User talk:Truthseekers666

Welcome!

Hello, Truthseekers666, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Please have a read of the guidance linked to above about how to insert material in wikipedia, in particular verifiability, Reliability, Original Research, bias and Fringe theories.

ALR (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

My information is gathered as original research, by myself as a UFO researcher. You are editing posts based on personal feelings and not based on the fact that they contain information useful to wiki users who will browse the Wiki pages for facts. I have reported your continued absues of alteration of pages for personal reasons.

I would recommend that you read the material at the links I have provided about wikipedia policies with respect to documenting your own research, the verifiability and reliability of the sources that you use and indeed the manual of style about putting together an article, your point about P&SS moving to Henlow is mentioned elsewhere in the article and doesn't need repeated.

ALR (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me but the same logic should also apply to you. When users post information which is helpful such as further reading references on a subject and you just delete them you are breaking rules of Wiki. Your posts areas of interest are police, military intelligence and freemasonry. Probably all areas you are involved in I take it? Why apply your biases over what you feel is unsuitable information for others to read and apply it to Wiki which is supposed to be a freely editable open project, and you see fit to remove information and restrict the increase of information on Wiki by doing so. I suspect you have some hidden agenda to want to be doing this, as is the often the case with cover style information given out by officials on the highly sensitive Rudloe Manor facility. You state that I should cite my references, well what about you too. How do we know what you have vetted to be suitable for Wiki is infact fair and factual information. I can prove my sources as I have photocopied documentary evidence from the public records office. Unless you are acting in an official capacity for Rudloe Manor I suggest you be a little more respectful of the principles of Wiki for the good of its users.

Might I also suggest that you review the guidance on playing the player not the ball and presumption of intent.

ALR (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

More problems with user ALR

User ALR is really annoying again and keeps removing factual information and dubbing it "conspiracy theory" when is evidenced by materials available in the public records office. User ALR has a problem with UFO researchers and is dubbing us "nutters and idiots". With this attitude it is no wonder that any time anyone tells the true story about P&SS involvement in UFO report investigation then ALR removes this information and is treating this WIKI page as the truth according to him and only him. References to books removed by ALR. Why? Links to useful pages, removed also by ALR. Why. What is ALRs problem. Can someone please investiagate and sanction this user. Truthseekers666 (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Truthseekers666 Matthew Williams 2-2010 --Truthseekers666 (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:PROVOST.gif

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:PROVOST.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Jezhotwells (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

Just a warning that some of your comments on other editors on your discussions at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 February 20 and Talk:RAF Rudloe Manor are not appropriate under WP:CIVIL please comment on the subject at hand not the motives and attributes of other editors. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC) When the other editors appear to have a military minded agenda to remove UFO information and supporting related documents i dont think it is bad for me to point this out and request these users identify themselves or their military roles so that we can assertain their true agenda which does not appear to have the interests of Wiki at heart but personal agendas. My points stand. YOurself and ALR are trying to delete information on UFOs not because you either dont like UFOs or have a vested interest in keeping this information off RAF pages, where it has been factually established it rightfully belongs. So by continuing to argue and delete wiki information it has understandably degenerated into questions being asked of your motives.Truthseekers666 (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have just pointed out that Milbourneone is guilty it would seem to WP:CIVIL against me too... for the following

1. Direct rudeness

• (a) Rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions;
• (b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities;
• (c) ill-considered accusations of impropriety;
• (d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "snipped rambling crap", "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen");

I refer to refs of you stating letter written by myself was of such poor quality as to be hardly readable. So when considering pointing out WP:CIVIL to others please look at your own writings and realise that you are not exempt from the same criticism. With respect. Truthseekers666 (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Your edits to RAF Rudloe Manor

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on RAF Rudloe Manor. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

Keith D (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hardly surprising this would happen since I have to revert backl the vandalism in the form of ALR wholesale removal of an important section. Truthseekers666 (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Truthseekers666 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I asked for my matters to be dealt with by NON Ministry Of Defence Personnel and No freemasons. Who blocks me, A FREEMASON. No conspiracy huh? Unblock and let my matters be dealt with by people with no vested interests.

Decline reason:

You where blocked for edit warring and violation of the 3RR rules. Who judges you has no bearing on this matter, any admin would and should have blocked you. However as I see from your recent edits and comments, once you're unblocked you may well end up being blocked again for incivility, personal attacks and edit warring unless you change your editing patterns. Canterbury Tail talk 20:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Possibly unfree File:GOVTDO3.gif

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:GOVTDO3.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Jezhotwells (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Explanation

"I for one do not find it clear at all that my photos website is "clearly unreliable". I think User:Steven J. Anderson had better explain properly why he feels this and not be so vague. However I know what will be said next, discussion of these issues is not allowed, so if you wish to explain this please do so on my private Talk page so as to not upset the admins of this page."

Ok, here is the low down on why that doesn't work. You user name and your website share the same name, and from this standpoint your efforts to place a link to your website are currently being looked upon as spamming. In fact, I raised this point over that the ANI thread after reviewing the article and determining this interesting little fact, and the consensus there was that the next time such an attempt was made by you to add you website to the article page your account would be permanently blocked. As a practical, you are a very lucky man: had this occurred only recently your account would have been block asap; but since a years worth of edits does give you some tenure we are cutting you a very limited amount of slack on that point. Testing our patients by pushing to readd your website regardless of its capacity is likely going to get your current account banned.

As for the photos themselves: my guess (and this is only a guess, so invest in it cautiously) is that the photos are being called into question either because they do not add anything to the article (ie: base shots when one or two convey the point, a lack of low flying objects when the low flying objects are being pushed for inclusion in the article, etc), or they are being called on on copyright grounds (meaning we do not know who took the photos or where they came from or have a link back to the related site to check on them or anything along those lines).

To be brutally honest, I do not like the fact that you are still editing the RAF article, I would much prefer if you would harass some other project's article(s) or at the very least find mainstream sources to back up your claims here. I also do not like the fact that you seem to have attitude issues when it comes to working with other editors. I for one do not make it point to go after other people with both barrels loaded when asking politely for an explanation from the editors would be so much easier on everyone and take much of the grief out of this process. I feel that much of this current situation could have been avoided if you had been more open to learning about the policies and guidelines on the site rather than adopting something closer to an "I'm right and your wrong, and now I call my forces to combat on the field to prove it" approach. Despite all this though, I am still willing to assume good faith here and give you a second chance, but you have got to start following the rules. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Indef Block

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing for attempting to harass other users. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Blueboy96 23:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Truthseekers666 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I find it personally distressing and harrassment to be treated like this infact. Being told my website is rubbish and contains "vulgar language" is not true, but I was harrsed by Verbal stating this! Being told that UFO researchers are "idiots and nutters" by ALR is belittleing and harrasment. The point is, I cant state anything of the same nature to others because I am "harrassing" them. However they can say these things to me! Quite simply this is bullying, because I have tried to help edit the pages and it has ruffled feathers in MOD boys caps. I call it how I see it. However recently progress has been made to deal with the provost scans which you seem unaware of, I had agreed for them to be deleted. I had also offered to upload the Rudloe Manor pictures to Wiki so they could be available with my copyright waived for Wiki use and so that this material wouldnt link to my external webiste or promote me in any way - the cause for major concern it seems. So isnt all of this a little quick off the mark. Someone else has said I am banned from Wiki commons for VALDALISM, of what... I uploaded two scans. How is this vandalism, they didnt explain at all. I think we have an orchestrated campaign against me here. When you are saying "to be brutally honest" re my editing Rudloe Manor and hoped I would stop, what exact interest do you have in wanting to see me stop. I know things about RAF Rudloe Manor, I am trying to see the page reflect the truth, its just hard with so many "editors" around who want RAF Three Monkeys policy in action - hear no evil see no evil speak no evil - speak no UFOs too. You will notice ever since the pages inception in 2006 the first user wrotwe about UFOs, and ever since certain personnel have been removing these pieces of information. I think there is a PROBLEM here. You might not see it but I certainly do. I never started the page, however my inclusions were the MOST FACTUAL RELATING TO UFOS this page has ever had. I cited my refs, showed the REAL DOCUMENTS to prove I wasnt making it up... this caused a shizza storm, because I was making my point stick. Since then every thing possible has been levelled at me to get rid of me. Why dont you go any pull up ALR for harrassing manner or verbal for stating "Vulgar language" on my webpage when there is NONE. Please go do some homework before banning people. And yes please lift the ban for all of these reasons. I am currently waiting to hear if citing refs from a book to illustrate the point about UFOs would be a way around the WP:Primary issue, in the middle of this you permanently ban me. Charming.

Decline reason:

I don't know about vandalism, but permitting you to add "UFO research" to Wikipedia would definitely tend to bring the encyclopedia into disrepute. If a time arrives when such "research" is confirmed to be true in reliable sources, it will certainly be added to Wikipedia, but that time has not yet arrived. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Truthseekers666 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Fisherqueen says I must remain banned not on the information I presented in my unblock reasons, but she says I should be banned because I am wanting to put UFO rsearch onto Wiki. Where does she get that idea from. We have established long ago that I canot use WP:Primary research information. Fisherqueen is wrong to base her reason for block on this assumption. Also sugeesting that UFO material is not welcome on Wiki is a personal opinion, and not one shared by WIKI. There are UFO pages on WIKI containing much information. Why am I being pushed away for wanting to contribute something which is fully embraced n Wiki. Fisherqueen please do not take this the wrong way but I think you are out of order with your comments. Please stick to the facts not your personal disliking of UFOs. Please can someone morte sensible look at the UNBAN perhaps the original blocker = who probably does want to see my reasons.

Decline reason:

What does this have to do with the cross-wiki harassment (including attempted outing) you were blocked for? Come to think of it, what does your previous unblock request have to do with that? And even if you answer these questions, your response here does not fill me with any hope you will be a constructive editor - You seem to be crusading for The Truth™. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 05:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Truthseekers666 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was 24 hour blocked for the other issues. That 24hr block expired. You are stating that I should have a block upheld because of the same things I had already been punished for. This is not correct. There have been no repeat problems I am aware of since the old block, infact headway was being made on issues as shown above since the first block. It seems to me that people have come along blocking based on old information because they have only just caught up. I suggest unblocking so the ideas I have suggested regarding uploading of pictures to Wiki can be discussed and the idea of presenting information which is from Secondary sources only on the pages concerned. This should solve most of the issues that were presenting problems. I will try and avoid confronting people directly just the information concerned.

Decline reason:

The fact that you are unable to comprehend the reason for this indefinite block is most disconcerting. As the reviewing administrator, I remain unconvinced that you will make constructive edits to the encyclopedia or that you fully comprehend the depths of the harassment you've been blocked for. On top of this, I see no evidence in your previous statements that you accept responsibility for any of your actions. I therefore decline your request to lift the block imposed upon your account. The truth of the matter, Truthseeker, is that no one is going to unblock you, and you if you continue to abuse the unblock feature you'll be blocked from editing your own talk page. Think about that before filing another appeal. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

No, the current block isn't about the 3RR that you were blocked for on the 25th. It's for cross-wiki harassment of another user, including outing attempts and a few edits that have needed to be hidden. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 07:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Truthseekers666 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

No ones has bothered at all to investigate the actions or user ALR in removing references to books which I put on the RAF Rudloe Manor site. Total effort has been made to block me. Wiki is covering something up here. Now also users who have commented on the RAF Rudloe Manor page have emailed me and told me their comments have been removed. Complete censorship on Wiki of their crimes in covering up a scandal of encyclopedic censorship by military personnel who have a direct connection to the place they are editing a page on. Seeing as the links I was posting were removed because I am the author of the website and one is not allowed to promote ones own site, why then is it allowed for user ALR to hone the RAF Rudloe Manor webage, which is somewhere he claims he worked/may still work, so how are his actions are NOT also seen as a CONFLICT. I can be banned because it is argued that I have been harrasing people by asking "who do you work for", which in the case of a cover up of information is a perfectly valid question to ask, and was indeed answered by the person in question of their own free choice. I am told I am OUTING them. They didnt have to answer, they OUTED THEMSELVES by answering. However this is MY CRIME(?) because I asked the question. One is not allowed to ask such a question. One of the million or so rules you can fall foul of when Wiki decides it doesnt like you. The punishment, instant ban for life. ALR punishment. Sweet FA. His input to the page is PRIMARY as he works there, it is his own personal first hand experience which he is basing his page edits on not SECONDARY accepted information... so how can he get away with this and I cannot even post lists of books for further reading? Remove the block this is grossly unfair and you all know it. The cat is out of the bag. User ALR admitted his CONFLICT position, its on WIKI for all to see.Truthseekers666 (talk) 19:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Go away, your delusional rants are just not funny anymoreJac16888^Talk 19:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Truthseekers666 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Admins are just ignoring my points and using harrasing language stating I am delusional. Please can my review be done by an admin who will be more objective than this. Its amazing how you get to be an admin if this is how you behave

Decline reason:

I watched your YouTube videos. You are already convinced that Wikipedia is run by a vast conspiracy consisting of a combination of government agents and Freemasons, so why would even expect to be unblocked? For the record, I have never worked for the military, I have never been to the places described in the articles you were edit warring over, and I am not a Freemason. I'm just an admin who doesn't thnk we should put up with your ranting and raving about conspiracies anymore. I have revoked your talk page and ability to use the "email this user" function. Any further appeals to this block should be made to the ban appeals subcommittee via emailing them directly. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

NO ONE HAS INVESTIGATED USER:ALR YET

No ones has bothered at all to investigate the actions or user ALR in removing references to books which I put on the RAF Rudloe Manor site. Total effort has been made to block me. Wiki is covering something up here. Now also users who have commented on the RAF Rudloe Manor page have emailed me and told me their comments have been removed. Complete censorship on Wiki of their crimes in covering up a scandal of encyclopedic censorship by military personnel who have a direct connection to the place they are editing a page on. Seeing as the links I was posting were removed because I am the author of the website and one is not allowed to promote ones own site, why then is it allowed for user ALR to hone the RAF Rudloe Manor webage, which is somewhere he claims he worked/may still work, so how are his actions are NOT also seen as a CONFLICT. I can be banned because it is argued that I have been harrasing people by asking "who do you work for", which in the case of a cover up of information is a perfectly valid question to ask, and was indeed answered by the person in question of their own free choice. I am told I am OUTING them. They didnt have to answer, they OUTED THEMSELVES by answering. However this is MY CRIME(?) because I asked the question. One is not allowed to ask such a question. One of the million or so rules you can fall foul of when Wiki decides it doesnt like you. The punishment, instant ban for life. ALR punishment. Sweet FA. His input to the page is PRIMARY as he works there, it is his own personal first hand experience which he is basing his page edits on not SECONDARY accepted information... so how can he get away with this and I cannot even post lists of books for further reading?

Here's why their comments were removed: This is not a forum for general discussion of UFOs, black projects, conspiracy theories, or anything not directly related to the improvement of the RAF Rudloe Manor page on Wikipedia. Any such messages will be deleted or refactored. (emphasis in original) Disclosure: I am not affiliated with any military organization, nor am I a government official. I am not affiliated with any Masonic lodge nor am I affiliated with Freemasonry. I, like Breeblebrox, am an administrator who feels you are abusing Wikipedia to push your conspiracy theories. Like the other crackpot who does the same, you are not welcome here at all so long as you persist wearing a tinfoil hat. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 01:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw both YouTube vidoes and the AN/I discussion. The block was unjustified if this user is being blocked for his "outing". The users involved outed themselves by answering and in addition, if they put information about themselves on their userpage, then they themselves have made the information public. How can you accuse Truthseekers666 of "outing" people with the other party self-providing the information? Also, this user has explained numerous times that, sure, he has tried to use at least some information from his own webspace to add content on Wikipedia. However, what even begins to be wrong about some of the pictures, that they had to be removed immediatley? Is it different than someone uploading a picture of a certain type of flower from their own garden for Wikipedia? Or would the picture of the flower have to be uploaded by someone else and on the condition that the garden owner or their garden has been mentioned in a front-page article by the New York Times or has been talked about in a published magazine article in a notable magazine? Oh wait...see why this guy was blocked on Wikimedia Commons. Uploading two potentially relevant pictures for an article (in good faith) warrants and indefinte block for vandalism. Seriously, even if this user has any faults, the uncalled for indefinite banning, harrassment and personal attacks that this user has suffered, particularly by many admins with those infamous blocking buttons, is nothing short of interent bullying and that is wrong, no matter where you are coming from. I would endorse any upcoming unblock of this user who has been sorely mistreated by the very people who should know better...THE ADMINS!--122.57.95.69 (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You think we're smart enough to be connected to a global conspiracy, but too stupid to recognize your writing style if you log out? That makes me feel sad. I'm not stupid. I'm also not part of a conspiracy, but I understand that the nature of your illness will make it hard for you to absorb that. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"If enough people act independently towards the same goal, the end result is indistinguishable from a conspiracy." (Extreme Unction's First Law). Where you're seeing a conspiracy and injustice, a large number of Wikipedia editors and admins are seeing a user who is demonstrating that they still don't understand why their edits were inappropriate or why they were ultimately blocked. The corollaries to the Extreme Unction's First Law on the above semi-satirical page are also relevant:

• Corollary: In any sufficiently large social endeavor, there will always be some subset of people who fail to understand this, and who will see conspiracies and cabals around every corner whenever their views fall into the minority.
• Corollary: As the number of people who independently conclude that someone is a disruptive jerk increases, the likelihood of that person actually being a positive, constructive contributor who's merely run afoul of the "ruling elite" decreases. Not that there was ever a big chance of that to begin with.
• Corollary: The people who most need to understand this law and its corollaries never will.

No-one is going to investigate ALR because thay've done nothing to be investigated for. EyeSerene^talk 12:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• I have investigated. Your claims are nonsensical. End of. Guy (Help!) 20:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)