Guy Chapman writes:
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 22:18:22 +0000, David Boothroyd <david at election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
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.
Indeed it does. And yet you steadfastly refuse to believe those who tell you that your *contributions* (including on Talk) are the problem, choosing instead to blame some notional external factors. Funny, that.
When you brought this issue to the mailing list your very second sentence was "We know from other evidence that Fys is an active member of the Labour party; this may or may not be considered relevant." You clearly did consider it relevant otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned it at all.
I have asked you again and again why you continue to insinuate that my preference for including the disputed material in Anne Milton is due to political bias, and for you to substantiate your view. You have not. The time is past due for you to apologise for that. There is no finding that I am a POV editor for the very good reason that I am not.
I have steadfastly refused to retaliate in kind by saying that your known opposition to my politics has influenced your judgment. Nor have I told you to "fuck off" as you have told me. I think you know me well enough to know that I will not give up on this. I think you also know you owe me an apology.
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 23:30:24 +0000, David Boothroyd david@election.demon.co.uk wrote:
Indeed it does. And yet you steadfastly refuse to believe those who tell you that your *contributions* (including on Talk) are the problem, choosing instead to blame some notional external factors. Funny, that.
When you brought this issue to the mailing list your very second sentence was "We know from other evidence that Fys is an active member of the Labour party; this may or may not be considered relevant." You clearly did consider it relevant otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned it at all.
I do consider it significant, when considered in conjunction with your aggressive editing style on political biographies, as noted in your ArbCom case and block log. Put another way *It's not just me*.
I have asked you again and again why you continue to insinuate that my preference for including the disputed material in Anne Milton is due to political bias, and for you to substantiate your view. You have not. The time is past due for you to apologise for that. There is no finding that I am a POV editor for the very good reason that I am not.
So you say. You may not be the best judge of this. What we do know is that you have a strong personal interest in party politics, as a party political activist, and a history of causing problems when editing political biographies.
Your personal version of the "bold, revert, discuss" method sees to be "bold, revert, revert, revert, revert, argue until everyone else loses interest and you get your way".
I have steadfastly refused to retaliate in kind by saying that your known opposition to my politics has influenced your judgment. Nor have I told you to "fuck off" as you have told me. I think you know me well enough to know that I will not give up on this. I think you also know you owe me an apology.
Yup. You were being an arse. You still are. I would hardly describe my politics as *opposed* to yours, I voted Labour in several elections. If you were a Tory then it would be a different matter.
You have said several times that you think I owe you an apology, but as it happens I disagree. If i did not, I would have done so.
Fact is, you edit warred over a biography of a living individual, a member of an opposing party, you reverted four times in quick succession. You claimed it was simple vandalism, two separate admins disagreed, yet you continued to report it as simple vandalism and you continued to revert, and you got blocked for it. This is not the first time you have been blocked for edit warring. You have been sanctioned by ArbCom for edit warring on a political biography.
So: do you propose to learn from the experience at some point, or do we just keep blocking you? No, I think I know the answer to that. Your every action since persuades me that, as with most politicians, you are so convinced that you are right, you will continue arguing until I either accept your assertions (which is unlikely) or lose interest.
I just lost interest.
Guy (JzG)