Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil

message: Comment. User Northmeister, quoted on the RfC, has been banned for incivility and disruption and has a personal beef with Jersey Devil. --Mmx1 00:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment User User:Mmx1 has a beef with myself as well, so take the above in context.  I was not banned but blocked and I protested this in the strongest manner and still do as I did my second block (both instigated by Jersey Devil unjustly) which was over the Gatekeeper AfD page and his inflammatory comments made -I deleted them/he reverted etc. until I broke the 3RR rule supposedly, even though reversing offensive comments is not a part of that. --Northmeister 07:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is based on....what? One disagreement and that I pointed out your WP:POINT behavior which got you blocked? Excuse my improper terminology.--Mmx1 03:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the page to discuss this.  But you seem to be very hostile with me over what I do not know.  The dispute we had was brief, true, and was not allowed to be carried out in the manner I just did at the Internet2 site etc. because Jersey Devil then moved to have me blocked based on senseless grounds which I was not able to respond to because the block was so quick by a person who should of recused himself from it. Like I said, this is not for this page.  I was defending Striver, who as it can be seen by this RfC was being harassed and stalked by a certain user in a manner I was beginning to be, after the GateKeeper confrontation. Makes me think what originally sparked Striver's mistreatment? --Northmeister 03:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

message: From Wikipedia:Requests for comment:
:"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."
If the previous RfC didn't meet this requirement, how does this one? What's changed? Tom Harrison Talk 03:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing, as far as I can tell.--MONGO 03:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I am new to the RfC process, but my understanding of its rules indicate that two users must "certify the basis for the dispute" within 48 hours to prevent it from being deleted. Apparently that didn't happen with the first RfC, and that is why it was deleted; that is not a technicality, but likely more a reflection of the fact that there weren't two users who agreed with the "basis for the dispute." --mtz206 13:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 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. 
--Striver 13:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Didn't we just do this? 

message: Striver moved a signature to under "Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute". I can't find the effort in Zereshk's contributions – zero edits to Striver's talk page, zero edits to Jersey Devil's talk page during the dispute. Where is that effort? Weregerbil 14:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. perhaps he meant to move it to the "users who endorse this summary" section? --mtz206 14:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, sorry, thanks for the alert. Ill correct it.--Striver 14:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see two people certifying this RfC. -Will Beback 20:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which means if that's not fixed in about 24 hours or so that page may be deleted. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 21:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Adrian certified it, but I'm not sure if he had "tried but failed to resolve the problem."  He had posted on Jersey Devil's talk page after the second batch of AfDs, so his advice does not apply to the "same dispute" Striver identified in his statement.  Striver needs someone who posted on Jersey Devil's talk page or other talk pages involved in the dispute, and whose advice was not heeded.  Adrian's advice has seemingly been heeded so far. Esquizombi 06:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it's pretty sketchy to certify one's own RfC.  If one can, the certifier must still show evidence that he "contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem."  I'm not sure if there is evidence he did that.  Jersey Devil's talk page has two posts from Striver, one informing him of the first RfC and a second criticism him for what Striver erroneously viewed as vote stacking.  Nothing regarding this dispute.  None of the Discussion pages for the AfDs appear to have been utilized.  Striver's one post on the failed RfC talk page does not relate to trying to resolve the basis for this new dispute.  His certification must be dismissed, unless there is evidence I'm missing that he "contacted the user on [User talk:Jersey Devil], or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem" (emphasis added). Esquizombi 04:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Users certifying the basis for this dispute"

message: I mistakenly removed Striver's certification. I didn't think it made sense that he could certify a RfC he created, but I couldn't really find any evidence saying he couldn't. I re-added his certification. If that is not correct, someone else remove it and please provide evidence (for my future reference). If Striver's certification is valid, the RfC is now valid. joturner 03:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's pretty sketchy to certify one's own RfC.  If one can, the certifier must still show evidence that he "contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem."  I'm not sure if there is evidence he did that.  Jersey Devil's talk page has two posts from Striver, one informing him of the first RfC and a second criticism him for what Striver erroneously viewed as vote stacking.  Nothing regarding this dispute.  None of the Discussion pages for the AfDs appear to have been utilized.  Striver's one post on the failed RfC talk page does not relate to trying to resolve the basis for this new dispute.  His certification must be dismissed, unless there is evidence I'm missing that he "contacted the user on [User talk:Jersey Devil], or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem" (emphasis added). Esquizombi 04:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Striver's certification

message: I'm surprised that Jersey Devil has not written a response to this. The RfC is about him and I even told him about writing a response on his his talk page. I'm not sure what to think of that. I hope he's not letting everyone else do the talking for him, because that would not be a good idea. joturner 23:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not like he's not aware of its existence. He's been actively tagging talk pages. Perhaps a better use of his time and effort would be in his own defense? Isopropyl 23:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to put words in his mouth or anything, but I'm pretty sure he's waiting for a second person to certify by the basis of the dispute. Similarly, as am I. If this is going to be deleted after forty-eight hours, he wouldn't want to, nor do I, waste time writing a response (or an outside view). Pepsidrinka 01:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 01:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I hope that's it. joturner 01:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: "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."  
--- I consider the above a personal insult and attack on me once again by you. I request to re-write it not to include the personal attack please. --Northmeister 07:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: HERE IS THE WHOLE STORY:
**"Jersey Devil did not like the fact that I deleted what I considered harmful commentary on the Gatekeeper deletion vote page (AfD). SEE HERE.  So he responded by going to my articles at Wealth of Nations, and Dirigisme among others and reverting (REVENGE REVERTS he calls them) them without commentary on the talk page.  I responded by looking into his edit history.  I saw that he was engaged in the same thing at other pages.  So I took a stand on something I knew about to stop this - Democracy Now! (I am a progressive Democrat afterall).  I did this to give User:Radical Mallard a chance to respond to his reverts without discussion.  We came to an agreement that it was not helpful to revert others material without discussing it (unless it is an anonymous user or obvious vandalism) and he apologized for his conduct.  Then a few days later he again reverted Dirigisme without discussion (while a discussion was in process with another user Will Beback).  I took offense first, because he broke our cordial agreement to not revert without first discussing why and second because after I reverted back he reverted again, until I could revert no more (each time he did not list a reason on the talk page).    He continues as above to insinuate I am a LaRouche supporter when I am not. This is the same thing Will Beback has done to me since I arrived over disputes at the American System page.  I have bent over backwards for them with citations and references and they continue to call me this name.  I even wrote a brief about myself to indicate a little about me and where I am from and sent Wikimedia my real name to be on record.  That is a little background to balance the above statement. PS. My Buchanan edit was actually accepted by Will Beback after he found out it was well founded himself by the way." --Northmeister 07:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, you might also mention (per your talk page) you can't make your mind up as to whether Jersey Devil and Will Beback are two different people, or if JD is a sock puppet of Beback, or if JD and Beback are both sock puppets of somebody else targetting you.  Maybe it's because I haven't been here that long, but that seems... unusual.  I don't know enough about your history to comment further, beyond your conduct on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatekeeper (politics) which wasn't admirable and Talk:Democracy Now! which mostly seemed OK.  Given the response the last block triggered User_talk:Northmeister you might consider a break for a little while. Esquizombi 08:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The response is mostly to the way this whole process works (blocking) works, as the one who blocked me in the second case was not exactly a non-partisan...but I digress.  Thanks for the commentary. --Northmeister 22:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Can we avoid personal attacks and dragging an unrelated dispute into this RfC please?  If you object to Jersey Devil's actions regarding yourself, Northmeister, feel free to open an other RfC.  But we have enough issues in this one without dragging other user conflicts in.  Thank you.  Georgewilliamherbert 08:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right to some degree.  But, I was brought into this by Jersey Devil himself making comments (see above and on the page) which are a personal attack on my credibility.  So I had to respond with my side.  That is fair enough.  Plus, the community should know how this editor works..per other users not just Striver.  Thank You. --Northmeister 22:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jersey Devil's Response 

message: I am not familiar enough with the situation to write a full "outside view", nor do I really want to be. I agree that Jersey Devil seems to have nominated the articles in bad faith; on the other hand, there are problems with the articles in question. Those problems should be addressed with cleanup tags and discussion on talk pages, though, and not through AfD. See especially my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family tree of Maymuna bint al-Harith Ardric47 00:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brief Comment 

message: *JERSEY DEVIL STOP YOUR SPAM - It is totally wrong to spam other Users! I would sign my name but you would spam me like you did several people I know. STOP PLEASE!
PLEASE STOP THIS!
"*Hi, I've seen your edits repeatedly pop up on my watchlist. Please avoid spamming other users' talk pages, thanks. NSLE (T+C) at 05:02 UTC (2006-03-20) 
    
:I am undergoing an Rfc and under Rfc rules I am suppose to inform users involved with the dispute about the Rfc to get their comments (See the first bullet). I think that is the "spam" you are referring to.--Jersey Devil 05:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jersey Devil is sending SPAM

message: Why does this RfC for Jersey Devil contain a link to "Example user" and this person's talk/contribution pages? Am I missing something? Isopropyl 23:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that stuff is supposed to link to Jersey Devil's information. I fixed the links. joturner 06:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Example user"