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 can not 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 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 can not 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