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