Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Boothy443

message: * This user has violated WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT and other various policies. He often went through RfA and opposed almost every nominee while ignoring any request to explain why, save 1-2 times a while back. He claims to just have high admin standards. He complains that people frustrated over his votes are just trying to oppress his right to vote. His RfA votes were effective at diving users who respect his right to vote, even if it is just to make an anti-admin point, and others who don't tolerate such balatant WP:POINT violations. Inciting frustration and division is the art of trolling. He also seems to show some sort of vandetta against all admins, finding any excuse to accuse them of incompetence. He violated WP:NPA and then complains "admin abuse" at times when his block is clearly warranted. On the other hand, he is not simply a vandal, but some sort of overzealous "anarchist" that wants to gid rid of admins at this site. Admins, however, are part of policy, and they are required in order to deal with AfD, CsD, vandals...ect; clearly, voting agaist them just because you disagree with having admins is against policy and WP:POINT. If he wants to change policy at Village Pump to get rid of admins, then by all means, he is welcome to try (although it wouldn't happen, and then he would rant on about the admin cabal again. Diffs for his numerous personal attacks and rudeness can be found on his RfC, which he completely ignored, in spite of its seriousness. He has made plenty of contributions, so perhaps probation can be considered as opposed to outright banning (indef. block).Voice of AllT|@|ESP 20:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[user:Voice of All|Voice of All]] 

message: :Discussion moved from statement section
*I've never seen him doing anything but making good contributions, including some very active vandal reverting—especially commendable when one does not have the advantage of rollback and has to do it the hard way. As an ArbCom candidate who he voted against, I am perfectly content with both his vote and refusal to disclose his reasons. While I don't doubt we've got some serious personality conflict here, and Boothy appears to be the main culprit, I encourage the ArbCom to seek a remedy that allows him to continue his encyclopedia work, if it chooses to accept the case. Also, in the first place, it would be nice if it would conduct a dialogue with Boothy and try to get to the root of these issues, and work through them constructively, instead of getting straight into deliberation with a punitive remedy guaranteed. Everyking 06:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Related discussion between Everyking and Jtkiefer

message: I hope I am following the correct format. I have an on-going squabble going on with Boothy. Aside from our differences, I think he is uncivil and vengeful.
I have tried to negotiate with Boothy on several pages involving Philadelphia. When I went to as for mediation he deleted his name from the page and left some choice comments. Boothy is the one reason why I sometimes fear coming to wikipedia. At one point he was following me around and reverting things I had done just to provoke me. Pages where he had never posted in the past. evrik 05:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been involved with reverting Boothy443 over the Philadelphia County/City contreversy.  After initially supporting his opinion that there should be separate article for the City and county, but opposed his creation of a new category, following the lead of evrik.  I can confirm the previous statements about breaking WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 14:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement of Support for Jtkiefer

message: The RFC mentioned in the request was about the dispute regarding his blanket opposition voting. I myself finally endorsed outside view no. 8, calling the dispute moot when Boothy disclosed his admin criteria to Acetic Acid and when he did support some very well qualified candidates such as Drini. I think that dispute was resolved fairly successfully and Boothy's RFA voting at least, has not been a problem since. 
The dispute now appears to be about breaches of NPA, which I think is a different one from the dispute which caused the RFC to be filed. I recommend that if the Arbcom accept this case, that they limit it to Boothy443's conduct after the "Oppose All Admin Candidacies" incident. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement/comment by Sjakkalle

message: I have encountered Boothy443 many times in the course of editing Wikipedia, mainly in railroad- and Philadelphia-related articles.  I have nothing but respect for his wide base of knowledge and commitment to the project, and I am terribly fearful of the potential for running off such a valuable contributor.  
I am, of course, also aware of Boothy443's lack of normal social skills, however I do not see this as a fatal flaw in his personality.  It is within the Arbiters' mandate to accept this request and seek a solution to any problems posed by this state of affairs.
My assessment of Boothy443 is that he deals poorly with provocation.  I have witnessed him dealing in similar manner with genuine vandals (who he encounters frequently in the course of RC patrol, and other contexts), the provocative (e.g. a couple of old edit conflicts with  which have since calmed down), and the merely wrongheaded.  This is suboptimal, but only presents a serious problem when the opposite party is stubborn and inflexible.  This has most notably occurred in the ongoing conflict with  over Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (talk) and :Category:Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (talk), in which Boothy443 has allowed himself to be repeatedly baited into continuing and escalating the edit conflict.
Also, Boothy443 has developed a near-persecution complex over the various habits, legitimate or no, that draw wide criticism.  This may interfere in the proceedings of this case and the administration of any remedies subsequently imposed, and I would implore the ArbCom to communicate to Boothy 443 as soon as possible, and make it clear to him that the ArbCom has no intention or desire to participate in a witchhunt against him.
I would like to point out that, unless there is indication of arbitrary or punitive voting, which in this case there is not, that votes on RfA or in ArbCom elections are not subject to review or reprisal by the ArbCom.  
My recommendation is that the Arbiters' forego any punitive action against Boothy443, and consider the appointment of a mentor to guide him to improve his conflict management skills, if a qualified volunteer can be found.  I would further recommend that the ArbCom investigate other involved parties closely, and consider admonishments or penalties as appropriate.
I place myself at the ArbCom's disposal for the remainder of this case; I may be contacted on my talk page, and have activated the e-mail user function for Arbiters who may prefer that method instead.
Respectfully,
--CComMack 11:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement/comment by [[User:CComMack|CComMack]]

message: I am not involved in any of the disputes, except that I am among those who wondered about Boothy443's voting behavior many months ago. Also, he supported my RfA (as documented in Boothy443/Evidence).
I have already joined others in expressing my grave concerns over the amazingly popular claim that opposing most RfAs should count as disruption.
I also note that Evrik filed two 3RR notices against Boothy443 that he promptly added to the evidence. He retracted them after it was pointed out that in both cases, way over 24 hours had passed between first and fourth edit. Now he presents an article history that indeed shows Boothy443 busy revert warring with one single editor – Evrik himself.
I apologize for singling out Evrik – most evidence offered by others looks flimsy as well (so "replying rather silly" is now evidence in an ArbCom case?).
If nothing else, the block log indicates that Boothy443 does have some issues including what looks like a serious communication problem. However, I am afraid the impression I am getting from this RfArb is that the driving forces are a few editors who (probably not entirely without reason) are very keen on getting rid of Boothy443, to the point where they operate under the motto "Throw it at the wall. See what sticks". And that is not acceptable in my book.
Rl 22:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement/comment by [[User:Rl|Rl]]