Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Boothy443

These outside views seem to be conveniently leaving out Boothy's replies to people about his opposition to their adminship. -- BRIAN 0918  15:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Outside view (3)
This view should not be seen as an excuse for his behaviour, and those backing it should not be seen as seeing his behaviour as allowable. Contrary to popular belief, even some of the most abusive and persistently bad users make good edits. The bad edits overpower the good ones, and just because Boothy was a good RC patroller (he certainly does little of it now) does not mean he is allowed to make personal attacks, does not mean he can disrupt Wikipedia to 'prove' "ADMINS ARE EVIL" and does not mean he can behave in a way which is not acceptable. Those supporting view 3 (and the supporters include myself), if they have studied the RfC and situation correctly, will surely agree that good behaviour isn't an excuse for bad behaviour. Hedley 02:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * As I indicated in my comment, I agree entirely with that. However, the view is narrowly phrased enough that it does not attempt to excuse the bad stuff with the good, hence I signed it. -Splash 02:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Exactly. I intended view (3) to be precisely focused.


 * There's WAY too much emphasis on negative behavior on Wikipedia. I don't know what happened to Boothy; he's obviously angry, disgruntled, maybe he fell off the deep end, whatever.  I strongly suspect that a part of his behavior is due to no one ever patting him on the back and saying "good work" -- sometimes you can get a person with erratic behavior to shape up just by acknowledging their good work, and getting bad behavior to stop using that method is a whole lot less painful than by beating them over the head with all of their offenses, threatening punishments, banishments, and so forth; indeed this is how we get most of our long-term vandals.  A kind word turneth away wrath. This is why I wrote view (3) and I stand by it. Antandrus  (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Analysis of edit history
When I was first trying to understand Jason's anomalous behaviour and his refusal to explain, I examined his edit history up to the point of his wholesale opposition to all open RFAs. I recorded my analysis. From this I was able to draw my own conclusion as to the basis of his behaviour. I did not record my conclusion. If anybody wishes to see this Microsoft Word document please email me with a promise that you will use it only as an aid to understanding and not as a stick with which to belabour Jason. Should I subsequently send you the document, that does not amount to a licence to distribute any part of the commentary. &mdash;Theo (Talk) 22:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Who is Jason? -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 20:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * One would assume that Jason is the subject in question, no... --Sn0wflake 21:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, Jason is Boothy443. --Phroziac (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Antisocial behavior
I don't think that Boothy's behavior necessarily warrents punishment, but it is really too bad that he has to act in such an antisocial fashion. While I agree that users have the right to vote on RFAs however they wish, changing a vote just because someone comments on it seems to just be thumbing his nose at anyone who attempts to communicate. --BaronLarf 15:08, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Though I was hopeful at first I now fail to see the point of keeping this RFC open since Boothy seems to be entirely ignorning it and has not responded to it nor even given any indication that he notices that it exists and is continuing in the behavior questioned on the RFC. Jtkiefer  T - 20:19, August 11, 2005 (UTC)