Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Boothy443/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In defense of Boothy443.

I feel the Admin have become problematic to the point, if I don't vote the way they want me to vote, they seem to ask in the most demeaning tone possible, that I do. I feel only a certain kinds of Admin are needed to rebalance Wikipedia. I agree with Boothy443, that there are problematic admin out there, and to only quality control avaliable is to vote against those who we think are the problems. I was called "Boothy" just because I disagreed with a bunch of votes.

I think Boothy443's vote is both legimate and necessary so that the minority opinion is expressed. It might be a good idea to protect and give the average Wikipedias right to vote in the admin elections without fear.

I feel that if Boothy443 is punished it will only send the message that it's not safe to vote your opinion without risking getting banned. I hope that Arbcom will bring help bring the Admin back under control, by exonerating Boothy443 to allow average Wikipedias the right to vote without fear of retribution from the Admin, or other users for disagreeing with our vote. --Masssiveego 00:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I have realized that a lot of people are trying to shift the center of this case towards his odd voting habits but that was not the main issue on my mind when I started the case. I am more concerned with his civility and edit warring issues than how he votes especially considering that it's fairly easy for the bureaucrats to ignore his votes but it's much harder to repair incivility and edit warring. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid bringing up Disruption to prove a point was a mistake. I never bought into The Cabal™ and related conspiracy theories, but this will be fuel for those who do, especially if the ruling goes against Boothy443.

I've been puzzled by Boothy443's voting behavior as well. However, I completely fail to see how it is disruptive. What was the alleged damage again? – Sad. Rl 18:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think a effort from both sides would do much to alleviating the problem; I admit I had only minor dealings with Boothy, but always found him open and friendly...what has become of good old traditions like assuming good faith and the likes? Lectonar 12:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

To be the counterpoint, I have had mostly poor interactions with boothy, though I have I think been civil with him. He did leave me a very balanced note on my talk page regarding the Philadelphia contreversy, but I fear that was only after the RfA was opened. I respect boothy's contributions and AGF with him, but his incivility to others, not his voting patterns are what lead me to contribute evidence to this case. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 15:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose votes

I do not agree that the mere act of consistently voting "no" on admin promotions is bad or wrong. From a point of raw logic, it's no worse than those who always votes "yes".

Merecat 07:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)