User:Striver/Jersey Devil RFC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

User:Jersey Devil is stalking me. --Striver 19:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Description

User:Jersey Devil is stalking me. Make him stop. Give him a 24 houres ban to cool down. --Striver 19:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

It started quite friendly, he voted "keep", and then changed to "delete" on a article i created.

Some other afd on articles i created, he voted delete, no problem so far:

voting on afd's he would never have seen if i didnt hade voted there

Afd's my articles

Here he is advocating me being baned. He afd's my articles and argues that i should be baned for geting my articles afd'd:

here he wants me to get baned:

Here he starts to afd articles he has never seen before, only since i created them.

As proof of him not knowing what he is talking about, read:

Delete and/or Merge to Umar an unverifiable page (no sources used what so ever) about a speech, possible fork. Sole contributor and creator of the article is User:Striver. Jersey Devil 01:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

As can be seen, the article sourced it to Sahih Muslim, but he deemed it a "unverifiable, no sources used what so ever".

Here he claims Sahih Bukhari is a "questionable source" and that the page is "unverifiable"

Here he claims Sunan al-Tirmidhi is a "questionable source" and that the page is "unverifiable"

Here he claims Sahih Bukhari is a "questionable source" and that the page is "unverifiable"


Here he is totaly out of control, stalks me and afd's at random as soon as he finds out i created the article. I touched it, 11 minutes later comes the afd, he have never seen the article before [1]:


Of all afd's for articles he created or participiated, this is the result:

  • 6 ongoing
  • 7 keept
  • 2 delete
  • 1 redirect
  • 1 merge

[edit] my problem

Here is my problem:

I did'nt consider to act while he stalked me, followed my "user contribution" and only acted when i did. He was thourouly negative and only voted "delete". He started afd's on article he never had seen and was not going to see if he wasnt stalking me. He afd articles sourced with Sahih Bukhari with arguments like:

  • Striver created this
  • This is a unverifiable page
  • There is only one questinable source

He afd'd my articles, and advocated me being baned for having to many articles afd'd.

But i didnt act on it.

Until he did this:

Has'nt he gone to far? --Striver 19:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

No idea. WP:STALK ? Oh wow, that was a policy :P --Striver 19:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

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

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Every single afd.
  2. patronizing me [2]
  3. Threatening me with blocking [3]
  4. MONGO warns me that he will disregard all rules and just go forth and block me [4]
  5. Quite many people got engaged on my talk page regarding the issue by then.
  6. I ask for advice on what to do [5]
  7. Irishpunktom advices me to do a RFC [6]

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

[edit] Response

If you look at the articles above (As of now) you can see that many of the articles which Stiver has put up as keep are really no consenus articles and not keep articles. The Road of Tyranny was (no consensus) and I didn't nominate the article either it was nominated for afd by User:Mmx1 and I voted keep originally and then changed to Merge/Redirect to Alex Jones not delete as Striver claims.

  • Keep Unfortunately the truth is that Alex Jones is well-known within the 9/11 'truth' movement and this movie is very well known within that movement. Merge and Redirect to Alex Jones (journalist) I understand the anger at Striver's rampant vandalism and heavily POV edits on Wikipedia, but we can't let that be the reason we delete articles. Lastly, I think there is enough people in these afd threads that think it's time that we close the door on Striver's editing on Wikipedia. The User has exhausted the community's patience.--Jersey Devil 19:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC) [7]

The following articles were also falsely labeled "Kept" by Striver Robert M. Bowman (no consensus), Problem Reaction Solution (no consensus), Paul Thompson (no consensus). The user had created an entire Wikipedia Project to try and salvage his own articles from afds called the Wikiproject Conspiracies Guild. I put it up for deletion and it was deleted almost unanimously with the only keep votes being Stiver himself and a weak keep by User:Schizombie who would himself later come out and say he voted the wrong way.

"In retrospect, I should have voted delete on the Conspiracies Guild as well."--Schizombie [8]

As a matter of fact, that quote of Schizombie comes strait from another Mfd I made because Striver was using the talk page of the Shia Guild WikiProject to try and get afd votes to salvage his articles (See here for discussion).

In the past this user has been outright hostile to other posters and breaking with Wikipedia be civil policy. Take this comment that he made to User:Zora in a talk page.

"Zora: Fuck you. For everyone else that consider here balanced: see here]. For everyone agreeing with here: Fuck you to. --Striver 11:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)" [9]

Striver has also used the page history of wikipages to make edit summaries falsely claiming "vandalism" when someone erases one of his edits. The following are some examples:

In research for this defense I was also found that 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 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 contibutors 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).

I say all this to make people understand why I had to afd so many of his articles. The facts are overwhelmingly in my favor and I have no fear what so ever of this Rfc because no one of importance on Wikipedia has ever accused me of what Striver is accusing me of now. In making this response I have compiled so much data about this particular user's misuse of Wikipedia that I think it warrents enough for a Rfc of Striver. I hope that you have read this entire post so that you can make an informed judgement on this rfc. Thank you--Jersey Devil 20:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

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

  1. Messhermit 03:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC) - So far, most of the articles were deleted or severely modified by majority consent, not Jersey Devil's personal opinion. The fact that he is keeping an eye on Striver is also important, because it helps other Wikipedist to realize that most of those contributions could be biased, badly edited and with no sources at all. With no bad intentions, it helps to see wich ones are important and wich ones are not. Thus, I believe that Jersey Devil is being accused with no real evidence of having a bad behavior against Striver. Striver should learn to moderate a little bit and not overreact.

[edit] Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

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

[edit] Outside view by gren

I do not want to support JerseyDevil too much. I don't know the exact context of the dispute and things Jersey may have said but I find the AfDs pretty reasonable. I have followed Striver's contribs and tried to tidy things up and put many of them up for deletion as well. The titles on his hadith articles have no citations and aren't given in any academic context. Basically, he is making Wikipedia into a Sunni view vs. Shia view dichotomy using oversimplified unscholarly sources that clearly oversimplify the Sunni view and even do the same to the Shia view. I like Striver, but he's really difficult to deal with on articles. To fix Striver's work you need to dedicate 24 hours a day to clean up. To stop the damage you need to spend a lot of time removing spurious partisan claims and using AfD liberally. As far as I can tell Jersey did the latter and I find that more honorable than what I've done... because I've ignored the whole issue because it's too frustrating to deal with.

Wikipedia is becoming a tripartisan playground. We have anti-Islamic editors and sectarian Shia and Sunni ones. We really need to stop this from continuing. gren グレン 22:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

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

  1. Sandstein 05:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Schizombie 20:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC) - Pretty much concur.
  3. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC) - Agree, especially on the "need to dedicate 24 hours a day to clean up...". I've spent quite a bit of time, as have others, on the September 11, 2001 attacks and related articles, debating and dealing with such "spurious partison claims". I'm not as familiar with Striver's work on Islam-related articles, but a spot check of Striver's contributions seem to back up what Gren says here.
  4. Mmx1 20:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens

Most of the articles which JerseyDevil has voted for deletion were majority votes, and many of his actions were very reasonable. However, this was not without exception, some valid articles, which Striver has noted above, were also tagged. JerseyDevil has repeatedly justified this by referring to Striker's activities as "exhausting the community's patience." Let us get one thing clear here: Striver is not guilty of vandalism. JerseyDevil is definitely guilty of some prejudice against Striver's contributions. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 23:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

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

  1. Sandstein 05:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. --Striver 12:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Pepsidrinka

I agree with Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens. JerseyDevil's nominations of articles seem to have Striver's name within the nomination. Regardless of who created the articles, the article should be judged on its merits. Any exhaustion of the community's patience could and should have been noted on WP:ANI. I know early on during this exchange between the two members, it was mentioned over there, and Striver was set with a block, though I do not remember the exact reason. Nonetheless, Jersey Devil does not need a block, though he needs to take a deep breath and relax and stop his obsessing with Striver and nominate articles because they deserve to be deleted. Pepsidrinka 23:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

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

  1. gren グレン 23:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC) --I should have added this to my outside view
  2. a.n.o.n.y.m t 23:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC) - Jersey Devil needs to relax and look at the merits before nominating every single one of Striver's articles. No need for any blocks right now.
  3. Green Giant 02:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC) - Neither deserves a block but it might help if both Striver and Jersey Devil sat down and calmly browsed through a few of each other's significant contributions and just for a few minutes try walking in the other person's shoes.
  4. Sandstein 05:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC).
  5. --Striver 12:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. I also want to observe that Striver actually underplays the seriousness of wikistalking in his complaint. David | Talk 11:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Isopropyl

From the above debate, it is clear that both of the editors involved are guilty of at least a modicum of wrongdoing that needs to be dealt with. However, I believe an RfC is a bit premature; there has been no attempt at contact to resolve the issue. After going through the talk pages of the two users, neither has said much of anything to the other, besides JerseyDevil's accusations of vandalism.

It is true that the two parties have invariably butted heads during the numerous AfDs in which they have become embroiled, but I do not believe that the context of a deletion debate is conducive to the resolution of whatever issues they have with one another. The point is probably moot, as the RfC shows that neither side is willing to cool off and approach the situation rationally. However, although this is an RfC filed by Striver against JerseyDevil, I believe that the actions of both editors deserve equal scrutiny. Isopropyl 23:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Outside view by Adrian

I've primarily seen User:Striver's side of the issue, because of the frequency with which User:Jersey Devil sends articles edited or created by User:Striver to WP:AFD. It seems likely that both parties have unclean hands to some degree in this matter.

I don't believe it's appropriate for either of them to take procedural recourse against the other at this time. A good-faith effort at dispute resolution would go a long way towards propping up the character of either or both users willing to give it their best.

This dispute doesn't need to escalate. I encourage both parties to better explore their differences, and admonish both to avoid seeking procedural recourse by proxy, ie, AFD'ing articles written by the other.

— Adrian Lamo ·· 23:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

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

  1. Support Georgewilliamherbert 04:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Zora

I am one of the editors whom Striver accuses of stalking him.

On the one hand, I can understand why Jersey Devil is sifting through so many Striver-created articles and sending them to AfD. I've done the same. Striver's articles are unresearched stubs, POV, badly spelled, and in many cases an embarrassment to Wikipedia. If you run into one of his articles and start researching his contributions, you find more and more Strivercruft. Just like cleaning up linkspam, you want to AfD the lot. I've slowed down on this, however -- Striver is largely staying out of the articles I work on and I'm too tired of the battle to keep fighting (per Gren).

On the other hand, it is easy to get emotional about the topic and perhaps overdo it. Striver's resistance to any deletions or changes just reinforces the impulse to wipe him off the board. I have at times succumbed to that impulse and I think Jersey Devil has too. However, no one can be wrong ALL the time, and Striver sometimes creates articles that are indeed salvageable.

In sum, Striver may deserve 90% of the negative attention he's getting, but that doesn't mean that he deserves all of it. Striver should realize that he IS pissing people off and that it isn't all just persecution, and Jersey Devil should calm down and try harder to be fair to Striver.

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

  1. Sandstein 05:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah, maybe I should elaborate. I think that the above users have fairly characterised this dispute, which is why I have endorsed their statements. I should note that I have also found myself on the opposite side of Striver in AfDs, such as here. I think the source of this conflict is that many editors, myself included, assess many articles Striver creates as simply very badly done, including various combinations of WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV and unintelligible English. Since they are also on rather exotic subjects for Westerners, most of us don't feel qualified to clean them up (or just unwilling to engage in the likely-to-ensue edit wars). I agree that Jerseydevil's exasperated AFDs, while possibly not displaying the best judgment, don't rise to the level of a WP:STALK. But I also agree that we should have worked more with Striver to find a modus vivendi other than AFDing everything in sight that allows him to continue his contributions while not filling up Wikipedia with cruft. I'm willing to assist in any productive solution that may emerge. (Now should this have been a separate section? Sorry, it's my first RfC.) Sandstein 05:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. Schizombie 20:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC) - Pretty much concur.
  2. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Mmx1 20:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC) concur
  4. Pecher Talk 21:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. AladdinSE 08:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Tom Harrison Talk 20:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Schizombie

First, I think it should be noted that Wikipedia:Requests for comment#User-conduct RfC states “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.” I do not see any evidence on Jersey Devil’s talk page indicating that even one person contacted him about “stalking” Striver, or on the talk page of Striver indicating even one person contacted him about Jersey Devil’s alleged stalking.[a.n.o.y.m. mentioned "if some people are stalking you", but not Jersey Devil and Irishpunktom responded to Striver's query on how to file stalking charges; there is also Striver's prior charge of stalking against Zora "User:Zora is stalking me and afd'ing everything here superinteligent intelect fails to grasb. [sic]"]. Quite possibly this RfC should be deleted, unless the posts on their pages about prior interactions can be construed as applying, but the specific posts and people should be identified, should they not? I note that this problem has been mentioned on the discussion page for this article Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil.

I also note that Jersey Devil did contact me on my talk page about this RfC. I don’t believe that was against policy, and he did after all quote me above. In any case, I would have discovered it on my own since I had seen Striver’s stated intention in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad: The Messenger of God (book) to pursue action, so I was going to be watching out for it.

My view on this topic is relatively lengthy. I apologize for that, but I see this dispute as part of an ongoing broader problem that is only going to get worse. It needs to be addressed in detail.

Jersey Devil has been proposing many of the articles Striver created for deletion, that much is true. To characterize that as stalking is an emotional attack that is not justified, and it does not appear to constitute stalking under WP:STALK. That policy explicitly states wikistalking “does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason.” Striver has a history of making such emotional attacks. See e.g. Talk:Hajj#Mut.27ah_of_Hajj where Zora is also accused of stalking. It is inevitable that users who have shared interests will be editing the same pages, and it is also inevitable that users who care about bad content being added to WP will go after those articles even if many of them have the same creator. Jersey Devil’s intentions in proposing Striver’s articles for deletion appear to be just that: a conviction that they should be deleted and an attempt to find consensus by AfD that the articles should be deleted, not a “purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person,” though that may happen resultantly and is unavoidable.

The fact of the matter is that Striver has a long history of adding poor articles that are often too short to even be characterized as stubs, which are further reasonably believed to be guilty of multiple WP policy violations, something I discovered quite quickly despite being a relative newbie to WP. The longer articles tend to be mere mirrors of information on other sites, or outright copyright violations, e.g. Talk:Hadith#Copyvio, Talk:Leone Caetani, Talk:The Language of Empire: Abu Ghraib and the American Media, Talk:Fatima bint Asad#Copyright. He has a history of creating WikiProjects to bolster support for his articles Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam:The Shia Guild. He has a history of creating additional articles to bolster support for his articles, see User talk:Mmx1#User:Striver.27s behavior and User talk:Jersey Devil#Striver - Wikibombing.3F. He has a history of ignoring criticism or answering criticism with escalating personal attacks on talk pages and in edit summaries (as Jersey Devil notes and on that point Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Consequences states “Abusive edit summaries are particularly ill-regarded.”). Criticism is also answered by fallacies (e.g. Tu quoque, see his “Discussion” section below). He has a history of responding to AfDs by making AfDs against others, as Jersey Devil described above which also appears to be true of MfDs Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG#SIIEG might be deleted. His history shows that on such occasions when he was chastised, e.g. by blocking or the deletion of a WP, he has only briefly been compliant and returns to business as usual (e.g. after a 3RR block, he later gets a 3RR “gaming” block), and after the deletion of Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracy and subpages he later created Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracies Guild). One can only spend so much time going through the history of one of the most active Wikipedians WP:Top1000 for examples, but when one looks, they are not hard to find. As such, his actions and claims simply do warrant closer scrutiny.

He identifies the AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad: The Messenger of God (book) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Betty Kelen by Jersey Devil as the last straw for him regarding the alleged “stalking.” Both of them are badly written sub-stubs that consist of little more than the first saying it is a book by Betty Kelen, and the second saying she is the author of Muhammad: The Messenger of God. They are of limited notability, and at best one article would suffice to cover both. AfD was entirely appropriate.

I had given Striver what I think is eminently sound advice regarding creating new articles and avoiding AfDs: User talk:Striver#New articles, which he chose to ignore.

As Jersey Devil notes above, Striver mischaracterized the “Evidence of disputed behavior”. His “Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute” is not in fact evidence of that. “Every single afd” is not evidence of tries or failures to resolve the alleged dispute of stalking. The alleged patronization and threatening to block is not related to the dispute as far as I can see, but the standard WP vandalism template. Unfortunately it does not identify what article(s) the alleged violations were on, but that is a flaw of the template itself I believe. If anything it is evidence that Jersey Devil was trying to resolve the problem of Striver’s edits. Mongo’s warning is I think unrelated to the stalking charges against Jersey Devil. Striver did not ask for advice on how to resolve the dispute, but asked for advice on how to charge Jersey Devil with stalking. Striver mischaracterizes the reason Jersey Devil gave as to why he thinks Striver should be blocked. Striver says Jersey Devil “afd's my articles and argues that i should be baned for geting my articles afd'd.” Jersey Devil actually said “With so many of his articles getting majority delete afd's and he be accused so many times by contributing wikipedians about his POV edits" (emphasis added) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Orkin and “The user himself has several majority delete afd's and has attacked other contributing wikipedians.” (emphasis added) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lila Rajiva and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Language of Empire: Abu Ghraib and the American Media Striver’s claims do not hold up to scrutiny.

A block on Jersey Devil would serve no purpose. It would give Striver the impression he is in the right, when he is not, and Striver would continue to create new poor articles during that time that others will need to AfD or which Jersey Devil would reasonably AfD after the block is lifted. This problem needs to be addressed in some way; I would request that Striver revisit the many criticisms that have been made to him and actually internalize them and thereafter act accordingly. As I noted above, however, past experience shows advice doesn't stick. If Jersey Devil was wrong to have mentioned that Striver was the creator of the articles he put on AfD, the only thing I can see that he might be guilty of is the part of Wikipedia:Wikiquette#Principles of Wikipedia etiquette that states "Argue facts, not personalities." Whether he is guilty of doing that I am not so sure, since Jersey Devil always did give a WP policy reason for the deletions in addition to identifying the creator. IMO if the sole reason given was the identity of the author, that would probably be a violation. If there is a policy that the nominator or other contributors to the AfD should not name the creator of the article at all, that should be stated explicitly in policy. As for commenting on the past AfD history of an article’s creator, again policy could be clearer on whether that is a personal attack or a warranted comment on why closer scrutiny is warranted. Schizombie 03:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC) Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Sandstein 05:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. While Jersey Devil has been overzealous in pursuing some AfD's, the point remains that Striver has brought this upon himself with his edit history and POV pushing. The majority of his contributions remain stubs despite much editor scrutiny and attempts to find citable references. Striver does not seem to understand the notion of authoritative source and repeatedly cites blogs and unreliable sources (e.g. user comments on archive.org). Though his entries have been given the benefit of the doubt, much of it is unencyclopedic, and Jersey Devil's behavior is no more harmful than the litany of supporters who defend all his articles with POV-motivated claims of notability.--Mmx1 16:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Pecher Talk 21:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Bobby

I've seen striver in action on many occasions and I can fully understand the motivations of anyone who would follow him around cleaning up his mess. When challenged, striver responds with argumentum ad infinitum and in general refuses to acknowledge that any one of his points is not valid. On AFD nominations of his own articles he makes sure that his is the loudest voice in terms of long winded restatements of the same thing over and over as if it needs to be repeated for every single user who has their say in an effort to get his articles keept(sic).

That being said, Jersey Devil may have not reponded perfectly in every case, but striver must be joking trying to bring a rfc against Jersey Devil.

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

  1. Schizombie 20:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC) - Pretty much concur.

[edit] Outside view by Georgewilliamherbert

I have supported Adrian's comments above, and I wish to add a further comment as well. I agree that Striver's edits and new articles are, in some cases, below standards. He particularly has a tendency to start an article with a framework and then fill it in over an extended period of time. Early in this process, articles are often far below WP standards or ideals, though the end result often is a very strong article.

That said, I see AfD being used as a substitute for cleanup tags, comments on article talk pages, etc. I strongly disagree with this approach. AfD nomination criteria explicitly call out for better behaviour than this:

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}}

We do not necessarily need to have administrative intervention to enforce these policies yet. However, both these and article quality criteria should be reviewed by both parties. The policies exist because they are either Wikipedia foundation policy, community standards, or both.

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

  1. 'cos it makes sense. — Adrian Lamo ·· 09:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Yeps. Striver sees something is missing, begins it with a stub, then gradually fills it, as his, I presume, further reading into the subject permits. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. OMG! somebody that acctualy understood me! it feel like a miracle! --Striver 11:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. I endorse this summary Bov 20:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. " " SkeenaR 21:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. I concur, I gave some suggestions in the Hadith of Umar fortelling VFD thread as to improving his articles accessability to westerners, and he took them well and implemented them, resulting in a few better articles. ---- In Jersey Devils defense on the stalking charge, however, I should point out that when I notice someone making bad wikipedia articles and edits (in my opinion), I tend to see what ELSE the user edited to see if it's more junk or not as well so I know where he is coming from.--Oscar Arias 16:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by MONGO

Just based on previous POV pushing of nonsense by Striver in the articles related to the events of September 11, 2001, it's no surprise that Striver would be once again, pushing his POV in ways that simply do not conform with Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:NOT, WP:OWN, WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:NPA and WP:NPOV. His creation of POV fork projects and articles just so he can push his POV is not in keeping with the core fundamental of Wikipedia efforts of concensus. I don't see any evidence that Jersey Devil is "stalking" Striver. Striver supports junk science articles that lack facts and provide only his POV. In all honesty, I see a lot of his editing to be extremely biased against the U.S. and I find that offending. Striver should stop being paranoid and accept that his extremist and opinionated POV pushing is going to naturally attract a lot of attention.--MONGO 07:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

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

  1. "Just based on previous POV pushing of nonsense" - this is as far as I got, sorry. Bov 20:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    Apology accepted.--MONGO 02:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. From my quick review of the case this appears to be a fair summary. -Will Beback 21:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

  1. Yes, the result was "non-consencus", but the articles where in fact kept.
  2. Yes, i said "fuck you"...
  3. The list issue ended with me and the nominator doing this: List of Muslims/Proposed Organization A. In either case, most voted "keep" on that afd.
  4. The rfc against me came when i was a rookie and there was a lot of friction. My english was really horrible then.

--Striver 23:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

How amusing to see Jersey Devil do the same thing [10][11][12] [13][14] he told other people to not do [15]

--Striver 00:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Requesting users to comment on this matter isn't vote stacking. He was merely informing those with an interest in this RFC to have their say. This isn't a vote, ergo one cannot vote stack. Bobby1011 05:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Read the rfc rules, a request for comment requires me to inform members of the community.

  • To request other users to comment on an issue, add a link to the Talk page for the article, a brief neutral statement of the issue, and the date.
  • Only with the date, don't list the details, and don't submit arguments or assign blame.
  • On the Talk page of the article, it can help to summarize the dispute. [16]

--Jersey Devil 12:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)