Misplaced Pages

User:Jersey Devil/RFC: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User:Jersey Devil Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:29, 12 March 2006 editStriver (talk | contribs)39,311 edits →Evidence of disputed behavior← Previous edit Revision as of 20:51, 12 March 2006 edit undoJersey Devil (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,830 edits AddedNext edit →
Line 112: Line 112:


==Response== ==Response==
I shouldn't even give this a reponse but I will just so that others in the Misplaced Pages community could know what I have had to deal with for the past month whilst editing Misplaced Pages. If you look at the articles above () 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 ] was ('''no consensus''') and I didn't nominate the article either it was nominated for afd by ] and I voted keep originally and then changed to Merge/Redirect to Alex Jones not delete as Striver claims.
''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.''
''


:*<strike>'''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.</strike> '''Merge and Redirect''' to ] I understand the anger at Striver's rampant vandalism and heavily POV edits on Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages. ].--] 19:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
{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.}

The following article were also falsely labeled "Kept" by Striver ] ('''no consensus'''), ] ('''no consensus'''), ] ('''no consensus'''). The user had created an entire Misplaced Pages Project to try and salvage his own articles from afds called the ]. 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 ] 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."--]''
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 (]).

In the past this user has been outright hostile to other posters and breaking with Misplaced Pages ] policy. Take this comment that he made to User:Zora in a talk page.
:''"Zora: Fuck you. For everyone else that consider here balanced: ]. For everyone agreeing with here: Fuck you to. --] 11:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)"''

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 surprised (not really) to find 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? --] 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 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 guess what he said in the talk page? '''Rv Vandalism'''.

*
*
*
*
*

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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--] 20:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


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

Revision as of 20:51, 12 March 2006

Statement of the dispute

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


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)

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 :


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

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

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)

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)

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Every single afd.


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 ~~~~)

Response

I shouldn't even give this a reponse but I will just so that others in the Misplaced Pages community could know what I have had to deal with for the past month whilst editing Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages. The User has exhausted the community's patience.--Jersey Devil 19:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The following article 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 Misplaced Pages 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

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 Misplaced Pages 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)"

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 surprised (not really) to find 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 guess what he said in the talk page? Rv Vandalism.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 ~~~~):

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 ~~~~):

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.