On 2/27/06, Theresa Knott <theresaknott(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/27/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote:
VeryVerily ought to be able to edit provided he is
reasonably courteous, offers information from
reliable references and
does not engage in sterile edit warring.
No one is stopping him from editing. All that is being required is
that he discuss reverts on the talk page.
The big problems with the "fine print" here have already been pointed out by
me several times. Again, why did I leave for a year?
And this means the appeal did nothing.
He ought to be judged by his current
behavior, not events which occurred in 2004.
How can we do that? He left Wikipedia for a year. His current edits
are mostly to AC pages.
Voluntarily leaving for a year itself is considerable restraint. Moreover,
you could at least restrict yourself to events at the end of 2004 which I
spent my time responding to.
You're asking me to jump through hoops. Yes instead of editing in areas of
my interest I could edit on flowers and bunnies for four months and "prove"
not getting into conflict. But why not just say a year-plus is enough and
let me "try again"?
Arbitrators who feel
that a strong
conservative point of view ought not to be expressed
should have recused themselves.
I don't believe there are any arbitrators who feel that.
Your statements on your talk page that even reverting stalker vandalism or
someone engaging in mass deletion is not acceptable suggests a problem.
This is standard behavior for most editors. I think most admins would not
hesitate to use "rollback" on someone following them around and reverting
their edits, or otherwise vandalizing pages. So why the double standard?
And I did go through procedure, asking for the ArbComm's help with the
stalker, and they not only did not provide it, but later said that the
situation was resolved "in light of" me being banned.
VV