User talk:GordonWatts

---- - Welcome to my page: - ----

---

• Archives

Current News: Name-change due in part to RfA

In my RfA (Request for Adminship), Uncle Ed agreed to support me if I dropped DotCom from user name --here and I agreed to his proposal. It looks more professional to be GordonWatts, than GordonWattsDotCom, so the user account was switched over.--GordonWatts 03:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

---

1. Archive 1:The approximately 66 kb archive of my first talk page.

1. Archive 2:The 2nd archive of my first talk page is of unknown length, since the edit dialogue doesn't tell me the KB length, but it appears smaller than the 66 kb 1st archive.

1. Archive 3:The 3rd archive of unknown length.

Gordon Watts in business suit. Click on this photo to enlarge. Please see my main "User page" for more photos. WELCOME TO MY PAGE.

Welcome to my talk page

Please be aware that I may -or may not -check my page for messages. Email is an alternate, but not totally reliable, method of contact. Of course, more conventional methods of communication also exist, such as telephone calls, U.S. postal mail, visits, FAX transmissions, and the like. To my global neighbors, thank you for visiting, even if we have some disagreements on occasion. Take care,

--GordonWattsDotCom 11:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

For additional contact data, please see User:GordonWattsDotCom#Contact_Info.--GordonWattsDotCom 19:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Just an fyi

Just an fyi on why I deleted your post to the talk page of the article about Jimmy... he specifically asks at the top of page that notes address to him go to his talk page. Not worry too much if he ignores your comment, he does that to a lot of people - there are a lot of disputes out there! Pcb21| Pete 09:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

No sweat -I just figured that two places get more exposure to the powers-that-be.--GordonWattsDotCom 10:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Continuation of Signpost discussion.

Regarding my name: Just a random concidence, I guess...I've had this username for at least 4 years before even coming to Wikipedia. Ral315 13:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

My Request for Adminship (RfA)

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/GordonWattsDotCom --GordonWattsDotCom 15:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Your RFA

Gordon, I will block you if you cause disruption at the RFA page. Don't change people's effort to format the page properly. My strong advice to you is to remove the nomination, but in any event, no more disruption, please. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The correct format is the way everyone else is doing it. Post underneath the comment you want to respond to with the numbers sign plus an indent like this #: However, I'd advise against this as it's considered bad form to do it as often as you're doing (in fact, it might be best not to do it at all), and also because a bureaucrat has removed the nomination. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

My suggestion is that you just stop my friend, you are hurting yourself more each time you reply on there. --Terry 17:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Since every user is, in theory, supposed to be mature enough to handle admin tools, and such, I did what I felt was right to help equip myself to better help the community; Yes, you're right, it isn't going well, but I'm not an admin or beaurocrat in charge of this, so I shall let them act as they see fit, and it shall be their right -and responsibility. I have done my part to contribute -I, however, can not do other peoples' jobs; I figured an experienced editors like myself with barn stars of recognition would be good enough -since that policy I've seen somewhere says "any" wikipedia should be mature enough, but obviously not. So, I will let the process do it's thing: I have done my part to contribute to my community. Thank you for your concern, Terry.--GordonWattsDotCom 17:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, you're reacting to people's criticisms of you in a very bad way. As I said on the RfA, they aren't making personal attacks, but rather criticizing you as a candidate. You opened yourself up to this criticism by making the nomination in the first place. It's considered poor form to rebut every single oppose vote. I strongly suggest withdrawing the nomination, Gordon. At this point it would take thirty-odd support votes for you to have a chance at getting promoted. Sorry it worked out like this. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

You've got my vote. patsw 02:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Thx.!--GordonWattsDotCom 02:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Truth, Verifiability, Age, And stress. Reverse order.

Thank you for your concern, but I'm not feeling any stress currently. I don't believe that you responded to the 15 year old adminstrator noting his age and your belief he was in high school, along with your age and your colledge education to clear the air. I don't believe anyone else does either. The key thing I was discussing with respect to Verfiability and Truth was your lack of adherence to Wikipedia:Verifiability. It dosen't matter if you're right - it matters if you can verify your statement. For instance - "GordonWatts is a really great guy" is not verifiable (neither is "GordonWatts is an evil man"), while "Lary King said that GordonWatts was a 'great guy' on 9/21/05," is.

I look forward to supporting a future RFA of yours. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Note to self: User name test:

Somehow the wiki-spirits have appeared to have granted me a more polite and less self-website-promoting user name: I'm signing to test it out.--GordonWatts 03:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I hope you like it: short but sweet. And good luck on your RFA. Uncle Ed 03:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

What to do next time.

The reason I have only 1.57 edits per page is because rather than specialize in one particular area, I try to help on janitorial work. This doesn't mean you have to quit doing work in the Terri Schiavo area, just make sure and do other work as well. User:Humanbot has a bunch of links on the right side of the page to active janitorial projects that you can work on. I also suggest voting on RFA's and AFD's, because this will get you a little more familiar with a lot of the community. Also, you need to perhaps tone down your attitude- I think this was where many users were worried. It's natural to be angry when people vote against you in a FAC or an RFA, but you need to remember to keep your cool, because angry responses seem to give other voters a reason to vote against you. Lastly, and this is important, realize that Terri Schiavo will probably not hit Featured Article status for a while. Work on stopping the edit wars completely, and then maybe renominate in 3-6 months. Good luck. Ral315 14:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Thx for the detailed feedback, Ral. Whether or not I have time to "wiki," much, your suggestions are good.--GordonWatts 02:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I might support you on your RfA, so I'm allowed to ask a question

You might of said why on your userpage, but I'm just wondering why you cared about what happened to Terri Schiavo? She's just a person, so what if what happened to her, happened to her. Her family should of let her go, she was pretty much gone. If this happened to my loved one I'd let her go, because she shouldn't have to suffer after what has happened to her. And you protested or I believe that's what you said, you have no right to protest to save someone you don't know, or actually care about. You think from "hearing her story" that you know it all and then you can care? It's not mean but actually I might not support your RfA if you give me some answer composed completely of bull shi'ite. The Fascist Chicken 19:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

"I might support you on your RfA, so I'm allowed to ask a question" -You can ask a question no matter what, but your fair open-mindedness is more reason for me to try to answer your concerns. " You might of said why on your userpage, but I'm just wondering why you cared about what happened to Terri Schiavo? She's just a person, so what if what happened to her, happened to her." Many people see her as an example or precedent: "Will they do that to me if I am unable to speak?" You see, maybe she was PVA and braid-dead and such, but a quick visit to places like http://gordonwatts.com/ConversationWithTerri.wmv or http://hometown.aol.com/GordonWWatts/myhomepage/ConversationWithTerri.wmv (an over-worked mirror site) show her moving around and looking around and such. My point? Many people like Kate Adamson and Rus Cooper-Dowda were labeled "PVS" and treated to a "no food -no water" diet for like a week or more, and came out of it mad as hell. We often wonder if they will do it to us? Please note that while I am not as "experienced" as some editors, the guidelines say that any editor in good standing should be able to have the "admin" tools, and I think this is because admin tools don't give you much more "power" or anything: I am involved in many controversial pages (Jesus, Christianity, Terri Schiavo, Abortion, etc.) and NEVER have gotten blocked, etc. I'm not perfect, but I've shown I'm trusted in editor things, so I made these points in my recent updated to my RfA page. "Her family should of let her go, she was pretty much gone." Well, I agree that a feeding tube for these people like Terri would sometimes be "invasive" and they should just let her be -but, they didn't merely deny her a feeding tube -they also denied her regular food and water, which at least one nurse said she had eaten like Jello-O and light foods before. My point? It is a felony to deprive handicapped and elderly of food and water here in Florida, so I see your point on letting her be (I don't like feeding tubes -except as temporary measures like a cast for a broken arm) --but when the judge wouldn't even let them see if she could eat and drink light foods, it showed me the reigning government had acquiesced to the husband's request to avoid the handicapped care like hand-feeding. Now, I see that any person who can't feed themselves might be better off dead, but if that is so, we should have just up and kill Christopher Reeves (Superman actor) and should kill Dr. Stephen Hawking, the famous astrophysicist that uses a wheelchair and can't move anything but one hand to use a computer voice. One point? Even if I disagree with you on the way they treat crippled people, that is not a requirement of admins, but I trust you might agree anyhow on why people tried to help Terri. I do admit that when it comes time to die, we all go, and it would be hard to treat her if they had let us try. "You think from "hearing her story" that you know it all and then you can care?" Let me ask you this question: Suppose you see a crippled dog, and someone tells you that it can't eat (but someone else tells you it can and has eaten simple foods -say, it can't chew well) -now, would you be OK with them just slowly, painfully starving the dog to death? Maybe it really is unable to eat, but what if they refuse to even try? Also, maybe the dog can't feel pain. You don't know the dog --you've never met the dog --but you still speak up if they torture a dog with starvation (slow & painful) that may possibly be able to eat and drink and maybe, just maybe feel pain --OK? But how do we know? We really don't. I say, maybe she is brain-dead and those times she looked around were merely "reaction," but we don’t know. I say try to feed them, and if they live, then they live. If they die, they die, but the cowards didn't even try. Now, again, you can vote any way you want, but a person's political and religious views are not a qualification for Admin. Does the person try to work with others who disagree with him. Has he been blocked, banned, etc.? It looks like my old screen name http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:GordonWattsDotCom was blocked permanently because Uncle Ed convinced me "GordonWattsDotCom" was too self-promoting, but this was voluntary; I was not blocked for doing something wrong; I ASKED for this old screen name to be blocked. Now, my new screen name GordonWatts, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:GordonWatts has NEVER been blocked, and besides the name change, my old one was never blocked; I'm not perfect, but I know wiki things and am respectful, so, by the standard that Jimbo set down (see my Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/GordonWatts points at the top here), I am more than qualified; an admin is just an editor with a few tools. It's not like I can fire people or shut the site down, lol. Anyhow... Thx for your concern. I hope I've answered your questions. Did I do well on that RfA in answering others' questions? Was I respectful?--GordonWatts 02:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

RFA comments

Gordon, I have a few thoughts about your RFA.

First, I am pleased that you have managed to maintain a civil demeanour in the face of criticism. I've seen some RFAs that have turned very ugly and resulted in a lot of hurt feelings all around, and I congratulate you for not letting yours turn into another of those.

Still, in reading your comments on the RFA, there are a few things I feel should be mentioned. Foremost is the description at Wikipedia:Administrator. While you have gleaned from that page Jimbo's quote about adminship being "no big deal", you should also take note the immediately preceding paragraph, which states that "...standards have become harder in practice." While we all bear in mind Jimbo's statement, it is worth remembering that it was made when Wikipedia was a much smaller and more casual place. A couple of years ago, adminship was granted to anyone who made a request on the mailing list that didn't meet with strong opposition.

In your reply to Grace Note's comments, you say

"Many have not read this page since I updated it with clarification points at the top -and they admit they've voted without the benefit of getting to know the person and/or the facts."

Of Carnildo, you ask

" Did you actually read this entire page here, with the votes, answers, and replies?"

Those types of remark almost never helps a request for adminship. For one thing, some people would read them as a failure to assume good faith: one of Wikipedia's most important guidelines. For another, a lot of editors add RFAs on which they have voted to their personal watchlists. A lack of new comments doesn't mean that they haven't read your remarks.

A bit of advice—while it is certainly within your rights to post a response or counterargument to nearly every vote on your RFA, it's not really recommended. Particularly when several editors raise similar concerns, one reply is sufficient. If editors continue to raise the same issues following your response, it's usually safe to assume that they have seen your response but have not been persuaded.

Right now I count at least eleven administrators who have weighed in on your adminship request. In most cases, they should be reasonably familiar with the demands of the job and its responsibilities, and also with Wikipedia policy. Their suggestions can be a great resource for you; take advantage of it! Spend more time on non-Terri Schiavo topics, follow pages like the Administrator's noticeboard, watch RFA itself to get a feel for how nominations proceed, and in general try to get a better feel for how the whole wiki works.

I would urge you to chalk this one up to experience, and consider reapplying for adminship in three or four months when you have a greater breadth of wiki experience. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Re: your comments above, here and at: [1] --here is a Cc repost of my reply on your page:

Thank you for your detailed replied on both my talk page and here, 10 of All Trades; First, regarding concensus, yes, it was a rather hastily passed concensus with an eventual 4-3 vote, close and not a "clear concensus," but you must remember that that was SEVEN editors in total weighing in on one small (but apparently important) paragraph on one single page -not some "wiki-wide" policy; so, seven editors will just have to do, and I won the vote. I did not get down on that one guy who came in late and changed the vote count from 4-2 to 4-3, but I still won that vote, and yet the concensus (slim, admittedly) was later violated, and the traditional intro chunked!

"Incidentally, why do you want admin privileges?" Simply to be able to augment and extend my current ability to help my community; I am not perfect or super-Gordon, but I have not violated the trust and gotten barred, blocked, etc., -even in VERY contentious, divisive pages, like Schiavo, Abortion, Jesus, Christianity, etc. Yes, most (or all) of the recent RfA applicants have many more edits than I do, but I am a seasoned veteran. Yes, I’ve concentrated on Schiavo, but with over 200 distinct pages edited, I'm not "myopically" near-sighted on Schiavo as some have seen. Plus, I have not edited on more article than the some-odd-200 because I have "Real life" concerns, and that should also count for something as far as "diversity" goes. Your answer to question 1 on the RfA is pretty thin: "See my comments above and extrapolate." I admit that I could have looked on the little list and started ticking off more tools (like block, protect, or whatever), but the point is that I would use the tools in the same way you'd use extra power tools (screwdriver, saws, hammers, nails, etc) -to improve things. I'm sorry that I didn't name off a long list, but intentions are more important to me than wasting my time looking for all the right "key words." My work in the past, by most standards, has improved Wikipedia --AND done so in controversial areas WITHOUT AND disciplinary action -when others fall like flies.

From my page, you mention you should also take note the immediately preceding paragraph, which states that "...standards have become harder in practice." -yes, I saw that: I simply applied Occam's Razor and did not mention this unrelated matter. Unless and until the policy "officially" changes (which supercedes that "unwritten rule" caca), I stand by my assertion that I am qualified.

Re you concern of Good Faith: I assume good faith -but I am not stupid: When I see remarks like some of those, I also assume laziness and "going with the crowd" mentality. Humans can be quite creatures of "take the shortest path" habit.

Regarding the other admins' comments: Yes, I'm thankful for these resources -as far as chalking it up for experience; yes, but I'm not the only one who needs to learn a few lessons: Others so casually toss aside clear policy in favour of laziness and going with the crowd; allowing this trend to continue in the past has been instrumental in alienating and offending MANY users who have left in disgust: It is time for that to stop.--GordonWatts 05:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales appeal

In your lawyer-like brief (and believe me, that's not intended as a compliment in this case) to Jimbo essentially demanding that you be granted an adminship, you quote a relevent portion of the policy,

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.

Focus on the highlighted portion: the fact that the vote stands at 3-17-3 against should tell you the obvious: an overwhelming number of editors do NOT believe you to be generally a known and trusted member of the community. Arguing every step of the way (and though you claim it's civil, it's still arguing), attempting to go over the heads of the community making the decision, and relying upon quasi-legal interpretations isn't helping yourself in the least. Changing people's minds by your actions to allay their concerns is what you need to do. No one is entitled to the job of Adminstrator, and behaving as if you do will get you nowhere. --Calton | Talk 07:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I did my part by contributing in highly-contentious areas of Wikipedia (e.g. Abortion Schiavo Jesus Christianity etc), and all this without having been disciplined, and indeed with many barn stars to boot. So your claims about is generally a known and trusted member of the community. are without merit. Yes, silence from me might help people feel better --in the short run however, it would be treating the symptom and not the problem that got us here; Since I have demonstrated in this short paragraph that I was indeed a user in good standing when entering the RfA (and still am, I suppose), then the blame must, of necessity, lie elsewhere. Thus, my silence would only compound the problem by allowing this to recur: How many other users are they going to run off, causing them to leave in disgust?! This all must stop. I've done my part, but responsibility also lies with every user. Read between the lines. Thx.--GordonWatts 08:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Your RfA

Hi Gordon, given the voting pattern, your RfA had no chance of succeeding, so a bureaucrat removed your nomination from the main page, and I've closed the voting page and added your name to the archives. I'm sorry you're going through this, but I hope you'll take it as just one of the many frustrations we all experience on the wiki. It's best not to keep posting about it, and the appeal to Jimbo really isn't a good idea. We're expected to pick ourselves up after these disappointments and carry on regardless. Please don't post again on the closed RfA page, as it's now an archive, but feel free to contact me on my talk page or by e-mail if you'd like to talk about it. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, and the good night's sleep is the right thing to do. Please don't post on that page again. Let the bureaucrats handle it now, and please wait until you've heard from one of them before taking any further action. Goodnight. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, current policy is to grand adminship to known and trusted members of the community. Your appeal to me seems to be an attempt to convince me that you are worthy of adminship; however, that's not my decision. I promote users only based on community consensus, and 3-17-3 is far short of this mark.

As for reopening your nomination - if you don't mind the "ill will", I'll replace it on the RFA page and adjust the closing time; the premature removal policy is really intended to protect the nominee from undue stress, and if you don't care, then it doesn't apply. — Dan | Talk 15:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)