A number of users involved have suggested that this mediation effort has failed, even before it really got started. Instead an RfC has been started see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BooyakaDell many thanks Lethaniol 11:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Article | Multiple wrestling articles see User Contributions of User:BooyakaDell, User:Curse of Fenric and User talk:81.155.178.248 |
Status | closed |
Request date | Unknown |
Requesting party | User:Lethaniol |
Parties involved | User:BooyakaDell User:Curse of Fenric |
Comment | Applicant has moved case to Rfc. |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|Multiple wrestling articles see User Contributions of User:BooyakaDell, User:Curse of Fenric and User talk:81.155.178.248]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Multiple wrestling articles see User Contributions of User:BooyakaDell, User:Curse of Fenric and User talk:81.155.178.248]]
Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.
I think 81.155.178.248 brings up an excellent point. All this trouble is occurring on non American promotion/wrestler pages for the most part (there have been exceptions, but they are in the minority).
Booyaka was advised not to edit anything until the situation was resolved. He has ignored this advice (I think it was from Lethaniol from memory) and went ahead with his own version of notability. That's why I slapped the three tags on his talk page as a warning.
With regard to his rejection that he is JB - the fact is that JB was banned for doing precisely what Booyaka is doing now. So if there is any consistency in admin procedure - with respect to the admins here - Booyaka should suffer the same fate.
I've been about as patient as one can with this situation. His persistent tagging when told not to for whatever the reason (whether it was me or Lethaniol) frankly - in my view - pushes this beyond mediation. Personally, I can not rid myself of the notion that this IS JB. Sorry - that is how I feel about it. And Booyaka runs onto my talk page (check the history if no one believes me) and bluntly tells me to "get the notion....out of my head". Sounds like a guilty man to me, but I'll be the first one to say that without a checkuser this can not be proved. So let's compare Booyaka's behaviour to JB's and see what we get. The similarities - from what I can tell - are staggering to say the least.
To be honest - I don't know what mediation can achieve. I stand by my assertion that Booyaka is applying a hard and fast interpretation of the notability rules, when there is more than one interpretation within the structure. It is designed that way for flexibility, and that is the way that it should be. Booyaka - if anyone - is ignoring the spirit of that flexibility (and therefore the notability rules), and when this fact is brought to hihs attention he proverbially puts his fingers in his ears. The last three tags (Action Zone Wrestling, Chuck E Chaas and Carlo Cannon) were three too many for me. Frankly I've had it with Booyaka. He does not understand how notability works when it comes to wrestling, and I'm not the only one having problems with this person. Sir Fozzie for example is taking a wikibreak because of this mess, and frankly I don't blame him!
And I am not the other user. An admin with check user can check if they wish. Curse of Fenric 06:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
My two cents: On 3 December Booyaka nominated all three of New Zealand's regularly promoting professional wrestling organisations ( IPW, KPW and NZWPW) as non-noteable, in an action that, if succesful, would essentially have purged the New Zealand wrestling scene from Wikipedia. There were and still are legitimate weaknesses with these articles regarding citations, but given that all three (particularly KPW) are frequently edited it would have been more constructive to note these weaknesses on the talk page and give the community some time to respond, either by rebutting specific criticisms or editing the page to meet them. I won't comment on sockpuppetry, desired outcomes etc because I really don't know much about Wikipedia governance and how these things are usually dealt with. But I will say that, assuming Booyaka is editing in a good faith to improve Wikipedia, he's made things difficult for himself by swooping down on the pages in an area he's obviously not particularly knowledgeable about (in this case New Zealand's pro wrestling scene) and attempting to 'raze and burn' it rather than engage constructively with the Wikipedia editors who are knowledgeable about the area. - Conniption 14:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Conniption - Your point that I am not knowledgeable about the New Zealand wrestling scene is made less strong by the fact that as of this point everybody besides Curse and anon ip 81 who have posted in the afds agree that the New Zealand promotions I have nominated are not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. I do agree with you that there are ways I could have handled this situation better.
The fact that neither of us is innocent in this whole matter (which I think Curse needs to achknowledge--if nothing else he edit warringed) is NOT the only thing we have in common - the other thing we have in common is that we are both trying to improve Wikipedia. All three of us are wrestling fans who wish to make the wrestling articles on Wikipedia more accurate, more informative, and better written which is one step towards improving Wikipedia as a whole.
Curse of Feneric and anon IP 81 as well as myself are all out to improve Wikipedia, as evidencing by the positive edits we have all made to Wikipedia. It seems that we have different standards for notability and that very well may be the brunt of this dispute. I achknowledge that local notability is important as Curse of Feneric says. However, when multiple people support the deletion of an article for it not being notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia, then I think that that article should be deleted. We will see what happens with the afds I have began.
As long as Curse of Feneric acts in good faith and realizes that we are all out to improve Wikipedia, and assuming that he is willing to accept whatever results comes out of these afds (and I agree to accept whatever result comes out of them), I am happily willing to refrain from nominating any articles for afd for the next two weeks.
I also want to thank Lethaniol for his patience in dealing with this issue.
See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Professional_Championship_Wrestling_(Australia) , Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Professional_Championship_Wrestling_(Australia) , Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wrestle_Zone_Wrestling , Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Action_Zone_Wrestling , Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_Zealand_Wide_Pro_Wrestling BooyakaDell 17:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
If there are third-party non-trivial sources, then I encourage you to add them in to the respective articles. BooyakaDell 18:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
My knowledge of this case is limited to the one article, Action Zone Wrestling, but I can say that the most effective way to combat the deletion of that article would to add sources to it. I don't see how you can be so upset with someone who's proposing unverified material for deletion - WP:V says that any unverified material may be removed. We're trying to get all of our articles sourced, not to host information that we have to take an anonymous editor's word for. - GTBacchus( talk) 20:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
As User:Lethaniol requested, I am not going to bring up BooyakaDell's similarities to JB196, because that cannot be 100% proven (although I do believe the two are the same and under ArbCom rulings that they should be treated the same). Instead I will deal with the other reasons that have made it impossible to WP:AGF with BooyakaDell.
The thing is, Booyaka does not want to compromise at all. You can see it time and time again throughout the articles he's edited. He's not willing to give a single inch. He will do whatever it takes to take down articles he does not believe are notable. Examples are articles such as Glamour Boy Shane and Thunder(wrestler).
He tagged the articles with the notability tag. However, when Curse and others presented evidence (see above)) of notability, he promptly slapped three more tags (including "Verifiable") on it. That is the EXACT opposite of acting in good faith, indeed it's acting in the worst faith, completely disregarding other's viewpoints. Booyaka seems to believe that he is Lord Most High of Notability, and anybody who disagrees with him on any iota is to be ignored, reverted and to be worked around.
I agree with user:Curse of Fenric that a mediation will not do anything. In fact, when Lethaniol started this mediation (and I appreciate and applaud that he's trying to find a peaceful resolution), he suggested that BooyakaDell hash out issues here before continuing to tag articles.
The friendly and helpful advice was promptly ignored, as he went on to PROD a few more articles and tag other articles. Booyaka will say anything he feels necessary to get admin attention off him, and then continue editing in his(in my opinion, tendentious) typical manner. SirFozzie 22:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Yesterday it was made explicitly clear by GTBacchus [6] that the removal of tags is NOT vandalism. This was clearly read and understood, as you can see a reply from Booyakadell underneath. Yet while constantly claiming others are not assuming good faith, he edited these pages [7] [8] [9] today leaving an edit summary of "vandalism". This was after it being made perfectly clear that the removal of such tags was NOT vandalism.
Furthermore, there is clear evidence that his edits and use of tags are wholly inconsistent. Teddy Hart and Matt Sydal have both been edited by him recently. The Teddy Hart article contains absolutely no references at all and therefore cannot be verified, but there are NO tags added to the page. Matt Sydal's page has 2 external links as references, neither of which can be used to verify the majority of the information in the article, and again, there are no tags. As these articles aren't concerning Australia/New Zealand/Puerto Rico/UK/etc they have not been tagged, therefore showing a clear bias against any non-American/Canadian (in the case of Teddy) article. 81.155.178.248 02:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
A number of users involved have suggested that this mediation effort has failed, even before it really got started. Instead an RfC has been started see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BooyakaDell many thanks Lethaniol 11:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Article | Multiple wrestling articles see User Contributions of User:BooyakaDell, User:Curse of Fenric and User talk:81.155.178.248 |
Status | closed |
Request date | Unknown |
Requesting party | User:Lethaniol |
Parties involved | User:BooyakaDell User:Curse of Fenric |
Comment | Applicant has moved case to Rfc. |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|Multiple wrestling articles see User Contributions of User:BooyakaDell, User:Curse of Fenric and User talk:81.155.178.248]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Multiple wrestling articles see User Contributions of User:BooyakaDell, User:Curse of Fenric and User talk:81.155.178.248]]
Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.
I think 81.155.178.248 brings up an excellent point. All this trouble is occurring on non American promotion/wrestler pages for the most part (there have been exceptions, but they are in the minority).
Booyaka was advised not to edit anything until the situation was resolved. He has ignored this advice (I think it was from Lethaniol from memory) and went ahead with his own version of notability. That's why I slapped the three tags on his talk page as a warning.
With regard to his rejection that he is JB - the fact is that JB was banned for doing precisely what Booyaka is doing now. So if there is any consistency in admin procedure - with respect to the admins here - Booyaka should suffer the same fate.
I've been about as patient as one can with this situation. His persistent tagging when told not to for whatever the reason (whether it was me or Lethaniol) frankly - in my view - pushes this beyond mediation. Personally, I can not rid myself of the notion that this IS JB. Sorry - that is how I feel about it. And Booyaka runs onto my talk page (check the history if no one believes me) and bluntly tells me to "get the notion....out of my head". Sounds like a guilty man to me, but I'll be the first one to say that without a checkuser this can not be proved. So let's compare Booyaka's behaviour to JB's and see what we get. The similarities - from what I can tell - are staggering to say the least.
To be honest - I don't know what mediation can achieve. I stand by my assertion that Booyaka is applying a hard and fast interpretation of the notability rules, when there is more than one interpretation within the structure. It is designed that way for flexibility, and that is the way that it should be. Booyaka - if anyone - is ignoring the spirit of that flexibility (and therefore the notability rules), and when this fact is brought to hihs attention he proverbially puts his fingers in his ears. The last three tags (Action Zone Wrestling, Chuck E Chaas and Carlo Cannon) were three too many for me. Frankly I've had it with Booyaka. He does not understand how notability works when it comes to wrestling, and I'm not the only one having problems with this person. Sir Fozzie for example is taking a wikibreak because of this mess, and frankly I don't blame him!
And I am not the other user. An admin with check user can check if they wish. Curse of Fenric 06:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
My two cents: On 3 December Booyaka nominated all three of New Zealand's regularly promoting professional wrestling organisations ( IPW, KPW and NZWPW) as non-noteable, in an action that, if succesful, would essentially have purged the New Zealand wrestling scene from Wikipedia. There were and still are legitimate weaknesses with these articles regarding citations, but given that all three (particularly KPW) are frequently edited it would have been more constructive to note these weaknesses on the talk page and give the community some time to respond, either by rebutting specific criticisms or editing the page to meet them. I won't comment on sockpuppetry, desired outcomes etc because I really don't know much about Wikipedia governance and how these things are usually dealt with. But I will say that, assuming Booyaka is editing in a good faith to improve Wikipedia, he's made things difficult for himself by swooping down on the pages in an area he's obviously not particularly knowledgeable about (in this case New Zealand's pro wrestling scene) and attempting to 'raze and burn' it rather than engage constructively with the Wikipedia editors who are knowledgeable about the area. - Conniption 14:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Conniption - Your point that I am not knowledgeable about the New Zealand wrestling scene is made less strong by the fact that as of this point everybody besides Curse and anon ip 81 who have posted in the afds agree that the New Zealand promotions I have nominated are not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. I do agree with you that there are ways I could have handled this situation better.
The fact that neither of us is innocent in this whole matter (which I think Curse needs to achknowledge--if nothing else he edit warringed) is NOT the only thing we have in common - the other thing we have in common is that we are both trying to improve Wikipedia. All three of us are wrestling fans who wish to make the wrestling articles on Wikipedia more accurate, more informative, and better written which is one step towards improving Wikipedia as a whole.
Curse of Feneric and anon IP 81 as well as myself are all out to improve Wikipedia, as evidencing by the positive edits we have all made to Wikipedia. It seems that we have different standards for notability and that very well may be the brunt of this dispute. I achknowledge that local notability is important as Curse of Feneric says. However, when multiple people support the deletion of an article for it not being notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia, then I think that that article should be deleted. We will see what happens with the afds I have began.
As long as Curse of Feneric acts in good faith and realizes that we are all out to improve Wikipedia, and assuming that he is willing to accept whatever results comes out of these afds (and I agree to accept whatever result comes out of them), I am happily willing to refrain from nominating any articles for afd for the next two weeks.
I also want to thank Lethaniol for his patience in dealing with this issue.
See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Professional_Championship_Wrestling_(Australia) , Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Professional_Championship_Wrestling_(Australia) , Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wrestle_Zone_Wrestling , Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Action_Zone_Wrestling , Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_Zealand_Wide_Pro_Wrestling BooyakaDell 17:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
If there are third-party non-trivial sources, then I encourage you to add them in to the respective articles. BooyakaDell 18:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
My knowledge of this case is limited to the one article, Action Zone Wrestling, but I can say that the most effective way to combat the deletion of that article would to add sources to it. I don't see how you can be so upset with someone who's proposing unverified material for deletion - WP:V says that any unverified material may be removed. We're trying to get all of our articles sourced, not to host information that we have to take an anonymous editor's word for. - GTBacchus( talk) 20:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
As User:Lethaniol requested, I am not going to bring up BooyakaDell's similarities to JB196, because that cannot be 100% proven (although I do believe the two are the same and under ArbCom rulings that they should be treated the same). Instead I will deal with the other reasons that have made it impossible to WP:AGF with BooyakaDell.
The thing is, Booyaka does not want to compromise at all. You can see it time and time again throughout the articles he's edited. He's not willing to give a single inch. He will do whatever it takes to take down articles he does not believe are notable. Examples are articles such as Glamour Boy Shane and Thunder(wrestler).
He tagged the articles with the notability tag. However, when Curse and others presented evidence (see above)) of notability, he promptly slapped three more tags (including "Verifiable") on it. That is the EXACT opposite of acting in good faith, indeed it's acting in the worst faith, completely disregarding other's viewpoints. Booyaka seems to believe that he is Lord Most High of Notability, and anybody who disagrees with him on any iota is to be ignored, reverted and to be worked around.
I agree with user:Curse of Fenric that a mediation will not do anything. In fact, when Lethaniol started this mediation (and I appreciate and applaud that he's trying to find a peaceful resolution), he suggested that BooyakaDell hash out issues here before continuing to tag articles.
The friendly and helpful advice was promptly ignored, as he went on to PROD a few more articles and tag other articles. Booyaka will say anything he feels necessary to get admin attention off him, and then continue editing in his(in my opinion, tendentious) typical manner. SirFozzie 22:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Yesterday it was made explicitly clear by GTBacchus [6] that the removal of tags is NOT vandalism. This was clearly read and understood, as you can see a reply from Booyakadell underneath. Yet while constantly claiming others are not assuming good faith, he edited these pages [7] [8] [9] today leaving an edit summary of "vandalism". This was after it being made perfectly clear that the removal of such tags was NOT vandalism.
Furthermore, there is clear evidence that his edits and use of tags are wholly inconsistent. Teddy Hart and Matt Sydal have both been edited by him recently. The Teddy Hart article contains absolutely no references at all and therefore cannot be verified, but there are NO tags added to the page. Matt Sydal's page has 2 external links as references, neither of which can be used to verify the majority of the information in the article, and again, there are no tags. As these articles aren't concerning Australia/New Zealand/Puerto Rico/UK/etc they have not been tagged, therefore showing a clear bias against any non-American/Canadian (in the case of Teddy) article. 81.155.178.248 02:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)