Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GordonWatts: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:26, 14 September 2005

GordonWatts

Vote here (2/12/2) ending 13:55 [20 September 2005] (UTC)

GordonWatts (talk · contribs) – Self nomination, registered since this, my first edit: "16:20, 2 May 2005 (hist) (diff) Terri Schiavo (I added in documentation of the legal definition of PVS.)" Click on contribs above to see my contributions. Many have centered in one area of expertise, but I've edited in many areas.

Apparently, some others think I've done well: Barnstars

Here's what happens to people who contribute but are not appreciated; Please be kind to others, so they won't leave like this user.

Additional Comments: A clean disciplinary record There was concern in comments below that I might use my admin powers on the Schiavo page where I am currently an active editor; I understand your concerns, and while I admit I am not perfect, let me point out that I've edited here regularly (Total edits 2630) on VERY contentious and divisive issues, and not once gotten banned, blocked, barred, removed, disciplined, etc. So, the "concern" that I might violate my privileges in the admin realm (only slightly higher than editor), is rather unfounded: I have a "clean record."--GordonWattsDotCom 23:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Barn stars That link above is to some barn stars, which indicates I've been helpful -in addition to not being "harmful" per the above comment.--GordonWattsDotCom 23:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments regarding my "lack of experience": I admit that I don't have as many edits as some "veterans, but this is not big deal: Admins says, in salient part: "Current Wikipedia policy is to grant this access liberally to anyone who has been an active Wikipedia contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community...."This should be no big deal," according to Jimmy Wales."--GordonWattsDotCom 23:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the recent Featured Article controversy: Some have criticised me for the nomination -and renomination of Schiavo and exaggerated the vote count, painting me as irresponsible, but let me clear that up: The initial nomination was defeated 7-11-3, (or 6-11-3, if I miscounted -see bottom of page here. A very close call. So, I should not be criticized for renominating the article after we fixed all the errors (Fair Use, references, much copyedit, etc.) that Mark had identified. I think it was about 7-10 at one point, later, and the fixing of the errors should have pushed it well above 50% or whatever is Mark's "informal" cutoff line. (Some have criticized me for not reading the unwritten rules of the community regarding waiting to renominate my Fac, but if the rules are unwritten, then the written rules about renomination supercede, and I did not make a critical error; And, the criticism about the "page lock" on Schiavo is without merit as I've said all along: The page is unlocked, stable, and well-written, currently, as I predicted, lol.)--GordonWattsDotCom 23:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on this nomination here: Some have suggested closing early due to "ill will" and the like. (I apologize for my rare slip up below where I call User: Hipocrite a "Hypocrite" for allegedly not wanting to live up to a standard he set; He wrote kind words of feedback on my user page, and I apologize for that rare outburst, but I felt a tad, uh, abused, shall we say, by some comments.) Anyhow, while some want to close the nomination early to avoid "ill will," I think that would not be appropriate: Anyone who senses ill will from me (even if it is actual and real ill will) does not need to edit on Wikipedia. Further, I have many friends who will want to weigh in on this, and I would not deprive the, of this; Even if I am defeated 99-0-1 or something, no harm will be done, and I can gain more feedback -feedback, for which I thank the contributors: Yes, I have some areas of improvement, but I've tried to help out my fellow neighbor, and my eventual adminship should be no big deal, because it only grants me slightly more power and abilities (tools) -and, since I have managed to behave well enough to both contribute and do so in many controversial pages for many months without getting blocked, banned, disciplined, etc. (plus a few barn stars along the way) should make this a no-brainer: I would vote "yes" if a fellow were in this place with these criteria -with no problem; I've had arguments -and resolved them all successfully (win or lose --all are resolved). That's my statement, and "my" block logs will verify it as true.--GordonWattsDotCom 23:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A "regular" Wikipedia editor has pretty high responsibility, not only to make responsible edits, but also to revert vandalism and try to work within concensus. I believe I've read somewhere that every editor is supposed to behave like and admin, so, since I try to work with other people (even if I receive an answer of "no," which is not ever happy), I feel I will receive support.

Now, in return, I can not guarantee I will be available 24-7-365 to contribute -and I may even get a job soon to pay bills, but amidship is an investment, like and others, that can be useful for all parties and help me contribute in areas of need. I occasionally am very hard-nosed and fight for that in which I believe, but I accept the community's answer in the end, knowing that things will work out in the end if I'm right -patience.

(Also, I'm smart enough to provide a "perma-link" above, so it is a permanent link to a saved diff, not one that can be edited and changed before you look at it.)

My thoughts are that sometimes, due to vandalism or other problems, tools such as page protection, might come in handy.GordonWattsDotCom 13:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support Everyone get a vote in wikipedia, to be fair, and since many of those who gave me barnstars will support me later, I will log in a vote for myself, as further justified by the new comments in the intro above, which are based on actual formal policy, not simply "the way things are done."--GordonWattsDotCom 00:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support There needs to be more diversity among the admins in how they relate to editors who are political and cultural conservatives. patsw 01:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cooperative user, dropped the dotcom from his username on request, would only protect an article if there was an edit war. Uncle Ed 12:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Of the 400+ article edits, well over 95% are on articles relating to Terry Schiavo. See main edits. There's almost no mainspace experience outside of these articles. While editing in one very specific area is fine, I'd like to see more diversity. Also, I didn't really like the answer to the first question: "See my comments above and extrapolate." Carbonite | Talk 14:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I looked at that link you provided, and it doesn't look quite like 95% (but I'm not prepared to hand-count thousands of edits). I seem to have contributed to many other article, such as Plant City, Florida, Florida District Courts of Appeal, Christian views of Jesus, Christianity, and even Abortion, a different, but controversial topic. Also, the "extrapolated" answer is good, because you have a personal responsibility to "extrapolate" for deeper answers -just like myself and the other editors have the same responsibility. I'm a 39-year old college-educated professional, and with like many 15-year olds running around with adminship, I'm sure I'm as mature as are they.--GordonWattsDotCom 14:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd prefer to call it 90%+ Terry Schiavo-related edits, that's fine with me. The point is that an overwhelming percentage of your edits are on a tiny number of articles. I can't support someone who's experienced such a small part of Wikipedia. Regarding the "extrapolated" answer, as a candidate you have a responsibility to provide clear and concise answers. You basically told other editors "figure it out for yourself". Carbonite | Talk 14:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: edit breakdown is here. Alphax ^τεχ 15:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That link shows the breakdown by namespace, which although light in article edits, doesn't look that out of place. The real issue is apparent when you look at contributions to articles. It was calculated below by User:Dragons flight that 80% of article edits contain the word "Terri" or "Schiavo" in the page title or edit summary. This figure is a "floor" as it doesn't count edits on related articles such as Living will, Palm Sunday Compromise, Not Dead Yet (group) or Mel Martinez. The actual percentage is almost certainly higher than 90%. Carbonite | Talk 15:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Look more closely at the edit count: It is more like 60% -and when yo consider that not all pages with "Terri" in them are really Terri Schiavo (some are other people who have slim relatedness, like Mel Martinez, it's probably more like 40-50% --maybe less?--GordonWattsDotCom 16:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What? Have you looked at your own article contributions? You can't seriously state that 40-50% of these edits have nothing to do with Terri Schiavo. I'm not going to argue this anymore. Carbonite | Talk 16:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As Dr. McCoy on Star Trek would say, Carbonite, "I'm a doctor, not a calculator." Besides, so what if it's a little lopsided? Would you want a doctor who was a jack of all trades but not a master in his field? Would he be unqualified to do many things in life, just because he had a special talent in one area? Are you sure you're not persecuting me for my talent? Because, if you ignore my special talents and abilities in one are, I am balanced: Now, if I were a "newbie," then a lack of talent would be a more valid concern. Think about what you are doing; Am I just a dumb country hick who doesn';t know how to use a computer? It's your move.--GordonWattsDotCom 17:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Gordon, I suggest that you tone it down. You're not being attacked, but you are being critized, something that you opened yourself up to by nominating yourself for adminship. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No way Has tried to force external links to his own highly partisan site into the Schiavo article, insists that repeatedly voting is a suitable mechanism for building consensus, then castigates users if they do not participate, and is more or less a one article POV warrior. Has also on numerous times insisted on the insertion of volumes of irrelevant minutae into the Schiavo article, which detracts from article, which is now bloated and unwieldy. The fact that he wants more than anything the ability to page protect is highly worrisome, given the history of the Schiavo article. Gordon, why don't you write a book about the topic, which is what it seems you would like to do here? Fawcett5 14:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(quote) "The fact that he wants more than anything the ability to page protect is highly worrisome" An admin is not allowed to protect a page on which he or she edits; your lack of knowledge should indicate that your vote is not based on sound knowledge of wiki-policies.--GordonWattsDotCom 14:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: All the links that we add in the advocacy section are "highly partisan," but of the total links, very few are to papers that I have links to. See the Schiavo talk page where I do not object to removal of links to stories I wrote -if a suitable link can be provided to an equally good site, but in all fairness, some news events for the Schiavo saga were only provided by my paper: If you think I'm being self-centered, then I challenge you to find any other news agency that covered this story, but if you look at the court docket, there indeed was a hearing, so, it is "not" self-centered to post a link to one of my stories if it was the only link available.--GordonWattsDotCom 14:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't think I've ever come across Gordon before (having never personally edited the Terry Schiavo article!) so can't comment on the way in which he conducts himself one way or another. That said, there's far too much of a single focus in all edits to be anywhere near suitable for adminship. There's nothing wrong with specialising (although I'd hope for specialising in one field, rather than one article), but I'd expect a potential admin who happened to be specialising to be also contributing heavily elsewhere. A figure of 90% Terry Schiavo to 10% of other article edits is being quoted. In an ideal world, I'd like to see that ratio reversed. KeithD (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind remarks, Keith; however, I do not know that it is 90% --it may be, but a look at the edits at the link above indicates, 90% or just 70&, I have contributed to a whole bunch more article besides just Theresa "Terri" Schiavo; Lastly, there is nothing wrong with a specialist, but, no, while I haven't counted them, I doubt it's 90% --for example, in my recently failed Featured Article nomination of Schiavo, one or two editors said the vote was like 12-2 or something, and it was more like 7-10 --a lot of miscounting going on there -Miscounts & misquotes all the time happen, so, no ,look again at ALL my edits and see if it really is like 90% -- may not be.--GordonWattsDotCom 16:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. Passion about certain subjects and even Wikipedia itself is a very good thing to possess. This, however, is a question of pure obsession. Gordon is privately and professionally obsessed with the Terri Schiavo-affair. This alone disqualifies him from being a constructive admin. Gordon has shown very little sign of understaning what actually makes Wikipedia work. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo is a very good example of this. / Peter ^Isotalo 15:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I have no problem with specialisation (even to this extremity) but 400ish article edits, is simply not enough for my standards to support. --Celestianpower ^hab 15:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~Strongest Oppose Possible. 4-3 "consensus?" 4-3 is a squeaker. 5-2 is a majority. 6-1 MIGHT be a consensus. Concerned as above with TS POV push - especially the recent discussion regarding "Typically only legally." Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"regarding "Typically only legally." So? Typically only legally "What?" It is not false to say that hospices typically only legally allow terminally ill patients, but you didn't look at that part of the edit in question; I am not pushing any POV regarding Terri's situation; I merely stated a fact about what "typically" is done in hospices: If you don't believe me, Hipocrite, then you go into a hospice and see how many 39-year old handicapped women you can find. None. You are a "hypoctite," Hipocrite, because you criticize me for truthfully defiing the terms used, yet, you would not want to be criticised in the same way, and if you don't believe me, look hospice up in a dictionary sometimes: It is defined as that end-of-life place, not a place for cripples. I am not taking sides on the Schiavo issue in my edits; I am only using the proper dictionary definitions of the terms: I am telling the truth (dictionary doesn't lie), so your critical remarks and attitude are without merit.--GordonWattsDotCom 16:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop breaking the list. I do not intend to debate the facts of the matter - for all I care, you are, were, and have always been right, about everything, ever. As above, however, the fact of being right doesn’t in any way change the method in which you prosecute your case. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The proper placement of my answer is more important than not "breaking the list' of numbering system: The votes can be counted without the "list," lol. Now, how would you suggest I "prosecute" my case, if I'm right, as you suggest? If you have an answer, I listen; if not, then I prosecuted it properly. I listen and wait.--GordonWattsDotCom 17:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You relied on the assertion that you were factually accurate, rather than verifiable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Slim Virgin told me that edit format was important, so I will imitate your format and add the additional ":" full-colon. "You relied on the assertion that you were factually accurate, rather than verifiable." OK, now vote-count notwithstanding, you mention factual accuracy; So, what's your point? If I was factually inaccurate, point it out; If not, you will have to withdraw your remark. I know this is looking bad, but you made a point, and I am not being mean to simply request, yea, demand an answer -in the politest of terms -from you.--GordonWattsDotCom 17:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't follow that debate, Hipocrite: I agreed to remove that, and so did all the other editors; the section is now agreed upon by all concensus; Go over to Schiavo and see if you can find the "typically legally" language -or any recent demands by anyone that is be put in. You can't. Please get your facts straight, lol.--GordonWattsDotCom 15:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I hate having to justify my opinions like this in RFA's, but since you accused me of not following the dispute, let me reiterate - the recent discussion regarding. Not the fact that you eventually gave up and let the words go away - but the way that you prosecuted your case. Also, exercise due care in commenting here to not break the numbered list.Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coment below responding to Phroziac is dishonest. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In pushing recently for the Terri Schiavo article to be promoted, this user showed wilful disregard for how the community treats FA candidate articles and when the nomination was removed he reverted several users to put it back in. Worldtraveller 15:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Correct: I replaced it because only Mark, the Featured Article's editor is supposed to remove it, and when he removed it one time accidentally prematurely and I replaced it, he was active and online for while and did not object, so no one else had a right to remove it; When they did, I was gracious and permitted it, but, technically, what they did was not permitted. The only other admin to have removed it was Nichalp, and he told me on my page that the format was incorrect, because the page transfer to the Archives didn't transfer properly, and when I fixed that, he did not object. So, yes, two "non-admin" editors improperly removed my nomination, and I replaced it, Worldtraveller , for it was not their place to remove it: They were not the Featured Articles editor; I permitted them to keep it off in the spirit of goodwill, but, mysteriously, that page is still actively edited by many users, so maybe I was right after all. I exercised good will -the other editors who removed it were wrong -well-intended, yes, but wrong, so do not criticize me, Worldtraveler, for this.--GordonWattsDotCom 16:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I wasn't sure if I should just not vote on this, since I don't know him, or oppose this, until i saw this: User talk:Ral315#your_edit_in_the_wiki_paper. I just don't like that attitude where age should be used like that. --Phroziac ^(talk) 15:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The dispute, Phroziac, was one single edit, in which I added news in the Sign Post, and it was deleted, by what appeared to be a random editor, as I didn't know that Ral315 was the regular editor; So, had I not mentioned that I was a college professional, I would have been negligent in my duties, because I could have been perceived as a high-school student; Since negligence is not a good trait, you should not criticize my point: I was telling the truth; Are you offended by the truth? Am I not a college-educated professional? After all, you admitted you don't know me, so what is objectionable about simply identifying myself? Should I instead lie and or hide my identity if it is in question? I do not like your attitude and wonder what motivates you to ask such questions. I have contributed many hours and obviously been very helpful; See e.g., the many barn stars at my user page. Those people know me, so maybe you should consider if you are on solid ground without having known me.--GordonWattsDotCom 15:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF only goes so far. You mentioned the ages just to let everyone know how old everyone was? Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hipocrite, I gave my age so people would know how old I was; Listen, even if I don't make my adminship, I do not wish to offend you, but you must understand that anyone would get upset if people such as yourself gave a Strongest Oppose Possible for simply sticking to dictionary definitions of places, be it hospices, or whatever. Dig? you are getting stresses over this, and that is not good for you and your health; Maybe I won't make admin, but I **do** want to see you live and be unstressed and happy, healthy, etc., OK?--GordonWattsDotCom 16:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Only about four hundred article edits, many of them minor and most of them to Terry Schiavo. (Wikipedia-space edits are also mostly Schiavo-related.) Recent posting to Village Pump suggests lack of familiarity with how 'consensus' is defined and achieved. I am concerned that this editor might be tempted to use his admin abilities in disputes at Terry Schiavo. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"admin abilities in disputes at Terry Schiavo." First, it is not spelled Terry, with a "Y." Secondly, we all know that an admin who is regularly editing one article can not use his/her admin powers there. The very fact that I spend most of my time on one article means that I would have "no" conflicts of interest in a very large number of articles; If you like doing all the "wiki-cleanup," then you will be doing it, when I am not nominated, but don't blame me in the aftermath of hurricane RfA denial, ok?--GordonWattsDotCom 15:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're right; my mistake on the name. I've been reading too many other comments with it misspelled, I suppose. That said, the work you've done so far on Wikipedia has demonstrated very little involvement with any activities, articles, policies, or discourse not related to Schiavo. I'm concerned that your very concentrated experience there may have given you a distorted perspective on how Wikipedia works. The comment "...Schiavo has been surprisingly stable; Edit wars are normal for ALL pages..." suggests a lack of experience with the vast majority of Wikipedia articles where collaborative editing proceeds without acrimonious dispute, edit warring, or page protection. The fact that the comment was part of an ill-advised renomination of Terri Schiavo at FAC immediately after its last nomination failed also bolsters the notion that you haven't been fully steeped in the 'unwritten rules' of how things are done here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There are many reasons I'm going to oppose this nomination. First, you seem to think that age has to do with maturity, as you've said on my talk page and on this nomination. User:Ilyanep became an admin at the age of 13, and is one of our better contributors. On the opposite end of the spectrum, there are grown men who vandalize Wikipedia. So your assertion that age has ANYTHING to do with adminship is grossly mistaken. Secondly, your edits are all mainly in one area. You have an average of 11.60 edits per page, according to Kate's Tool. This is significantly more than any other admin I can think of. I have an average of 1.57, Redwolf24 has an average of 1.76, Phroziac has an average of 1.70, Bishonen has an average of 3.55, David Gerard has an average of 2.34, etc. This shows that you do mainly edit articles like Terri Schiavo. Thirdly, you've only made 422 article edits- not nearly enough by my standards. And, lastly, I personally do not think you know policy well enough- you cite in your Questions below that a 4-3 "consensus" was not followed. Anything 4-3 is not consensus. That means that nearly half of the people who voted disagree with what you wanted to do. Consensus is not a vote, where 1 vote can mean the difference between one result and another. If there's that close a division, more discussion is needed on the talk page. Ral315 15:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It is important for admins to accept that not everything will go their way all the time, and to be able to gracefully accept the consensus of the community when he personally disagree with a result. Based upon these recent edits, [1] [2] [3] [4], I have doubts that the candidate yet understands the nature of consensus. --Allen3 ^talk 16:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Allen3, you say I should accept concensus? Well, that is true, and, in the end, I never have refused to accept concensus (or else I'd be gone, banned, or something else) -however, if you suggest I should not defend myself against half-truths above, you are asking the only weak and two-faced admins be present, ones who will agree with everything someone says, "yes men," so to speak. If you are criticizing me, then remember, you brought the criticism first, and therefore, maybe you are the one who can't accept it when you are wrong; I may (or may not) be voted in admin, but that does not change two things:

1) I am right on many of my rebuttals;

2) Since I am right on many (even if not all), I feel a duty to speak what I feel the truth; if you criticize me for this, you will invariably end up with liars who do not respect the truth; It's your move, but if I am replaced with those who would dishonor thr tradition of respect for other people (that's how I got the Barnstars I did in this several-month period), and things backfire, don't blame me because it is your vote (and others) that would accept thoise who are not so certain to speak up for the truth as they best know it.--GordonWattsDotCom 16:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I really dont think that you are ready for this yet. Having an edit total of well over 2000, only about 200 distinct pages have been edited. Please get around more (edit at leas 1000 distinct pages), and come back in about a month, and you will have my support. I also, I concuer with Carbonite .
Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}

I may very well be ready now, but even if that is the case, I appreciate that you made your point without having to either insult or falsely characterize me. Thank you for your decorum, Journalist. The other editors above seem to have a problem, and if they keep this up, then this unpaid job of admin (not much higher than my current position in abilities and edit powers) will fall to one of them, but I will not be around to help -only "holler for help" as the saying goes; Some of the criticisms are valid: I am not perfect: However, I have made many more contributions to the grand scheme of things than many others. Pretty soon, I'll be taking my Geritol and whipping my old-man's cane, lol. Did these editors take a look at my Barnstars or "non-Schiavo" edits? I think not. Mind readers and clairvoyants, they are; they don't need to do these things. Adminship to them is not a matter of abilities, experience, or desire to benefit; it is a personality contest. Oh, well, that's what you get when you don't pay your help. That's my 2c worth; Not trying to be mean or anything, but how would you respond to all that above...?--GordonWattsDotCom 16:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. Andre (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

KHM03 15:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC) -- He certainly has been doing noble work on the Schiavo tragedy, but I'd just like to see a greater diversity of edits before granting him sysop rights; maybe in the future.[reply]
While I have worked with Gordon on the Terri Schiavo article, but since I started to talk to him after the the controversy started at the article, I am not sure if he has the good qualities that an administrator needs. However, due to his legal background, I would welcome for Gordon to be used in some type of way to clear up legal issues, such as the Fair Use laws. Zach (Sound Off) 23:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Parsing on your 2595 contributions I find that 1551 (60%) contain the word "Terri" or "Schiavo" in the page title or edit summary. Of your edits in article space 337 of 422 (80%) have that property. Dragons flight 15:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The main RfA page says "Nominations which will clearly fail may be removed earlier to prevent discussions that generate ill will." Is there a case for this here? The count currently stands at no support and eleven opposing. The general tone of the discussion appears to be heading towards ill will. (I don't mind one way or another whether the RfA runs its course or not). KeithD (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It does seem to be headed that way. Perhaps a note to Cecropia or one of the other bureaucrats would be in order. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I delayed contacting a bureaucrat, as I read between the lines of Gordon's post below, and took it to mean that he was content with the RfA to continue. Having read Terry's post also suggesting that the situation should be looked at, I've just contacted a bureaucrat, asking that they look at the situation. (Again, I'd like to state that I have no problem with the RfA running its course if that's the best option). KeithD (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Some users are getting mad at me for simply using dictionary definitions -I may disagree but please don't get mad -as is indicated in one editor's "TS POV push" language --I am not pushing a POV -that is for editorials -Wikipedia reports news, not its own opinion. If I have misread your actions, and certain unnamed editors above aren't mad at me, I apologize for misreading your posts, but it is only normal that a person would defend himself or herself for making factually correct, dictionary definition edits, lol.--GordonWattsDotCom 16:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CAN WE SAY ILL WILL - I am basically new to Wiki so forgive me to point this out, but aren't these RfAs supposed to be removed before they create "ill will", let alone "great ill will" what is being created here. It is obvious that Mr. WattsDotCom will not get the necessary votes. Can we close this issue and move on? Maybe I am in the wrong. --Terry 17:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to second Terry's comment. Nothing useful is likely to come of prolonging this misguided, and seemingly doomed to fail application for adminship. The applicant should be encouraged to re-apply when he has greater experience of the workings of Wikipedia, and a wider range of editing. Giano | talk 22:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. See my comments above and extrapolate.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. I am one of several "heavy" contributors to Terri Schiavo, and, while she didn't make Featured Article status, we have improved the article for readers on all sides of the issue, so it is not biased and rather accurate, if not a bit excessive. Also, on Jesus and related topics, I have contributed lightly.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A. Yes. (If you have no conflicts, it is mathematical proof that you're a dead corpse, lol.) On the talk page of Schiavo, I lamented the fact that a recent 4-3 concensus on a certain edit was later not honored, and I felt cheated. How I dealt with it? "This is just wiki, after all," but we still want to present to our readers articles with all major points of view explained. We should also help the editors feel welcome -even those with whom you disagree. Especially those people, who may be stressed or the sort. People are important.

and how will you deal with it in the future?

@@ Line 74: / Line 74: @@
 #'''Oppose'''. I really dont think that you are ready for this yet. Having an edit total of well over 2000, only about 200 distinct pages have been edited. Please get around more (edit at leas 1000 distinct pages), and come back in about a month, and you will have my support. I also, I concuer with [[User:Carbonite|Carbonite]] .</sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''[[User:Journalist|<span style="color:darkblue">Journalist]] '''</sup>''' [[Special:Contributions/Journalist|<sup><span style="color:lime">C.]]'''/ '''[[User talk:Journalist|<sup><span style="color:lightseagreen"> Holla @ me!]]</sup></span></span></span></p>
 #:<font color=000099>I may very well be ready now, but even if that is the case, I appreciate that you made your point without having to either insult or falsely characterize me. Thank you for your decorum, Journalist. The other editors above seem to have a problem, and if they keep this up, then this unpaid job of admin (not much higher than my current position in abilities and edit powers) will fall to one of them, but I will not be around to help -only "holler for help" as the saying goes; Some of the criticisms are valid: I am not perfect: However, I have made many more contributions to the grand scheme of things than many others. Pretty soon, I'll be taking my Geritol and whipping my old-man's cane, lol. Did these editors take a look at my Barnstars or "non-Schiavo" edits? I think not. Mind readers and clairvoyants, they are; they don't need to do these things. Adminship to them is not a matter of abilities, experience, or desire to benefit; it is a personality contest. Oh, well, that's what you get when you don't pay your help. That's my 2c worth; Not trying to be mean or anything, but how would ''you'' respond to all that above...?--[[User:GordonWattsDotCom|GordonWattsDotCom]] 16:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)</font>
+#Absolutely not. [[User:Andrevan|<b><font color="mediumblue">Andre</font></b>]] ([[User_talk:Andrevan|<font color=royalblue>talk</font>]]) 20:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 '''Neutral'''