User talk:Incogfrig

Welcome
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: 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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Shrike (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 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

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, 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
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, 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 ) 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 days hours 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 (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)