User talk:Michaelfriesen63

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] User:Clayzer

Hello Enigmaman,

It seems you have blocked the Wikipedian "Clayzer". I have noted that you have:
a) Removed portions of his/her personal Talk page, including Barnstars.
b) Blocked him/her, for "ever and ever" but yet said that they are welcome to come back when the ban is over. Seems contradictory.
c) Reverted Clayzer's unban request, without accepting or denying the request.
d) Removed portions of Clayzer's personal Talk page again
It appears that the user Clayzer has not been given any chance whatsoever to defend his/her actions, and any attempts to do so have been repressed. It seems to me that perhaps you are trying to cover something up. I look forward to hearing your response. --Michaelfriesen63 (talk) 07:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm part of a vast conspiracy to censor Wikipedia. Thanks for your concern. Enigma msg 07:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


To begin with, Enigmaman didn't block Clayzer, he is not an admin. WikiLeon blocked him, for good and obvious reasons. Enigmaman merely placed the notification on the page, and has been attempting to remove some of the offensive material that led to the block.
If I may, what is your interest in this situation? You have no edits on wikipedia prior to a half hour ago, so you'll understand your comments raise a bit of suspicion. Redrocket (talk) 07:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
SPAs for the win. Enigma msg 07:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Drat. I was going with Paul Lynde for the block. Hope I get sent home with the year's supply of Rice-A-Roni, at least. Redrocket (talk) 07:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I prefer accusations against me to at least be truthful. It doesn't say the user is welcome to come back when the block (not ban. User wasn't banned) is over. Enigma msg 07:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
You, sir, are lying: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Clayzer&oldid=203695333
I apologize for my low level of skill with Wikipedia formatting, I am new to editing, but that is a link to the edit Enigmaman made on Clayzer's wall.--Michaelfriesen63 (talk) 07:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, I don't appreciate Enigmaman's sarcasm. I have been a Wikipedia reader for years, and a user for many months. However the kind of conduct authority figures on Wikipedia have been using has been haphazard and inconsistent. I personally feel that totally repressing a user without any chance for a fair defence undermines that I am used to in the free country of Canada. I am aware that people from other cultures are not used to this idea, and may feel uncomfortable with it or even resent it. However as I understand it, Wikipedia is about freedom and modelled on an open and trusting platform. Thus, I feel Clayzer should at the very least be allowed to defend his/her account within their Talk page, as Wikipedia policies are defined. --Michaelfriesen63 (talk) 07:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
You have no edits under your name before a half hour ago, which is right around the same time this user was blocked. The timing is beyond coincidental, wouldn't you say?
In any case, the user has the same right as every other blocked editor, which is to request an unblock. He's not doing that, he's still trying to pick a fight with people trying to clear offensive material off of his page. You're fighting for his rights, and he shows no desire to be unblocked, or even civil. I doubt he even appreciates your efforts. Redrocket (talk) 07:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
As stated in my initial complaint, Clayzer put up an unban request (which was subsquently repressed). Clearly he/she wishes to be unblocked. Whether or not Clayzer appreciates my efforts is really besides the point, it's the principle of the thing. --Michaelfriesen63 (talk) 07:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
You are lying. I posted a block template and then quickly adjusted it, which means your argument is invalidated. Like I said, if you're going to make accusations, at least make them truthful. I didn't block anyone, and I certainly didn't say the user was welcome to come back. Enigma msg 07:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, I am not lying: my statements were true as of when I composed my first message. Fine, a small piece of supporting evidence is no good, my complaint still stands: Clayzer is unable to request an unban, which is against Wikipedia policy.--Michaelfriesen63 (talk) 08:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
You, sir, are lying. This was the condition of the user's talk page when you posted to my talk page. Enigma msg 08:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Read my message carefully. "When I composed my first message". Composing, or writing a message, is what is done before you click the Save button. I'm afraid that I did not navigate backwards to check the Talk page whilst typing the message.--Michaelfriesen63 (talk) 08:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(OD) Untrue. You could have requested an unban, but chose instead to spend the time posting barnstars and continuing personal attacks. Clayzer is gone, and doesn't seem to care. Please drop it. If he really wanted to be unbanned, he can email an admin for all the good it will do him. Redrocket (talk) 08:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

How can we know? Clayzer is utterly silenced on Wikipedia, which is the whole reason I made this post. Incidentally, it is certainly the user's job to post an unban request, not mine. I have not posted a single barnstar or attacked anybody, I have no idea why you are going so far off topic.--Michaelfriesen63 (talk) 08:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
By "you", I meant Clayzer. Redrocket (talk) 08:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
You have not posted a single barnstar or done much of anything, in fact, which is very noteworthy. Enigma msg 08:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Why do you ("Michaelfriesen") care if Clayzer is silenced? Non Curat Lex (talk) 08:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Because he's a sockpuppet. Enigma msg 20:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Do you intend to constructively contribute?

Just wondering. Enigma msg 07:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate not having personal attacks made against me on my own Talk page. Please note that 100% of my edits have been constructive. I do not understand the basis of your attack.--Michaelfriesen63 (talk) 07:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
It was a question. I would appreciate an answer. Enigma msg 07:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed I do, as I believe I am currently doing. --Michaelfriesen63 (talk) 07:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Following on from the discussion at User talk:Enigmaman, two points - User:Clayzer was blocked for persistent vandalism, something which any visitor to his contributions page can verify. Barnstars or not, we do not endorse such activities as blanking the article on Wikipedia or lame edits to project pages as productive to the encyclopaedia. This goes back several months and there is no constructive edits since at least late 2006. Someone who acts in this manner is clearly not going to become productive without a major attitudinal adjustment. Hence an indefinite block is warranted. Secondly, ad hominem racial/nationalistic comments such as those you made about "other cultures" and the like, are not really the way to win a review of any actions taken, nor are they particularly helpful to the discussion. Freedom to edit is not freedom to abuse. Orderinchaos 07:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not arguing for Clayzer to be unblocked - certainly Wikipedia must prevent blatant vandalism - only that the user be allowed to request independent review of the degree of punishment from another Wikipedia admin/sysop.--Michaelfriesen63 (talk) 07:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Why? He's had his day, and been blocked. Rather than request an unblock, he spent his time attacking others, reinstating offensive material, and making sockpuppets. By the time he tried to request an unblock (which would not have been honored), he had essentially committed several other acts of purposeful vandalism.
You say you're here to be constructive, and 100% of your edits are constructive. In truth, you have one edit of a vandalism revert, and the rest have been continuing an argument from a blocked user. Forgive us if we're all suspicious of the probable truth. Redrocket (talk) 08:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
And which truth are you insinuating? --Michaelfriesen63 (talk) 08:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we all know what truth that is. Anyway, you said you're here to constructively contribute. I look forward to your contributions to the encyclopedia. Enigma msg 08:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not, and I would like an answer to my question, please. --Michaelfriesen63 (talk) 08:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ANI

If you'd like to report this incident to other editors and admins, you can file a report at WP:ANI. Redrocket (talk) 08:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, an excellent resource, thank you sir. I shall make use of this tomorrow.--Michaelfriesen63 (talk) 08:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Good luck. I can't wait. Redrocket (talk) 08:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A question

User:Clayzer created an article Michael friesen (deleted the same day) on 22 January 2007. Its contents were:

"Resides in the lame town of grimsby.the only thing that out does Grimsby lameosity is michael friensen.He's also drummer of the internationally acclaimed rock band "Top gun :Mach 2"."

I am giving you a chance to explain this, but it would be a reasonably likely conclusion that you are a sockpuppet of Clayzer. Orderinchaos 09:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Check my IP, go back in logs if you want, my IP is certainly different from Clayzer's, most likely a completely different ISP too. I would appreciate not being blocked.--Michaelfriesen63 (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "I have been blatantly abused by admins, I have done nothing wrong according to Wikipedia's policies. I have however uncovered wrongdoing with respect to Wikipedian "Clayzer", and the admins involved in the dispute have now attempted to silence me, and accused me of being a "sockpuppet" of Clayzer. Would a competent, impartial admin please review this claim. More info on the dispute can be found on Enigmaman's Talk page."

Decline reason: "You have provided no satisfactory explanation for the creation of the article, Michael friesen, as requested above. That article is sufficient to tag you as a sockpuppet. — Yamla (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

If you are not User:Clayzer (and I think it's probable that you are), you are clearly someone who knows him personally, and whose only reason for participating in Wikipedia is to protest his block, in which case you are still in violation of WP:SOCK for editing primarily on behalf of a blocked user, and so you'd still be blocked. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)