User:Justinm1978/rebuttal
 | This user page or section is in a state of significant expansion or restructuring. You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. If this user page has not been edited in several days, please remove this template. If you are the editor who added this template and you are actively editing, please be sure to replace this template with {{in use}} during the active editing session. Click on the link for template parameters to use.
This page was last edited by Justinm1978 (talk | contribs) 16 years ago. (Update timer) |
Better prepare my rebuttal for User:Miranda/notebook. I'm not going to let someone's personal beef with me bully me out. Look up policy on canvassing.
Summary[edit]
Miranda (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
AFD[edit]
In response to my AFD of several articles she had worked on, she submitted the following AFDs:
WP:CIVIL[edit]
In response to her articles getting AFD'd, she responded quite in quite an incivil manner: [1] [2]
Interactions with other users[edit]
(will detail this later) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Miranda sums up quite nicely this users interactions with others.
Slander[edit]
I need to start responding to these
- Miranda is now slandering me with this diff, saying I posted a retaliatory item because User:Allstarecho is gay. I don't take well to being attacked like that. Disagree with me all you want, but do not claim to know motives that you do not have any real evidence for. I may take that one to ANI premptively.
Lack of Encyclopedic Contributions[edit]
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 fail to see how that is owning an article.
Violations of 3RR[edit]
User:Miranda/notebook#On Talk:Sigma Alpha Mu[edit]
As the edit history for this page shows, User:Alan.ca had his edit reverted by other users. This is a WP:3RR, yes, however it is also a WP:3RR on Alan.ca as well. Two wrongs do not make a right, though. This issue was settled when an administrator rightfully informed up that we were both lame for arguing about it.
User:Miranda/notebook#On Blogcritics[edit]
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.
Inadequate Page Moving[edit]
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).
Other Evidence[edit]
- Another instance (IP later reverts) -- If you note the difference between my revert and the IP's revert, a source is provided, hence why it was not reverted again.
- Reverts, people's edits, without checking sources on topics unfamiliar to him. And later, refers to the POV pushing as lame after his third revert, despite other persons' reverts. -- The Chief Osceola article is similar to the Chief Illiniwek article and the Native American Mascot Controversy. | I am not the only one working to make the article more neutral. Two other users User:Fumo7887 and User:Badagnani were making the same reverts as me. Also, at no point did I refer to anything as lame.
- 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.) -- huh?
- Bad faith checkuser -- I started to issue a checkuser because a brand new account joined the conversation and conversing very similar the the other user, and I wanted to confirm that if there were sockpuppets at play or not. Considering the heated debate and brand-newness of the accounts, I suspected single-purpose account. Trust, but verify.
- Slanderous remarks -- Since this user has a history of accusing me of ulterior motives (cite sources from AfD's), I feel slandered by the posting
Remedies[edit]
I feel that this is being done with a vendetta, as the evidence presented is tendentious, something Miranda was told on her notepad page, but deleted. This incident report(?) is also premeditated(link to AfD where she threatens this before). Also, the majority of the evidence presented by User:Allstarecho was compiled by User:Miranda. I'm not 100% sure what her problem is with me, but she does have a history of conflict with other users (links from other issues), as well as a history of violating all of the policies listed above (links from other issues as well).
If you dig deep enough in anybody's edit history (as was done with mine), you'll be able to compile a pretty lengthy list of potential policy violations that are easily taken out of context (which is true here). You'll also find valid policy violations and contributions that in hindsight, shouldn't have been made (also true here). If we ban every user who made poor choices of words or actions, we wouldn't have very many users(link to more violations made by Miranda) at all.
I request that this either be sent to mediation or outright dismissed. I have nothing against Miranda, but that is obviously not reciprocated.
To be sorted[edit]
Alan.ca gave his opinion, but is not interested in pursuing a ban at this time. Miranda said she did not want outside comments at this time, but then started canvassing for comments from users I have interacted with (cite rm of comment against this, cite canvas for Ccson, Alan.ca, and others as they come up)