36:
votes are just trying to oppress his right to vote. His RfA votes were effective at diving users who respect his right to vote, even if it is just to make an anti-admin point, and others who don't tolerate such balatant WP:POINT violations. Inciting frustration and division is the art of trolling. He also seems to show some sort of vandetta against all admins, finding any excuse to accuse them of incompetence. He violated WP:NPA and then complains "admin abuse" at times when his block is clearly warranted. On the other hand, he is not simply a vandal, but some sort of overzealous "anarchist" that wants to gid rid of admins at this site. Admins, however, are part of policy, and they are required in order to deal with AfD, CsD, vandals...ect; clearly, voting agaist them just because you disagree with having admins is against policy and WP:POINT. If he wants to change policy at
Village Pump to get rid of admins, then by all means, he is welcome to try (although it wouldn't happen, and then he would rant on about the admin cabal again. Diffs for his numerous personal attacks and rudeness can be found on his RfC, which he completely ignored, in spite of its seriousness. He has made plenty of contributions, so perhaps probation can be considered as opposed to outright banning (indef. block).
70:
and refusal to disclose his reasons. While I don't doubt we've got some serious personality conflict here, and Boothy appears to be the main culprit, I encourage the ArbCom to seek a remedy that allows him to continue his encyclopedia work, if it chooses to accept the case. Also, in the first place, it would be nice if it would conduct a dialogue with Boothy and try to get to the root of these issues, and work through them constructively, instead of getting straight into deliberation with a punitive remedy guaranteed.
367:
indicates that Boothy443 does have some issues including what looks like a serious communication problem. However, I am afraid the impression I am getting from this RfArb is that the driving forces are a few editors who (probably not entirely without reason) are very keen on getting rid of Boothy443,
285:
My recommendation is that the
Arbiters' forego any punitive action against Boothy443, and consider the appointment of a mentor to guide him to improve his conflict management skills, if a qualified volunteer can be found. I would further recommend that the ArbCom investigate other involved parties
69:
I've never seen him doing anything but making good contributions, including some very active vandal reverting—especially commendable when one does not have the advantage of rollback and has to do it the hard way. As an ArbCom candidate who he voted against, I am perfectly content with both his vote
97:
I think what I've seen provides a pretty good assessment. But if my general assessment is staggeringly contradicted by some obscure diffs you'd like to present, feel free. I don't know, how are you saying I'm uninformed, anyway? I mean, I said the guy's done good encyclopedia work, and I also said
35:
This user has violated WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT and other various policies. He often went through RfA and opposed almost every nominee while ignoring any request to explain why, save 1-2 times a while back. He claims to just have high admin standards. He complains that people frustrated over his
277:
over the various habits, legitimate or no, that draw wide criticism. This may interfere in the proceedings of this case and the administration of any remedies subsequently imposed, and I would implore the ArbCom to communicate to Boothy 443 as soon as possible, and make it clear to him that the
225:
My assessment of Boothy443 is that he deals poorly with provocation. I have witnessed him dealing in similar manner with genuine vandals (who he encounters frequently in the course of RC patrol, and other contexts), the provocative (e.g. a couple of old edit conflicts with
124:
he deleted his name from the page and left some choice comments. Boothy is the one reason why I sometimes fear coming to wikipedia. At one point he was following me around and reverting things I had done just to provoke me. Pages where he had never posted in the past.
221:
I am, of course, also aware of Boothy443's lack of normal social skills, however I do not see this as a fatal flaw in his personality. It is within the
Arbiters' mandate to accept this request and seek a solution to any problems posed by this state of affairs.
98:
there are personality issues involved, and that he seems to be the main culprit. I also included a nice appeal for dialogue and attempt at a non-punitive resolution as the first phase of the arbitration. Where exactly is the gaping hole in my understanding?
240:) which have since calmed down), and the merely wrongheaded. This is suboptimal, but only presents a serious problem when the opposite party is stubborn and inflexible. This has most notably occurred in the ongoing conflict with
281:
I would like to point out that, unless there is indication of arbitrary or punitive voting, which in this case there is not, that votes on RfA or in ArbCom elections are not subject to review or reprisal by the ArbCom.
183:
appears to be about breaches of NPA, which I think is a different one from the dispute which caused the RFC to be filed. I recommend that if the Arbcom accept this case, that they limit it to Boothy443's conduct
167:
The RFC mentioned in the request was about the dispute regarding his blanket opposition voting. I myself finally endorsed outside view no. 8, calling the dispute moot when Boothy disclosed his admin criteria to
218:-related articles. I have nothing but respect for his wide base of knowledge and commitment to the project, and I am terribly fearful of the potential for running off such a valuable contributor.
313:
I am not involved in any of the disputes, except that I am among those who wondered about Boothy443's voting behavior many months ago. Also, he supported my RfA (as documented in
117:
I hope I am following the correct format. I have an on-going squabble going on with Boothy. Aside from our differences, I think he is uncivil and vengeful.
263:
83:, if the arbcom accepts the case I urge you to look at all the evidence then you'll be able to make an entirely informed judgement with all the facts.
267:
17:
259:
139:
his opinion that there should be separate article for the City and county, but opposed his creation of a new category, following the lead of
215:
255:
176:. I think that dispute was resolved fairly successfully and Boothy's RFA voting at least, has not been a problem since.
211:
251:
270:), in which Boothy443 has allowed himself to be repeatedly baited into continuing and escalating the edit conflict.
237:
152:
378:
300:
197:
156:
129:
102:
92:
74:
50:
336:
145:
120:
I have tried to negotiate with Boothy on several pages involving
Philadelphia. When I went to as for
135:
I have been involved with reverting Boothy443 over the
Philadelphia County/City contreversy. After
274:
192:
136:
354:
I apologize for singling out Evrik – most evidence offered by others looks flimsy as well (so "
293:, and have activated the e-mail user function for Arbiters who may prefer that method instead.
289:
I place myself at the ArbCom's disposal for the remainder of this case; I may be contacted on
38:
28:
368:
to the point where they operate under the motto "Throw it at the wall. See what sticks". And
169:
325:
245:
351:
that indeed shows Boothy443 busy revert warring with one single editor – Evrik himself.
231:
189:
99:
71:
210:
I have encountered Boothy443 many times in the course of editing
Knowledge, mainly in
297:
290:
204:
85:
335:
filed two 3RR notices against Boothy443 that he promptly added to the evidence. He
332:
241:
173:
143:. I can confirm the previous statements about breaking WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT. --
140:
126:
278:
ArbCom has no intention or desire to participate in a witchhunt against him.
227:
324:
over the amazingly popular claim that opposing most RfAs should count as
375:
307:
172:
and when he did support some very well qualified candidates such as
286:
closely, and consider admonishments or penalties as appropriate.
343:
over 24 hours had passed between first and fourth edit. Now he
363:
355:
348:
344:
321:
314:
121:
57:Related discussion between Everyking and Jtkiefer
339:after it was pointed out that in both cases,
188:the "Oppose All Admin Candidacies" incident.
8:
264:Category:Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania
358:" is now evidence in an ArbCom case?).
63:Discussion moved from statement section
18:Knowledge talk:Requests for arbitration
273:Also, Boothy443 has developed a near-
7:
24:
256:Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania
113:Statement of Support for Jtkiefer
320:I have already joined others in
42:
372:is not acceptable in my book.
163:Statement/comment by Sjakkalle
1:
45:
379:22:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
322:expressing my grave concerns
301:11:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
198:08:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
157:14:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
130:05:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
103:08:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
93:08:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
75:06:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
51:20:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
39:
86:
394:
79:As you've said from what
361:If nothing else, the
356:replying rather silly
306:Statement/comment by
203:Statement/comment by
137:initially supporting
275:persecution complex
315:Boothy443/Evidence
331:I also note that
195:
90:
385:
296:Respectfully, --
193:
88:
84:
47:
44:
41:
393:
392:
388:
387:
386:
384:
383:
382:
349:article history
311:
208:
165:
147:Reflex Reaction
115:
59:
32:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
391:
389:
337:retracted them
310:
304:
207:
201:
164:
161:
160:
159:
114:
111:
110:
109:
108:
107:
106:
105:
66:
65:
58:
55:
54:
53:
31:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
390:
381:
380:
377:
373:
371:
366:
365:
359:
357:
352:
350:
346:
342:
338:
334:
329:
327:
323:
318:
316:
309:
305:
303:
302:
299:
294:
292:
287:
283:
279:
276:
271:
269:
265:
261:
257:
253:
250:
247:
243:
239:
236:
233:
229:
223:
219:
217:
213:
206:
202:
200:
199:
196:
191:
187:
182:
177:
175:
171:
162:
158:
154:
150:
149:
148:
142:
138:
134:
133:
132:
131:
128:
123:
118:
112:
104:
101:
96:
95:
94:
89:
82:
78:
77:
76:
73:
68:
67:
64:
61:
60:
56:
52:
49:
48:
34:
33:
30:
27:Statement by
26:
19:
374:
369:
362:
360:
353:
340:
330:
319:
312:
295:
291:my talk page
288:
284:
280:
272:
248:
234:
224:
220:
216:Philadelphia
209:
185:
180:
179:The dispute
178:
166:
146:
144:
119:
116:
80:
62:
37:
29:Voice of All
170:Acetic Acid
81:You've seen
326:disruption
364:block log
190:Sjakkalle
122:mediation
100:Everyking
72:Everyking
345:presents
298:CComMack
252:contribs
238:contribs
212:railroad
205:CComMack
194:(Check!)
87:Jtkiefer
254:) over
262:) and
214:- and
333:Evrik
242:Evrik
186:after
174:Drini
141:evrik
127:evrik
91:----
40:Voice
16:<
370:that
268:talk
260:talk
246:talk
232:talk
228:SPUI
153:talk
347:an
341:way
317:).
181:now
155:)•
46:All
43:of
376:Rl
328:.
308:Rl
266:(
258:(
249:·
244:(
235:·
230:(
151:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.