Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Happyjoe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia: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 ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 16:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Contents

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

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)

Additional socks: user:63.245.102.104, user:Happiestjoe were used after block. pschemp | talk 07:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Happyjoe is now editing additionally with the IP User:69.145.215.206, to the article in question and the RfC. pschemp | talk 07:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Happyjoe is now editing additionally with the IP User:168.187.0.35. pschemp | talk 06:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)24.232.183.52

User:Happyjoe is now editing additionally with the IP User:24.232.183.52. (open proxy, blocked)pschemp | talk 06:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Happyjoe is now editing additionally with the IP User:200.117.216.9. (open proxy blocked) pschemp | talk 07:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Happyjoe is now editing additionally with the IP User:69.144.25.190. pschemp | talk 17:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)201.51.137.142

User:Happyjoe is now editing additionally with the IP User:201.51.137.142. pschemp | talk 17:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)67.130.74.218

User:Happyjoe is now editing additionally with the IP User:67.130.74.218. pschemp | talk 02:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Happyjoe is now editing additionally with the IP User:129.72.73.106. pschemp | talk 22:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Happyjoe is now editing additionally with the IP User:129.72.76.69. pschemp | talk 01:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Happyjoe is now editing additionally with the IP User:129.72.64.182.pschemp | talk 19:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Happyjoe is now editing additionally with the IP User:129.72.65.143.pschemp | talk 19:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The 129.72.* IPs were scanned and found not to be open proxies. That range is registered to the University of Wyoming. Note these edits from one of the sockpuppets; I suspect that the individual may be a student at U of Wyoming, and not "retired and housebound" as the user has claimed. See: [1],[2],[3],[4]. If the vandalism and disputiveness continues, it may be worthwhile to contact the IT administration there.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

  1. Deceptive edit summaries
  2. User impersonation/personal attacks
  3. Sockpuppetry
  4. Sockpuppetry
  5. Sockpuppetry
  6. Sockpuppetry
  7. Sockpuppetry
  8. Sockpuppetry
  9. Sockpuppetry
  10. Sockpuppetry
  11. Addition of NPOV material/Deceptive edit summary
  12. Inappropriate {dispute} tag placement
  13. Removal of evidence from RfC

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Sockpuppetry
  2. 3RR
  3. NPOV
  4. Civility
  5. Personal attacks

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Talk page
  2. Example on article talk
  3. Example on article talk
  4. Example on article talk
  5. Example on article talk
  6. Request on user talk
  7. Request on user talk
  8. Request on user talk
  9. Request on user talk
  10. Request on user talk

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. OhNoitsJamieTalk 22:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. pschemp | talk 23:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Applejuicefool 04:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. JoanneB 19:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Joe I 01:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. ~ ApolloCreed 02:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Kuru talk 03:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Robert McClenon 08:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Just zis Guy you know? 14:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. JoshuaZ 13:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. -Colin Kimbrell 20:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Response

I am disputing the 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: The Description, the Other users who endorse this summary, the Applicable policies and the Evidence of disputed behavior.

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).

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)

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)

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)

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 Wikipedia 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)

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 05:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

But, for whatever reason there are those who would prefer to whitewash the town, to write a description that is as dull as yesterday's dishwater. So if I am guilt of attempting to tell the truth... then all I can say is GUILTY AS CHARGED. If I am guilty of caring about my town and wanting things to improve, then so be it. My grandfather always taught me to speak truth to power, regardless of the consequences. I learned to stand up for what I believe is right and in fact I have defended the freedom of this country. Yet here, I have suffered personal attacks, threats, and unwarranted accusations as a result of my truthtelling, but everytime I see the young people of Big Spring, I stop and remember what is at stake and why I must tell the truth regardless of the consequences. It is a sad day in America when telling the truth is no longer allowed. It is a sad day in American when a whitewash is considered "truth". I tell the truth for the children, for my country, for my God, for my family. I tell the truth to defend what is right. I tell the truth in order to make this world a better place for all.

In conclusion, I do not have any animosity towards those who have attempted to squelch the truth. I feel sorry for them, that they are so brainwashed. I would like to see some sort of compromise to this issue.

But all I have seen is a desire to completely remove my comments. Everything I posted is automatically labeled and deleted. I feel like I am facing the judge, the jury and hangman all in one person. No matter how I try to rework things, they get deleted. Yet other people can post things from Hell to Breakfast and their stuff never gets removed. Why is that? Why are my posts removed over and over? Why are other able to post with impunity, with out regard for truth. And let us not forget that perhaps the worst lies are lies of omission. And that is what we have here, a case of lying by omission. I say put all the information in the article and let the reader come to their own conclusion. But there are those who don't want that, who instead want to sanitize the article, who want it to read like a Chamber of Commerce travel brochure. Well I tell you what, this town is a beautiful place and it deserves more than a sanitized travel brochure article. Big Spring should be represented in all its sublime beauty.... the wonderful and warts, the proud and the shameful. For that is what makes a town real, gives it living substance as opposed to some Disneyland take of plastic facades and fake smiles. For when you come to Big Spring you won't see fake smiles. People in Big Spring mean it when they smile, they mean when they shake your hand. And we need a Wikipedia article that represents the honesty, the integrity of Big Spring people, that represents in all their human beauty.

Imagine for a moment that I am saying that the information you have posted is false. Big Spring is the best place to live in Texas. Everyone is in perfect health. There is no crime, no teen pregnancy. The schools and drinking water are the best in the state. In short, Big Spring is a model rural town, the perfect place to live, and people would be crazy not to move here immediately. Now, my point is: Which version should we use? If I claim one version is correct, and you back another version, how can we objectively decide which of us is correct? Maybe, consult a book about the issues? You say you want to present "the wonderful and the warts, the proud and the shameful." It seems to me that your article is all about the shameful, Joe. Sure, you do mention that the people are friendly and there is good barbecue. There is FAR more good to Big Spring than friendly people and barbecue. To say that your article was balanced is laughable. Applejuicefool 05:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you partially. What I am saying is this: I think it is a great idea to include the good and the bad. You are correct that I tend to focus somewhat more on the bad than the good. But there is no reason why we can't compromise by leaving what I have written alone and adding your own "good" perspective. Then a reader, reading the article can take the information provided and come to their own conclusion. So if you want the article to be "balanced", balance by adding something to it instead of removing what I have written. Happyjoe 05:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

For what is a town? A town is so much more than bland demographic stats, it is more than geographical details. A town is a human work of art, a work of art that has been shaped by thousands of people over many generations. It is a work of art that is always in progress. Buildings come and go, fashions change, children are born grow old and die... but the town remains. The town is evidence of our longings, our values, our aspirations. The town is the home we create for our community. To represent it with banal language is a travesty. The town should be represented unapologetically, with bold language, language that honors the people who have made the town what it is. A town is always in a state of flux and has inherent points of conflict. It is where rich and poor struggle. It is where ideologies strive for supremacy. The town is America. It embodies all that we are. Big Spring I salute you! Happyjoe 02:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Response by Applejuicefool

First, let me apologize for inserting threaded commentary into Happyjoe's response above. It was not my intention to act in bad faith but to make yet another attempt to resolve the Big Spring, Texas issue.

Second, while I still have hopes of reaching some kind of consensus about the Big Spring article that does not involve unverifiable information or personal opinion, and I have floated some ideas to see what people thought about them, I have not reached consensus, compromise, or anything else about this article. From my angle, the whole article is still up in the air.

Third, for reasons listed in Talk: Big Spring, Texas, I no longer believe a table containing unverifiable opinions about Big Spring is a good idea. When I presented it, it was put forth as an idea in an ongoing debate. I never intended it to be set in stone, or to represent any kind of "offer of settlement" regarding the article.

Fourth, while I appreciate Happyjoe's kind words on Talk: Big Spring, Texas about my levelheadedness and such, I do not appreciate his implication that he and I have reached some kind of agreement regarding the Big Spring article. All contact I have had with Happyjoe is documented on the Big Spring discussion page and on this RFC page. No agreement was ever reached. All my posts have been continuing efforts to work on the article and should not be considered as any kind of a precedent-setting compromise offer. IMO, Happyjoe's assertion that he and I have reached consensus about the opinion table (documented on Talk: Big Spring, Texas) was not made in good faith.

Fifth, that said, it is still my unwavering hope and desire that all parties involved in working on the Big Spring, Texas article can continue to work together to complete this article in a manner that is both acceptable to all concerned AND abides by the Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Applejuicefool 06:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Applejuicefool 06:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by McClenon

I see that Essjay has blocked this account as a disruptive sockpuppet. On reading the Response to this RfC, I was about to say that this was another case where the Response was itself evidence of a combative or uncivil editor. It makes a further case for the block. I do have one comment. Applejuicefool has inserted his own threaded comments in the Response. That is inappropriate use of an RfC. Threaded discussions should only be used when there is civil dialogue. Requests for Comment are used for controlled postings when civil dialogue is at risk. Do not insert threaded comments into a Request for Comment. It is known as "coloring outside the lines", and is often seen as evidence of bad faith. In this case, it was probably a newbie mistake. Don't do it again.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Robert McClenon 08:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Gtabary 02:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Gtabary

The subject of this RFC, should now understand he is a part of a community in Wikipedia, and subsequently edits done on his contributions are not done against him. He should understand what a consensus is, contribute to it as he is entitled, and respect it as he must. He should understand what is an inherently biased wording, and stop introduce some. He should understand what is the encyclopaedic aspect: neutral, factual, significant, verifiable. He should do all that because it was explained to him on many occasions, gently, rightly. It is now time for this user to change his way of contributing. There is no fight or points to be won or lost. There is no smart-assing to be done via edit summaries. There is no need of sockpupetting. There is no need of all that because, none of that lead to article quality. This user shoud stop gamming the project, as his reply to this RFC is a typical example.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Gtabary 03:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. abakharev 05:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Kuru talk 06:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Outside view

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 ~~~~):

Block

I have blocked this account indefinitely as a disruptive sockpuppet of the Ohnoitsjayme imposter-vandal. I had hoped that he would use the Happyjoe username to make a useful response to this RfC, and would cease violating policy, however, he does not demonstrate an intent to do either. I strongly encourage other administrators to block any sockpuppets on sight; his response to this RfC is a sham and his behavior is disruptive. AGF only stretches so far; there is no reason or benefit from allowing users to continue to disrupt Wikipedia when they have demonstrated they have no respect for our policies. Essjay Talk • Contact 06:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.