Misplaced Pages

• August 23, 2005 at 08:38 UTC, the link was removed by an anonymous user 62.253.32.5 with the edit summary delete offensive remark being link to offensive site
• August 23, 2005 at 09:03 UTC, Boothy443 reverted back to his version with the summary "rv"
• August 23, 2005 at 09:09 UTC, RHaworth Reverted edits by Boothy443 to last version by 62.253.32.5
• August 23, 2005 at 09:12 UTC, Boothy443 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
• August 23, 2005 at 19:31 UTC, Jimbo Wales removes the link with the summary removing inappropriate link
• August 23, 2005 at 19:31 UTC, Jimbo Wales blocked Boothy443 (contribs) with an expiry time of 17 seconds (annoying gay porn link that embarassed me)
• August 24, 2005 at 02:34 UTC, Boothy443 adds a different link: with the summary rv/vabdalism by the hippocrate cult of Jimmy Wales
• August 24, 2005 at 02:35 UTC, CesarB Reverted edits by Boothy443 to last version by Jimbo Wales
• August 24, 2005 at 02:39 UTC, Boothy443 reinserts this link with no edit summary
• August 24, 2005 at 02:48 UTC, Bratsche Reverted edits by Boothy443 to last version by CesarB
• August 24, 2005 at 02:53 UTC, Boothy443 inserts the following link: [http: //www.indymedia.ie/ piss off] with no edit summary
• August 24, 2005 at 02:54 UTC, Func 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)
• August 25, 2005 at 14:58 UTC, Jimbo Wales removes the link with the summary removing inappropriate link
• August 25, 2005 at 20:31 UTC, Boothy443 reverts to the last version by Boothy, with the summary rv
• August 25, 2005 at 22:46 UTC, Bratsche Reverted edits by Boothy443 to last version by Jimbo Wales
• August 25, 2005 at 22:58 UTC, Boothy443 adds the following link with no edit summary

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

• first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh revert at Philadelphia County.
• first, second, third, fourth, and fifth revert at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Third assertion

Content edits contrary to Boothy443 opinion are characterized as vandalism

• edit history at Philadelphia County

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.

• Philadelphia County and other Philadelphia Pages - i am not involving my self in a RFM by a vandal --Boothy443 | trácht ar 16:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

--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. Isn't there part of the rule that talks about gaming the system? evrik 20:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Sjakkalle

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

• Supports Drini's RFA.

Also I present

• Boothy443 discloses his adminship criteria to Acetic Acid

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:

• Nabla
• Fastfission
• Angr
• The Singing Badger
• Lectonar
• Android79
• Nv8200p
• Beland
• Func
• JesseW
• Rick Block
• BaronLarf

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)