Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comment. User Northmeister, quoted on the RfC, has been banned for incivility and disruption and has a personal beef with Jersey Devil. --Mmx1 00:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment User User:Mmx1 has a beef with myself as well, so take the above in context. I was not banned but blocked and I protested this in the strongest manner and still do as I did my second block (both instigated by Jersey Devil unjustly) which was over the Gatekeeper AfD page and his inflammatory comments made -I deleted them/he reverted etc. until I broke the 3RR rule supposedly, even though reversing offensive comments is not a part of that. --Northmeister 07:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
This is based on....what? One disagreement and that I pointed out your WP:POINT behavior which got you blocked? Excuse my improper terminology.--Mmx1 03:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
This is not the page to discuss this. But you seem to be very hostile with me over what I do not know. The dispute we had was brief, true, and was not allowed to be carried out in the manner I just did at the Internet2 site etc. because Jersey Devil then moved to have me blocked based on senseless grounds which I was not able to respond to because the block was so quick by a person who should of recused himself from it. Like I said, this is not for this page. I was defending Striver, who as it can be seen by this RfC was being harassed and stalked by a certain user in a manner I was beginning to be, after the GateKeeper confrontation. Makes me think what originally sparked Striver's mistreatment? --Northmeister 03:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not qualified to comment on the Islam articles, but they appear to be of equal quality to his Alex Jones creations, which are of questionable notability and extremely poorly written and POV. In addition, his additions to Internet2, [[Internet], Google and Google and privacy issues of Alex Jones's uninformed speculation have been disruptive and borderline vandalism. I will concede that Jersey Devil has been zealous in his pursuit, but his zeal is justified.

--Mmx1 00:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Didn't we just do this?

From Wikipedia:Requests for comment:

"For disputes over user conduct, before requesting community comment, at least two people should have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours. The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it."

If the previous RfC didn't meet this requirement, how does this one? What's changed? Tom Harrison Talk 03:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Nothing, as far as I can tell.--MONGO 03:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment The previous RFC is non-existent, since it got deleted, hence, this is not a "second", this is a "first". For it to be a second, there need to be a offical record of the first, and since the first was deleted, there are no other officila RFC on Jersey Devil. Also, i would like to ask people to not forget to sign the RFC this time, so it does'nt get deleted. --Striver 12:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I am new to the RfC process, but my understanding of its rules indicate that two users must "certify the basis for the dispute" within 48 hours to prevent it from being deleted. Apparently that didn't happen with the first RfC, and that is why it was deleted; that is not a technicality, but likely more a reflection of the fact that there weren't two users who agreed with the "basis for the dispute." --mtz206 13:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Not really, its just that i didnt ask anyone to do that, since it was my firts. Georgewilliamherbert wrote to the admin that deleted it:

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. [1]

--Striver 13:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Users certifying the basis for this dispute"

Striver moved a signature to under "Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute". I can't find the effort in Zereshk's contributions – zero edits to Striver's talk page, zero edits to Jersey Devil's talk page during the dispute. Where is that effort? Weregerbil 14:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. perhaps he meant to move it to the "users who endorse this summary" section? --mtz206 14:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, thanks for the alert. Ill correct it.--Striver 14:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't see two people certifying this RfC. -Will Beback 20:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Which means if that's not fixed in about 24 hours or so that page may be deleted. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 21:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Adrian certified it, but I'm not sure if he had "tried but failed to resolve the problem." He had posted on Jersey Devil's talk page after the second batch of AfDs, so his advice does not apply to the "same dispute" Striver identified in his statement. Striver needs someone who posted on Jersey Devil's talk page or other talk pages involved in the dispute, and whose advice was not heeded. Adrian's advice has seemingly been heeded so far. Esquizombi 06:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Striver's certification

I mistakenly removed Striver's certification. I didn't think it made sense that he could certify a RfC he created, but I couldn't really find any evidence saying he couldn't. I re-added his certification. If that is not correct, someone else remove it and please provide evidence (for my future reference). If Striver's certification is valid, the RfC is now valid. joturner 03:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's pretty sketchy to certify one's own RfC. If one can, the certifier must still show evidence that he "contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem." I'm not sure if there is evidence he did that. Jersey Devil's talk page has two posts from Striver, one informing him of the first RfC and a second criticism him for what Striver erroneously viewed as vote stacking. Nothing regarding this dispute. None of the Discussion pages for the AfDs appear to have been utilized. Striver's one post on the failed RfC talk page does not relate to trying to resolve the basis for this new dispute. His certification must be dismissed, unless there is evidence I'm missing that he "contacted the user on [User talk:Jersey Devil], or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem" (emphasis added). Esquizombi 04:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trying and failing to resolve

It looks like the only 'Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute' is an attempted RfC that was removed because it lacked 'Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute.' Tom Harrison Talk 14:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, it was deleted because people like Georgewilliamherbert where not informed by me that they need to sign it. I did not do that since it was my first RFC. Even if there where no other atempts previous to that, that RFC is it.--Striver 15:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
So where is the evidence of you trying to resolve the AfD dispute before resorting to RfC? The RfC guidelines suggests using diffs to show the attempt. Weregerbil 16:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Several of us were asking Jersey Devil to not AfD stuff without properly tagging for cleanup first; there was moderate discussion prior to the first RfC, much during, some after, then another round of AfDs and more energetic discussion.
All of that said, per my opinion in the RfC I believe that discussions on people's talk pages have significantly improved communications and I am hopeful that we're close to a workable agreement to de-escalate all this. Georgewilliamherbert 22:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for RfC?

May I ask others why they think that AfDing articles by Striver is reason for an RfC? And that includes Striver as that appears to be a key point in his RfC. Many of the articles Jersey Devil nominated for deletion were eventually deleted for good reason. I think that we need to realize that adding AfDs for articles by Striver shouldn't be at the heart of the issue (as Jersey Devil didn't necessarily have to heed the advice of other editors), but rather at the heart of the issue should be adding AfDs for articles by Striver not because of their content but because of the author. joturner 22:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

As I see it, there are two issues:
  1. Whether the particulars of so many of Striver's articles being AfD'ed by Jersey Devil is, or is like, Wikistalking, and
  2. Whether the AfDs are being done properly in accordance with AfD policy (i.e., tag for cleanup unless it's so bad as to be irrepairable, or has been cleanup tagged for some time without improvement).
I believe that the latter is clearly a problem, and am assuming good faith on the first.
Also at issue is the quality of Striver's articles, which ranges from excellent to stub. I don't think it's controversial now to point out that the stubs aren't a good thing and should be cleaned up and expanded. Nor do I think it's controversial that stubs Striver won't clean up in reasonable time should be deleted. Georgewilliamherbert 22:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that the criteria for proposal of deletion of Striver-created articles (WP:OWN) are being made to be more difficult than for other articles. I'm not saying that tagging them might not sometimes be appropriate first, as you say. But I see those tags remaining on a number of articles, and I would argue that the quality of Striver's articles ranges not from excellent to stub but from substub (less than three sentences and lacking enough content to provide any editor enough knowledge to expand them) to possibly good if other editors help out on them. I also note that Striver has invited people to propose deletion of his articles in the past, 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 really can't complain if people take him up on his invitations and dares. Esquizombi 00:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jersey Devil's Response

I'm surprised that Jersey Devil has not written a response to this. The RfC is about him and I even told him about writing a response on his his talk page. I'm not sure what to think of that. I hope he's not letting everyone else do the talking for him, because that would not be a good idea. joturner 23:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not like he's not aware of its existence. He's been actively tagging talk pages. Perhaps a better use of his time and effort would be in his own defense? Isopropyl 23:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Not to put words in his mouth or anything, but I'm pretty sure he's waiting for a second person to certify by the basis of the dispute. Similarly, as am I. If this is going to be deleted after forty-eight hours, he wouldn't want to, nor do I, waste time writing a response (or an outside view). Pepsidrinka 01:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
That makes sense. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 01:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I hope that's it. joturner 01:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I just wrote it. Might add a little more to it later.--Jersey Devil 05:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"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."

--- I consider the above a personal insult and attack on me once again by you. I request to re-write it not to include the personal attack please. --Northmeister 07:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

HERE IS THE WHOLE STORY:
    • "Jersey Devil did not like the fact that I deleted what I considered harmful commentary on the Gatekeeper deletion vote page (AfD). SEE HERE. So he responded by going to my articles at Wealth of Nations, and Dirigisme among others and reverting (REVENGE REVERTS he calls them) them without commentary on the talk page. I responded by looking into his edit history. I saw that he was engaged in the same thing at other pages. So I took a stand on something I knew about to stop this - Democracy Now! (I am a progressive Democrat afterall). I did this to give User:Radical Mallard a chance to respond to his reverts without discussion. We came to an agreement that it was not helpful to revert others material without discussing it (unless it is an anonymous user or obvious vandalism) and he apologized for his conduct. Then a few days later he again reverted Dirigisme without discussion (while a discussion was in process with another user Will Beback). I took offense first, because he broke our cordial agreement to not revert without first discussing why and second because after I reverted back he reverted again, until I could revert no more (each time he did not list a reason on the talk page). He continues as above to insinuate I am a LaRouche supporter when I am not. This is the same thing Will Beback has done to me since I arrived over disputes at the American System page. I have bent over backwards for them with citations and references and they continue to call me this name. I even wrote a brief about myself to indicate a little about me and where I am from and sent Wikimedia my real name to be on record. That is a little background to balance the above statement. PS. My Buchanan edit was actually accepted by Will Beback after he found out it was well founded himself by the way." --Northmeister 07:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Um, you might also mention (per your talk page) you can't make your mind up as to whether Jersey Devil and Will Beback are two different people, or if JD is a sock puppet of Beback, or if JD and Beback are both sock puppets of somebody else targetting you. Maybe it's because I haven't been here that long, but that seems... unusual. I don't know enough about your history to comment further, beyond your conduct on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatekeeper (politics) which wasn't admirable and Talk:Democracy Now! which mostly seemed OK. Given the response the last block triggered User_talk:Northmeister you might consider a break for a little while. Esquizombi 08:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The response is mostly to the way this whole process works (blocking) works, as the one who blocked me in the second case was not exactly a non-partisan...but I digress. Thanks for the commentary. --Northmeister 22:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Can we avoid personal attacks and dragging an unrelated dispute into this RfC please? If you object to Jersey Devil's actions regarding yourself, Northmeister, feel free to open an other RfC. But we have enough issues in this one without dragging other user conflicts in. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 08:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
You are right to some degree. But, I was brought into this by Jersey Devil himself making comments (see above and on the page) which are a personal attack on my credibility. So I had to respond with my side. That is fair enough. Plus, the community should know how this editor works..per other users not just Striver. Thank You. --Northmeister 22:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brief Comment

I am not familiar enough with the situation to write a full "outside view", nor do I really want to be. I agree that Jersey Devil seems to have nominated the articles in bad faith; on the other hand, there are problems with the articles in question. Those problems should be addressed with cleanup tags and discussion on talk pages, though, and not through AfD. See especially my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family tree of Maymuna bint al-Harith Ardric47 00:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jersey Devil is sending SPAM

  • JERSEY DEVIL STOP YOUR SPAM - It is totally wrong to spam other Users! I would sign my name but you would spam me like you did several people I know. STOP PLEASE![2]

PLEASE STOP THIS! "*Hi, I've seen your edits repeatedly pop up on my watchlist. Please avoid spamming other users' talk pages, thanks. NSLE (T+C) at 05:02 UTC (2006-03-20)

I am undergoing an Rfc and under Rfc rules I am suppose to inform users involved with the dispute about the Rfc to get their comments (See the first bullet). I think that is the "spam" you are referring to.--Jersey Devil 05:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)"

[edit] "Not obligated to tag"

Regarding Mongo's outside view:

While it is true that nobody is obligated to tag in one sense, the whole issue here is that there's obviously stress and friction and disagreement regarding the AfDs.

As noted in the first RfC, the Article for Deletion guidelines say:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
Consider that adding a tag to an article may be a better option than deleting, for instance Cleanup tags or disputed tags.
Wikipedia:Deletion policy excerpt
Problems that don't require deletion
Problem with page Solution Add this tag
Article needs improvement
 List on Wikipedia:Cleanup. {{cleanup}}, or preferably a more-specific tag.
Article needs a lot of improvement List on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. {{attention}}
Article is biased or has lots of POV
 List on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. {{npov}} or {{POV check}}
Dispute over article content
 List on Wikipedia:Requests for comments. {{disputed}}

Thus, tagging is strongly recommended by WP guidelines and policies.

It is particularly important if there is controversy involved, as failure to follow policies during arguments leads to strife and finger pointing about intent and whether actions are appropriate or not.

If people assume good faith and are not overly impatient to deal with perceived problems, acting in accordance with the tagging policy will get to the same end goal, without any argument as to whether there was proper notification and procedure followed. AfDs will come if Striver fails to clean up articles which people tag as needing it. They will not be suprises to anyone, as the tags will have been there for some time. If Striver feels strongly about fixing the stubs he's created, he will fill in the stubs within a reasonable amount of time. If he doesn't, then he will have to accept that they're going to likely get AfDed and he shouldn't get upset about that then.

A little bit of structure, and a little patience, and everyone can do what they want to do to improve Wikipedia as much as possible, without these flame wars blowing up all the time. Georgewilliamherbert 08:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Improving Wikipedia does not mean that if concensus to not have certain articles or content in one article, gives an editor carte blanche to supercede concensus and POV fork new articles to support their biases. As you quote, "strongly recommended" is not what it states in policy...it states "Consider that adding a tag to an article may be a better option than deleting". In the vast majority of the articles Jersey Devil nominated, they fit the criteria for article deletion. That in many cases, the concensus (which was oftentimes solicited by Striver) voted to keep the articles or that there ended up being no concensus to delete, doesn't mean that the nominations were all done in bad faith.--MONGO 10:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe that any of Jersey Devil's nominations were done in bad faith. But they have been by and large highly contentious.
The reason that the policy politely suggests "Consider that adding a tag to an article may be a better option" is that it avoids contention over the process. It's a more gradual notification to the author and interested parties that someone, possibly several someones, feel that the article's substandard or against policy.
Striver isn't manufacturing "his side" of the consensus to keep those articles. Nor is he just supported by like minded people. RfC third certifier Adrian Lamo and I and Striver all represent rather different personal and political and likely religious opinions. I feel, and I think that Adrian feels, that Striver when given a chance and treated with an assumption of good faith, will often produce good articles from his stubs. They are articles representing a point of view in many cases, but in many of those cases the point of view is representative of the subject of the article, and the subjects are appropriate. Striver's been up for review several times at one level or another and it's been clear that we are far from the only people to think this.
This is not carte blanche support, and I honestly don't know enough about the dynamics of the Moslem articles to know where his stuff is forking off and causing problems with the existing articles. This is not carte blanche support for his sometimes personal attack tendencies, which he at least admits he has a problem with. This is not carte blanche support for the WP:POINT incident with nominating other lists for deletion, etc.
Even when he does cross the line into WP:POINT or personal attacks or POV forking, using those as excuses to delete his other articles (which Jersey Devil's current Response section does) crosses over into an ad homoniem attack. The author's behavior on other issues or articles is not justification for removal of articles.
They aren't his articles, they're WP's, even though he created them and may be editing and expanding them. If the articles are a stub, tag it, and see if he fixes it. If it has a non-neutral POV tag it. If it needs cleanup, or sources, tag it. Assume good faith on his part and see if he fixes it, or if someone else does. If not, if it's so much of a mess that it shouldn't be there if it's not going to get fixed up, then AfD it after a reasonable waiting period after the tagging. This is not so hard. Georgewilliamherbert 16:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
There is no time period granted before an article can be nominated for deletion. It is routine that articles that qualify as candiates for deletion are nominated for deletion. Vitually every one of Strivers articles is either unsalvageable, a POV fork, not notable or easily fits the criteria needed for deletion. Some of Strivers articles, had I seen them on recent changes patrol, would have been speedied by me, as they completely fit criteria for being a speedy delete. I recognize we are talking about the interrealtionship between Striver and Jersey Devil, but the latter does not have to give the former a time period to "fix" his articles...especially those that are blatant POV forks. If anyone is guilty of WP:POINT it would have to be Striver and I have to completely disagree that he isn't the problem editor. Creating hate projects in which other editors are listed ....unbelievable. I'm confident if he were to not tone down his misuse of Wiki resources in which he creates attack pages, POV forks and his other issues of incivility, that a detail analysis brought before arbcom would resilt in a year long ban. Bad faith editors such as Stiver are the ones seeking out arguments, causing disruption and he is the one that causes editors like Jersey Devil to become protective of what Wiki resources are used for...they are not used for POV pushing nonsensical claptrap or POV forks of information that wasn't allowed in other articles, just to get their extremist POV mentioned. I think you are fighting the wrong fight my friend.--MONGO 21:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Striver's risen to the level of visibility to Arbcom people before, and nothing happened. He's simply not that bad.
He's persistent, and not that good on some levels. He rubs a lot of people the wrong way. But in my opinion, he's contributing a lot of good stuff, along with the stuff which isn't so good.
If you cannot help but see Striver as only acting in bad faith, I think perhaps you need a mini-Wikivacation away from dealing with him (this applies to both MONGO and Jersey Devil). Honest, guys, he's nowhere near that bad, on the whole. He wanders over the white-hat line into grey a bunch, but generally not that far, and seems to apologize and acknowledge errors.
As I have stated before, in the prior RfC, neither any single incident nor the combined series of incidents that I am aware of rises to the level of what I see ArbCom nuke people for. People who aren't wrapped up in this (admins, and in some cases arbcom members) have looked in and concluded Striver isn't acting in bad faith.
If you RfA and try and nuke him, I predict it will go badly for you and result in nothing more serious than minor behavior limits and/or a mentor appointed. I think that you understand this at some level, which is why we're still here, and not there.
Between the first RfC and this one, you and JD clearly see that you do not have uncontested consensus that Striver is just a vandal or just operating in bad faith. I accept that you disagree, but you need to accept that you don't have enough agreement among other interested parties, and aren't likely to get it among disinterested parties such as arbcom, to do anything based on Striver's prior history or now (as I see it) significantly improved behavior.
I can't make you change your mind on the question of whether Striver's generally acting in good faith or not. But I think it's a good time for you to consider that position again. Working with him on the constructive criticism front, he has been responsive and has not attempted to play down what I see are the legitimate concerns that you and others have about what he's doing. Assuming good faith on his part seems to work just fine, from my perspective. Georgewilliamherbert 03:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Nothing happened? I didn't know there had been arbitration against him...there has been discussion about him, but I didn't know about any arbitration. As far as what the arbitrators would do, who knows. But they rely on the evidence and this is provided by edit history. Striver's edit history link us to what he edited and what he said. How would my filing arbitration against Striver go bad for me...how perplexing and bizarre a notion. I did not create a project and in the article space on that project, attack other editors. We'll just have to agree to disagree, george williamherbert...in fact, I haven't agreed with anything you have posted since I first encountered you, georgewilliamherbert. Interestingly, I haven't noticed any arbcom members looking in here....where?--MONGO 05:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Where is your criticism of Striver's reverts on the Google, Internet2, Internet, etc.. pages? Where is the criticism of the Wikiproject created to salavage his articles? Where is the criticism of his cursing at Zora and creating an entire subpage in order to attack her which was speedy deleted? His putting afds on the "list of XXXX" articles out of revenge for a poster afding his Muslim Athletes article? His "Family Tree" articles was I wrong in afding those? It seems to me that there is just no helping it, there is nothing that Striver can do what so ever that would warrant any criticism from his defenders.--Jersey Devil 01:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

If you would like to file a RfC on his behavior feel free. This fundamentally isn't about that behavior; it's about you applying AfD to articles he creates and stubs he creates.
Striver's behavior could clearly be genocidal, and that would not justify blanket deletion of his articles. In transferring your displeasure with some of his behavior to his articles, you're using an ad homoniem attack on the articles, violating WP:POINT and disrupting article space to make a point about his behavior, and assuming bad faith in all his edits. These are not good things.
Regarding his prior behavior... do you believe that I somehow have to follow him around piling on every time he does something offensive in order to qualify as an interested party in defending his articles? There's not a lot of point to joining the chorus who complained about those abuses he did in the past. People who were editing in real time with them already had done so, called for administrative intervention in a few cases (see speedy delete above), admonished him for the curse at Zora, etc. I have not and do not intend to defend him or apologize for him in those cases... those were abuses, he did them, he was caught and in some cases chastised for them. If he jumped up and did something terrible here in the RfC, while I was on and editing, I would certainly do something and say something. In the case of the list of XXX AfD's he did, I was on, and I commented at the beginning that he'd violated WP:POINT and that it was a bad thing for him to have done that. For the rest, I wasn't there at the time.
This isn't about whether Striver's annoying or crosses the line sometimes. He clearly is (to a lot of people) and he clearly has.
This is about whether people who do that can also be positive contributors, and whether their contributions should be treated with assumed good faith and given a reasonable and fair chance.
If he were blockable or bannable for what he's done in the past, he'd be gone. Admins and Arbcom members are well aware of the prior incidents. The fact that he's still here is proof that there's no general consensus that the incidents separately or together justified long block or ban.
You obviously disagree. Which is fine. If you want to be an administrator, there's an open self-nomination process for it. If you want to then join Arbcom, that's fine, there's a voting procedure for that too. If you just want to try and get him banned or blocked, you can file a Request for arbitration tonight.
As I noted above to MONGO, I don't think you'll succeed if you do that, though.
If you think you will succeed, or think that it's so important that you have to do it anyways, you can do that if you want. Nobody can stop you.
But until and unless he's blocked or banned by Arbcom, or does some particular new incident which justifies administrator blocks on the short term... please live with the fact that he's here, treat his article contributions civily and assume good faith in his edits, tag them if you feel justified and Afd them if they remain substandard for extended lengths of time.
AfDing stuff which doesn't fit into the category "blatantly and completely useless or off topic" en mass is confrontational and controversial. Even stuff by people who sometimes make personal attacks, excessive POV, POINT, etc. All we're asking you to do is back off enough to treat his actual article edits and creations with an assumption of good faith and a little patience. Delaying deletion of a stub by a couple of weeks to see if he expands it, or adds references, or whatever isn't going to cause Wikipedia to collapse. And it will get myself and (I believe) Adrian Lamo and others off your case. Georgewilliamherbert 03:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
How many times must Striver cross the line? If no action is taken there's no reason for him not to push the envelope just to see how much he can get away with, and apparently he got away with more than he should have with the Zora attack page. I discovered it after it was deleted, but feel that the snippets alone would have justified administrator action. Not having the original page as a reference, and having only the second-hand quotes on the AFD page, I didn't feel that was sufficient to push for and RfAr. It's a self-referential to claim that his actions don't justify a block or ban because he's still here. The attack page I certainly feel was worth a short-term block --Mmx1 03:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
As I recall, the original Zora attack page was deleted promptly by an admin, and that admin could have blocked him. A wide variety of admins and a couple of arbcom people participated in subsequent discussion about it. He wasn't blocked.
As I said to MONGO and JD... if you think Striver needs a RfA, then RfA him. Don't nuke his articles because you think he deserves a RfA for his personal behavior. That's textbook Ad Homoniem.
I don't think a RfA to ban or block him will actually fly. Admonish? sure, but that's already happened, and he's already admitted responsibility for the most arbcom-actionable things and apologized, that I can recall from the record. Arbcom isn't likely to do anything much in the absence of new personal attacks or gross article space misbehavior... and merely creating stubs and getting into arguments a lot doesn't count.
But the RfA page is right over thataway, if you feel a uncontrollable urge to call one anyways. Georgewilliamherbert 03:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
FYI, it's RfAr, not RfA, unless you intend to nominate Striver for admin ;-) --Mmx1 03:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
No comment. joturner 04:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Suggesting that this is an arbitration attempt is odd. It's just an Rfc, filed by Striver because he feels that Jersy Devil was nominating his article for deletion based on some grudge or something. I disagree. Stiver's edits bring a lot of attention to him, and his POV fork articles and the vast bulk of the rest of his articles (any article can be nominated for deletion, afterall) are definitely in the realm of deletion worthy. Arbitration? Oh, you mean his creation of a wikiproject which attacked other editors that he disagreed with. Arbitration? Oh you mean his incivility to a number of editors in this project? Arbitration? Oh you mean failing to work with the concensus and instead creating POV forks articles? If I sat down and searched his edits.....--MONGO 04:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Let me add that while I didn't particularly enjoy some of the things Striver has said and done, I recognize that I've argued with him, revert warred with him, put his articles up for AfD, and that I've often discussed "what will we do about Striver". He's actually been fairly civil about it all -- more than some other people have been when opposed. It's his articles that I mind more than the occasional incivilities. So make this RfC about articles, not about me. Zora 04:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn't suggest this is an arbitration attempt, MONGO. Please re-read.
As I stated, Striver's actions are not cause to delete (nominate for deletion, etc) his articles. His articles and their state is justification for improvements, and in some cases perhaps deletion. Nominating articles for deletion because you dislike his conduct is POINT, and an ad homoniem attack.
If you feel that his conduct either current or historical justifies arbitration, file for it.
I advise you and JD that arbitrators have participated in prior Striver related debates, and I don't think it's likely he'll get sanctioned if you do that. But it's up to you whether you feel like filing arbitration requests or not.
Please separate your arbitration effort from article deletion. Articles stand or fall based on their content, not their editors. To do otherwise is gross abuse of WP policy and community.
If you aren't planning on filing for arbitration, then why do you keep bringing up his prior actions?
Zora, right above here... gets it exactly right in my opinion.
Georgewilliamherbert 07:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
What? Articles stand and fall based on being articles, not POV forks or nonnotable subjects. I think Jersey Devil deserves a medal for trying to rid Wikipedia of Striver's "contributions". Besides, the concensus on the flip side of this affair clearly indicates that the majority of those that have chimed in on this matter consider this Rfc to be hostile action on Striver's part....backfire.--MONGO 12:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This and this is what happens when tags are added to Striver's articles.--Jersey Devil 12:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Example user"

Why does this RfC for Jersey Devil contain a link to "Example user" and this person's talk/contribution pages? Am I missing something? Isopropyl 23:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that stuff is supposed to link to Jersey Devil's information. I fixed the links. joturner 06:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry

Northmeister may well be right that WiKinny is a sockpuppet (a knowledgeable lurker or longtime IP poster is not out of the question, but perhaps not likely), which is not really important IMO as long as the sockpuppet master did not also post on the page (unless there was a "good reason". However, per the Discussion instructions Northmeister's comment and the replies to his comment should be on this page, not the project page, I think. Esquizombi 16:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the best thing to do here if it can be done is to have Jersey Devil prohibited or to prohibit himself by his word from engaging Striver in the future and especially from nominating Strivers stubs or articles for AfD while at the same time prohibiting Striver from creating more stubs or articles for a period of time until his old ones are cleaned up or deleted as invalid by community consensus. In addition we here who have been engaged in this RfC should together with Striver, help him clean up his stubs, either to expand them into something keepable or to merge them with other articles or to delete them as not worthy enough for inclusion. That seems to me to be the best solution if all party's could agree. --Northmeister 16:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering the same thing as Northmeister. I invite you to take a look at what I posted on WiKinny's talk page. After doing that, I took a look at this user's contributions. Clearly, the account was created solely for the purpose of arguing against Striver. Reading WiKinny's "outside" (?) view, one would think this is an RfC brought against Striver. I now believe the purpose of the insertion into the debate is in fact to draw attention away from the fact that this is an RfC about Jersey Devil's behaviour. The clear familiarity with Wikipedia exhibited in WiKinny's posts belies the innocent newbie cluelessness exuded by WiKinny's user page. LambiamTalk 20:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Now matters beyond my control are being used against me.--Jersey Devil 21:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Jersey Devil...My comments above are meant in good faith and to resolve this conflict. If you would simply agree not to engage Striver and to lay off his stubs and articles; while he agrees to not create anymore stubs or articles until he cleans up the ones he has done so far with the help of others here interested; we all can move on and the community here would have a basis for judging both you and he in the future based on keeping to your promise. Problems can always be worked out when one steps back and takes a deep breath. If you as dedicated to wikipedia as you indicate you are, then let the community know by accepting this proposition. If Striver is dedicated then he too can accept this proposition and we all can move on to better things. --Northmeister 01:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Striver already went through an RFC a long time ago (last July) and he made similar promises then. Considering that he has been keeping this up since he has been here I seriously doubt that he will change the way he edits articles and his frequent creation of forks and unencyclopedic articles. Furthermore, as I have always stated I see nothing wrong in my adding afds. For those who say it is about the articles and not the user, well then defend the "family tree" articles. Explain why I was wrong in placing afds in those pages. Well, for no other reason that the pages were created by Striver. Had it been any other user there would have been no problem however Striver has surrounded himself with people that systematically vote keep on his afds no matter what the content or what Wikipedia policy his articles break with for the sole reason that it is Striver creating the article. So there is really no point in debating this if the people I am debating this with are people who say I am on a "Christian Crusade" for placing afd tags on articles like this, this or this. If people can't see why I put them on, well that is not my problem that is their problem.--Jersey Devil 02:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, WiKinny looks like a meatpuppet, no, Jersey Devil can nominate any article that meets the criteria for deletion for a deletion, no matter who has written the article. You can't ban someone from nominating articles for deletion if those articles are POV forks, nonnotable, unreferenced jibberish or attack pages.--MONGO 21:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You and I can't ban someone from nominating articles; in a worst extreme case, the Arbitrators could do so, but we aren't at the point of needing their intervention (on either "side").
Most importantly, the RfC outcome here is just a collection of opinions. RfCs do not hold "legal weight"; they're a method for generating a consensus opinion about a controversy, if one can be found. People above (not MONGO or JD) need to understand that this can't enforce policy on anyone or create an enforcable judgement against someone. It's just a method for formalizing the discussion. Georgewilliamherbert 08:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Then as can be seen plainly, the concesus of opinion is that this Rfc was a hostile action by Striver...[3].--MONGO 12:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)