"{unblock|reason=The user that reported me made several false claims, such as claims of ""personal attacks"" regardless of the fact that I have never made any, and ""violating Wikipedia's policies"" regardless that I have never done so.  He himself has been reported several times for doing bad things like insulting people, and posted directly fraudulent information both to me and apparently to administrators.  I was not given any possibility of replying to the block request discussion, because he also did not link this anywhere on my page and on his page I saw a template (posted to him by a user of a different time he has done this) stating that doing so is required.  Basically, the user who reported me shows clearly in ""bad faith"". The fact that I am being forced to defend on myself on Wikipedia for 12+ hours is not a valid reason for a block.  No ""personal attacks"" were made, no ""refusal"" to do anything was done as no ""orders"" were given that could be ""refused"" due to the fact the ""orders"" did not even happen, and being a victim of others who are repeatedly attacking me and even deleting my replies from discussion pages before archiving, and defending myself from these continuous attacks, is NOT a valid reason for a block.  As for the articles which caused people to attack and harass me, nothing regarding these articles was ever properly done.  No messages asking to discuss it, no polls done to find out which information is correct, no editing done after my edits for the purpose of further improving the article, nothing constructive or reasonable whatsoever, just reverting the entire edit without discussion or reasonableness, lying about the reason for reverting, harassment, and making fraudulent claims against me such as ""adding information without sources"", regardless of the fact that 1) I did not ADD any information to the article and 2) it is okay to add information that does not have  a source, and most new articles consist mainly, and some entirely, of such information.  Someone wrote something about ""friendly advice,"" but not a SINGLE related comment was at all ""friendly,"" and no advice was given whatsoever except for one which was both unhelpful and contained more untrue statements.  Even this administrator is purposefully making blatantly fraudulent statements, claiming that I ""ignored guidelines in regards to my signature"", regardless of the fact that the one who changed Wikipedia's code to no longer link automatically is not me, nor did they notify me, nor could anyone think of a reasonable reason to do this, regardless of the fact that it has been less then 24 hours since anyone requested that I learn programming code and then re-code my signature to compensate for this flaw, that's right less then 24 hours let alone a reasonable time of 4 months or so (assuming the user has logged in for several hours every day during that time), and regardless of the fact that even in that minuscule amount of time my signature had already been re-coded before he ever did this block.  This shows that the administrator himself is specifically in bad faith by citing an alleged ""problem"" that no longer even exists.  There is also a log of the LITERAL AND DIRECT EXACT OPPOSITE of the claim of the person who reported me (again, WITHOUT NOTIFYING ME TO REPLY TO THE DISCUSSION ON THE MATTER), at the Help Desk page.  I advise that people looking at this do not read that conversation as evidence of replies and such, because several of my replies were deleted before the conversation was archived and therefore it is an invalid archive, BUT it does show the exact opposite of this claim in that I specifically complained about someone for doing that very thing because the conversation between MYSELF AND HIM should be done at only ONE place, and should also be done at one of the appropriate pages, rather then being harassive by using different places as this Administrator is claiming I have done when there is direct evidence that I've done the opposite.  So the main thing being that I am the victim of numerous people attacking me, they should not have attacked me but instead should have done any of the things I mentioned, or some other reasonable thing, rather then reverting edits and then attacking and harassing me.  I did not deserve any such harassment and attacks and do have the right to defend such things.  If I am treated fairly instead then there could be a discussion on the matter instead of repeated reverting without any discussion, then no such people would be ""reporting"", but, since I did not do the things in the report other then correcting articles, and since the decent reply to correcting articles which someone else thinks are incorrect is not to attack them as was done to me, the block is wrong because things should be differently and because the people who were ""edit warring"" on purpose were other people rather then myself.  In fact, direct evidence of this is ALSO availab