User talk:Boothy443/Archive 6

Notice this user is CooI with an I not Cool with an L, it is an apparent imposter. Thanks. pgk^(talk) 09:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Boothy, thanks for your reply at my Talk page concerning my RFA. You state "The answer to the general question posed to you have led me to the conclusion that you are unqualified for administrator privileges. Good/Popular editors do not equal qualified admin candidates." I would like to learn more about what you consider to be good qualifications for administrator. In addition to contributions to articles, I've logged over 400 edits to the project space concerning policy discussion, etc. I've also reverted quite a few vandals and innapropriate changes. Are there specific skills that you would like me to develop or specific actions that I could take that would allow you to support me as an admin in the future? Johntex\^talk 21:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Thanks for your note. I think I understand where you are coming from now. Concerning policies, I think that administrators have to be careful to enforce existing policies as they are today, and not to allow their views of what policies should be to influence the way they enforce policy. They are still free to campaign for improvements, of course. If you have any questions about my views on particular policies, I'd be happy to adress them. Thanks again for your reply. Johntex\^talk 23:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been observing you, and I want to ask a question: Seriously, do you support anyone on their RfA? V/M
21:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you have to ask me that question, then you are not doing a good job. --Boothy443 | comhrá 21:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, I really did not: the answer is obvious: no - you never get on a RfA unless it is a negative. I am sorry if I made a bad impression on you. I see no reason say that I am doing a bad job here. V/M
21:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, I discovered you did support a few people. Happy editing! V/M
21:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with your votes themselves, but you never give an explanation for your vote. Many instances you are the only one to oppose a candidate and it would be helpful to not only the candidate, but other voters if you gave a reason for your particular vote. --Holderca1 22:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, tell us why. Also, you misuse comhrá in that you do not converse. --hydnjo talk 22:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but constructive criticism never harmed anyone. --Holderca1 00:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How would you like to see the system changed? --Holderca1 00:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Copied from hydnjo's talk page:

== Happy now ==

Maybe i dont like talking to lemmings, --Boothy443 | trácht ar 23:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Finding myself here in your talk page, to thank you for the good laughs I had, with your opposing of any RfA. :) Fadix 01:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are giving reasons now for your NO votes. That makes things a lot better. You should still provide a link or something next to your votes for your reason for disliking most admins. Thank you.Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 02:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if you have a FAQ, or a list of reasons you do not support, please add something like "Oppose due to #8 or something. It would be really helpful, and make people feel less like you're a unfriendly user. Thanks and happy editing. -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{23:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)}[reply]

(looks at the bowling ball) "what's this?"

"obviously you're not a golfer."

I finally decided to be bold and create a project page for WikiProject Philly. I invite you to add your name to the list of participants and help get the ball rolling on the new project. Cheers. --CComMack 19:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've just notified you and Luciuskwok (it was a comment you made on his talk page that provided the inspiration for creating the page,) but if you could ping whatever contacts you have, that would be great. --CComMack 21:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spikebrennan 23:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC) thanks Boothy443 for the kind Wikipedia:WikiProject Philadelphia invite.[reply]

Do you know how to check what neighborhood schools are in University City? I do not see a zone search tool on the School District of Philadelphia's website.

Also, "so theirfor that area between R2 Media line/Baltimore Ave and Market is West Philly" - But I don't think it's a part of University City. WhisperToMe 00:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind adding your name to members considering youve helped us out alot especially witht he template an all. Itd be nice to get some more people besides me and schumin. Jobe6 03:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we agree on the Philadelphia thing, but I can't remember too many encounters with you in the past...have we been bitter enemies on a variety of pages, and I just can't remember it? john k 00:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support; it's especially meaningful to me since I know your standards for admins are quite high. If you should ever have any concerns about my actions as an administrator, please be sure to tell me! Kirill Lokshin 13:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The old infobox that you placed back on the WERQ page is going to have it template merged with the new infobox soon, so that is the reasoning for changing it. Leonard23 9:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey Boothy,

Thanks for participating in my RfA even if you felt you couldn't support. I know you're not very much into giving specifics for these, but I do want you to know that if you have a specific concern about my present or past behavior you'd like to let me know about, I'd be happy to talk about it. In the meantime, enjoy life and be happy, and rest assured that I'll do my best to wield the mop with honor and righteousness. Cheers! --Dvyost 14:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you would, please take a look at Franconia-Springfield (Washington Metro). I'm making sure that the VRE part in the infobox looks as intended. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boothy, I'm here to ask you to not insert official (fair use) pictures when we have a free alternative. Doing as such goes against Wikipedia:Fair Use. Thanks in advance. Redwolf24 (talk) 05:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your request at WP:RFPP. First, I must advise you read over WP:PPol. An admin will not protect on their preferred version in an edit war, for obvious reasons. Page protection is only for instituting a cooling off period during a heated edit war, not for endorsing any version. It appears you have broken the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule multiple times in Philadelphia-related articles today. Now, it's within my discretion to block you, but I'm going to give both you and Boothy this one last warning before doing so. Another revert and you will be blocked. Edit warring is always unacceptable. It is also pointless, you must realize, as anyone else can revert you just as readily as you can revert them. Please engage in discussion. And also note that a content dispute is not vandalism, see Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not. Mischaracteration of others' edits as such is a breach of civility. Dmcdevit·t 23:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your response is unwarranted. Do not make attacks against me or all admins. But more importantly, do not edit war. Ever. No one is entitled to any reverts at all. You shold go through the normal dispute resolution precess. I respect why you are here, but if that is true, edit warring is counter to that goal. It is harmful. Always. And this is not vandalism; it is a dispute over a category. For deliberately and egregiously violating my warning, I'm blocking both of you for 3RR. Do not edit war when you come back. Go to RFC, RFM, WP:DR, etc. Dmcdevit·t 04:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no i belive that my responce is very warranted. You it is obvious bu your lack of action, and you action, as well as your own uncivil responce, that you do not respect why i am here. If you did then you would educate your self on what this dispute is about and uphold the the principal that should be the most important one to theis so called project and that is the the purvance of information that corect. As for entitled to reverting, i dont do it becuse i am entitled to do it, i do it becuse it needs to be done, and maybe you should remove your ablilty to revet any pages regardless of what the content is, but being that you have your pouplairty contest postion, that will never be disputed or challanged, i seriously doubt thatyou will. So i can only hope that their are no chnges in the mea time, becus i will change them to uphold the validity of information, regardlessof you ingnorance to the issue. BTW i will not take anything to WP:DR, if i wanted to see an archiac, corupt, and inefficant process, then i would go to my local courthouse. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Dmcdevit·t 05:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dont patronize me. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Boothy: Whilst I appreciate that you do not wish to be involved in the Philadelphia County mediation recently requested, I would like to please ask you not to edit other people's requests for mediation, even if you disagree with their presentation - no matter how bad faith you feel their request is, or your opinion of the actions of the user. Instead, I would be most grateful if you would voice your concerns as a separate comment on the mediation; if you don't wish to be involved in the mediation, that's also fine, but please just say so rather than editing requests made by other users. If there is any way I can assist you, please do ask. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 23:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This has gone on long enough Boothy, other administrators and even Jimbo have been very easygoing and forgiving towards you but this ends now.

Begin Boilerplate You have been indefinitely blocked for blatantly refusing to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, disruption, massive 3RR violations, abuse of the system, incivility, vandalism, harassment of fellow editors, stalking. If you wish to appeal this block you can email me here. Please note that this is not a ban so you are free to create a new account after the 24 hour autoblock has expired however your new account will be blocked if you continue. End Boilerplate

Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In 24hours i want this block lifted, as i refuse to create another account to do my main editing from. I have seen people who have done far worse things things then myslef, only to have a blind eye turned to them or a slap on the writs. You have also wnet aginst your only policy by imposing this ban with out even an arbs com decision, which only goes to show that thei is no structue that works here and the the real power rest in the admins who serve as judge jury and exctionicure, by keeping me blcok you have also reused to try to engage me in any kind of defence aginst the blatent violitaions of blocking that has been permited. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 23:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First of all please spellcheck that when you get a chance it gives me a headache, secondly you are welcome to create another account since this is not a ban however if you wish not to then that's not really my problem is it. If notice anyone who is breaking the rules and isn't being noticed then you should post to Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents, I know that many administrators keep an extremely close eye on it and will look into anything that's posted there. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis is it okay to block Boothy's account indefinitely, but allow him to start a new account after 24 hours? What does this even accomplish? Can you point to any other examples of something like this done to a long-time user? john k 23:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John i respect your comments, but it obviouse that they dont like oppisiton to themm thats the basic problem, but nonwe of them will say it. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 00:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why dont you just admit that you are just supporting you other admins, of coure i cant go and "complain" becuas i am sitting behind block that only goes to prove a piont, which if i am correct is aginst "policy". And no i will not create another this it the account that i use and this is the account that i will continue to use, and you can tell your firends likr User:UninvitedCompany that his comments are uncivil, and that his comment is agnist policy and that i would expect that you would block him if you were fair, but since he is part of the problem i doubt that he be blocked or let alone be warned for uncivility. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 23:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know you wouldn't care to hear this, but I do believe that many of your actions have been incivil as well - but you do entirely too much good work for a severe punishment as a perpetual block. File:AnkhEncyclopedist M ! 01:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that they wern't. But what i see is no worse then other useres, that is inclusing admins, who arbitatailry enforce policy, and seem to have problmes with other users that dont want to conform to their version of a user, which is baiscailly is some one that follows behind them. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 01:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well your going to love what I'm about to tell you Boothy, it seems that things have gone over my head in terms of this and your block has been reduced to 1 month by another administrator, this also means that since I am no longer really the blocking admin I am not really under an obligation to watch your talk page so I'm removing it from my watch page, see you in a month. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 03:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nope thats Still unacceptable the block should be removed now at the eartilest now at the earliest, and tommrow at the latest. The way i see it just another admin name to add to the biased list. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 03:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually another admin changed it 72 hours and it is now going to arbcom instead, and I agree with this is an alternative solution. So you might as well prepare your case for them.Voice of All ^{T|@|Esperanza} 04:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As ststed before if not lifted by tommorw it will still be unaccaptable. As for the inquasation, expect me to ingnore it or be uncorperative based upon the actions that that your self and other admins have decided to do to protect your reputations and strengthed your power base. It a sham that you belong group that supposedly supports community, when you your self being involved in theses bias actions support not community but conforminity. TO be we are not all mindless drones. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boothy - I agree you shouldn't be blocked, and I'll unblock you. That said, um, if you are currently blocked, how are you making edits to your talk page? Beyond this, this whole thing is completely puzzling to me. You were banned on the 4th, but hadn't made edits to any articles since Wednesday. On Wednesday, I see no 3RR violations at all - a bunch of single reverts to various articles relating to Philadelphia. What on earth is going on here? john k 05:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, having looked at WP:AN, I see a fair degree of support for the 72 hour block, and I don't want to do anything unilaterally. That said, the indefinite block was clearly unwarranted. john k 05:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well john i thank you, but i dont want you get into any trouble then you could be. Also when you are on a blaock the only thing you are allowd to to is posted to your own user talk page, whish is usless in trying to defend your self. I have no problem with serving the first 48 hour, which i do belive as excessive, as well as the second 48 hour block as i did break the blockby useing a secondary account User:Cisum6cbb in order to revert changes by an anon, who from a similar address did the same reversions, that i belive to be User:Evrik, as it would match his m/o. That i am not contesting, what i am conttesting is the further abuse that i have had to be put threw by a groupe of useres who goal seems to be my eventual dismissal from wikipedia. I do hope that you examine the statemts that i have made at the top of the page, even though it is a rant, before making any decisions and that you wish to contact me further on this issue that you do so threw my email link. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I believe the ArbCom should give an indef. block, after reviewing the situation, I also believe that one admin giving an infinite block represents an overstepping of authority. One month would probably be the longest an admin could arbitrarily give out for a user such as Boothy443 (Of course we have the ArbCom option). If he was a user like "nfsfnpsf" or "busheastnuts43" with a record of nothing but vandalism, then he could get blocked indef. by one admin. Although jtkiefer was acting in good-faith, so I see no reason to scold him.

And "Voice of the Oppressors" is simple refuted by reality(I love that line, but it is true here). Coming from someone who almost never supports anything s/he says, it doesn't suprise me though.Voice of All ^{T|@|Esperanza} 05:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only a supporter of current power abusing admins would make a statment like that or someone that was looking to get some where, what do they call that term. An admin one that blocks other usersw with out consulting or an arbcoom decision is an admin is not asting in good faith, not like it matters becuse for the most part the admins have carte-blanche to do wwhat ever they want with no reprucissions at all, which is really sad. So their for any way jkiefer was not acting in good-faith, and i would consider taking further action aginst him, but their is no reason to bsuace their is no effective way to deal with admins who over step their pwer. My thing is, if you have to question what you did for a block, then you more then likely should have never did it in the first place. And as lie,"Coming from someone who almost never supports anything s/he says" and yes i am calling you a liar, you eiter chose not to read the above or you chose to ingnore it, or the more likely one bscuse i questioned the authority of the admins, apparenly they are the ones who do no wrong, or you just an asshole, i thik its a combo of the latter parts with a lot of tp. Now before you go all of, i know i am asshole, and i could care less. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From the user page of User:Voice of All(MTG)

Getting sick of being misrepresented, and seeing others get misrepresented, with slanderous, soundbyte-ish accusations in RfAs...ect...

Yet he incists of participating, or i should state willing to, in the same thing he lothes with me,just check out his comments on WP:AN#Boothy443_Indef._blocked. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"An admin one that blocks other usersw with out consulting or an arbcoom decision is an admin is not asting in good fait". I disagree; an admin can block for obvious 3RR/vandalism and for severe conduct issues. Indefinte blocks of obvious vandal accounts are ok by 1 admin. I don't like 1 admin giving an indef block in other circumstances though, especially after the user in question hasn't made many recent edits.

And remember SteveVertigo, who over stepped his admin powers and his sysop status placed up for bote again by arbcom(which actually was stupid, since they should have de-sysoped themselves, but that is not the point). He had a pile-on of oppose votes and the other votes where to have it go back to arbcom. So admins are still checked. The fact is that jtkiefer was acting in good faith and you know it, at least he gave an explaination for his block.

I don't mind if admins decisions are questioned with reasonable complaints, I dont mind getting reasonable criticism myself, but your complaints about "bitching" and your admission of being an "ass-hole" is just off the mark.

As for the "almost never supporting anything", I was also refering to your RfA "No" votes, which you offered a partial explaination to only once or twice on two random candidate's talk pages. I said that you should at least give a link and you ignored me, just like you ignored others and even your RfC. Your votes were cold and uneccesary, as was your personal attack mail, and now you want to claim that admins are the bad people? Also, my comment was not used in a vote, that is what really gets me.

From what I hear, you have made good edits in the past. Who are you? Anikan Sywalker? Why make a 180 degree turn?

Also,(I noticed this after edit conflict) what claims against you (personal attack mail/civility) are not correct. Certainly you dont refute the blocks by other admins and Jimbo?Voice of All ^{T|@|Esperanza} 06:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But You seemd to have little or no question with the indefiant block of me. I do have a problem with the blocking here, their is a policy the only real guideline is admin discression. And i am sorry but thats not sufficent,. At the rate that admins are created, which i see as similar to food samples being handed out at the supermarket, espically considering how they are approved, and espically considering that you are giving all this power, and it a lot of power, to peole that i am not sure that really know what to do with it or really dont seem want it, and that seems to be happing more and more, if you ask me,.

I dont know the ins and out of the SteveVertigo, but if that is the case it only goes to show that arbcom, another thing that needs to be revamped, is ineffective, But you look and thei have been what 5 maybe six total admins that have been de-opedsince early 2004, but yet you alomst ofn a dily basis you see question rising about their jugement calls and behaviours, and yet the only people that oversee their activity are their fellow admins, who also control rfc and rfa, and who i canusually only come out to support or and if oppose they do so weakly, or do nothing at all. And then if someone that is not an admin brings up a complaint thaey are for the most part dismissed, because of their own actions, even though the actions of the admin is just a questionable as the users. The way i see their is no reason why anyone on here should not be able to question actions by the admins w/o having the attack dogs released on them, and their is no reason why admins, is this is only pertaninig only to the powers that they are given not their edits to aticles, should not be held to a higher standard then regular users. Being an admin is a privdledge not a right, and it should be a privlidge that is taken away as easily as it is give, which as long as your a "good editor" who has at least 1000 edits to your belt and hanvt come to the ire of what seems to be a "working group" of admins and users you baiscaly a shoein which is sickining to me.

and no i dont find that jtkiefer was acting in good faith, I dont find reason to be one thats is enough to warrent the length of the block in the first place. It was uncalled for. Matter of fact i do have a problem with any admin putting a block on any account for longer then 24hours for any reason, withouth prior decision from armbcom, or the wikimedia board, nut something like that will never happen, and not becaus it not a good thing, it s that any time some one has brought up an idea of limiting the power of an admin, its been summiarly killed.

As for my complaints about "bithcing" and your admission of being an "ass-hole" being just off the mark, i dont see it that way, i have, not the same terms, been labed as being a ass by users and admins alike, and it has less to do with disputes of content or my addations of content to articles then it does with my ideas of the adminstrative structure of wikipedia and the way that i vote on on the admin elections. And they way i see it i have ever right to complain, based on the comments that i have seen that are about me and that i have seen made towards me, including several prior to this that would weclome my leaving the project, for nothing less then becuas i go aginst the grain on the rfa. I used to participate in the system, but i gave up on that based on the amount of bs that one has to dea with. Things like reporting vandalism, and nothing ever gets done with it, or being told well thats not vandalism enough, to a admin from switzerland, whose name i forget, complaing after i made a mistake on a report that, (and i am not going to get this totaly wrong), syaing that my reports were to legal for his tates, and that he didnt really take them seriously anyway, and even if he did say it, thats the way it sounded. To have an article re-werite to be thrown out becaus the subject, not the artcile, was the same, and to accuse me of recreating a deleted article, even thought this was a complete re-write, and should have been judged again on the merrits of the new information, but that shows you one of the places where vfd, and to be blocked for that. Ans then when i asked that some one show me how they were the same, it was refused, all by admins. I complained and fought the system, but you cant becaus it wolnt let you.

As for rfa, do you ask evey one why they support, no. But they give no real reason, other then "just because" reason, boy thats real constructive, and the idea that their are just for the nomination, and theat an oppose is not withouth written statement a statement is bs. I see no reson to justify my votes to any one really but myself, and the person involved, and even at that i dont see haveing to tell them anything more then i oppse their nomination. When you vote in any of you muni or whatever election, are you required to explain why you oppsed them in order to quailify their vote, and so that they have constructive critisim so theat they are better canidates when the run again, no.

And as for the <blockquotes>From what I hear, you have made good edits in the past. Who are you? Anikan Sywalker? Why make a 180 degree turn? You go trew my edit history and you tell me where the good edits to articles stops. Such a quote like thats is nothing more than an insult withouth fact.

But you know what, if i am so despisied here, and if you are all so eager and ready to get rid of me, the go ahead and file your rfa and get it over with, but dont expect me to give a responce or much of a care, becaus the only ting i see out of is is being draged threw the mud, becuas i think different then power structure does and when i get pissed of and pushed into a corner, or when i think i am being treated unfailry or with a bais i lash out. And i am tired of addressing this issue, becaus in the end i amgoing to be the bad guy, and thats thats. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 09:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boothy, it would really behoove you to calm down, and slow down (the spelling in these posts is really atrocious, for one thing - incredibly bad. I don't mean to sound flip, but it really does become hard to take someone seriously when they spell as badly as you do in the comments above). At any rate, what good does the lengthy ranting about admin conspiracies do you? It is just alienating and makes you look bad. Why not just wait out the block, and then try to avoid 3RR rule violations in the future, and see how you do? In terms of your complaints about admin abuse, perhaps it would be wise to try to come up with a cogent, and succinct, and spell-checked, explanation of what you think is wrong with the current situation, and how you think it can be fixed, instead of just attacking admins you feel are conspiring against you? john k 17:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Such a quote like thats is nothing more than an insult withouth fact." No, you have been blocked numerous times recently, even by Jimbo, due to severe repeated conduct issues, far worse than the RfA votes or anything before.Voice of All ^{T|@|Esperanza} 18:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When ever you guys ready to get rid of me. I am waiting, as apparently thats what the people want. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 22:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For those who want to bitch about me any behavior in which they don't like which seem to be so disruptive to wikipedia, or if you want to see personal attacks and uncivil behavior made and condone by admins and the fellow supporters, like UninvitedCompany (talk • contribs), you can see a comment he made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJtkiefer&diff=27399140&oldid=27386237 here, or by the person that blocked me Jtkiefer (talk • contribs) here please go to WP:AN#Boothy443_Indef._blocked, and that goes for admins and non admins. Also if you want to bitch about me in another public forum, go to here Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Boothy443, but don't expect a response from me, as i don't see the effectiveness of displaying ones opinions on other users as being any bit of constructive in building an Encyclopedia.

It should also be know that i have been put behind an indefiendt block, imposed by one administrator Jtkiefer that has less to do with policy violations is is just a way to suppress me for as i see it, not playing by their "rules", or to put it, falling in line like a good Wikipedian, and that i called out an admins Dmcdevit (talk • contribs) for what i perceived as his biased enforcement of a 3rr block on the pages , Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Category:Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.

I will freely admit that i did, in order to keep as i see it the "consensus", what ever that word means, of the editors on the pages in question that their was to be no merge of the articles or categories at present that was trying to be forced by Evrik (talk • contribs), and an exam of his comments on talk:Philadelphia, Pennsylvania as compared to his comments on Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal#Philadelphia_County_and_other_Philadelphia_Pages only show that he is pushing for a merge, but that Evrik (talk • contribs) also violated the 3rr on the page as well after he was blocked by using two anon accounts 172.171.123.150 (talk • contribs) and 172.156.2.190 (talk • contribs), yet neither were blocked by Dmcdevit (talk • contribs) nor was the block on Evrik (talk • contribs) extended an addition 48 hours, yes thats right 48 not 24 an arbitatry decision and another reason in which i believe that no admin be allowed to block a user for over 24 hours with out arbcom decision and even then i am not sure that they should. And also that he, Dmcdevit (talk • contribs), posted a comment for Evrik (talk • contribs) on the Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal#Philadelphia_County_and_other_Philadelphia_Pages, why couldn't Evrik (talk • contribs) wait the 48 hours like he was supposed to to post his comments, which to me would show that their is a question of the impartiality of Dmcdevit (talk • contribs) because of his actions.

I did email him, and in what could be construed as a nasty letter, to Dmcdevit (talk • contribs) in which i told him that i do believe that he biased in his actions that that i was considering further action against him in the matter, with the possibility of releaving his of his administrative privileges. His reaction was to increase the length of my block to additional 72 hours, which i can only see as a suppression of any pending action against him, i would really not be surprised to know if he confired with Jtkiefer (talk • contribs) off site which would lead to Jtkiefer (talk • contribs) to impose, without a ruling from the arbcom, or the wikimedia board, an indefient block against me.

I don't care if you like me or not or support my actions or not, but what you should do it seriously take a look at how this site is run, and notice that their are problems here that refuse to be addressed. I didn't come here to have people like me or to make friends, and i could give a damm less about wiki love or any o the other social/political experiments that we deny are happening and that we engage in every day. I came here to build a site in which people can information from, and it'll be the first to say that i don't believe that i would recomond It's about time that we stop letting a few users that we have allowed all of the power to control th be concreted into, run this as they see fit, with no oversite, suppression taticks, and the violation of their own policies that they enforce against others or not enforce at all. i Have seen users on here, and I'll point out an example SPUI (talk • contribs) who have fuck among other words on their user page, and who threw their edit summaries tell other users to fuck off yet only to get a slap on the wrist or the well it's only SPUI so don't worrie about it comment Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive43#User:SPUI. If enforcement is for one then it should be for all. It about time as users that we stop being the lapdogs to the great leader Jimmy and the admins, and start taking back the power when it comes to the running of this site, because it might be me today, but tommrow it could be you. Since i can no longer effectively communicate on here, i have opened the ability to have other useres email me, only email me if you have something constructive to say or want to discuss, i am also open to discussion with useres in projects that i am involed in and will continue to be involed in as well, but only threw email , untill my account is rightfully restored. The best things would be to finally see a admin step up and right this wrong and put abusive admnis in their place. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 01:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boothy, you are free to "bitch" about admins as well. Just not to edit war, make personal attacks, or use sockpuppets. Which is why your block was extended. Saying that I didn't block the IP is a lie, [1], which you have now repeated. I did not extend Evrik's block because after his block, the autoblocker blocked a non-AOL IP, while the IP was AOL. I wasn't certain they were teh same person. I knew it was your sockpuppet. Also, there is no problem in posting material to help with dispute resolution, when a user was blocked for that dispute and cannot do so. The block is not there to stop the resolution, but the dispute. "It a fucking shame that abusive, non-impartial, vandal promoting admins like your self cant be removed." not only "could be constued as a nasty letter," but is one. Try owning up, it helps your credibility. I am perfectly willing to be help accountable for my admin decisions, and discuss them transparently. Which is why your words are all the more mystifying. Dmcdevit·t 01:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dont have to worrie about my credibility, The comments that have been posted on the ANI and other pages, by users, mainly admins, that have never, never addressed me, with what should be considered as uncivil comments, have already set my credibilty and have show that their is a complete bias aginst me, which has been futher show by the actions taken aginst me, which for site adminstration is unacceptable, and that is a fucking shame. And you actions, have only went to show that you are a part of the bias as well. I'll let me credetability speka for me in the in the information that i provied in article text, and not by the comments and actions by admins. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 01:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ONce again the admin system fails useres again, and the bias aginst users not thinking in line with admins continues. The judge jury and extioncutiors, have now lessened my block from indefient to a just as unacceptable one month. This was done by Bratsche (talk • contribs) who states on his page Assume good faith always, but apparenlt allows other useres and admins not to, as their have yet to be any repremand for Jtkiefer (talk • contribs) for his use of excessive force and personal attacks, as stated above, for {{subst:|user:UninvitedCompany}} for using personal attacks, as stated above, for Dmcdevit (talk • contribs) for using bias when placing blocks, as stated above, or for Evrik (talk • contribs) for violiating the 3rr using anon accounts nor have the anon account been placed in a ban as well. The arbitatary decison on 30 days, once again withouth an srbcom decision or a decision from the wikimedia board, onlky goes to show that their are no standartds for enforcment of "policy" and that admins can enforce policy any way they see fit, which in this case is to abuse it. We would like to thank Bratsche (talk • contribs) fpr showing his support ofr thses pratcices, that only go to show that admins are no better then the peoplethat they arbitatrly enfocre their policy on. The same also applise to Voice of All(MTG) (talk • contribs), whos misleading username should be changed to voivce of the oppressers. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 03:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• SebastianHelm (talk • contribs) at [2], which was supported by Derktar (talk • contribs) and Themindset (talk • contribs)
• by multiple useres at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Boothy443
• Violetriga (talk • contribs), Guettarda (talk • contribs), Trilobite (talk • contribs) at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_27#Remove_blank_support.2Foppose_votes.3F
• UninvitedCompany (talk • contribs), and User:Dmcdevit (talk • contribs) at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_27#Question_for_B-Crats
• Sn0wflake (talk • contribs) at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Denelson83/Second

I am sure this can be extended

Hi Boothy - I don't know the details of what's going on here (and I am under some fairly extreme date pressure in my real world job, so don't really have time at the moment to personally help). Would you be willing to accept the assistance of anyone at Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates? -- Rick Block (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you dont have time, then dont bother with me, becuas all your doing is wasting my time and your time, and in the end i dont see what Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates could do anyway. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 22:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to waste your time or mine. The point would be to have somebody for you to talk to who you could basically trust to be on your side. If you think this would be a waste of time, that's fine - but it sounds to me like you could use some help. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Boothy, yes I was struggling for a bit to put some nave boxes for my Metrlonik stations project, but I've set them up as incumbant series which for now seems to work pretty well. I'm going to try to get the whole system fleshed out, and then go back to fill in on it. (hopefully with some help) I would love some help with the Wash Metro style boxes. I'll get back to you when I'm ready tackle that.

69.153.246.125 06:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

pwned by wikipedia: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia."

Re: A, it;s to bad that your edits are not part of what you state above. And B i consider bad faith edits to be vandalism, because edits that vandalise are in bad-faith. and C regardless of what it says, i am still going to arn you, still revert you, and still consider your edits to be vandalism, false and misleading, ans the edits go aginst "concenusus". --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify this vote please? My understanding of "recreate" in the context of *fD is to duplicate something that has been deleted by process (something which can be deleted under WP:CSD), so I assume that this isn't what you're referring to. What exactly do you mean by "recreate" in these votes? Chris talk back 16:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I saw no good or compelling reason for their deletion, and the idea that a template needs to be deleted because it is not on more then one page is total bs

Please read Wikipedia:Template namespace before taking any further part in TfD, since it appears that you clearly do not understand the purpose of template messages. The idea that it should be deleted for being single-use is not BS, since that policy page states clearly that the Template namespace is for information used on more than one page (in the very first line, conveniently). I should probably add that "recreate" is not a valid vote in deletion debates, as it is a clear demonstration of bad faith. Chris talk back 09:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

late! (Am stuffing myself on SuperValu custard creams right now!) I didn't skip one. I never actually put together that archive. I blanked my page when I left for a few weeks. I have get to go back in the history and turn the blanked information into archive 13! :-) [[user_talk:Jtdirl]] 04:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. That page is such a ridiculous joke, with the gaggle of deletionists charging around seeing what they can destroy. The entire page needs to be deleted and a proper page on the issue created with proper rules and procedure. I've just let rip at Chris again. Where do we get these amadáin ufuasach? [[user_talk:Jtdirl]] 05:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:Speak for yourself. First, anyone that runs around attacking people as "deletionists" should not be participating in deletion debates (this being hypocrisy). Second, there is a proper page with proper rules and procedure, it's WP:TFD. It operates according to the rules in WP:DP, Wikipedia:Template namespace, and the usual content policies (WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, etc.). I might suggest you think twice before labelling people as amadáin ufuasach. Have you stopped to consider that perhaps you are being the amadán here? My votes on TfD happen to be supported by policy, which itself typically enjoys consensus support. Yours do not appear to be so. Chris talk back 09:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Incidentally, please do not remove highly relevant comments from your talk page. It is generally seen as an attempt to cover something up, and as such viewed with some suspicion. Chris talk back 20:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The comments above , which have been stricken from the record will be continue to be for being nothing but trollish and sticking his nose into other person conversations, are unsupported by any facts and are just total POV. First off he complains about personal attacks, yet demands that not participate in wikipedia because their opinions are not that of majority rule, or the corruption of the word consensus which s applied on a ever day use. FYI the detention of consensus in the world outside of wikipedia is "An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole" this is usually take after negogaations between the parties involved. In wikipedia, though this is not stated but how it is used in working, "An opinion or position reached by a majority of users, a majority being defined as an arbitrary number greater then 50%, in a vote or threw a poll in which their is little or no relevant discussion, and that the position of the majority should be taken as the position of the group as a whole". Therefor calling anything a consensus on wikipedia is nothing but false and misleading, but thats nothing new here. Next the users states that he is only following policy in regard to his deletion request based on Wikipedia:Template namespace. It should be noted that Wikipedia:Template namespace is not a policy (it is not marked as a policy nor as a guideline), and their for can not be enforced as one nor is it marked as even a guideline, at the most it is a tutorial assisting user in what that can use templates for and how to create them, therefor enforcing an deletion request as enforcement as a policy of guideline is false and misleading, but is that a surprise as that happens every day on wikipedia. Also that the templates are in violation of NPOV and NOT, which is also false in that none of the Irish templates is in violation of NOT or NPOV, the same can not be said of *fD which are constantly in violation of NOT (which is a policy) in the fact that they use voting as their only method of decision making and consensus via discussion, also as these are votes or polls/ any decision they render is non-binding, therefor anyone can recreate any of the "deleted" items at will as the decision on the all of the *fD, and the the so called enforcement of the decisions at these *fD pages put any user in violation of NOT

"Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. Its primary method of finding consensus is discussion, not voting. In difficult cases, straw polls may be conducted to help determine consensus, but are to be used with caution and not to be treated as binding votes."

Also to state that any of the templates meets the cretiera on DP is also false, the only thing that this would wall under is "A redundant or misguided series box" but their is no cretiera in which defines a "misguided series box" or what it is, and that none of these boxes are part of any series of any other boxes, as i would define it would lead me to say that they are not cretiera for deletion except as a NPOV violated request. Also the naming of the user as a deletionist is correct based upon his actions, which directly condtricit the statements that he makes on his own user page, but is not not a surprise. Itr should also be noted that the useres philsophies and his actions are in violation of policy as well, he states he is a commonsensist (LOL) which should actucally be a conformists which based on his statements and actions he beilves in. The peoblem is conformity, as he wants to enforce it, goes aginst NOT (see [[3]] in that it is imposing a CREEP. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 21:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your rant is patently false, and provably so. Please stop engaging in uncivil behaviour, and refrain from making further personal attacks. I also ask that you do not make any further false statements about my, or any other's, comments. Also (and I don't mean this in a bad way), please learn to spell.

1. The comments above ... [are] nothing but trollish and sticking his nose into other person conversations, are unsupported by any facts and are just total POV. Please point out where in Wikipedia policy your talk page is deemed private. I might point you to some supporting facts, bear in mind that voting to "recreate" in a deletion debate (outside of WP:DR) is not in good faith (it is essentially saying "Here's my vote, but if I disagree with the result, I'll overturn it anyway"), as are personal attacks in edit summaries.
2. First off he complains about personal attacks, yet demands that not participate in wikipedia because their opinions are not that of majority rule, Actually, I suggested (not demanded) that you read some relevant policy documents and guidelines before continuing to participate in TfD (and only TfD). I made no reference to the wider WP.
3. Next the users states that he is only following policy in regard to his deletion request based on Wikipedia:Template namespace. It should be noted that Wikipedia:Template namespace is not a policy (it is not marked as a policy nor as a guideline), That it is not marked does not mean it is not accepted by the majority of participants on TfD. I also invite you to point out where I have actually nominated a template for deletion to which you objected.
4. Also that the templates are in violation of NPOV and NOT, which is also false in that none of the Irish templates is in violation of NOT or NPOV, Again, please point out exactly where I said that the Irish templates themselves were somehow in violation of WP:NOT or WP:NPOV.
5. the same can not be said of *fD which are constantly in violation of NOT (which is a policy) in the fact that they use voting as their only method of decision making and consensus via discussion, Actually, TFD identifies that discussion and not voting is its method of decision-making, hence your votes of "keep" without a reason have been challenged.
6. Also the naming of the user as a deletionist is correct based upon his actions, Making blind, uninformed, assumptions and applying disparaging labels about other users is never correct, per WP:NPA, as well as general common sense.
7. but their is no cretiera in which defines a "misguided series box" or what it is, English law has no criteria which defines my name, but that doesn't in any way mean that I don't have one.
8. The peoblem is conformity, as he wants to enforce it Conformity to what?

In summary, (no offence) grow up. If you still think I'm being in any way unfair, unreasonable, by all means file a user conduct WP:RFC. HAND. Chris talk back 22:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I refuse to addresw the above user any further, like many of wikipedia users it uses the idea of confusion, misdirection, and misinformation to push it's ideas. It also particpates in the same violations in which he accuses others of doing aginst him, mainly WP:NPA. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 23:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]