" 

 :   I have not ""formally"" protested (contested?) this particular topic ban, as I think others can do that better.  What I raised was a disturbing implication, which is nothing less than — censorship.  Now it should be noted that I do allow for some restrictions — ""censorship"" — in regards of pornography, copyright violations, etc.  These are definite, previously identified subjects (however blurry they may be around the edges), which can be cast as particular exceptions to general ""free speech"".  And it should also be noted (as I stated on the noticeboard) that I am not coming from any notion of individual rights or such; my concern is whether Wikipedia is self-limiting in respect of what can be discussed.  This especially concerns me when discussion (or editors) is restricted on the claim of ""maintaining order"" — which is precisely what you have claimed (above, and previously).  And just what totalitarian regimes claim. 
 :   Your initial statement that was certain discussions could not be held on the talk pages, were ""best held elsewhere"".  Which turns out to be nowhere on Wikipedia.  And now you explicitly deny participation to — blocked editors?  I thought we were discussing topic-banned editors, but perhaps this is immaterial, seeing that WMC was blocked for saying nothing.  At any rate, what I see is an editor being banned/blocked for some very petty, arbitrary reasons.  This has all the earmarks of invidious censorship, and I have yet to see what is misunderstood. -   "