User talk:Spotsdoes11

Hi, Someone has removed my welcome message with all the tips. Can you please put it back? I'm new and I don't know how to edit everything.

{{unblock|Hi, I'm trying to edit but apparently I've been blocked. I don't understand why? I was updating three Australian politicians who said they were atheists. This was sourced and quite publicized in Australia. I also updated my local MP's website with a picture I took of her in 2010. I thought people would at least tell me why?}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Assuming good faith that this is a coincidental partial match to a previous sockmaster. Sorry for any inconvenience, however please do read our BLP policy before continuing to edit. This can be found here: WP:BLP. Thanks, --Taelus (talk) 11:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request handled by: Taelus (talk)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Blocking admin notified, and comment requested. Thanks for your patience, --Taelus (talk) 09:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Spotsdoes11, 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Taelus (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here is your welcome message complete with links as per request. Please do ask me, or any other user, at our talk pages if you have any further questions. Thank you. --Taelus (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate, I'll wait until there is consensus before editing my local MP's page. I think they are a bit touchy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.21.192.41 (talk) 07:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I'm willing to extend good faith on this one on the basis that this could well have been an unfortunate coincidence, that your first edits were in an area and on a subject known to be both controversial, and the unique fixation of a banned sockmaster with many accounts going back well over two years (in particular, the link between Nicola Roxon and the Judaism of her grandfather). There is a general consensus on Wikipedia that religion and politics don't quite mix in this way, hence most articles on politicians don't mention religion unless it is a key factor in their notability or public life. You're welcome to discuss at the Australian Politics project talk page. Orderinchaos 11:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One thing, though - the photo contained no metadata (make of camera that took it and etc, which is put on by almost every brand of camera I know of and is not removed by editing in e.g. Photoshop), and I'm not sure what the former Western Australian health minister would have been doing in the Division of Gellibrand. We have rather strong rules on copyright of images - I suggest reading WP:NFCC on this. Orderinchaos 12:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Various aspects of your conduct together with the somewhat desperate attempt to force the changes by using an IP at your known location to edit war are sufficient for me to block you as the latest incarnation of Bruce99999. Orderinchaos 03:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, what are you on about? You have been very aggressive towards me and I don't know what to do. I'm new, but this constant blocking is not nice. What edits have I made since you blocked me last time? I've signed with my IP for any admin to check.120.21.192.41 (talk) 07:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above's from your phone. I was referring to the edit war at Nicola Roxon waged from this IP, which has previously been confirmed as a Bruce99999 location so I didn't need to take it to checkuser to act. Orderinchaos 08:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't make sense? This is from my computer I use prepaid broadband? I have nothing to do with this user???? I was at home all day today. There is no proof from you at all. I also looked through and the IP you mention was not in even in this checkuser you mention. Please provide proof? Looking at the history this IP never edited nicola's entry ever before???

Also, looking this IPs edits there were only two for Nocola Roxon? Your calling that an edit war? 120.21.192.41 (talk) 08:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a general piece of advice that works for most things - when you're in a hole, stop digging. I'm not going to waste any further time on you - you slipped up, it's now on the record, the slip-up confirms the suspicion I had since your very first edit that you were the same "agenda editor" who has been trying to ignite sectarian controversy over Nicola Roxon's religious beliefs since before the 2007 election, and per WP:AGF, good faith only applies when there is an absence of contrary evidence. I was actually prepared to leave you be after the unblock, but the IP actions at the article are that contrary evidence, as are your entire pattern of contribution, your argumentativeness and tendentiousness over the issue at the talk page, and similarities identified in your writing style (which you tried harder to conceal at the start) to the original banned editor. Additionally, you'd already been caught out lying under this account over copyright, which, by itself, editors routinely get indef-blocked for. Proof positive is not required, otherwise we'd never block anybody and we'd have to deal with a hell of a lot more vandalism and POV-pushing than we already do. BLP is the most sensitive part of Wikipedia and it has been left to us as administrators to do everything in our power to protect them from abuse. Orderinchaos 10:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have made a number of allegations but with no proof at all. I have asked you for the following things:

1. I have not edited the site waiting on the outcome of the talk page. You are alleging that someone from a different IP is me. Please PROVE this!

2. I made one edit about Niclola Roxon being an atheist. What is wrong with this?

3. I find that by banning a new user twice, making allegations without backing them up with proof tends to make people a little 'tenacious'. What is wrong with this?

I asked before for another admin to take a look at this. You seem to be a little aggressive.

120.21.192.41 (talk) 10:29, 28 March 2010 (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).

Spotsdoes11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have not edited any articles since my first entires as there was no consensus. Why have I been blocked? My IP is signed for anyone to check

Decline reason:

The evidence presented above stands up on my review. — Daniel Case (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2010 (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.