Requests for comment
I've echoed the suggestions of Mackensen and others that you take this to Wikipedia:Requests for comment.  Your most recent reply on Mackensen's talk page is:

 I could, but I think Arbcom should accept the case with or without an RfC. There's too much misconduct to willfully ignore. Besides, you're only asking me to do that to delay the inevitable, why would I ever take that advice?

There are several problems with this response:
 Firstly a number of other editors have asked you to go through RfC: , the  closer or the first Articles for deletion discussion, , who as far as I can tell played no part in earlier discussions,  who also seems to have been absent from earlier discussions, and , an arbitrator who in rejecting the case said "If you can't be bothered with an RfC then we can't be bothered with an arbitration case."  has also remarked on your failure to follow process here.
 Again you allege misconduct, on a scale too great "to wilfully ignore".  If there appears to be such a level of misconduct and yet the arbitrators can't see it, it looks like you'll have to make it more apparent to them.

But finally, despite all the others including arbitrators who have asked you to go to RfC, you say that I in particular am only asking you to go to RfC "to delay the inevitable".  Well I'm not sure that you and I can agree on what "the inevitable" is in this case.  To my eyes this looks a case on which you really wouldn't like to hear what the arbitrators have to say, and they've hinted on this in their comments on the case.  But since they're obviously not going to accept the case until you've at least made an honest attempt to conduct some intermediate steps in dispute resolution, I'm urging you to do so.  If an arbitration case follows, the sooner the better as far as I'm concerned, so get cracking. Tony Sidaway