response to block on february tattle telling my talk page history shows that a talkback was placed on my page on for a comment that was posted on 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 whereas the complaint was posted to wp wqa at 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 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 he added previous discussion here at archive 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 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