admin judgement" issue is still something of a problem, and the hostility or lack of communication due to past "history" also still a concern.

Two principles affect how to handle this - 1/ we try to keep the good, and much of his work is exceptionally good, but 2/ we expect high standards and effort from admins and even saying "this is not working so I won't communicate, revert me if you like" is missing the point; non-communication isn't an answer either.

(Outline only)

1. SemBubenny is prohibited from using the delete and undelete tools in any way, or closing any deletion discussions, for a period of 6 months. If the matter is serious then SemBubenny should refer it to another administrator.

2. Any future use of delete or undelete tools in breach of strict deletion policies, or blatant mis-close of a deletion discussion, will be likely to lead to removal of adminship.

3. There is no obligation to use any administrative tool. However, SemBubenny is cautioned that should he use the administrative tools on further occasions lacking an appropriate level of communication and courteous response, or should similar controversies arise with regard to the use of other administrative tools, then he is likely to be desysopped by direction of this Committee.

4. (We don't yet have a way agreed to address uncivil but productive users in RFAR, so leaving that aspect out for now)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Outline approach only, someone else may be able to word this better. Rationale -- SemBubenny has returned to deletion issues and the tool use is causing concern. A blanket prohibition for a while can give good perspective or help foster change. I'd make this total -- even if it were a BLP matter or a discussion close, there are a thousand other admins able to act and it would reduce temptation to resume. Thereafter this would require he does not judge borderline deletion matters, but follows norms strictly. If it's borderline or IAR, then again, let someone else handle it. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 15:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators: