A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.
User:BooyakaDell has been accused, by among others User:Curse of Fenric, User:SirFozzie and User:81.155.178.248, of acting in bad faith when nominating for deletion (either via PROD or AfD) or adding notability tags to various non-US bases wrestling biographies and organisations. This had led to editing warring between User:BooyakaDell and at least User:Curse of Fenric, with template slapping on each others talkpage and uncivil behaviour. To complicate matters User:BooyakaDell has been accused of being a sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/JB196, whereby JB196 was blocked for similar activity - checkuser has not been possible. For the record I am the adopter of User:BooyakaDell, see WP:ADOPT for information on this program. Lethaniol 11:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}
It has been suggested that, User:BooyakaDell is not editing in good faith on numerous articles having to do with professional wrestling, with a focus on federations and wrestlers outside of the US. He has tagged many articles with notability tags, WP:PROD and WP:AFD. Some of which could be justified, some of which possibly could not. In a couple of cases where notability was later proven to the consensus of the editors, he has reinserted the notability tag [citation needed], or in several cases, adds multiple tags in a punitive effort on the article [citation needed]. At the same time, articles about American (or mostly American based) wrestlers which he edits are not subjected to the same level of scrutiny, tags have not been added to these articles, suggesting varying application of Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
BooyakaDell is insisting that other posters WP:AGF assume good faith with his efforts, including leaving his edits in, while continually insisting that other users are not assuming good faith with him. Examples are reverting edits that dispute notability or correct mis-perceptions as "vandalism", but demanding his edits stay. When various people try to engage him in discussion on the tags, he avoids the questions insisting that he's answered all their questions/discussions when he's done nothing of the sort.
This disagreement has led to conflict with a number of editors including - User:Curse of Fenric, User:81.155.178.248, User:Conniption - though the vast majority of bad faith edits have been between Curse and BooyakaDell. Both of these users have edit warred over articles and notability/deletion tags, been offensive/aggressive on the others user talk page, added vandalism warning templates to each others talk page, and been criticised for soliciting votes for WP:AfD discussions.
One of the reasons why it is has been hard to WP:AGF with BooyakaDell is that BooyakaDell is strongly suspected of being a WP:Sock account of blocked/banned user User:JB196, who was initially indefinitely blocked in September of the year, which was turned into a community ban, for violations of amongst other things, WP:Notability, WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:Point. Unfortunately a CheckUser request has not proved possible - see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/JB196 and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/JB196.
After his block/ban, the same articles were targeted by anonymous proxies, with the same behaviour, causing articles to be semi-protected several times over to try to protect them. The IP vandalization only slowed about the time when the BooyakaDell was registered, combined with similar behaviour (only professional wrestling articles, numerous tags, insisting that others are violating WP:AGF and WP:NPA, along with similarities in positing style leading folks to believe that the account was a WP:Sock account designed to get around any semi-protection of articles.
When his dispute with several other editors went to the Mediation Cabal (of which I am one of the editors in the dispute), things continued to devolve, and it was suggested by User:Lethaniol, who adopted BooyakaDell, that this formal dispute resolution be used to try to provide resolution to the ongoing edit war, without users on either side of the dispute being blocked or banned.
The root of all of these problems have been disagreements on the required notability for wrestling organisation and biographical articles, in particular different interpretations of WP:VER. An attempt was made to sort out the notability required for these articles, but with no success - see User talk:Lethaniol/BooyakaDell#Notability.
A number of these articles have gone up for AfD see:
Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed. PUT A DESCRIPTION OF EACH PIECE OF EVIDENCE
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
(provide diffs and links)
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary:
First, I want to thank Lethaniol for his patience in dealing with this situation. Next, I'm not concerned about anon IP 81. He kinda fell into this dispute awhile after it began. Sirfozzie seems like a nice guy who fell into the situation as well. The real dispute is between myself and Curse.
If one takes the time to examine my individual contributions ([48]), I am confident that it will become quickly apparent that I have maintained good faith with Curse and that I continue to maintain it.
Curse has yet to publicly acknowledge to the other Wikipedians involved in this dispute (and very well may not have achknowledged it to himself, either) that both he and myself are out to improve Wikipedia's pro wrestling articles. Until he recognizes this, I expect that any future efforts of mine to compromise with him will be ignored just as my multiple past efforts to compromise with him have been ignored and in some cases belittled.
This is evidenced by Curse's blunt refusal to discuss on Lethaniol's talk page the standards of wrestlers'/wrestling organizations' notability, whereas I was very forthcoming and happy to oblige Lethaniol when he came up with the very good idea of having us discuss where our standards on wrestler notability differ. But Curse refused any part of that, instead portraying this situation as if he has done nothing wrong. According to him, he has done NO wrong. And not even ONCE has Curse acknowledged anything positive about my efforts on Wikipedia. At least I try to be forthcoming about my mistakes.
That is what's at the heart of this issue - until Curse recognizes that I am not the "bad guy" he thinks I am and until it becomes apparent to him that although we have different ways of going about solving problems, are ultimate objective is the same, he will continue to either ignore the points I make and/or belittle me when it would be better to - if you're going to belittle anything - belittle the points and not the person making them. Then if I politely criticize him, it's as if he takes it that I'm harassing him (as clearly evidenced by the example in the next paragraph) which has never been the case.
Evidence of Disputed Behavior #6 (see above) actually endorses my side of the story so for that, I thank Curse for mentioning it and bringing this example of my constant civility throughout this entire process to the attention of those reading this page.
Links 17. and 18. above were 110% appropriate. 19. is disputable.
A couple other random points:
- On a side note, Curse's language in the diff at [49] where he solicited a vote to keep the PCW Australia article and called me an "idiot" is interesting. Notice how he says "oppose it." Perhaps I am looking too deep into it, but you would think he would say "keep it." By saying "oppose it" it's almost as if he wants to oppose my request to delete the article when you would think he would want to support the retention of the article by Wikipedia. This corresponds to several instances in these AFDs where he has attacked the nominator (myself) and not the reason for nomination (as evidenced by diff [50], I am not the only person to see the situation this way). Even if you see what I just said as lacking good faith (and it's a spur of the moment observation more than anything), it would be one of the first few, if not the very first time throughout this entire situation that I have failed to maintain good faith with Curse.
- With all due respect to the situation and the Request for Comment process, I can't help but laugh at the absurdity of some of these claims considering some of them only help my own case. I think those which I am referring to are pretty evident (Jay Phoenix, Teddy Hart, link 13, link 14, etc.).
- I think ONUnicorn couldn't possibly have said it any better below: "As for Curse of Fenric, he needs to learn the difference between vandalism and content disputes."
- A point that I know for a fact has been lost here (being that it's never once been brought up) as well is that 90% of the articles I tagged for prod were successfully deleted. I put them all on my talk page and 90% of my talk page is red links so I have succeeded in getting rid of tons of nonsense/purely vanity articles. I'm a new Wikipedian; you can't expect me to be _perfect_, I'm still learning the ropes haha (wrestling lingo/expression).BooyakaDell 22:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My response to the Xtreme Pro Wrestling page accusation, the preposterous accusation that I have a "vested interest" in it (this accusation is located at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/BooyakaDell, and the accusation that I violated WP:3RR is as follows:
Please see my posts at Talk:Xtreme Pro Wrestling and I feel that my edits are fully explained. A user engaging in a highly heated debate with me should not be reverting or edit warring my reversions. Not my edits, my reversions, which is exactly what this is. I am totally justified in my actions in this situation, in my opinion. All one must to do see that I am justified is look at the talk page I linked to, where anon IP 81 refused to address eight different points - not one, not two, but eight different points - which I brought up, and instead decided he wanted to remove the link against community consensus. Thank you.
BooyakaDell 14:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also see Curse of Fenric
1. [52][53]refusal to participate in mediation
2. [54][55] vs. [56] - contradicts self by insisting that backyard wrestling promotions should not be listed on Wikipedia but then agreeing with the preposterous and absurd argument (“it’s a perfectly reasonable point”) that “every single wrestling promotion” should have an article on Wikipedia [57]...This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to his voluminious amount of contradictory statements as it relates to Wikipedia's notability standards and guidelines.
3. [58]says that BooyakaDell "threatens the database of independant wrestling in Australia and New Zealand" and is "a threat to the database of independent wrestling in Australia, New Zealand, Hawaii and the United Kingdom"
4. [59]falsely claims that BooyakaDell "has not responded to mediation"
5. [60]falsely claims that this message from BooyakaDell was "rude"[61]
6. [62]claims that BooyakaDell has "proved he won't listen, and he argues the same argument over and over as though he's the keeper of Wikipedia policy"
7. [63]Read for yourself.
8. [64]claims that his "psychological health" is at risk because of this dispute
1. [65]
2. [66]calls BooyakaDell an "idiot"
3. [67] calls a BooyakaDell edit "BS"
4. [68] blatantly false & unmerited accusation of "abuse"
5. [69]blatantly false & unmerited accusation of "attempting to pervert the dispute process"
6. [70][71]personal attack on nominator instead of critique of nomination...gets called out on this by admin here[72] and here [73]
1. [74][75][76][77]harsh claims/accusations, failures to assume good faith
2. [78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93]other unfounded accusations of bad faith which show subject's inability to recognize that bad faith is different from content disputes, which supports what ONUnicorn says[94][...every single one of these diffs were from the VERY first day that Curse and I encountered each other on Wikipedia
3. [95][96][97]other (recent) evidence of bad faith
Also see 81.155.178.248
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Wikipedia articles must be verifiable, and should be referenced. It doesn't matter if the person is from the U.S., Austrailia, India, or the moon. If no sources exist there is a problem. However, those sources do not necessarily have to be available on-line. They don't necessarily have to be in English. They can be the local twice weekly newspaper for small-town-on-the-moon, the just have to exist and (preferably) be cited in the article. If BooyakaDell is tagging uncited articles for deletion, it's within his rights. If, on the other hand, he is refusing to accept other editor's efforts to provide sources then there is a problem. If he seems to have different standards for U.S. wrestlers than other wrestlers in other countries, there is a problem.
Accusations of sockpuppetry are serious; they are not to be taken lightly. However, since the issue is too old for a checkuser we have no choice but to take BooyakaDell's word for it that he is not JB. The accusation has been made, responded to, and in the absence of other evidence the issue should be dropped.
If I were BooyakaDell, I would avoid nominating any articles for deletion for a while. I would be very careful to source any and all statements I made in articles. I would continue to put ((unreferenced)) tags on articles that were truly unreferenced (i.e. no references at all cited anywhere), but I would do it for any unreferenced article I found regardless of if it was a U.S. wrestler, a non-U.S. wrestler, a chemistry subject, pokemon, or anything. However, I would limit myself to unreferenced tags and avoid notability tags and deletion notices. I also think BooyakaDell should broaden his range and edit some non-wrestling articles. Wrestling might be his strong point, but editing a variety of things is interesting, educational, and takes you into new relms with new people with whom you haven't got a bad history. Perhaps getting away from wrestling and into something else would help determine if the problem is with BooyakaDell, or with wrestling.
As for Curse of Fenric, he needs to learn the difference between vandalism and content disputes. Accusations of vandalism were inappropriate in this instance. Using vandalism warnings for content disputes only serves to inflame them and make matters worse.
Hopefully this comment is somewhat helpful. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 15:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Users who endorse this summary:[reply]
Just stumbled onto this - it appears from reading through and looking at the edits that Curse of Fenric may be applying WP:IAR?? 203.17.215.99 06:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/BooyakaDell established several mutual sockpuppets for BooyakaDell. Based on additional strong circumstantial evidence, an IP address received a 1 year block and all registered accounts received indefinite blocks as JB196 sockpuppets. DurovaCharge! 05:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]