Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Happyjoe

message: 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. OhNoitsJamieTalk 07:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

message: 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)
thread_title: I am specifically disputing the following "Description"

message: (sign with ~~~~)
:#Happyjoe 05:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I wish to add my name to those who endorse the summary but have been prevented from doing so above.

message: {list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}
:# Sockpuppetry
:# 3RR
:# NPOV
:# Civility  	 
:# Personal attacks
===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}
:# OhNoitsJamieTalk 22:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: #pschemp | talk 23:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: 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 <B>it doesn't matter whether your comments are factual because their tone makes the content irrelevant!</B> 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: I am also disputing the following inapplicable policies "Applicable policies

message: {Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
:# OhNoitsJamieTalk 22:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: #pschemp | talk 23:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 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 

message: 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 <B>it doesn't matter whether your comments are factual because their tone makes the content irrelevant!</B> 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: City of Big Spring Texas

message: ----
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)
thread_title: I will point out one example...

message: :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)
replies: text:  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: ,,.  I see no indications of reform on your part. OhNoitsJamieTalk 18:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Give me another chance

message: :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)
replies: text: Done, thanks Ashibaka tock 00:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: editprotected