User talk:Docmartincohen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia!!![edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Docmartincohen&action=edit
Hello Docmartincohen! Welcome to Wikipedia! If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! -- Slrubenstein | Talk 21:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical


I've got two interests at the moment, one is that Wikipedia has categories of contemprary philosophers that seem to be poorly grounded. Now lots of people would like to be considered 'philosophers' but are they the same sort of thing as the more conventional philosophers? Take the category 'British philosophers'. Should eg. Julian Baginni, Stephen Law, Nigel Warburton and all the current lot of people with some day-job in the subject be filed alongside John Locke, David Hume and Thomas Hobbes?

I've added my comments to a subsequent debate here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Philosophy

This leads on to the much bigger issue of:

  • the abuse of Wikipedia for personal ends - ranging from mere advertising to more sinister propaganda purposes. The strategies for both are very similar

Add constructive comments here[edit]

It is easy for any editor to screw with an article. But do not think you will get your way by asking for administrators to intervene - that is not the purpose of administrators. What you need to do is patiently and civilly discuss the issue with other editors working on the article, and seek to build a consensus. Be guided by our core policies, especially WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR - an edit will be succesful (i.e accepted by other editors) not because you are right, but because you have added an accurate account of a notable point of view from reliable and verifiable sources in a neutral way. If someone else does the same - complies with policies - accept it even if you think they are wrong: collaboration among diverse editors begins with WP:AGF and WP:CIV. If you come into conflict with several editors, consider the possibility that you are not communicating effectively and try to sort things out - again, do not go to administrators, who are not police for content conflicts (an admin will only police blatant vandalism, violations of our WP:3RR policy, and similar interpersonal conflicts i.e. conflicts between editors, not conflict over edits). If you continue to feel frustrated, consider a "request for comment" (see WP:RfC). If you end up in protracted conflict with another editor you can ask that editor if s/he would agree to mediation and seek a mediator (who need not be an admin.). Good luck! Slrubenstein | Talk 21:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main thing is that Wikipedia, by definition (being a wiki) works through collaborative anarchy. We assume that tens of thousands of editors working over many years will eventually produce quality articles. It will not be the result of one person's actions, and it will not happen in a short period. In many ways it is the opposite of writing for a peer-reviewed journal or writing under the supervision of an editor - by design. It is an experiment. I hope you will participate in the experiment but the few lines you wrote above suggest you may not fully understand what kind of an experiment it is. i hope you take my few words as a constructive attempt to explain. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I[edit]

It looks to me like your edit diffs did not come out as links (as per other AN/I posts) - can you doubl-check and see if it needs to be fixed? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppets[edit]

I see that on another user's talk page you wrote,...

... I am trying to show you how one needs a particular attitude to be successful at wikipedia; this attitude involves respect for others and a willingness to enter into dialogues. This is hardly a bad thing! Slrubenstein | Talk 00:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slrubenstein, we've moved on from there. I was off-side.

Docmartincohen (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it has been sorted out! Slrubenstein | Talk 13:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup! Me too, thanks for your comments. Docmartincohen (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry[edit]

Docmartincohen, Wikigiraffes, Dremeraldgibb, NoPointofView, Wikisquirrels all confirmed as the same already-blocked account and blocked accordingly. Wikipedia is not a platform for professional disputes or attacks on living persons. IP edits are also easily spotted and will be reverted and blocked as necessary - David Gerard (talk) 03:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

See page history for unblock request.

Decline reason:

The reason for a block now is that you continue, as recently as early July, to use multiple accounts (in this case WikiSquirrels) to pursue a campaign against other users. WikiSquirrels, of course, started editing 8 days after WikiGiraffes was blocked. As did this account. So, basically, after we blocked your last network of abusive sockpuppets you started up two more and began disruptive behavior - attacks against Mr. Stangroom, and self-promotional edits for your own work. This is as clear cut a block as they come. Phil Sandifer (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Please note that the user is continuing to use multiple IP addresses. 90.62.158.145 & 86.220.119.55 (although both are identified as "Martin" --Snowded TALK 13:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm unwilling to block his entire IP range, but fully support rollback-on-site for those. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I am in a content dispute with Phil Sandifer, over his protection of what I genuinely felt to be an incident of 'advertsiing' on WP. I raised this on the admin noticeboard, scarcely likely if I thought I was 'abusing' the polcies. I did not say that Stangroom was doing the strange edits, but I quoted several examples of how factually incorrect information was added to articles. I did all this 'in my own name', again, why would I do that if I was up to mischief? Before and following my complaint about Stangroom-related edits on the noticeboard, I I found Phil to be contantly following my edits and reversing them, now he has blocked me and offers as explanation the false assertion - that Wikisquirrels has pursued my 'attacks'. Wikisquirrels edit history is as uncontroversial as they come... I also note that 'Mr Stangroom' has threatened legal action here: "99.232.75.237 (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC) (Jeremy Stangroom) " he (and any sock/ meat puppet accounts, should now also be blocked, if Wikipolicy is being respected. On the usual 'quacks like a duck' criteria, Phil should count as one of these.

Decline reason:

No actual request for unblock, only disruptive accusations with no evidence. Obvious sockpuppeteer, still creaking socks (see below comment by Phil). Also, note that Phil did not block you, David Gerard did. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 14:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Docmartincohen (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this user has, since being blocked under this account, created and been blocked under yet another sockpuppet, User:Wooly Sheep. I encourage an admin to decline the unblock request and protect the talk page. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Docmartincohen&oldid=1142971463"