There _are_ people who, if all they could edit were
articles on flowers
and bunnies, would get into an edit war on flowers and bunnies. Now
_you_ may be certain that you're not one of those people, but others may
not know you as intimately as you know yourself.
I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting this. All noted cases
follow a pretty obvious theme, e.g., me preventing an attempt to deny
the almost inconceivable scale of murder and death created by a
communist regime. Again, if this were a Nazi denying the Holocaust I
had fought, I'd be being feted as a hero on the mailing list right
now, and everyone would look the other way if any "rules" were broken.
As you say yourself, proving the fact would take
nothing but patience
and self-control. The fact that you took a one-year Wikibreak suggests
you have some of those. So why not go do that? If you start doing it
I think I've addressed this point several times. (a) The arbitrators
still refuse to specify what *isn't* grounds for a block. (b) I'd be
a second-class editor, and everyone I tried to work with would know
it. (c) I didn't leave for a year then come back with this appeal so
that nothing would change, and there remains no justification for it.
Besides, those uncontroversial copyedits also improve
the encyclopedia.
That's something you seem to care deeply about. We don't want to have
an encyclopedia that's full of misspellings, do we?
Actually, though I did much copyediting in my day, I honestly don't
care that much. It's misinformation that bothers me much more.
Indeed, misspellings have an upside, as they remind the casual reader
that those articles are amateurish and not credible, so when they read
on Wikipedia that Pol Pot was a kindly old man cruelly smeared by the
corporate media, they won't take it too seriously.
VV