Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Boothy443

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 14:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 16:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC).

(Boothy443 | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute

Boothy443 has shown a clear lack of good conduct in recent months. Boothy claimed on his user page a while back that "Admins are evil", and has since opposed almost every RfA posted without reasoning. While this is allowed, it appears to be to prove a point that "Admins, especially new ones, are not good people". He has also engaged in personal attacks, sometimes even through edit summaries, which leaves non-user friendly comments in page histories. Friendly suggestions and advice on his user page is promptly deleted by him, often with a personal attack. He also recently redirected his user talk page to Wikipedia:Sheep vote, and replaced his signature with a link to it too. I consider this to be disrupting Wikipedia.

Boothy443 has been warned before, but he simply deletes and ignores the advice given to him. If he continues, he will only further disrupt the RfA process, and drive users away from Wikipedia with his deliberate personal comments. Hedley 14:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Description

Boothy443 opposes almost all RfAs to seemingly prove a point that "Admins are evil".
He deletes most comments from his talk page, even though there are advice from other users. In deleting them he often engages in personal attacks.
He uses personal attacks in edit summaries, and upon opposing RfAs claims that he is being censored by "evil admins".
He has disrupted Wikipedia by redirecting his user talk page to Wikipedia:Sheep vote.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

[1] - Oppose vote. Note edit summary and his signature directing to Wikipedia:Sheep vote.
[2] - Another oppose, note similar edit summary with apparent personal attack on Sn0wflake.
[3] - Edit summary, example of non-Wiki-like behaviour.
[4] - Removes his talk page comments with personal attack in the edit summary. Again the comment was reasonable.
[5] - Talk page redirected to Wikipedia:Sheep vote.

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

[6] - Deletes friendly comment on his talk page. Note his edit summary.
[7] - Another friendly user comment/piece of advice, deletes it with personal attack.
[8] - I tried to communicate with him once, but that clearly got nowhere. Denelson 83 15:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

Phroziac (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.