Misplaced Pages

:Requests for arbitration/Boothy443/Evidence: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration | Boothy443 Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:47, 26 January 2006 editJtkiefer (talk | contribs)9,299 edits →Disruption to prove a point: add clarification and correct my statement← Previous edit Latest revision as of 07:21, 25 May 2022 edit undoWOSlinkerBot (talk | contribs)Bots158,219 editsm Fix font tag lint errors 
(41 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown)
Line 19: Line 19:
==Evidence presented by Jtkiefer== ==Evidence presented by Jtkiefer==


=== Failure to assume good faith / incivility ===
===First assertion===
Boothy has a history of failing to assume good faith and incivility, also characterizing edits that he does not agree with as vandalism
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion, for example, your first assertion might be "Jimmy Wales engages in edit warring". Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show Jimmy Wales engaging in edit warring

* - ''"rv/ pjiladelphia county is a current county in the state of pennsylvanina, not a historical or non exstiant one, stop with your revisionist history"''

* - ''"rv/v Philadelphia County is a county in Pennsylvania, and will be placed in the Pennsylvnia counties categories, removal from that category is only ment to confuse readers and distort infomation"''
** - same edit summary as 00:20 diff.

* - ''"rv/v by a user whos object is to mislead and misinform people to force a merger"''

Pattern continues as can be seen


===Disruption to prove a point=== === Disruption to prove a point ===
Boothy443 proceeds to vote oppose on 57 arbcom noms with no explanation which in itself is not against policy, however this is part of a larger pattern of being anti authority on Misplaced Pages. Boothy443 proceeds to vote oppose on 57 arbcom noms with no explanation which in itself is not against policy, however this is part of a larger pattern of being anti authority on Misplaced Pages.


Line 85: Line 94:


==Evidence presented by Aranda56== ==Evidence presented by Aranda56==
I noticed Boothy443 went on a wikibreak on Early december, but came back to wikipedia to mass oppose all-arb com cantidates for no reason and soon after got into a mass edit war on apparently from the history that edit war was going on for months and Boothy ignored requests for stop in the talk page. I also noticed promoting vandalism in some of his edit summarries and having comfirmed sockpuppets --] ] 03:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
===First assertion===
I noticed Boothy443 went on a wikibreak on Early december, but came back to wikipedia to mass oppose all-arb com cantidates for no reason and soon after got into a mass edit war on apparently from the history that edit war was going on for months and Boothy ignored requests for stop in the talk page. --] ] 03:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

===Second assertion===
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "Jimmy Wales makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where Jimmy Wales made personal attacks.


==Evidence presented by Freakofnurture== ==Evidence presented by freakofnurture==
===Category war/Disruptive Arbcomm voting===
To better illustrate Boothy's activities on January 14-15 (depending on time zone), here is a perma-link to the subset of his contributions referenced by Aranda56. These indicate that he was engaged in a categorization edit war with one {{user|Evrik}}, took time out from it to oppose all fifty-seven non-withdrawn candidates, then returned to his previous activity. He got a message from Aranda56 and replied flippantly to it, then went back to the category war. For his categorization edits he repeatedly used the accusative summary "v/ Evirk forcing a deletion by blanking a cat, its a sham that such vandalsim is condoned". &mdash; ''''']'' <small>(<span class="plainlinks"></span>)</small>''' <small>04:05, Jan. 26, 2006</small> To better illustrate Boothy's activities on January 14-15 (depending on time zone), here is a perma-link to the subset of his contributions referenced by Aranda56. These indicate that he was engaged in a categorization edit war with one {{user|Evrik}}, took time out from it to oppose all fifty-seven non-withdrawn candidates, then returned to his previous activity. He got a message from Aranda56 and replied flippantly to it, then went back to the category war. For his categorization edits he repeatedly used the accusative summary "v/ Evirk forcing a deletion by blanking a cat, its a sham that such vandalsim is condoned". &mdash; ''''']'' <small>(<span class="plainlinks"></span>)</small>''' <small>04:05, Jan. 26, 2006</small>
===Inappropriate links on user subpage===
<!-- reformatted---with permission---by ] --> <!--yes, he asked me first via IRC --f.o.n. -->
] has a user subpage titled ]. July 11, 2005, Boothy added the following as an external link: <tt><nowiki></nowiki></tt> (see , but '''do not access that URL;''' it redirects to ])
* , the link was removed by an anonymous user ] with the edit summary ''delete offensive remark being link to offensive site''
* , ] reverted back to his version with the summary "rv"
* , ] ''Reverted edits by ] to last version by 62.253.32.5''
* , ] reverts again, with the summary ''rv/unless you want me to start removing content i see as objectionla'' ''from every user page i see then i suggest you not from mine''
* , ] removes the link with the summary ''removing inappropriate link''
* , ] blocked ] (]) with an expiry time of 17 seconds (annoying gay porn link that embarassed me)
* , ] adds a different link: <tt><nowiki></nowiki></tt> with the summary ''rv/vabdalism'' ''by the hippocrate'' ''cult of Jimmy Wales''
* , ] ''Reverted edits by ] to last version by Jimbo Wales''
* , ] reinserts this link with no edit summary
* , ] ''Reverted edits by ] to last version by CesarB''
* , ] inserts the following link: <tt><nowiki></nowiki></tt> with no edit summary
* , ] reverts with the summary ''I am reverting, because this new link isn't the same one that Jimbo removed, ie: the other was a troll-ish attack, this one is merely to adult content, and should be treated differently.'' (though it appears Func may not have reverted to the version he intended, replacing one inappropriate link with another, in fact)
* , ] removes the link with the summary ''removing inappropriate link''
* , ] reverts to the last version by Boothy, with the summary ''rv''
* , ] ''Reverted edits by ] to last version by Jimbo Wales''
* , ] adds the following link <tt><nowiki></nowiki></tt> with no edit summary
The last link has remained on the page from then until the present. — <small>Feb. 20, '06</small> <tt class=plainlinks>''' <]]]]]>'''</tt>


==Evidence presented by ]== ==Evidence presented by ]==
Line 98: Line 124:
===First assertion=== ===First assertion===
Boothy443 has been uncivil in discussion over the merge of Philadelphia City/County Boothy443 has been uncivil in discussion over the merge of Philadelphia City/County
* Well it noice to see the if i jump off the bridge everone should mentailty rule here on wikipedia. I am not going to waste my try to explain any thing to a buch of one tracked minded mergers, other then i will dispute any attempt to merge the articles, and the any merging of the articles i will revert in my being bold as a part of that dispute. --] | ] 02:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
* and example.
* No i find it silly to mislead and misinform people that are not knowledgable on the subject, such as ], that the '''City of Philadelphia''', which this article is about, is a county in the State Pennsylvania, which it is not, in a attempt to force a merge of two articles. --] | ] 20:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
* Cleary it is, cleary basedon ] edits and his comment on the medation, his is ultimate goal is to force a merger of the two articles. As such i will not participate in the medation that has been insgated by a user that i can only see as editing in bad faith. And as for a truse i propse that we keep the artile categotry and conetents regarding the city and county split to the version that it was prior to the editing by ] and that eidts to the contairy by ] or anyone else be considered misleading and misinformative vandalism, and be reverted on site. --] | ] 21:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


===Second assertion=== ===Second assertion===
Line 118: Line 146:
===Boothy443 consistently opposes on nearly all RfAs he participates in=== ===Boothy443 consistently opposes on nearly all RfAs he participates in===
See , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . (These are just a selection which I culled from the first couple of letters in the unsuccessful RFAs archive and the past 2000 or so edits Boothy made. I only found instance in which Boothy supported an RfA.) See , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . (These are just a selection which I culled from the first couple of letters in the unsuccessful RFAs archive and the past 2000 or so edits Boothy made. I only found instance in which Boothy supported an RfA.)
==Evidence presented by Evrik==
I have been cited in a couple of places on this page, so I thought I had better make a statement. My edit war with Boothy was due, on my part, to the fact that I was tired of Boothy reverting my edits for no reason but that he disagreed with me. From our first encounter I felt as if I was being bullied. We went back and forth about a graph I inserted on the page, and the use of the word downtown on the page. His tone was demeaning and rude, and at one point I thought he was following me around to pages he had and editing after me. It was eerie.

Finally, in every case where I tried to settle a disagreement, he refused to participate – going as far as to delete his name from a .

*] and other Philadelphia Pages - i am not involving my self in a RFM by a vandal --] | ] 16:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

:--] 05:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

*Boothy and I continue our disagreement, but he tends to be uncivil about it. I filed a ]
:] 19:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
*But then you withdrew the 3RR (which is why the link above doesn't work!): ] 21:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
**Yes, I did because I made an error, this time. The last set of edits he made were four in . There is part of the rule that talks about gaming the system, and this is also discussed ]. ] 20:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC) and again on ] 20:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
*For the record, I made a peace overture. Boothy struck out my comments and made this comment in the edit summery, "<i>burn the olive brach offered in bad faith by a bad faith user</i>" ] 21:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
**This may be because you renewed revert warring afterwards . Granted, this wasn't entirely your fault, but the result of deliberate instigation by <span class="plainlinks">] (] &bull; ] &bull; &bull; ] &bull; )</span>, who was blocked for his trouble. Of course, based on , ] is assuming that the user later registered as ] is your sockpuppet; the ArbCom may wish to request a CheckUser to clear this up, but I personally doubt it is the case. -- Originally unsigned comment by ] 14:37, 24 February 2006
*I think that something got lost in all of the discussion. When the original ] was made by {{User|Jtkiefer}}, it was because of the caustic way in which "Boothy443 has been a long term disruptive influence on Misplaced Pages. He is repeatedly uncivil, he repeatedly does everything in his power to prove a point even if it is only for the purpose of proving a point." I'm not the one who is causing the problem - except that I refuse to be cowed by Boothy.] 19:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
*Boothy continues to violate ].

<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #dedaca; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussions are an archived debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>
<!-- Archived discussion, do not edit -->
Three days since the last set of reverts, is this compromise holding? ] 16:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
*Nope, being that this is still proposed, and a change is still disputed, yet you and your lackie implemented it shortly after it's proposal. --] | ] 05:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
<!-- Archived discussion, do not edit -->
</div>
:] 17:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

==Evidence presented by Sjakkalle==
In response to Johnleemk's evidence, I know of at least one other instance where Boothy443 has supported.
*.
Also I present
*
For more details on Boothy443's RFA voting and the response to it see ]. ] ] 07:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

==Evidence presented by Rl==
Boothy443 my RfA after ] . In the same month, he also supported RfAs by ] and ] . ] 18:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I wish I could do something more productive, and I really, really hate arguing ''about'' other, valuable editors, but I smell a witchhunt. to the participants in this case to stop piling on flimsy evidence in the apparent hope that some of it might stick &ndash; , it seems. If you look at , you will notice that on that day, Boothy443 did plenty of good editing work (including vandal fighting) while making snide remarks in the edit summaries &ndash; apparently because he with the treatment of some content disputes (, ). It is very obvious that Boothy443's "promotion of vandalism" was sarcasm (that lasted for one day), since his edit history shows him to be an ace vandal fighter. And he clearly didn't deal too well with conflict, at least back in June 2005, when this episode took place. Once again I ask myself if Boothy443, who averages since 2004, is such a horrible problem user, why would evidence need to be ''eight months old''? (ironically put forward by an editor who hadn't even made his first edit at the time) ] 10:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

==Evidence presented by Chick Bowen==
Boothy443's 100% opposition habit does not go back all that far (though his habit of opposing ''without comment'' does). Between August 1 and October 6, 2005 he supported the following RFA's, in addition to Drini's and RI's mentioned above:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
During this period Boothy443 opposed 69 nominations. Virtually all of these oppose votes are without comment, but I was able to find at least one that had one: (Boothy443 voted oppose on the basis of the editor's username). I believe there was another commented opposition in there somewhere but I can't now locate it. ] 04:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

== Evidence presented by Hedley ==
I created Boothy443's RfC back in July 2005, and he never himself made a response. The outside views presented by the RfC generally said that, while Boothy has a right to oppose Requests for Adminship, the way he does it (to prove a point that all admins are evil, violating ]) is wrong.

Also, as I don't think that it's been mentioned yet, Boothy occasionally makes personal attacks in edit summaries when opposing RfAs. and are two examples. ] 20:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

==My two issues==
*First, I think Boothy engages in slander. Here are some comments he made about user Evrik on someone else's talk page ]. ]
<blockquote>I dont have any opinion in regards to the articles you edit. but you might be intrested to some background on the user you are dealing with, please direct your attention to the history and discussion of the folowing pages: ], ], ], ]. --] | ] 08:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)</blockquote>

:Second, I had just had a page posted ] when Boothy443 took it over almost immeadiately and slapped an {{tl|inuse}} on it. A little notice would have been nice.] 13:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
*Boothy443 is now resorting to ] in more than one .] 18:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

*Boothy443 is engaging in attacks . ] 02:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 07:21, 25 May 2022

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: .

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Jtkiefer

Failure to assume good faith / incivility

Boothy has a history of failing to assume good faith and incivility, also characterizing edits that he does not agree with as vandalism

  • 19:58, October 28, 2005 UTC - "rv/ pjiladelphia county is a current county in the state of pennsylvanina, not a historical or non exstiant one, stop with your revisionist history"
  • 00:20, October 29, 2005 UTC - "rv/v Philadelphia County is a county in Pennsylvania, and will be placed in the Pennsylvnia counties categories, removal from that category is only ment to confuse readers and distort infomation"

Pattern continues as can be seen here

Disruption to prove a point

Boothy443 proceeds to vote oppose on 57 arbcom noms with no explanation which in itself is not against policy, however this is part of a larger pattern of being anti authority on Misplaced Pages.

  • - Ultraexactzz
  • - Tznkai
  • - Trilemma
  • - SVera1NY
  • - Svartalf
  • - Snowspinner
  • - Skyscrap27
  • - SimonP
  • - Silverback
  • - Sam_Spade
  • - Sam_Korn
  • - Rowlan
  • - Ronline
  • - RomaC
  • - Ral315
  • - Quaque
  • - PZFUN
  • - Phroziac
  • - NSLE
  • - Netoholic
  • - Nandesuka
  • - Morven
  • - Mindspillage
  • - Merovingian
  • - Maywither
  • - Mailer_diablo
  • - Magicalsaumy
  • - Mackensen
  • - Luigi30
  • - Luckyluke
  • - LawAndOrder
  • - KyleHamilton
  • - Kitch&amp
  • - Kingturtle
  • - Kim_Bruning
  • - Karmafist
  • - Jpgordon
  • - Jayjg
  • - James_F.
  • - Ingoolemo
  • - Improv
  • - Ilyanep
  • - Guapovia
  • - Golbez
  • - Fred_Bauder
  • - Filiocht
  • - Everyking
  • - Edivorce
  • - Doktorbuk
  • - DoctorMike
  • - Dmcdevit
  • - DG
  • - Dbiv (first edit to nom)
  • - Dbiv (second edit to nom)
  • - Charles_Matthews
  • - Aytakin
  • - AntonioMartin
  • - Ajwebb

Evidence presented by Aranda56

I noticed Boothy443 went on a wikibreak on Early december, but came back to wikipedia to mass oppose all-arb com cantidates for no reason and soon after got into a mass edit war on apparently from the history that edit war was going on for months and Boothy ignored requests for stop in the talk page. I also noticed promoting vandalism in some of his edit summarries and having comfirmed sockpuppets --Jaranda 03:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by freakofnurture

Category war/Disruptive Arbcomm voting

To better illustrate Boothy's activities on January 14-15 (depending on time zone), here is a perma-link to the subset of his contributions referenced by Aranda56. These indicate that he was engaged in a categorization edit war with one Evrik (talk · contribs), took time out from it to oppose all fifty-seven non-withdrawn candidates, then returned to his previous activity. He got a message from Aranda56 and replied flippantly to it, then went back to the category war. For his categorization edits he repeatedly used the accusative summary "v/ Evirk forcing a deletion by blanking a cat, its a sham that such vandalsim is condoned". — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 04:05, Jan. 26, 2006

Inappropriate links on user subpage

Boothy443 has a user subpage titled User:Boothy443/toolbox. July 11, 2005, Boothy added the following as an external link: (see , but do not access that URL; it redirects to Last Measure)

The last link has remained on the page from then until the present. — Feb. 20, '06 <freakofnurxture|talk>

Evidence presented by Reflex Reaction

In the interest of full disclosure, I was given a Barnstar by User:Evrik who often reverted Boothy's edits.

First assertion

Boothy443 has been uncivil in discussion over the merge of Philadelphia City/County

  • Well it noice to see the if i jump off the bridge everone should mentailty rule here on wikipedia. I am not going to waste my try to explain any thing to a buch of one tracked minded mergers, other then i will dispute any attempt to merge the articles, and the any merging of the articles i will revert in my being bold as a part of that dispute. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 02:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • No i find it silly to mislead and misinform people that are not knowledgable on the subject, such as evrik, that the City of Philadelphia, which this article is about, is a county in the State Pennsylvania, which it is not, in a attempt to force a merge of two articles. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 20:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleary it is, cleary basedon evrik edits and his comment on the medation, his is ultimate goal is to force a merger of the two articles. As such i will not participate in the medation that has been insgated by a user that i can only see as editing in bad faith. And as for a truse i propse that we keep the artile categotry and conetents regarding the city and county split to the version that it was prior to the editing by evrik and that eidts to the contairy by evrik or anyone else be considered misleading and misinformative vandalism, and be reverted on site. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 21:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Second assertion

Boothy has broken the three revert rule several times in this Philadelphia City/County dispute, though Evrik is also guilty of breaking the rule.

Third assertion

Content edits contrary to Boothy443 opinion are characterized as vandalism

Fourth assertion

Boothy often votes against request for adminship, without citing reasons for his opposition. I will only cite my own adminship which ultimately opposed only by Boothy and a Willy on Wheels clone. Boothy's edit

--Reflex Reaction (talk)• 04:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


Evidence presented by Johnleemk

Boothy443 consistently opposes on nearly all RfAs he participates in

See , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . (These are just a selection which I culled from the first couple of letters in the unsuccessful RFAs archive and the past 2000 or so edits Boothy made. I only found one instance in which Boothy supported an RfA.)

Evidence presented by Evrik

I have been cited in a couple of places on this page, so I thought I had better make a statement. My edit war with Boothy was due, on my part, to the fact that I was tired of Boothy reverting my edits for no reason but that he disagreed with me. From our first encounter I felt as if I was being bullied. We went back and forth about a graph I inserted on the Philadelphia City Council page, and the use of the word downtown on the Center City page. His tone was demeaning and rude, and at one point I thought he was following me around to pages he had never been to before and editing after me. It was eerie.

Finally, in every case where I tried to settle a disagreement, he refused to participate – going as far as to delete his name from a mediation page.

--evrik 05:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Boothy and I continue our disagreement, but he tends to be uncivil about it. I filed a
evrik 19:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • But then you withdrew the 3RR (which is why the link above doesn't work!): William M. Connolley 21:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, I did because I made an error, this time. The last set of edits he made were four in 33 hours. There is part of the rule that talks about gaming the system, and this is also discussed here. evrik 20:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC) and again on evrik 20:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • For the record, I made a peace overture. Boothy struck out my comments and made this comment in the edit summery, "burn the olive brach offered in bad faith by a bad faith user" evrik 21:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • This may be because you renewed revert warring afterwards . Granted, this wasn't entirely your fault, but the result of deliberate instigation by South_Philly (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), who was blocked for his trouble. Of course, based on , Boothy443 is assuming that the user later registered as South Philly is your sockpuppet; the ArbCom may wish to request a CheckUser to clear this up, but I personally doubt it is the case. -- Originally unsigned comment by CComMack 14:37, 24 February 2006
  • I think that something got lost in all of the discussion. When the original RFA was made by Jtkiefer (talk · contribs), it was because of the caustic way in which "Boothy443 has been a long term disruptive influence on Misplaced Pages. He is repeatedly uncivil, he repeatedly does everything in his power to prove a point even if it is only for the purpose of proving a point." I'm not the one who is causing the problem - except that I refuse to be cowed by Boothy.evrik 19:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Boothy continues to violate WP:NPA.
The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.

Three days since the last set of reverts, is this compromise holding? evrik 16:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

evrik 17:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Sjakkalle

In response to Johnleemk's evidence, I know of at least one other instance where Boothy443 has supported.

Also I present

For more details on Boothy443's RFA voting and the response to it see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Boothy443. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Rl

Boothy443 supported my RfA after The JPS reasoned with him. In the same month, he also supported RfAs by Func and Sam Hocevar . Rl 18:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I wish I could do something more productive, and I really, really hate arguing about other, valuable editors, but I smell a witchhunt. I appealed to the participants in this case to stop piling on flimsy evidence in the apparent hope that some of it might stick – in vain, it seems. If you look at the context, you will notice that on that day, Boothy443 did plenty of good editing work (including vandal fighting) while making snide remarks in the edit summaries – apparently because he disagreed with the treatment of some content disputes (, ). It is very obvious that Boothy443's "promotion of vandalism" was sarcasm (that lasted for one day), since his edit history shows him to be an ace vandal fighter. And he clearly didn't deal too well with conflict, at least back in June 2005, when this episode took place. Once again I ask myself if Boothy443, who averages over 1000 edits per month since 2004, is such a horrible problem user, why would evidence need to be eight months old? (ironically put forward by an editor who hadn't even made his first edit at the time) Rl 10:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Chick Bowen

Boothy443's 100% opposition habit does not go back all that far (though his habit of opposing without comment does). Between August 1 and October 6, 2005 he supported the following RFA's, in addition to Drini's and RI's mentioned above:

During this period Boothy443 opposed 69 nominations. Virtually all of these oppose votes are without comment, but I was able to find at least one that had one: Ground Zero's RFA (Boothy443 voted oppose on the basis of the editor's username). I believe there was another commented opposition in there somewhere but I can't now locate it. Chick Bowen 04:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Hedley

I created Boothy443's RfC back in July 2005, and he never himself made a response. The outside views presented by the RfC generally said that, while Boothy has a right to oppose Requests for Adminship, the way he does it (to prove a point that all admins are evil, violating WP:POINT) is wrong.

Also, as I don't think that it's been mentioned yet, Boothy occasionally makes personal attacks in edit summaries when opposing RfAs. and are two examples. Hedley 20:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

My two issues

  • First, I think Boothy engages in slander. Here are some comments he made about user Evrik on someone else's talk page Haiduc. South Philly

I dont have any opinion in regards to the articles you edit. but you might be intrested to some background on the user you are dealing with, please direct your attention to the history and discussion of the folowing pages: Category:Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, Category:Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Category:Municipalities in Philadelphia County prior to the Act of Consolidation, 1854, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Second, I had just had a page posted Southwark, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania when Boothy443 took it over almost immeadiately and slapped an {{inuse}} on it. A little notice would have been nice.South Philly 13:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)