Doncram: I don't know if you think you're some sort of civil rights crusader here, or if you're trying to fight some sort of big injustice, but you have been going over and over and over and OVER with this crusade.  It's getting really tiresome.  I could say more here  a lot more  but I'm too angry to really articulate it.  You are wasting a lot of people's time going off on this stupid crusade, and meanwhile, your articles are suffering. 

 As an example: When I checked out Hill to Hill Bridge, a new article, I found that Bethlehem Waterworks was linked to it.  It's a National Historic Landmark, and when I read the article and noticed how short it was, I knew it was one of yours.  Here's one of the pearls of wisdom from it: "(It) is a site significant for its age."  That doesn't give the reader any context.  Doing just a little bit of research  just reading the PDF online  would have produced some more interesting facts.  It was the first municipal pumping system that provided drinking and washing water anywhere in the American colonies.  The Moravians who founded Bethlehem, Pennsylvania in 1741 had a village of several hundred people in 1750, and since they were spending so much time and effort hauling water up from the creek, they contracted with a local carpenter/millwright to build a water works.  It was an ingenious system inspired by European technology.  Yet the reader of the Wikipedia article on this topic wouldn't realize this  all they'd know is that it's a site historic for its age, and it's on the banks of a creek. 

 I guess I'm seeing two different problems here: First, you're spending a lot of time advocating on behalf of a banned user who has been known to willfully damage the encyclopedia by inserting false, misleading, and unreferenced content.  Despite everyone's attempts to convince you that there's a reason for the ban, and that the banned user(s) should appeal for themselves to resolve the ban, you keep pressing on with this crusade.  Despite everyone's attempts to convince you to let the matter drop, you keep on railing against the administrators involved.  The second major problem, which is unrelated, is that you've been creating a lot of short stubby NRHP articles that have no context and don't provide any useful information for the reader.  "The houses are, indisputably, houses." is NOT educational.  I don't know how many two-sentence stubs you've created that don't have context, but I can only guess at how many of those articles someone else is going to have to come back and clean up.  I really think you should take on that duty yourself and produce at least a modicum of information before you press the "Save Page" button.