User talk:Uzumaki

This account has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sockpuppet of Blainetologist (talk · contribs · logs), and has been blocked indefinitely.
Please refer to Checkuser for evidence.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

So noted. BhaiSaab and the rest of his cronies don't deserve any civility for their behavior. I tried to remain civil and they wouldn't stop harassing me so fuck them. Uzumaki 21:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance/Requests/October_2006/Uzumaki

I have filed this request for Advocacy after repeated and harassive false "warnings" were filed on me by BhaiSaab.

Uzumaki 20:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

First off, don't remove warnings from your talk page. It's considered vandalism. Refute them if you like, but don't delete them.

Now, we use translations throughout the articles, jutsu listings, etc. It's for consistency and understandability per WP:Use English among others If it's named One Thousand Birds, we use One Thousand Birds. That's how it works. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 18:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I see it now. I was misinformed. I'll leave english translations from now on. As for the "warning", I dispute their mischaracterization of my edit, and consider it incivil. Policy states I should not leave incivil things on my page, as all they will do is cause me to be angry later. Uzumaki 18:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings are not incivil, and removing them reflects poorly on you. That you have managed to threaten RfC on another within your first ten edits does not help matters, either. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 18:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user is quite clearly a sockpuppet. BhaiSaab ^talk 19:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly a liar. I will have no problem reporting your incivility in any future problems. Uzumaki 19:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Are you going to compile that long list again that you put on the talkpages of your other accounts? BhaiSaab ^talk 19:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am new here and have no other accounts. You are clearly being incivil and harassive. Uzumaki 20:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your first edit indicates that you are not new here. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving you alone

I will pledge that I, and I will request that the others leave your most recent sock alone, FSF, if you pledge not to use it abuseively. Thanks. JBKramer 20:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sockpuppeteer is indefinitely blocked and does not have that privilege. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BhaiSaab, you have passed into the point where I must describe you, even though civility policy says not to, as a liar. Your fraudulent, incivil, and deliberately mischaracterized "warnings" to me go beyond the pale as does your harassment of my user page. I have filed a request for advocacy based on your continued incivility and personal attacks upon me. Uzumaki 20:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem pretty familiar with the advocacy process. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They were nice enough to leave a page that walked me through it. Now LEAVE ME ALONE, YOU INCIVIL CREEP! Uzumaki 20:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not particularly interested in whatever dispute is causing this, though I must say that you are certainly not acting like someone who is genuinely innocent. Your use of the term "incivil" in particular suggests that these claims are in fact true, and your uncommon familiarity with Wikipedia resolution processes implies a knowledge beyond that of your standard new editor. Regardless, I'm sure it'll be worked out shortly. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, FSF is not blocked. He is subject to the following restrictions - Freestylefrappe is restricted to one account. This is apparently his one account. JBKramer 20:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, JBKramer, I have nothing to do with whoever this Freestylefrappe person is. Now LEAVE ME ALONE. Uzumaki 20:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we should do a checkuser. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it, everyone

Come now. You created this account less than two hours after FSF's most recent sockpuppets were blocked. You instantly knew the insider lingo here. You edited FSF's most recent crusade among your first edits. It's fine that you want to edit, FSF, but you're gonna have to stop with the disruption.

Others - leave him alone. He can go edit articles about Anime all he wants, and he can participate in the contentious articles FSF was disrupting if he stops disrupting things. JBKramer 20:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't he use his original account? BhaiSaab ^talk 20:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BhaiSaab, go away. I want nothing to do with you. If you intend by your incivil and harassive actions to drive me away from editing, then that is why I have filed for advocacy against you. You are a harassive, incivil, evil person.

As for you JBKramer, I have no fucking goddamn clue who or what Freestylefrappe is. Stop making those incivil accusations. Uzumaki 20:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is disrupting the Muslim Students' Association article just like he did with his other sockpuppets. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no "sockpuppets", and no association with any other user, you Liar. Uzumaki 21:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not anymore. JBKramer 20:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's because he'll wait until tomorrow so he doesn't break 3rr. BhaiSaab

No. EVER AGAIN. I don't want to deal with the harassment of some annoying, incivil, harassive jerk like you EVER AGAIN. Now LEAVE ME ALONE. Uzumaki 21:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel at least some confusion should be cleared up. Freestylefrappe was limited to one account: Ya ya ya ya ya ya. That account was then blocked, encompassing his socks, for the following reason: "This person, including this and all of his sockpuppets, is banned for extensive disruption, harassment, edit warring, sockpuppetry to evade blocks which may be summarized as an egregious violation of WP:DICK." Technically, he's not even allowed one account. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was a community block, not an ArbCom block. JBKramer 20:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. In either case, I was just giving the reasoning behind the user not using their original account. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to note: it was a community ban, not a block, and Wikipedia:Banning_policy doesn't make any distinctions between community bans, ArbCom bans, Jimbo bans or any others. - Valarauka^(T/C) 20:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat for you morons who keep harassing me: I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH FREESTYLEFRAPPE. I DO NOT KNOW OF HIM, OR HER IF HE IS A SHE. I MADE ONE GODDAMN EDIT AND YOU FUCKS STARTED HARASSING ME. IF YOU REALLY WANT THE ARTICLE THAT BAD, THEN FINE, YOU CAN HAVE IT. I ALREADY STATED I WOULD NOT CHANGE IT AGAIN. WHAT THE FUCK DOES IT TAKE TO GET YOU TO LEAVE ME ALONE? Uzumaki 20:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that people go on the defensive quickly when they're lying? BhaiSaab ^talk 21:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People also get defensive when they are ACCUSED OF SHIT THEY DIDN'T DO BY JACKBOOTED ASSHOLES. Uzumaki 21:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weren't you the one making comments about civility before? BhaiSaab ^talk 21:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't deserve civility any more after all the harassment. Go the fuck away. Uzumaki 21:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again: Go. The Fuck. AWAY. Uzumaki 21:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in User:Uzumaki. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --tjstrf 20:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does not generally apply to user space, but in this case, I'm sure they would make an exception. --tjstrf 20:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I READ YOUR POLICY. IT SAYS USER PAGES ARE NOT COUNTED IN THIS. PARTICULARLY WHEN THESE USERS ARE HARASSING ME BY PUTTING LIES ON MY PAGE. Uzumaki 20:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally. WP:Wikilawyering is also a compounding offense, btw. --tjstrf 21:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. So you get to make rules up as you go along and when I tell you that's not a rule I'm "lawyering"? What kind of fucked up system is this? Uzumaki 21:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I am sorry for calling BhaiSaab a name but his harassment is getting to me. And no admin will do anything about him it seems. Uzumaki 20:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just call it like I see it; nobody else here has made any personal attacks. A warning is not incivil, and suspected ban evasions are serious and must be investigated. If you're innocent, just bear with it, you'll be cleared, but getting defensive, hostile, and accusatory does not help you. At all. - Valarauka^(T/C) 21:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from attacking other users on my talk page. Regardless of how other editors behave, losing your temper helps nothing, and is a reflection purely on yourself. - Valarauka^(T/C) 21:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPA

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. - Valarauka^(T/C) 21:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Heimstern Läufer 21:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already filed for advocacy. They continue to lie and harass me. Fuck them. They don't deserve civility any more if they aren't willing to behave with any. Uzumaki 21:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you will be blocked for disruption. Following BhaiSaab around and posting attacks against him on entirely unrelated users' talk pages counts as wikistalking. I've removed the comments, I strongly suggest you refrain from similar activity. - Valarauka^(T/C) 22:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate having arguments thrown all over my page either. --tjstrf 22:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Statement

"That would be lying, and unlike you, I'm not a fucking goddamn liar. Uzumaki 21:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

I guess we found out who the liar was. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]