Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SemBubenny/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. 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. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the Clerks' noticeboard. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method.

For this case, there are 16 active Arbitrators, so 9 votes are a majority.

Proposed motions[edit]

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

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[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

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.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 05:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Risker (talk) 06:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill [pf] 11:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Although some of the items on the list in the second sentence are not relevant in this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Basic. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 21:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Vassyana (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Cool Hand Luke 17:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Carcharoth (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. bainer (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

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.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 05:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Risker (talk) 06:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill [pf] 11:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 21:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Vassyana (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Cool Hand Luke 17:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Carcharoth (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. bainer (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

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.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 05:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Risker (talk) 06:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill [pf] 11:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. As this is a general principle it is as well to observe that it doesn't mean that belligerent users can make vexatious and frivolous requests for administrators to explain routine and non-controversial actions, and demand answers. 'Promptly' is judged with an understanding of the administrator's availability and we do not have to wait indefinitely for a reply before reversing an action which is considered mistaken. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This wording is standard from prior cases, but I'd be glad to have "reasonably" inserted before before "promptly" if that would address your concern. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 21:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Vassyana (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. If administrators cannot reply to questions, they should not be using administrative functions, period. Cool Hand Luke 17:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Carcharoth (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. bainer (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

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.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 05:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Risker (talk) 06:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill [pf] 11:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 21:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Vassyana (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Cool Hand Luke 17:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Carcharoth (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. bainer (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

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.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 05:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Risker (talk) 06:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill [pf] 11:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 21:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Vassyana (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Cool Hand Luke 17:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Carcharoth (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. There are always grey areas. --bainer (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

(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.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 05:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It can be discouraging to all editors. Risker (talk) 06:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill [pf] 11:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I have done some minor copyediting here, e.g. adding "especially" per Risker; others, please make sure this is okay. (I didn't think the changes were sufficient to warrant formally listing as an alternative proposal, but tell me if I'm wrong.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. This, and genuine responsiveness to inquiries about the deletion, are absolute requirements. — Coren (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 21:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. --ROGER DAVIES talk 23:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Vassyana (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. If the reason is not obvious (I would not begrudge an admin for deleting his or her own user pages—obviously at their own request). Cool Hand Luke 17:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Carcharoth (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. bainer (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

6) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

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.

Support:
  1. Not a fan of positive FoFs, but it goes put the case in perspective, so proposed. Wizardman 05:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As background. Kirill [pf] 11:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I think it's significant to know whom we are talking about, particularly in a case focused primarily on the actions of a single individual. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree with Kirill and Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. As background. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I am, in general, opposed to such declarations of appreciation; in this particular case, however, placing the other findings in context (especially given the rename that obscures some details) is more important. — Coren (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Perspective is important, and framing the problem among the positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Worth stating in a case such as this. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Okay, as context. --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 21:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Vassyana (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Although I'm not sure what we mean by "dedication." Some deservedly banned users were also dedicated. Cool Hand Luke 17:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Carcharoth (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per Rlevse, and per my voting on such proposals in the past. --bainer (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Not a fan of these rulings. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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])

Support:
  1. Wizardman 05:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [pf] 11:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Risker (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 21:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Vassyana (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Cool Hand Luke 17:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Not sure there was sufficient evidence presented here to show any kind of pattern, although in the first example given none of the queries seems to have been replied to, and blanking is indeed poor form. --bainer (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See additional diffs cited by Ameliorate! on the talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Blanking of talk page posts about non-admin matters may be rude, but is not actionable. The first diff does not make clear what questions about his admin actions he is blanking. The notification of the request for arbitration is technically not a direct question requiring a direct response. The second diff is more troubling, but seems to be in the past now (it was over a year ago). Carcharoth (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See comment above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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])

Support:
  1. Wizardman 05:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [pf] 11:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Risker (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 21:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Vassyana (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Cool Hand Luke 17:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. It's arguable whether the deletions were within policy or not, but of course it is incumbent on an admin being bold and acting in a grey area to be flawless in their explanation and communication, above and beyond normal standards. --bainer (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Abstain per RFAR statement. Carcharoth (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 05:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [pf] 11:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Link added. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Risker (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Coren (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. In his most recent comment, SemBubenny says he changed behaviour in the new year and coincident with his name change. However, the arbitration was filed after a further '-phobia' deletion in late January, and he has continued to delete talk comments. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per Sam, --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 21:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Agree with FloNight to the extent that these statements do not boost my confidence as much as this FoF would suggest. That said, it is true he has stopped. If we're concerned about missing Flo's nuance, we could add another FoF noting apparent civility issues. Cool Hand Luke 17:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. bainer (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Move to oppose. While true on its face, this Fof does not accurately capture the nature of his statement to arbcom. In the statement, I find his comments about other users that criticized him to be demeaning towards them and otherwise not the type of insightful comment that warrants highlighting as an indication that he that he will be follow core policy (deletion, NPA, civility, ...). FloNight♥♥♥ 18:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Needs a diff to support the statement that SemBubenny agreed to discontinue his practice of speedily deleting phobia-related articles as this is a key factor in determining whether to give a warning or desysop. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Change to oppose. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Link added. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. FloNight's oppose rationale gives me pause. Vassyana (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Abstain per RFAR statement. Carcharoth (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

5) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed remedies[edit]

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 urged[edit]

1) SemBubenny is thanked for his many contributions to the project but is strongly urged:

(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.
Support:
  1. Second choice, proposed. Wizardman 05:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Now first choice to create a consensus. Wizardman 14:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Second choice. It really shouldn't take an open arbitration case and the threat of desysopping to get an admin to communicate. Kirill [pf] 11:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    2nd choice — Rlevse • Talk • 12:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First (and for me only) choice, accompanied by remedy 2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC) This is still my first choice, although I now have a second choice (1.3) as a fall-back or compromise position. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Now equal choice with 1.4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    First choice. Risker (talk) 14:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Reconsidering after further review. This is now my second choice. Risker (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Third choice, now that additional options have been developed. Risker (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Dropping this choice in favour of 1.4. Risker (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Second choice. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Move to oppose. Prefer other alternatives. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As a second choice. — Coren (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (changed to oppose, see below) — Coren (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. this is final warning. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First preference. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Newyorkbrad. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 21:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. First and only choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. First choice (of two choices supported). Second choice (of three choices supported). Given SemBubenny's statement here, I am prepared to make this a final warning, per Casliber. Should be a win-win situation, as if he changes his behaviour, the good admin work recognised in the finding of facts continues, and if he continues the problematic behaviour, it will be relatively swift and painless to desysop by motion with little damage done. Carcharoth (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Updated: 02:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I would prefer this be framed as an admonishment, but at this late stage I will not propose an alternative. The companion remedies underline the point more or less satisfactorily. --bainer (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When I drafted this on the workshop, I queried whether "urged" or "admonished" or some other verb would be best, and this was Wizardman's choice when he proposed the decision. I would be glad to see it changed to "admonished" or even "strongly admonished" if that would strengthen the support for this proposal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe it is too late and I would support such an alternative. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 19:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. 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.

    Sadly, the repeated attempts by a large number of people to raise his attention to the serious concern expressed, including this very committee, do not seem to have had a positive effect and I am unconvinced that a warning will sufice anymore. Having the admin bit is, and must remain, contingent on community trust and, while the occasional error is entirely compatible with this, an attitude dismissive of legitimate worries and requests to alter behavior is not. — Coren (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Prefer other alternatives. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Prefer 1.1 after most recent comments. Kirill [pf] 19:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. He's had plenty of warnings. Cool Hand Luke 17:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Prefer other options. – Roger Davies talk 12:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. My opinion is divided. Vassyana (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I not as close to opposed to this as I am to the temp. desysops, and an inkling of good faith leads me to just abstaining. Don't feel right remaining a supporter though. Wizardman 18:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SemBubenny desysopped[edit]

1.1) SemBubenny's administrative privileges are revoked. He may apply to have them reinstated at any time, either through the usual means or by appeal to the Committee.

Support:
  1. First choice. Kirill [pf] 11:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice. But sorry it came to this. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. A clear cut example of an admin repeatedly deleting encyclopedia content outside of policy. He was given feedback about the problem and he ignored the concern. This is not an example of interpersonal conflicts between users but rather a clear cut case of an admin deleting content based on their personal views of the material. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I wasn't sure at first, since it may come across as harsh. However, it is time that the sysop buttons are no longer on a pedestal. If an admin does not use them properly, they should be removed without much drama, even though they may do good/great work elsewhere. (First choice after further thought) Wizardman 16:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (Putting my old clerk hat on.) When voting to support both of two alternatives, such as warning vs. desysopping, each arbitrator should indicate first and second choice, if he or she has a preference. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Previous refusals to listen to expressed concerns have sufficiently eroded community trust to make retaining administrative tools untenable. While SemBubenny has shown a desire to return to behavior more acceptable to the community, it should be the community's choice to return the bit. I should add, however, that there is no prejudice against a future — or even immediate — RfA beyond that afforded to any other candidate. — Coren (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (Now second choice in favor of 1.2 below) — Coren (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking off in favor of 1.2, which appears more likely to reach consensus. — Coren (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    First choice, per FloNight and Wizardman. Risker (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Now second choice. Risker (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Dropping this choice in favour of 1.4. Risker (talk) 02:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per FloNight and Wizardman, --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. First choice. User has been talked to many times about this behavior. Sysops should not have to be brought before ArbCom in order to obey our policies, and once they're before ArbCom, they shouldn't attack those who brought the case. If user has changed, SemBubenny can seek RfA. Cool Hand Luke 17:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Too harsh at this stage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    SemBubenny had his warning when the community raised the issue with him. They do not have the ability to desysop. It is up to us to do it. He can ask for the tools by by RFA after an appropriate period of time. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The administrator has stated during the presentation of the case that he'd step back from heated debates and possible conflict. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 21:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. per FayssalF. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Brad, too harsh. I am prepared to accept at face value SemBubenny's statement and appeal for clemency made here. I also accept the argument that prior dispute resolution was lacking. An RfC was mooted at one point, but never filed. Carcharoth (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. As I noted above, when acting boldly in a policy grey area it's incumbent on the admin to explain the actions effectively and communicate promptly and properly. Not doing so, as done here, is poor form but in the absence of any prior dispute resolution of substance and in the absence of any resolution of the underlying policy grey area, desysopping at this time is not warranted. --bainer (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. not entirely convinced this isn't overkill at this stage. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Casliber. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Change to oppose. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Casliber. Risker (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Moved to support. Risker (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. My opinion is divided. Vassyana (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SemBubenny suspended[edit]

1.2) SemBubenny is desysopped for a period of six months. After six months, his administrator access will be automatically restored.

Support:
  1. As an alternative to the outright desysop that still addesses concerns with administrative behavior. Now first choice. — Coren (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Third choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Equal to 1.1. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Third choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First choice. Risker (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Second choice now, in favour of 1.4. Risker (talk) 02:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Equal to 1.1. – Roger Davies talk 12:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice (of two choices). Third choice (of three choices supported). Still think that options 1 or 1.4 (the warnings) are best all-round here, but if all else fails, better to have this option passed than no sanction. Carcharoth (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Updated: 02:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Second choice. This is a substantial remedy, and I think it has the best hope of gaining s solid majority of the committee's votes. It sends a clear signal that this user's conduct was unacceptable for an admin, and draws a line in the sand for SemBubenny and future admins. Cool Hand Luke 22:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Third choice - in the interests of forging a consensus here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I strongly oppose temp. desysops in principle. All or nothing. Wizardman 04:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. We can always return the tools at a future date if there is a convincing reason to do so; but automatically returning them is counterproductive, since it doesn't require the admin to demonstrate improved conduct. Kirill [pf] 19:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Too long. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per oppose to 1.1. --bainer (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose time-lapse desysopping. Vassyana (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Too long for someone who has already promised restraint. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 19:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Too long. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
In general, I think suspensions do serve a purpose, but here I am not so sure; I may be swayed if everyone feels this is a good way to go. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could go for this one if it would be a consensus choice, but I would rather not have an automatic date of return. Cool Hand Luke 17:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Switch to support. A convincing majority is more important than the remedy I think it strictly most appropriate. Cool Hand Luke 22:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SemBubenny suspended[edit]

1.3) SemBubenny's administrator privileges are suspended for a period of 30 days.

Support:
  1. Support as second choice. I believe that remedies 1 and 2 are sufficient, but this might be a reasonable alternative to either a warning/urging/admonition, which the majority feels is too lenient, or desysopping, which many feel is too harsh. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Distant second choice behind 1.1 or 1.2 (which I support equally). I don't think that a 30 day break is long enough. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fourth choice, not persuaded this would be any more effective than the stern warning in #1. Risker (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Dropping this option in favour of 1.4. Risker (talk) 02:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Distant second choice, was opposed to desysop per se, but I would concede this as an adequate concrete expression of admonishment. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice if 1 doesn't pass. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 19:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I strongly oppose temp. desysops in principle. All or nothing. Wizardman 04:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As in 1.2. Kirill [pf] 19:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per Kirill's rationale at 1.2. We can restore the bit if the circumstances compel it. They don't now. RfA is also always open. Cool Hand Luke 17:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Ineffectual remedy that accomplishes little. Carcharoth (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Too weak to serve any real purpose. Either we sanction, or we give a final warning, but this lies uncomfortably between the two without successfully being either. — Coren (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per oppose to 1.1. I also agree with Coren that if desysopping were warranted, this would be inadequate. --bainer (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose time-lapse desysopping. Vassyana (talk) 01:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. – Roger Davies talk 12:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

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.

Support:
  1. Support as first choice (equal with 1) in a search for consensus and resolution. Obviously we have unanimous agreement among the arbitrators as to what the problem is and that it has been a significant one, but we are badly splintered on the remedy, as between urging improved behavior at one extreme and desysopping SemBubenny on the other—but with some members opposed in principle to the obvious intermediate options. This proposal, with a stronger verb as discussed in 1 above and with the last sentence added, is offered in an effort to break the logjam. (Arbitrators, if supporting in any fashion, please indicate "first choice" or whatever.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Equal preference with #1; a suitable compromise proposal. --bainer (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice. Wizardman 02:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First choice (of three choices supported). Carcharoth (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Not fond of this but if it breaks the logjam I'll support it. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Equal first choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Second choice. Kirill [pf] 02:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. First choice per Stephen Bain. Risker (talk) 02:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Vassyana (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Second choice; but I think this is an adequately stern admonition given the circumstances. — Coren (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Second choice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. He really ought to be restricted to deleting only CSD-compliant articles; I'm not comfortable about the wriggle room that (A) provides but I will support this per Rlevse. – Roger Davies talk 08:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Equal preferance to 1. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Second choice (equal to 1.3) FloNight♥♥♥ 11:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Per Newyorkbrad and others (equal to 1). -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. I hope this draws a boundary: any worse than this will result in desysop. Cool Hand Luke 02:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Support:
  1. Coupled with remedy 1 (obviously, not applicable if 1.1 is passed instead), and in lieu of enforcement 1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Would this be conditional with remedy 1 passing? Tiptoety talk 18:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. True, though moot if 1.1 passes. Wizardman 16:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, conditional on remedy 1 passing over 1.1. — Coren (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Presumptive of desysop not occurring now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. We always retain jurisdiction but an explicit reminder in relevant cases can be helpful. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Though this should be obvious. Kirill [pf] 23:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per Newyorkbrad. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 21:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. This is always true, but it bears emphasising here as support to remedy 1. --bainer (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. We always retain jurisdiction over our cases so this is not needed in that regard. The point of this is to give the impression that we will desysop later if problems arise again so we will not seem to be giving an admin a pass for poor conduct. As far as I'm concerned, SemBubenny already had his chance to modify his conduct. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per FloNight, --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I disagree with the premise that the committee retains jurisdiction over any matter, as stated in the first phrase. We do have a form of jurisdiction over any desysopping, since no other desysop method has gained acceptance within the community, however stewards are also expected to desysop if they believe the circumstances demand it. If the community adopts a new community driven desysop method, they should not be compelled to return to RFAR unless there is private aspects of the case. If private evidence is a factor, we should say so in an FoF, if only in an abstract way like "private evidence was taken into account to reach this decision." John Vandenberg (chat) 02:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per John. Vassyana (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Agree with John, but my vote here does not preclude the possibility of desysopping by motion. Per Flo, I think we retain that jurisdiction anyway. Carcharoth (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Agree with Flo's reasoning. I support if and only if remedy 1.1 is not adopted by the committee. Cool Hand Luke 17:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement[edit]

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.

Support:
  1. A warning of any sort needs something in place to back it up, which is where this comes in. Proposed. Wizardman 05:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [pf] 11:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice; remedy 2 proposed in lieu. Statements of the committee's future authority (as opposed to action that may be taken on Arbitration Enforcement) have typically come in the form of remedies. Also, further action may be taken by the committee if there are further problems involving inappropriate deletion or refusal to properly communicate with users, not just relating to the narrow issue of deletion of phobia articles. (In any event, this is moot if remedy 1.1 is adopted instead of 1.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. conditional on desysop not happening now, which would be preferable here. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice per Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 14:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Presumptive of desysop not occurring now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Conditional on the case not closing with an immediate desysop. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 21:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Per vote on remedy 2. --bainer (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Prefer desysop by ArbCom now. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per FloNight, --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. As I've abstained on the desysop and warning measures. Vassyana (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support if and only if 1.1 is not adopted (accord FloNight). Cool Hand Luke 17:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Abstain per RFAR statement. Carcharoth (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

  • Due to the close nature of the voting, I would like to make my conflicted feelings a bit more clear. I feel that SemBunny has acted outside the bounds of acceptable administrator behavior and has communicated poorly. I am generally a supporter of more easily removing the admin bit when administrators cross the line. However, I am also inclined to extend good faith that he will endeavor to avoid situations where he will act in such a fashion. It also seems that at least some of the failures to communicate as a two-way street, with people failing to try and address the matter by having a civil conversation with SemBunny. He has indicated that he will be responsive to politely raised concerns and civil reminders if he is crossing the bounds. Due to all this, I simultaneously feel that admonishment is too light and desyopping too harsh. I oppose "time out" (temporary) desysopping, so that is not a viable middle ground for me. If I could find reassurance that he would be certain to follow his self-imposed restriction or that he would be very likely to continue disruptively using the bit, I would come down one way or the other. In the absence of such evidence, my divided opinion causes me to abstain from those measures. Vassyana (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close[edit]

Implementation notes[edit]

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.

  • As of 02:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC):
  • All proposed principles are passing;
  • All proposed findings of fact are passing;
  • Remedies:
  • 1 is not passing
  • 1.1 is not passing
  • 1.2 is not passing
  • 1.3 is not passing
  • 1.4 is passing
  • 2 is passing
  • The one proposed enforcement is passing
Tiptoety talk
With additional remedies now proposed, it will take a little more time to sort out first and second choice, etc. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1.1 has the greatest absolute support, and is explicitly marked as first choice by many arbs (and second by some to 1.2 or 1.3 which no not appear likely to pass). Please double check the math, however. — Coren (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 appears to be the consensus choice based on first choice numbers and the like, though it's still rather narrow. Wizardman 18:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remedy 1.4 now passes and supersedes the other remedies in the 1 series. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will be closing this case now as all the Arbs have voted on 1.4, and 13 have voted to close. Tiptoety talk 19:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vote[edit]

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.

The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast,
depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

  1. Close upon thinking about it, maybe the last proposal that is two short of passing is moot anyway, so I am happy to close. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Close. Kirill [pf] 18:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Close Risker (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. After all this there's only 1 action remedy passing, so close. Wizardman 19:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Close; while the committee is divided in how to best move forward, it now appears unlikely that remedy 1.2 or 1.3 will overtake 1.1. — Coren (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Close. Barring a sudden change of mind by a significant number of arbitrators, the decision has been made. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me that a single vote could shift the preference of remedies. Cool Hand Luke 21:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Close. Brad's proposal, 1.4, has already passed the others, let's close this with that remedy passing out of that set. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Ok, now we're done. Cool Hand Luke 04:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Technically (at time of writing) remedy 1 still passes due to the abstention, but it is clear that remedy 1.4 has overwhelming support, so per Randy and CHL, close. Carcharoth (talk) 09:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Close. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Close 24 hours from now, or immediately once all arbitrators have voted on remedy 1.4, whichever is first. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. close. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Oppose close for now. Five arbs state a preference for a desysop with 3 abstaining and lowering the majority to 7; four arbs state a preference for a warning with the rest voting to support as an acceptable alternative. With more arbs voting a true preference could be made clear rather than a compromise decision so I prefer to wait for more arbs to vote. The case has only been open for a short period of time compared so I do not think it should be a problem to wait a bit longer. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC) FloNight♥♥♥ 11:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose temporarily per FloNight. Even though my preferred result would prevail if we closed immediately, the case duration is still within reasonable limits, so we should allow time for the remaining arbitrators to vote. SemBubenny also made a statement yesterday on the evidence page, which some arbitrators might find relevant. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support closure in hopefully 24-48 hours after the remaining arbitrators have weighed in on the new proposals. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until remedy 1.2 has been considered. — Coren (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
#Whoa, oppose. It's not even clear what the result is. I think a little bit more talk would be beneficial. Cool Hand Luke 19:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/SemBubenny/Proposed_decision&oldid=1142507296"