Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/SemBubenny/Evidence

Questions
Some of the numerous articles deleted by SemBubenny look like garbage, but others do not. Is any way to look at the original articles? Could someone undelete all these articles and perhaps nominate them for normal deletion. Then one can really judge the problem.
 * Another question. Do I understand correctly that Mikkalai also deleted a lot of other articles (not only "phobia" articles) without proper AfD procedure: ? Biophys (talk) 06:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If the deleted material was deleted due to lack of notability, then it should be fine to show. Just as long as anything that would be controversial is sent privately, which -phobia stuff shouldn't be. Wizardman  04:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that undeleting the articles in question would be a acceptable course of action? Tiptoety  talk 05:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a little trickier. Would the reason for undeletion be to get an idea of what was being deleted? Wizardman  04:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. We have no idea what has been deleted, apparently without due process. It would be great to look at the articles. But perhaps he improperly deleted not only "phobia" articles, but some others? I also have another concern. If he did not respect deletion policies, how can we trust his decisions as a closing administrator during normal AfDs? I guess all those articles should be too undeleted, looked at, and perhaps go through a normal deletion process again?Biophys (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As the case clerk, I am willing to create a subpage with a copy of all the deleted articles if it is wished. (It may take me a few days though). Tiptoety  talk 15:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Then people could look at them and comment. I am not sure if all of them are "phobia" articles.Biophys (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

←Requests for arbitration/SemBubenny/Evidence/Deleted articles There are some of them. I do not have time to do them all today, but will keep working on it. Tiptoety talk 01:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This will certainly clarify the issues for anyone who wants to comment. I can not comment much in this case because this user knows who I am in real life and he gave me several coded warnings not to be involved.Biophys (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this needs some clarification. I do not want to comment about certain Russian users because I was an object of their attention from the day one in wikipedia. Wikistalking, threats ,  outing , defamation , "a slap to the face" , an offer to cooperate with Russian government , blocking other users who collaborated with me , and only rarely an open and honest debate ... That's enough.Biophys (talk)
 * I provided a few diffs in Evidence, merely to justify and explain my first comment during this case.Biophys (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)