Then the ban will probably have to be made permanent.  Your decision, admins. 

I had a sick feeling it would come to this.  It always seems to, in this day and age.

This will probably be declared my last wiki-edit by the administrators (and that's even if I'm allowed to put this on my Talk page), for I am compelled to believe that the administrators of Wikipedia will have to extend my ban permanently, not as a function of a Wikibreak, but as a function that I cannot exercise “good faith” in a consensus which does not care whether the information is accurate, verifiable, or even true.

In fact, given the current state of Wikipedia, it is no longer sufficient nor even necessary to act in “good faith” and provide verifiable information.  What is sufficient, and the only thing necessary, is to provide information the collective will accept as verified – note that I did not say “verifiable”.  If the garbage I have to put up with like on almost every meaningful edit I've made in the last eight weeks is true, the collective has already spoken and I have no place on Wikipedia whatsoever, especially because I believe that the consensus is not only wrong, but either flagrantly mis-informed or down-right stupid.

This stands in violation of basically all five pillars of Wikipedia.

First, Wikipedia is NOT an encyclopedia as long as the general public is allowed to edit it, but only in the form in which a collective will accept.

I will give a good example of this in the first real problem I ran in to about 6-8 weeks ago:

BCS National Championship Game.  I tried a number of edits to properly represent the BCS' nullification of the participation of USC in two illegal Championship Games, and removing their designation, since the games no longer are believed to have taken place.  http://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=6632189   An edit war began on that subject, and the subject of Wikipedia's rules regarding “no damnatio memoriae came up.  I proposed, and repeatedly, that the concept of damnatio memoriae applied, since that was the exact penalty imposed by the BCS when they nullified the entire participation of USC in the 2005 Orange Bowl and 2006 Rose Bowl (pages (along with USC's entire 2005 season, nullified by the NCAA beforehand) I would've deleted eight weeks ago under encyclopedic verification, but we now have a conflict between damnatio memoriae and encyclopedic verification).

AND, since Wikipedia does not respect the BCS as a sanctioning body (trying to remain neutral – I'll get to that in a moment in part two!), Wikipedia accepts as valid USC's 14 vacated victories, including in a BCS National Championship Game which no longer logistically should exist.  Hence, Wikipedia  recognizes (in the form that they won the 2005 Orange Bowl) USC as the BCS National Champion – if Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and their participation in the 2006 Rose Bowl, which was also nullified by the BCS.

Ergo, we now have a non-encyclopedic, non-verifiable situation which is, in fact, false!  Only the sanctioning body can give sanction to the event, and only the sanctioning body can take it away.  (Remember this one for later, as well!)  I had respected the decision of “no damnatio memoriae, but can do so no longer, because of the fact that it creates an encyclopedic falsehood!

And because the collective accepts “no damnatio memoriae, even in cases where it applies, we now have to change one of the hardest and fastest rules on Wikipedia, on every editing page.

Encyclopedic content must only be considered verified by the collective.  That is all, and also that is the only acceptable basis for content on Wikipedia – actual encyclopedic verification is no longer sufficient nor necessary.  Anything short of that will be removed by the collective.

If I am reinstated, I am considering removal of all mentions of vacated participation in games.  That means the 2005 Orange and 2006 Rose Bowls go, as does their mentions in BCS National Championship Game, as well as USC's entire 2005 season page, replaced with notations of the nullifications.  Any other games where the participation of one or both schools are removed also go as well.  (As one example, the 2011 Sugar Bowl may also be deleted, if the NCAA or BCS nullifies specifically Ohio State's participation in the event.)

That dovetails nicely into debunking pillar number two:

If the collective is the sole basis for acceptability on Wikipedia, then Wikipedia cannot be neutral.  In fact, when the collective is mis-informed and prejudicial, on top of being inaccurate, this redoubles that, since the collective enforces the rules, Wikipedia is not at all neutral, but written with the biases of the collective in mind.

An example