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.