Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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: 23:56, March 19, 2006), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 09:56, 15 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:Jersey Devil needs to be admonished for not heeding the advices he received after he afd'd a bunch of my articles, and instead proceded to afd a new bunch of articles.--Striver 23:58, 19 March 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:Jersey Devil afd'd wantonly, without even bothering to check for notability, often using invalid or just silly arguements for nomination. All those articles he afd'd are created by me, and he is also following all my edits via user contribution.

He got a rfc on him earlier: User:Jersey Devil/RFC, but it got deleted due to a technicality:

Just to let you know that the RFC against you was deleted as it did not have the required two certifiers within 48 hours of creation. If you want to preserve the content, please let me know on my talk page or by email, and I will move it to your userspace. Stifle [1]

On that, Georgewilliamherbert wrote to that admin:

I have to strongly object here; I realize that I didn't sign the Cerify section, but had I realized it hadn't been done I would have done so immediately, and I am reasonably certain there are 3-4 other people who would do so. Stifle, you may have acted in accord with the letter of WP policy, but you have done the spirit a huge disservice here. This was an active ongoing discussion, and the particular subject of it (Jersey Devil AfD'ing stuff) just happened again with another dozen or so nominations of striver's articles. [2]

Stifle asked Georgewilliamherbert to "get two people to sign it at User:Jersey Devil/RFC". So Georgewilliamherbert proceded to do just that [3], just as the admin told him. Jersey Devil answered by reverting him [4].


He had earlier already received this advice by Computerjoe:

I am not willing to act as an advocate in your dispute with Striver, however I am going to give you some advice.
I suggest, very simply, you stay away from Striver; and when he does 'vandalise' ask another member, such as me, for a third opinion. Thanks. [5]

He heeded that advice by puting twentytwo (22!) of my article up for afd on the following day and keept reverting some of my edits. Most of his afd's will fail misserably to be deleted. Here is a taste:

Lambiam: "User Jersey Devil appears to be on the war path against User Striver by proposing all articles created by the latter for deletion. Sad." [6]

Bobby: "this article is part of a clear series of articles on Muslim comedy that is being created by User:Striver...nearly all of which have been nominated for deletion, regardless of notability. Guy is an up-and-comer, and already notable." [7]

Irishpunktom: "Jersey Devil stop trying to make a Point" [8]

Err..You have blanketly nominated over 20 articles created by a Wikipedian you have repeatedly said you want to see banned. You are clearly acting in bad faith, and I dislike that you are disrupting Wikipedia to make your point. You are not "attacking islam" .. and don't add quotes to statements I have not made, you are attacking Striver for your own personal reasons as part of your bad faith endevour to have a fellow wikipedian banned, and I do not like that one bit, so I voted against. [9]

Jersey Devils Crusade is a breach of policy. " Simply "sister of Umar"" - Simply a member of one of the most important families in world history.. what a ridiculous reason to out up an AFD. [10]

Alba: In this case, Family tree of Uthman ibn Affan, the article does indeed need verification per WP:V, but the idea of the article itself has merit. It can't be WP:OR because the family relationships of Uthman have been public record for upwards of 1400 years. The other, and apparently primary, reason for your AfD nomination seemed to be its authorship and your content dispute therewith. Again, I have no dog in that hunt. All I care about is quality content. The family tree needs a lot of work, but it can be quality content, hence my vote. The WP:OR comment and unnecessary mention of authorship did not seem apropos, hence WP:POINT. [11]

joturner: Hmm... I may have to re-consider on my above statement after looking at the comments on your RfC. I get the impression that you may in fact be nominating articles for deletion just because they are from Striver. If that is indeed the case, I do not support that. If articles appear to have a decent amount of potential, they be noted for expansion. If they don't, then they do deserve an RfC. But if you have in fact been attack Striver for his Shi'a point-of-view, that is just plain wrong. Adding an article about every single Shi'a that every lived and every single topic of Shi'a Islam certainly can be annoying (and at times unnecessary), but that is not point of view. That is educating others about Shi'a Islam. If you want to add an article for every place (of significance) in New Jersey, that is fine. Not point-of-view. And to echo the words of a few other users, you may want to wait until your current AfDs are exhausted since, although many of your AfDs may be legitimate, the appearance of carrying out a vendetta against Striver will prevent others from voting Delete. [12]

Northmeister: rv: Jersey Devil is engaged in stalking and harassing users [13]

Ardric47: "Question: what in there is original research?" [14]

And a heep of other users that i wont bother to mention.

The will of the comunity was made clear to him in the previous RFC (that got deleted), so i suggest a short block to give him a signal indicating that the comunity does not condone this kind of behavor with impunity.--Striver 23:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I also advice the comunity to take a look at this afd's he created:


--Striver 00:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


[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.)

  1. User:Jersey Devil/RFC
  2. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild/Articles_for_deletion#Jersey_Devil

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

I need help here from somone more familiar with this issues, what policies could apply in this case?--Striver 00:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

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

(provide diffs and links)

  1. User:Jersey Devil/RFC

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Georgewilliamherbert 22:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. --Striver 03:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. — Adrian Lamo ·· 05:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. I second what User:Striver says.--Zereshk 05:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. ----Northmeister 07:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[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.

[edit] Response by Jersey Devil

What can I say about this second Rfc? The fact of the matter is that all of the articles that I tagged for deletion were reasonable. I would like to point to the following articles. Tell me if you think I was wrong in tagging these articles:

I am not saying you necessarily have to say that they should be deleted, but I was wrong in tagging them for afd altogether? If any other user had made these articles there would be no debate about this what so ever and the afds would be justified.

I would like you to take a look at this, that is the contribution summary of Striver. His total edits amount to 12453 with 976 deleted edits, this shows us that 7.8% of Strivers edits as a whole get deleted. Let me use myself for comparison, this is my edit count. My total edits amount to 1758 with 27 of my edits having been deleted. Thus making the total percentage of my edits that get deleted 1.5% (Striver has more than 5 times this amount). I would suggest you also go here and compare your percentage of edits deleted to Strivers, I am more than sure you will find similar differences between your percentage and Striver's.

The problem with Striver is not only limited to this. Part of the reason that many of Striver's articles get kept is because he lists them all in pages in his Wikiprojects to get people to systematically vote "keep" for his pages regardless of the contents thus resulting in a "no consensus" and an automatic keep. As a matter of fact, in the last rfc (User:Jersey Devil/RFC) Striver falsely claimed many of the articles that I put up for afd as "kept" while they were in fact only kept by way of no consensus. In the past Striver has created entire projects for the sole purpose of getting keep votes on afds.

Striver also has a tendency to create false edit summaries claiming "vandalism". See the following examples:

There are many more examples if you check his contributions. I presented this to the user IrishPunkTom, who systematically votes keep in any Striver articles that are up for deletion, and he responded by saying what Striver quoted above

On five occasions on my talk page you have referred to legit edits as vandalism. That, in itself, is vandalism and/or a personal attack. Don't be a vandal. Listing an article for an AFD is a content dispute, not vandalism. If you disagree with the listing you can vote against. Now, are you suggesting it coincidence that all those articles you listed for AFD happened to be created by Striver, a Wikipedian you want banned? --Irishpunktom\talk 20:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I plead you fellow Wikipedians to look at the five edits above and tell me that they were not cases of Striver falsely claiming vandalism. There is no way you can make such a case and if you do so, as this user has, well then I simply can not take your opinion seriously as it is clear you think that Striver is above Wikipedia policy.

There is another user who is quoted in Striver's initial statement, User:Northmeister. If you see his blocking log you will see that the user has been blocked 3 times within the last four weeks (two for 24hrs and another for 48hrs). I also ask that you see his talk page and judge for yourself how credible the quotes from this user are.

To come back to Striver, on another occasion, he has broken with WP:POINT in the past and in a way that most Wikipedians would argue would require at least a 24 block (however, he did not recieve a block for this action either). As a revenge tactic for so many of his articles being put up for afds (in particular one on Muslim Athletes) he tried to target other "religious lists articles" by putting up afds to try and prove a point.

wtf, why not including this as well:

Lets vote on all of them, why only the Muslim lists? --Striver 04:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC) (For quote see AFD for Muslim Athletes)

And he went through with it as well by putting up Afds for all those articles out of revenge for them putting an afd on his article and without even putting "afd" on the page history.

When the contributors to this pages saw what he was doing they went to take off the afd tags that he put up to make a point and he reverted it and again put Rv Vandalism on the edit history.

I am not the first person that has had problems dealing with this poster, he had his own RFC for these actions before (See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Striver). Unlike Striver's claim that "he had an Rfc place on him before" however the first Rfc for Striver wasn't placed by me it was placed by other contributors long before I had ever contacted the user. Therefore proving that I am not the only one that sees his contributions as harmful.

In this response I would also like to address one point made by GeorgeWilliamHerbert in his "Outside View" statement. In part of his statement he claims the following regarding Striver:

I believe that it is widely agreed that Striver turns many of those into useful and sometimes very valuable articles.

I have to again, strongly disagree with this point. For one thing, he assumes that it is "widely agreed" that Striver turns those stubs into large well made articles. I haven't seen anyone but him make these claims. If anyone actually looks at the articles that Striver created several months ago (if not more than a year ago), you will rarely seem them out of the stub stage now. I am not just stating this as speculation but rather it is documented here User talk:Zora/Striver new article

  • The Holy Qur'an: Text, Translation and Commentary-Page by Striver created in November 2005, still one sentence long and never updated again.
  • The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (book)-Page by Striver created in November 2005, still one sentence long. Updated on March 2006 solely to redirect no content update.
  • History of the Saracens-Page by Striver created in November 2005, two sentences long and not updated by Striver since it was created.
  • Abu Turab-Created November 2005 by Striver, without the quote it is three sentences long and hasn't been updated since then.
  • Sunan al-Tirmidhi-Created November 2005, still a stub with a long period in between when Striver started to update it in which he added this.
  • Fatwas by Suyuti-Created November 2005 and hasn't been worked on by the user since except for a revert in December 2005.
  • Many more here.

So that claim is in fact baseless. I suggest people see the comment made by User:Mmx1 below with regards to Internet2, Internet, Google and Google and privacy issues (as well as Slobodan Milošević and 2006 Osama bin Laden tape which wasn't mentioned). In these, as well as various other articles, the user refuses to accept that his Alex Jones, Prisonplanet.com, Informationclearinghouse.info, etc... sources are not reliable sources, in particular they violate the partisan websites policy which states:

Widely acknowledged extremist political or religious websites — for example, those belonging to Stormfront, Hamas, or the Socialist Workers Party — should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources i.e. in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group, but even then should be used with great caution, and should not be relied upon as a sole source.

If this is the case then why is Prisonplanet.com being used as a source for the Slobodan Milosevic article? I can not be the only person who sees that this is wrong. You can see the revert wars that Striver has started in these articles at the following page histories and decide for yourself:

Along with this Striver has also broken with WP:NPA and WP:Civility several times. In the Muslim Guild he created an entire page in order to attack the User:Zora which has since been speedly deleted for the comments found there. You can find the Mfd page at (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/User comments/Zora). One of the comments that I quote is from the User:Zereshk whom is supporting Striver (since it has since been deleted I can not show you the diff link however I am sure that the people who voted in that Mfd can back me up in saying that the following quote is factual and I do quote it in the Mfd itself).

Striver,
She's really not a Buddhist. Buddhists act nothing like what Zora does. She insults Siddhartha Gautama with her arrogant and hostile actions. She's a Buddhist wanna-be. Maybe somebody should teach her about the ethical conduct of the Eightfold Path, so that she wont make such a joke out of eastern faiths.
She's actually Jewish.' (see her last sentence here). She says she's against Zionists. But she's doing them the greatest favour by so viciously attacking the Shia (and others).--Zereshk 00:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)' [15]
Well, at least we know now that she's Jewish.--Zereshk 01:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

So, considering this statement. I think it is fair to say that the credibility of this user's statement in this rfc is extremely questionable. Similarly, Striver throughout that page went on saying "buddist Zora" as to imply that she is a "fakebuddist " to attack her. On other occasions Striver has cursed at her explicitly. (See the following [16][17]).

Considering all of this, I am well within my right to do what I did with reverting Striver's edits and putting up his articles for deletion.--Jersey Devil 03:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Agree with JD, but too much time is being spent on this. Merecat 04:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response by Joturner

Jersey Devil was in the wrong, but the emphasis is on was. The issue Striver brings up is that Jersey Devil did not back off of him after being advised to do so on his talk page. On the contrary, there is no evidence (at least brought up by Striver here) to suggest that after March 16 Jersey Devil continued to add articles by Striver for deletion. Jersey Devil appeared to back off of Striver and his articles as requested by several users on talk page. The whole situation seemed to calm down. But now it looks like Striver is trying to dig up a conflict that should have ended days ago just to rub it in. All of the evidence presented here may look damning, but it all relates to Jersey Devil's past transgressions and not the fact that Jersey Devil ignored the requests of other users to calm down. Certainly, Jersey Devil was at some point wrong as he was beginning to nominate some of Striver's articles for deletion simply because they were by Striver. And thus, the first RfC for Jersey Devil (also initiated by Striver) was warranted. But now this appears to be an attempt by Striver to chastise Jersey Devil for something for which he has already been sufficiently chastised. joturner 02:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Note also that Striver mentions in his RfC that The will of the comunity was made clear to him in the previous RFC (that got deleted). Contrary to how it sounds, that RfC got deleted because he didn't get necessary two endorsements in the first 48 hours. The first RfC is located at User:Jersey_Devil/RFC. joturner 02:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Zora 05:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. OhNoitsJamieTalk 17:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Green Giant 06:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Pepsidrinka 04:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 01:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside views

[edit] Outside view by Mmx1

User:Striver has not heeded advice either, continuing to create shoddy articles that are largely posts of quotes or lists of questionable notability (e.g. Geneaology lists). In particular, his repeated attempts to insert Alex Jones' uninformed speculation on Internet2, Internet, Google and Google and privacy issues have been disruptive and borderline speculation. It is one thing to insert POV on hotly debated issues in his extremely poor manner of block quotation, it is another to insert POV on technical articles by grossly uninformed commentators. If action is to be taken, Striver is equally culpable if not more so. I do not believe a block of either is warranted. --Mmx1 00:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. mtz206 02:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. I have no prior contact with this debate or Striver, but his (Striver's) repeated attempts to add Mr. Jones' grossly uninformed opinion to Internet2 under the false pretext of NPOV are rather annoying. This especially after being reverted by multiple users who agree that the opinion has little basis in reality. uberpenguin 04:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. I concur with Uberpenguin and Mtz206. If anyone should be banned, it is Striver. From what I have seen, Jersey Devil's actions have been in good faith and in compliance with Wikipedia policy. --Coolcaesar 19:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Don't know about Striver's non-Islamic side, but his pattern of Islamic-related article-creation activity on Wikipedia has its definite annoying aspects, and Striver doesn't seem to be able to change his pattern of behavior at all when other people point out problems with this. AnonMoos 17:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Esquizombi 10:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Merecat 04:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Pegasus1138

This RFC is a blatant example of not assuming good faith just because someone disagrees with having articles they have worked on AFDed. This is a pointless and hostile RFC. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. joturner 02:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Mmx1 03:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. MONGO 04:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Tom Harrison Talk 05:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Bobby1011 06:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. rogerd 06:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Pecher Talk 07:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Terence Ong 09:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Weregerbil 10:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Johnleemk | Talk 15:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. Computerjoe's talk 16:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. -Will Beback 23:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  14. Green Giant 07:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  15. Esquizombi 10:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  16. --Aude (talk | contribs) 04:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  17. Sandstein 15:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  18. WiKinny 23:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  19. MaxSem 11:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  20. -Colin Kimbrell 19:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  21. Merecat 04:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  22. M1ss1ontomars2k4 06:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  23. doktorb | words 15:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  24. Whispering 00:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Evilphoenix

I find that there is an inverse relationship between the quantity of verbiage generated in disputes and the quality of the discussion contained therein. Here's what needs to happen: People need to slow down, and talk, calmly, and politely. I'm seeing a lot of names and heated words getting thrown about. This is not good. Remember Civility. Remember NPOV. Remember NPA. I'm not talking to the other party in this dispute, I'm talking to all of you. Take what I'm saying personally. If you find your editing is generating a lot of discussion and dispute, that's a sign you should slow it down and take it slowly. The path to NPOV is Verifiability and WP:CITE good quality citation, and balancing viewpoints. It is not mass creating articles and generating lots of verbiage. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 02:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. joturner 02:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Mmx1 03:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. mtz206 03:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Feezo (Talk) 03:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Terence Ong 10:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Isotope23 16:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Green Giant 07:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Esquizombi 10:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. I generally agree with this statement adding AGF as a priority that can limit such disputes in the first place. --Northmeister 23:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. kingboyk 09:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. WiKinny 23:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  14. OMGOMG so true!!! *tears* M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Isopropyl

I am of the opinion that User:Jersey Devil is facing unnecessary double jeopardy with a second RFC so soon after the close of the first. After examining the evidence (which appears to be very similar to that presented in the first RFC), I see no indication that the situation warrants another RFC. Jersey Devil may have previously erred, but I believe in letting what's done and said stay in the past. Isopropyl 05:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. joturner 11:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Green Giant 07:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Esquizombi 10:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Isotope23

It was bad form for Jersey Devil to mass nominate a large number of Striver's articles for AfD and I would hope that this RfC will dissuade him from doing it again. This does however illustrate a very good point: if you don't source your articles, or provide context that shows how/why something has importance or relevance to someone who is unfamiliar with a topic, you run an extremely high risk of that article ending up on AfD. I suggest Jersey Devil take a self imposed moratorium on editing/AfD nominating Striver's work. I suggest Striver concentrate on cleaning up the articles he's already created, adding context and biographical information, before creating more stubs that don't establish context or notability to readers unfamiliar with the topic.--Isotope23 17:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Ill try to follow that, and i hope JD rethinks his ways and does not make a third 15+ afd run.--Striver 03:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. LambiamTalk 03:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Pretty much agree Esquizombi 10:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Nigelthefish 15:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Very well rounded. --Northmeister 23:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Georgewilliamherbert

This is not double jeopardy, as:

  • RfCs aren't a trial
  • Prior RfC was deleted on a technicality, not shut down due to proper conclusion
  • RfC's are just a focused place for people to comment on incidents and carry no administrative or judicial weight within WP

There was further action after first RfC was terminated which had been advised against during the first RfC, specifically Jersey Devil tagging a bunch more articles for AfD. Due to that, a re-filing is appropriate.

That said, there has been productive discussion with Jersey Devil and Striver regarding the subjects. I have certified above, and am including this comment here, to reinterate positions and my recommended course of action ahead.

To reinterate prior points:

  1. I believe it is generally agreed that Striver is creating a lot of stubs or near-stubs.
  2. I believe that it is widely agreed that Striver turns many of those into useful and sometimes very valuable articles.
  3. I believe Jersey Devil has a good faith interest in improving and cleaning up Wikipedia, and that doing so is a reasonable and good thing to do.
  4. I believe Jersey Devil had previously been shortcutting the AfD process which recommends that articles should be tagged with {{cleanup}}, {{attention}} and the like prior to AfD process initiation, in cases where the article is lacking content or references or other repairable issues. Articles should only go straight to AfD if they are flawed or against policy by mere title/subject matter or the content is so hopelessly against WP policy that repair / rewrite is unlikely to credibly succeed.

I urge that:

  1. Striver slow down on stub creation; place more fully formed articles into main namespace, and utilize sandboxes more when working on potential articles, so that they are properly formed when they reach main namespace.
  2. Jersey Devil refrain from AfDing Striver's articles without first having applied the relevant WP policies regarding cleanup tags, and waiting a reasonable amount of time for Striver to work on improving articles. In the absence of significant improvement of an article after say two weeks, I have no objection to Jersey Devil proceeding to AfD on articles that he has tagged.
  3. Striver not remove cleanup tags from articles that have not clearly exceeded stub status, such as greater than 100 words of main body content, at least one reference, etc.

Users agreeing with this viewpoint should sign below:

  1. I can live with that. Ill try to make my future articles less stubby. --Striver 01:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. LambiamTalk 11:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC). (Additionally I think Jersey Devil would do well simply to stop monitoring Striver.)
  3. Nicely Put.. --Irishpunktom\talk 12:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Striver has said he can live with this, we should take his word for it on AGF grounds. I also agree with Lambiam above about Jersey Devil not monitoring Striver. --Northmeister 22:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by MONGO

Jersey Devil has generally acted in good faith in his numerous nominations for deletion of Strivers articles. Jersey Devil is not obligated to tag articles that lack coherence and substance and that appear to be POV forks, with cleanup or expand tags. Especially if the articles nominated for deletion fit the standards for nomination...ie:lack references, appear to be incoherent and unsalvagable, violate no original research, are not notable, or are POV forks deliberately created after other editors have made it clear that the information isn't even substantive enough to go in any article. In fact, several articles created by Striver were speedy deletes. Striver rarely returns to his articles to do much enhancement, aside from when they have been nominated for deletion and he tries to then rescue them. Best thing for both editors is to not edit the same articles for 30 days.--MONGO 02:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. For the most part I agree, although thirty days may be too long. joturner 02:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. I agree with most of this view, but think the time limit should be set to two weeks. Green Giant 07:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Tom Harrison Talk 00:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Green Giant

This RfC makes it quite clear that there are significant issues which need to be dealt with.

  • Striver is creating a lot of friction with numerous stubs, inappropriate articles and edits (too often accusing other editors of vandalism), albeit sometimes Striver's actions are unintentional.
    • I have noted Striver's repeated attempts to modify the Nishan-E-Haider article despite objections from Zora. For anybody who doesn't know, the Nishan-E-Haider is the highest military award in Pakistan. The dispute is about who the award is named after with both sides naming internet sources, but it will remain unresolved because there is no official word from either the Government of Pakistan or the Pakistani Army. To this end I will personally email President Musharraf and ask if an official comment could be placed on the government website.
    • It is pertinent to note that a significant proportion of the recent articles put up for AfD by Jersey Devil included inappropriate family trees centred on single individuals like:
These family trees were created despite the fact that none of these individuals formed a separate dynasty of their own. Every one of those named individuals is part of the same first Muslim Dynasty centred on the Prophet Muhammad and the four Caliphs who succeeded him. I noted that amongst Striver's repeated examples of similar articles was Family tree of the Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt - but Striver seemed to be unaware of the fact that there has never been an Egyptian pharaoh by the name of Eighteenth Dynasty. In addition are two inappropriate forks :- Timing of Sahaba becoming muslims and Not mentioning the faults of the Sahaba (Sunni doctrine) which should both have been part of Sahaba.
  • Jersey Devil should have been more circumspect and perhaps in future should avoid mass nominations. The family trees would have been good starting point to see if there was any consensus for deleting. Green Giant 07:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps most importantly, I don't see much evidence that either party has engaged in talking on each other's talk pages. Do you think the two of you could swallow your pride and actually talk to each other in a civil manner? Green Giant 07:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Esquizombi 10:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Isotope23 14:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 06:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Esquizombie

Striver suggests an admonishment and block of Jersey Devil (hereinafter JD) would be appropriate. I do not think either would be appropriate at this time.

His complaint is that JD AfDd many of Striver's (WP:OWN) articles. It is true he did AfD many articles Striver created. I note that Striver on a number of occasions has invited or dared people to AfD his articles; he should not be disappointed or angry if they do. E.g. "vfd them if you belive you have the majority support" Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild/User_comments/Striver "Now, lets just wait for someone to AFD this, claimin he is not notable..." Talk:Robert_M._Bowman.

He states that JD "afd'd wantonly, without even bothering to check for notability, often using invalid or just silly arguements for nomination." I disagree. It may be true that JD did not check them for notability, I don't know, though I do not believe that is the responsibility of a person proposing something for deletion; the article—even if a stub—should assert its own notability. The arguments JD offered were not silly and in most if not all cases there were people who agreed with them or who identified other WP policies that would recommend deletion. Striver and some of the people he cites argue that WP:OR as used by JD was "silly." That policy states "the only way to verifiably demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." The articles in question were OR under that guideline; though WP:V may have been better in some cases WP:OR still applied. Striver states "Most of his afd's will fail misserably to be deleted." On the contrary, it seems that if they are kept in most cases it will be by reason of no consensus (not infrequently with more deletion recommendations than keeps), which is nothing to take pride in at all. Some of the comments Striver cites are not merely ones in which good faith was not assumed, but some are inflammatory attacks. For a muslim to say a non-muslim was on a "Crusade" was quite uncalled-for; there's no evidence JD harbors anti-muslim much less murderous anti-muslim sentiment.

Striver states "He got a rfc on him earlier." This is not true. It leaves out the fact that Striver had authored it, and that it was deleted. He claims it was deleted due to a "technicality." The boldly emphasized 48 hour limit is a requirement, not a technicality. The fact that it had not been met was noted on both the Project Page and Discussion page in some detail; Georgewilliamherbert had been party to it. I would also say "The will of the comunity was made clear to him" was hardly true of that failed RFC; criticism was falling as much as if not moreso on Striver. Incidentally, I am not sure if Adrian's certification qualifies on this RFC, though it at least comes close. Striver's clearly does not qualify since there is no evidence on JD's talk page or the talk pages mentioned in the dispute that he tried to address the subject of this dispute as required. I also question whether the "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" given qualifies.

At most one could argue for a temporary block on JD limited to AfDing articles Striver created. However, he has not AfDd articles Striver created for several days AFAIK, thus he seems to have self-discipline in this regard and to have followed the advice given him in this respect. Striver, on the other hand, historically disregards advice, or follows it only briefly. The wanton creation of new articles in particular has been a longstanding problem, see e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/User comments/Striver where Turnstep, BrandonYusufToropov, a.n.o.n.y.m, and Zora all advised him to slow down back in October and early November 2005. Sometimes these articles have redundancy (existing articles on the same subject) or copyvio problems. For further remarks see User:Jersey_Devil/RFC#Outside_view_by_Schizombie

If it is possible, I would suggest blocking Striver from creating new articles for a period of time. This may help give him the discipline to revisit his old articles in order to get the substubs up to proper WP:STUBs and to perhaps expand the stubs, or perhaps try to get other articles up to WP:GOOD article status. See Wikipedia:Guide to improving articles. Esquizombi 10:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Well put.--Mmx1 22:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Zora 22:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Green Giant 23:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. AladdinSE 00:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Quite so. Isopropyl 23:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 06:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. -Colin Kimbrell 19:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by WiKinny

Seems to me there are 2 separate streams to be dealt with here :

  1. The validity of this RFC
  2. The underlying matters that have brought us to this point

I think we can sort out #1 pretty quickly.

  • The Description section is substantively scant. There are only really 2 claims. That the AFDs were wanton etc, and that User:Jersey Devil is ignoring a previous RFD. Both claims are dealt with effectively by EsquiZombie in his paras 3 & 4. The remainder of the Description section is largely irrelevant to the RFC as each AFD stands or falls on its own merits.
  • The Applicable Policies listed are extremely tenuous. If WP:DP was as clearly breached as Striver believes, I'd expect the AFDs to be 'speedy kept' and for an RFC to be cited with that evidence AFTER they were all closed. Likewise for WP:POINT, or the arts AFDd would need to be substantive, established, and clearly already meeting WP:GOOD.

I suggest that these points together with the fact that this RFC was lodged while the AFds were still going through community process, show that this RFC itself is a violation of WP:AGF. This is what Pegaus1138 summarises and with which succinct summary most have concurred.

So that's #1 - This RFI, as it stands, should never have started.

(And for what it's worth, I consider that those who subscribed to it have done themselves a disservice in aligning with a poorly constructed and premature RFI.)


What about #2 - the underlying matters that have brought us to this point ?

This is harder :-) - given the scope, history and personalities involved, but I hope we can indeed make some progress in addressing this (so that people spend their energies constructively editing rather than on spurious RFIs).

If I have correctly identified the core problems here they are :

  • Striver doesn't think that ANY of the articles he originated should be Deleted and takes objection to anyone who nominates them for AFD.
  • He has created numerous small stub-like entries which the community has previously agreed should be deleted or merged/moved into other articles, but continues to follow this pattern.
  • There is an ongoing question about whether his submissions follow WP:CITE and WP:V. (I would also add to that NN (not notable) on some).
  • On his own admission, he is here to present a POV, and this sometimes extends to defending his contributions with religious zeal.

(Please note that I have not listed any historical Civility issues here - I'd suggest we leave that area in abeyance for now. Everyone gets hot under the collar sometimes :).


However, I do suggest that these core issues mean that there is likely to be a significant amount of work for the community in improving, categorizing and incorporating Striver's work into the appropriate places as well as addressing the inherent NPOV problem likely to be present in much of his material.

This will mean either having to rework the original material, or create meta-articles that refer to the many points of view on the issue and perhaps cite his material as representing one POV on an issue - but only where the presence of any dispute on the subject matter in question is actually noteworthy itself. Otherwise such material is the stuff of "See also" external links.

The fact of this extra work that Mr Striver is generating is not an insurmountable problem per se, (not everyone submits WP:GOOD articles all the time !) but his non-NPOV stance certainly is at odds with Wiki's stated goals, and the apparent difficulties that he has in following WP Policies and Guidelines mean that it is definitely harder for the material he wants to share to be included.

Although Wiki IS an open forum and ideally everyone is welcome to contribute, the aim is to produce a comprehensive quality on-line encyclopedia. Just because the technology means that everyone can contribute, it does not in any way imply that every contribution must be allowed to stay, or that they should not be improved. There are community-developed policies and guidelines, and effectively functioning community processes to try and apply them.

If Striver is not happy with the community consensus in the way his material is treated, he needs to either demonstrate what is wrong with the community processes, or perhaps he should question whether Wiki is the right place for some of his submissions.

In the meantime, let's hope that he is more circumspect in his submission of articles, more diligent in following existing guidelines and policies, quicker to apply them to his existing partly-completed submissions, slower to launch RFI's, and is able to embrace the community editing process rather than taking it as a personal attack.

Time will tell. :) WiKinny 23:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Zora 23:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Mmx1 23:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. mtz206 01:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. joturner 02:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Esquizombi 02:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Sandstein 06:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Green Giant 08:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This account is an obvious sock-puppet of another user and I ask that all comments be stricken from the record unless the said user identifies himself by his original user name. The above user knows to much about wiki policy for someone who just came here on March 22nd. Further I will also contest the tone and manner of the above. It is an obvious polemic disguised in legalese meant to demean the character of Striver and uplift the obvious violations of wiki standards of AGF by Jersey Devil regarding Striver. The whole issue here is the manner in which Jersey Devil has acted towards Striver from day one. That is the only issue of importance. It describes fully why Striver is angry and upset. I can understand it because of the tactics used against myself when I crossed paths with Jersey Devil at the Gatekeeper page when I was trying to defend the integrity of wikipedia from personal attacks Jersey Devil engaged in there against the creator of that page. There is a lot of passion here. I do not defend all the articles and stubs Striver has created. It is not the defense of his plethora of such that is in question but whether any user administrator or not can wantonly disregard proper etiquette, good manners, and policy in reviewing and cleaning anothers work. There are many methods that could have been used by Jersey Devil to deal with the before said stubs and he chose not to use them. He has been here longer than Sriver and should know not to incite a new user but to engage him with cordiality; to open dialog with him on his stubs rather than submitting them to immediate deletion. Do not shoot the messenger however invalid some of that messengers submissions in the past have been. Rather look at the real issue and do justice here. That is what wikipedia needs, that is what we all should want. --Northmeister 11:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • How sad it is when one needs to use suckpupets to give support.--Striver 13:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This isn't a vote and sockpuppetry or not, the comments remain valid. Nor is Striver at this point a new user, and the arguments we have been having have been reported to be identical to the arguments he's incited while editing Islam pages; he has clearly not heeded the advice given. --Mmx1 15:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by SFGiants

I don't think this RfC was a good thing, but rather the results of two users acting in bad faith toward each other. I agree with Joturner about the fact that this should have been settled days ago, and Striver is rubbing it in. Some of Jersey Devil's AfD noms were good, but others were frivolous. I think Jersey Devil has been disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and that he should have tagged the articles first if he thought that they were not encyclopedic. I think we should let what happened in the past stay in the past—that means no blocks. However, I agree with Georgewilliamherbert's last points:

I urge that:

  1. Striver slow down on stub creation; place more fully formed articles into main namespace, and utilize sandboxes more when working on potential articles, so that they are properly formed when they reach main namespace.
  2. Jersey Devil refrain from AfDing Striver's articles without first having applied the relevant WP policies regarding cleanup tags, and waiting a reasonable amount of time for Striver to work on improving articles. In the absence of significant improvement of an article after say two weeks, I have no objection to Jersey Devil proceeding to AfD on articles that he has tagged.
  3. Striver not remove cleanup tags from articles that have not clearly exceeded stub status, such as greater than 100 words of main body content, at least one reference, etc.

ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 00:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Common sense. --Northmeister 01:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. joturner 01:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by M1ss1ontomars2k4

I wholeheartedly believe that Jersey Devil was simply trying to keep Wikipedia free of POV cruft. It is my belief that, should a "X view of Z" article created, a "Y view of Z" article should be created as a means of balancing the POV. However, we could then hypothetically triple our number of articles, with POVforks like "Customers' view of cylinder heads" and "Mechanics' view of cylinder heads". Additionally, no such action has been taken by Striver. It is clear (to me) that Striver is attempting to push the Shi'a view of the world (though it's not necessarily wrong or bad) rather than presenting both sides of the issue.

At the same time, however, Jersey Devil does appear to have something against Striver, though not without reason. Striver's efforts to keep his POV on Wikipedia have understandably frustrated Jersey Devil [18].Therefore, I suggest that...

  1. Striver refrain from creating obvious POV articles and instead add balanced views to already-existing articles
  2. Striver refrain from taking offense and assuming bad faith when articles are nominated for deletion (or in general, really). Everyone makes mistakes in AfD sometime or another
  3. Jersey Devil refrain from immediately AfD'ing Striver's articles, as he is not an obvious vandal but a POV editor
  4. Jersey Devil keep a cool head and continue making good contributions to Wikipedia

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

[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_Jersey_Devil_9628.html"