Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/BooyakaDell

message: The 'Response' section is clearly marked as such, and the Statement section clearly states Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.  81.155.178.248 10:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good pick up, 81! I reverted it, and added in the edit summary that Booyaka should be responding in the Response area, and not editing that area. I also added the edit to the evidence of behaviour list. Curse of Fenric 11:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's still continuing to edit the "Statement of the dispute" section, despite being informed he could not.  81.155.178.248 01:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously, what are you talking about? I edited the Evidence section; that is the part I am supposed to be editing, is it not? Please link to exactly where I was told not to edit the Evidence section.BooyakaDell 01:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the page before editing it, or read the message directly underneath "Breach of procedures" on this page.  You cannot edit anything in Section 1.  81.155.178.248 01:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Breach of procedures

message: As per the edit summary, I'm not sure which you mean but I'll be happy to find them (or try!) 81.155.178.248 19:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments needing evidence?

message: It's a shame there isn't a spot for me to respond to some of Booyaka's latest edits (as per above).
But for the record, any comment claiming "civility" should be taken in context. Booyaka can claim civil language all he wants. His actions in tagging were anything but civil. I maintain that any questionable action on my part was provoked, by the threat Booyaka poses to the database of independent wrestling in Australia and New Zealand at least. And his observation regarding my telling Normy132 to "oppose it" is laughable to say the least because it shows just how confused he is. And yet he won't listen?
And the reason why Sir Fozzie and 81 are involved is not because they just "fell into it". Fozzie was with me from the start and has openly indicated a sharing of my view that Booyaka is (at least) highly likely to be JB196 avoiding a community ban. 81 has seen the same issue with inappropriate notability tags as I have. The problem at it's root as I see it, is that Booyaka sees any wrestling article (fed or wrestler) that is not North American and has no consistent mainstream coverage internationally as not notable - even when presented with sources in the AFD (which by the way is NOT a vote - it is a pooling of opinion). The PCW Australia discussion is a great example. And I maintain my statements on the three feds Booyaka is keen to muck rake on as provoked because he was in mediation and should not have tagged them until this matter was sorted out. The tagging here was what caused me to pull out of the mediation process because Booyaka was clearly ignoring it by continuing to tag.
He has also asked Lethaniol when he can start tagging again - and that frightens the heck out of me because it means that many more non North American articles in wrestling will be under threat from this inappropriate tagging. Booyaka claims to be improving Wikipedia with this. Because of the low numbers of active Wiki editors from Australia and New Zealand as an example, he is in fact going to end up getting good material deleted because of lack of opposition. Booyaka has claimed that this indicates a lack of interest in the subject thereby justifying the deletion. Just because no one opposes a deletion nomination doesn't mean the deletion is right automatically. This is a BAD thing for Wikipedia, not a good thing, and I believe opposing such a thing to be right and just.
As there hasn't been an outside view from an admin yet (I assume that is the procedure) I'll wait and see what happens for another 12 to 24 hours. To be blunt, I'll accept nothing less than Booyaka's banning for behaviour that closely matches that of the already banned JB196 (whether Fozzie and I are right about the sockpuppet situation or not) especially if I come in for any stick from an admin. I'll cop it if Booyaka is banned. I won't if he's not. Curse of Fenric 20:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll just add something about my standpoint here as well.  I fully support the removal of non-notable wrestlers and wrestling promotions, as can be seen by my adding of tags   (note the second link is due for deletion very soon, so it might not work shortly).  What I strongly object to is the discriminatory and unfair methods being employed by Booyakadell 81.155.178.248 21:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: For the record

message: Sorry am very busy at work today so much time to look into this issue. I think BooyakaDell should be able to add evidence - if only as a practically -  otherwise it will need to be fed to me and then I would need to put the evidence up. Obviously any evidence needs to be in context and the description with it objective (see edit by Curse ) which I agree with. if IP81 or Curse has any problems with the evidence that is put up then bring it to my or SirFoz attention and we can remove. I will only remove the most irrelevant of evidence though, cos at the end of the day it is for others to judge on the merits of the evidence presented, and for BooyakaDell not to be able to present evidence in some way would be biased. Cheers Lethaniol 10:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: BooyakaDell adding eveidence

message: My edit is fully supported by Wikipedia guidelines, it seems Booyakadell has some vested interest in adding that link, whatever that may be..... 81.155.178.248 11:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Accusation of bad faith

message: How funny that as soon as I allegedly don't reply to any of JB196's points, he instantly tries to become the victim.  It's obvious to everyone else involved that for some time he's been ignoring points on talk pages, in mediation and in this very Rfc.  So you'll have to forgive me for ignoring his points, given that they were redundant and their arguments held no water.  My edit was fully justified by Wikipedia guidelines, which I have repeatedly explained. 217.44.10.183 22:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The alleged 8 points

message: There's an unsupported claim in the opening statement that the interim between 7 September 1996 when JB196 was banned and BooyakaDell registered was marked by aggressive IP editing to the same family of professional wrestling articles and that the new account registered because articles were getting semi-protected.  I've been reading up on BooyakaDell's edit history and so far I don't see much evidence to support that claim.  If that had happened I'd expect to see a history of semi-protection somewhere in the first five or ten articles this account edited.  
Instead I got as far as Kurt Angle, several dozen articles into the edit history, before I found a page that had a history of protection.  In that case the account removed two unsourced sentences that were arguably fair game for deletion.  This single edit appears unrelated to the full page protection later that day, which noted libel concerns.  The most recent prior protection to that article had ended on 17 October.
If there's something else I've missed about this chain of reasoning, please fill me in with specific page diffs.  And if there are other circumstances please note them.  I've spotted sockpuppets before based on a familiar nexus of interests: two different accounts that gravitate toward the same odd preference of articles.  Also show diffs of any posts by the new account that refer to the previous account in the first person or that reference talk archives from before that account registered.  Another pattern that sometimes helps establish a sockpuppet is writing style - particularly writing mistakes.  If the two accounts make the same distinctive errors in spelling, punctuation, or syntax or if they both tend to repeat the same catchphrases then that could build a circumstantial case that they're the same.  On the other hand, if they use different regional varieties of English or the later account is markedly more literate than the earlier account, then that would indicate two different people.
Banning an editor as a sockpuppet is something I don't do lightly.  I agree there are marked similarities, but so far I still have reasonable doubt.  Burden of proof is on the editors who want to establish that these are sockpuppets: show me more evidence to convince me. DurovaCharge! 02:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've received several replies at my user talk page User_talk:Durova#BooyakaDell.2FJB196 and have enough evidence now to submit a checkuser request for BooyakaDell.  We'll see whether it comes back positive. DurovaCharge! 20:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin query 

message: A RfCU performed by Essjay found that BooyakaDell, BertoBowdoin and 67.86.149.41 were all the same person, and combined with the evidence that confirmed that BooyakaDell and JB196 were the same person, all three of the above accounts have been either indefblocked or long term blocked (in the case of the IP addresses), so there is no need for the RfC anymore.
Thank you to User:ONUnicorn and an anoymous IP address for their outside views on this which kept this thing going, and a personal thank you to Lethaniol and Durova for moderating this and helping us get to the bottom of this. SirFozzie 05:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The RfC is for all purposes over

message: I am delighted after my three day break that justice has prevailed. I just wanted to say thanks to the anon IP for bringing up a point that I had no idea about! WP:IAR!!! That's my out! I said from the start that I was trying to protect the Australian and New Zealand database. Now I have the rule to back me up, and it resolves one of the issues that really turned my stomach and partly contributed to my decision to take this break. My faith in Wikipedia has been restored fully! Curse of Fenric 20:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: One last comment