Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Justinm1978

In order to remain listed at 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 &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 08:12, April 27, 2008), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).

Summary
is a disruptive user who sole purpose is to POV push and harass users on Wikipedia. His conflict of interest with Greek fraternities and organizations, such as Alpha Phi Omega as well as the Boy Scouts cause him to POV war with editors, sometimes stalking their edits and harassing them to concede to his point of view. He also wikilawyers to gain the upper hand and also is insufficient in policy knowledge.

Policies Violated

 * STALK
 * AGF
 * NPOV
 * COI
 * 3RR
 * NPA
 * BITE
 * CIVIL
 * Trolling - not really a policy but def. applies here
 * BATTLE
 * TEMPLAR
 * OWN
 * TALK
 * Wikilawyering
 * V
 * NOR
 * POINT
 * SOAP

Evidence from m ir a nd a
I first encountered Justin when he changed "service" to "social" in all nine NPHC articles. ,, , , , , ,  .

I later revert his changes. And, he reverts back, as seen with edit history in May. He responds with "...charges of vandalism (which I see you have a history of making) are not valid." Later, another editor Ccson who is a key editor on the Alpha Phi Alpha article, reverted Justin's edits as "vandalism". Justin later responds with reverting vandalism, user is not contributing to discussion on subject matter. He also reports CCson to AIV in order for him to be blocked, even though it was a content dispute. The dispute was later solved with mediation seen below.

Another instance of Justin POV warring is deleting "Sorority/Fraternity, Incorporated" to articles without discussing the issues on the talk page. HistoricDST and I were trying to improve Delta Sigma Theta, Justin makes his POV known that Inc is redundant as all national GLO's are by nature incorporated.. I revert him noting that there are two DSTs, one professional and one which is a sorority. He later reverts me, then reverts himself, asking the question "is this about Delta Sigma Theta the business or the organization". I later revert him.

When I address him to the mistake of treating some non profits as businesses, he responds with and I also thank you for being too myopic to see that I'm going through and cleaning up all articles, not just NPHC.. FYI: Myopic is another word for narrowminded. He also doesn't use edit summaries when making these changes.

Also, I think he takes warnings too personally. I warn him not to brink 3RR and try to mediate with him, he blanks the content on his page. Later, he responds on my page as interpreting it as a threat and is uncivil. Whenever, I revert him, he reverts me on my talk page, which is in violation of TALK.

Mediation Cases
In order to make a type of consensus with this user, steps towards mediation were taken in order to reach a consensus. However, amid mediation, this user has continued to be disruptive. I feel as though if a request for comment were to be made, this user's behavior would not change.
 * Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-06-29_Infobox_Fraternity
 * Note: When making these reverts, he did not provide edit summaries (see below). This in my opinion can be mistaken for vandalism.
 * 00:19, May 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Zeta Phi Beta‎
 * 00:18, May 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Sigma Gamma Rho‎
 * 00:18, May 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Phi Beta Sigma‎
 * 00:18, May 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Omega Psi Phi‎
 * 00:17, May 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Kappa Alpha Psi‎
 * 00:17, May 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Iota Phi Theta‎
 * 00:17, May 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Delta Sigma Theta‎
 * 00:16, May 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Alpha Phi Alpha‎
 * 00:15, May 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Alpha Kappa Alpha

In both mediation cases, he did not provide an online source in order to prove his point. In the DST case, I provided sources to DST's website stating that DST's name is officially "Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Incorporated" on their website which is verifiable. (see related discussion) Even a Delta member admits that the organization is named Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Incorporated. The lack of Justin providing sources in order to win an argument is considered original research.
 * Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-09-22_Delta_Sigma_Theta
 * Note: Even though I came to the compromise as a part of mediation that Sorority/Fraternity, Inc. would be deleted, and the incorporation date would be matched with the title. For example, in Alpha Kappa Alpha I put, |see  a non-profit under the name Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Incorporated on January 30, 1913., Justin continues to delete Sorority/Fraternity, Incorporated without researching the date that they were incorporated as a part of the compromise. While we are mediating for a decision, Justin still continues to delete Sorority/Fraternity, Incorporated. (other examples where he puts "copyedit" while POV pushing)

Other Examples removing "Sorority/Fraternity, Incorporated"

 * Kappa Psi Kappa
 * Delta Tau Lambda

Lack of encyclopedia contributions
Instead of adding knowledge to the encyclopedia, Justin deletes unsourced facts, instead of finding sources for them. This behavior is counterproductive to the encyclopedia and shows ownership.
 * seen here
 * here
 * here
 * and here to the point of Ownership.

Revert warring via PRODS
I noticed in late December that an IP began to make proposed deletions on articles that I have worked on improving. This in my opinion constitutes stalking.
 * on Winona Cargile Alexander
 * My revert
 * Justin's revert


 * Ethel Cuff Black
 * Justin's revert
 * Justin reverts again


 * On Dorothy Ferabee
 * On Barbara McKinzie
 * User_talk:Justinm1978 - Where I address him reverting prods.
 * He blanks his IP user page with the incivil comment rm "warning" from user with vendetta

AFDs
When I and another user were having a conflict regarding an article, Justin clearly makes his presence known during which I was trying to make Alpha Kappa Alpha and List of Alpha Kappa Alpha sisters both featured. Two days later via IP (see above), he prods article pages. Several days later, Justin made two AFDs not soon after the IP prodded the pages. He also did not notify me that he was deleting the pages, which angered me.
 * Articles_for_deletion/Myra_Hemmings
 * Articles_for_deletion/Nellie_Pratt_Russell
 * I do admit that I AFD APO's founders because theoretically, he felt that organization's founders weren't notable. According to his reason, we should delete all organizations' founders because "founding an organization" is not notable, according to his reasoning. Yes, I agree, that's a violation of point, and I have learned from that mistake. There is also an ANI thread about this where he refers to the accusations as rather hurtful accusation. I am not being "hurtful", but just following protocol.

ABF

 * Justin often assumes bad faith. I mentioned to him that he was being discussed on ANI, he removes the conversation with rm nonsense from user with vendetta
 * Soon after I compile evidence for this topic ban, he makes a claim of me "stalking him", and later makes a rebuttal, looking at my edits, my failed RFA and calling me uncivil. This can be seen as an attack page. What I am making is an editing restriction, not an attack page.
 * He admits that he doesn't look through the IP's edits before reverting

Template Harassment
Per this IP edit to Omega Psi Phi and the IP's contributions in February Justin posted three separate warnings on a user's page for the same offense in order to prove that Service fraternities are not social fraternities. In my opinion, one warning should suffice. Also, not all new users know the difference between "social" and "service" fraternities. He has also template harassed Allstarecho (see below in Allstarecho's section).

Violations of 3RR
Regarding 3RR, I don't think Justin understands what 3RR means. The three revert rule does not mention censoring. Only in cases of obvious vandalism, 3RR should be used. However, he has violated 3RR based on content disputes. He has violated 3RR in the past with his POV pushing. (2 of them)

On Talk:Sigma Alpha Mu
Justin reinserted comments based upon talk page history. According to WP:CIVIL, comments can be deleted if they are uncivil. Also, see this discussion in his talk page regarding his uncivil behavior relating removing/deleting of talk page comments.
 * 1st
 * 2nd
 * 3rd
 * 4th

On Blogcritics
Justin violated 3RR by reverting five times on this article in a twenty-four hour period.
 * 1st
 * 2nd
 * 3rd
 * 4th
 * 5th

Inadequate page moving

 * Later, he moves his page to users who don't exist. (see user's log)
 * 11:53, January 7, 2008 Justinm1978 (Talk | contribs) moved User talk:Justinm19782 to User talk:Justinm19783 ‎ (revert)
 * 11:52, January 7, 2008 Justinm1978 (Talk | contribs) moved User talk:Justinm1978 to User talk:Justinm19782 ‎ (revert)

Other evidence

 * Inability to decipher vandalism from improving the encyclopedia (this was later reverted)
 * Inability to assume good faith by reverting IP edits. (confirmed on article's page)
 * my revert


 * Another instance (IP later reverts)
 * Reverts, people's edits, without checking sources on topics unfamiliar to him. And later, refers to the POV pushing as bias against this and is not civil., despite other persons' concensus who are reverting him on the information. In order to prove verifiability, Jason needs to show evidence of a fact without POV pushing. He has since not shown any evidence to back up his research, which is considered original research. He also refers to WP:BIAS, a policy that doesn't exist.
 * Deletes uncited and updated information, calling it "POV". - most Wikipedia articles have uncited facts, but I do not agree that he should delete content if it is not unsourced.
 * POV in articles that he is closely affiliated with (i.e. school) (see userpage) (rv - did you read all of what you're citing, or just homing in on one word? this isn't a small school, it's the state's flagship school.)
 * adds "delete no fair use rationale" even though fair use rationale is provided. When a user deletes the notice (because a fair use rationale is provided), Justin rv's the user.
 * Tries to delete a userbox for APO, after being rejected, says "+speedydelete, this time with a real defense"
 * Assuming bad faith about consensus "screw it, I don't feel like fighting this battle...." (Violation of Wikipedia is not a battle)
 * Bad faith checkuser
 * Stalks my notebook and yells "slander" when I am not even finished with compiling evidence (Wikilawyering)
 * Trolling.

Evidence Presented by ALLStarecho
History:

Sigma Nu

 * 1) Allstar reverts unexplained "blanking" of content by an IP.
 * 2) Allstar reverts unexplained "blanking" of content by same IP again.
 * 3) Justin reverts Allstar's reverts
 * 4) Justin templates ALLStar twice with two templates (one on sourcing/copyvio and one on advertising), something which clearly did not occur.

Userbox issue

 * 1) Justin disagrees with a userbox created by Allstarecho and removes it from WikiProject Scouting/Userboxes not once but twice. After another user reverts Justin, he lists the userbox for MfD. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Allstarecho/scouts. The userbox is deleted.
 * 2) Allstar creates another similar userbox without the content which Justin found dubious. Justin lists it for MfD as well. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Allstarecho/cfireusa. With an obvious outcome of "Keep", Justin requests that the MfD be closed, and it was a "Keep" - even though withdrawal is against policy once !votes have been stated and such "fD" processes should run their course once people have weighed in.

Editing of Allstar's userpage
Justin removes red linked categories from Allstar's userpage while Allstar has informed everyone that he is on wikibreak due to his home burning down. Justin's edit summary states, "clean up, remove categoy per WP:CfD, he'll revevrt it back if he wants to". Considering their history, he shouldn't have engaged in this provocation. If Allstar wanted the cats removed, he would have done it himself. Justin decided to do it and make Allstar do the work to revert. Instead of "he'll revert if he wants to", Justin shouldn't have touched it. Further, it is safe to assume that as much time as Justin has spent talking on Allstar's talk page, he couldn't have missed the big red box at the top that says not to remove red linked user cats from Allstar's page. Regardless, with their history, he shouldn't be editing anything on Allstar's userpage unless it's to leave a comment. This is more proof of him stalking Allstar.

List of cabals issue

 * 1) Allstar adds the "Boy Scouts Cabal" to List of cabals, a humor page. The content does not mention any one individual by name. It follows the same pattern as all other entries found on the same list.
 * 2) As retaliation, Justin attacks the "Gay Cabal" by adding content to its entry.
 * 3) Allstar doesn't remove Justin's new content addition to "Gay Cabal" but adds the very same content to the "Boy Scouts Cabal".
 * 4) Justin decides to remove the "Boy Scouts Cabal" all together, almost a month later, as well as the attack content he added to the "Gay Cabal", with an edit summary admitting even his own additions were an attack, stating " rm attack, humor has its place, but this was added with the intent to attack, which isn't humorous.". It is of course important to note that what may not be humorous to some, is to others.
 * 5) Allstar reverts Justin's removal with an edit summary stating, "it wasn't added with the intent to attack so it stays." That should have been the end of the matter. Justin's failure to assume good faith further manifests itself when he reverts Allstar's revert 3 more times:  and.
 * 6) An IP reverts Justin.
 * 7) Justin again removes the content.
 * 8) Justin "reports" Allstar at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts.
 * 9) 8 days after Justin's reports to ANI and WA, and no admins having replied to Justin's reports, Allstar restored the content
 * 10) Allstar is reverted by user HouseOfScandal with an edit summary stating, "Sorry, I think this BSC stuff is antagonistic in its intent."
 * 11) Allstar reverts HouseOfScandal with an edit summary stating, "Then you should assume good faith. This whole page could be considered antagonistic. It's called humor."
 * 12) Justin reverts Allstar with an edit summary stating, "please continue to discuss on talk page, thank you"
 * 13) Allstar reverts Justin with an edit summary stating, "Exactly, discuss it before you remove it again."
 * 14) Justin reverts Allstar with an edit summary stating, "three unrelated users have removed this now, and only you have put it back, that should say something." - failing, of course, to mention the others that have reverted him.

Other

 * Incivility:
 * Trolling:
 * Tries to bait ASE b/c he's a part of the gay cabal with this edit as a retaliation of the UBX issue'''

Evidence Presented by Alan.ca
Justin's behavior on the talk page of Sigma Alpha Mu felt out of context and disruptive. A civil content debate was taking place between myself and several other parties. An anonymous uncivil comment was inserted into the discussion. I attempted to remove the remark, but Justin insisted this anonymous comment should remain by reverting my removal of the text. I resolved the matter after ignoring Justin when a Wikipedia Administrator interjected and asked for one of us to be mature and move on. Alan.ca (talk) 03:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions/Notes

 * First, in my opinion, Justin hasn't contributed to the encyclopedia constructively to add knowledge, except to disrupt the process and to harass other users. Justin does not know policies and dealing with Justin is an absolute waste of the community's time. My proposition is for Justin to adhere to the need to acquaint himself to Wikipedia policies, or I will file for editing restrictions or ban (depending on the severity of the situation).
 * Second, this RFC is necessary because, I feel that the user would continue his POV despite being warned by others that his behavior disruptive, such as soapboxing even when I gathered evidence for restrictions. I absolutely do not think this user has the community's goals at heart, and only contributions is revert warring editors (established or not) in order to argue with them.
 * Third, (clarification) I wasn't forum shopping for comments, as Justin claims here, and someone else claims here. I was compiling evidence in order to present to the community on Justin's behavior, so that my evidence wouldn't be biased.
 * Fourth, while compiling evidence in my sandbox, this was nominated for deletion by HiDrNick but the result was kept.
 * Fifth, comments from outside parties during the evidence phase are moved to the talk page.  m ir a nd a   13:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 *  m ir a nd a   23:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * - &#10032; ALLSTAR &#10032; echo 00:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Response from Justinm1978
I am interspersing my response throughout the RfC, and will add a summary conclusion here. Justinm1978 (talk) 15:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC) It has been requested that i not intersperse and only give my response here, so I will do that here.

'''Note: This section is not complete. I will have completed my response when this notice is removed.'''


 * Regarding the four diffs posted in this section, I could not find any sources to validate those articles, so they were pulled, per WP:V, where Jimbo Wales specifically states "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.". I couldn't find a source to back up those statements I found to be suspect, so they were removed.  I fail to see how that is owning an article.  Justinm1978 (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's pretty obvious here that I was attempting to manually archive my userpage, and botched the process, and asked for an admin to correct it for me, since I couldn't figure out how to correct it myself (link to my request for fix). Justinm1978 (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * She accuses me of violating 3RR on this article 5 times in 24 hours, but does not note that the user and the IP I was reverting was a sockpuppet of User:JohnBambenek, as shown by this checkuser. Reverting vandalism is not taking ownership, nor is it violating 3RR.  The irony here is that Miranda actively reverts any contributions that are suspected to be from User:Mykungfu whether or not it is determined if the contributing user is a sockpupppet or not. When she does it, it is protecting the encyclopedia but when I do it, it is disruptive? Justinm1978 (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Outside View by Badagnani
Entire proposal lacks merit; in examining the contributions (removals of unsourced material; correcting errors of fact in articles, etc. etc.) it appears that the editor has edited in good faith. This proposal appears tendentious and lacking in merit.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Badagnani (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Most of these issues lack any sort of merit whatsoever, and after closer examination, are not violations of policy. I have attempted to contact miranda on this issue here, pointing out many of these inconsistencies, to which she responded, "No he has continued his behavior with other users, so this is not just between 'me and him'." To me, it looks like many of these editorial disputes can be solved simply by finding better citations, since most of the pages being edited here are not very well cited with reliable sources. If anything, moderation by a neutral party would be good; but outright banning is not an appropriate solution here (if banning is the answer, then miranda should be banned just as much as justinm1978). Dr. Cash (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3)  Refusal of Miranda for moderation is found at . I support moderation before action (if any) is taken. Naraht (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) I can't see any serious problems here.  Extremely nit picky dirt digging.  Given time an RfC like this could be compiled on almost any long time user. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 06:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)