On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 23:30:24 +0000, David Boothroyd
<david(a)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)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG