Guy Chapman writes:
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 05:44:17 -0500, "david@election.demon.co.uk" david@election.demon.co.uk wrote:
Now that really does annoy me. Whatever happened to "This user is a Wikipedian and seeks to eschew other ideologies while building an encyclopedia"?
Yes, you've said that before. But the fact remains that you are a party political activist editing articles on politicians, and frequently in a way which causes conflict with other editors, and this is not the first time the criticism has been levelled at you either, so perhaps you do have biases and are unable to discern them in your own writing (which would only be human, after all).
Directly contrary to your repeated claims I have not been sanctioned for POV editing. There was no such finding in the arbitration case. Moreover Irishpunktom eventually agreed that he and I had produced a balanced article in the end.
What has often happened is that I have turned a mass of POV into something more closely approximating an encyclopaedia article, and found myself roundly criticised for it solely because the other editor found out my political affiliation and assumed I must be biased - not because they could impugn the merit of the edits but because "well you must be". That was always unfair and was one of the reasons I changed my user name and broke the link to my article.
I note that you, Guy, have made the same unsupported allegation. I also note you now admit to being a member of a different party to me. Hmm.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 06:24:36 -0500, "david@election.demon.co.uk" david@election.demon.co.uk wrote:
Yes, you've said that before. But the fact remains that you are a party political activist editing articles on politicians, and frequently in a way which causes conflict with other editors, and this is not the first time the criticism has been levelled at you either, so perhaps you do have biases and are unable to discern them in your own writing (which would only be human, after all).
Directly contrary to your repeated claims I have not been sanctioned for POV editing. There was no such finding in the arbitration case. Moreover Irishpunktom eventually agreed that he and I had produced a balanced article in the end.
If you read the para to which you are responding, you will see that I said nothing of the sort. Wikipedia is not politics, David, and your use of the straw man fallacy is unhelpful. What I said was that *you are a party political activist editing articles on politicians, and frequently in a way which causes conflict with other editors*. That does not imply that you are either right or wrong, only that your style of editing, combined with your known interests and choice of articles, causes conflict.
See also above, where your use of a deliberately misleading edit summary is used to make accusations against others. Why do that? It's patently disruptive. What is the point of doing something deliberately in order to provoke a reaction you can then complain about?
Nor do you appear to know who your friends are - I was against any sanction when you edited Peter Tatchell in defiance of your ArbCom ban, for example, and I unblocked you as soon as you undertook to stop the edit war on this article.
Your entire on-Wiki persona comes across as aggressive, egotistical and chippy. And this always seems to be somebody else's fault...
Guy (JzG)