User talk:BooyakaDell

This account is a sockpuppet of JB196 (talk · contribs · logs), and has been blocked indefinitely. Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

I don't understand your edits to Justice Pain and H8 Club. Can you explain them to me? Jonathan Burgess 20:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay. The one thing I don't agree with though is the removal from the Justice Pain page which explained why he doesn't do deathmatches anymore. Jonathan Burgess 23:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. At Cage of Death 7 when Zandig was making matches for the next show, he said that Justice Pain wanted to wrestle now and he would wrestle Joker. Then on the Afternoon of Main Events DVD, they showed a Justice Pain promo where he talked about not wanting to do deathmatches, then he took of his shirt to show how he was back in shape. Kingston and Garguilo talked about how he looked better than ever. As far as the match, they used chairs and a table, but that doesn't make it a deathmatch. But the part that says "in a wrestling match" can just be taken out then. Jonathan Burgess 23:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When nominating an article for deletion via WP:PROD, add this to the top of the article: {{subst:prod|reason}}, with "reason" replaced by your reason for deletion. This is the simpler than copy&paste, and is also better for a technical reason that is perhaps too boring to explain. Tizio 19:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was not fully cited. For it to be so, you need to at least state the date of the airing and the context in which he said it. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 00:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there BooyakaDell,

Saw that you are looking to be adopted - which I would happily do - but I wanted to ask about the charge of being a Sockpuppet against you firset. You should also respond in the evidence page - see above in sockpuppet template. Cheers Lethaniol 11:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya! You know about as much as I do about the sockpuppet template. I gather that a lot of people argue over Death Valley Driver Video Review and I made an edit to that page and next thing I know there was this thing on my page. Being a new Wikipedia member Iknow I'm supposed to be bold with edits but I'm not the type to remove a template unless I know I'm supposed to so I've left it up. I don't think anyone really buys it considering nobody's responded to it in weeks but eh, thats the gist from my perspective. Thanks for coming over to my page. So how does this work??BooyakaDell 16:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have sorted the adoption, changed the template on your userpage, so you are now officially adopted - congrats. There are no real rules with adoption - is basically up to you to ask any questions you may have (whether technical, procedural or even comical), me to answer them, and for me to watch out for you in general. Hence why I was asking about the sockpuppet template - it is good to know what you are about beforehand. With respect to that - if nobody does anything about it soon - I'll remove the template citing lack of evidence/interest.

Anyway look forward to hearing from you - use User talk:Lethaniol, tend be on most days and some evening (live in UK so thats GMT). Cheers Lethaniol 17:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a number of your nominations for deletion within the realm of professional wrestling. Each fed that I have reverted is notable and there is no reason for the article to be deleted. I fail to understand your thinking with some of these nominations, when it's notability has been made perfectly clear. Particularly in the case of PCW in Australia, IPW in New Zealand and the AWF in the US. The Japanese nomination (Global) is patently frivilous given the feds that are part of the Alliance. Only a few nominations were correct, because the pages were basically empty anyway and not because they were non notable organisations. Curse of Fenric 09:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note - re Australia'a PCW. Read the section about "Carnage Controversy". It is a notable event that makes PCW notable as a promotion. Please do not nominate it for deletion again. I respectfully query your wrestling knowledge. Local notability must be respected - and this also applies to the two New Zealand feds. Curse of Fenric 11:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the PCW renomination, I didn't realize I had nominated it already. I am OK with that staying but the other four promotions have not garnered mainstream publicity and are therefore - among other reasons - not notable.BooyakaDell 12:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, local notability must be respected. Do not replace the tags on the New Zealand feds - they are breakaways from IPW and are therefore part of that history and notable. Curse of Fenric 19:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BooyakaDell - sorry I was away from the internet for the weekend. Glad to see that the PRODs worked on the articles. Basically I think the process is that once the five days have gone past (and the PROD has not been contested), the article will be flagged up - and when an Admin gets time they will come and delete it. Of course they have lots of other things to do, and so it may take a while to get round to doing this. Lethaniol 15:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a more personal note, I thought I would just ask a little about yourself - where your from, what you are upto, what your interests are (obviously wrestling is one of them), if you like.

Also it looks like you are keen to cleanup/sort out the wrestling articles. Two points of advice - always put something in the Edit summary so people known what you have done, especially if you recommending it for deletion. I won't pretend to know what is the standard of notability for wrestling but I suggest you have arguments to back you up as nominate plenty of articles PROD.

Lastly I am always here for help if needed. You may find that if PROD fails that you want to go to WP:AFD - in fact it may be an option to go there as this can be used as a forum for deleting many related articles at the same time. Anyway look forward to hearing from you. Lethaniol 16:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said, You REALLY need to chill out and take a deep breath on these Pro Wrestling in Australia articles. Just because they had AJ Styles vs. James Gibson or because they used the Taboo Tuesday concept does not make them notable enough to have a Wikipedia article.

Yes it does because they were the FIRST independent fed to do this. You are wrecking these articles with your false claims of lack of notability, and this is bordering on vandalism. Curse of Fenric 01:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

I have not "vandalized" Wikipedia, this warning is invalid.BooyakaDell 02:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you have by persistently using tags that are not neccessary and have been told so. I am referring this to the appropriate dispute resolution. Do not edit any further until this issue is resolved. Curse of Fenric 02:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a step back and realize, what I did with those articles is not vandalism.BooyakaDell 02:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You used the tags in bad faith and without understanding the notability of the feds and their activities. And by ignoring my notes you became a vandal. The issue has now been reported. Curse of Fenric 02:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your right, I did ignore your notes, and I will continue to ignore your notes whenever they directly violate official Wikipedia policy.BooyakaDell 21:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tags for deletion posted to Katie Lea and Roni Jonah. Both are noteworthy in that they are under developmental deals with WWE and wrestle in OVW, one of the most notable independent federations in the U.S. Lea is the current Women's Champion of OVW. OPMaster 02:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, that is fine, thanks for letting me know.BooyakaDell 02:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please revisit the AFD for this article and expand on your belief he is non-notable? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BooyakaDell,

Had a quick look at Kiwi Pro Wrestling and Action Zone Wrestling. In my humble opinion (IMHO) these articles seem okay. They might not be the most notable organisations in the world but they are also not totally obscure (both are easily found in top 10 when googled). It is difficult for me to tell if these are adverts/spam, it is not obvious but the articles look to be of decent quality and have not just been ripped off some website.

Some advice:

1. Be careful of Point of View (POV) pushing, this is where in heated discussions people try to push their personal point of view. This can lead to big arguments and even people getting blocked. You need to take extra care because of the Sockpuppet suggestion see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/JB196 for User:Curse of Fenric comments.
2. If it is obviously controversial, or you know that one person will be upset, when you nominate an article for deletion (via Prod), I suggest using WP:AFD instead - where discussions by a number of users can take place. This forum will also give you an idea on what standard the articles should meet with respect to Notability and Advertisement - you should then bear this strongly in mind with any further PROD or AFD. I see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Wilson (wrestler) is not going well - I suggest you make a strong case for why the article is non-notable and another case why you are not a sockpuppet.
3. Make up with User:Curse of Fenric - get into discussion about what is and is not notable - try not to argue, be less forceful. With respect to these articles - you did put Kiwi Pro Wrestling up for PROD so, yes he is right. Have not checked others - but it does not matter, try to work at improving your relationship, not worry about part issues. I suppose what I am saying is - you will not be able to win this argument by logic alone - you two (and any others) will need to come to consensus.
4. Finally if this gets all too hot, and you are spending loads of your time putting up for PROD/AFD and nothing comes of it, and you getting frustrated with arguing with people - forget it. Concentrate on something else for while - in or out of wikipedia (e.g. you have being some useful copy editing of current wrestling articles). At the end of the day if a few articles survive that are non-notable or adverts it does not matter as long as they are not wrong or offensive.

I am sorry BooyakaDell I have no definite answers for you. It is up to you. Leave a message on my talk page about what you think. Cheers Lethaniol 13:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BooyakaDell,

As I am slowly getting brought into this discussion, I will reply to all the points on my homepage. It would help if you could leave any comments for me on my talk page, and maybe most of the comments for Curse of Fenric as well. I have asked the same of the Curse of Fenric. Of course only do this if you are happy for me to help mediate. Cheers Lethaniol 16:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I try in these discussions to remain impartial, and if neglected make sure your side of the story is put across. To come out all guns blazing for you would be seen as biased and probably not help you much. I will try my best - hope you understand - Cheers Lethaniol 17:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Chuck E. Chaos, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Carlo Cannon, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Action Zone Wrestling, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.

You are not the owner of the rules of notability policy, and you are not the notability police. I declare you to be - in my opinion - a vandal. This is your absolute last warning. Curse of Fenric 22:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.xpwretrospective.com 66.11.54.71 23:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that by my experience, it has become apparent that Curse of Fenric is not concerned with abiding by Wikipedia policy and therefore these "warnings" are nothing more than troll spam.BooyakaDell 23:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that a user is perfectly entitled to remove warning messages from their talk page - although it is looked badly upon. However, in this particular case (involving User:81.155.178.248) the edits in question do not appear to be vandalism and appear to be 'good faith' edits. Also note that revert warring is against WP:3RR and could get you blocked. Finally, you may wish to look at our dispute resolution procedures in order to deal with this issue. Thanks, Localzuk^(talk) 00:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 00:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have done this not to get you into any trouble but to try and get things sorted. Although the title has your name in it - it will be about the whole issue of notability in wrestling - not just your editing. Lethaniol 01:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I should have put Wrestling or added Curse, but I put your name down as it is about complaints about you putting the notability tag on articles and them be reverted by a number of different editors. This process is not disciplinary it is what it says on the tin - Mediation. Lethaniol 01:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC) Also as you have an Admin Request for Investigation going on under your name - it helps link everything up. Lethaniol 01:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BooyakaDell. As you can see people are starting to comment on the Mediation Cabal - if may be a while before a mediator comes along and helps out though. What I strongly suggest is that you stop putting notability tags, PRODs or AFDs on any Wrestling articles until discussion is complete. Wikipedia is not going to fall apart or be ridiculed if these articles stay for a while longer. On the Mediation Cabal page you could come out and say that you are stopping these tags/delete requests for x amount of time and that you want to sort out the notability issues. Then by everyone being constructive on what's notable and what's not we might be able to get somewhere. If not, and I am sorry to say this, you will likely be blocked/banned like JB196. The reason I make the above suggestions is that is the most likely way to get people's respect back - as well as showing people the positive editing that I have seen you do. Cheers Lethaniol 15:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BooyakaDell thanks for your response on the Cabal page - good faith on all sides may yet sort out these issues. One suggestion for the Cabal - put in the links to the AFD pages which you mentioned so others can easily find them. Cheers Lethaniol 17:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah but you still have a little to learn about wikimarkup - see this is better Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-11 BooyakaDell Lethaniol 17:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BooyakaDell,

I know you are trying - but please try more to be civil. The comments to Norm by Curse were likely out of frustration - and through the power of Wikipedia you get to read them. See this more as him releasing steam elsewhere, and trying less to argue with you.

Thanks for coming up with compromise to not start an AfD for two weeks. I would like to suggest that you stop reverting people that removed your Notability tags - it will just get you into edit warring and put you in bad light. At the end of the day the articles will still be there - so put your efforts into other things until we get the notability issues sorted - then you can target articles that do not meet them. Lethaniol 00:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am off to bed now - so we wish you goodnight.....

I recommend not issuesing any PRODs or AfDs until this current dispute and/or the current AfDs are resolved. Hopefully this will lead to some idea/consensus on what is notable or not. This is a recommendation only and not enforced, but I strongly suggest you follow it until the issues are resolved.

If you do put a PROD on a page and someone removes it - it would be very bad form and uncivil to put it back. I think you have done this before. In terms of notability tags, of less importance than PRODs, but still I think you should not get into edit wars over whether they are there or not. The general approach would be each time you add a comment in the talk as to why, and if the tag is removed you should discuss the situation on the talk page with the user concerned. Obviously this is beyond this now - and as said best if you left these alone until some sort of notability guidelines are agreed.

I hope this makes sense. Cheers Lethaniol 13:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly suggestion - to make it easier to read your comments please format your points at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BooyakaDell. Cheers Lethaniol 16:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning there Lethaniol! Thanks for the tip. I will do my best.BooyakaDell 16:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from the RfC - I have balanced things out a bit, so more of the story is shown. If you have your own evidence on other people's behaviour then I suggest you put it up yourself, though only pick good quality evidence - Quality not Quantity. And remember only comment in the response area or talk page. Cheers Lethaniol 17:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BooyakaDell the RfC process, from what I understand is a matter of stating what the problem is, giving some background, putting evidence down, and let others comment on the situation. I believe that in its current form the RfC will allow other people to come along and make up their own opinion about what has happened. It is not perfect, hence why I asked above if you have any evidence about any of Curse's or others inappropriate actions, cos I don't know everything that has gone on. So get to it and bring any evidence missed of suitable importance to the issue. Maybe contact User:GTBacchus for further support/ideas/advocacy.

At the end of the day the majority of the problem is other people disagreeing with you - so the slant of any discussion will be more towards your actions/opinions. If outsiders see your opinion as correct then you will be vindicated. Personally some of the evidence "against you" is quite weak, and the more weak quantity of it the better for you, as it will be seen as such.

I saw my job as putting the RfC in a balanced way, and I think it is almost there. I am sorry if you think that I have not done enough - but I can't do much more - both because of time need to be spent elsewhere and that there is little else I can do without becoming overly biased. Lethaniol 19:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I make a quick comment now that we have had one person comment, although we will have to wait to see what others say and see the bigger picture. You worried about the process and the issue being too focused on you - but as you can see by the first comment, the User has taken time to through the issue, on a number of sides, as well as bring his own knowledge of notability/verifiability to bear. I hope you see that this is a balanced and relatively fair response, that covers both the issues at hand and the actions of the users concerned.

Thanks for keeping up with the article. I'm not sure of the notability of this article. You are the author of it, am I correct? I won't remove it again, but I don't see how it could be included as a link. I could write an article on Samoa Joe and put it on Geocities... does that mean it should be linked? Where do we draw the line for things like this? Just askin...

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article J.C. Bailey, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:J.C. Bailey. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria.

PROD-based deletion initiated by User:81.155.178.248. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is fine by me.BooyakaDell 22:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for 6 hours for continued incivility after repeated warnings at User talk:Durova. Durova^Charge! 00:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, you were right in giving me the block, I agree with it. Sorry for getting out of hand. I wish you had left a message on my talk page because I didn't see the posts on your page, but thats all hokey dokey.BooyakaDell 01:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on some more information I've filed a request at WP:RFCU concerning an IP address. I think it's fair to say that based on the similarities between your edits and JB196, these other editors have reason to be suspicious. In my experience, when an editor isn't an actual sockpuppet they're eager to clear the air. So I suspect that whatever the result of this checkuser is, I'll be posting to WP:AN once the results are in. If it comes back negative I'll seek advice from other admins on what we can do to clear the air of suspicions regarding you. If it comes back positive then there's a strong case for a sockpuppet ban.

In case the latter is true, there's some honest advice I'd like to offer during the interim. I realize you've entered adopt-a-user and you may be trying to get a fresh start. The best thing to do in that case would be to come clean before the checkuser result is in, take your lumps, and sit things out for a while. Then submit a formal request in a few months to have your editing privileges reinstated. Reinstatement would be at the discretion of a consensus of administrators, some of whom would probably appreciate that kind of forthright approach. Durova^Charge! 20:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BooyakaDell, I agree with everything that Durova has said here especially the latter paragraph - if you are a sockpuppet of JB196 then better to say now, accept the process, serve the ban and request for reinstatement at a later date. If of course you are not a sockpuppet then that is great, it will clear the air and we can get back to the RfC. Cheers Lethaniol 21:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BooyakaDell,

I am almost certain that you are using the Anon IP 67.86.149.41 to insert JB references, which can only mean IMHO that you are JB, as you have given no logical reason why you would want to insert these references in otherwise. I request either of two things from you 1) Admit you are JB before the Checkuser comes back 2) Give a damn good reason why you have been inserting these JB references in (even if the Checkuser come back negative).

I have been very supportive of you, when everyone else wanted to hang you out to dry. I know that you have made positive contributions - and that is the only reason I had continued to be supportive during the Cabal/RfC. If you have any respect for me as your Adopter you will see to my request. If not then you will lose my support forever, which you may not care about now, but later when you want to decrease the length of time of any block placed on you, you will.

I do not like being taken for a ride BooyakaDell, and certainly not being lied to. With respect Lethaniol 14:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lethaniol - so what was the result of the "Checkuser"?BooyakaDell 00:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BooyakaDell, JB or J.Barber - whatever it does not matter now. Of course the Checkuser came back about 10 mins ago, but you can check for yourself at WP:RFCU. To say I am disappointed in you is to miss the point. I feel that you lied to me, and tried to get me to help you out of a tight spot when other editors did not agree with your actions. You will be up for an indefinite ban now, and I will not help you if you try to have it reviewed later.

And this is a real shame. You were not going round destroying wikipedia, or distorting it - though a number will say you were. I still believe that you had something to add to wikipedia - but by being uncivil, difficult and playing the system, you have brought this on yourself. And while wikipedia will march on, the majority of your edits will be lost or reverted - so you really are the loser here. Again I am really sorry for you. Goodbye Lethaniol 00:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put on my user page that I may be on "wikibreak" because I knew that there was a chance I was not going to be on Wikipedia in the last few days because of other obligations and it turned out to be correct, and as a result I saw this "Sockpuppet" message mere minutes ago for the first time, so responding to it before now was not an option.BooyakaDell 00:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That excuse has worn very thin. It's confirmed that you were quite active on the unregistered IP address after the RFCU was filed. If you had come clean with us I would have told you to appeal the block in four months and I could have supported a bid to have your privileges reinstated. You've been fortunate to have a good mentor and an understanding administrator who would have met you halfway: most returning sockpuppets don't get that extra chance. In order to be perfectly fair I'm putting this up at WP:AN although I believe there's enough evidence to ban all of these accounts unilaterally. The self-promotional edits you made on the IP address during the last day make this straightforward. Durova^Charge! 01:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "excuse" I'm offering. What I'm saying is I was not on this account ("BooyakaDell") in the past 24 hours. I saw his "Sockpuppet" message for the very first time less than an hour ago.

I don't understand what you mean by "straightforward."

I appreciate that you want to be "perfectly fair" in working it out.BooyakaDell 01:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't signed in, Booyaka, but the IP address for your updates on several articles where you put the Jonathan Barber references in was the same as your account (In fact, you did the exact same thing under BooyakaDell once). That IP address made edits to several articles as recently as this morning. The Request for CheckUser found that the IP Address, this account, and the BertoBowdoin account were all the same person. SirFozzie 01:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's all fine and dandy. My point is I did not see this "Sockpuppet" message until minutes ago.BooyakaDell 01:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That may be. We weren't under any obligation to give you that chance or to notify you that the RFCU was underway. Basically we've been doing our best to extend a helping hand. Even at this point - until cornered with the evidence that you were at the computer - you maintained that you weren't online. You also haven't been forthcoming about being JB196. When I read the events leading up to your previous ban I thought the indef block could be questionable or at least appealable. This time looks much more solid. I hope there's a way to express this without coming across as sarcastic or trite, but maybe there's a silver lining here: turn this into motivation to complete that manuscript and get the book published. Durova^Charge! 01:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WYou're not coming across as sarcastic or trite.

When did I say I wasn't online?? All I'm saying is please don't say I neglected to respond to the above "sockpuppet" message because I was being stubborn; the reason for my failure to respond was that I didn't see the message till now. You're right Lethaniol wasn't under any obligation to put that message...but he did and he was nice to do so. I don't see how there would have been any gain from being "forthcoming about being JB196."BooyakaDell 01:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a reputation for sniffing at the WP:AGF carton long past the product's sell-by date. The trouble here is, we know you didn't tell us the truth so many other times that it's hard to take your word at anything. Regarding what you could have gained, basically it might have turned an indefinite block into a four month block. I would have left it up to the community, but you would have had an administrator and a mentor going to bat for you. In that situation your odds of reinstatement would have been pretty good. The way things are looking now, any edits you try to make can be reverted on sight and logged. The usual approach in this sort of case is that admins will consider reinstatement after a year if the editor really has stays off the site, but each new attempt at block evasion resets that clock. You're on your own now. Durova^Charge! 01:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your tendency to assume good faith longer than most people do, I really do. I also appreciate your pointing out that "Admins will consider reinstatement after a year if the editor really has stays off the site."

JB196 was blocked by one single admin who consulted no other admins. People were calling for BooyakaDell to be banned LONG before any checkuser was even requested. Yes this is all hypothetical but how is it possible that a sockpuppet coming clean would result in anything other than an immediate block (I can't stress the word immediate enough)?BooyakaDell 02:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me to leave this type of message on your talk page. Bear in mind that you are currently subject to a 48 hour block on your IP address. Any posts other than to your own talk page constitute violations of WP:SOCK on that basis. I've been remarkably lenient: even though you were rampantly evading that block on your other accounts I haven't blocked the others. I don't mind if you participate in the WP:AN thread - I even notified you that it was ongoing - but your conduct of the last two hours has been nothing short of arrogant: even posting a message to another editor on my own talk page. The metamessage I read from that is gross disrespect for this site and its policies. You are very close to turning me from neutrality regarding any future request for reinstatement to strong opposition. Durova^Charge! 03:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]