RFC 

I didn't say the sockpuppet issue wasn't relevant, I said it couldn't be proven and if he insists he's not JB it should be dropped.  The stuff with JB happened around the time I started on Wikipedia and I saw a little bit of it and have to agree that they have similar editing styles.  However, if we can't prove that Booyaka is JB, then we have to judge Booyaka's behavior on its own merits.  If, on the other hand, we can prove that Booyaka is JB, then Booyaka can be blocked.  

As for "However when Booyaka replaced the tags and ignored the notes on the edit summary - that's when it became vandalism."  No, it's still a content dispute.  It's an inappropriate action, but not vandalism.  Read WP:Vandalism, especially the part about what vandalism is not.  I would call replacing the tags "Bullying or Stubbornness".  Not right, not good, but not vandalism either.  Accusing someone of vandalism when they aren't vandalising takes a bad situation and makes it worse.  

You said, "There are limited editors in Australia and New Zealand, so the obtaining of third party sources is hindered severely in the time sense."  I see that, hence my advice to him to go easy on the AFDs and just use {{unreferenced}}.  Not that I think he'll take my advice.  However, there is a growing movement to speedy delete unsourced articles, see Wikipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles (which you might want to comment on).

As for your asking if I was an admin, no I am not.  If you specifically wanted comment from admins and not regular users then RFC wasn't where you wanted to be.  Anyone is free to present an outside opinion on any open RFC.  I saw Lethaniol's comment  here, and thought I'd try to help out by providing my opinion.  That's all that ever comes out of an RFC, by the way; a few opinions.  If you'd like though, I will ask '''''(Talk|Contribs)