On 2/27/06, VeryVerily veryverily@gmail.com wrote:
Then let it be the past and drop the restrictions on me.
If you can show that the restrictions are now misplaced, I agree.
It was a major section of my appeal, entitled "Block by Neutrality". How did you miss it? This incident was the last straw that caused me to walk away.
Sorry, it was confusing whether you were referring to a more recent block. I think the issue is that we need convincing that you will not edit war in future. I fully expect reason to be applied to the restrictions.
I don't think that would really help anything. I will acknowlegde, though, my belief that errors were made. I don't know to what extent, but errors were made.
Given that the past errors were the grounds for the relevant rulings, yes it matters. And yes it would help.
You seem in misapprehension as to why the restrictions are lifted. It is not on account of the previous rulings' being in error, even if they were.
I don't understand this. Why is an edit made in March 2006 easier to evaulate than one made in December 2004? And if my good intentions aren't obvious to you after 1 1/2 years of intense editing, I don't see what magic you expect in the coming months.
Context. I don't know the history as well as I know the history of current conflicts.
"Causing conflict" is one of these things that mean what people decide it does in the moment. (Like, perhaps, "reverting".) And anyway I certainly *could* make nothing but uncontroversial edits for a time, anyone could, so what would that prove? The relevant material is what happened when I was not under these restrictions. In those days I was struggling to defend Wikipedia's credibility and content, as I believe I have shown.
Clearly you did not read the bit where I said "no-one is asking you to make uncontroversial edits". We are asking you not to edit war and not to, by your actions, provoke conflict. That applies whether or not the restrictions are in place.
And the past harassment was not accounted for.
I don't live in the past.
If you wish to discuss how you foresee handling cases like Ruy Lopez's denial of history in the future, we could do that. But pre-emptively tethering me because you're "not sure" is just wrong. It's benefit of the doubt.
Yes. We are giving you the chance to show that the restrictions *are* (present tense, not past tense) unnecessary.
But I suppose it's naive of me to think you would allow yourself to be persuaded to change your vote.
You can persuade me by your actions.
-- Sam