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
But reason wasn't in the past, which is why you should take advantage
of the opportunity to clarify them. And I specifically asked the
ArbComm to, and they did not. So prima facie it seems it will be as
it was, and not reasonable.
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
Then tell me why, because everyone gives a different answer. Raul
says it's because the 3RR would do the job. TK says it's because she
was partly persuaded by my reasoning.
And as I've made clear the lifting of this restriction was irrelevant.
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
Why not? In both cases all you have is the presented edit histories
in front of you.
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.
You are wrong about what I read. You clearly did not understand my
comment, which is that regardless of your intent one could trivially
satisfy your requirement by making dumb edits. This would prove
nothing but my willingness to play along with your game.
And the past
harassment was not accounted for.
I don't live in the past.
But your job is to judge it.
Yes. We are giving you the chance to show that the
(present tense, not past tense) unnecessary.
If the past is irrelevant, why I am I assumed guilty until proven
innocent? New users are not put through this meat grinder, so why me?
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.
If you want to change your vote, you'd better hurry. Not much time
for my actions.