Misplaced Pages

:Requests for comment/Happyjoe - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Searchme (talk | contribs) at 01:49, 23 February 2006 (→Other users who endorse this summary). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:49, 23 February 2006 by Searchme (talk | contribs) (→Other users who endorse this summary)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages: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: 20:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC).

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

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 and user names User:Ohnoitsjayme (banned) User:Ohnoitsjaime , User:Ohnoitsjamee, 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. OhNoitsJamie 22:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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. OhNoitsJamie 22:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. pschemp | talk 23:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Joe I 01:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{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 ~~~~):

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 ~~~~):

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.