"

Response to block on 2009-February-12

Tattle-telling
[ My talk page history] shows that a talkback was placed on my page on 13:26 for [ a comment that was posted on 13:25]. This shows that  manually placed the talkback in my talk page in order to call attention. He certainly doesn't want to make friends with me, so who is supposed to see it?

The block was enacted in haste
[ My block log] shows that the block was enacted at 14:08, whereas the complaint was posted to [ WP:WQA] at 14:46. Why would someone respond to a request from the future ??

Complaint to WP:WQA
Initial complaint
This may have been forum shopping, in response to a seemingly ignored plea. This is also about SarekOfVulcan's statements, which show bad faith overall. Blocking me first and then posting the complaint would amount to censorship, since I would only be able to refute the claims in my talk page, and through unblock requests. This risks my being blocked from my own talk page.

From [ oldid=270227244]:

""lots of civility violations""
Starts off using hyperbole

""I'd honestly like him to settle down and become a productive member of Wikipedia""
False statement; he worked diligently to get me blocked. Lack of ""useful contributions"" cited as a reason for blocking, which is also false

""if we can't defend our arguments against determined opposition, are they really any good?""
Vague statement. I have agreed on some points in the talk page, while many others have gone undisputed. The other users seem to disagree with everything I say. Whatever is not disagreed never gets a response

""I see him getting indef-blocked within the month. Can somebody ... point him in the right direction? Make sure you read all of the discussion, so he can't accuse you of only reading the scandalous parts""
Defamation

""has called other editors liars""
A false inference

""appealed a block on the grounds that, essentially, the Masons made Elonka block him.""
Another false inference. He has cited unrelated sysop actions not involving him, in unusual detail, which shows malice or, at the least, stalking

""Last night, I noticed that he had added a bunch of references to Daigo Umehara that included exlinks in the authorlink field, so I cleaned them up, removing only the authorlinks. ""
I never asked for his help, and he never suggested the change to me. Template:Cite web doesn't say that it's prohibited, simply that it doesn't work, which is usually OK. This means that his changes were not in good faith. He admits to following me to a page that I was working on, to do nothing but ""remove links."" This is a form of harassment

Additions to the WQA complaint
In [ oldid=270230275] he added
Previous discussion here at archive 57.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 
which was a discussion irrelevant to the current situation.

Deletion of the WQA complaint
In  he saw it fit to completely delete the request, stating, ""blocked for two weeks: no action needed""

From 
""Was that in response to my WQA filed involving those two diffs? If not, I'll just remove it before anyone comments.""
This is evidence tampering. Deleting it would be sensible, if one argues that his post is not even evidence.

In addition, he has described my posting to WP:ANI as ""amusing"" in [ Blueboar's talk page] and [ MSJapan's talk page].

The article in question
Masonic conspiracy theories
It is part of the Freemasonry Wikiproject, and all of the editors are Freemasons. They have created a cabal to stop me from making what I believe to be neutral edits. Initially they have countered that the article as it stood was even more neutral, but have since rescinded from that position, and have taken to changing the article suddenly, after 5 months without a single edit. So much for a consensus, and so much for the article being neutral.

Many of my talking points remain undisputed, and have caused the other users to resort to