Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 03:46, 21 March 2006 editYellowMonkey (talk \| contribs)86,443 edits →Outside view by []: support← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:00, 21 March 2006 edit undoJersey Devil (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users10,830 editsm →Response by []Next edit →
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 107:		Line 107:
	''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.''		''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.''
	''		''
			#

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

			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]

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

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

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

			*]: The result of the debate was '''delete''', a strong consensus that the WikiProject structure is not to be used in such a way. ] ] 22:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
			*]: The result of this was '''no consensus''' with 8 delete and 4 keep, 66% delete. He used the talk page of his Shia Guild to list his articles that were up for deletion to try and get keep votes. The mfd was originally on the talk page itself, not the entire Wikiproject.

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

			*
			*
			*
			*
			*

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

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

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

			There is another user who is quoted in Striver's initial statement, ]. If you see his 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 ] and judge for yourself how credible the quotes from this user are.

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

			:''wtf, why not including this as well:
			* ]
			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]

			Lets vote on all of them, why only the Muslim lists? --] 04:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)'' (])

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

			*
			*
			*
			*
			*

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

			*
			*
			*
			*
			*

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

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

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

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

			*]-Page by Striver created in November 2005, still one sentence long and never updated again.
			*]-Page by Striver created in November 2005, still one sentence long. Updated on March 2006 solely to redirect no content update.
			*]-Page by Striver created in November 2005, two sentences long and not updated by Striver since it was created.
			*]-Created November 2005 by Striver, without the quote it is three sentences long and hasn't been updated since then.
			*]-Created November 2005, still a stub with a long period in between when Striver started to update it in which he added .
			*]-Created November 2005 and hasn't been worked on by the user since except for a revert in December 2005.
			*Many more ].

			So that claim is in fact baseless. I suggest people see the comment made by ] below with regards to ], ], ] and ] (as well as ] and ] which wasn't mentioned). In these, as well as various other articles, the user refuses to accept that his ], ], ], etc... sources are not ], in particular they violate the ] policy which states:

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

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

			*
			*
			*
			*
			*
			*

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

			:''Striver,

			:''She's really not a Buddhist. Buddhists act nothing like what Zora does. She insults Siddhartha Gautama with her arrogant and hostile actions. '''She's a Buddhist ''wanna-be'''''. Maybe somebody should teach her about the ethical conduct of the ], so that she wont make such a joke out of eastern faiths.''

			:'''''She's actually Jewish.''' (see her last sentence ). She says she's against Zionists. But she's doing them the greatest favour by so viciously attacking the Shia (and others).--] 00:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)''''

			:''Well, '''at least we know now that she's Jewish'''.--] 01:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)''

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

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

			Users who endorse this summary (sign with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>):
	#		#

Revision as of 04:00, 21 March 2006

In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 23:56, March 19, 2006), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 17:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC).

(Example user | talk | contributions)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

User:Jersey Devil needs to be admonished for not heeding the advices he received after he afd'd a bunch of my articles, and instead proceded to afd a new bunch of articles.--Striver 23:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Description

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

User:Jersey Devil afd'd wantonly, without even bothering to check for notability, often using invalid or just silly arguements for nomination. All those articles he afd'd are created by me, and he is also following all my edits via user contribution.

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

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

On that, Georgewilliamherbert wrote to that admin:

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

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

He had earlier already received this advice by Computerjoe:

I am not willing to act as an advocate in your dispute with Striver, however I am going to give you some advice.

I suggest, very simply, you stay away from Striver; and when he does 'vandalise' ask another member, such as me, for a third opinion. Thanks.

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

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

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

Irishpunktom: "Jersey Devil stop trying to make a Point"

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

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

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

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

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

Ardric47: "Question: what in there is original research?"

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

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

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

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

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

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

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

User:Jersey Devil/RFC

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

I second what User:Striver says.--Zereshk 05:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
--Irishpunktom\ 15:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

Response by Jersey Devil

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

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

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracies Guild: The result of the debate was delete, a strong consensus that the WikiProject structure is not to be used in such a way. Steve block talk 22:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam:The Shia Guild: The result of this was no consensus with 8 delete and 4 keep, 66% delete. He used the talk page of his Shia Guild to list his articles that were up for deletion to try and get keep votes. The mfd was originally on the talk page itself, not the entire Wikiproject.

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

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

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

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

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

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

wtf, why not including this as well:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Striver,

She's really not a Buddhist. Buddhists act nothing like what Zora does. She insults Siddhartha Gautama with her arrogant and hostile actions. She's a Buddhist wanna-be. Maybe somebody should teach her about the ethical conduct of the Eightfold Path, so that she wont make such a joke out of eastern faiths.

She's actually Jewish.' (see her last sentence here). She says she's against Zionists. But she's doing them the greatest favour by so viciously attacking the Shia (and others).--Zereshk 00:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)'

Well, at least we know now that she's Jewish.--Zereshk 01:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

Response by Joturner

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

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

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

Outside views

Outside view by Mmx1

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

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

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

Outside view by Pegasus1138

This RFC is a blatant example of not assuming good faith just because someone disagrees with having articles they have worked on AFDed. This is a pointless and hostile RFC. Pegasus1138 ---- 02:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Outside view by Evilphoenix

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

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

Outside view by Isopropyl

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

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

joturner 11:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Isotope23

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

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

Ill try to follow that, and i hope JD rethinks his ways and does not make a third 15+ afd run.--Striver 03:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Lambiam 03:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Georgewilliamherbert

This is not double jeopardy, as:

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

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

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

To reinterate prior points:

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

I urge that:

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

Users agreeing with this viewpoint should sign below:

I can live with that. Ill try to make my future articles less stubby. --Striver 01:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by MONGO

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

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

For the most part I agree, although thirty days may be too long. joturner 02:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.