From: David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au>
JAY JG (jayjg(a)hotmail.com) [050521 02:34]:
As you well know, the history of organized school
inclusionism long
precedes this particular and very recent set of school VfDs, and even
stooped to the level of sockpuppet voting.
So you don't mean of late, your evidence of robotic voting closely
resembles the editing pattern of several of us you're arguing this point
with, and you mean the one (it was one) person running a pile of
sockpuppets you will now see absent.
It is a long-standing issue that continues to fester, though I appreciate
your efforts in getting rid of that pile of sockpuppets.
So if Tony or I can be classed as "schools
inclusionists", does that mean
we're doing robotic voting with insinuations of sockpuppetry, are these
other people you fingered as robo-voters even though the complained-of
voting pattern resembles ours running sockpuppets, or what do you mean?
Your stated concern is not staying constant in the course of the
discussion.
The stated concern is still robotic "keep" voting by some editors who don't
even bother to read the articles concerned, organized by school
inclusionists (via "schoolwatch" pages). I stand by that interpretation of
events, even though neither you nor Tony agree that the evidence I have
given proves it.
You are notably failing to acknowledge that placing
fifty schools at once
on VFD could possibly be a provocative act that could arouse great
attention, really upset people and in fact cause people to get involved, as
Tony documents in detail. Do you see that it could be taken that way?
Yes, I acknowledge that it could upset people and be seen as a provocative
act. I do note that Neutrality's reasons for VfD nomination were not
identical in every case, and often referred to specific issues with the
articles themselves, unlike many of the votes made in response. And I also
note again that organized school inclusionism started long before this very
recent incident.
That said, I'm wary of letting the list bog down in interminable debates, as
it so often does, and in any event I don't particularly enjoy being so
publically at odds with people that I respect. Perhaps you can respond with
a summation/last word, and then we can take this to private e-mail.
Jay.