Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Boothy443/Proposed decision

Questions about 3.4.3
Gazpacho 21:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Is disagreement with Boothy's votes a "dispute" under this proposed remedy?
 * No, crabbing and grossing and voting against any and all is expected so long as he remains alienated. Fred Bauder 02:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Now we already have an arbitrator repeating the assertion that Boothy443 is "voting against any and all" – an assertion that has long been proven false by a number of editors who spoke up in support of Boothy443. How is this possible, assuming you actually read the evidence presented? Rl 09:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If so, does administrative discretion allow removal of his votes?
 * No Fred Bauder 02:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What is the term of the proposed remedy?
 * Indefinite Fred Bauder 02:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This case appears to be about two narrow issues, voting and edit warring re Philadelphia. Traditionally arbcom has confined its remedies to the specific disputes and behavior, but this proposal gives administrators arbitrary discretion with respect to any matter. Why do this?
 * Addresses underlying issue of alienation. Fred Bauder 02:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Does Boothy still have the option to pursue normal dispute resolution?
 * If he comes around, sure, and we would probably revise the decision should he begin to participate in dispute resolution. Fred Bauder 02:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Fiat?!
What on earth is "administrative fiat"? Isn't that when an admin makes a decision about how they are going to handle a situation? Isn't that how things are already done? The ArbCom need not pronounce upon the fact that admins can make decisions to fix things and it is probably well outside of their jurisdiction so to rule. Also, this invents a new terminology for everyone to handle. I don't understand the remedy at all in its present form. -Splash talk 18:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It is based on this: Administrative fiat:

9) 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 be invoked independently of a decision by the Arbitration Committee.

It is intended for good editors who for one reason or another won't or can't use our dispute resolution procedures. Fred Bauder 19:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * But admins regularly impose a decision on a situation when they are e.g. working on mediating articles and they don't need the arbcom to allow them to do so. By which I mean that the final sentence imposes serious restrictions on how admins can construct electric fences for troublesome users which might be perfectly effective without needing dispute resolution. -Splash talk 23:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps mediation is being done in unexpected ways. My understanding is that a mediated settlement is made with the agreement of the parties. No place for an administrator to impose anything there. I don't think there is an authority for administrators to independently "construct electric fences". This proposal takes away nothing an administrator has now. Fred Bauder 23:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Remedy passing, principle supporting remedy failing. Contradiction?
The proposed remedy involving administrative fiat is currently passing, but the principle it is explicitly based on, at least in its current wording, is being voted down. Can this be supported by the ArbCom as its decision? Although I suppose it's all moot anyway, considering that the proposed enforcement of the remedy is in turn being voted down (?!), so it may not actually affect anything, but this seems like a situation in need of clarification, as I don't think this is a particularly desirable outcome from anyone's perspective. --CComMack 07:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment
I just found some evidence from August that Boothy had some comfirmed sockpuppets from a old checkuser see here I don't know if its too late though. --Jaranda wat's sup 20:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * We often do a check just to see what the situation is and keep it. I'll make one for the record. Fred Bauder 15:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * He seems to edit on his own account. Fred Bauder 15:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Decision is badly in a mess
This is becoming quite comedy, especially when you throw in the motion to close and the incorrect implementation notes being supported by it: And yet the case closed a couple of days ago, with the incredibly-bizarre four-Arbs-to-close rule. -Splash talk 00:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) The Principle of administrative fiat is rejected;
 * 2) ...but it may be deployed should Boothy443 become involved in a dispute;
 * 3) ...but should it be deployed, it may not be enforced since the enforcement is rejected.
 * I am recused, but let's see if I can help. First, the case hasn't closed yet, though it has the votes to do so. Your #2 (which I assume refers to remedy 9) was actually rejected as well, having failed to get the 7 required supports. I assume the clerks addition of the revert parole was an honest error, as it got no supports, and is rejected. As we stand right now, Boothy will be on personal attack parole, and that's the only remedy passed. Dmcdevit·t 00:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Admin fiat passed 6-1, no? With less than half the Arbs actually voted in this case, it seems incomplete to call it rejected. (Which is why the 4-to-close rule is odd; this remedy would pass if a single other Arb were to support it, and there are many left that might do so.) -Splash talk 00:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That may be; as a recused arbitrator who hadn't been following this case, I can tell you I was a bit surprised to see what it looked like. But in this case, 6-1 isn't a pass, since that's only a majority of the voters, not the required majority of arbcom (which would mean 7 supports). Dmcdevit·t 01:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thank you for the clarification. -Splash talk 01:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Only the arbs can really clarify this, but since you asked me, I'll take a guess: That the arbs rejected proposed principle #9 does not mean they think the principle is false. It means they think the principle is not appropriate for citation as a basis for the imposed remedies. --causa sui talk 00:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ...Dmcdevit's comment notwithstanding (which it does, of course) they also think it would be inappropriate to enforce it! -Splash talk 00:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)