Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boothy443/Workshop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

1) Editors should not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. (See Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.) Johnleemk | Talk 10:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. I don't think the arbitrators wanted to focus on the disruption as the main point but I definitely agree that Boothy has countless times disrupted wikipedia to prove his point. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 17:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. I agree with that also, many 3rr and counless opposes with out expalination = Disruption --Jaranda wat's sup 02:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
  1. Agreed, but actually, I'm not sure how disruptive this was. I think it was more annoying and useless than disruptive. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 16:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three-revert rule

2) Editors are expected to abide by the three-revert rule. Not complying with this rule is a rationale for blocking. Editors are also expected to avoid gaming the policy by following the letter but not spirit of the rule. Johnleemk | Talk 10:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. I agree with that also, Boothy got blocked many times because of that --Jaranda wat's sup 02:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
  1. I don't agree with the 3RR on principle, since it gives edit warriors a false sense of bureaucracy. ("ohnoes you can't block me, i made that fourth revert 25 hours after the first!"). But yeah, blatantly edit warring is bad. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 16:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    The policy explicitly forbids this attitude. --Ryan Delaney talk 13:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assume good faith

3) Editors should assume good faith towards other editors. Johnleemk | Talk 10:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  1. ...And they should keep assuming until the person does something block worthy. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 16:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

4) Editors are expected to behave in a civil manner towards other editors. (See Wikipedia:Civility.) Johnleemk | Talk 16:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. Yep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
  1. I agree with Phroziac on this. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 17:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
  1. One of the most important rules on any wiki. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 16:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Indeed, but I get the (I admit, very subjective) impression that it isn't as known as it should be... Lectonar 12:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voting

5) Users voting on an adminship request are encouraged to explain their votes but not required to do so.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  1. (proposed) See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. I get annoyed by some users' AfD comments, but I know better than to file an RFC about it. A well-formed vote is a vote. Gazpacho 07:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. I agree, but the general behaviour surrounding it needs to stop. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sasquatch. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 13:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

6) Users participating in votes have broad discretion to interpret policy and evaluate proposals.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  1. (propoposed) Gazpacho 09:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ban for disruption

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

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  1. Where's the policy/guideline page backing this up? I find this poorly worded. Johnleemk | Talk 13:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alienation

8) Users who are alienated from Wikipedia and express general opposition to fundamental Wikipedia policies such as the practice of having Wikipedia:Administrators or Wikipedia:Resolving disputes may be banned from the site.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. If you hate us, why are you here? Fred Bauder 14:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  1. This should be added to Raul654's laws. Excellent point. That is also what I tried to say to FuelWagon. Robert McClenon 12:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    I hate to be a party-pooper, but Raul's laws are for stuff that may not be so obvious. :p Johnleemk | Talk 13:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    It isn't obvious to a lot of disruptive editors. I think that the disruptive editors have various concepts of an electronic utopia, and then they flame because Wikipedia isn't one. Robert McClenon 18:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Participation in dispute resolution in good faith

9) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. No grease, a lot of friction Fred Bauder 14:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Productive editors

10) Users who are competent and productive editors will be forgiven lapses from compliance with Wikipedia policies. The Soup Nazi exception.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. Should we wish to cut him some slack. Fred Bauder 15:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Administrative fiat

13) If an otherwise productive editor is unwilling or unable to effectively participate in dispute resolution, a resolution may be imposed by administrative decision. This may include a decision by an administrator regarding which alternative shall be chosen and sufficient enforcement measures necessary to enforce the decision. This procedure shall not invoked independently of a decision by the Arbitration Committee. Fred Bauder 15:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. This is de novo, but appropriate in certain cases where an otherwise productive editor is alienated and unable or unwilling to participate in good faith in our dispute resolution procedures. Fred Bauder 15:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Use of sock puppets discouraged

1) Use of sock puppets is discouraged in most cases; Jimbo Wales has said, "There's no specific policy against it, but it's generally considered uncool unless you have a good reason." (emphasis added) [1]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  1. I see no good reason for anyone to create "IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch" usernames. — Feb. 20, '06 [22:55] <freakofnurxture|talk>

[edit] No inflammatory usernames

1) Usernames which refer to violent real world actions are considered inflammatory usernames and thus forbidden [2]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  1. I would assume that smacking bitches is considered a "violent real world action" — Feb. 20, '06 [22:55] <freakofnurxture|talk>

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Gaming the 3RR

1) Boothy443 has gamed the three-revert rule on Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, making four reverts ([3], [4], [5], [6]) within the span of 24 hours and 14 minutes. Johnleemk | Talk 16:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. Yes, Boothy443 don't normally listen to that rule. --Jaranda wat's sup 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
  1. Yep. Please also note that the 3RR rule itself says that gaming the 3RR is also a 3RR violation. Like I said above, I don't really agree with 3RR anyway. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 16:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. I was there when it happened - in fact, the page was protected much earlier, and again two days later by me. I deliberately ignored that 3RR violation for a number of reasons. For example, blocks placed on Boothy443 have consistently tended to defer responsibility of resolving issues he has to other administrators in the future. Very few administrators have attempted to talk with Boothy443 in a manner which would be respectful, and conducive to mutually positive communication and understanding. I have been patiently following every single edit User:Boothy443 and User:Evrik have made to those pages for at least a month now, and I feel the statement does not convey appropriately the context in which those reversions took place. I will suggest that there is strategy used by everyone involved in those reversions. Currently, there are at least 4 distinct editors with an interest in those articles. For the purposes of presenting these 4 reversions, it is not necessary to choose qualifiers which incline towards negative intensifiers. --HappyCamper 03:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disruption of Wikipedia to illustrate a point

2) Boothy443 has voted to oppose in almost every RFA he has participated in without providing any reason in a vast majority of them: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. This constitutes circumstancial evidence of disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Johnleemk | Talk 16:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. These diffs are from October. Is there a imminent problem that should be addressed here? Because this oughtn't turn into a sour grapes contest over Boothy. Dmcdevit·t 08:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. I have seen explanation from him elsewhere that indicates this isn't strictly a WP:POINT exercise, though the lack of explanation is unhelpful. I don't consider this behavior excessively problematic. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. He is expressing his opposition to the policy of having administrators rather than to any particular one. Fred Bauder 14:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
  1. It should be noted that this in itself is not disruption but the fact that he has admitted to doing it to be disruptive makes it a blatant violation of WP:POINT. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 17:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    Where did he admit to doing it to be disruptive? I've seen him give an explanation for it, and he has supported more than a few cnadidates as well. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
  1. Yup. He used to just oppose everyone, with absolutely no explanation at all, ever. But, after his RFC, he started supporting a few people who met some high criteria. He revealed the criteria to Acetic_Acid (talk · contribs) at one point. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 16:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. As I said in my comment on the request, I think the concerns regarding Boothy's RFA voting are moot after his disclosure of admin criteria to Acetic Acid and his support of some very well qualified admin candidates. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. A pattern of well-formed votes is not evidence of anything in particular. Gazpacho 09:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. This is a political/philosophical disagreement, provably not a violation of WP:POINT, per Sjakkalle. It is not appropriate for singleing out for comment by the Committee. --CComMack 09:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. I've added diffs to the evidence page showing that Boothy443 actually has a history of supporting a very few admins going back to August. Thus, it's hard to see that this is anything other than a somewhat peculiar voting pattern. He did vote against all Arbcom candidates, but he was not alone in doing so and, since the Arbcom votes were measured relative to each other rather than an absolute standard as in RFA, his votes effectively cancelled each other out. Chick Bowen 05:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. As far as I can tell, the only real disruption is to people who think they deserve a unanimous endorsement (rather, than say, 60-1) for admin. I don't know what Boothy's point actually is, but if it were me, I'd say "we really should have closed ballots so the entire issue doesn't come up". Inasmuch as it regards RFA, this is a baseless RfArb. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. I'll second that; even if it is alleged that this is not about his voting patterns, the pertaining discussions show clearly that in the end, all this is just about his ...voting patterns Lectonar 12:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirection to Sheep vote

3) June 17, 2005 SebastianHelm (talk · contribs) created Wikipedia:Sheep vote, now moved after it was voted for deletion to User:SebastianHelm/Sheep vote where its history may be viewed. Boothy443, voting on a Wikipedia:Requests for adminship redirected his signature to the page [13]. At one point he redirected his talk page to Wikipedia talk:Sheep vote, now at User talk:SebastianHelm/Sheep vote [14]. On the talk page Boothy443 comments about the page, "This page is far from being netural, and is one blatent blanket personal attack aginst users who lodge a silent approval or opposition vote in admin elections. But i dout it will be taken down."

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. A violation of Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith Fred Bauder 14:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Boothy443's attitude about administrators

4) Boothy443 has an extremely negative attitude toward Wikipedia administrators which he expresses in numerous negative votes on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship [15] and [16], and [17] (comment includes link to Wikipedia:Sheep vote). This attitude was extended to arbitrators with oppose votes to all arbitrators [18].

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. I think this finding is essentially a violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Obtuse behavior by Boothy443 and Evrik

5) In 1854 all other local government entities within the County of Philadelphia were consolidated into the city of Philadelphia, Act of Consolidation, 1854; however, the city and county were not merged, a few functions remaining with the county. Wikipedia has two articles, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. There are two categories Category:Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Category:Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. Boothy443 has disputed and edit warred over how this situation should be handled at great length with Evrik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) [19], see also Talk:Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philadelphia#Philadelphia_County_merge, and [20].

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. Boothy443 is more often right than wrong, but takes two to keep after it for months. Fred Bauder 20:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  1. Is this finding asserting that Boothy443 and Evrik behave obtusely, or just boothy? --Ryan Delaney talk 23:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Evrik attempted to use dispute resolution procedures. I think that is a significant difference. Fred Bauder 14:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Evrik has used the dispute resolution process, but has repeatedly edit warred and violated 3RR, and should not be given amnesty just for being the first to file a formal complaint. --CComMack 23:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Evrik has been the more reasoned of the two. He has made repeated attempts to reach out to Boothy443 and make a settlment. Recently, not only did boothy443 reject the peace initiative, but he made biting comments in the edit summary, "burn the olive brach offered in bad faith by a bad faith user" South Philly 01:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  1. I am not sure if it would be applicable to use that particular qualifier here for either of the editors. At one point, both have told either myself or another administrator that they have little inclination of engaging in any dialogue with each other. This of course, has changed somewhat over time, but not to a level that I would qualify as mutually approachable. I will however, acknowledge Evrik's first attempt (that I am aware of, there may be other cases, as is possible with the situation vice versa) to talk to Boothy, after I wrote to him this and this. These messages were also posted on Boothy's pages, more or less verbatim. Boothy's edit summary regarding the olive branch was certainly intensifying, and it occurred two days after it was offered. It was a reaction to this sequence of consecutive reversions, and it is apparent that the last reversion by Evrik was intepreted by Boothy as an inconsistency with Evrik's stated intentions. --HappyCamper 03:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failure of Boothy443 to participate in dispute resolution in good faith

6) 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 [21].

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. Mediation is voluntary, although perhaps it should not be, but participation in good faith in dispute resolution in not. The consequences of not effectively participating in dispute resolution is that the matter will end up in arbitration. The Arbitration Committee may respond in such situations by using a meat axe rather than a scalpel. Fred Bauder 14:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Boothy443 a skilled and productive editor

9) Boothy443 (talk · contribs) is a skilled and productive editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. As can be seen by examining his edits. Fred Bauder 15:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Abusive sockpuppetry by Boothy443

1) Boothy443 (talk · contribs) has created multiple sock puppet accounts in the "User:IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch" series, suffixed by the numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 103, 77, and 777 (see [22], [23], [24]).

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  1. Checkuser was performed by David Gerard as stated at the second link above (which was also posted on the /Evidence page by Aranda56). — Feb. 20, '06 [21:10] <freakofnurxture|talk>

[edit] Edit warring to re-insert inappropriate content

1) Boothy443 (talk · contribs) aggressively edit warred with several other users, including Jimbo Wales, by re-inserting inappropriate links on his user subpage, User:Boothy443/toolbox. [25]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  1. I'm dumbfounded that edit warring with Jimbo resulted in only a 17-second block. — Feb. 20, '06 [23:15] <freakofnurxture|talk>

[edit] Personal attacks against Jimbo Wales

1) Boothy443 (talk · contribs) used an edit summary that personally attacked Jimbo Wales. [26]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  1. I'm thinking this may have gone relatively unnoticed for some time. — Feb. 20, '06 [23:15] <freakofnurxture|talk>

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed 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.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


[edit] Personal attack parole

1) 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. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. Seems to make sense. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 18:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Block of curtain pages

2) Boothy443 is not allowed to edit curtain pages among them Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and related pages, and WP:RFA. He may be briefly blocked if he edits these pages for up to a week in the case of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. I think this is too harsh. Personal attack parole, yes, and block for edit warring same as any other editor, but his work in article space when he isn't being uncivil and edit-warring is fine. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
  1. I don't think a blanket ban on editing is helpful or necessary. I think smaller scale restrictions would be better. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 18:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
  1. Heh - first time adding a comment to an Arbitration case! I'm not really involved in this case and haven't reviewed all the evidence, but I disagree with this remedy. While I've seen some questionable edits and some behavior that wasn't impeccable, I've also seen many great contributions by Boothy443 to Philadelphia-related articles. For example, if I recall correctly, he wrote multiple articles on the Philadelphia subway and mass transit system. In addition, I also disagree with the blocking from WP:RfA. This sets a dangerous precedent - not allowing someone to vote in RfAs, especially when he has stated his standards before. In any case, even if he votes with little consideration, they're not doing any harm, as the bureaucrats have stated multiple times. I see no reason to stop him from voting. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. This is vague language. "Certain pages, among them (list)" doesn't clearly define the boundary. I would strongly suggest that the arbitrators include a clause about how this remedy is to be interpreted, for example at the discretion of the administrator. --Ryan Delaney talk 14:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. I disagree with this remedy. It is not fair to ban Boothy from voting in RfAs or editing Philadelphia-related articles, to which he has contributed substantially. I would suggest he is asked to observe the 1RR until further notice on Philadelphia related articles, and we need to come up with some way to deal with his RfA votes. Werdna648T/C\@ 09:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. I was involved in the Iasson case and I know what disruptive voting looks like. I have not seen anyone explain how Boothy's opposing votes, by themselves, interfere with the project. Gazpacho 09:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. I disagree with this remedy in its entirety. A blanket ban on editing Philadelphia articles is disproportionate to the offense, and would block many valuable, non-controversial contributions. Also, denying someone suffrage on WP:RfA out of dislike for how they voted, is to make a mockery of the polling process. --CComMack 09:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. I would contend it is Boothy443 who may have made a mockery of the process. He voted against my RfA, and while at the time I respected his right to vote, upon learning of his voting habits his vote felt a bit rude, like a shove rather than a tap on the shoulder. Granted rudeness and uncommunitive users is something Admins should be able to deal with in stride; but I feel the emphasis of the RfA should be discussion rather than suffrage. - RoyBoy 800 15:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1RR

3) Boothy443 shall for one year be limited to one revert on Pennsylvania related articles excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the article's talk page.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. I agree with this --Jaranda wat's sup 21:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Boothy443 placed on probation

4) Boothy443 is placed on Wikipedia:Probation. Any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause may ban him from any article or talk page which he disrupts by inappropriate editing. Such bans may include all articles which deal with certain areas, such as Pennsylvania. Boothy443 must be notified on his talk page of any ban and the ban and the basis for it logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Boothy443#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. First choice, probation is best in this situation --Jaranda wat's sup 21:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Boothy443 placed on general probation

5) Boothy443 is placed on general probation. Any three administrators, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, may ban him from Wikipedia if his general pattern of activity is unacceptably disruptive. Such a ban and the basis for it shall logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Boothy443#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Boothy443 banned

6) Based on his alienation from Wikipedia and its organization and policies, and his refusal or inability to use Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures in good faith Boothy443 is banned from Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. The only question I have is that, so long as given his head, he is probably making good edits. Fred Bauder 14:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
  1. No way, Boothy still does plenty of good edits around, a lost for wikipedia if he is banned. --Jaranda wat's sup 21:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] No action

7) In consideration of his excellent and competent editing, no action shall be taken regarding Boothy443's attitude and occasional lapses from compliance with Wikipedia policies.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. Although we need to have some mechanism for administrators to step in when a bruhaha breaks out. Fred Bauder 15:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
  1. This is silly, probation at least as a penalty --Jaranda wat's sup 21:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Procedure should Boothy443 become involved in a dispute

8) Should Boothy443 become involved in a dispute of any kind which comes to the attention of any administrator it may be resolved by administrative fiat and enforced by whatever measures are required to enforce compliance.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. If a person is unwilling or unable to effectively participate in dispute resolution, a resolution may be imposed Fred Bauder 15:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] No prejudice in regards to reciprocal penalties

[edit] Blocks only

1.1) In the event of a future dispute involving Boothy443 and any other user or users, no remedy in this decision shall be interpreted as prejudiced against the issuing of reciprocal blocks by administrative action, should such be appropriate.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  1. Boothy's likely probation does not give other users carte blanche for uncivil or provocative behavior. --CComMack 07:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocks and article bans

1.2) In the event of a future dispute involving Boothy443 and any other user or users, no remedy in this decision shall be interpreted as prejudiced against the issuing of reciprocal blocks or article-specific bans by administrative action, should such be appropriate.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  1. A slightly different formulation of the above. --CComMack 07:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others: