April 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm Denisarona. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Zak Smith without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Denisarona (talk) 06:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake -FixerFixerFixer

March 2019[edit]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 19:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which one didn't have a valid reason?

-FixerFixerFixer

April 2019[edit]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FixerFixerFixer, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019[edit]

Your recent editing history at Zak Smith shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- Dane ^talk 15:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)). —DoRD (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

I added completely noncontroversial edits from reliable sources, LA Times etc. Nowhere do rules indicate these require consensus. The first editor reverting claimed they were poorly sourced or self-published, they weren't, the second two simply said I needed consensus even though there was nothing controversial there and the edits were sourced. @MSGJ: if noncontroversial claims like "the subject makes abstract paintings" that've been in the page for a decade sourced from Artnet or the LA Times are "controversial" then I don't see how the "Personal Life" changes are still there. It seems like my edits were reverted basically to continue to highlight and de facto support the allegations of abuse and make them be the highlight of the page.FixerFixerFixer (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Edit warring is prohibited even if you are right - and your unblock request is not the place to argue your side of the content dispute. If you want to make a new unblock request, please stick to explaining how you would address the disagreement without edit warring. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2019 (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.

FixerFixerFixer (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)FixerFixerFixer[reply]

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

Request reason:

Sorry-I didn't know about the three revert limit and was responding to the first alerts I saw. I can happily address the fact these edits are noncontroversial and well-sourced on the Talk page now that I know there is one.FixerFixerFixer (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given that you continue to insist on the correctness of your edits, I am worried your disruptive editing would continue the moment you would be unblocked. I am for now increasing your block to a month, until you confirm you're ready to accept a voluntary topic-ban for 3 months (from any edits to any articles related to Zak Smith, broadly construed). During this time, you can continue discussing any topic related to Zak Smith on talk pages or other discussions like deletion discussions. Expanding your editing in 3 months to other topics will allow you experience in various editorial policies and guidelines. If you agree to the 3 month topic-ban, you can be immediately unblocked. Thanks Lourdes 03:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FixerFixerFixer (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)FixerFixerFixer[reply]

Separately and regarding the conversation on the BLPN noticeboard, editors attacking these edits that add basic biographical information on the subject supports the claim that the "personal life" edits are being used to de facto force contentious claims into the page @MSGJ:. If noncontroversial claims like "the subject makes abstract paintings" that've been in the page for a decade sourced from Artnet or the LA Times are "controversial" en I don't see how the "Personal Life" changes are still there. It seems like my edits were reverted basically to continue to highlight and de facto support the allegations of abuse and make them be the highlight of the page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FixerFixerFixer (talk • contribs)

Now that you are aware of the three revert rule and talk page discussion, what will you do if discussion fails to resolve an issue? 331dot (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot If discussion fails then I'll have to research what the next appropriate step in conflict resolution on Wikipedia is because not being able to say mundane information on an article's subject is a bad situations for a lot of reasons. FixerFixerFixer (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)FixerFixerFixer[reply]

@DoRD: do you have any comment? 331dot (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest topic banning FixerFixerFixer from the Zak Smith article and allowing their unblock request. Nick (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that too; FixerFixerFixer, what say you? 331dot (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I say that makes no sense @331dot:. My "transgression" is not knowing about the 3 edit rule while trying to prevent people from apparently vandalizing the page by erasing things like the LA Times saying basic biographical information like "Zak Smith has published several books". Like I can easily follow the rule now that I know about it but someone in this discussion should please look at the edits that were reverted--especially compared to the pre-February version fo this page. No-one has made a case these edits say anything remotely questionable. The subject has done several books. The colors in the paintings are bright. The fact someone reverted these is just strange. The more controversial edits previously aren't just disputed by me, they're disputed by an admin as BLP violations. FixerFixerFixer (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)FixerFixerFixer[reply]

"My "transgression" is not knowing about the 3 edit rule..." - Your notification of the 3-edit rule, given before you violated said rule again. I would support unblock but only with a topic ban on Zak Smith.-- Dane ^talk 16:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ive been getting a lot of alerts and messages. I'm sorry I didn't retain every single one. I was trying to respond to vandalism as it happened. FixerFixerFixer (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)FixerFixerFixer[reply]

You are entitled to your views; however, I think it unlikely you will find someone willing to unblock you without that condition; you are free to wait out your block. 331dot (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, 331dot, I got roped into a trip to the supermarket, so I'm just now seeing your question. I wouldn't object to an unblock if FFF would confine their edits to the article talk page, but given their responses above, I'm not convinced that that would be feasible. —DoRD (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BLP discretionary sanctions alert[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FixerFixerFixer. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text ((unblock|Your reason here ~~~~)) below. —DoRD (talk) 11:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request reason:

I have literally never used a sock. I created an account to fix my own page (Zak Smith) because literally Wikipedia volunteers told me to if I wanted to fix the misinformation on the page. The page is being brigaded. I think literally every time someone tries to remove wrong or irrelevant info from the page, the people brigading the page pretend it could only be me and block the person as a sock without doing anything to check. Why isn't anyone doing anything? It's been going on for over a year. People who have violated the "no undisclosed personal connection to the subject" rule have been all over the page and no matter what channels I try no-one does anything?

Decline reason:

You will not be unblocked to write about yourself because writing WP:autobiographies is strongly discouraged here and because of the WP:COI;
You were told above that you need to agree to a WP:topic ban in order to be unblocked;
Your WP:socking (or WP:MEAT, whatever) was confirmed by both technical and behavioral evidence, so I don't believe that you literally never used a sock. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unrelated to the Block: This is too much for me to get into at the moment (I'll return here if no one else has addressed it in the next few days) and the editor above needs to familiarize themselves with WP:COI whether or not this is a case of sockpuppetry. All that said, I have expressed — across a variety of forums — my discomfort at sourcing BLPs to roleplay gaming hobby magazines and so-called "geek culture" blogs, including many of the ones used in this article. I have no frame of reference for the allegations we're including in this biography but it does trouble me to see accusations of criminal rape sourced exclusively to the thefandomentals.com, popcultureuncovered.com, Polygon Magazine, and so forth. I'll watchlist the article but I don't want to jump into the middle of this immediately because there are probably other editors with a more educated or nuanced perspective on the article in question so I'd prefer to defer to them on first pass. Chetsford (talk) 17:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In followup to my above comment, I've decided to open a discussion on the article's Talk page and will examine the question I outlined above there. I don't plan to either accept or decline the above request and will defer to another admin to close it. Chetsford (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request reason:

My appeal was turned down by Vanjagenije because "writing WP autobiographies is strongly discouraged". I didn't write an autobiography. I reported and fixed vandalism and talked about it on the Talk page. Which course of action was literally recommended to me by the Wikipedia volunteers every time I complained. I don't even know what "Behavioral and technical" evidence is supposed to be but literally everyone I know is aware this page is being vandalized and its destroying my life so if you see people in my neighborhood or city working on the page that's why (and if merely knowing me is a COI then why is morbidthoughts still editing my page? I've reported the issues a handful of times.) . None of this makes sense: I was literally told to do what I did, then got banned for it? How is this suposed to work?

Decline reason:

Commentary above and below does not inspire confidence that an unblock will be a net gain for this project. Above, Lourdes suggested the possibility of unblocking you and banning you from editing the Zak Smith page for at least 3 months. If this is something you would consider, please say so on this talk page. If your only reason to be here is to edit the Zak Smith page, then I think this account needs to stay blocked due to the many problems that have stemmed from your editing there. only (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020[edit]

Im writing the appeal to my block from my IP address because my password won't reset. This is FixerFixerFixer appealing my block. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.4.145 (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I got that. And I cleaned up after you--after all these years you should know about privacy. Since you don't seem to care, I am not going to bother. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you may've noticed, I have bigger problems. If wikipedia editors want to escalate to hunting me down and tasing me it would kind of be a mercy at this point -fixerfixerfixer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.4.145 (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any evidence of Wikipedia editors hunting you down, and I don't know which "bigger problems" have anything to do with this little Wikipedia article. What I do know is that this kind of edit (which is, essentially, a kind of spamming with some unreliable sources) isn't likely to make any problem smaller. I also note that you completely misrepresented User:Vanjagenije's decline of your previous request, so I'm not going to hold out much hope that this one will be more successful. Goodbye. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That edit was just putting back something that had been there for years and someone erased. If those are "unreliable sources" then why are you blaming me? That's how the page was before the vandals hit it. What's wrong with that edit? -fixerfixerfixer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.4.145 (talk) 02:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]