Today marks the six-month anniversary of my third arbitration case's conclusion, which banned me from the administrators' noticeboard pages (although I am an admin) and from discussing admin actions anywhere except on an admin's own talk page. This was later amended to prohibit me from communicating with Phil Sandifer (formerly Snowspinner) or even mentioning him in a discussion--even indirectly! I have repeatedly requested that this be revisited and the restrictions removed or at least moderated somewhat, but to no avail; Raul has been making threats that I could be banned from RfAr entirely as a "vexatious litigant".

The point behind the case was to silence my criticisms of admin abuses--I had been making arguments against hasty, individually-based decision-making for months, pushing for collective deliberation about controversial admin actions and arguing that admins should be cautious rather than aggressive in approach. This stuff made certain admins angry or frustrated, particularly Phil. I reached an agreement with Phil not to criticize him, and he backed off his threatened arbitration; the agreement held for two months before Phil criticized me about my position on an RfC. I went to him about this and asked him not to do it again, because the agreement should be fair and mutual; it would be unjust for him to make criticisms of me after I've agreed not to criticize him. He flatly refused, at which point I withdrew from my agreement in disgust and he restarted the case.

So basically, now that the halfway point has arrived, I want to try something different in my approach in getting this ruling changed. Does anyone have a suggestion or comment about it? I've been thinking about preparing an extensive counter-argument and documentation about Snowspinner, but I'm reluctant to invest my time in that because I know the ArbCom will most likely not take it seriously.