Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/BooyakaDell

I've started the ball really rolling with several tags that were added after I initially told him to stop until the dispute was resolved. He went right ahead and ignored me. If you think more should be added - such as the four warnings on his talk page (the test4 and the blatantvandal tags) then please add. Hopefully this will lead to a quick resolution - which in my view can only be the punishment of Booyaka for the same reasons JB196 was punished. Curse of Fenric 21:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

We seem to have got off to a poor start. The points I have raised are going to be summarily ignored, which is one of the things that led us here in the first place 81.155.178.248 22:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, 81, I disagree. Booyaka is actually hanging himself with this contribution. It's a shame I can't actually add my view and respond to this on the actual page - but I will do so here instead.
 * Booyaka's contributions with the tags are NOT improving Wikipedia. The tags in fact threaten a portion of the database. That can in no way be described as making a positive contribution.
 * There can NOT be fixed rules for notability in pro wrestling. There has to be flexibility. Third party sources outside North America are very hard to come by. Booyaka is basically saying that if there isn't a third party source - get rid of the article. That's frankly intolerant of the unique character of the industries in certain areas (whether it be Australia, New Zealand or the UK)
 * Booyaka has refused to acknowledge this mistake so his statement that he has always owned up is a lie.
 * This commentary is clearly aimed at shifting the blame from him to me - a tactic that I reject wholly and thoroughly as petulant and lacks the very accountability that he claims he has.


 * Hopefully the admins who read this see the problem - and make the comparison with JB196's behaviour. The match will hopefully push things over the edge. Curse of Fenric 01:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I fully agree that "there can NOT be fixed rules for notability in pro wrestling" and that "there has to be flexibiilty." It is ironic that you are trying to say that I am implementing "fixed rules for notability" when it is you who have been doing so, as evidenced by your ridiculous assertion that a promotion is notable because it innovated a type of stipulation or gimmick match (Which I proved did not make it notable by linking to the PWU afd which it does not seem you read). If anyone IS trying to implement "fixed rules for notability," it is you.


 * Incorrect, and that's all I'll say about that. Curse of Fenric 08:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

"Booyaka is basically saying that if there isn't a third party source - get rid of the article."

I do not agree with this above statement.  Verifiability says that "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Plain and simple.BooyakaDell 02:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, not plain and simple at all. And that's all I'll say about that as well. Curse of Fenric 08:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Breach of procedures
The 'Response' section is clearly marked as such, and the Statement section clearly states Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section. 81.155.178.248 10:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Good pick up, 81! I reverted it, and added in the edit summary that Booyaka should be responding in the Response area, and not editing that area. I also added the edit to the evidence of behaviour list. Curse of Fenric 11:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * He's still continuing to edit the "Statement of the dispute" section, despite being informed he could not. 81.155.178.248 01:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Seriously, what are you talking about? I edited the Evidence section; that is the part I am supposed to be editing, is it not? Please link to exactly where I was told not to edit the Evidence section.BooyakaDell 01:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read the page before editing it, or read the message directly underneath "Breach of procedures" on this page. You cannot edit anything in Section 1.  81.155.178.248 01:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments needing evidence?
As per the edit summary, I'm not sure which you mean but I'll be happy to find them (or try!) 81.155.178.248 19:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record
It's a shame there isn't a spot for me to respond to some of Booyaka's latest edits (as per above).

But for the record, any comment claiming "civility" should be taken in context. Booyaka can claim civil language all he wants. His actions in tagging were anything but civil. I maintain that any questionable action on my part was provoked, by the threat Booyaka poses to the database of independent wrestling in Australia and New Zealand at least. And his observation regarding my telling Normy132 to "oppose it" is laughable to say the least because it shows just how confused he is. And yet he won't listen?

And the reason why Sir Fozzie and 81 are involved is not because they just "fell into it". Fozzie was with me from the start and has openly indicated a sharing of my view that Booyaka is (at least) highly likely to be JB196 avoiding a community ban. 81 has seen the same issue with inappropriate notability tags as I have. The problem at it's root as I see it, is that Booyaka sees any wrestling article (fed or wrestler) that is not North American and has no consistent mainstream coverage internationally as not notable - even when presented with sources in the AFD (which by the way is NOT a vote - it is a pooling of opinion). The PCW Australia discussion is a great example. And I maintain my statements on the three feds Booyaka is keen to muck rake on as provoked because he was in mediation and should not have tagged them until this matter was sorted out. The tagging here was what caused me to pull out of the mediation process because Booyaka was clearly ignoring it by continuing to tag.

He has also asked Lethaniol when he can start tagging again - and that frightens the heck out of me because it means that many more non North American articles in wrestling will be under threat from this inappropriate tagging. Booyaka claims to be improving Wikipedia with this. Because of the low numbers of active Wiki editors from Australia and New Zealand as an example, he is in fact going to end up getting good material deleted because of lack of opposition. Booyaka has claimed that this indicates a lack of interest in the subject thereby justifying the deletion. Just because no one opposes a deletion nomination doesn't mean the deletion is right automatically. This is a BAD thing for Wikipedia, not a good thing, and I believe opposing such a thing to be right and just.

As there hasn't been an outside view from an admin yet (I assume that is the procedure) I'll wait and see what happens for another 12 to 24 hours. To be blunt, I'll accept nothing less than Booyaka's banning for behaviour that closely matches that of the already banned JB196 (whether Fozzie and I are right about the sockpuppet situation or not) especially if I come in for any stick from an admin. I'll cop it if Booyaka is banned. I won't if he's not. Curse of Fenric 20:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll just add something about my standpoint here as well. I fully support the removal of non-notable wrestlers and wrestling promotions, as can be seen by my adding of tags   (note the second link is due for deletion very soon, so it might not work shortly).  What I strongly object to is the discriminatory and unfair methods being employed by Booyakadell 81.155.178.248 21:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

While we're waiting for the outsiders to comment
Some suggestions for Booyaka (and please, take them in the spirit offered, ok?)

A) When tagging articles, try to discuss them on the article's talk page (create the talk page if you have to) and don't be 100% that the tags have to stay on the page till you're satisfied. Try to encourage discussion on the talk page.

B) Give at least a couple of weeks leeway between the initial tagging/discussion on the article before trying to PROD it or send it to the AfD process. That way, if/when folks complain about your actions, you can at least point to the fact that you gave them time to improve the article and it wasn't. In a couple cases in this current mediation, they were able to improve an article during the AfD process, but it engenders plenty ill will and feeeling like they're being pushed around.

C) This will be a sticky point, and I have to be blunt. Try, really really really hard to WP:AGF and observe WP:Civil. Several times during this dispute things have simmered down, only for you to become upset over a comment that wasn't meant to inflame, and that just started things up again. I'm not saying you're the only one at fault in Civility matters, but it has been a major fact in this. Stop looking for the worst in folks and the same should return to you. SirFozzie 20:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * All three points agreed to, although C. is a conditional point which needs to be reciprocated.BooyakaDell 21:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And your last edit to the RfC is what pisses people off, BD. Your comments are rude and condescending, and takes away from the point you're trying to make. SirFozzie 00:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Saying that evidence is absurd is not uncivil. My opinion is that Curse has been rude and condescending throughout the process.BooyakaDell 00:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The evidence is not absurd. It clearly demonstrates that your application of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is inconsistent at best, and biased at worst.  You would be better served actually addressing the issues raised, rather than dismissing them as absurd.  81.155.178.248 01:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And I'll add to that by calling the evidence "absurd" IS uncivil. Curse of Fenric 08:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as those four articles which I mentioned, they endorse my side of the story so there is nothing for me to add to them.BooyakaDell 01:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * How do they endorse anything? They prove that you;
 * Add unsourced information to articles, including information you're not even certain of yourself.
 * Fail to put verifiability tags on articles about American based wrestlers which have no sources.
 * If you choose to ignore that, it is at your discretion. 81.155.178.248 01:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's perfectly fine. You have your opinion; I have mine. From Jay Phoenix to Ted Hart to those in between, my opinion is that those reading this page will recognize that these points do not come close to proving what you claim they prove. It's all good.BooyakaDell 02:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's see if you say "it's all good" when an outsider comes in to comment. My opinion is that you'll get tarred and feathered - metaphorically speaking. Remember that JB196 was doing the same thing you are - and he got banned! Curse of Fenric 08:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

BooyakaDell adding eveidence
Sorry am very busy at work today so much time to look into this issue. I think BooyakaDell should be able to add evidence - if only as a practically - otherwise it will need to be fed to me and then I would need to put the evidence up. Obviously any evidence needs to be in context and the description with it objective (see edit by Curse ) which I agree with. if IP81 or Curse has any problems with the evidence that is put up then bring it to my or SirFoz attention and we can remove. I will only remove the most irrelevant of evidence though, cos at the end of the day it is for others to judge on the merits of the evidence presented, and for BooyakaDell not to be able to present evidence in some way would be biased. Cheers Lethaniol 10:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

And it continues.....
Excessive? Much? 81.155.178.248 19:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Booyaka, I thought you were going to stop tagging articles and such for two weeks while this played out... SirFozzie 19:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that that's a little excessive, especially since so much of the copyediting was easy and obvious, simple to fix. Lots of mis-placed punctuation, etc.  I took care of a lot of it and then reduced the tags to two; the general clean-up tag and the unreferenced tag.  Booyaka, if you see such simple and obvious spelling and grammar issues, why don't you just fix them yourself rather than tagging them?  The tags are for issues that are too complicated for you to take care of yourself.  If an article has multiple issues, the general clean-up tag is sufficent; we don't need every possible tag on an article with multiple issues.  Instead, put the general tag on and then innumerate the individual issues on the talk page after fixing the ones you can. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk 19:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's one of the things that bugs me. It seems like Booyaka's editing is DESTRUCTIVE (ie, look for reasons to take down articles), rather then CONSTRUCTIVE (hey, if you see an article that needs fixing like the one that is mentioned above), do what you can to fix it yourself and ask for help otherwise.. SirFozzie 19:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ONUnicorn - sounds good, will do. Sirfozzie just because you don't think one of my edits is constructive don't tell me that they're all not constructive. You don't know if I was planning to work on it later tonight and simply putting those tags there so that I did not forget.BooyakaDell 19:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * BooyakaDell, I'm just going by your general history of tagging articles and waiting to see if others improve them. Anyone who reads your contributions history likely would come to the same point SirFozzie 20:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible evidence of sockpuppetry
It has long been suspected that Booyakadell is a sockpuppet of banned user JB196, due to similarities in editing style and suchlike. Booyakadell inserted a reference link into an article, to an interview conducted by Jonathan Barber (aka JB196). The site identifies Jonathan Barber as the author of an unpublished "book" (I use the term book loosely, as to the best knowledge of most people it doesn't exist at all), and this Afd concerning the same "book"  shows that Jonathan Barber and JB196 are one and the same. It seems somewhat strange that Booyakadell saw fit to introduce this external link as a reference, given that it does not source any piece of information in the article as there are no direct quotes from Christopher Daniels himself. 81.155.178.248 21:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a damning piece of evidence that ties JB196/Booyaka together. I am willing to proceed with the RfC, but I will note that WP Policy is that edits made by users attempting to get around a IndefBlock/Ban is de facto vandalism and can be reverted on sight. SirFozzie 21:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Fozzie, when I started first reverting his tags I was quick to be of the view that Booyaka is a sockpuppet of JB196 - as I think you know. This actually backs my actions up, even though I probably should have said that as the reason instead of "bad faith edits" - even though they were and I stand by that. This is worth adding to the evidence in my view. And for that reason I'll delay my departure another 24 hours pending a result. Is Unicorn an admin? If not I think someone should invite an opinion from an admin - if that's appropriate. I won't suggest who even though I have some ideas. Curse of Fenric 21:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I will bring up the evidence to the admin who blocked JB196 when i get a moment. SirFozzie 21:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I would ask BooyakaDell to comment - defend yourself or you will be banned in hours if not less. I particularly want to know how you knew this article was written by Jonathan Barber when it does not state so anywhere in the article (unless my search missed it). Lethaniol 22:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * He's also added the link to the Xtreme Pro Wrestling (here is diff ) article (where it had caused controversy in the past. It is definitive proof that the two are linked. SirFozzie 22:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please note that I've changed my initial comment slightly as one piece of information is actually on a different page (on the same site), apologies for any confusion 81.155.178.248 22:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Right I have got to the bottom of this - have found externally ref that confirms that Jonathan Barber is author of Bleeding Was Only Half the Job see and search for Jonathan on page. The link to AfD confirms that JB196 is same person. The reference that BooyakaDell inserted, though not obvious, can be seen to be written by Jonathan Barber, as he thanks for help on his book - Bleeding Was Only Half the Job. Lethaniol 22:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So the question to BooyakaDell - is why did you put in these references??? How do you know Jonathan Barber or are you Jonathan Barber??? Lethaniol 22:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that JB196 was persistent in adding his own name to articles such as "List compiled by Jonathan Barber", discussion regarding this can be seen and  81.155.178.248 22:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Lethaniol, I am not sure what you're asking??? Please be more specific. I reverted the XPW page when the link was removed and made minor grammar changes? BooyakaDell 01:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "I would ask BooyakaDell to comment - defend yourself or you will be banned in hours if not less. I particularly want to know how you knew this article was written by Jonathan Barber when it does not state so anywhere in the article (unless my search missed it)."

Oh, you are talking about the Christopher Daniels reference. Well it says clear as day multiple times that "Jonathan Barber" was the author of "XPW Bleeding was Only half the job" here: http://www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/index1.html. (use the Cntrl + F search function) And as I say here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:12.34.246.37&diff=prev&oldid=94348578, I read DOI (DeclarationOfIndependents.net).BooyakaDell 01:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=94426951BooyakaDell 02:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And if we ever did a search for that link, it would be added to articles by three sources. JB196, anonymous proxies and BooyakaDell. Or as I should say, one person (you, Jonathan Barber), three different ways. SirFozzie 03:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, can you please address the question of why that particular link was added to the Christopher Daniels article? The entire part of the article relevant to Christopher Daniels is below:
 * For those who were not yet aware, on July 8, Christopher Daniels granted an interview for the ongoing “XPW: Bleeding Was Only HALF the Job” historical retrospective. Chris wrestled Donovan Morgan on one an show in 1999 and was never seen again in the company. In prior interviews (see: a 2001 Wrestling Observer Live audiocast) where he was asked about his short stay in XPW, he did not elucidate upon it and instead would generally shrug it off. This time, however, Daniels finally set the record straight for the first time ever about that lone appearance many moons ago. How did he get involved with XPW? Why didn’t he return to the promotion? Did he think that the “Messiah” character was a ripoff of the “Fallen Angel” persona? Plus a funny story involving himself, Chris Hamrick, and Kristi Myst.


 * That was just the beginning of the interview, though. Daniels got more and more blasts from the past thrown his way, as he took a step back to the mid-90’s when he first started making a name for himself on the So-Cal independent scene. Topics discussed included his runs in the Empire Wrestling Federation and the Impact Wrestling Federation as well as people he met along the way, such as Gary Key, Jesse Hernandez, Vinnie Massaro, Vic Grimes, and Kevin Kleinrock.


 * ''In a funny note, when asked about his memories of an often-forgotten 2003 match with Vic Grimes in the California Wrestling Alliance, Daniels responded “We had wanted to work with each other for awhile, and Vic was always out to prove he could wrestle and not just do hardcore. So he came up to me and he was like, ‘Hey Chris, let’s wrestle tonight.’ And I was like ‘Uhhh, ya, sure Vic, that’s what I do every night, man.’”


 * Likely the biggest blast from the past and certainly the most candid part of the interview was the discussion that focused on John Cena’s trainer and former-XPW Heavyweight Champion, “The Real Deal” Damien Steele. An old friend of Daniels from their UPW days together, Steele seemed to have everything going in his favor until he developed personal problems which negatively affected his wrestling career. Daniels was very candid about his relationship with Steele, his thoughts on Steele as a “worker,” the onset of Steele’s addictions and whether he (Daniels) saw them coming, and whether he thinks Steele could’ve been something special in wrestling had he kept his personal life in check.


 * During the course of the interview, several people made appearances including Low Ki (who sat by and listened in the entire interview’s length), Joel Gertner, April Hunter, Lacey, and Ron Zombie. In another funny moment, Jim Cornette and Ohio Valley Wrestling was being discussed and Chris was trying to remember the name of Cornette’s female disciple in OVW, so he kept asking “Who was Cornette’s girl in OVW?” but he couldn’t remember her name for the life of him. Someone mentioned “Bolin” and Chris looked at them, laughed, and was like, “Nah, Bolin is a guy.” [NOTE: Kenny Bolin is one of the main managers in OVW.] Finally Low Ki remembered and blurted it out - it was a chick named Synn. So Low Ki definitely knows his wrestling trivia quite well.


 * A special thanks goes out to Chris for being as down-to-earth and candid as he was during this interview. Chris is a professional in every sense of the word and his involvement in “XPW: Bleeding Was Only HALF the Job” is truly appreciated.


 * It's not even close to being a reliable source or referencing anything in the article, so the only reason for including it would be self-promotion. 81.155.178.248 11:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have responded to the most important question at hand, which is how I knew who the author was when the specific page linked to did not have that person's name. If I posted as a source a link which is not really a source, and if that is the worst thing I have done in this situation, then I am willing to take that criticism and accept it. That is not to say I do not think that it suffices as a valid source, but that issue is not what's important here. The issue is not whether my standards for external links/sources are valid, it is who I am (which I've addressed). Also, you are wrong that there are no direct quotes from Daniels himself. You really need to read the full page if you're going to make accusations. Regards.BooyakaDell 14:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You know it just struck me. If Booyaka is relying on this book or whatever it is - isn't the book original research? And if Booyaka is JB196 (no direct statement there BTW), he's adding original research! Which is against Wiki policy! Curse of Fenric 21:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, that's what's the fly in the ointment.. if you look at the AfD for this, it was rejected there as WP:VAIN and WP:OR, this was right before JB went on the rampage that earned him the time out. I really wish the admins would take action (the 2nd report on WP:AN/I is getting no further traction then the first one. Even if it's to say that it falls short of grounds to block BooyakaDell. Deskana (The Admin mentioned before) agreed with me that it was highly compelling (if circumstancial) and to go for the WP:AN/I to get an outside admin involved. I don't want to go for WP:RfArb, because we've been tearing through Dispute Resolution, but right now it seems like we're in the Wikipedia version of Waiting for Godot (ooh, Foz with the literary referrence!) SirFozzie 21:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Original research is of the most minor importance right now; it is not the issue. Also, having seen user: Descana's response to Sirfozzie, I can accurately say that Sirfozzie's statement that user: Descana thought the evidence was "was highly compelling" is not true.BooyakaDell 22:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed your evidence. Some of it is compelling, but a lot of it is highly circumstancial. Try posting something on WP:ANI to see what administrators other than myself think

Way to Wikilawyer, JB. SirFozzie 22:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Descana said "compelling" not "highly compelling." He was very skeptical of it, just as I said he was. I was correct, and I am not JB196. Stop arguing semantics.BooyakaDell 22:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, JB (as I said, I'm not going to go through the fiction that you are somehow magically NOT Jonathan Barber, User:JB196 and the person who wrote "Bleeding Was Half the Job"). He said Compelling, but circumstantial. Soft Proof... not Hard Proof. Lethaniol agrees with me (and I will copy it directly, so you don't try to wikilawyer your way out of it. 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 In other words, there is no magical Smoking gun, but there is quite enough evidence that points to the fact that you are EXACTLY who we say you are. SirFozzie 22:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Accusation of bad faith
My edit is fully supported by Wikipedia guidelines, it seems Booyakadell has some vested interest in adding that link, whatever that may be..... 81.155.178.248 11:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The alleged 8 points
How funny that as soon as I allegedly don't reply to any of JB196's points, he instantly tries to become the victim. It's obvious to everyone else involved that for some time he's been ignoring points on talk pages, in mediation and in this very Rfc. So you'll have to forgive me for ignoring his points, given that they were redundant and their arguments held no water. My edit was fully justified by Wikipedia guidelines, which I have repeatedly explained. 217.44.10.183 22:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The 3RR claims
"If ANYBODY violated WP:3RR it was him"

Can you please explain how me reverting 3 times to your 4 makes you innocent and me guilty? 217.44.10.183 23:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=94592631&oldid=94591480BooyakaDell 23:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Again...I reverted less than 4 times, your accusation is false and clearly in bad faith. 217.44.10.183
 * You act like I have something to hide. I don't. Many of your edits only help my case. Thank you for that. Regards.BooyakaDell 23:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You do have something to hide. We all know it. And it's not that you are JB196. It's that you are behaving the same way. And we all know what happened to JB196, don't we? Curse of Fenric 20:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Admin query
There's an unsupported claim in the opening statement that the interim between 7 September 1996 when JB196 was banned and BooyakaDell registered was marked by aggressive IP editing to the same family of professional wrestling articles and that the new account registered because articles were getting semi-protected. I've been reading up on BooyakaDell's edit history and so far I don't see much evidence to support that claim. If that had happened I'd expect to see a history of semi-protection somewhere in the first five or ten articles this account edited.

Instead I got as far as Kurt Angle, several dozen articles into the edit history, before I found a page that had a history of protection. In that case the account removed two unsourced sentences that were arguably fair game for deletion. This single edit appears unrelated to the full page protection later that day, which noted libel concerns.  The most recent prior protection to that article had ended on 17 October.

If there's something else I've missed about this chain of reasoning, please fill me in with specific page diffs. And if there are other circumstances please note them. I've spotted sockpuppets before based on a familiar nexus of interests: two different accounts that gravitate toward the same odd preference of articles. Also show diffs of any posts by the new account that refer to the previous account in the first person or that reference talk archives from before that account registered. Another pattern that sometimes helps establish a sockpuppet is writing style - particularly writing mistakes. If the two accounts make the same distinctive errors in spelling, punctuation, or syntax or if they both tend to repeat the same catchphrases then that could build a circumstantial case that they're the same. On the other hand, if they use different regional varieties of English or the later account is markedly more literate than the earlier account, then that would indicate two different people.

Banning an editor as a sockpuppet is something I don't do lightly. I agree there are marked similarities, but so far I still have reasonable doubt. Burden of proof is on the editors who want to establish that these are sockpuppets: show me more evidence to convince me. Durova Charg e! 02:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've received several replies at my user talk page User_talk:Durova and have enough evidence now to submit a checkuser request for BooyakaDell. We'll see whether it comes back positive.  Durova Charg e!  20:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The RfC is for all purposes over
A RfCU performed by Essjay found that BooyakaDell, BertoBowdoin and 67.86.149.41 were all the same person, and combined with the evidence that confirmed that BooyakaDell and JB196 were the same person, all three of the above accounts have been either indefblocked or long term blocked (in the case of the IP addresses), so there is no need for the RfC anymore.

Thank you to User:ONUnicorn and an anoymous IP address for their outside views on this which kept this thing going, and a personal thank you to Lethaniol and Durova for moderating this and helping us get to the bottom of this. SirFozzie 05:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

One last comment
I am delighted after my three day break that justice has prevailed. I just wanted to say thanks to the anon IP for bringing up a point that I had no idea about! WP:IAR!!! That's my out! I said from the start that I was trying to protect the Australian and New Zealand database. Now I have the rule to back me up, and it resolves one of the issues that really turned my stomach and partly contributed to my decision to take this break. My faith in Wikipedia has been restored fully! Curse of Fenric 20:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)