Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BooyakaDell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 00:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 12:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

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 wrerstling biographies and organisations. This had led to editting 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 reccord I am the adopter of User:BooyakaDell, see WP:ADOPT for information on this program. Lethaniol 11:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Description

{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.}

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. Some of which could be justified, some of which are obviously not. In a couple of cases where notability was later proven to the consensus of the editors, he reinserts the tag, or in several cases, adds multiple tags in a punitive effort on the article. 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.

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 folks 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.

One of the reasons why it is hard to WP:AGF with BooyakaDell is that BooyakaDell is strongly suspected to be a WP:Sock account of blocked/banned user User:JB196, who was initially indefinite 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.

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 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.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(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.) More forthcoming (Lethaniol asked me to at least start this page to get it going, as it was past midnight his local time)

  1. [[1]]
  2. [[2]]
  3. [[3]] No tags added while editing a mostly American based independent wrestler, despite lack of sources and the article being unverified.
  4. [[4]] Tags added to a Puerto Rican based wrestler. The tags were required, but it is clear they are being added in a discriminatory and unfair manner.
  5. [[5]] [[6]] [[7]] [[8]] [[9]] [[10]] [[11]] All tagged after user was initially told not to tag anything until dispute is resolved [[12]] Curse of Fenric 21:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. [[13]] Rude message to me, that was suspiciously reverted immediately [[14]] Curse of Fenric 21:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. [[15]] The whole of this page is worth submitting as evidence Curse of Fenric 21:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. [[16]] Alterations made to report listed below as a direct result of this RFC Curse of Fenric 08:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. [[17]] Procedure breach within this RFC Curse of Fenric 11:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:AGF
  2. WP:NOTABILITY
  3. WP:SOCK
  4. WP:POINT

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. User:Lethaniol [[18]]
  2. User:Lethaniol [[19]]
  3. User:SirFozzie [[20]]
  4. WP:RFI [[21]] Whole section appropriate as evidence Curse of Fenric 21:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. This needs to be settled (the whole nine yards), or it will drive several good WP editors out. SirFozzie 05:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Agree with SirFozzie, situation needs to be sorted - but against my best efforts, we need help. Lethaniol 11:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. As shown in the first link of disputed behaviour, almost every point made during mediation is totally ignored. Requests for explanation are totally ignored. 81.155.178.248 14:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. I am the user that has probably been at the forefront of reverting many of BooyakaDell's tags, and consider this behaviour to be a severe threat to the entire database of independent pro wrestling in both Australia and New Zealand. I support the statement that WP would lose editors as I have already committed myself to leaving should BooyakaDell not be properly dealt with. Curse of Fenric 20:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

[edit] Response

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:


I'm not concerned about anon IP 81. He kinda fell into this dispute. The real dispute is between myself and Curse. Unfortunately the title of this page doesn't reflect that because only my user name is listed but nonetheless he is also involved.

If one takes the time to actually go through my contributions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BooyakaDell), it will become immediately 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 probably hasn't achknowledged it to himself, either) that both he and myself are out to improve Wikipedia's pro wrestling articles. Until he does, 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 wrestling notability, whereas I was very forthcoming and happy to oblige Lethaniol when he came up with what was a very good idea - for us to mull over where our standards on wrestler notability differ. But Curse refused any part of that. It is unfortunate that Curse portrays this situation as if he has done nothing wrong. I have been forthcoming about my mistakes. Not even ONCE has Curse acknowledged anything positive about my efforts on Wikipedia. Yet he accuses me of bad faith...

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 while 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.

On a side note, Curse's language in this diff right here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Normy132&diff=93535430&oldid=93336548) 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 idea of retaining 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 this diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wrestle_Zone_Wrestling&diff=93608794&oldid=93561466, 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 times throughout this entire situation that I have failed to maintain good faith with Curse.BooyakaDell 22:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view

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.}


Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] Discussion

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.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_comment_BooyakaDell_1411.html"