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.
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 66.81.29.69 (talk) at 13:07, 18 September 2012 (Request Community Review Process Links). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Reason: Per WP:MILMOS#NOTE, only recipients of the highest national award (in this case the Medal of Honor) are automatically notable; I'm unable to find any reliable sources on this subject other than the citation.
Hi Timothy,
I can understand your entering protected status for the Andrew Cohen spiritual teacher entry, but I object to your revert deleting my revisions to the criticisms section, and undoing lgal01's deletion of my revisions. My additions to the criticisms section were well and reliably sourced to a 3rd party published work. They constitute a very small proportion of an article that is mainly a puff piece written by contributors with clear COI issues. Both lgal01 and Kosmocentric are, I believe, current compensated employees of Cohen's organization. I request that they be investigated for COI and banned; and that the criticisms section be reinstated as it was before your deletion.
Thanks.
Hamsa001 (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello Tim. I'm unsure of how to go about doing this, but I would like to appeal a block that you placed on my account (ArkRe), which prevents me from posting anywhere at all to appeal the block.
It appears that my account was blocked following a sockpuppet investigation (see ) for a user who posted in a few AfDs that I have commented on, though I am not in any way connected to this user. I have read the investigation topic and I have no choice but to assume that I am a victim of collateral damage, as my ISP (Telstra Bigpond) utilises dynamic shared IPs - I understand that I don't have my own IP address and that rather I am given a new one each time I connect to the network. I have been blocked from editing Misplaced Pages as an IP in the past because of this, as well, which was my reason for creating an account. Given that the investigated user appears to be from a similar geographical area as me (I live in Bendigo, Australia, which is a few hours from Melbourne), I would like to appeal my block on the basis that my ISP (which gives me a new IP every time I connect to the network) has at some point given me the same IP as the sockpuppet user. I believe it is clear enough that I am not connected to the sockpuppeteer, as, aside from editing articles in the same general area of interest, I have not agreed with any arguments proposed by the user and do not have the same linguistic peculiarities as the user. I have merely been caught in the crossfire in an admittedly rampant case of sockpuppetry, when I was just trying to improve the content of several articles related to my area of interest.
From the very start, my contributions had me tagged as a Single Purpose Account, which I later had removed through an appeal to an admin, and I have in no way posted anything that agrees with or validates the sockpuppet user (in fact, in the AfD for the article Eternal Eden, for which the nominator is supposedly one of the sock accounts, I did NOT agree with the nomination and I actually edited the article to incorporate sources mentioned by other participants in the AfD with the intention of improving the sourcing of the article). I have provided constructive edits to Misplaced Pages and I have edited for a long time as an IP, and given the readiness of the admins to block me, I can only assume that bad faith is being harboured towards me due to a geographical match with the other user. In terms of being a sockpuppet account, I do not even know who the user 03SadOnions is or what their connection to the articles is, and I'm not connected to him in any way - the only thing that brought me to the AfDs in question is that the articles concern one of my areas of interest (which, I presume, is something I share with the puppeteer, as he created them). Given the severity of the sockpuppetry in this instance, I understand the reasons for the hasty block, but I would like to affirm that I believe that blocking me was wrong, and I would like to see what can be done about it.
Later Edit: I have figured out the formal process for appealing a block and have done so, but it is also suggested that negotiations be entered into with the blocking admin, so hopefully we can work something out? Also, please forgive the fact that this edit is from another IP as, like I said above, I get a different IP every time I log onto my ISP's network. 101.160.174.240 (talk) 12:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC) (ArkRe)
I don't like piling on when an editor is removed from the project, but in this case I think it is important to record that an enormous amount of time has been wasted on this issue, and I am another who is grateful for the quick and decisive action. There is nothing more damaging to the encyclopedia than having incorrect or misleading information retained in articles, and removing the source of the problem is long overdue. Johnuniq (talk) 12:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
The "community review processes" by which your privileges were approved?
This is Colton Cosmic. The Misplaced Pages page on admins says "Administrators assume these responsibilities as volunteers who go through a community review process" I am not able to locate the community review processes for your admin privileges and your sockpuppet investigations privileges. Would you mind linking me to those, or merely linking them on your user page. Without making any particular charge or criticism here, I have concerns about your conduct and fitness for these roles, and want to review those. Surely in the spirit of openness and transparence, you can point to them. Thanks. Colton Cosmic.
