User talk:Jersey Devil: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:38, 16 March 2006 editTariqabjotu (talk \| contribs)Administrators36,354 edits →[] from []: + another two replies← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:09, 16 March 2006 edit undoAlba (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users3,142 edits →[] from []Next edit →
Line 186:		Line 186:

	: I understand; I get your point; now please calm down. ] 22:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)		: I understand; I get your point; now please calm down. ] 22:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

			==] from ]==

			I do not know who ] is and I do not care. I do not know about his past behavior, and I do not care. I do not know who ''you'' are, and I do not care. When considering ] I judge by the merits of the article.

			In this case, ], the article does indeed need verification per ], but the idea of the article itself has merit. It can't be ] 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 ] comment and unnecessary mention of authorship did not seem apropos, hence ].

			I repeat, I do not care about his other edits or AfD nominations; they are not germane to the question at hand, ''whether a single article should be kept''.

			I suggest further discussion of matter take place at your RfC page.] 23:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:09, 16 March 2006

/Archive 1: May 22, 2005 – March 12, 2006

Striver

If I may interject, I don't think you commenting on Striver on AFD or MFD is going to help. Use the proper channel i.e., WP:ANI or something similar. On the MFD, you could have just commented about Striver's spam messaging to many other users, but you didn't need to further your comments about exhausting the communities patience. I generally disagree with Striver's method of creating stubs and then leaving until the AFD arrives. I too agree that the spamming needs to end. However, the AFD (or MFD) page is not the place to discuss this. Stick to the merits, or the weaknesses of the article (or portals). Incidently, despite your comments, the Conspiracy project was not unanimous as their was a weak keep, despite the user now regretting doing so. Pepsidrinka 13:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I'll make sure to join Misplaced Pages: WikiProject Peru. Thanks, bye. --Gabbec 16:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

rfc

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil --Striver 19:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

How amusing to see you do the same thing you told other people to not do --Striver 00:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The rfc rules specifically state that I am suppose to do that. That is why it is called a "request for comment".--Jersey Devil 12:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll give you my support. I think that so far you have not done anything that deserve this treatment. I was victim of one of those too as soon as I started my career as wikipedist. People will forget about that. So far, it seems to me that the creator of those articles has clearly POV opinions. Messhermit 03:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Rfc

Thanks for contacting me with repect to striver's rfc against you, I was very interested to leave my comments and read what others had to say on the matter. It looks like this thing is whole lot of hot air though, no one is paying the request anything more than lip service. I am however curious to know how my name came up as someone with an intrest in the matter. Bobby1011 04:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Review of Striver

I don't know if by that you mean a 2nd RfC on him, or something else. It might be appropriate to attempt to have more people give him advice on his talk page, though at this point I doubt he would listen to me (he ignored my advice when we were on I think good terms, and he also failed to acknowledge the work I did saving some of his articles). I don't know if this would be necessary, though. In terms of identifying further violations of WP policies, the options seem to be going through the contribution history, or doing a wikipedia.org Domain-specific Google search http://www.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en on combinations of terms like +striver +pov, +stiver +npov, +striver +block, +striver +copyvio, +striver +attack, +striver +vandalism, etc. (And neither of these constitute wikistalking, Striver, if you're reading this.) However, this would miss anything that had been deleted, probably.

There seem to be three problems (at least) in the AfDs on his articles. (1) Some people will do a procedural keep on his articles if Striver is named in the nom. This could be addressed by either not naming him in the noms, better identifying multiple policy violations, or identifying a policy that makes naming the creator in fact acceptable. (2) Striver also appears to do "vote stacking," or in any case there's a group of people who are willing to disregard policy to vote keep on his articles (the Shia't Striver - "Party of Striver," if you like). (3) Non-muslims with little knowledge of Islam who vote keep because they are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he knows what he is doing since he is "a religious Shi'a twelver Quietist Muslim" per his user page and clearly knows English as a second language. He is, then, not an "average" Wikipedian and his contributions could be thought to be countering Systemic bias. See also Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. However, as a non-muslim with a fairly extensive knowledge of Islam (more than the average muslim anyway, who knows about as much about islam as the average christian does about christianity), I don't see that Striver has any special knowledge of Islam. His contributions are equivalent to what a non-muslim with no prior knowledge of Islam could find with a Google search - and in fact are even inferior to that. Striver does not appear to cite to articles or books he owns or consults, but rather seems limited to Google searches. That might not be so bad if he could really analyze the search results. However, Striver's tendancy to copy information wholesale, and not evaluate the reliability of sources, to push POV, to revert edits, and to make substubs that don't even qualify as stubs (and contrary to georgewilliamherbert's claims, rarely revisit and lengthen them), his poor English spelling and grammar, etc. pretty much negate the value his contributions could potentially have.

There should in fact be more articles on Islam and Shiism, and they should accurately present their views of themselves and of others per policy. However, those articles should be created by people who can create at least proper stubs for them that at least conform to WP policy. I don't know what it would take to get Striver to that point, or if that is even possible. Esquizombi 21:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sending you an email

Just so you know, I am sending you an email that will be important reading.--MONGO 08:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Guess not...your email isn't enabled.--MONGO 08:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not working so try again and I'll get back to you tonight...don't forget to go to : so they can send you a code to confirm.--MONGO 16:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Advice

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. Computerjoe 's talk 17:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Your RFC

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 23:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would like a copy of the rfc and rfc talk page on my userspace. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 00:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It's up at User:Jersey Devil/RFC and User talk:Jersey Devil/RFC. Stifle 09:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Misconceptions about the Shi'a

You should take note that the previous AfD resulted in a merge, yet Striver continuously reverted mine and Zora's attempt at keeping the merge tag up until we both got tired of his antics, and left the tag off the page. Check the page history. Pepsidrinka 00:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a reminder to put "AFD" or something similar in the edit summary when nominating an article for deletion. Pepsidrinka 04:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no opinion on what should be done with the article. As for the incivility, etc., if Striver persists, you may request arbitration. Johnleemk | Talk 15:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:OR v WP:V

I think WP:V fits a lot of your recent AfDs better than WP:OR. I don't think the author made them up, but rather that he simply didn't cite his sources (and the sources' reliability may not have been assessed). I don't disagree with their listing on AfD (i.e. even properly sourced, I don't see them as belonging) but I suspect this is going to get ugly. Esquizombi 05:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Calling Striver a "POV Hawk" on your user page, accompanied by the text "POV Hawk-The Greatest enemy of the NPOV Wikipedian", is a personal attack. I also suggest that it is not productive to stalk Striver and list all articles he created on AfD. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind. Thanks, Lambiam 16:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

All of those articles meet the criteria for deletion and thus is not WP:STALK. But yes, you are correct in that such language in my user page is hurtful and I will take that comment out. But I also ask if you think that the user cursing at other users and creating blogs on his userspace attacking others users count as WP:NPA. It seems that all the defenders of Striver refuse to acknowledge his violations of Misplaced Pages policy.--Jersey Devil 20:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Stop being a vandal

On five occassions 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\ 20:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Further, that happened almost a month ago, will that be your permanent justification for trying to wreck the Shia sections of Misplaced Pages? --Irishpunktom\ 21:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I see that you don't take Misplaced Pages policies that Striver breaks with seriously and will just vote randomly keep on his articles up for deletion no matter what their content is because you feel that we are "attacking Islam". That is all I needed to know. Please note, that any further comments by yourself on this talk page will be deleted.--Jersey Devil 21:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

take a break

Hi. I'd like to encourage you to take a few days off from actioning User:Striver's articles. Other users have found your persistent nominations disruptive. Without passing judgment on whether your actions are correct or not, please consider an observation someone made the other day, in an unrelated matter -- just because something is the correct thing to do, doesn't mean you should do it like a hurricane. I'm sure you want to keep Misplaced Pages tidy, but right now you're clogging WP:AFD.

I hope you'll consider this message. Thanks for taking the time to help out Misplaced Pages! :)

— User:Adrian/zap2.js 21:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The only people who have found it disruptive are those who systematically vote keep in Striver's articles. See the afds, many "keep" votes are not on the basis of the articles themselves but just sytematic keeps because it is Strivers articles that are up for deletion. So no, I won't take a break. If I see an article that obviously does not belong on Misplaced Pages I will put an afd tag on it and I won't stop that because some people refuse to acknowledge that the articles don't belong here because of a personal friendship with the author.--Jersey Devil 21:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I too want to repeat the sentiments of Adrian. At least wait until this recent collection of AfDs you nominated pass over until you further nominate others. I agree with you partially that if something doesn't belong, it should go. However, with about twenty nominations right now from you, it will definately turn off many other editors who may feel you are making a point, despite the fact that many of the articles do not belong. Pepsidrinka 21:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Given your (Jersey Devil's) response, I'm glad to see that you clearly understand that your nominations are polarizing some people. But of the people who find this series of nominations unhelpful have never interacted with User:Striver, or only heard of him due to the recent deletion debates.

I invite you again to lead by example, and demonstrate good faith and civility towards your fellow Wikipedians by taking a day or two off. Have some faith in the ability of the community to expunge bad content -- if his contributions truly need to go, someone else will handle it. But right now, you come across as being too personally involved to be effective, especially since some users will oppose your nominations due to what they feel to be bad faith on your part.

Thanks again for your work on Misplaced Pages :)

— User:Adrian/zap2.js 21:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to nominate any more of his articles for afd for a while anyway. It took alot of time to find those articles. But what annoys me is the different rules we have for this user. I am being accused with being disruptive, well then challenge the articles themselves. Look at the bottom of this page. Why do those articles belong here? If they were created by any other user the deletion tags wouldn't be challenged. Why doesn't Stivers actions of listing articles for deletion for the sole reason of others listing his "Muslim Athletes" article for afd count as WP:POINT and as "disruptive". Why do we continue to bend the rules for this user? See the following:

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.

Re: WP:POINT

Thank you for your message. Believe me, Striver is not threatening the very fabric of the Wikiverse, thereby causing the end of civilization as we know it. I think you should try to cool down a bit. It would be better for you and for the Misplaced Pages project if you staid away from Striver for a while and put your energy in other things before this becomes a vendetta.

I can believe that most of the articles you listed are bad. That is not the issue. I can also see that Striver is not the most cooperative editor to work with. But honestly, I think that you are presently too obsessed with Striver to be able to distinguish clearly between articles that genuinely fit the AfD criteria, and others that you are unable to appreciate mainly because they were created by Striver. Listing so many at the same time has the nature of a hostile act and is, in my opinion, disruptive.

I came upon the whole thing because I saw the AfD notice on the page Sunni view of the Sahaba. I looked at the AfD page, did not understand the argument for nomination, went back later to the AfD list to vote Keep and saw another nomination for Shia view of the Sahaba, which led me to investigate a bit. Then I discovered you had put up no fewer than twenty-four Shriver-created articles for deletion. Very industrious, but not very productive.

I think it is not a good idea to use the argument that someone else is hostile as justification for your own acts. The merit of the articles is independent of that. It really shows you need to let this go a bit.

Hope this helps.

Lambiam 21:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the merits of the articles themselves. Let us look at the merits of the articles themselves. You wrote this in many of the articles for deletion. Please tell me why you think the following merit an article, if this really is about the merits of the articles themselves:

I'd be interested to know the actual arguments for keeping these articles. Had any other poster created these there would be no argument for keeping them.--Jersey Devil 21:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Jersey Devil, this is precisely my point :) These nominations have become less about the articles, and more about you and User:Striver. Standing down for a little bit, and letting the situation / discussion settle and percolate may be the most helpful thing you can do. It'd definitely help to keep this a debate about merits, rather than de-evolving into a tug'o-war. — User:Adrian/zap2.js 21:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

We've tried it before, listing the bad articles for deletion at a slow pace. What happened is that Striver just calls all his allies to vote keep and the articles get kept by no consensus. And by the time the afd closes, Striver has created 10 other pages that could be put up for afd. I have yet to hear a real argument for keeping those articles. Again, we seem to have special rules for this user.--Jersey Devil 22:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jersey Devil, take a deep breath, read carefully what I wrote, take another deep breath and read it again. Maybe you'll get what I'm trying to say. I sincerely hope so. Lambiam 22:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT from User:Joturner

Yes, I saw you commenting on an afd to Irishpunktom about the claims of this for "keeping" an article. Unfortunately he always votes keep on Striver's articles no matter how bad they are or what wikipedia policy stands against it (because he feels it is an attack on muslims) and whilst he accuses me of trying to make a point (which I am not since all of those articles do warrant an afd), no one ever says anything about Striver explicitly listing afd's on good articles to make a point. See the following:

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 familiar with that incident, considering I was the one who originally created that AfD. I ran into a similar issue when I nominated those articles (and several other by him) for deletion. Some people mistook a problem with his articles with a problem with him. I'm not (and I'm sure you're not either) deleting those articles simply because Striver created them. Striver just happens to create a large number of articles, many of which get deleted. Note that he has had nearly nine hundred deleted edits, or 7.3% of all his edits, deleted. Compare that to my 1.8% and your 1.5%. Considering that Striver is clearly an inclusionist, and both you are I are at least somewhat deletionists, that seems to indicate that his additions get deleted at a disproportionally high rate. So to say that your recent actions have been an attack on Striver would be unfounded; historically a surprisingly high number of his pages have been deleted. joturner 22:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

During edit conflict: 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. joturner 22:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

What I find often is that the defenders of Striver always say "he makes stub articles, but he always works on them and builds them up later" which simply is incorrect. Check out this page on the userspace of Zora User talk:Zora/Striver new article. A very large portion of the articles he had created long ago have remained incredibly small and not updated.--Jersey Devil 22:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Another thing I don't approve of is statements like the one above. I admit that Striver can be annoying, but need you point out every single piece of evidence that supports that claim? I didn't think it would have to resort to this but...

I understand; I get your point; now please calm down. joturner 22:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT from Alba

I do not know who User:Striver is and I do not care. I do not know about his past behavior, and I do not care. I do not know who you are, and I do not care. When considering WP:AFD I judge by the merits of the article.

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.

I repeat, I do not care about his other edits or AfD nominations; they are not germane to the question at hand, whether a single article should be kept.

I suggest further discussion of matter take place at your RfC page.Alba 23:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)