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.
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 they were.
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.
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.
Why not? In both cases all you have is the presented edit histories in front of you.
"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.
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 restrictions *are* (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.
VV