I admit that I edited a protected article. In my defense, I did not realize that Ambi had protected it, and I immediately unprotected it when its 'protected state' was pointed out to me. Since then, to show good faith, I have made NO EDITS WHATSOEVER to any article; I've confined myself to talk pages until this is sorted out. Like Martha Stewart, wanting to start her sentence before the appeal? You decide....
As far as hijacking a vote is concerned, well, I've never been a fan of "votes for deletion". Every time somebody wanted to delete an article I like, I've simply rewritten or expanded it and asked for a new vote. I can't recall a time anyone's really objected before. Have the rules changed while I wasn't watching? It wouldn't be the first time.
If you vote about a situation, but the situation changes, I think this calls for a new vote.
Besides, I think people are trying to sneak in their POV any way they can: including 'voting'. This is not good for Wikipedia. We should write accurate and unbiased articles that shed light on all points of view (POV).
Especially when there are organized forces trying to SNEAK THOSE POV'S in to the real world debate on these issues.
It all hinges on what a "Palestinian" is, and this was not well-covered. The redirect simply glossed over the fact that this stuff was not well covered.
Anyway, this kind of matter should not be decided by a vote. The tradition has been, that before eliminating an article (either by deleting it, or REDIRECTING from it), that good information from it should be merged into another article. Voting to ignore the elephant in the living room is not a valid option.
I'll follow what ever the arbcom or Jimbo says; I agree in advance, even not knowing what they'll say. But it this point I don't think I've done anything wrong.
172 gave me a lot of grief for breaking the [[Augusto Pinochet]] logjam, and I weathered that storm. I think I can handle this too. If not, well I always did want to go down in a blaze of glory ;-)
Ed Poor