Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:09, 17 April 2010

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Coffee Party USA. Doing so violates Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Please consider using the article talk page to discuss your edits with other editors. Thank you, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Coffee Party USA. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

Template:Z9 The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:DarkHorseSki reported by User:Xenophrenic (Result: 24h). EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

DarkHorseSki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It is Xenophrenic who is violating the Wiki Etiquette, and as regards Jennifer, she is my friend and works with me but just because I explained what happened and she believes as I do, that does not mean that she or I engaged in Block evasion. In fact, she went and did something completely different than what I had considered as a method for resolving the situation as she saw it.

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  • understand what you have been blocked for,
  • will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  • will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. TNXMan 23:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

DarkHorseSki (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

DarkHorseSki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am being unfairly blamed for block evasion. Jennifer, she is my friend and works with me but just because I explained what happened and she believes as I do, that does not mean that she or I engaged in Block evasion. In fact, she went and did something completely different than what I had considered as a method for resolving the situation as she saw it. The accuser has no evidence that I block evaded other than the fact that Jennifer started her account and supported my point. I have also been accused of edit warring though I was completely attempting to follow the neutrality spirit and actually fix the currently non neutral article into a more balanced post. It is clear that Xenophrenic does have an agenda and apparently a relationship with EdJohnston (thus I am appealing to a higher authority) as he has removed several verifiable facts which I will relate here since it appears necessary. Do multiple versions of the coffee party exist, yes and that was easily proven with the many links provided. Are the founders DEMOCRAT activists, yes, again easily proven with the links provided by the very founders. The origin controversy is actually at the root page of some of the references that were provided. Given the nature and newness of the various coffee parties, it is understandable that most of the information is blog related, but the controversy is even mentioned in the video and audio links maintained in the article under dispute. Just like when there are multiple movies (or books or whatever) with the same name (or similar or related), it is important to keep links within each version that relate to the other versions. Also, I note the wiki site seemed to indicate I had only a 24 hour block even as I was looking only a few minutes ago. Only when I go to edit does the other block show up.

Decline reason:

Does Jennifer have one arm? —Jeremy 07:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

{{unblock reviewed|1=Yes Jennifer has one arm, in fact she has two. If you are implying she is a puppet, then considering her online accounts are years old, then you are giving me some really good credit for being able to plan that far ahead, and if I could plan to do that so far ahead, I think I could have done as well in the Misplaced Pages. You are treating her and me with a whole different level of criteria than you use for the actual[REDACTED] articles. If you are going to do so, you should at least have some mechanism by which we can prove our innocence.|decline=Whether you are one person violating the rules against sockpuppets, a group of people violating the rules against meatpuppets, or people who don't know each other independently violating the rules requiring , you appear to be dedicated solely to adding information to Misplaced Pages which you don't seem to have adequately verified, and you present the appearance of having the primary goal of promoting your own organization. Whichever is the case, an unblock wouldn't be appropriate unless there was evidence that you (a) had editing plans for the future that are different from each other, and (b) had plans for editing subjects other than the one you are currently focused on. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)}}

DarkHorseSki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have no idea which subjects in the future Jen might want to edit. As for myself, I planned to scan the WWII sections since I have studied history since I was 6 and WWII has been my favorite subject. I might also get to some of the gaming sites, and will probably be updating the Traumatic Brain Injury section since my son was hit this last summer and I am now very intimately aware and actually provide information to our doctors and the Brain Injury Association. I doubt Jen will be doing anything like pretty ponies or the like, but you'd need to ask her. Considering the experience we have unjustly received here, I would be surprised if we found it worth our time to make this site as good as we could have.

Decline reason:

Per FisherQueen's comment at the end of the discussion below. — Daniel Case (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

DarkHorseSki (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This is like arguing with the religious about evolution, no matter how good the science is, there are just going to still be morons who will ignore the facts and twist things to match what they want the world to be. I'm not going to spend my time convincing you guys that evolution is real. Someday, you'll wise up. In the mean time I'll switch tactics because while I had played nice, now I realize that doesn't really matter when it comes to protecting your ignorance.

Discussion on editing Misplaced Pages articles

I left you a note here. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I've read your comment and you don't appear to be following your own rules.

• I don't have rules. We're discussing Misplaced Pages policies here. They apply to us both, equally.

I meant and mean you are not following the[REDACTED] policies equally.

• Yeah, I am. You are, of course, invited to back up your claims with examples.

Already did, not going to keep repeating myself.

First off there is plenty of blog content in that article of the same quality you dispute and removed from other users.

• Claiming that other low quality content exists in articles is not an excuse to insert more dubious content. Try improving the other content, instead.

If you allow one set of "dubious" content, you can't really complain when there is other content of the same quality added. All of it should be treated equally and it was and is not.

• I don't "allow dubious content." If you see content that doesn't meet Misplaced Pages's standards, you should improve it. Don't wait on me to notice it and get around to it; there are millions of articles, and some of us have real jobs that take up our time -- so if you see a problem, just fix it.

I'd almost believe you were serious if I had not already seen your work. I did fix it, you just didn't understand your own references.

Second, the controversy is actually proven by reviewing some of the other articles quoted.

• No one is asking for proof that a controversy exists. Misplaced Pages asks only that you show where a reliable source has published something about that controversy. And no, links to organization's websites do not qualify. Please provide a link to the Washington Post article that says there is a controversy.
• Still working on this one?

No, just biding my time and letting the girl put them in once we are back. No need to give you too much advance warning so you can try and discredit or kill or make up some new rule in advance.

For example in the Washington Post article, the David Henderson who found the Coffee Party on facebook is NOT a member of the Coffee Party USA on Facebook but actually was a member of the OTHER coffee party group on facebook.

• I'm sorry - is that supposed to mean something to me? Please provide a link to the Washington Post article mentioning this David Henderson, so I can read up on what you are trying to say.

I am talking about the Washington Post article used as a reference right now on that page. (number 11)

• Okay, this one? I see a David Henderson mentioned, but nothing in that article indicates he is not a member of Coffee Party USA, and it doesn't mention his membership with other groups. I still don't see what you are trying to say. Explain, please?

Plus, you removed references like the fact that the founders were DEMOCRAT political activists which is proven again by the very links in the page.

• Wrong. You provided no references, and I removed no references. You merely inserted the word "democrat" with no references at all. Please provide here a link to a reliable source that states the founders are democrats, and more importantly, a link to the source that explains why it is relevant to this article. The founders are also Yankees fans, and they love Italian food, but this article is about the Coffee Party USA - not these individuals, so let's stay on topic.

No, you are wrong, I reused a reference that was already being used (and still being used) on the site.

• Well, help me out then. Link it here, please.

It's linked there, it's not my job to tell you how to use the references on the very page you are claiming is sanguine.

Plus, go back and look at the Coffee Party page when it was first created. I'm pretty sure Jen's page had far more information then that, and her information was far more substantial, yet they did not remove the Coffee Party page.

• Correct. Your article was deleted while the Coffee Party USA article was not. Now look at at the very first edit and notice the citation to a reliable source: a Washington Post article; supporting the single sentence of content, and indicating a level of notability. Now look at your article, and observe that not one single citation to a reliable source indicating notability exists. You link to org websites; you link to other Misplaced Pages articles; you link to Facebook; but not once do you provide a citation to a reliable source that covers the "Real coffee party".

From what Jen had said, I am sure she had other media links coming and was apparently going to add them at the time she got blocked. Whether those links would meet your criteria, I have no idea, but killing her access and then the page before such links could be obtained and added kind of makes it impossible to meet that criteria in any way. You may not be aware of this, but some of us have real jobs that take up most of our time during the day.

• If "real coffee party" is mentioned in any reliable source, that should have been the first thing you put in when you created the article. If you have the time to respond to this, then certainly you have the time to provide just one Misplaced Pages-compliant source to establish notability.

Well since they've been on TV and the Radio, (and I am told you can watch recordings of the shows still via youtube and probably other locations.) I am sure those links would have been added soon enough. Perhaps if people were not spending so much time tearing down what had been posted I could have spent time finishing up adding the information for those media links.

• Then provide reliable sources. It has been 5 days now. (It took less than 30 seconds to "tear down what had been posted" - so worry not, people didn't spend any time at all.) Just cite the reliable sources.

Jen says they are coming. I have no intention of posting them here now. There is this amazing search engine called "Google" and there are others too, you might actually want to try one, or you could have restored our rights and allowed us to put it up properly. I don't need to vet those sources through this talk page with you first.

That demonstrates a definitive bias when you treat one article different than another simply because you like what one says and don't like what the other is saying.DarkHorseSki (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• No, that demonstrates a definitive bias toward articles that comply with Misplaced Pages policies over articles that violate several Misplaced Pages policies. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You may believe that only because you just may not be willing or able to see how the articles in question have not been edited, per the[REDACTED] policies, in a neutral point of view.DarkHorseSki (talk) 02:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps I am unable to see, as you say. Certainly you can point out one simple example to illustrate your point? Just one? Xenophrenic (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I've already mentioned several above. Refusing to admit that the two activists are Democrat Political activists despite the evidence that they themselves publish on the very links that the Coffee Party USA uses as their references. I've seen Dave Henderson's (the man mentioned in the Washington post article) posts and he is a member of the coffee party that I told you of (and of which I am a member), NOT the coffee party mentioned on the Wiki page. Which goes to my point that there is CONFUSION even by the media as to which coffee party is what. In fact, I could not even find a Dave or David Henderson in the Coffee Party Facebook page that is listed in the Wiki (out of the 200000 members!)

• Just one example to back up your statement that anyone, "treats one article different than another simply because you like what one says and don't like what the other is saying." All I asked for is one example. Since you say you have already mentioned several above, it should be real easy for you to cut&paste it right here for review. (BTW, I have conversed with Dave Henderson at www.coffeepartyusa.com, and he says he was interviewed by the Washington Post, he does have a facebook account, and says you must be confused.) Xenophrenic (talk) 02:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep it simple. No one at Misplaced Pages has a bias against the "real coffee party," because no one at Misplaced Pages has heard of this organization except you and your friends or alternate accounts. There don't appear to be any reliable sources that anyone can use to get information about the "real coffee party" to add to Misplaced Pages, so at this time, there's nothing, within Misplaced Pages policy, that can be said about that organization in the encyclopedia. You are presenting the appearance of someone who is using the encyclopedia to promote your own organization or your own political opinions, which is not in compliance with Misplaced Pages's rules. A lengthy discussion of which other people you think are breaking the rules is entirely irrelevant to your block. Any request for unblock has to acknowledge that your edits thus far have not followed the rules, and include a specific plan for following the rules in the future. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Since it is clear that you guys are just making up the rules and your own interpretations as we go along and that I will be forced to fight ludicrous arguments for the entire time anyhow, I'll just wait out the ban and let Jen do all the work since you have (as hard as this may be to believe) pissed her off far more than me. I'll spend my time encouraging the other members of the Real Coffee Party and the Coffee Party that Dave Henderson (the real one, not the fake one Xenophrenic pretended to talk with) and I are apart of to step up and fix the lies you happily support. Since it does not seem likely you will ever actually be fair with my account, I guess I will have to do what you are forcing me to do and actually switch IP's and then switch to another account. I hadn't puppeted yet, but your biased actions pretty much make it a requirement now. C-ya.

You misspelled "I have no sources." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Nah, I've only decided to ignore the meaningless prattle of the hypocrites. For most of what I did, I didn't need new sources, I just referenced the existing sources and apparently you guys didn't know how to even read the WHOLE of the very sources that were being used. I really can't help you when you are deliberately being obtuse.DarkHorseSki (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by 'read the whole.' I didn't see any sources in the article that met Misplaced Pages's requirements for reliable sources, and an article that would show notability would be an article about this organization- if you had an article that mentioned it once in passing, that wouldn't demonstrate the notability of the organization. It's true that Google is wonderful; especially Google News, which specifically searches reliable sources like newspapers Here's what I found when I searched Google News for "real coffee party." I could be wrong that no sources exist. If I'm wrong, it would be easy for you to prove me wrong; since you've decided not to prove me wrong, I don't have any real reason to doubt the results of my search right now. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Caution - It seems to me that the comments of DarkHorseSki are not in good faith. The longer this thread goes on, the more evidence that Misplaced Pages would lose nothing by blocking both DarkHorseSki and JnMalin indefinitely from contributing here. We do not need more self-promotion by fringe (or non-existent) political parties that are not recognized by the media as actual parties. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be willing to give them enough rope- now that they understand the rules, it's easy enough to give them a chance to follow them, then give the indefinite block if they break them again. I admit, I think they probably will, but if they want to prove me wrong, I love being surprised. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can't very well read the article for you. Either you can read the articles referenced in the Coffee Party USA wiki page or you can't. I'd guess by your comment you are saying that you can't. As to blocking this account or this IP, that is fine with me because you have already indicated you only wish to follow the rules when it suits you. I have no intention of making any more edits with this account. It's plenty easy to setup another account, and to switch IP's. But it is even easier to just send in the troops one or two at a time until the tsunami of truth takes care of things.