hmmm.... I'm never sure how best to engage in this context, because the line between disagreement and disruption has occasionally seemed subjective to me. Two small points though;
Firstly, the admin.s amongst you will be able to review what was described privately as the edit which was most irresponsible and which was the work of a "dangerous fool" (an arb.s comment); http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Privatemusings/diStefano&...
The non admin.s amongst you can only see that this has been deleted as 'libelous content'. It certainly isn't a wonderful draft, and I've benefited greatly from watching the recent development at our current article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_di_Stefano ), but I just don't think it's fair to label me guilty of libel - it's a s serious charge and I really don't think it's right.
So let me be clear - my choice of words may well have been clumsy, my approach hugely flawed, and certainly I had little understanding at the time of the ramifications my editing would cause. These are lessons well worth learning, and represent the silver lining from my perspective.
Matt, you've commented briefly here about me in the third person, I'd like to ask you directly that if you have a spare moment, I'd really really appreciate it if you'd consider 'undeleting' the revisions identified by the arb.s as irresponsible and rash (just the draft above, maybe?) - I remain unclear as the rationale for their deletion, and I'd hope in examining them both I and others could avoid running into trouble in the future.
Secondly - I agree with the basic tenet of your post in many ways, but have you had the chance to take a look at the suggestions I've been making over the last month or so? I rather felt progress was being made! :-)
best,
Peter PM.