Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:58, 26 January 2006

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: .

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Jtkiefer

First assertion

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion, for example, your first assertion might be "Jimmy Wales engages in edit warring". Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show Jimmy Wales engaging in edit warring

Disruption to prove a point

Boothy443 proceeds to vote oppose on 58 bureaucrat noms with no explanation

• - Ultraexactzz
• - Tznkai
• - Trilemma
• - SVera1NY
• - Svartalf
• - Snowspinner
• - Skyscrap27
• - SimonP
• - Silverback
• - Sam_Spade
• - Sam_Korn
• - Rowlan
• - Ronline
• - RomaC
• - Ral315
• - Quaque
• - PZFUN
• - Phroziac
• - NSLE
• - Netoholic
• - Nandesuka
• - Morven
• - Mindspillage

Evidence presented by Aranda56

First assertion

I noticed Boothy443 went on a wikibreak on Early december, but came back to wikipedia to mass oppose all-arb com cantidates for no reason and soon after got into a mass edit war on apparently from the history that edit war was going on for months and Boothy ignored requests for stop in the talk page. --Jaranda 03:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Second assertion

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "Jimmy Wales makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where Jimmy Wales made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by Freakofnurture

To better illustrate Boothy's activities on January 14-15 (depending on time zone), here is a perma-link to the subset of his contributions referenced by Aranda56. These indicate that he was engaged in a categorization edit war with one Evrik (talk · contribs), took time out from it to oppose all fifty-seven non-withdrawn candidates, then returned to his previous activity. He got a message from Aranda56 and replied flippantly to it, then went back to the category war. For his categorization edits he repeatedly used the accusative summary "v/ Evirk forcing a deletion by blanking a cat, its a sham that such vandalsim is condoned". — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 04:05, Jan. 26, 2006

Evidence presented by Reflex Reaction

In the interest of full disclosure, I was given a Barnstar by User:Evrik who often reverted Boothy's edits.

First assertion

Boothy443 has been uncivil in discussion over the merge of Philadelphia City/County

• first, second and third example.

Second assertion

Boothy has broken the three revert rule several times in this Philadelphia City/County dispute, though Evrik is also guilty of breaking the rule.

• first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh revert at Philadelphia County.
• first, second, third, fourth, and fifth revert at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Third assertion

Content edits contrary to Boothy443 opinion are characterized as vandalism

• edit history at Philadelphia County

Fourth assertion

Boothy often votes against request for adminship, without citing reasons for his opposition. I will only cite my own adminship which ultimately opposed only by Boothy and a Willy on Wheels clone. Boothy's edit

--Reflex Reaction (talk)• 04:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Johnleemk

Boothy443 consistently opposes on nearly all RfAs he participates in

See , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . (These are just a selection which I culled from the first couple of letters in the unsuccessful RFAs archive and the past 2000 or so edits Boothy made. I only found one instance in which Boothy supported an RfA.)