33:
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
Knowledge. I agree with Boothy443, that there are problematic admin out
52:
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
41:
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
87:
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?
37:
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.
135:
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".
34:
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.
21:
75:
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.
78:
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.
17:
101:
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
97:
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
98:
141:
118:
92:
82:
62:
46:
105:
with him, but his incivility to others, not his voting patterns are what lead me to contribute evidence to this case. --
114:
53:
easy for the bureaucrats to ignore his votes but it's much harder to repair incivility and edit warring.
107:
43:
102:
89:
55:
138:
42:
retribution from the Admin, or other users for disagreeing with our vote. --
79:
8:
18:Knowledge talk:Requests for arbitration
7:
28:
1:
142:07:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
119:15:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
93:12:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
83:18:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
63:00:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
47:00:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
73:Disruption to prove a point
157:
30:In defense of Boothy443.
71:I'm afraid bringing up
99:very balanced note
60:
148:
58:
54:
156:
155:
151:
150:
149:
147:
146:
145:
133:
109:Reflex Reaction
56:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
154:
152:
132:
129:
128:
127:
126:
125:
124:
123:
122:
121:
76:
66:
65:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
153:
144:
143:
140:
136:
130:
120:
116:
112:
111:
110:
104:
100:
96:
95:
94:
91:
86:
85:
84:
81:
77:
74:
70:
69:
68:
67:
64:
59:
51:
50:
49:
48:
45:
39:
35:
31:
23:
19:
137:
134:
131:Oppose votes
108:
106:
72:
40:
36:
32:
29:
44:Masssiveego
22:Boothy443
90:Lectonar
57:Jtkiefer
20: |
139:Merecat
61:----
16:<
115:talk
117:)•
103:AGF
80:Rl
113:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.