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: 22:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC).

---

• (Boothy443 | talk | contributions)

---

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[edit]

• 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[edit]

(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.
9. [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] Keeps removing factual info about cable/some OTA coverage of TV stations within TV markets. CoolKatt number 99999 00:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable policies[edit]

{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[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

1. [14] - Deletes friendly comment on his talk page. Note his edit summary.
2. [15] - Another friendly user comment/piece of advice, deletes it with personal attack.
3. [16] - Attempt to communicate with Boothy443, again quickly deleted without consideration.
4. [17] - an attempt to communicate that had I gave up after it was clear discussion was going nowhere.
5. [18] I tried reasoning with him on WTAE-TV, but still does not listen. CoolKatt number 99999 00:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

(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]
6. I attempted to communicate with him regarding a different RfA oppose vote ([19]), I responded on BorgHunter's talk page, the RfA page and his talk page with a warning to avoid personal attacks ([20]). He then responded by accusing me of "not having any evidence" and having double standards with regards to personal attacks (i.e. he accused me of tolerating personal attacks from Administrators and other well-established wikipedians) ([21]). I responded ([22]) to this accusation by asserting that I would take a personal attack by an Administrator a lot more seriously than one by him, and gave a direct copy and pasted copy of the comments that I was concerned about. I have not yet received a response to my concerns. ~~ 10:16, 23 January 2006
7. I have tried to reason with him regarding cable carraige of TV stations, and he does not seem to listen. He is clearly violating WP:POINT and WP:OWN here. CoolKatt number 99999 22:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

(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. Garrett^Talk 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]
10. Ral315 01:05, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
11. I agree, it's really annoying.— Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 18:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
12. Alphax ^τεχ 10:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
13. BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-14 16:15
14. Sasquatch讲看 03:56, August 27, 2005 (UTC) I thought I'd better sign since I was mentioned, and he/she was rather rude... that being said, I also agree that his behaviour is counter-productive to the Wikicommunity... but I also wouldn't put this as a priority to fix.
15. This user's RFA habits are simply annoying, but his vandalism and other disruption makes him a downright pest who, as he is of no use to the encyclopedia, should be shown the door. — Dan | Talk 20:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
16. This is just disruptive and intimidating, and makes wikipedia overly-harsh.Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 02:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
17. ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥ 21:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
18. user doesnt seem to understand WP:POINT at all.  ALKIVAR™ 00:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
19. Quite simply, the way he pedantically meddles in things discourages others from contributing. He should take a very, very long holiday from Wikipedia. 09:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
20. We have had some disagreements about articles and categories involving Philadelphia. He refused to compromise, cooperate, get mediation, etc. When I requested mediation he went and removed his name from the page. There were a lot of perosnal attacks involved. I noticed that he started edited my work on pages where he had never been before, almost as if he was 'following me around. evrik 20:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
21. I have tried to reason with him regarding cable carraige of TV stations, and he does not seem to listen. He is clearly violating WP:POINT and WP:OWN here. CoolKatt number 99999 08:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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 ([23]) 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]
5. BlankVerse ∅ 15:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.  Grue  18:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
16. NormanEinstein 18:52, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
17. BaronLarf 14:19, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
18. The Literate Engineer 07:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
19. BlankVerse ∅ 15:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
20. — Phil Welch 06:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
21. Lectonar 06:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
22. Exactly. --Blackcap | talk 01:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
23. --Masssiveego 00:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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]
19. MarkSweep 16:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
20. I can also agree with this, as well as View #4. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 19:29, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
21. Curps 03:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
22. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
23. Andre (talk) 04:09, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
24. BlankVerse ∅ 15:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
25. — Phil Welch 06:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
26. Lectonar 09:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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]
10. I think this is already being done. Boothy443's votes are usually the only vote under the oppose category anyway, outvoted and harmless. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 19:27, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
11. Wholly agree with this view. We can't change his behavior. If we shut him down, he'll just make a sock puppet. At least in this form, he's easily recognizable and easily ignorable. --Durin 14:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
12.  Denelson83  07:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
13. Andre (talk) 04:09, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

14. Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}

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]
12. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 08:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
13. --Briangotts (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
14. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 19:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
15. --Celestianpower ^hab 12:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
16. Borisblue 01:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
17. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 23:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only harm caused by his annoying behaviour is that prospective admins don't get the pleasant feeling of a potential unanimous vote. Too bad! Wikipedia isn't therapy. An admin has to be able to put up with a lot nastier shit than not getting a unanimous vote; eventually some or another troll, POV-pusher, or plain fool is going to take exception with the admin's action and start hurling feces. Anyone whose feelings are badly hurt by the lack of a unanimous vote isn't suited for the task. It would be nice if he'd knock it off, but it hardly rises to the level that Something Must Be Done.

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

1. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Indeed. -- grm_wnr Esc 18:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Ryan 20:32, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
4. But please clean up the language a bit. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 22:44, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

While it is unfortunate that Boothy443 holds such a strong grudge against administrators, he has the right to vote for whomever he wants and has the right to vote however he wants. There are several users who support nominees almost everytime, without comment. Their votes are never questioned and changed. Yet, when someone votes oppose with no comment, even if it is everytime, he gets a RfC brought against him. Boothy443's vote should not be ignored or considered inferior to other votes when counted by bureaucrats. I believe this RfC should only focus on his aggressive behavior towards fellow users and possible sockpuppetry, not his personal voting policy.

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

1. Ryan 20:41, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
2. — Phil Welch 06:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Absolutely. --Blackcap | talk 01:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This RFC is mooted by more recent behavior - specifically, Boothy's disclosure of some of his voting guidelines [24], and his recent votes for a number of highly qualified admins.

1. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Yes indeed. It looks that Boothy443 is not making "blanket" oppose votes any more. It would be helpful if he would provide reasons when he opposes, but a number of highly respected members of the Wikipedia community have also opposed nominations without giving reasons. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 08:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. Phroziac^(talk) 12:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. --Rogerd 05:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. Yes this whole thing is silly and it looks like everyone who endorsed the above summaries is out to get him. Lets just leave the guy alone about how he votes, i mean he can vote however he wants. Nor is he trolling. Jobe6 21:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
7. Yes, but I'd like to point out that even after disclosing his voting guidelines, people are still not happy about him voting against adminship; let's stop the hounding. Btw, I never thought that he was making "blanket" oppose votes. Lectonar 09:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
8. Acetic'^Acid 11:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Outside view (5), and the points raised about boothy voting habits are totally ridiculous. I mostly vote against, and I don't necessarly give reasons, even though I have many good reasons to vote against someone. I have not read any Wikipedia policy, which specify that one ought to justify. I also find it ridiculous that its always those that oppose that are asked to justify, when someone that will always or nearly always support a vote will never be asked to justify his/her choice and his/her vote will be counted as much as anyone else. I also don't see why a Bureaucrat should consider less Boothys votes than anyone else. And personaly I have seen many reasons to vote support, which I will consider idiotic and dumb, but I won't comment there the majority of times because, since the second time I started voting, I consider that everyone have their personal reasons to vote for someone. As for the claim that when important issues and reasons to oppose are brought, even if someone get over 80% votes, a bureaucrat will reject. Any example of such cases please? Fad (ix) 23:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give me an opinion How do I deal with Boothy, after being gone for a month, he's back.

• Category:Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania
• Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania
• Category:Municipalities in Philadelphia County prior to the Act of Consolidation, 1854evrik 06:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]