Angela

You asked [[w:User:Cyan]] to do it.  He said he would, or someone would, when the power to do so existed.  That seemed to satisfy you.  You had ambitions to delete a vast number of articles with proposed policy and design material, and a good deal more that were directed towards the POV of a translator or simple English user struggling on his or her own to understand the English culture, not just language.  For instance you deleted the [http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_English_Readings Simple English Readings] out of process although they were certainly neutral.  You can't claim something is "in process" if the new software's been in place barely a month... there's not enough people there to put ANYTHING in process.  But anyway, your motives are clear:  you could not take control of that project and mold it to your own objective (seemingly, a children's encyclopedia) without destroying that material.  So you begged for it to be done by others so you would not be blamed.  This is fairly typical female behaviour - get others to play cop for you.

In any case, you are now a sysop there, and you haven't UNblocked that range. So you're responsible, or rather, irresponsible.  If anyone was blocked from editing legitimate material, if anything, you have a responsibility to work with it, find other champions for it, etc., to prove you were neutral on the material itself, and that it was not the material that led to the censorship.

But in fact, your behavior proves the opposite, and has nothing to do with your words. You are directly and provably responsible for the block, we are quite sure.  And my opinion, and word, is worth more than yours.  That's all there is to it.  Our track record is quite consistent.  And so is yours.  You blocked by whining, and then taking the power, and then deleting the material.  That is if anything more of a power grab than a temporary block.