43:. It is possible to AfD a group of articles at once if the arguments for deletion and the subject matter are closely related. This may be more efficient than arguing about speedy deletions. If there are a few tendentious accounts that habitually object to valid speedy deletes, they should be dealt with under the
405:
a bureaucracy. If SemBubenny's judgment regarding deleting oddball articles is correct -- and this does appear to be the case --, there is really no need to go through the motions of a full AFD or even PROD just to keep some proceduralists happy. Of course, if there may be reasonable suspicion as
113:
The ANI thread that
Ameliorate! cited is pretty community-feedback-y imho and several users there agreed that those deletions were incorrect and he should stop doing them. I have to agree with the filing party that an RfC will probably yield the same responses (and SemBubenny ignored the community's
282:
I think
Mikkalai was wrong blankly using IAR in the case of marginaly notable phobias. There was no pressing need to disregard our criteria of speedy deletion in this case. Many phobia-related articles are hopeless not-notable neologisms or dictionary definitions (fear of number 283, fear of three
203:
So you are saying that SemBubenny acted correctly because you experienced it before that a page was kept at AfD? Doesn't that prove that sometimes pages that look like clear cut deletions are in fact worthy of inclusion? And since when are more than 250 (or even one) deletions outside policy a
286:
On the other hand, the dispute seems to be already resolved: Mikkalai accepted that he was not correct and promised not to delete the phobia-related articles out of process again. I do not see any possible good of further arbcom processing. The dispute is already solved, why fix it again?
339:. Having to go through process to delete odd-ball articles (as suggested by Alex like fear of number 283, fear of three oranges, fear of giant octopuses from outer space, etc), particularly if these articles are defended, would be a depressing exercise. Seems kind of perverse to proclaim
61:
As far as I can see by SemBubenny's reaction, he does defend that those articles he deleted are not encyclopedic. But I think why
Ameliorate! opened this case was not the question about whether those articles should be deleted or not, but on the way SemBubenny did it, citing
86:
citing "silly article" as a reason, I doubt anyone would doubt that this were abuse. Just because the articles he deleted are less "important", does not mean the deletions are okay, does it? So I think an ArbCom ruling as to if and if so, how far
283:
oranges, fear of giant octopuses from outer space, etc.) Still all those articles are harmless and some of them have potential to be extended into normal wikiarticles. Thus, some collective decisions via prods or afds were much better.
343:
official policy, then kick someone butt for following it. SemBubenny already stated he was going to cease and desist, so at most the ArbCom should hold him to his word. Seems like an open and shut case in my view.
310:). The committee then thought it was just simple burnout, but this has obviously continued over nearly a year. Regardless of the cause, the conduct of Mikkalai isn't compatible with that of an administrator.
363:
Knowledge (XXG) has problems with hoaxes, extremely non-notable stuff or just complete rubbish being posted here. Following all the usual procedures might sometimes give no result, as I've experienced
176:
I think Ryan's last comment indicates that SemBubenny has not honored a similar promise in the past, so I don't understand, why we should assume that he will know. Also, he promises not to delete
255:
I find the edits of
Byophys contain a POV on many isssues, and this user is really engaged in continuous edit wars over many articles, generally not showing much good will to resolve conflicts.
78:
does in fact constitute an abuse of admin privileges. The problem I see is not those articles, it's the fact that SemBubenny repeatedly ignored all appeals to not delete articles outside the
66:
as a reason to ignore speedy deletion criteria. As it is within ArbCom's authority, I think the question that should be answered by the
Arbitrators is whether ignoring a policy like
91:
can be ignored by admins would be helpful, not only in this case but in further cases where admin's decide to ignore the criteria and just delete things.
306:
This should certainly be accepted. There's been problems with
Mikkalai's conduct for months now. I actually filed a request for arbitration last March (
17:
228:
I must admit that
Mikkalai is a difficult user who constantly removes a lot of valid content, no matter how well it was sourced (
406:
for appropriateness of deletion -- which does not appear to be the case, a standard deletion procedure is the way to go, but
364:
47:. You can leave evidence on my talk page if you want me to review such accounts. I see nothing arbitratable here.
418:
391:
353:
321:
296:
264:
241:
217:
193:
166:
127:
104:
51:
367:
312:
292:
275:
372:. As SemBubenny has agreed to avoid such unilateral moves in the future, there's no reason to start an
237:
410:
260:
233:
32:
414:
349:
288:
271:
71:
63:
36:
385:
402:
340:
336:
332:
180:
pages (i.e. phobia-related) but the problem seems to be deletion out of policy in general.
150:
146:
137:
Actually, policy does not allow deletion of dictionary definitions unless transwikied (see
88:
79:
75:
67:
40:
211:
187:
160:
121:
98:
142:
138:
44:
256:
48:
345:
83:
377:
206:
182:
155:
116:
93:
31:
Suggestion: if you think an article might be borderline for
409:
procedure for procedure's sake makes a terrible policy.
370:
307:
229:
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Requests for arbitration
8:
173:@ FayssalF / John Vandenberg / Alex Bakharev
82:and yet continued to do so. If he deleted
145:though because all reasons derived from
114:response to stop it on ANI as well).
7:
39:can be tried first, falling back to
335:is official policy too, just like
24:
1:
376:for such a trivial matter. --
302:Comment by Ryan Postlethwaite
141:). They are never covered by
419:07:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
392:10:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
354:06:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
322:14:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
297:04:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
265:00:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
242:02:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
232:), without any explanations.
218:11:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
194:14:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
167:21:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
128:21:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
105:21:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
52:15:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
45:disruptive editing guideline
434:
382:and his crime-fighting dog
149:are explicitly listed at
27:Statement by Jehochman
230:please see an example
247:Comment by FeelSunny
401:Knowledge (XXG) is
397:Comment by Digwuren
327:Comment by Martintg
151:WP:CSD#Non-criteria
388:
381:
224:Comment by Biophys
70:citing reasons of
57:Statement by SoWhy
386:
379:
359:Comment by Miacek
425:
318:
315:
214:
209:
204:trivial matter?
190:
185:
163:
158:
124:
119:
101:
96:
433:
432:
428:
427:
426:
424:
423:
422:
417:
399:
361:
329:
316:
313:
304:
280:
249:
226:
212:
207:
188:
183:
161:
156:
122:
117:
99:
94:
84:Knowledge (XXG)
80:deletion policy
59:
33:speedy deletion
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
431:
429:
413:
398:
395:
360:
357:
328:
325:
303:
300:
279:
268:
248:
245:
225:
222:
221:
220:
201:
197:
196:
174:
170:
169:
135:
131:
130:
111:
58:
55:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
430:
421:
420:
416:
412:
407:
404:
396:
394:
393:
389:
383:
375:
371:
368:
365:
358:
356:
355:
351:
347:
342:
338:
334:
326:
324:
323:
320:
319:
317:Postlethwaite
309:
301:
299:
298:
294:
290:
289:Alex Bakharev
284:
277:
273:
272:Alex Bakharev
269:
267:
266:
262:
258:
254:
246:
244:
243:
239:
235:
231:
223:
219:
216:
215:
210:
202:
199:
198:
195:
192:
191:
186:
179:
175:
172:
171:
168:
165:
164:
159:
152:
148:
144:
140:
136:
133:
132:
129:
126:
125:
120:
112:
109:
108:
107:
106:
103:
102:
97:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
65:
56:
54:
53:
50:
46:
42:
38:
34:
26:
19:
408:
400:
373:
362:
330:
311:
305:
285:
281:
252:
250:
227:
205:
181:
177:
154:
115:
92:
60:
30:
374:arbitration
270:Comment by
331:Note that
153:. Regards
110:@ Vassyana
308:seen here
257:FeelSunny
49:Jehochman
411:Διγουρεν
346:Martintg
200:@ Miacek
134:@ bainer
415:Εμπρος!
253:Biophys
234:Biophys
72:WP:BOLD
64:WP:BOLD
37:WP:PROD
403:WP:NOT
380:Miacek
341:WP:IAR
337:WP:CSD
333:WP:IAR
147:WP:NOT
89:WP:CSD
76:WP:IAR
68:WP:CSD
41:WP:AfD
387:woof!
178:these
16:<
378:Pan
350:talk
314:Ryan
293:talk
276:talk
261:talk
238:talk
213:Why
189:Why
162:Why
123:Why
100:Why
74:or
390:)
369:,
366:,
352:)
295:)
263:)
240:)
208:So
184:So
157:So
143:A3
139:A5
118:So
95:So
35:,
384:(
348:(
291:(
278:)
274:(
259:(
251:@
236:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.