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

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)

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

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/9-11:_The_Road_to_Tyranny - keept

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

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9/11 Bin Laden conspiracy theory - Deleted
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert M. Bowman - Keept

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic Vedic studies Deleted, not my article

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

Afd's my articles

• Problem Reaction Solution - keept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shrines, mosques and graves - ongoing
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Citizens' Commission on 9-11 - merge

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:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Orkin - deleted.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lila Rajiva - keept
• The Language of Empire: Abu Ghraib and the American Media - redirect to the author

here he wants me to get baned:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bible und Muhammed - ongoing
• Paul Thompson (researcher) - keept

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

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of Umar's speech of forbidding Mut'ah -ongoing

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".

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of Umar and foretelling-ongoing

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

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of Umar and prophecy-ongoing

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

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hadith_of_Umar_and_religion-ongoing

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

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Qur’an and the Bible in the Light of Science - ongoing

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]:

• Muhammad: The Messenger of God (book) - speedy keep
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Betty Kelen - speedy keep

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

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

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:

• Muhammad: The Messenger of God (book)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Betty Kelen

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

{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)

(provide diffs and links)

1. Every single afd.

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

(sign with ~~~~)

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) [2]

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 [3]

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)" [4]

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:

• "rv mass vandalism"
• rv anon vandalism
• rv vandal
• rv vandalism
• rv vandalism

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:

• List of Jews
• List of Christians
• List of Hindus
• List of atheists
• List of Buddhists

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.

• List of Hindus Afd
• List of Jews Afd
• List of Christians Afd
• List of atheists Afd
• List of Buddists Afd

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.

• Rv Vandalism List of Christians
• Rv Vandalism List of Jews
• Rv Vandalism List of Hindus
• Rv Vandalism List of atheists
• Rv Vandalism List of Buddists

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 ~~~~):

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 ~~~~):

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 ~~~~):

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)

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 their, 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

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 ~~~~):

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)