Incogfrig
Welcome edit
Welcome!
Hello, Incogfrig, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!
Shrike (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Incogfrig (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hello, I put up an entry on one page and this other user is being very rude. Now she has blocked me? This is not very nice especially as there is a conflict of interest. I searched how to appeal this user removing my material. The appeal was lodged with the admin board. But before I can respond I have been blocked? This is not a nice experience. I feel like I am being bullied.
Well, the category is for the individual's religion. She is an atheist. The categories are there to guide the encyclopaedia to provide information to the public. This allows people to reference categories. Particularly relevant in politics. Among a number of things is to allow people to do searches. I found this entry because of listening to the radio and there is a religion in politics debate. I wanted to know who is an atheist in the debate and who is religious. Also Euthanasia is a big issue and as health minister it is good to know what religion she is. It only adds to the encyclopaedia not detracting from it. Look at the entries for politics around the world. Religion is a big thing in Australian politics.
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request 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 Wikipedia, 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 the guide to appealing blocks for more information. - Vianello (Talk) 02:29, 5 June 2011 (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.
Incogfrig, I have enough evidence to conclude that you are the same user as GaryGazza / Bruce99999 / Spotsdoes11, and as such have blocked you indefinitely from editing. Disrupting biographies of living persons, especially when it goes on across multiple accounts over a 4-year time period, is taken very seriously on Wikipedia. Please stop wasting your, and our, time.
I'm happy to supply the evidence gathered to admins considering the above unblock request. Orderinchaos 14:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Incogfrig (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hi, I am a new user who was blocked because by a woman called Orderinchaos. From what I have read the user who blocked me says that I am another user called Bruce. The only evidence they have is that I added atheism to someone's religion when it is topical. I also was happy to discuss the issue like it said in the Wikipedia help section. 1. *the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia* Adding athism to a politions religion is not disrupting the website. In fact, it is very standard in encyclopaedia's to have atheism. I also was very happy to discuss this on the discussion page. Other users also agree with me.
2. *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. Well I have been blocked because user Orderinchaos says that I am someone who edited the website 4 years ago (from what I have read). There was no "check user" no other admin looked into it...this user has based all this on one edit of a webpage (my first ever one!).
The user who is saying I am this other person. Has not presented any proof but more worryingly is bullying me. I have had my messages requesting how to edit in the "new users advice section" deleted and the "fact" that I am a vandal plastered all over every edit and message I made to try to discuss my edit to the webpage. The edit itself is valid.
No-one has stopped to think or at least impartially investigate the issue.
It has made me very upset. I am a political studies lecturer and was excited about editing Wikipedia. Instead I have been bullied and banned for no reason. The is absolutely no proof of any of these accusations except I edited a page that was vandalised four years ago! and disagreed with Orderinchaos. Can someone please look at all the things Orderinchaos did to my online reputation and contributions. You will see there is no proof nor impartial investiagation. The edit I made itself was not bad and I was discussing it on the page until I was blocked because without proof Orderinchaos made accusations I was another user.
It is not nice at all to be bullied like this. I could have made a lot of great contributions. But I feel threatened now by Orderinchaos.
Incogfrig (talk) 05:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
See decline below: editor's sole goal is to attack the blocking admin in unblock requests, rather than provide clear proof. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:49, 13 June 2011 (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.
- Incogfrig, you picked the wrong discipline to pretend to be - any "political studies lecturer" (hint for next time, it's called "politics" or "political science" depending on the uni) in your city would know or know of me reasonably well (it's not a terribly big field!) and probably have shot me an email at my non-Wikipedia address going "what the hell?" Plus I don't know many people on 80 grand a year who edit from IPs which don't resolve but are somewhat traceable (usually a sign of either someone editing from a wireless hotspot - a signature of this other person we used to deal with - or someone trying to obfuscate) and don't write in anything approaching a fluent academic style. I'm hearing poorly spelled pleas containing exaggerations - another trademark of the former user - not reasoned discourse. Academics appealing unblocks are usually either measuredly reasonable or verbosely angry from my experience. And we don't need a checkuser - you edited from the IP you're from just before registering your account. Orderinchaos 05:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Please stop harassing me. I am a lecturer in another country and am completing a Phd in Australia. There is no need to insult my English language. I have also checked my spelling and there are no errors. I am using a web-and-walk USB stick. I am a new user and when I edited using the IP it asked me to sign up. So I signed up.
I realise you have this person but I am not him. Looking at the log it seems that you are blocking many people. From what I can see you are obsessed with finding this one person who is editing a site you are interested in. occam's razor would normally say after 4 or 5 years it is probable that there is no sock-puppet as you say.
Your evidence is:
1. I edited something that was constructive but against your opinion - listing atheist as a politician's religion. This is constructive, was being discussed (until you banned me and possibly another user) and is relevant material.
2. I am from overseas studying a post-doctoral and learning English.
3. If you check my IP I have only ever edited Wikipedia a couple of times. You have not linked my IP to any user. Where are the other IP records? There are none.
I find your behaviour insulting. You make fun of my English and lie about my spelling. You block me with no evidence saying I am another user. I was being constructive and you remove my post asking for advice for new users? That is not nice. If you are a lecturer you would be in big trouble for harassing a student like this. But it is ok because I am learning English.
Incogfrig (talk) 08:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- 1. Read WP:CON - core policy - you have to seek consensus for contentious changes rather than starting an edit war as an IP and then continuing it under a named account. What you were doing was reintroducing a change which had already been rejected when your last major sockpuppet put it up 13 months ago (in fact, that discussion is still on the talk page).
=== response to 1=== That is incorrect. I have been constructive. It was my first time. I returned the entry atheist in the information box indicating religion. It was sourced twice. I put up my reasons in discussion. You reverted the material without explaining your reason only insulting me and saying you would not waste your time with me. Another user then put my constructive edits back. Again you removed my edit because you are obsessed with me being some other user. Incogfrig (talk) 09:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- 2. Right, so why have you not engaged on any of the *long* list of things which need doing rather than trolling at Nicola Roxon, an article we have to watch very carefully because the MP herself has had cause to complain about it previously? (Read WP:BLP - core policy.)
===response to 2 === That was a very rude answer to me. As I explained adding a persons religion is not "trolling". This is a debated item in discussion. You have abused your admin privileges - instead of discussing the issue with me - you blocked me with no proof. Where is my IP linked to this mysterious user you say I am? All I get from you instead of constructive discussion is bullying: blocking me, insulting my English and labelling constructive edits as "trolling". Why can't you debate the issue without bullying me? Incogfrig (talk) 09:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- 3. Just because you're good at avoiding scrutiny doesn't mean that you are innocent. It's like saying "Because my fingerprints weren't on the dead man, I didn't murder him". There is sufficient evidence - same provider, same method, same exact edits, same use of language - for me to conclude the obvious. You didn't get what you wanted on the talk page last time, got found out and blocked, so you've come back a year later under a new guise to try and do the same again.
===response to 3 === That is not true. You have no proof that I am this mysterious user from 5 years ago! The only proof is that I disagreed with your edit. My edit was constructive. A lot of other politicians also list religion. Incogfrig (talk) 09:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- 4. Some of my native-English-speaking contemporaries write very poorly but they write with good faith intentions and are productive editors. You, on the other hand, are neither. I raised your language use in light of your claims of being a politics lecturer (which was only a ruse to edit the religion field of a politician) - now you're claiming to be foreign - "shifting goal posts" was what another user called it the last time you were here, and it is no different this time.
===response to 4=== Your comments are borderline racist. So in my country I am a political lecturer and now I am doing a post-doc to learn English? So people that are not native speakers can't be political lecturers? I speak 4 languages and am writing a thesis on religion in politics. You are bullying me. First you block me then you insult me? What did I do? I simply put in atheist in the religion field. I ADDED information that is relevant. In the issue of abortion and euthanasia religion is a key factor. Knowing the religion of the health minister is a very useful thing. I would think that is constructive. Incogfrig (talk) 09:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Anyway, I shall leave this forthe unblocking admin. Orderinchaos 08:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Block Review edit
Orderinchaos, I'm specifically interested in the evidence you have and if this has been on WP:SPI before. If it's not on SPI, why not? --WGFinley (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Never mind, I see that it has. Is there any reason you didn't add this to SPI? Seems this has been dormant for about 3 years, if it hasn't been an issue lately would think a thorough check via SPI would be in order. --WGFinley (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Without giving too much away per WP:BEANS, SPI is actually unsuitable for this matter. The periods of time involved and the individual's relative mobility are key - SPI would just say "stale" and ask admins to sort it out on evidence, which is what I have done. User:Spotsdoes11 and a couple of other accounts were identified as a sock of this farm last year, and there has been IP edits throughout 2009 from the same range to the same effect. Basically this is a WP:SPA focussed on the religious affiliation or otherwise of (T·E·H·L·R) Nicola Roxon, a minister in the Australian government. A quick inspection of that article's history reveals numerous edits either suggesting she is Jewish (over which the entire original dispute was conducted in 2008), or that she is atheist, both from throwaway named accounts and from IPs, often continuing themes started on previous accounts. Compare this edit from an IP on 28 May 2011 (of which Incogfrig claims ownership with [1]) with this edit from the previously identified sock on 22 March 2010. There is behavioural evidence in the manner in which this person debates and quirks in their use of language which are unique. Orderinchaos 03:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Referring to the above. My edit was constructive. I copied the links listed on the site and added atheist to the religion category. Orderinchaos is grasping at straws:
1. No proof that my IP address is associated with this vandalism from FIVE YEARS AGO!
2. The proof provided is that because I COPIED AND PASTED a link from the PAGE ITSELF I am a vandal. It is perfectly alight to copy a link from the page in question. I am not going to find additional sources when the ones there are adequate.
3. She cites "quirks" in my language. Before she said these "quirks" were my poor English. That means every person with bad English is this user she cites from five years ago.
4. Taking a look at this situation it seem that orderichaos has been pursuing this person for nearly half a decade. Isn't it a bit suspicious that for most of this time the only person reporting this sock-puppet thing is orderinchaos. It look like this user is obsessed and is reporting anybody that edits the nicola roxon site with bad English as this mythological single person.
Common sense would say that this vandal was there five years ago and now has grown up or disappeared. Unless there is REAL vandalism orderinchaos should relax and let other users exist. Stop blocking people who add normal content, stop deleting their material ( especially when they ask for advice in the new users section) and STOP LABELLING every user with bad English the same sock-puppet (there are like 200 people who are just one person - that is strange!)
One interesting point above is that orderinchaos has contact with Nicola Roxon personally. It seems to me that orderinchaos is deleting content and blocking editors that post negative content related to Nicola roxon. If a user has a personal relationship they shouldn't be so aggressive at removing content. Lest there be a conflict of interest! It is known for politicians to remove valid but negative content - or even mislead the public!
Incogfrig (talk) 09:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not going to give most of the above the time of day, but I'll make a few point responses:
- I am male, not female. I suspect you know this from our past dealings, but just thought I'd make it clear.
- As stated above, it is 3½ years, not 5, and also as stated above, the vandalism has been ongoing throughout the period so is most definitely not an old matter. The last accounts to be blocked for this were 13 months ago, and it wasn't just this edit but impersonation of another editor going on as well. I'm *far* from the only person to be dealing with this - looking at the page alone I count at least four, and two others have at some point been involved or have blocked socks.
- I don't "have contact with Nicola Roxon personally". Her office contacted admins of this site, of whom I was one, quite some time ago. It is a duty of admins of this site to follow WP:BLP, as we have a responsibility to those we write about. BTW, you live about 3,500km closer to her than I do. (It is interesting, though, that you now admit your edit was negative.)
- Do you seriously think I would tell you what quirks I noticed so that you can hide them more effectively next time? It wasn't specifically "poor English", otherwise over half of Wikipedia would be your sockpuppets. It was much more specific than that.
- There is a saying, "if it quacks like a duck...", and WP:DUCK covers this. You had several
dayshours between making the edits and being blocked to engage more constructively - I deliberately left a gap to see what would happen, as even blocked socks can sometimes make a good go of it and I know of a couple who have reformed extremely well and edit regularly on the project, and I've kept secret their other identity so that they get a clean run with other users. Orderinchaos 11:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- I was blocked within 30min of making my first entry under my username. The entry I made was adding athiest as "religion" in the box.
- Incorrect, although so was I - I remembered the events correctly but not the timing. It was around 2 hours. Orderinchaos 15:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- your other points do not 'prove' anything about me being this person from about 3.75 years ago (as you say). As far as I have seen (as a new user) you seem to be the admin pushing this line.
So to summarise:
- I have not made non-constructive edits. Only adding atheism under the category religion.
- You have no hard evidence I am this mythological 200+ super vandal from 3.75 years ago.
- The only evidence to block me and delete my messages to the newbie help pad is that you "feel" I am this 200+ super vandal.
There is nothing here to block me nor insult my English language. It seems you have abused your powers a little bit.
I call for myself to be unblocked and treated with respect as a newbie.
Incogfrig (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- You might find this odd, but had you (like the user I mentioned above) been honest from the outset, there is a chance you would have been allowed to continue under watch. I respond well to good faith efforts to engage, and my efforts in encouraging good faith newbies on the project speak for themselves. (Easy way to distinguish them - they don't rush straight to the controversial, already been debated to death edits, edit like a professional and then wikilawyer and howl like a banshee about being wronged when someone dares to question them. Most of the good ones actually go unnoticed for months.) But the encyclopaedia's simply too valuable to tolerate the likes of you, by your own admission, negatively editing on high profile articles. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your personal views and hang-ups. Orderinchaos 15:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
FOR THE RECORD: I did not say nor put NEGATIVE content in my edits. I said that orderinchaos has contact with the nicola roxon and may want to remove edits she SEEs as negative due to personal contact.
Please stop putting words in my mouth. I was honest from the outset. I actually sent a message to newbie help to get advice on how to discuss my edit. You removed my messages to newbie help and the admin that introduced me to the Wikipedia rules on my talk page.
Of course I am a little unhappy at being blocked for no reason. Also, your not being helpful and providing proof of your accusations. Instead your always saying bad things to me. I think being blocked for no reason is not nice. An honest piece of advice, you seem to be obsessed with this mysterious user from 3.75 years ago. Relax!!
I call for unblock. orderinchaos is not providing proof and there is nothing in my edits that show vandalism. Incogfrig (talk) 00:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Incogfrig (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The blocking admin has provided no proof and has no contributed to the discussion any constructive reasons. It is not fair to leave me blocked for more than two weeks without justification. If orderinchaos was serious then there would be real proof including IP address stuff by now. She is just being nasty and wants to waste everyone's time on an unessential block.
Decline reason:
I was going to simply close this second unblock procedurally as one is already open and on-hold pending discussion, but the utter vitriol that appears in this request toward another editor, plus the violations of WP:NPA mean that I am declining this one AND the on-hold one above. Based on a simple reading of this page, you need to re-read WP:CIVIL and remember the old adage about "getting more flies with honey than vinegar". Any future unblock requests should NOT include any suggestion of attacks against the blocking admin. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:46, 13 June 2011 (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.
Incogfrig (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have been blocked and called a sock-puppet with no proof nor review requested. I have only made constructive edits. The blocking admin has also violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. I am a new user and didn't know too much about the site. I felt helpless and baited for no reason. I ask an admin to properly review the situation:
1. The lack of proof I am this sock-puppet. 2. The infingement of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL of user orderinchaos in this whole situation.
I apologise for making things a little personal. I am a new user and being blocked for no real proven reason after my first few edits has made me upset. I really wanted to help Wikipedia. I am finding that there have been unfair desisions and actions made. Also an admin has infringed WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. I am sorry that I responded and reacted to these comments. But they were hurtful, especially the insults about my poor english reflecting on my academic ability. I will be civil. I am learning as a new user. But at the same time there should be a proper investigation before blocking someone and admin should be much nicer and less personal.
Decline reason:
"It's an orangy sky; always it's some other guy ... It's just a broken lullaby" You have done nothing but repeat the same basic request over and over in the hope that some new admin will take pity upon you. Well, with this previously uninvolved admin you have had the opposite effect. We have been far too patient with you, IMO. I am actually doing what Bwilkins threatens to ... not only declining but revoking your talk page access so we don't have to deal with this anymore. "Closing time ... You don't have to go home but you can't stay here". — Daniel Case (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2011 (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.
Incogfrig (talk) 10:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- The above unblock request continues to violate my statement when I declined your previous request - I am prepared to remove it, and remove your access to this talkpage for abusing the unblock process. I highly recommend that you take my suggestions into account and fix the above. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)