Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boothy443

Case Opened on 02:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 16:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

• Jtkiefer (talk · contribs)
• Boothy443 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Aranda56 (talk · contribs)

Requests for comment

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Boothy443

Statement by party 1

Boothy443 has been a long term disruptive influence on Wikipedia. He is repeatedly incivil, he repeatedly does everything in his power to prove a point even if it is only for the purpose of proving a point (i.e. his votes on RFA) and blocks against him thus far have been useless as have been attempts to work with him to change his behavior. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 04:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Aranda56

This is my first time making a statment in a RFAr so I hope I'm doing it right. Boothy443 concerns me dearly. He sometimes does good edits but it looks like he loves getting into controversy and he doesn't mind or care about it. Other users tried to solve that conflict via his talk page and his RFC, but with no success. He had been blocked plenty of times before [1] including indefinitely for mass consent violations including WP:CIVIL,WP:NPA and WP:DICK and I noticed that after he took a one month wikibreak, he came back and quickly mass opposed every candidate who was running [2] for arb-com for no apparent reason. I asked him why on his talk page and he replied [3] rather silly, then quickly entered a edit war and was blocked for a 3RR on Category:Municipalities in Philadelphia County prior to the Act of Consolidation, 1854. I could give you plenty of other examples of policies that Boothy broke, but it would be too long to list. I've come to the conclusion that Boothy443 has violated WP:CIVIL, WP:DICK and countless other policies on purpose, has ignored requests to stop, and it doesn't look like he will stop violating those rules anytime soon. Thank you --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (8/0/1/0)

• Recuse. Dmcdevit·t 05:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Reject, for the time being. Please provide evidence of an on-going dispute. Mackensen (talk) 12:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Changing to accept, based on Epopt's reasoning. Mackensen (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Accept. If Boothy's behaviour is not productive, this is something that we are tasked with looking at. James F. (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Accept, though I'd like to see evidence than is presented here. I don't believe Boothy's voting against all arbitrators is grounds for recusal. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. I realize the RfC was on his admin voting (which I don't find problematic, at least not to the point of making a case out of it) rather than the general pattern of incivility which is the issue at hand, but his response to that and other attempts at dispute resolution suggest another RfC wouldn't be particularly helpful. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Accept — while the evidence here before us is scanty, the log of blocks of Boothy indicates that we should take a good look ➥the Epopt 18:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Accept on the basis of incivility and other questionable behaviour, rather the narrow basis of his admin voting. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 01:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Neutrality^talk 03:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Charles Matthews 11:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Final decision

Principles

Edit warring and the three-revert rule

1) The three-revert rule prohibits editors from reverting an article more than three times in any 24-hour period, except in cases of simple vandalism. This rule should not be construed as an entitlement to three reverts, nor does it endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Passed 8 to 0 at 16:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Civility

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users and to observe Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Wikiquette, Wikipedia:Civility, and Wikipedia:Writers' rules of engagement. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks.

Passed 8 to 0 at 16:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

3) Wikipedia's processes work by consensus, rather than voting. Because of this, though it is not required, it is requested that editors provide reasoning for positions they have taken, such as support or opposition on Requests for adminship, so that those judging the outcome may better make informed decisions.

Passed 8 to 0 at 16:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

4) Editors should not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. (See Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.)

Passed 7 to 1 at 16:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Ban for disruption

5) A user who disrupts editing of an article may be banned from editing that article, In extreme cases they may be banned from the site.

Passed 7 to 0 at 16:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Participation in dispute resolution in good faith

7) Users are required to participate in the give and take of Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures in good faith, especially in the earlier steps of negotiation, consulting sources, and mediation.

Passed 8 to 0 at 16:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Boothy443 makes many valuable contributions

1.1) Boothy443 (talk · contribs) makes a large number of good contributions to articles.

Passed 8 to 0 at 16:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Disruption by Boothy443

2) Boothy443 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been involved in edit warring, violations of 3RR.

Passed 8 to 0 at 16:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Boothy443's attitude of alienation

3) Boothy443 has in a number of ways displayed his alienation with Wikipedia's administrative structure and dispute resolution procedures, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Boothy443/Workshop#Disruption_of_Wikipedia_to_illustrate_a_point, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Boothy443/Workshop#Redirection_to_Sheep_vote, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Boothy443/Workshop#Boothy443.27s_attitude_about_administrators, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Boothy443/Workshop#Failure_of_Boothy443_to_participate_in_dispute_resolution_in_good_faith.

Passed 8 to 0 at 16:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Failure of Boothy443 to participate in dispute resolution in good faith

4) When a request for mediation was made in a matter involving him Boothy443, not only did not join in the request or participate but removed his name as one of the parties involved in the dispute [4].

Passed 8 to 0 at 16:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Remedies

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.

Personal attack parole without a year ban after five blocks

2) Boothy443 is placed on personal attack parole. He may be briefly blocked if he engages in personal attacks for up to a week in the case of repeat violations.

Passed 8 to 0 at 16:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee. Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Log of blocks and bans

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.