Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Boothy443

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This vote is closed, votes can be closed if they become too disruptive, or if they're a pile-on, like here.

[edit] Boothy443

Vote here (1/11/1) ending 23:00 9 August 2005 (UTC) Boothy443 (talk · contribs) - I saw Boothy443 on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment and it caught my eye that he was cited for calling all admins evil. It's very true that people from wikipedia admins to IRC channel operators to message board moderators all abuse their power. In his requests for comments page, several people have said that he makes good points about admins and they despite having some edits they don't like, that's about 0.0001% of them, and the rest are excellent, wonderful, superb edits. Then with the edit count machine, I found he has 12,461 edits. The reasons I nominate him are that while making very good edits almost all of the time (based on the citations of others--I do not have time to check this so it's not original research in any way), he plays the devil's advocate. And for the later, I truly believe that if a person thinks many admins are doing a bad job--and there are new admins every day but only 5 total de-adminships that ever have occured--that this is the type of person who I would like to see as an admin. How many of you have seen a politician running on a small party and saying "Most of the politicians in Washington are corrupt, if I'm elected president, I will fix that."? It's the same idea. Anyone who is passionately against those in power abusing their power is someone who I want to see in power. I also have seen admins use many other people's talk pages like these other people's talk pages are their private playthings to control however they will it. I've heard of admins being sock puppets of other admins, too. Perhaps Boothy443 could keep the admins in check and get help when they violate the rules. DyslexicEditor 22:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Support

  1. Support DyslexicEditor 22:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


Oppose

  1. Oppose, I don't think so. Martin (Bluemoose) 22:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, Boothy wants to oppose all of us, let us return the favor. Redwolf24 22:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    I think it'll be hard getting him (Boothy) to accept. DyslexicEditor 22:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    Even though Jason did disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, that doesn't mean you should. --Phroziac (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. Nuhu, no way, no how Hell is still hot as, well, hell, and this week contains only one thursday. gkhan 22:36, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Um... No. Howabout1 Talk to me! 22:43, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Carnildo 23:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. While Jason seems to be a good editor, his RFC is way too recent. If he were to adjust his attitude towards the project, and could be good for a while, I would support him. --Phroziac (talk) 23:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose - noting the RfC, this guy's upset too many people lately. Rob Church 23:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  8. That's so not hot. Mike H (Talking is hot) 23:25, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  9. CryptoDerk 23:52, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose No way, Hell hasn't frozen over quite yet, he has a very bad attitude when it comes to admins and people with authority as well as the fact that he has an open RFC which I would not use as a reason to oppose except for the fact that he appears to be entirely blowing it off with no regard for his fellow users. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 00:47, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Here's a good Boothy quote for ya: "STOP LYING ABUSIVE ADMINS, QUESTION AUTHORITY, TRUST NOBODY, EPICALLY ADMINS". Anyway, I think not. --Canderson7 00:55, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. It's extremely unlikely that he'll accept the nomination. I'm curious to see what his answers to the questions will be if he does.--Scimitar parley 22:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. I doubt he'll accept, and the timing is unfortunate, to say the least, with rfcs flying around. Grutness...wha? 01:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • Is this nomination supposed to be a joke? If it is, I'm not laughing. If its a serious nomination, then I suggest the nominator withdraw it. I have nothing against Boothy443, but I think it would be nearly impossible to get enough support votes on this nomination. This user has voted oppose on so many nominations and not given a reason for the vote when he did that he appears to have alienated quite a few users. --Chanting Fox 22:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • This nomination also appears to be ill-timed as well; there is current an ongoing RfC on this user. --Chanting Fox 22:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • It's serious. I like people who play the Devil's Advocate. (Think of how people support Tom Zarek in battlestar gallactica's voting.) I wasn't going to vote until I see if Boothy accepts, which I'm not sure if he will, but people already started so I did. You're asking me to withdraw it, well I'm going to see if Boothy accepts--I just think such a thing really waits for this. (NOTE: Added after wikipedia said someone was editing and I saw your second comment. I mentioned that I found him on the RFC page above.) DyslexicEditor 22:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
      • While this nomination may indeed be serious, DE, I'd like you to reconsider it. Most editors will oppose a user who currently has an RfC open for behavioral concerns, and nominations that are made where there will be many people opposing are frequently a source of even more frustration to the candidate; you would do him a better service by taking this down than letting it proceed. (I'd like to encourage others not to make this a pile-on, as well; it won't do any good for anyone.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I feel that it is in poor taste to nominate an editor for adminship without first discussing it with the editor. I can't imagine that Boothy would accept this nomination, or that either DyslexicEditor or Boothy443 would seriously believe that it would be successful. This seems to me more like a good way to rub salt in an open wound (it being highly improbable that this RfA would become anything other than a pile-on) than do anything to resolve Boothy's ongoing complaints about admins and the manner in which we select them. I join the call for the withdrawal of this nomination. Kelly Martin 01:03, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
    It's actually quite normal to nominate people without discussing beforehand :-) Kim Bruning 01:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    It is, but I also feel it is in poor taste—especially if it is not probably that the candidate will receive mostly support votes. A nomination such as this just invites a bunch of negative comments about someone without that person doing something asking for it. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:20, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll just say two words to describe how this might look to some people in regard to RfA nominations even if it is serious: Mike Garcia. --Chanting Fox 01:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A.