Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/SemBubenny/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try purging the cache.

Would FloNight and the other arbitrators consider a 6 month desysop for Mikka? Or at least consider a proposal where the ArbCom retains the power to resysop? He is very very experienced admin and, though admittedly a bit rough around the edges, irreplacable in some of the areas he works. He has no chance of passing a future RfA however, and because of this permanently desysopping threatens a permanent loss. There is nothing after all to lose with keeping the matter within ArbCom discretion, surely? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your suggestion is that I am "irreplaceable" in the areas where no one really cares. The Uncatchable Joe thing, you know. "Wikipedia Community" will not see any change: it sees me only when I occasionally piss somebody off. Once I attended a wikipedia meetup I felt extremely humiliated when I was recognized only "You are #6 in edit count or something, aren't you?". The guy thought he is praising me, but my reaction was to initiate this. - 7-bubёn >t 20:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the legitimate concerns that have been raised, I oppose desysopping SemBubenny at this stage. That being said, the desysopping remedy that may pass provides, "SemBubenny's administrative privileges are revoked. He may apply to have them reinstated at any time, either through the usual means [a new RfA] or by appeal to the Committee." (Emphasis added.) There are prior instances in which the Committee has agreed to re-confer adminship on an administrator after concerns that had previously led to revocation of adminship had been addressed and some time had elapsed. I cannot, of course, predict whether such an appeal might be sustained in this instance, but FYI FWIW. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I planned to take away my oppose vote to close but I'll wait for now to see if someone wants to add an alternative remedy. I think a break for the admin tools is best for all involved at this time. Personally, I would be willing to review the situation at a later time and reinstate the tools if SemBubenny wanted the tools back. Recently, several desysopped users regained their tools through RFA so I don't think that option should be ruled out either. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about the motion re SlimVirgin remedy:

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

Here we get the break Flo feels is necessary, while NYB's harshness concern may also be addressed. This needn't prohibit btw the imposition of any resysopping restrictions/conditions, if a motion to that effect is more likely to gain arbitrator support. The wording in the current desysopping motion prejudices regranting ("usual means or"), and must do, otherwise it wouldn't be regarded as lighter than 6 months/other defined period of time (e.g. comments on the two options at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Motion:_re_SlimVirgin#SlimVirgin_desysopped).Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the proposed decision page, where a couple of alternative remedy proposals are now up for voting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The two new versions look like they represent a better center of gravity for arbitrator opinion. The nothing versus all !voting that was going on before (1. versus 1.1) resembled a game of Russian roulette. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in this context, you can say "voting" instead of "!voting". :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm posting here to clarify the statement I made at the RFAR:

"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)"

That recusal was conditional on the case scope remaining restricted to the phobias issue. In retrospect, that was a mistake, as it should have been obvious the scope would be wider than that. What I should have done was declined the case and stated that if accepted I would abstain on any aspects of the case to do with the phobias issue. It is obviously too late to change the case acceptance (and it would likely have been accepted anyway), but I cannot in all conscience stand by on the non-phobias-related issues being decided here, so I am moving myself to active on this case. I should have clarified all this with the case clerk at the point when the case opened. This was a mistake on my part, and I don't intend to make this mistake again. In future, when I may need to abstain on parts (but not all of a case), I will note this at the RFAR and avoid conditional recusals that will only confuse matters. I have examined my recusals on other cases, and those still stand. I have notified my fellow arbitrators of this decision, and I will notify the case clerk and the parties to the case, and will add a note to the original record of the RFAR in these case pages. Carcharoth (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]