[WikiEN-l] Anne Milton (was Re: Attack blogs in WP:LIVING articles)

[David Boothroyd]

Sean Barrett writes:
>David Gerard stated for the record:
>
>  > I'm just amazed I'm having to explain to someone who's *in politics*
>  > that learning to play nice with others is more likely to get you what
>  > you want.
>
>Wandering off topic, but: I'm not really surprised.
[snip subsequent gratuitous politician-abuse]

I'm disappointed.

I do not edit Wikipedia as a politician. I assumed when it said that
people would be judged on the merits of their contributions, and that
evidence of bias in real life was no evidence of biased editing, that
this meant what it said. But no, because I happen to be involved in
politics, every edit I make is apparently viewed through a prism. I
profoundly resent Guy Chapman insinuating that I want the Tim Ireland
blog in Anne Milton's article because of political bias.

It seems when I registered a name under a variant of my initials, and
then gave a bit of biographical information on my userpage so that
people would know who I was (which some kind soul then moved into the
article space), this was a severe mistake and I should have tried to
remain anonymous. Not only was I put on the 'hive mind' hit list with
my photo and real name, I got threatened with legal action and with
political revenge when I defended an article against a vandal. So I
change my username to a different one to try to get away from this.
No, fat chance.

If it's really the situation that people who are members of political
parties have a 'Conflict of Interest' in editing political articles,
then how much more do they have in dealing with other Wikipedians with
different politics? William M. Connolley, Arbitrator Forrester and now
Guy Chapman are supporters of other parties and have not regarded
themselves as conflicted when dealing with me.
-- 
David Boothroyd - http://www.election.demon.co.uk
david at election.demon.co.uk (home)
dboothroyd at westminster.gov.uk (council)