" 

 == Notification of my last RfAr request? == 

 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Abd-William_M._Connolley 

 It's looking pretty grim right now. ArbComm appears to consider the offense of clear and strong argument on an article talk page  one article  more important and more worthy of a ban than an administrator previously admonished by them for using tools while involved, repeating that, with the same action during the case, and consistently and tendentiously raising rejected arguments about copyvio, and banning users by presenting highly deceptive arguments at AN, while defeating the sense and intention of many ArbComm decisions. 

 All that matters is how long an argument is. Write too much, ban! 

 This was my problem with this RfAr. Yes, I could have presented a shorter request. However, I already spent a day writing and boiling down this one. I realized that I just didn't have the energy to go further, to put another day into further condensation for political effect. I don't gain a thing from being able to edit Wikipedia on the topic. I don't gain a thing from being unbanned except for a possible ability to help out occasionally on a topic where I've become expert; I'm COI, so I couldn't do anything controversial with the article anyway. Why should I bother? 

 So I just filed the damn thing. If ArbComm doesn't want to look at it  it's dense with information about the situation, and the purpose was clear  if they just want to imagine that ""the editor didn't change,"" which is preposterous, they can certainly do that. I stopped editing that Talk page, almost entirely, before being banned, because it was useless if the article was owned, as it was. 

 They don't care if the article is owned. They passed General Sanctions, but the only application was to ban me, based on about a month of discussion that the banning admin acknowledged was ""not a problem, in itself,"" when another editor at the same time continued a long-term pattern of tendentious editing, removal of reliably source material, without any seeking of compromise and consensus, previously banned for this and then recently indef blocked for the same, but on other articles, and the admin previously sanctioned for use of tools while involved continued his prior campaign against old enemies (I'm only one of them!), etc., etc. They don't care! All they care about is that they don't have to read the complaint, and look at the evidence, too much work! And they are not interested, my experience, in how the structural problem of too much to read could be addressed.) 

 Experts are always interested in their topic! What do they expect? 

 In any case, this will leave me freer, if ArbComm ignores the implications, as it seems they are wont to do. I will have exhausted due process, which I had not done before. I respected the first ban, and had respected this second one. With due process exhausted, my compliance becomes no longer a matter of obligation, I have nothing to preserve, no quid pro quo. I've rigorously avoided disruption other than related discussion on an article talk page. I do not know what I'll do, and ... I wouldn't say if I did. 

 I'll say this, though. There are promises implied in ""the encyclopedia that anyone can edit,"" and ""the sum of all human knowledge,"" and there are obligations that arise naturally. Because the defacto process at Wikipedia compromises neutrality, which is essential to the understanding and realization of human knowledge, and because Wikipedia is standing in the crossroads, it becomes an enemy of human knowledge; many others have concluded this before me. I was holding out, and this may be why I left it for so long to appeal the latest topic ban. I did not want to conclude that. 

 Wikipedia has not seen what would happen were I to treat it as a battleground  as has been claimed about me and others. I rigorously followed policy and respected blocks and bans, even when they seemed preposterous to me. At the end of the road, however, there is no road, no confining path, I can move in any direction, unconstrained by expectations. 

 I have my work at Wikiversity, which has been quite successful, for what little has been done. An extensive discussion with a user with a knowledge of physics there, at subpages of v:Cold fusion might seem to have been much hot air, but it led to a recognition of a lacuna in the experimental evidence on cold fusion, and there was a study done by an expert in response, which means that discussion led to the advance of human knowledge. (The expert is a skeptical one, by the way, but he concluded that the objection being raised to certain excess heat measurements was bogus.) While there were other reasons to consider this, independent verifications of results and experimental contro