Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Happyjoe

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

From User:Happyjoe's response:

as someone who is a housebound retiree in Big Spring, and as someone who is not a "techie"

This non-techie apparently knows how to use a anonymizing proxy server, as sockpuppets have sprung up from IPs in Wyoming, Columbia, Spain, and Israel. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 07:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding my original response here as it was seriously edited and reformatted and because it is only fair that since I am apparently on trial that I have an opportunity to defend myself in this forum.

Happyjoe

Response

I am disputing the following description for these reasons

Use of the phrase "waging a campaign". The use of this particular phrase implies an ill will and is not a neutral statement.
Use of the phrase "unsourced POV edit". This is a value laden statment that inherently disparages the edit in question.
Multiple good faith efforts have in fact been made to resolve this issues... however the only resolution that seems to be acceptable to Ohnoitsjamie is to completely remove the edits in question. And he has demonstrated an unwillingness to reach a compromise.
The dispute tag was correctly placed to dispute the absence of relevant and factual information
Disputed information and irrelevant POV material was removed from the RFC page... much the same as others have removed information from my edits.

I am specifically disputing the following "Description"

This user has been waging a campaign to insert this unsourced POV edit into the Big Spring, Texas article since December of 2005 under various IPs, including User:65.122.236.133, User:65.122.232.3, User:209.181.19.117, User:212.142.140.149, user:129.72.69.170 and user names User:Ohnoitsjayme (banned) User:Ohnoitsjaime (banned), User:Ohnoitsjamee (banned), User:Happyjoe (Registered usernames were created after semi-protection and bans for improper usernames). Multiple users have made multiple good faith attempts to discuss the NPOV problems with the passage, but no good faith efforts have been made by the user to insert verifiable and neutral statements. Three 3RRs have been filed and the page has been semi-protected twice. Additionally, the user has placed an incorrect dispute tag on all versions where the POV material is not present. OhNoitsJamieTalk 22:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC) Since the RfC has been filed, User:Happyjoe has also engaged in removal of information from the RfC page. pschemp | talk 03:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

I wish to add my name to those who endorse the summary but have been prevented from doing so above.

(sign with ~~~~)

Happyjoe 05:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also disputing the following inapplicable policies "Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

I wish to add myself to the list of those who sincerely tried and failed to resolve the dispute.=== Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 22:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
psch e mp | talk 23:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The statments above are obviously biased as a part of a personal vendetta launched by ohnoitsjamie and others against a balanced article on the

City of Big Spring Texas

It is a shame that it has come down to such extreme and unwarranted actions being taken on an issue that could have easily been resovled with some attempt at compromise. But rather than compromise, the only solution offered was the blanket removal of all information. In other words everything that Ohnoitsjamie and other post is (by defintion non-POV and acceptable) and everything that other users post that is true but perhaps distasteful is automatically labeled as POV and removed (and the mere act of labelling is considered sufficient evidence to remove).

Niños que trabajaron como criados y niños que se encuentran trabajando actualmente como criados domésticos describieron un frecuente abuso físico y verbal, negación de educación y de comida adecuada y de protección de la salud, y acoso sexual por parte de los empleadores o de sus parientes. Algunos de los criados manifestaron que los empleadores los forzaban a trabajar contra su voluntad golpeándolos, encerrándolos, o negándose a pagarle a aquellos que querían renunciar.

Again, this non-issue could have been resolved long ago is there had been a willingness to compromise, a willingness to build an article that presents Big Spring with all its wonders and warts rather than the whitewash hack job that has been perpetrated.

Joe, I have no desire to whitewash the Big Spring article. What I object to is 1) Use of personal opinion in the article and 2) the extremely vitriolic POV that you seem to have about Big Spring. Please understand, in this case it doesn't matter whether your comments are factual because their tone makes the content irrelevant! Additionally, I have offered time and again to compromise. I welcome a section of the article dealing with Big Spring's "warts," as you call them, but I want it to use neutral language and to be verifiable. Applejuicefool 05:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Applejuice thank you for your polite discussion of this issue. However, I don't see the compromise, since the only compromise was for me to remove all of my edits. Compromise involves meeting in the middle.Happyjoe 05:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The compromise I'm offering is this: For the most part, I don't mind keeping much of the CONTENT of what you say, as long as it is stated factually and not as opinion, as long as you change the tone of your comments to a more neutral tone, and as long as the content we're including can be verified in a secondary source. Applejuicefool 05:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And further, it has even deteriorated to the point at which ohnoitsjamie is now making personal accusations against me within the community, accusations which are unfounded and unjustified.

So I certainly hope that this issue can be resolved, but from what I have seen so far, I have serious doubts over the willingness of certain individuals to entertain the idea of compromise, to work together to find mutually agreeable solutions, to meet in the middle.

Further I might add, that as a fairly new user of Wikipedi a and as someone who is a housebound retiree in Big Spring, and as someone who is not a "techie", I am not familiar with all the various detailed policies of Wikipedia (which appear to be numerous and complex). Therefore any "violation" of Wikipedia rules and/or etiquette is unintentional. I simply am trying to express information about my hometown that I believe is suppressed by those in positions of power and authority (news media, city government, chamber of commerce, school teachers, police, etc). I believe that the best way to fix the city of Big Spring, Texas is to first admit the problems.

I will point out one example...

the dental hygiene issue. Now I don't know where one would find a government report that details the lack of dental health in Big Spring... and knowing how Texas govt works, the report would be suppressed if there was one. But ask any dentist in Big Spring... and I mean ANY dentist, what the level of dental health is in Big Spring and they will tell you that it ranks at the bottom in the US, that a very large percentage of people in Big Spring have never seen a dentist and that the state of dental health is atrocious. This is true. Now this may not be obvious if you have never travelled anywhere else (it may seem normal for people to have brown teeth), but people who have been somewhere else are all too well aware of the poor situation of dental health in Big Spring.

But it seems that what I am being told is that if I look out the window and it is raining, I can't say that it is raining unless I find somewhere where someone has written down that it is raining. Well I say this, visit Big Spring... all you wealthy techie, scientist types who love Wikipedia so much and live in place like Boulder, CO or California... visit Big Spring just once and see if what I am saying isn't calling it exactly like it is. And I would even add that I have been quite restrained in my descriptions of Big Spring. I did not mention the drug problems, the gang problems, etc...

Nonetheless, the policy of Wikipedia is that information in the articles must be independently verifiable through a secondary source. You are a primary source, not a secondary source. This article is a perfect example of the reason for such a policy: You have one POV as a primary source, and I have another! You see a version of Big Spring that I, another resident of this wonderful town, do not see! I bet if we asked 100 Big Spring residents, we'd get 100 different opinions about the town. Since the purpose of Wikipedia is to be a neutral, unbiased encyclopedia, we must keep both our opinions out of the article and use information that we can point to in secondary sources - published research material. I haven't gotten around to it yet, but I plan to visit the library and museum to find such secondary sources. If you want to include your own personal views here, I challenge you to write a book! Get it published by a reputable publishing organization, and then you can point to that book as a secondary source.Applejuicefool 05:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Applejuice, again I thank for your polite response, but I will have to respectfully disagree with you. If an encyclopedia only included information that is 100% agreed to... what a worthless information source that would be! Happyjoe 15:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give me another chance

The only reason for using open proxies is because my account has been unjustly blocked. I am obviously not trying to use the open proxies to hide or conceal my identity in any way as I am adding the name Happyjoe to my edits (which I might add starts a new round of unjustified IP blocking). Look, I just want to be a responsible member of the Wikipedia community, but I am thwarted at every turn. I am sure that you are probably a nice and reasonable person. I believe that I have been labeled by one or two people and once the label is applied EVERYONE on Wikipedia assumes that the label is in fact true and then there is no way to have the label removed once applied. I have been trying to resolve this mistake for quite some time now and have contacted countless individuals on Wikipedia to ask for their assistance. However as soon as I ask for their assistance they assume that the previous labels applied are true and as well.

In addition, I am also interested in becoming an Admin on Wikipedia and would very much like your support in this. But obviously I must first have my account unblocked before I can become an Admin. I offer my sincere thanks and deep gratitude for your assistance and support.

Happyjoe using 201.0.51.210 18:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC) because that is currently the only alternative.[reply]

In the last 24 hours, you've spammed multiple users with requests about your "unjust" blocks AND you've reverted a non-consensus edit to the Big Spring article three times: [1],[2],[3]. I see no indications of reform on your part. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 18:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Social rot" content has been spam-vandaled today. Odessa, Texas Lubbock, Texas San Angelo, Texas Midland, Texas John Kerry. He's had a busy day vandalizing. This one is my favorite. ;-p — ApolloCreed ^{(comment) (talk)} 02:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

editprotected

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ohnoitsjayme needs to be inserted at the end of the list of IP sockpuppets since the category changed. 68.39.174.238 23:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks Ashibaka tock 00:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]