Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:33, 5 October 2006

Please do not deliberately introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Muslim Students' Association. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. BhaiSaab 16:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to Muslim Students' Association, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. BhaiSaab 19:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to remove legitimate warning messages from your talk page, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. BhaiSaab 19:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. Removing legitimate warnings from your talk page is considered disruption. You will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages and your talk page will be protected from editing if you do it again. BhaiSaab 20:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/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

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)

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)

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)

This user is quite clearly a sockpuppet. BhaiSaab 19:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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

Looks like we should do a checkuser. BhaiSaab 20:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

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

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 Misplaced Pages 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)