Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Boothy443

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for comment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MarkSweep (talk | contribs) at 16:07, 9 August 2005 (→Outside view (2): endorse). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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: 23:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC).

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. [1] - Oppose vote. Note edit summary and his signature directing to Wikipedia:Sheep vote.
  2. [2] - Another oppose, note similar edit summary with apparent personal attack on Sn0wflake.
  3. [3] - Edit summary, example of non-Wiki-like behaviour.
  4. [4] - Removes his talk page comments with personal attack in the edit summary. Again the comment was reasonable.
  5. [5] - Talk page redirected to Wikipedia:Sheep vote.
  6. "rv/i am no longer taking or responing to messages at this time". Un-Wikilike comment on a talk page summary (diff cannot be linked as the revision was deleted and can only be accessed by admins).
  7. [6] - One of six 20th July 2005 blanket oppose votes. Note the point proving edit summary.
  8. "Well i guess you just made and ASS out of both you and me then, but being that your seeking adminship i should have just assumed that shouldnt i, but that just seems to be the type of admins that wikipedia is looking for." and "Well heres an idea, withdraw your nomination." from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sasquatch.

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
  2. WP:POINT

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. [7] - Deletes friendly comment on his talk page. Note his edit summary.
  2. [8] - Another friendly user comment/piece of advice, deletes it with personal attack.
  3. [9] - Attempt to communicate with Boothy443, again quickly deleted without consideration.
  4. [10] - an attempt to communicate that had I gave up after it was clear discussion was going nowhere.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. I tried to communicate with him once, but that clearly got nowhere.  Denelson83  15:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hedley 15:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I also tried to communicate with him to get him to stop trolling on RfA, but to no avail. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:02, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I have tried to communicate with him regarding this but gave it up after it was clear that the discussion was not going anywhere, see evidence of trying and failing to resolve this dispute diff #4. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 06:23, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  5. WP:POINT. — David Remahl 06:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Phroziac (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Robert McClenon 15:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mike H (Talking is hot) 20:27, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  4. The editor's behavior on Requests for Adminship is counter-productive. He (she) is free to express his (her) point-of-view, but not by proving a point experimentally. --Sn0wflake 20:59, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yes it is very counterproductive, and yes the queries by other users have all been deleted without comment and seemingly gone unheeded--except my own, but he (she?) hasn't contributed to WP since the time I left it. This user is a perfect example of why WP:POINT exists, and the edit summaries don't help illustrate the rationality of this viewpoint either. GarrettTalk 22:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Although I respect Outside View 4 that the best way of dealing with these things is to ignore them, Wikipedians as a community should be responsive and receptive to others' concerns - a central tenet of assuming good faith. Letting them get away with obstinacy, rudeness and bloody-mindedness means that anti-social behaviour is licenced. Slac speak up! 04:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. brian0918 15:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  8. Howabout1 Talk to me! 22:45, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  9. WP:POINT. — David Remahl 06:23, 9 August 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 ~~~~):

  1. WP:POINT. — David Remahl 06:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Boothy443's views towards adminship are legitimate however his manner of putting them forth is disruptive. However, I don't think that the evidence cited above gives a fair representation of the issue. Looking at the edit history of the article he redirected his talk page to, just before it was nominated for deletion ([11]) shows that Boothy443 was cited on this page as being disruptive. This may be the case; but "naming and shaming" people is not helpful. I do not find Boothy443's actions due to this disproportionate to the harm it may have caused. Call a spade a spade, yes, but do it to their face (in a fair manner) or do not do it.

I find Boothy443's behavior somewhat disruptive, but I do not think that others are "being the better man" towards him. I believe Boothy443 needs to create a page where he documents his feelings towards admins and the adminship procedure, rather than voting oppose to the majority of nominations. His criticisms of adminship are more likely to result in reform than voting oppose; voting oppose has little effect on the number of admins created, and may inflame attitudes.

As an aside: if Boothy443 chooses to create a page documenting his feelings towards adminship, I will gladly help him clarify and improve his page.

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

  1. Talrias (t | e | c) 15:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Phroziac (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 18:09, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  4. WP:POINT. — David Remahl 06:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view (2)

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.

Boothy443 is entirely entitled to oppose any RfA for any reason whatsoever, including no reason, and to express that opposition, as long as he refrains from personally attacking the candidate or any other person in so doing. I don't consider his blanket opposition votes "disruptive", although I agree with others who have said that bureaucrats should refrain from giving a great deal of weight to his oppose votes in close cases. I don't believe that the generic position that "admins are evil" is a personal attack.

He's also entitled to delete comments from his talk page, again, provided that he refrains from engaging in personal attacks. However, being deliberately uncommunicative with other editors is antisocial and contrary to the benefit of Wikipedia. Redirecting one's talk page to a nondiscussion article is both disruptive and anticommunicative and should be avoided at all times.

I agree that Boothy443's edit summaries are unnecessarily inflammatory, and not merely on edits related to his campaign against the "evil admins": the use of the term "freaking" in this edit sumamry is inappropriate. This is, however, a minor issue.

I see no reason to believe that Wikipedia:Sheep vote, in its current form, at least, is directed at or a personal comment on Boothy443 personally. It's posssible that his previous inclusion on this page (as an example of a "wolf vote") was being used to attack his position in the past, which would be inappropriate; however, I do not believe that the page was, in fact, a personal attack. That said, this does not excuse disabling his talk page: communication between editors is very important to the smooth functioning of the encyclopedia and should not be disabled without very good cause.

I also believe that Boothy443 has been unnecessarily hounded for his RfA voting pattern; by now everybody knows how he feels about RfA and repeated demands for him to "explain his votes" on RfA are just salt in an open wound. I would ask that everyone else just leave him alone about this. Boothy443 appears to be continuing to contribute to the encyclopedia in good faith elsewhere; it seems that the best course of action is for everyone else to just ignore his idiosyncratic voting behavior. If he stops rendering his talk page unusable, I see no reason why this matter needs to go to the ArbCom.

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

  1. Kelly Martin 15:49, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ghakko 15:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Antandrus (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. jni 17:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Rx StrangeLove 18:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Scimitar parley 20:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:50, 2005 July 28 (UTC)
  9. Ryan 06:52, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Theo (Talk) 16:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Allen3 talk 02:07, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. kmccoy (talk) 04:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. WP:POINT. — David Remahl 06:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. MarkSweep 16:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view (3)

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.

I want to briefly acknowledge Boothy's good contributions to the project. Go back a few months and you will see that he was an efficient, thorough, and fast RC patroller, indeed was one of the best anti-vandal fighters we have ever had.

There's sometimes a bit too much focus on negative behavior on the wiki; a user can make thousands of good edits without so much as a "thank-you". While his "oppose" votes are disruptive to a degree, his good work needs acknowledgement, so here it is.

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

  1. Antandrus (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Phroziac (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kelly Martin 17:42, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  4. jni 17:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 18:08, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Rx StrangeLove 18:17, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. (but noting that good contributions elsewhere do not excuse the RfA behaviour) Splash 23:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. humblefool® 23:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I agree to this. However, users such as Irate also made good contributions. 50 good contributions are ruined by one bad one. I don't believe that being a good vandal hunter two months ago makes up for personal attacks, amongst the other things mentioned above. Hedley 23:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Ghakko 17:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 07:34, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  14. Scimitar parley 20:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Ryan 06:53, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  16. Theo (Talk) 16:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. WP:POINT. — David Remahl 06:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view (4)

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.

Everybody knows how Boothy443 votes on RfA. It is fairly plainly a WP:POINT. It is one of very little consequence, however, since I trust the Bureaucrats to give consideration to Boothy443's manner of voting and history relating to adminship generally. Little, and probably nothing, is gained by anyone challenging the RfA votes, communicating with Boothy443 about it, or creating an RfC about it. There is no reason to believe that any of these actions show any promise at repairing Boothy443's relation with the RfA process or indeed with admins in general.

With this reasoning, and contrary to the opening statement of this RfC, namely that "...he will only further disrupt the RfA process, and drive users away from Wikipedia with his deliberate personal comments...", ignoring Booth443's RfA behaviour and trusting Bureaucrat judgement means Boothy443 will have no effect on the RfA process until the WP:POINTs come to an end.

Boothy443's votes on RfA should simply be quietly ignored; that way they do noone any harm.

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

  1. Splash 23:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 02:35, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  3. I agree slightly. They should be ignored if they are just blanket opposes - Which they have been, as they even have a stock edit summary attacking Sn0wflake. However, there are other concerns on this RfC, such as personal attacks, which should also be considered. Hedley 14:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kelly Martin 15:00, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  5. BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Scimitar parley 20:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:50, 2005 July 28 (UTC)
  8. · Katefan0(scribble) 04:22, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  9. WP:POINT. — David Remahl 06:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view (5)

The feeling I get about RfAs these days (and indeed from reading this page) is that RfAs is some sort of glorified election process with a high pass-mark (80% or whatever it is). It is not, atleast it should not be, and it was not intended that way. The idea behind RfA is that there should be a discussion whether this user is suitable for adminship, to see if there is a strong support in the community, and to generally air out any doubts which users have with them and then let the candidate respond. If there are a few serious objections from the community, the user will not be adminned even though there are, say, 81% people supporting. RfA works, in short, by consensus.

Boothy443s actions and ideas goes wholly against this notion. His refusal to state his reason so to start a serious discussion is not only disruptive, it is also quite insulting to the candidates. Had RfA been an election he could certainly vote whichever way he wants, but this is not the case. If he has problems with the adminship system he is perfectly welcome, encouraged even, to take them up in more appropriate venues. I think this sort of behaviour is not something to be glossed over.

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

  1. gkhan 10:43, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Theo (Talk) 11:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sn0wflake 12:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Trilobite (Talk) 13:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Hedley 16:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC) - I agree he goes about expressing his views in the wrong way.[reply]
  6. Phroziac (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. William M. Connolley 20:26:11, 2005-07-29 (UTC)
  8. Dmcdevit·t 05:42, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Jwrosenzweig 00:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. WP:POINT. — David Remahl 06:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Slac speak up! 08:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Boothy443&oldid=20626373"