User talk:Jersey Devil/RFC

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS NOT ACTIVE.

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

Does this RfC meet that requirement? Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see evidence that it does. However, I do see evidence that there is sufficient interest within the community, regarding this dispute, to make an exception in this case. There is clearly a dispute here, apparently involving a number of different users on various levels and in various capacities. If Jersey Devil is willing to allow the RfC to remain open despite its failure to meet the guidelines, I think it probably should be left to run its course. This is a step in the dispute resolution process, albeit about 2 steps further down the road than is perhaps appropriate, but whether Jersey Devil's behavior is inappropriate, or Striver's is, needs to be resolved somewhere, and perhaps this RfC is the best place to address it. Tom e r ^talk 00:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just added some diffs, but i dont know if its enough. --Striver 00:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the comments by Adrian and myself on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad: The Messenger of God (book) are of the general category described; they're on the discussion/voting page for an AfD which is one of the series which has provoked the RfC by Striver. I am not sure that a RfC is necessary right now; this can be resolved simply by reminding people to be nice to each other and to follow policy. Administrators are necessary if/when that fails to work. But, there are people complaining about the situation other than the two parties, per the RfC. Whether this meets administrative review or not, I don't know. Georgewilliamherbert 04:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC is not "administrative review", it's exactly what its name says: requests for comment. I'll be making more relevant comments wrt this point, as well as to a number of others pertinent to Striver, Jersey Devil and a few other editors, on the RFC itself in the next day or so, provided it doesn't get deleted in the interim... Tom e r ^talk 05:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know the proper way of starting a process of review against Striver. This has gone beyond being able to be solved with the simple "be nice to each other" act as Striver has already gone through an RFC before and all the actions that I have stated in my response (the Wikiprojects created solely to salvage his afds, telling Zora to "fuck off", creating articles solely to make a point with the "list of xxxx" afds, falsely claiming vandalism in page history summaries, etc...) have been done since that RFC. If anyone can simply guide me through how such a process would work via telling me in my talk page I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks.--Jersey Devil 17:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You want to read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. In general, the next step would be mediation, and if that failed then a Request for Arbitration. However, in the grand scheme of things... this situation is nowhere near hostile or conflicted enough to justify an RfA. Both you and Striver will benefit from the RfC discussion here. If you're really so sick of this that you're thinking that you have to escalate administrative responses... maybe you should take a day or two's worth of Wikipedia:Wikibreak. It's really not that bad. You two just seem to be irritating each other a lot; it's not a WP crisis or grossly abusive behavior on either part. Georgewilliamherbert 21:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you trying to cool down this argument but the thing is that it goes far beyond that. Like I said, we already have had an RFC for Striver back in July and all of the things that I posted in my response happened after that RFC so clearly that did not resolve the dispute (please also note that in that July RFC I hadn't even made contact with the poster before so clearly I am not the only one with a problem with the user). I am not doing this out of bitterness, please try to understand that I do honestly feel that Striver is hurting the project at this moment and deserves either an outright ban or a long-term block from Wikipedia. If he were an anon and had created his own Wikiproject twice to save his own articles from afds, broken with WP:POINT for revenge on people for listing his "Muslim Athletes" for afd, falsely called "vandalism" on page history summaries, broken with WP:Civility by cursing at other posters, and all this whilst an RFC has already been had on him. Let us be honest, under such circumstances this poster would have been outright banned long ago. The only reason he is still here is because he tries to play the victim as he is doing right now and a few Wikipedians feel compelled to try and help the victim. He tried to do this to Zora long ago and now he is trying to do it to me.--Jersey Devil 22:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to get rid of a user you dislike is some serious bad form. --Irishpunktom\^talk 22:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see evidence that JD is trying to block a user he doesn't like. Liking Striver or not is a separate question than whether his contributions warrant a block. WP:BLOCK indicates that blocks may be warranted because of "Excessive reverts", "Disruption", "Copyright infringement and plagiarism", "Users who exhaust the community's patience" etc. all of which Striver is reasonably demonstrably guilty of doing regularly. Esquizombi 23:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you follow the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration page, you'll see that what gets accepted by the arbitration committee for enforced administrative sanction is far far worse behaviour than the worst interpretations of what's asserted to be happening here, regardless of what one's personal belief is as to the accuracy of those assertions. In the grand scheme of things, at worst Striver's actions are at the persistently annoying range, and Jersey Devil's are bending the intent of Articles for Deletion policy but consistent with typical tolerated usage of AfD, though his following Striver around is akin to (but not nearly as bad as administratively handled) wikistalking.

These are bad enough that pointing out the policy, asking people to behave, and working informally to mediate the situation are reasonable responses. They don't come close to needing RfA. The stuff that gets arbitrated is much more nasty, more abusive, disruptive, clearly hostile bad-faith stuff.

I see no sign that either party in this has any intent of bad faith. Striver has a point of view, but he's adding a lot of interesting material, too. Jersey Devil's point that Striver's article creation process leaves a lot of half-finished or inadequate articles lying around is hard to argue with, either, though as I stated elsewhere I disagree with his method of responding to those.

Escalating administrative actions won't help, because they aren't called for, and won't be accepted (in my opinion, having followed RfA for a while), leaving the situation back where it is now plus the added tension of having people wound up by the RfA action. Unless one side or the other escalates in a gross manner or starts new abusive activities, this is probably going to have to be handled at the RfC and mediation level. Which is right here where we are now. Georgewilliamherbert 19:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think cursing at other posters, creating Wikiprojects solely to protect your articles from afd, falsely calling "vandalism" in page history summaries, and putting up afds on articles for revenge at other posters for putting up an afd tag on your article is bad form and that is why I am having this dispute with Striver not because "I don't like him". I also don't see any of these points what so ever disputed, possibly because they are very well documented. Furthermore, seeing the "Dispute Resolution" link that was given to me earlier on this page I found this:

If talking to the other parties involved fails, you should try one of these four methods to resolve the dispute. Which ones you choose and in what order will depend on the nature of the dispute, and the preferences of people involved.

One of those we have already tried which was an RFC for Striver. We could go on to Mediation from here or because we only have to choose one of the four we could go right on to Arbitration. I have to be honest and say that I do see this matter being resolve at all in Mediation and am strongly considering an RFA.--Jersey Devil 23:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need this kind of stuff on this page? Rfc's are suppose to be about civilized commentary not personal attacks. #"Just based on previous POV pushing of nonsense" - this is as far as I got, sorry. Bov 20:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC) [1]--Jersey Devil 02:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure what that meant, myself. I believe only endorsements are supposed to go beneath the Outside Views. Is that an endorsement? Opposing commentary on Outside Views (if there is supposed be any?) must go somewhere else, I think, I don't know where. Perhaps in a new opposing view. Esquizombi 03:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]