[WikiEN-l] Appeal for community support

Mon Feb 27 21:49:36 UTC 2006

On 2/27/06, VeryVerily <veryverily at gmail.com> wrote:
> Then let it be the past and drop the restrictions on me.

If you can show that the restrictions are now misplaced, I agree.

> It was a major section of my appeal, entitled "Block by Neutrality".  How
> did you miss it?  This incident was the last straw that caused me to walk
> away.

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.

> > I don't think that would really help anything.  I will acknowlegde,
> > though, my belief that errors were made.  I don't know to what extent,
> > but errors were made.
>
>
> Given that the past errors were the grounds for the relevant rulings, yes it
> matters.  And yes it would help.

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.

> 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.

> "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.

> And the past harassment was not accounted for.

I don't live in the past.

> If you wish to discuss how you foresee handling cases like Ruy Lopez's
> denial of history in the future, we could do that.  But pre-emptively
> tethering me because you're "not sure" is just wrong.  It's benefit of the
> doubt.

Yes.  We are giving you the chance to show that the restrictions *are*
(present tense, not past tense) unnecessary.

> 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.

--
Sam