Case Opened on 22:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Case Closed on 19:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

• Ameliorate! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• SemBubenny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Administrator SemBubenny, formerly "Mikkalai", has for over many years been deleting articles related to specific phobia. Often these deletions are outside of policy, process and on numerous occasions were made without providing a deletion reason. This thread on ANI provides most of the information related to this. The gist of the situation is that SemBubenny believes these articles are garbage, that he is entitled to delete them as long as he restores them when asked and that there is nothing wrong with him pushing his point of view. SemBubenny has been unresponsive about this, choosing to blank his talkpage during a discussion about his deletions (which is what prompted me to start the ANI thread). During the discussion at ANI SemB admitted that unilateral deletion was wrong and stated what he would have done in hindsight:

"After reading the arguments presented here and in the section below, #DYK hoax article?, I admit that my course of actions was wrong. I still insist that an occasional deletion of a silly article created by and anon is well within WP:IAR. However since the creation of fake phobia articles is a rather persistent and ongoing problem, I should have invited other wikipedians to a discussion how to deal with this problem in a systematic and consensus way."

However, on November 20 2008 (17 days after the ANI thread) SemB deleted Kabourophobia and yesterday (January 25 2009) he deleted Metathesiophobia - his deletion summary states "wiktionary" however the article has, from as far as I can tell, not been transwikied (and this is the second time he has deleted the article without discussion).

Given SemB's unwillingness to fully discuss this issue, his reneging on what he said at ANI whilst admitting he was incorrect to delete the articles (meaning an RFC would be a waste of time), his continued and long-term abuse of the delete function and that there is no other process of reviewing administrator actions I offer this to the committee.

@ Carcharoth - This is not a content issue (the subject matter is an irrelevancy), this is an administrator deleting articles because they conflict with their point of view (see the diff above). It would be a difficult situation if any administrator was permitted to delete any articles they wish with the only recourse to be DRV.

@ Vassyana - The only thing I can see coming out of an RFC is an assurance he will stop deleting articles like this, SemB already provided this and then continued along the same track. I therefore fail to see what an RFC would accomplish.

@ FayssalF - Good faith was assumed at this point and the issue dropped. However, SemB went against what he said he would do going forward, which is why we are here now. 04:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that the position of Ameliorate! has nothing to do with improvement of wikipedia content (he apparently thinks that the article "Kabourophobia is a persistent fear of crabs" is something to be vigorously defended up to RFA) and is aimed solely against the perceived admin abuse, disregarding the existence of be bold rule. Since his vigilance is impossible to deceive even with my name change, in order to prevent further waste of time of other people I hereby declare that I comply with Ameliorate!'s demands and what is more, I am removing phobia topics from my watchlist.

To all other withchunters and hound dogs with long memory: be it known that I removed myself from all other areas of former conflicts. I would have removed myself from phobia topics earlier if I expected that Ameliorate!'s zeal is so unquenching and sleepless (he even came back from being retired in order to give me a beating). Until now the creators of phobia pseudo-articles used to be gone without trace. - 7-bubёn >t 17:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to "Comment" by Jayvdb

I am aware of my limitations, related to my age and the corresponding state of my brain. Therefore, as I explained above, last year I radically changed my edit pattern: I removed myself from all heated topics and limited any admin activity, to limit my involvement in any interpersonal conflicts, which mightlead to disruption of wikipedia from my part in any perceived form. I didn't recognize the last piece of conflict left, in which I got emotionally involved: the topic of fake phobias. Now I stated remove myself from it. This is my planned way of behavior: whenever I am to enter in a possible conflict, I am to remove myself from the topic, recognizing that I am not "the last man standing" in defense of wikipedia content or whatever. - 7-bubёn >t 15:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Bakharev

Please don't defend me. OK, I forgot that I promised not to delete these pages: I dont' have a constant focus on some peet peeves: I edit a broad spectrum and big numbers. If Ameliorate! instead of reminding me my promise decided to punch me in the nose with a big gun, so be it. If arbcom decides that I am rogue admin, deleting pages on a whim left and right, well, what can I say? In a way it is a good sign that arbcom does not have an overflow of more serious cases to consider. - 7-bubёn >t 07:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Biophys & Postlethwaite - I clearly stated that last year I decided to disengage from any conflicts. Yet you keep dragging dust covered cases. Can someone notify Romanian, Polish, Russian, Ukrainian wikipedians, as well as pseudoscience editors, user:Jossi and who else? I bet they have some more nasty words to say. - 7-bubёn >t 18

09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (7/3/1/2)[edit]

• Recuse on the phobias issue - took part in ANI thread on the phobias, and gave SemBubenny (Mikkalai at the time) advice on his talk page. Additionally, don't think deletion of phobia articles out of process needs to be dealt with by ArbCom (AfD and DRV should handle content issues like that). If the deletions get regularly overturned, then that would be a problem. Will check back here to see if SemBubenny makes a statement. Carcharoth (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responding to Ameliorate - the majority of your request is focused on the phobia articles (none of which seem to have been undeleted). If you are aware of deletions that SemBubenny has done unilaterally that were later overturned, then please add that to the request. See the comment by bainer for the reasons why the deletion of these dicdefs were probably supported by policy. In addition, see here and here for the argument that these are fake phobia definitions, and that by having these articles in Wikipedia, we are supporting content spamming. Other ways to resolve the phobias issue are to use PROD instead of immediate deletion, or to "assemble a list of any unreference-able phobia stubs and AfD them all at once" (from the ANI thread). Essentially, I agree with SemBubenny here about the phobias, which is why I've recused. For the general "administrator deleting articles" issue, suggest you ask SemBubenny to use (valid) CSD deletion reasons in the deletion logs, or to use PROD tags, or a mass AfD for unreferenced phobia articles. If that fails, a summary motion here requiring SemBubenny to do this, may resolve that issue. Carcharoth (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noting here that this recusal statement was conditional and unclear. Later clarified here. Carcharoth (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. At the current time, I am leaning strongly towards declining this request. An RfC has not been attempted and I see no indication that SemBubenny would be unresponsive to community feedback. I will wait on further statements before making a final decision. Vassyana (talk) 12:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject at this time. There are two issues here. The first is that SemBubenny is not going to be winning any awards for congeniality; his communications skills could do with some improvement. The second is the propriety of the deletions; looking at the ones linked above, and the ones linked from the ANI posting, almost all of them are mere dictionary definitions, which don't really count as proper stubs (and are thus eligible for speedy deletion, criterion A3 I believe) and quite a few had sourcing problems. There are deletion debates for some of these pages and the results seem to back up SemBubenny's deletions, save for those that have been expanded beyond mere dicdefs. Neither of these issues are suited to arbitration. The former (save perhaps more evidence being presented here) is something for RFC. As for the latter, as indicated it's my understanding that policy supports deletions of mere dicdefs, so if that's something people here want to change they should raise that at the appropriate policy page. --bainer (talk) 13:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The claims of admin abuse coupled with behavior shown in the diffs, especially problems in communicating with an admin, really concern me. I'd like to see more hard evidence at along this line. It is crucial that admins communicate when concerns are brought to them about their actions. As for the phobia articles themselves, which is a separate issue, I checked "Papaphobia" and it is in Webster's online, so that to me is a valid phobia. I also checked "Kabourophobia" and it is not in Webster's online, so that one is questionable. However, as my colleagues have stated, what to do with the articles themselves is a community issue and they offer good advice on this, so I reject hearing that issue. As for the admin abuse issue, I await more info. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept in line with my earlier statement. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept to look at conduct of parties, though note that there will be no rulings on content. Wizardman 21:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept per Wizardman. We can help here better than the Community can, I think. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I continue to prefer to open a case. I think we need to make our thoughts about the matter official, and I don't think a motion should be used in this instance, so that leaves us to handle the situation with a full case. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. I'm not certain, but I think there may be an issue here which we should look into. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. SemBubenny, you have said you will "comply with Ameliorate!'s demands" — could you please clarify what changes you will make going forward? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Decline. SemBubenny has agreed to discontinue the administrative actions that prompted this request; this self-imposed remedy to the problem is ideal. I appreciate that SemBubenny did indicate at ANI that a prior action wasnt ideal and yet performed a similar action after that, however if the self imposed remedy provided here is broken in the future, I expect that it would be hastily accepted at RFAR. If a different problematic use of admin tools is encountered, RFC is strongly recommended unless it is an emergency, as explained by Vassyana. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept per Wizardman. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Other methods are unlikely to resolve this. Cool Hand Luke 01:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept; I agree there are worrying behavior issues, and I concur with my colleagues that the propriety of the various articles can be entirely handled by the community and will not be examined. — Coren ^(talk) 01:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Hold temporarily pending additional input per John Vandenberg. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline SemBubenny is stating that he'd be stepping back and communicates his planned way of behavior. I assume good faith and believe in what he's saying though I feel it is necessary to remind him that emotions —as explained by him above— should never affect the way of involvement or admin actions. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Decorum[edit]

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.

Passed 16 to 0, 19:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Administrators[edit]

2) 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.

Passed 16 to 0, 19:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Administrator communications[edit]

3) Administrators are expected to provide timely and civil explanations for their actions. All administrator 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.

Passed 16 to 0, 19:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Administrator judgment on issue selection[edit]

4) 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.

Passed 16 to 0, 19:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion policy[edit]

5)(A) 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.

Passed 16 to 0, 19:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

(B) Whenever an administrator deletes a page, he or she must specify the reason for doing so. Deletion can easily discourage editors, especially new editors, so they should be able to understand from the deletion summary why their page was deleted.

Passed 16 to 0 19:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

SemBubenny[edit]

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.

Passed 14 to 1 (with 1 abstain), 19:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

SemBubenny's communications[edit]

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. ([1], [2])

Passed 14 to 1 (with 1 abstain), 19:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

SemBubenny's deletions[edit]

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. ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7])

Passed 15 to 0 (with 1 abstain), 19:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

SemBubenny's response to criticism of the deletions[edit]

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. ([8], [9], [10]) However, more recently, in his statement in response to the request for arbitration, 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.

Passed 13 to 1 (with 2 abstains), 19:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

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.

SemBubenny admonished and warned[edit]

1.4) SemBubenny is thanked for his many contributions to the project, but is strongly 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.

SemBebenny is warned that any continuation of the problematic behavior in which he previously engaged, such as a pattern of improper or unexplained deletions or refusals to communicate with editors concerning his administrator actions, is likely to lead to the revocation or suspension of his administrator status without further warnings.

Passed 15 to 0 (with 1 abstain), 19:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Jurisdiction retained[edit]

2) As in any arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee retains jurisdiction over this matter. In the event that there are further serious problems involving SemBubenny's administrator conduct or communications despite the urgings and warnings contained in this decision, a request to reopen the case may be made at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. If necessary, this may lead to the suspension or revocation of SemBubbeny's administrator privileges.

Passed 10 to 5 (with 1 abstain), 19:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Enforcement by desysop[edit]

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

Passed 10 to 2 (with 3 abstains), 19:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Log any block, restriction, 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.