George you are taking the role of the Arbitration Committee all by your self The community already decided that my ArbCom case page should stand you step beyond your powers by ruling it disruptive  My ArbCom elections participation referred to an ANI in which I was admonished yet my asking any general concerns by the five days of silence from admins in this ANI in a question to candidates is taken as purpose of causing trouble for people Harry has disagreed with veiled personal attack and some kind of agenda behind them Its almost as if the admin community had some vestigial shame on how that ANI was handled why else suppress it by removing the questions from the candidates pages  I have been advised not to make edits to articles if I wish my ArbCom case page to be regarded as timeous then you say Im not even trying to build articles anymore However I regarded ArbCom elections and editing WPAGF     as exceptions As was my WPAGF talk page participation  If I was going to rewrite the satire  I would satirise the admin behaviour it was aimed at by comparison to the mindset of the religious police of the Iranian state  The religious police are to Islam and the Koran as some admins are to Wikipedia and its Policies and Guidelines  You can draw further parallels with conservative and liberal wings among admins but no one likes an extremest  If you dont like that comparison then compare them with the mindset of US soldiers at Abu Ghraib  Overthetop comparisons Remember Im talking about mindset here but given the chance how many admins would you expect to behave as abhorrently as the religious police Now take that answer and multiply by three If the product is greater than zero then you must have thought of at least one admin who you would expect to abuse others human rights if they had real powers in the real world Dont you think that these admins should have the tools gently removed from their hands  Part of the humour of the  was the alternative spelling of Constable to Cunstable  not very subtle humour  a very minor part near the end but obviously intended as humour and read with good faith can only be regarded as such  however this was used as a pretext to speedy delete after  hours in WPMFD  was put up with the Brainstorming template from the first indicating an appeal for participation in its production and alteration as someone did when it was in WPNamespace If the cited reason of calling admins cunts by typographic means was the only objection then it would have been quite easy to participate and call for those changes Instead of participation admins afraid of satire suppressed the satire rather than examine the underlying concern the piece was obviously addressing  WPreligious police another satire anyone  I would remind you of the story of Dickens being sued by some gentlemen over Oliver Twist citing that the book used their person as the basis for the poorhouse character who refused Olivers request for more despite it being politely put I know how he feels the judge summed up that anyone who saw themselves in that character wasnt up to much I paraphrase If you felt you were being targeted by my satire then I would ask which character from Oliver you think the general readership would regard you as  I trust that my useful and still standing contributions to WPAGF and for the other rebuttals of your given reasons for the block you will change your view to one which I hold myself  I am here to build an encyclopaedia and lift the block  Finally I would say all that is required for evil to flourish is for good Wikipedians to do nothing     Truth Its funny peculiar how many admins can come to all sorts of conclusions about my motivations etc but no one in this ANI can bring themselves to say that Ruslik told a number of untruths there  Can anyone say that Rusliks statement in that ANI about my contribution to the Aurora astronomy article is true   TRUE   NOT TRUE