User talk:Ukufwakfgr

This is a talk page.

One is enough
Posting the same complaint to multiple noticeboards marks you out in a way that I doubt you intended. Theresa Knott | token threats 22:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how to respond to talk page posts
They are not the same complaint. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Generally you indent your response. No they are the same complaint. You are involved in a dispute about POV with 3 editors on one page. If you need outside assistance then you post asking for it on one noticeboard and wait to see what people say. There is no need to argue on several boards at once, it's messy and less likely to result in a resolution of the dispute. One board is plenty, the more you involve the more irritated people will get as most active editors watch several boards at once and don't want to see the same dispute on them all. Theresa Knott | token threats 23:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I see it as more than just a POV dispute: conflict of interest, edit warring as well as possible 3RR
 * You are not listening. All dispute will have multiple aspects. That does not mean that you should post to multiple boards. By doing so you achieve little except make yourself look bad to the very people whom you are asking for help.Theresa Knott | token threats 23:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that administrators tend to specialize in one type of dispute. Thanks for clearing that up. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Civility
It would be seriously useful if you could keep it civil please. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Explain how I am not being civil. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The comments that I removed aren't civil. Just stick to the points you want to argue and leave the personal remarks out of it because they cause bad feeling which makes resolving disputes very difficult. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I understand, except for circumstances such as vandalism or dead links, it is discouraged to edit other people's comments. That misrepresents the on-going discussion, and may cause someone to be misquoted. From what I understand, that is why it is now out of practice to summarize other people's comments. It also appears to be an abuse of authority on your part. If you would read the talk page you will see my points. Maybe the other users are asking me to change my position? Ukufwakfgr (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll do what I see fit. If you don't like either lump it or complain about me. I have no intention of reading your points on the talk page as I do not wish to be involved in the actual discussion whatsoever. My only interest is to keep things moving minus the personal attacks. Theresa Knott | token threats
 * So you do acknowledge that my points exist. Explain to me, then -- why do the other users continue to ask me what they are ? Additionally, if you have no intention on reading the entire talk page starting from my first post then you have no intention on understanding the situation. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)#
 * Eh? They have asked you to start again one point at a time. What's wrong with that? As for understanding the situation, I understand that you are having difficulty discussing the issues on the talk page and am therefore taking steps to try and help. I know nothing about masons and conspiracy theories and have no intention of actually getting involved in the article itself. I am just policing the talk page interactions so that the situation gets resolved rather than the argument continuing endlessly. Theresa Knott | token threats 06:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Except for Taivo they have already discussed those points. What more do they have to say ? Ukufwakfgr (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Friendly advice
Just so you know, editing the date or time on a post (as you did here is frowned on at Wikipedia. It is often seen as an indication that an editor is being dishonest.

I know this was NOT your intent... in fact I am certain that you changed the time in an attempt to be very honest (ie to indicate that you had ammended your comment, and show when you did so). So... this is not a complaint... I am just offering some advice so you don't get accused of dishonesty by anyone else.

Most Wikipedians don't even bother changing the date or time when they ammend a comment, they just make their changes without bothering to change the sig. But, if you feel the need to indicate the time that you have changed a comment, the best way to do so is by using the str strike-through button (in in the menu bar above the edit box)... cross out the old time and add the new one next to it (it would look like this: 10:20 10:25). If there have been no interviening comments (ie your comment is still the newest one), another other option is to simply re-sign the comment, delete the entire signature line and re-sign with four new tildies ( ~ ).

By the way... thank you for starting over. I think we are actually making slow but steady progress towards compromise and consensus (at least I hope so). Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That was an error on my part. I keep a copy of my respones in a text file locally on my computer. I must have editted the text file, with the 4~ intact. Maybe I should take the 4~ out of my local copy? Change the 9 back to 6 if you see fit. All for the best. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah... no need to change... it was not a big deal for me, just something that I thought I should be mentioned. Taking the 4~ out of your local copy when you paste changes should solve the issue.  Best. Blueboar (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing.

The particular edit is a personal attack on a group of editors ("In addition, it appears that practically all of the active editors of "Masonic conspiracy theories" are Freemason admins, which is like putting a gang of criminals to build a prison"). Treat this as a first formal warning. You're not a new editor, and should know better, so you don't get a level 1 warning. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You have not explained your rationale for this action. That was not a characterization of all Freemasons. Do not confuse the issue, and do not make it appear as though you are defending them because of their affiliation. You have NOT addressed the conflict in the talk page, nor do you seem to be concerned with the incivility demonstrated by the other users. I see this as an effort towards getting me to disappear. You are doing Wikipedia a disservice by not exercising impartiality. Your advice not to "get a warning" is an ostentatious show of might, NOT a resolution or even a deterrent. Help solve the underlying issues or let somebody else handle it, simple as that. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * , looking through your contributions to Wikipedia, few that they are, I am very concerned. You seem to have great familiarity with how Wikipedia works, you are quick to revert other editors, and your comments towards others range from mild incivility to blatant personal attacks.  This is not the way to proceed here. If you want to work on articles such as Masonic conspiracy theories, it is necessary that you proceed slowly and cautiously, and that you keep your comments on the talkpage civil and collegial.  Discuss the article, not other editors or their perceived motivations.  To make a major change to the article, don't try to change everything at once.  Choose one section that you are most interested in changing, line up your sources, and if other editors disagree, be prepared to engage in polite consensus-building discussion on the talkpage.  If you continue with inciviity, personal attacks, or rapid reverting, it is likely that your account access will be blocked.  To avoid this, simply keep your comments civil, and avoid edit-warring.  That will be much more likely to result in positive and long-lasting changes to the article. --Elonka 18:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That I revert other editors is absolutely false.
 * You are appealing to the majority.
 * You are parroting other people's arguments.
 * I have discussed the article to great length. Many of my comments have gone without a response. If you look carefully, you will notice.
 * You have discredited yourself. Thanks for playing. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Kingturtle (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * They are making false statements, which I see as insulting. I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume that they are not simply being careless. Wikipedia can't have careless editors. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Uku... some advice... when an admin comes by and warns you that you have done something wrong... it is not a good idea to argue about it... even if you think the warning is unjustified. It is an especially a bad idea to make additional personal attacks in an attempt to justify your edits. Just acknowlege the warning and move on. Blueboar (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It solves nothing if an admin is unjustified. Then any admin can just make any warning they want. Real problems go unresolved, while the floodgates to abuse and corruption are opened. And I have no idea why you even posted this. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 05:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Because you're not the first person we've run up against in a one-editor-against-everyone-else situation. User:JASpencer came in and started making edits some of us found offensive in the articles about religion and Freemasonry (if I remember correctly -- I'm not going two years into the past of multiple articles to check). After working with him for a while, we found common ground and were able to improve the articles together, taking both "sides" into consideration. I'd like to see the same thing happen here, although your refusal to accept any criticism of your actions makes that unlikely.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You are comparing me to someone else with NO BASIS. This guy says that he's an expert on "most everything" which is a bit delusional, don't you think? Is that what you really think of me?? I made ONE edit that was reverted twice and THAT'S IT. Obviously, you are not taking any facts into consideration. Instead, you insist on repeatedly using tactics that you seem not to understand. Don't mis-characterize me on my own talk page, that is stepping over boundaries. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 06:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked
, you have a new account, just created on January 29, but obvious experience with wiki procedures, which implies sockpuppetry. In fact, your account appears to have been created for no other purpose than to cause disruption at a powderkeg article, Masonic conspiracy theories. On January 30, you implemented a major controversial rewrite of the article. When your changes were reverted, you proceeded to edit war. On the talkpage, things weren't much better, as you tended to react with incivility and ad hominem attacks at other editors. Warnings from other editors to your talkpage do not appear to be helping, as you simply respond with more attacks, and vague references to logical fallacies. Your edits appear to paint a picture of someone who is operating in bad faith, and is just here to argue. You may or may not be enjoying this, but it's wasting the time of other editors who have better ways to spend their time.

I have blocked your account access for 31 hours, which is actually quite lenient considering your recent behavior. When you return, if you wish to actually work in a civil and collegial manner with other editors, you are welcome to do so. However, if you resume disruptive comments and edits, the block may be rapidly reinstated. Please, if there's any part of you that genuinely wishes to help with the building of the encyclopedia, simply treat other editors with civility and respect, and keep comments focused strictly on the building of the articles, and not on other editors. You may also wish to spend some time working on other less controversial parts of the project. For example, Category:Wikipedia pages with broken references is currently needing some help, just to add reflist tags on articles that are missing them. If you do have any questions, let me know, --Elonka 18:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The provided rationale is not actionable.
 * I still have access to my account, so your claim that you have "blocked my account access" is hyperbole.
 * Your assertion that I'm a sockpuppet is not valid, apparently being based on nothing but sparse circumstantial evidence ("characteristics"). Neither a second account nor a confession has yet to be produced. In addition, there is no proof that I:
 * Marked an article for deletion
 * Requested sysop privs
 * Have developed a "precocious edit history" in a short time
 * Have "correct knowledge" about Wikipedia's customs (I have only cited the website)
 * Am using two accounts for that article
 * Created this account during an on-going discussion regarding possible deletion
 * Have participated in any discussion regarding possible deletion
 * Have familiarity with functions such as building charts, uploading images or designing templates
 * Have used this account solely for non-legitimate purposes
 * Demonstrate usage patterns similar to that of any other account
 * Demonstrate writing styles similar to that of any other account
 * Have abandoned another account, or have engaged in anonymous IP editing
 * Demonstrate characteristics similar to other cases of sock puppetry
 * Cannot possibly learn to wing it out
 * Have done it, beyond reasonable doubt
 * According to you I did meet one characteristic of a new user: "inappropriate behavior at times"
 * "Major controversial rewrite" is loaded language, which mis-represents my actions
 * I did not engage in edit warring, unless you consider using vulgar language to reference an argument as "editting" (note that vulgar language was never used to characterize any person).
 * I was the one who originally claimed incivility and "ad hominem attacks." That is clearly either mis-attribution, mockery, or an insincere show of reflection.
 * The other editors were basically supporting one another's arguments, which has done nothing but make the conflict an ever-stronger dichotomy.
 * Nobody has disputed my claims of logical fallacy, or practically any claim for that matter. As a matter of fact, many of my talking points in the page went without any dispute.
 * That my edits illustrate how I attempt to do nothing but argue is completely false. I'm sure they have better ways to waste their time then by living in some deluded fantasy where everyone communicates through telepathy.
 * In the past day or so the editors and I have started to come to common ground. I believe this to be mostly by my insistence on communicating in a clear, consistent and uncompromising manner, and by subjecting the other editors to rational arguments instead of appealing to their fears or possible ignorance. As a matter of fact, they have agreed to cease discussion on that talk page until my block expires. If you kept current with the discussion you would know that.
 * "Any part of you" == bad faith
 * Generally, the provided rationale demonstrates lack of: impartiality, good-faith effort, and accurate and timely fact-finding. It seems as if you're just doing someone else's bidding, and as if you have an itchy trigger finger.

Ukufwakfgr (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Appeal against being blocked
That's bad logic. DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * AFAIK administrative actions are predicated on pre-specified conditions. If those conditions were not met, then the action is unjustified. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, Ukfwakfgr, there was no off-wiki factor in my decision to block your account access. Instead, my attention was brought to the article by the RfC. When a request for comment was posted, it put an announcement at Requests for comment/Society, sports, law, and sex.  I have that page watchlisted, so noticed when the RfC went live.  As an administrator, I keep an eye out for areas of the project that have disputes which might benefit from administrator attention.  Any page entitled "conspiracy theories" is usually a powderkeg, so I decided to take a look.  So I read through the talkpage, looked at the recent edits to the article, and looked at the talkpages and contributions of a few of the users including yourself.  And even then, I did not take action right away, but just kept an eye on things for awhile.  When it appeared that direct cautions from other users were not helping, I decided to step in.  So again, no conspiracy here, I was just acting as an uninvolved admin, trying to reduce disruption to the project. My advice to you now is: stay civil, treat other editors with respect, and keep comments focused on improvements to the article, rather than commentary about other editors. I also strongly encourage you to spend some time (at least half of your wiki-time) working on non-controversial parts of the project.  It's an excellent way to learn more about Wikipedia, and to keep things in perspective when your efforts may lead you into the occasional dispute. --Elonka 20:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I wonder if you realize the implications of taking official actions based on invalid proof. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Which invalid proof are you referring to? --Elonka 21:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In the "Blocked" section of this talk page Ukufwakfgr (talk) 23:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm still not understanding what you're referring to? --Elonka 01:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Where I say "the provided rationale is not actionnable." Ukufwakfgr (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm still not following. Anyway, I see you filed an ANI thread, and multiple uninvolved admins have reviewed and upheld the block.  Since it was only a brief block anyway, which has now expired, there's really no use in continuing to re-hash it.  My recommendation is to just let things go at this point, and move on.  I also, again, strongly encourage you to work on other articles than just Masonic conspiracy theories.  We need help in many other areas of the project, as you can see at WP:CLEANUP.  Perhaps you could also help out at Category:Articles that need to be wikified? Or just click on Special:Random a few times.  If I'm looking for something to do, I just click there (you can also get to it by clicking on "Random article" in the lefthand navigation menu) a few times.  In most cases, I find something I want to improve, or at least tag as needing cleanup, within a few clicks. --Elonka 21:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVIL refers to this as feigned incomprehension... Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Friendly Advice
You might want to reconsider your appeal. This phrase in Wikipedia's appeal policy stands out: "# Assume good faith. It is theoretically possible that the other users who may have reported you, and the administrator who blocked you, are part of a conspiracy against someone half a world away they've never met in person. But they probably aren't, and an unblock request that presumes they are will probably not be accepted by anyone." We are suspending our discussions out of courtesy and will wait patiently until your return. (Taivo (talk) 14:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC))
 * Administrative action based on flimsy, invalid evidence is not just. Admins are simply editors with a few extra buttons. I'm sure each block has to be reconsidered by other admins. If they are given untrue information about me with the intent to justify action, the reporting admin may be committing libel. Warnings stating "don't get yourself in more trouble" are not helpful either. Admins certainly don't own the infrastructure, the program code or the domain name. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. None of that gets you unblocked.  If you want to argue that admins don't have special powers, ok.  Do so.  If you want to argue that admins don't own the underlying infrastructure or the domain name, ok.  Do so.  Neither of those will get you unblocked.  what will get you unblocked is a clear concise explanation in the unblock template of 1 of 2 things: 1: You didn't merit a block in the first place --or-- 2: You did merit a block but your behavior has changed so that one is no longer necessary.  That's it.  As for the thinly veiled legal threat regarding libel, that is not a way to get you unblocked.  Rather, it is a smashingly good way to get your privilege of editing your own userspace revoked. Protonk (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Uku, he didn't say he had blocked you from your userspace, just that making legal threats was a good way to get that done.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Uku, you're alienating everyone, especially the people who can kick you out of Wikipedia. If you want to continue contributing to the discussion, just quietly serve your suspension.  When you were born, no one gave you a "Life Is Fair" guarantee.  Whether justified or not, your block isn't likely to be removed, so just wait it out.  (Taivo (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC))
 * I am alienating no one. Part of "life" is that sometimes the truth hurts. Wikipedia is not life. You should know that. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I read what he wrote, and I can see for myself that I was not blocked. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My intention for arguing against the block is not to get away with a slap on the wrist. I simply want to set the record straight, so that everybody is on the same page. The situation in the talk page has indeed changed for the better. However, it would not be beneficial if the record were to reflect that I was unblocked specifically for that reason. I feel that the block was unjustified, and nobody has provided a valid rationale. I may continute to argue this point long after the block has expired for this reason. My use of the word "libel" was simply a concise description. I have no reason to threaten legal action, because then I would have to prove damages. I'd be a real jerk if I did that, which I am not. False inferences seem to have created a huge misunderstanding. That's the reason why I use big words, and not to appear august or self-righteous. BTW, I understand very well that "conspiracy" is difficult to prove, but external alliances and fears of retribution are not. That's the difference. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Uku! I disagree with you on many counts at the Masonic conspiracy theories page, both as a Mason and as a Wikipedian.  Would my life be easier if you had a permanent block?  Absolutely!  However, that won't make Wikipedia better.  I'm going to be perfectly blunt with you right now.  Shut up about the block!  Let it expire and then get back to work here helping to improve the product.  You're not going to convince anyone that you've been wronged.  Your objections are noted here.  You're not going to argue yourself out of the block and may argue yourself into a longer one or a permanent one.  It's painful watching you shoot yourself in the foot over and over and over and over.  Eventually you'll bleed to death if you keep it up.  (Taivo (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC))

Reminder about cooperation
Hello, After reading your accusations on WP:ANI and reviewing your edits, I am going to join the numerous people who have tried to give you advice to comply with WP:Civil, WP:NPA and seek WP:Consensus. You clearly need to do some careful examination of your own behavior that led to your block.

You should be aware that you may be blocked without further warning for further instances of disruptive behavior and any additional blocks are likely to be of significantly longer duration or indefinite. Toddst1 (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I know that I used vulgar language, yet Wikipedia policy doesn't consider vulgar language itself to be uncivil. I still maintain that:
 * There was no true consensus
 * I did not make any personal attacks
 * The other editors made claims that, in hindsight, were either rescinded, or admittedly false
 * My dialogue was in the interest of achieving neutrality, which as you can see is still a difficult undertaking
 * Nothing is achieved by an admin who chooses sides
 * I still maintain that the block was enacted without a valid rationale. It is not my intention to engage in "further instances of disruptive behavior," so why bring it up? Ukufwakfgr (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009
in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below.

That was not an ultimatum. Maybe admins should try not to support one side in a dispute, or try to assume for once that I'm not some kind of deviant because I have a valid minority opinion. Citing the same sources over and over is a clear indication of bad faith.

Please visit this subpage for details about my perspective of the block. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukufwakfgr (talk • contribs) 19:26, 12 February 2009
 * Careful there. Your behavior of accusing others who don't see your point of view is what got you blocked.  That needs to stop. Nobody is trying to support anything except Wikipedia policies. Toddst1 (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Ukufwakfgr, as an admin who is an outsider to this dispute, the admins here are responding correctly to your behavior. You were given plenty of chances and warnings. I see no reason to go against their decisions. Please take your lumps, and then be kinder and gentler when you're block has expired. Kingturtle (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but it seems like action has been taken against me for invalid reasons. The other party has not been dealt with, and blocking me will not resolve anything. They will continue to harass and stalk me, and make false accusations after the block is over. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

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?
 * You were supposed to see it, as I had just replied on my own talk page and I didn't know if you were watchlisting it or not.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

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 ??
 * The block had nothing to do with the WQA request. Toddst1 (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the blocking admin had that any disruptive editing (which would include violations of WP:NPA) would get you blocked without notice.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly, I reviewed Ukufwakfgr's contributions and observed them independent of Sarek. My block had nothing to do with the WQA which was (correctly) filed, but since it was after the block, the point was moot. Toddst1 (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Then SarekOfVulcan was forum shopping Ukufwakfgr (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the last accusation you'll make for the duration of this block. I have disabled your ability to edit this page while you are blocked. Be advised, that if this behavior continues after this expires, your next block is likely to be indefinite. Toddst1 (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

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
 * Actually, since you came off your last block, you have made no useful contributions to Masonic conspiracy theories. We have asked you on several occasions to join in the discussion and to quit sidetracking the issue, but you have not contributed anything at all of any substance. (Taivo (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC))
 * That is false. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"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
 * You specifically said, "You would have to find an honest Mason". Since most of the other editors are Masons and you are quite aware of that fact, that was a direct accusation that we are liars. (Taivo (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC))
 * Nope, read it again. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"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
 * Actually, you did, indeed, say that there was a conspiracy to block you in your first appeal of your first block. (Taivo (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC))
 * 1. No I did not
 * 2. Mind your own business. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"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) 14:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

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.

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

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 provocation and off-topic discussion. Practically no admin has taken that into consideration, which is deeply disturbing.

The "majority," at one point, insisted on "debunking" the subject matter, [ which directly contradicts this opinion], showing that the editors' point did not reflect "common sense." The editors later changed their position, arguing that, indeed, such edits would violate NPOV.

Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Re-blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below.

Uku, if I unblock you, can you stay away from Freemasonry articles and the editors who you've been accusing of bad faith?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, dilemma, dilemma. Maybe if I make an extra-special efffort not to conjecture about the editors? I have made a valuable contribution to the article by catalyzing new editing, verifying sources and providing a new, distinct viewpoint. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Practice keeping your cool elsewhere -- then if you come back to Masonic conspiracy theories in a few months, maybe we can all work together without butting heads.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My last edit was at the same time that Seicer declined your request. I'm checking with him.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've unblocked, but I reserve the right to re-block upon violation of editing guidelines and policies. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  17:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Daigo Umehara
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Daigo Umehara. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Daigo Umehara (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)