User talk:Lethaniol/BooyakaDell

WP:PROD question

Hi! Within the last week and a half, I have nominated a few articles for deletion via WP:PROD. The template says that if nobody objects within five days then the articles can be deleted. Nobody has objected to any of the three articles listed below being deleted, so what can I do to ensure that they actually get deleted?

Mikey Nicholls, Grudge Match, List of Grudge MatchesBooyakaDell 00:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up: Looks like Mikey Nicholls has been deleted since I first posted this.BooyakaDell 17:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Further followup: Looks like they've all been deleted.BooyakaDell 21:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:

Hi there! I am based in on the East Coast of the US. Besides pro wrestling my interests include art (drawing), writing, video editing, golf, and basketball. I know some French too :).

Thanks for the tip about the edit summaries, that is a good point nad I will start filling that section in each edit. I usually do fill itin anyway but looking at my past edits the PROD ones are virtually all lacking edit summaries so from now on I will make sure each edit has a summary as well!BooyakaDell 22:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi Lethaniol, hope all is well since we last corresponded. I wanted to get your opinion on a dispute between me and another editor, Curse of Fenric. I have been trying to clean up many of the non-notable pro wrestling articles on WIkipedia (and there are a lot of them) by putting some up for deletion and adding "importance" and "notability" tags on others. I added "importance" and "notability" tags to three pages (Kiwi Pro Wrestling, Action Zone Wrestling, and Professional Championship Wrestling (Australia)]]) because they look to be little more than advertisements. This editor claims on my talk page that I am nominating the articles for deletion even though I have told him that no, I am not nominating them for deletion, I am simply expressing concern about their notability and importance.

On another note, I have been adding "edit summaries" to my edits since I last heard from you.BooyakaDell 01:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi! again

Lethaniol, adopter, thanks for the third opinion on my page, I appreciate it! I changed my vote for Pete Wilson to null, it is not a big deal to me whether it stays or not.

I don't really know what to say as far as the sockpuppet accusation. I am not a sockpuppet so other than drawing more attention to the situation I don't know what responding to it would accomplish.

Also what can I do in this situation described below?

As I told you a few days ago on your talk page above, Mikey Nicholls was deleted and now somebody has recreated the article. What happens next? Is this where speedy deletion comes into play?

Thanks for the feedback and quick response time!BooyakaDell 16:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Addition to what I said in last post

Hi again Lethanliol! I wanted to add that after thinking about it some, I want to reiterate that I don't think these three Australian pro wrestling promotions are notable by Wikipedia standards. I came across this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pro_Wrestling_Unplugged

Those three promotions are all less notable than Pro Wrestling Unplugged, and the arguments that are being brought up by Curse of Feneric are identical to the arguments brought up at the above link, and that promotion was deleted.

And no matter how many ways I try to tell him, he will nto have any of it, and either deleted my comments or reverts my concerns that were expressed. So I am not quite sure how to go about making up with him when he refuses to achknowledge official Wikipedia policies.BooyakaDell 18:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Lethanliol, I have come on here to make a few points regarding your adopted Wikiuser above. Firstly, he is acting in bad faith because his tag usage has been widespread and verging on wrecking the grass roots of the knowledgebase in pro wrestling. I have taken umbrance to this with regard to the wrestling promotions because I am actually involved in the industry. There is no "one size that fits all" rule to notability. It entirely depends on the context of the article, and this is what BooyakaDell is not understanding. The fact that he is not listening is the reason why he has been reported as a vandal.

Secondly, only one promotion that he has tried to get deleted (and he can deny that if he wants - the tags he used are part of the process for deletion) is Australian. That's PCW. I also made none of the specific claims of the above linked deletion article - and the reason it was deleted was because of the lack of activity in the nomination. Which somewhat jades the process, but that's not Wikipedia's fault. BooyakaDell did refer to this in a message to me, but his language was considered by me to be destructive and I deleted it instead of reporting the personal attack because I believe the combination of the vandal complaint and the sockpuppet investigation will take care of this.

Finally, the user that BooyakaDell appears to really be was doing the exact same thing. Throwing these tags onto wrestling articles seemingly just for the heck of it. So I support the tag at the top of BooyakaDell's talk page 100 percent. The note about "knowing the rules of Wikipedia" - as I have already said - insinuates that everyone should stick hard and fast to one interpretation. That is impractical and common sense per article needs to be applied. That is what I have been doing.

Hope I have covered everything. Curse of Fenric 21:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This user has personally attacked me on several occasions and failed to assume good faith repeatedly, in addition to saying things that are straight out false and never happened. It's amazing how this user thinks he can be so ignorant to Wikipedia policy and yet insist his standards are any more valid than mine.BooyakaDell 21:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think a look at Booyaka's contributions will tell a different story. And I'm not the only one who agrees with that. Curse of Fenric 06:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts

Right first things first - I think we all might need to sit back and chill for a few moments. What I suggest is that for the next few days is that BooyakaDell refrains from putting up anymore PRODs or AFDs on Aussie/Kiwi wrestling articles and that Curse of Fenric does not try to remake any articles that have been deleted by PRODs or AFDs that BooyakaDell has initiated.

Does that sound broadly fair to you two? The idea is that it will stop any edit warring and allow everyone to come to some conclusions - and prevent BOTH of you getting into any serious trouble which you are heading for. Obviously this is a voluntary request only. Say yes below if you agree. Cheers Lethaniol 16:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Right am going to break this down into a number of Issues to try and separate the issues - say you think something is missing:

Please excuse me if these comments below seem a little impersonal - just trying to get things straight and stay objective

BooyakaDell sockpuppet allegation

First please read the Checkuser request Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/JB196. If you don't know what checkuser is, it is used to check the IP address of a user and so check if a suspected sockpuppet is using the same computer as a previous banned user.

Now my feeling is that as the Checkuser request was unfortunately not possible, it will likely prove impossible to be sure if the sockpuppet allegation is correct, unless BooyakaDell admits it. Therefore I suggest forget about it - and concentrate on the current issues at hand.

Also when I first took on BooyakaDell as an adoptee - I thought about the problems that may be associated with the sockpuppet allegation (especially as my first adoptee was found out to be a sockpuppet of a user who had been banned for using death threats! - see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Brian G. Crawford). I was less concerned about this as the ban on User:JB196 as if you read User talk:JB196 the ban was only going to be originally for a short time, it was only when JB196 got upset that he/she was banned indefinitely. I suspect if there was a ban review the ban would not be indefinite as the vandalism/trolling was not all the bad (in comparison with others) and it was a first ban.

Anyway, this leads me to repeat that we should forget the sockpuppet case and sort out the problems at hand.

On this note I think BOTH of you have to be careful - hence why I think you should follow my advice and have a rest from deletion/undeletion etc... Otherwise the effects might be more disciplinary action. Lethaniol 17:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Not assuming good faith

I think this is what the issue really comes down to - and maybe you would both agree. You have both left inflammatory remarks on each other pages, I think the best examples are use of templates nn-test on Curse of Fenric and test-4 on BooyakaDell. Though I think you have both been good not to let the issue get out of hand as of yet.

I think part of these issues come from Curse of Fenric believing that BooyakaDell is a sockpuppet, and therefore feeling that all of BooyakaDell's edits are in bad faith. Also BooyakaDell probably believes that Curse of Fenric is trying to push his point of view that certain articles are notable - this might be to with Curse of Fenric actually being involved in wrestling (therefore conflict of interest is definitely possible).

Further comments to come Lethaniol 17:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well it might be a whole lot late for this mess now as it has ended up on the Admin incident board see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I suggest BooyakaDell makes a civil response there - Curse of Fenric already has. Lethaniol 17:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually sorting out wrestling notability issues

Well I think this is out of my hands now with the Admin incident but for what it is worth -

I think that unless obviously un-notable or very badly written an article should be kept - I am leaning towards inclusionism. If taken in good faith BooyakaDell is leaning more towards deletionism with respect to some wrestling articles. Note not all of his edits are notability tags or requests for deletion, his has been doing some good copy editing too.

What I would like to see happen is for those interested in Wrestling to sit down and come up with notability criteria (maybe via AFD or the previous one done - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pro_Wrestling_Unplugged as mentioned by BooyakaDell) and then apply it with some common sense.

At the end of the day we are all trying to improve Wikipedia. Comments please Lethaniol 17:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the BooyakaDell/JB196 issue

Lethaniol: I'm sorry, and I'm trying to WP:AGF of BooyakaDell, but after having dealt with JB196's ongoing and continuing vandalism (the stuff on JB196's talk page is just the tip of the iceberg the size of the one that sunk the Titanic, across 9 or 10 different Admin pages (forum shopping, etcetera) and the fact that the IP Vandalism of the articles only started to stop when BooyakaDell's account was registered (and the articles targeted are the same).. Well.. what's the old saying about if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck? SirFozzie 17:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not know the latter about the IP vandalism starting once BooyakaDell was registered - will check it out myself - thanks for bringing to my attention. What I will say though, is that BooyakaDell does not appear to have gone a rampage across users/admin pages as of yet - nearly all comments seem to have been civil - whether this is because he is a different user or learnt his lesson - I don't know. Personally I think without a Checkuser it is hard to be sure of sockpuppetry and so would prefer to concentrate on the current issues and getting any user to assume good faith WP:AGF and contribute effectively. Cheers Lethaniol 18:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Lethaniol

Hi Lethaniol. I agree with having everything on one page (in this case yours). I understand you can't come out "all guns blazing" nor do I think that would accomplish anything. And finally, I also am in accord that at the end of the day, we are all trying to improve Wikipedia at the end of the day. It's just difficult to maintain that common ground when some people refuse to assume good faith which sounds like arguably the most important part of Wikipedia, and then have the need to accuse me of not assuming good faith is ridiculous. I strongly disagree with a lot of what Curse of Feneric has said, but don't see the point to making it into more of an issue. Fact of the matter is that at most I have vandalized once and no more than once, and that is when I removed Curse's nonsense warning from my page only to revert it back within five minutes. Other than that, contrary to what he continually insists, I have stayed entirely civil, have maintained good faith, and have not vandalized once with the *possible* exception of that one time, so you got this random guy insisting that I'm vandalizing yet as demonstrated already he clearly doesn't even know the standards for notability on Wikipedia, and he insists that his personal judgment of a promotion's "local notability" (his exact words) holds more power than official Wikipedia policy....that being said Curse of Feneric is fine by me and lets put this thing on the backburner permanently. I will also say that anybody who wants to investigate is welcome to look at my contributions list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BooyakaDell) and contrary to what Curse and Sirfozzie said I think all concerns would dissipate as soon as that is done, because I have remained civil throughout this process which in my opinion hasn't been reciprocated...Sirfozzie ties to claim I'm vandalizing specifically the Death Valley Driver Video Review article but if my points were made in bad faith like he says they are why would it be marked for deleting now? As for what the rest of Sirfozzie said, I don't really have any opinion one way or the other, he's fine by me as long as he this nonsense stops.BooyakaDell 19:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

My response

Firstly, it's very hard to ignore the JB issue as the editing (as in the tags - not what happened next) is identical. As Sir Fozzie has also observed. But as a show of respect to you, Lethaniol, I'll leave it alone for now.

Now BooyakaDell has stated that his contributions list says little. Look again at the number of articles he has tagged. It's an unusually high number. I don't know where he lives, but the majority of feds he tagged were outside of the US. I went through all of them and left some of the tags alone because I agreed with them - not because they were not notable, but because they lacked content (which one could argue is the same thing in a way). I didn't touch the individual wrestlers because I don't know them.

Lethaniol I take a bit of an issue with your comment about POV pushing because I'm involved in wrestling. The issue in general is the notability of pro wrestling as a whole. I see Booyaka's tagging efforts as attacking the notability of all pro wrestling - particularly the one with Australia's PCW, with which I am familiar. In fact - for personal reasons I'd love to see that page go, but then that WOULD be a POV push. So I don't do it. And besides, the controversy referred to in the article is hugely notable and anyone who saw it unfold in the media down here would agree.

I have referred to "grass roots" wrestling. Without it the business would collapse. Anyone who is involved would understand this, and the notability of it - hence the relevance. I wouldn't describe that as POV pushing. If you asked anyone in WWE or NWA TNA (especially the latter) they would agree. All the big stars started their careers from feds like the ones Booyaka has been trying to get deleted.

I've said this before but it's worth repeating. The rules of notability on Wikipedia are flexible. They have to be otherwise they won't work properly and as intended. It seems to me that Booyaka is taking either the intent literally and sticking to it, or taking an interpretation of the rules - a single rock solid interpretation - and also sticking to it. Local issues are relevant, as is the context of the article (in this case pro wrestling). Being inflexible in his interpretation was Booyaka's first mistake. His refusal to admit that and his response to that (reversing my reverts) was when he crossed the line into vandalism. And it wasn't just once - it was four times (PCW, NZWPW, Kiwi Pro Wrestling and Action Zone Wrestling).

And just on AZW, my statement regarding the Taboo Tuesday/Cyber Sunday comment was NOT about AZW "innovating" it. The innovation is WWE's. AZW were simply the first to use the concept on the indy circuit in the US. That's not notable?

As far as Booyaka being civil is concerned - frankly I disagree. His sheer lack of flexibility (any flexibility which exists now has more or less been forced by this issue rather than chosen) is something that I consider uncivil. A classic example of this is the rubbish he put on my talk page which I removed without hesitation (and I had to do it a second time as well and he refused to even acknowledge his edit was rude until after the second revert - and I'm not even sure if that was even genuine). This whole thing is leaving a very bad taste in my mouth. It's funny though - if Booyaka hadn't tried to have the PCW page deleted for lack of notability, I wouldn't have noticed this problem.

I think I've covered everything. Curse of Fenric 20:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have much time as my internet is dodgy at home, will respond fully tomorrow. Just one point I wanted to make to Curse of Fenric. I have not accused you of POV pushing - I have not looked at the articles and your edits to see if this is the case. I was only suggesting that as you could be seen to have a vested interested in the area, some might see the potential for POV pushing, and hence why you need to take care. Again I have not seen any POV pushing, I am not accusing you of it, I just suggest care. Cheers Lethaniol 22:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Curse, you really need to take a step back from the whole situation and put your own involvement in perspective. Your insistence that I was being rude to you on your talk page (which never happened...not once) is only the start of your ridiculous judgments here. Your involvement in the wrestling business is not relevent here. AT ALL. You need to understand that and stop your denial. Wikipedia has standards and those standards don't involve your personal judgments, whether they be right, wrong, or in between.

You said - "AZW were simply the first to use the concept on the indy circuit in the US. That's not notable?" - Absolutely, positively not. With all due respect, doo you realize how ridiculous an assertion this is to make? If you read the PWU Afd, this would be obvious. Be done with this argument. This concept does not play into this promotion's notability one bit. Not even a TEENY bit.

You'd have a lot better shot arguing that the AJ/Gibson match makes it notable than this nonsense.

This in a nutshell is where you seem to be going wrong. You need to learn to pick your shots. Every single edit of mine you are dissecting. I've expressed by willingness to compromise (contrary to what you insist) repeatedly and you have ignored it.BooyakaDell 22:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please BooyakaDell calm down. I request that both BooyakaDell and Curse of Fenric stop arguing the minute details - only a few other Wikipedians will be able to follow (I not being one of them), and it is not helping. What I ask instead is that we talk about general notability - in the broadest sense with respect to Wrestling, only then will we be able to apply it to individual articles with common sense.

What I suggest is that instead of attacking each other you each write positive points about notability. That is what makes a wrestler or wrestling organisation notable. I will delete any negative comments. This way you can see where your differences in notability exist and then sort it out. I will start the ball rolling:

Notability

Wrestlers

1. Should be or have been a member of a notable Wrestling Organisation. Lethaniol 23:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Should have had a three week stay in a major wrestling. BooyakaDell
3. Should be mentioned in third mainstream publications. BooyakaDell

Wrestling Organisation

1. Should be mentioned by a non-trivial third party source. Lethaniol 23:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Should be mentioned by multiple third party sources. BooyakaDell
3. Should be notable in their home country. User:81.155.178.248 (this might need to be rephrased by the user concerned but this is how I read it)
4. Any promotion around more than ten years should be notable automatically - due to the usually short life of most feds, even notable ones. Curse of Fenric 05:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

There might not be a policy on Notability but there is the following Guidelines - Wikipedia:Notability for people see: Wikipedia:Notability (people) and organisations see Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations)

Probably the important things to take out of these guidelines are:

For people (i.e. Wrestlers)

1. Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles. Third party verification from a non-trivial publication outside of publications by sponsors of the sport or activity should be provided to demonstrate that the subject is widely recognized—meeting the first criteria—as performing in a fully professional league or at the highest level.

For organisations

1. The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself.
2. The club, society, or organization has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the club, society, or organization itself.
3. The company or corporation has been in existence for an extended period of time (see above) added by Curse of Fenric 05:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Cheers Lethaniol 15:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Further Comments

I agree with your definition for wrestler's although I think member is too vague. There are thousands of people who have had one match in World Wrestling Entertainment on a house show in front of a few hundred people and then never returned again. As long as it's like a three week stay in a major wrestling organization I have no problem with their having a profile. I also think the wrestler should have gotten publicity from mainstream publications which are third-party to himself and to the promotion(s) which he is a part. Even if he worked for an undeniably notable wrestling promotion, that doesn't mean he himself is notable.

I think wrestling organizations should be mentioned by multiple mainstream third-party sources to be considered notable. It's not uncommon that a local newspaper will write a story about a promotion, but I think if that is the case multiple times then that warrants an article. Just because they had a notable wrestler make an appearance doesn't mean they are notable. In November 2003, Sabu made an appearance on a show for New Wave Championship Wrestling. It was the company's only show asthey folded after that. In my opinion, that promotion is not notable even though it had Sabu, a notable wrestler, on the only show it ever promoted.BooyakaDell 23:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have edited BooyakaDell's comments here and put them into single lines for above. Lethaniol 00:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This comment was made above by BooyakaDell:

he clearly doesn't even know the standards for notability on Wikipedia, and he insists that his personal judgment of a promotion's "local notability" (his exact words) holds more power than official Wikipedia policy

There is no official Wikipedia policy on notability, so such a comment is specious and capricious. BooyakaDell attempted to delete All Star Wrestling, claiming it was a non notable indy promotion. However this is where local knowledge is paramount. Any UK wrestling fan would instantly know that All Star wrestling are not as alleged, and I have outlined the reasons for this on the article's talk page. Even a cursory check of the promotion's website (linked to in the article) would have shown they are notable. If would be easier if BooyakaDell concentrated on areas which he has sufficient knowledge to make judgements such as these. "Local notability" is a highly contentious phrase in my opinion. To someone in America, an independent wrestling promotion based in the UK or New Zealand may not seem particularly notable. However the converse is also true, independent wrestling promotions based in America may not seem notable to anyone outside America. 81.155.178.248 09:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have edited 81.155.178.248's comments here and put them into single lines for above. Lethaniol 00:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The "notable in their own country" wasn't exactly as I intended it, but it's not too wide of the mark. The point I was trying to make is it's easy to consider someone to be non-notable if you've never heard of them and they are based 1000s of miles away, so it would be better to proceed with caution under those circumstances. 81.155.178.248 15:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay I will leave it for the moment if it is not to far off - change it if you want. I suppose the idea is to try and come up with a few sentences to help define notable - instead of talking in long prose. Cheers Lethaniol 16:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, a situation has arisen which ties in nicely with this. Notability tags have once again been added to two wrestlers who work in Puerto Rico, Glamour Boy Shane and Thunder(wrestler). I'll give you a quick outline, as from what I can gather you're not overly knowledgeable with regards to wrestling.

• There are four major wrestling markets in the world - America, Japan, Mexico and Puerto Rico. The UK/Europe could have been considered 20 or more years ago, but not at the current moment in time.
• Both wrestlers have wrestled extensively for both major promotions in Puerto Rico, World Wrestling Council and International Wrestling Association, Glamour Boy Shane having worked for approximately 5 years for each promotion.
• Both promotions have 2 different TV shows each week [1] and [2].
• These TV shows are shown on high profile channels WAPA-TV and WKAQ-TV, not shown on some minority fringe channel. A quick look at the articles linked will confirm this for you.
• On the front page of the IWA website [3] there is a list of results, I'll just use the ones from November for the sake of brevity:

1. Results: Levittown 11/25/06
2. Results: Juana Diaz 11/24/06
3. Results: Peñuelas 11/19/06
4. Results: Carolina 11/18/06
5. Results: Arecibo 11/17/06
6. Results: Carolina 11/11/06
7. Results: San Lorenzo 11/10/06
8. Results: Hato Rey 11/05/06
9. Results: Cayey 11/04/06
10. Results: Toa Alta 11/03/06

• That's more shows than any American independent promotion did in the month of November, and other months would easily show similar results. I don't have the details for WWC due to their site being in Spanish and difficult to navigate, but I'd imagine they would be similar.

As I've just shown, wrestling is popular in Puerto Rico. The promotions are shown on major TV channels, and the promotions run a significant number of shows. However BooyakaDell seems to think the wrestlers are not notable. However, when edited the article of a US independent wrestler J.C. Bailey he did not see fit to add any notability tags. This wrestler does not appear on TV, and has not appeared for any major promotions. So why did he not add notability tags to this article? I won't speculate as to his motives, but it seems any wrestler or promotion from outside America is non-notable, whereas any from America are notable regardless of how insignificant their contributions are.

Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia that covers global notability, or just American notability? 81.155.178.248 18:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Because I'm on the road right now I only just got to this. It's not a bad list. I know you said no negatives, Lethaniol, but I want to point out - and this has been mentioned here by someone else - that there are no specific notability rules for Wikipedia. To make specific rules can be fraught with problems because what is notable in one country is not in another. I would even go so far as one state (in the case of the US and Australia). Just want to ask though - what would constitute "third party" publishing? Just a general question. Curse of Fenric 05:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Continued Disruption

Hello Lethaniol, I hope all is well with you in England. I wanted to let you know that this dispute with Curse of Fenric continues. He has posted warnings on my talk page advising me to stop vandalizing pages yet I have not vandalized pages. It is my wish that he would assume good faith and realize that we are all trying to improve Wikipedia. What next??BooyakaDell 23:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

The situation is close to out of control - I have requested help from the Mediation Cabal before people start getting blocked. See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-11 BooyakaDell Lethaniol 01:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, that is perfectly fine, although I am unclear why only my user name is in the title of the Mediation Case and Curse of Fenric's is not when he is also involved? ThxBooyakaDell 01:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

May I recommend that while mediation is ongoing, BooyakaDell refrains from nominating any further articles for deletion? 81.155.178.248 01:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lethaniol! I am willing to refrain from nominating any other aticles for deletion for the next two weeks. How does that sound? Also I posted a new response on the Mediation page.

I maintain that my current nominations for deletion are entirely in good faith, as evidencing by the fact that everybody who has responded to the afds I made yesterday other than Curse and 81 have voted for either Delete or Speedy Delete. This would indicate that I was correct to question those article's notability and importance.BooyakaDell 17:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hehehe just as you posted to put the afd links up I was posting them at the mediation.BooyakaDell 17:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Lethaniol - it's too late. When Booyaka started those deletion pages the mediation was already on. His note about the number of negative votes only reflects on the majority of American users - which will turn the english Wikipedia into a farce if not nipped in the bud. For this reason, Booyaka is a threat to the database and I will no longer participate in the mediation process. I am way too angry and feel threatened by Booyaka's behaviour. Curse of Fenric 21:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Curse of Fenric personally attacked me AND solicited votes for afd

Hi there Lethaniol. I want to let you know that I came across this edit in which Curse of Fenric personally attacked me ("idiot") - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Normy132&diff=93535430&oldid=93336548 . In the same exact edit he also solicited a vote for an article to stay on Wikipedia. Are there not policies against these two things on Wikipedia? I trust that you will know how to deal with this situation better than I do. Should I add in the PCW afd that link and point out what he did or will you deal with the situation accordingly?BooyakaDell 22:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

How about you fight your own battles? He just let one of the article's creators know it was up for AfD. Sheesh SirFozzie 22:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

He did more than just let one of the aricle's creators know it was up for afd. He told him to "get on it" as in get on making a particular vote.BooyakaDell 22:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's rather obvious if it's one of the page's creators, which way they'll vote? Arguing semantics is rather pointless. SirFozzie 22:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Have looked at the link - yes this is soliciting for attention to the AfD - put on checking the AfD policy there is nothing explicitly against it - though the AfD is not a vote but a discussion, and soliciting support may be seen as not in the spirit of the process. On the other hand if the user created the page, or inputted a lot into it, they deserved/expect to be told. BooyakaDell - I would leave this situation be - as AfDs in my experience are decided by people that are not normally associated with the article. If a massive influx of people come to try and support the article for the sake of it - then it will be noticed - but I think this is unlikely to happen - and any new users taking an interest to the AfD can only bring more useful information. So trust the process BooyakaDell please.

In response to your comment Sir Fozzie - "fight your own battles" - I am only trying to facilitate these discussions and trying not to have a particular POV. As BooyakaDell is my adoptee it is only fair to ask me a question about process (which the above is) - I will not fight his battles - it is up to him to make his thoughts and actions clear. Even if I wanted to I could not sort out this mess - it is up to BooyakaDell to help himself - the same principle as in all life. It is important for this process that I am not seen as biased - and if you have concerns on that matter Sir Fozzie please bring them up with me. Cheers Lethaniol 00:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the above before I read what is below - have edit conflict on my own talk page - oh boy! Lethaniol 00:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

See what I mean, Lethaniol? He's made an assumption on my intentions. If Normy132 knew about this even without my letting him know he'd be acting. This is getting personal now, so Booyaka needs to back off!! (If this doesn't prove the mediation has failed I don't know what does!) Oh - and note that I did not name Booyaka when I used the word "idiot". Curse of Fenric 00:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

"Idiot" was directed at me, therefore it's a personal attack.BooyakaDell 00:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

How do you know? I never named you. Curse of Fenric 00:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

STOP IT BOTH OF YOU - I will ask you both to put down this little situation to tempers running high Lethaniol 00:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Curse - your request to Normy looks like you were upset with AfD, and so to was BooyakaDell upset with apparent soliciting help for the AfD. Your both looking for the worse in each other - please be civil. Such arguing is verging on petty and not going to help differences solved. Lethaniol 00:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Lethaniol, the reason I said "Fight your own battles" is because he asked YOU to deal with it for him. From above: I trust that you will know how to deal with this situation better than I do. Should I add in the PCW afd that link and point out what he did or will you deal with the situation accordingly. Again, I reiterate my thoughts that if the well of WP:AGF is poisoned in this debate, it is Booyaka who has done so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SirFozzie (talk • contribs) 00:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Sorry for the unsigned comment (smacks forehead) SirFozzie 00:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Lethaniol - got your message on my page, thanks for letting me know where your stand. I'm just not sure if we're ever going to get the notability issue sorted out and based on the results of these current AFDs I get the impression that many people agree with the current criteria I'm using. When you say that for the timebeing I should refrain from nominating articles for deletion does that include the subst-prod feature? I don't see the problem with that considering it says right on the tag that if anybody disagrees with it they can remove it, but if they don't and it stays there for five days the article can be deleted. I reiterate again that everybody who has posted in the afds I made are in full support of the articles being deleted so my questioning their notability cannot be as unreasonable as is being portrayed. When am I going to be able to nominate articles for deletion again? Is this ban (is it official or unofficial, I'm not sure) ever be lifted? When? I'm very confused. Please just clarify for me some of this stuff when you get the opportunity. Your assistance is tremendously appreciated. Thanks also for getting back to me! 'Night! BooyakaDell 01:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well what do we have here?

This diff is rather interesting [4]. Looks like someone was soliciting support for Afds, many hours before he complained about other people doing it. The phrase "pot, kettle and black" springs to mind"! 81.155.178.248 01:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's nothing more than a case of my point going entirely over your head. I didn't tell him which way to vote. Curse did.BooyakaDell 01:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a clear example of you doing exactly what you're complaining about him doing. Feel free to report yourself 81.155.178.248 01:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You fail to understand Wikipedia policy. Difference - I did something done on Wikipedia hundreds of times a day which is perfectly allowed. He did something that is frowned upon on Wikipedia by asking somebody to vote a particular way.BooyakaDell 01:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Will you stop citing "policy" that doesn't even exist? "Policy" is non-negotiable, it doesn't bend. You've gone from "policy" to "frowned upon" in the space of 10 seconds, which is it? Feel free to give an exact link to the policy in question, assuming you can? 81.155.178.248 01:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk about semantics...As said before, people are not supposed to solicit votes on Wikpedia afds. This is an action that Curse did and I did not do.BooyakaDell 01:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

81, don't bother arguing with Booyaka. He has already proved he won't listen, and argues the same argument over and over as though he's the keeper of Wikipedia policy. You've made your point and a good pick up as well. Just keep the record of it, and use it at the appropriate time. Best to use his own words against him - he's giving enough evidence as it is. All we need to do is present it en masse at the appropriate time (and hopefully very quickly) and justice will be served. And that will - in my view - be the blocking of Booyaka. This whole mess will never be resolved otherwise. Certainly any action taken against me won't resolve anything - not because I'll evade it, but because I'm not the problem here. I'm simply the one trying to do the most about it - albeit (in the views of others) not in the best way. But that's how I respond when I feel threatened - even indirectly as is the case here. Curse of Fenric 02:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Clearly this good faith principle we've been discussing has no effect at all on you.BooyakaDell 02:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, feel free to give an exact link to the policy in question, assuming you can? 81.155.178.248 16:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

RfC entered

Just wanted to let you know that between yourself, me, CoF and 81.155, the RfC seems to be up and running. Also wanted to thank you for your patience and willingness to try to get all sides to agree on something, IF there's a positive resolution to this it will because you worked to find one. Sorry for any additional heartburn I might have caused you... SirFozzie 21:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Should Booyakadell be replying yet? I'm not sure if all the parties concerned have finished putting their points forward yet? 81.155.178.248 22:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why not.. it's a discussion. SirFozzie 22:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I understand that, but it's a discussion about the issues that have been raised, and I wanted to make sure all parties involved had raised all the points they wanted to. 81.155.178.248 22:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Their is no rush as yet - I still have to comment on some of Curse's behaviour. To not do so would make the process biased. Also I will add more links to specific evidence, of uncivil behaviour and edit warring. The RfC process will take a little time - so please be patient. Lethaniol 22:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well it had better be soon, Lethaniol. Sorry if that sounds abrupt, but as far as I'm concerned the life of Wikipedia's ideal is on the line here. It's why I'm seriously considering leaving WP for good. My cut off was tommorrow morning (in about 19 hours or so from now). I might wait for the outside response, but that response is going to be crucial in my final decision to stay or leave. Curse of Fenric 01:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand the time issue Curse, unfortunately there is never enough time in the day. All I will say is that by midnight tomorrow (GMT 13/12) I will have added the information that I have commented on above. I suggest you wait and see what the response to the proceedings is - even if you take a wikibreak and not get involved - there are enough advocates of your side of the story to make sure it is not biased. Cheers Lethaniol 02:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If my calculations are right that will be in the morning of 14/12 in Australia anyway - so no problem. No wikibreak though. There are other things to watch, and I may catch Booyaka doing something else as I have this trip into WP. Curse of Fenric 08:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

New Message

I thought we were going to start calling any future pages dedicated to this dispute as both BooyakaDell and Curse of Fenric...but they're all just titled by my user name.BooyakaDell 23:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The dispute is between you and several other editors. Based on previous Rfcs, the Rfc is correctly named 81.155.178.248 23:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I have only two reasons for only putting your name up:

1. The process is designed for only one User's name at a time
2. All the conflict stems from people disagreeing with your edits - and this is what the process if for.

Please note though that everybody's conduct (including my own) will come under question, especially Curse's who you have had the majority of uncivil disagreements with. At the moment the discussion focused on you. I will be adding in the next 24 hours discussion and differences to show that Curse, and possibly others has not been any where near saintly. This is not because I am taking sides, but because SirFozzie has already highlighted the problems with you and the whole unbiased should be attempted for. This also means if I find evidence of any more of your uncivility I will also bring it as evidence to the RfC. I hope all will be happy that I am trying to be balanced here - if not please contact me ASAP. I hope this sorts your concerns BooyakaDell - if not tell me.

I should add that the people that will comment in a RfC will be experienced and no fools. They will try and check the whole picture, and will pick up any obvious uncivility and edit warring. Lethaniol 23:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:

OK, thanks for the reply Lethaniol, you have quelled my concerns.BooyakaDell 23:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Lethaniol! Is that formatting/organization better than it was?BooyakaDell 16:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

REQUEST FOR COMMENT

Though I have some bits to add to the RfC, the process is now under way, and I have listed it under the main page, so hopefully "Outsider" will arrive soon to help out with discussions. I will give one piece of advice, to all users, before the process goes any further - BE CIVIL.

If this RfC fails the only place it is going is to Arbitration - see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. It is likely that people will be blocked if this happens - and the first place they will look for evidence is people's attitude and actions in places such as the RfC. You have been warned (friendly of course).

My Contributions

I have added lots of info to the RfC - including evidence against other users, giving more info on where this notability issue is going with links to the AFDs and some formatting to make it easier to read. My input may seem biased, but that is because SirFoz had already put the majority of one side across. I have added to that side as well as start up evidence on the other. I have reworded some bits, but I have not removed any important information/opinion or removed any links that were not repeats. Cheers Lethaniol 17:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Recent Edit in Requests for Comment

Hi Lethaniol. Thanks for the message. I appreciate your additions to the page, although to be honest, I was expecting a little more, you know, like, ummm, oomph, so to say, in your additions to the page. I mean, I thought you were going to comment on Curse's behavior, etc.? All I see are two or three new links added and some formatting changes...am I missing something...Is that all you were planning to add (I'm just totally confused)?BooyakaDell 18:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I read this diff (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lethaniol&diff=prev&oldid=93918075 - I still have to comment on some of Curse's behaviour. ) and figured there was going to be more behind it, but its all goood, thank you for the clarfication. The part that annoys me is that even if/when I get cleared of these allegiations every single petty edit of mine is going to have its motives questioned but I guess there's not much able to be done about that. 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 21:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The RfC

I don't really have a problem with the editing done on the RfC, it's appreciated. I'm just hoping that we can get consensus and figure out what to do with the issues involved. SirFozzie 19:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I just made some suggestions. I just hope that BD A) Accepts them in the spirit offered and B) Makes the changes. SirFozzie 21:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• sighs* His last edit should pretty much say it all. He wonders why people have a negative reaction to him? SirFozzie 00:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you add it to the evidence, Fozzie? Curse of Fenric 08:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Condensing

My last edit was actually to include point 12 of disputed behaviour which I just added, which it now doesn't now you've changed it. I've no problem with you re-wording anything I write, but I do think you'll need to re-word it again. Thanks 81.155.178.248 00:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lethaniol, want to let you know I added a couple more pieces of evidences to the page. Did I format them right? Are they the right type of evidence I should be putting there? Regards!BooyakaDell 01:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

anon IP 81 accuses me of breaching procedures

He says that I cannot edit the Evidence section and that I have been told this? Forgive me if I am missing something, but isn't that the part where I am supposed to put my evidence?BooyakaDell 01:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You were told on your own talk page [5] 81.155.178.248 01:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I was told about 249 other things on my own talk page.BooyakaDell 02:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

See comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/BooyakaDell#BooyakaDell adding eveidence. On BooyakaDell talk page I said he should contribute to the evidence section. Lethaniol 11:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Latest evidence on RfC

I'd ask that when you get a chance, you look at the latest updates on the RfC. The edits of "Booyaka" (adding a link to an article written by [[User:JB196] on Christopher Daniels, would not be evidence, per se of WP:SOCK, but considering he was already under investigation for being the person involved.. I consider that near rock-solid proof that User:BooyakaDell is a WP:Sock account of User:JB196.

I am willing to continue with the RfC, but as I note there, WP Policy is edits by a banned/indef blocked user using another account to get around the ban are defacto vandalism and should be reverted on sight.

Dont forget your signature SirFoz, especially on such issues :):) I have seen the contirbution by Anon IP 81, and will look at it this evening. Cheers Lethaniol 22:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Me Stoopid again. (shakes head) SirFozzie 22:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi there Lethaniol! Thank you for sticking by me to this point. Regarding the above post by Sirfozzie, it would be igorant for me to say that it does not support the accusation that I am a sockpuppet, and as I have proven throughout this entire process, I am willing to admit my mistakes (which does not seem to be the case with my accusers) and achknowledge points made my my accusers. Sirfozzie's post above does in a way link my edits to those of "JB196" but it does NOT prove that I am a sockpuppet. It is strictly a coincidence resulting from the fact that I am a reader of DOI (declarationofindependents.net) which this XPW thing is posted on. See my replies at rfc and ani for further comment.BooyakaDell 03:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: To clarify - It was wrong of me to say "which does not seem to be the case with my accusers." I should have said "which does not seem to be the case with Curse of Feneric" because that is who has not achknowledged any fault in the situation. As I have said before, I have no problem with Sirfozzie and I really don't have much of a problem with Curse of Feneric either other than that we have very different standards for Wikipedia notability/editing.BooyakaDell 03:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a heads up

Hi there Lethaniol, hope all is well in the UK! Before anon IP 81 brings it to your attention I figured I would because I have nothing to hide here. You are welcome to take a look at the discussion at Xtreme Pro Wrestling and the respective talk page to see my take on the situation going on. Regards!BooyakaDell 14:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Booykadell is falsely claiming there is a consensus in favour of having the link in the article. Looking at the talk page, I can see absolutely no consensus to this effect. I have cited the appropriate guidelines, which Booyakadell is claiming he can ignore as he sees fit. The content being linked to is original research. Wikipedia policy on original research states [6]

The only way to show your work is not original research is to produce a reliable published source who writes about the same claims or advances the same argument as you.

Therefore regardless of any arguments about where the content is "published" (hosted would be a more appropriate word), unless a third party reliable published source can be produced the entire content cannot be verified and must be classed as original research, and thus should not be linked to. 217.44.10.183 16:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC) (please note that I am anon IP 81.etc, a dying connection forced me to reboot my modem, and the ever wonderful British Telecom assign me a new IP when that happens)

A bit disappointed

That we've had reports on WP:ANI for a couple weeks (the previous report and this one), and not a single admin has checked things out to try to calm things down. I brought it up with User:Deskana, the admin who originally blocked JB196, and he was the one who asked me to file the report on WP:AN/I. You can see the message on my talk page.. he found the evidence pretty compelling that it was the same person, but still circumstancial (in my opinion, there's a point where if there's ENOUGH circumstancial evidence from the person's own hands.. that it would be considered proof).

I was glad User:ONUnicorn came in with his viewpoint, but I was hoping for more. Seeing JB/Booyakadell get into an edit war on the Xtreme Pro Wrestling page where he tells 81.155 he will break 3RR to keep that link in because he doesn't consider 81.155's edits to be in good faith, tells me that this thing is going to blow up (again). SirFozzie 16:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sighs.. did I say he was GOING to break 3RR? He has [[7]] SirFozzie 16:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what you say - there must become a point where circumstanial evidence is so great that somehting must be done. I believe we are in and around that point at the moment - and I am still pondering what to do (oh I know - go out on massive piss up with mates tonight - that will help - though hangover won't!). It would help if an Admin came and said whether the evidence was enough or not - other than Deskana.

The case of Xtreme Pro Wrestling is edit warring on both sides - but then it is on the issue of JB's published work as a reference. Hmmm, I don't know.... Lethaniol 16:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for recognising that he is edit warring also, I strongly objected to his attempts to stop removal of the link by playing the "you're edit warring" card when he is equally at fault. Well technically he's more at fault, I wouldn't dream of breaking 3RR 217.44.10.183 16:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Right I have removed this link - NOT because I think it is not relevant, I have no idea if it is or is not. BooyakaDell said that someone else apart from Anon IP 81 could remove it, so I have, so to try and resolve the dispute and get back to RfC or Sockpuppet issues that have yet to be resolved. Wikipedia wont be damaged if this reference is not in place for a few days/weeks. Normally I would not do such a thing, but because this reference is directly linked to JB a banned user, which BooyakaDell is a suspected sockpuppet of, and so a lot of controversy I thought it best removed for the time being. Cheers Lethaniol 16:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I would also ask, why BooyakaDell are you so adamant that this link stays when you know the controversy that surrounds JB Lethaniol 16:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Have one for me while you're out tonight, Lethaniol! I'm stuck here at work till 1 AM your time SirFozzie 17:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Cheers - back - I will take you up on that offer - am off out now - later Lethaniol 17:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I have computer access for the time being although I am having some problems and there is still a slight possibility that I will have computer problems for the next few days.

As I said in my edit summary, I am a man of my word unlike some of the other people involved in this dispute are (that's my opinion), and Lethaniol, I have no problem with you removing the link being that you are a neutral third party. As for my position on the link, I have said everything that I believe is worth saying about it on the talk page of Xtreme Pro Wrestling, including explaining why I am so adamant of about "reverting it." Not only did he go against the community concensus (which was on that very talk page), but he refused to address the eight points I brought up. He even admitted to ignoring these eight points at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/BooyakaDell&curid=8407325&diff=94598554&oldid=94598495 . Any other questions you have, please refer to the Talk Page of XPW as I address everything there.

As for whether the evidence is enough or not, Sirfozzie's statement on the RFC talk page that user:Descana believes that the evidence is "highly compelling," Descana did not say that. All you must do is look at Descana's reply to Sirfozzie and he says its a stretch. I have been forthcoming about my connection or non-connection to this XPW "book" and the evidence that has been garnered over the last day does NOT prove that I am "JB196." So as of this point, there are three users who are adamant that I am "JB196": Curse, anon IP 81, and Sirfozzie, all of whom are involved in a highly contentious matter with myself. This is not enough evidence to conclude that I am "JB196" (which I am not). I know I'm really blabbering now. Sorry...

Also, Lethaniol, as your adoptee I want to reiterate how much I appreciate your remaining a neutral party in this matter.BooyakaDell 22:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Your parting remarks

Regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BooyakaDell&curid=8020178&diff=95419177&oldid=95417482 ... well said. Quite unfortunate. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)