User talk:GordonWatts/Archive04

• DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
• DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
• DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

• This archive page covers approximately the dates between September 13, 2005 and September 22, 2005, a small, but active eight-day period. Wow.

• Post replies to the main talk page, copying and pasting the section to which you are replying, if necessary. To post a reply, you merely click on the appropriate 'Edit' tab, and then you type in your comments and click on 'Save page' -unless, of course, you want to preview it first, in which case you would click on 'Show preview'. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

• Please add new archivals to User_talk:GordonWattsDotCom/Archive05. Thank you.--GordonWatts 10:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

---

NOTICE: I may be taking a "Wiki-break," because I am spending too much time online currently and too little in "real-life" responsibilities and rights. However, before I go, if anybody is concerned whether I am mad at you for any recent disagreement or misunderstanding, let me assure you, I am not mad, and wish you the best. If you post a message to my page, I may or may not see it. If you really need to get in touch with me, then search the archives or history and see my contact information, which has the likes of my name, address, phone number, and email address. Thank you for all the feedback I have received of recent relating to my Featured Article and Requests for Admin nominations and related matters. (PS: I may hang around on a WikiGnome basis to try and tweak things.)--GordonWatts 13:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

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

---

Press Release: Attempts to identify concensus meeting with opposition

Several people have recently told me that I should follow concensus, the "holy grail" of Wikipedia. They won me over:

I'm seeking to ascertain and identify what is current concensus on some policy that many seem to think needs to be changed -based on recent actions in contravention of policy: Featured Article policy and RfA policy, but people just want to run their mouths -instead of helping define what exactly the current concensus is, so I can know what policy is supported, and what policy is ignored as "outdated."--GordonWatts 17:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC) (Update: That situation has calmed down, and is not an issue now.)

Press Release: My concerns re RfA were not allowed to be posted publicly

• "If the rights of one are violated, the rights of all are at risk" --Thomas Paine [1]

Taxman, an admin, told me here that "The much better way to handle the issue if you think there is a serious problem in the way the RFA policy is handled would be to let your RFA stay removed then bring the issue up on the RFA talk page and point to that discussion from relevant other places," which presumably include this page here.

Some of you recall my recent "failed" RfA applicant, and my concerns are surely specific to myself, but my attempt to discuss my concerns was opposed: Admins at the talk page of my RfA, Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/GordonWatts, locked both the RfA (vote closed) --and its talk page! (Their excuse that my problems were only "general" did not have merit: My problems, while they surely affect a "general" wide range of users, were also specific to me as well, but they were afraid to have that material posted, and I did not have unblock magic.)

So, since these are "system-wide" problems that affect loads of persons, here are the locations where discussion is currently held:

• Main page: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Some_general_RfA_Problems:_Taxman_said_this_was_the_page_for_it

• Misc. Discussions: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales

• User_talk:GordonWatts/RfA (Backup, in case someone tampers with links above -plus I've saved a copy on my computer, in case some deletionist Admin trots into town.)

--GordonWatts 22:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

---

Archives

1. Archive 1:The approximately 66 kb archive of my first talk page.
2. 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.
3. 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)

Thank you for answering the question and answering it well. I apologize, for sounding mean or bias in anyway towards you. You seem to be a good user, and I will support you, your political beliefs and what not didn't matter to me. But how you defended your beliefs (which was well done), was what I was looking for. Because if I want to vote for an admin who has and tells their beliefs, then I want them to be able to defend their beliefs and accept other sides of people's point of view. Just remember to keep your pov out of the Wikipedia articles. Also I believe they shouldn't of made her suffer by starving her, because no person deserves that even if they can't feel it. I think they should of did what I would of done with that dog, I would of let them not starve the dog, but just put the dog to sleep. They should of done the same to Terri Schiavo, because once again, if I was like that, I would refuse to be left alive or be starved because I couldn't live like that, but they didn't know what to do because it's not like she knew it would happen and told what she would want. In fact if you want to since I did this to you, you can question me on anything, if you feel like it, since I may of angered you in some way by asking about what you believe in. The Fascist Chicken 18:25, 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: [2] --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)

Calton, 3-17-3 means nothing and just demonstrates the basic flaw with Wikipedia. 3+17+3=23 users. Wikipedia is not composed of only 23 editors and there is a high probability that some or maybe most of the 17 have been informed or organized to vote against. 3 idiots builds enough consensus to shut out 1 scholar. And this is Jimbo Wales formula? LOL --AI 23:25, 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)

Sir, when I do not list a reason on RFA oppose votes, it is only in one of the following two cases: a) I do not wish to offend, but feel I cannot help but do so. (I am trying to eliminate this after a number of editors I respect expressed their disapproval of it.) b) The reasons for opposing are obvious and already explained by other voters. Your RFA falls squarely into the b) column. I did not have to read the entire RFA page to oppose your request; I merely had to read your interaction with the excellent contributor & admin Ral315, as well as your comment about a "4-3 consensus," to know that you should certainly not be an admin, by any means. Andre (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Let me make my position entirely clear.

Yes, RfA may need to be amended and discussed, to refine it. But not because you were voted down against policy - that I don't agree with. You were voted down because you simply did not have the trust of those that voted, and on top of that, you continued to push and rules lawyer, further eroding that trust. There was no violation of policy in that respect, and please do not misunderstand or characterize my position as supporting that view of things. I completely stand by my "oppose" vote as well as the reasons behind other "oppose" votes. Just so there's no doubt about where I stand. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments from Ann

Sorry, Gordon. I'm glad others voted for you. I hope you'll stay around. I could conceivably support you next time if you:

• don't renominate yourself for at least nine months;
• try to make your edit summaries like those of any admin;
• stop posting things on Jimbo's talk page, especially anything resembling a request for his intervention (which you almost certainly will not get);
• don't report any violations of policy, ask for page protection, or file any RfCs without getting at least two other Wikipedians to agree that it's a good idea beforehand;
• don't try to add links to your own site (see a comment – especially second last paragraph – from another user whom I definitely would support if he ever went forward [3]);
• don't tell people that you are "unequivocably right" [4] – even if you are, it will make a bad impression;
• don't keep correcting other users' spelling mistakes on talk pages – it may annoy them;
• don't post long comments analysing other people's disputes or behaviour [5], and don't ask people what they think of your contributions [6] when several others have made contributions. Stick to the topic of how to get a good article;
• start editing some non-controversial articles, to show that you're not here just because of your strong personal feelings about the Terri Schiavo case. Try anything that interests you – Vitamin C, milk, hedgehogs, anything, but just try to get your "average edits per page" down. (I've recently made about twenty small edits to articles about Agatha Christie and her books, and it's fun. It can get too intense at the Terri Schiavo page, and that's not healthy.)

There's no reason why Gordon-the-editor should follow any of the above points; I believe there are many reasons why Gordon-the-would-be-admin should try to do so.

Gordon, I'm really sorry that this is working out so badly, and I'm sorry if by awarding you a barnstar for the trouble you took in photographing Terri Schiavo's grave I gave you the false impression that I would be likely to support a request for adminship. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 00:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

What The Fascist Chicken Thinks

"In fact if you want to since I did this to you, you can question me on anything, if you feel like it," Thx, and I will, if I get curious, but you already stated your views on Terri Schiavo; Well, OK: One question: What would be the right thing to do in my situation? (I mean, yes, I want additional powers that an admin gets, since I feel I have well earned this according to the standards set down, but this affects other people.) Since I think that it's wrong for other editors to raise the standard when this is not actual policy, I think this will tick off new users and run them off; For example, some have suggested that since I didn't know the "unwritten rules," then maybe I needed more time to prove myself --I think that if the "unwritten rules" are different than the "actual policy rules," then maybe the "unwritten rules" are bunk and need to be tossed; So, I am saying that I am standing on principle to help other people feel welcome and not abused, like many do. In my letter to Jimbo, I do not simply say: "Install me as admin; I'm right." (Some have big time misquoted me here; Can't they read, lol?) Contra, I told him that I think that either the rules should be followed, or the rules changed, to raise the standard: You see, admin-ship used to simply be giving a good employee a few extra tools, like a flashlight, cell phone, and map, if he/she is going on a trip; Nowadays, however, it is an inside clique, and while many "no" votes were polite and well-meaning, the overall effect is that it's a political football, and insider's clique -the "in-crowd" thing, and I don't like it. Then, people following the crowd, and oftentimes unwilling to admit when they've made a mistake, complicates that already tangled web we weave. Well, initially, I just wanted a few extra tools, but now, seeing the abuse, I want to make it right for other people to be treated according to the rules, not just any way with a little crowd controlling the gateway based upon their feelings. So, how should I proceed? I have been given permission to try again, and I think it might help change things. What do you think? Thank you, Quentin "Fascist Chicken" Pierce, in advance. "...since I may of angered you in some way by asking about what you believe in. The Fascist Chicken 18:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)" No problemo; you didn't anger me; I don't have 20-forevers to be online, as this is a NOT paying job, but I don't mind a question, from anyone anyplace anytime (even strange enemies and such), and hope I can clarify if possible.--GordonWatts 02:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Before I tell you what I think you should do let me tell you something. I thought when I first heard about you, that you were just some nutjob trying to push his own agenda. But from what I've read you do really care about this project and you just want everything to be right and you want to not be "discriminated" against for your political beliefs and what articles you choose to work on. I understand that you just wanted tools at first, that's why I want to be an admin, which I'll try to be, most likely in October. But from what you said whenever I become an admin I would like to help you in trying to change things. I think you should try to be an admin again, and explain to them that you want all people to be treated according to the rules of wikipedia, and not just how some group that abuses their power control who gets treated like what. This is also apart of my political beliefs. I am not a racist fascist where I put one race or anything above another. I believe that all should be treated alike no matter what they think, they should just be allowed to make wikipedia the best encyclopedia possible, instead of all these people trying to have "unwritten rules", and make up laws that aren't the original laws or rules of wikipedia. I don't understand all these "unwritten rules" and what not. I am a good editor (I think) but I get no recognition, but others get called "trollslayers" and what not, I'm busting my ass deleting nonsense pages, and I get nothing for it. So I think you should try again, and work hard to gain support, then work even harder to change things for the better. Also if you have a religion where you pray or something (if you have a religion at all, I do not, because I just don't understand them enough to have one), I would like to ask you to pray for me some, because I'm fighting a crystal meth addiction, and its hard. So go ahead Mr. Watts, go for the gold (by gold I mean admin-ship), make me proud Mr. Watts. I have to say, if I would have any "wikifriends", it would be you. I respect your beliefs, and you're just a nice person, I think its a great point in my life that I know you. I hope that answered your questions, if it didn't then I'm sorry, I thought I did. The Fascist Chicken 02:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

My answer:

http://geocities.com/Gordon_Watts32313/Passion.html (the GEO-Cities link -better of the 2 mirrors -click this one)

http://hometown.aol.com/Gww1210/myhomepage/Passion.html (if GeoC. is busy or down)

Yes. I will pray and ask God to help you, but God will hear you as well; He went to a lot of trouble, making, repairing, sending a test-driver (see links for details) -and the human body works. Thank you for being a good neighbor and doing your best to look at the facts -instead of just "following the crowd." I may not be ready to be an admin, but this decision is best made after looking at more than just 1 or 2 isolated posts -especially when people don't know me. Thank you for being a good neighbor. I hope to do my part when the RfA opens up again this week -win or lose -and I hope to make it better for the next guy (or gal) that comes after me.--GordonWatts 03:26, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I have a question about God and Jesus. Don't they sound like a little fake to you? I mean it all just sounds cult like to me, would you care to explain just your beliefs about God and Jesus. It's all just very confusing to me, I don't know why but I've just never "gotten" religion, you can explain to me whenever I'm not in like a huge rush, so take your time, if you want to answer. Because if you don't thats fine. The Fascist Chicken 03:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

"Don't they sound like a little fake to you?" Well, they did when I was a kid, but after hearing of all those poor blokes dying -and being revived and telling us about near death experiences, I have a different take; A few of them go to hell and come back -scared as h---. Most who die and return to talk about it (you know, revived by the doctor after being "technically dead") -most of them go to heaven --and a few go visit other place, like their home -or another room in the hospital --and can tell people what happened when they were dead on the operating table In other words, they tell people what their family did, or how something happened in a nextdoor hospital room, which would be imposible if they were just dead or knocked out. --Yeah, God is real. If even we can't create life from scratch, how'd it get here all by itself? (given enough time, all life would die, like a car sitting out in the sun, so eventually there was a dead universe, but how'd it get alive like it is now --all by itself? Even we humans with technology and DNA from both dead dinosaurs and live toad frogs can't pull off a Jurassic Park and make an extinct species! So, if even technologically smart humans (with DNA to play with) can't make a dinosaur, how'd it get here on its own? PS: I posted that link with its mirror in case the link is slow; That answers a lot of your questions. If that's not sufficient, my phone number is 863-688-9880 -and anyone's welcome to call -like I posted it on my User page -on the front of this page; and I can talk while online. your beliefs about God and Jesus -they're in depth explained at that link above -if it doesn’t answer all your questions, ask for clarification, and I'll do my best to explain. (The Geocities page looks the same, but that mirror is more developed; I'd hit GeoC 1st.) See the link above, and print it out, if you have the paper: Also, if it might be helpful to the average Joe, I researched how some relationships work better than others -and why:

http://geocities.com/Gordon_Watts32313/love.html

mirror: http://gordon_watts.tripod.com/love.html

Yeah, there's cool music on all my pages, so turn up the speakers. I hope these are helpful.--GordonWatts 04:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Your RfA

Gordon, I am saying this to you now in the hope that you will see some sense. I remind you that Wikipedia is run by consensus. There is clearly not going to be consensus for your promotion. Therefore it is prudent and acceptable for it to be removed. You haven't got some kind of democratic right to keep your nomination going ad nauseam. Any poll on Wikipedia where there is no chance of consensus for an action should be stopped. This is for the good of you, but primarily for the good of the encyclopaedia. To be honest, I think Rdsmith4 was mistaken in restoring your nomination. I remind you again that Wikipedia is run by consensus, not petty rules-lawyering.

And I also suggest that, in future, you tone down your stringent self-defence. I might have considered voting for you. However, your rudeness and aggression clearly showed to me that you have not got the temperament to be an admin.

I say this not out of malice but out of the hope that you are capable of recognising the will of the community.

[[Sam Korn]] 11:26, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

"There is clearly not going to be consensus for your promotion." Well, it's looking "mathematically bad," but you never know -if I get a fair hearing. After all, there are about 10,000 Wikipedians, right? What's 20 or 30 here or there? "I remind you that Wikipedia is run by consensus." Yes, but with a vote close prematurely -no matter how you think it would have turned out --that is not true concensus. Let there be one week of concensus -and then I will accept a final vote. "Therefore it is prudent and acceptable for it to be removed." That assumes I will lose, but Bill Clinton was behind former Pres. George H.W. Bush, Sr., and all looked hopeless, yet he didn't lose? He also didn't quit, which was important. Ross Perot, who also ran for President in our country was ahead, but he quit. This is silly: Letting my RfA run this week will not harm anything, but not letting it run will allow the ill will and abuse continue as it has in the past RfA's, and that is not good. You haven't got some kind of democratic right to keep your nomination going ad nauseam. No, but I do have a moral (and policy now) right for it to go this week, and I wish it to go to clear the air. "This is for the good of you, but primarily for the good of the encyclopaedia." No: If people can't handle this, then they don't need to be here at Wikipedia: No one is forcing other users to vote or participate and somehow get ill will. "However, your rudeness..." You are mistaken: Not only have I tried to be polite, I have also succeeded: "Gordon, I have a few thoughts about your RFA...First, I am pleased that you have managed to maintain a civil demeanor in the face of criticism. I've seen some RfA’s 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...TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)" "I say this not out of malice but out of the hope that you are capable of recognising the will of the community." If the community want my respect, then they will have to earn it; I admit when I am wrong, for example, I lost my temper and called one user a "hypocrite" because he appeared to criticise me for using a textbook definition of some word in one of my edits, but I apologised and admitted I was wrong; However, apparently others, who simply follow the crowd, don't want to admit they are wrong when they claim that an Admin position requires a certain number of edits per page and all kinds of requirements.

Please also note that I have been misquoted numerous times, and people are criticising me for things that admins do -yet they don't seek to remove the admins for being as argumentive as I am. I understand the you don't like a person who argues, but, what if I'm correct in my main claims: Question 1: Would it be right for me to remain silent? Think about that, and then answer me at your leisure.

Think also about this: Question 2: Why did the people who know me support me a lot more? Maybe thay trust me and don't just look at "edit numbers" or "concentrating on Schiavo?"

Question 3: Is the majority always right?

Question 4: Since Wikipedians are not forced to read a page such as my RfA, then how would it harm them to let it remain posted for this week?--GordonWatts 11:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Last Question: #5:Did you actually read through the abuse that was directed to me -and read my responses in my RfA?--GordonWatts 12:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

This is exactly what I mean by being rude. You seem to think that you have a monopoly on correctness in this issue. Every time someone says something against you—even when, like me, they were attempting to be helpful—they get this kind of response. It may be civil (as in, not "you fucking tosser, you opposed me", but it is still very impolite. If you could accept where people have different opinions to you, things would be easier and more pleasant. I shall briefly answer your questions, as you asked me to. 1. You don't have constitutional or unalienable rights on Wikipedia. As you seem to be a strong Christian (as am I), I shall remind you of Luke 6:29, "If a man strike you on one cheek, offer him the other also." There is no need to respond with essays to every oppose vote you receive. It alienates people further. 2. Perhaps they had seen a different side of you to the side that came across in the RfA. I see you have made good edits. Clearly some users think you have done good work. But going on the contents of the RfA, I couldn't support you. Admins should be good users who can be relied upon to be unfailingly polite. Sometimes they do fail. That doesn't mean we should promote someone who has already been aggressive and unpleasant. 3. No, obviously not. But Wikipedia is run by the community, not by fiat from a dictator. So live with it. 4. On a purely practical level, it would slow down the loading time of an RfA. On a more general level, why keep something for no more purpose than arguing? 5. Yes. I would not have come to comment otherwise. And yes, it was really unpleasant reading. I hope you realise I am trying to be helpful. [[Sam Korn]] 17:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Best of luck! I can see you are a very good editor, and a good person. I hope you succeed in future. Yours, [[Sam Korn]] 11:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm human, but I try; Thx, and have a good one.--GordonWatts 11:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Wiki-break

Hi, I've decided to take a wiki-break, so I can just think about my life, like my beliefs and just getting my life back together. I bought a bible, and I'm going to read it, and think about it. If I'm allowed my account will be used by my brother for however long it takes. You've been a good friend, I'll tell you when I'm leaving so you can say goodbye if you want to. The Fascist Chicken 21:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Listen, thank you for stopping by to let me have a heads up.

Do visit this link:

BEST link: ~-> http://geocities.com/gordon_watts32313/Passion.html <-~

Or if it's not working: http://hometown.aol.com/gww1210/myhomepage/Passion.html

And check this out: I was going to ask you to simply print it out (it would be about 12 pages), but the print preview showed me that it would clip off the edged of the right side, like taking scissors to the edge of the paper and removing about 1/2 and inch:

So, I would ask, for your reading purposes, that you copy and paste that entire thing into say, Microsoft Word:

"Paste Special" --Paste as "Unformatted Text" -and then print it out for review -that will answer many of your religious questions. You might also save it to your desktop as either Web Page Archive (*.mht file) or Web Page Complete (*.html), and it has background music. Please let me know if I did a good job researching appropriate facts and explaining them.

--GordonWatts 10:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Post on my (Blackcap's) talk page

Replied there. --Blackcap | talk 23:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Please stop

Gordon, please stop posting to the RfA page. You're doing yourself no good. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: your RfA and double standards

I don't know why the page was protected, but I didn't notice it when I posted - sorry. Wikipedia namespace discussion/poll pages aren't usually protected.
As for those revert wars, they would not be grounds to deny someone adminship, nor are they very serious. Revert wars are discouraged but not outright banned. By bringing them up and claiming they show a double standard, you merely highlight your own insuitability for adminship.
What a sysop is can be discovered by merely reading the admin's reading list. Did you, in fact, read it? Andre (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

"By bringing them up and claiming they show a double standard, you merely highlight your own insuitability for adminship." I don't see how: I'm not saying that revert wars are right, and trying to make an excuse to make mistakes myself; I try to avoid revert wars unless absolutely necessary to ensure accuracy or quality for our readers. "What a sysop is can be discovered by merely reading the admin's reading list. Did you, in fact, read it?" Dude. Of course I did, but I didn't study it with the same scrutiny as one who is going to take a test, and you know why? In the past, I've prioritized and not wasted time on the petty details, and it has served me well as an editor, as a student, and in life, so why change now? Detail is good, but not for every little thing; I get the big picture: I try to use my current (and very powerful) editor tools to help out my community -with great success, I might add -even if I don't have as much time to devote to it as some. Is this not the same theme for an Admin?--GordonWatts 10:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Look, Gordon. I don't think you're a bad guy, but you clearly don't understand that adminship is a grant from the community. By arguing against the community's clear wishes, you are slowly but surely dooming your future chances. Nobody likes "rules-lawyering" about admin & bureaucrat nominations -- I learned this myself the hard way about a year ago. Andre (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, there is some merit to "rules-lawyering" if it helps the next guy; All this will blow over. Oh, thanks for the cool red-border idea on your page; I borrowed the border idea for my page.--GordonWatts 14:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Be all of this as it may, no one is entitled to be an administrator. We need some people to do these tasks; we try to choose uncontroversial nominees with broad support. I wasn't involved in this particular process, but there is really never a case to be made that controversy is inappropriate. Controversy is controversy, one cannot wish it away. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

It looks like you initially tell me that I should feel entitled or expecting of Adminship, but at the same time others should not call my actions inappropriate merely because there is controversy: You appear to be correct on both counts. Was that your intended message?--GordonWatts 10:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I've had no previous dealings with you, but your apparent misunderstanding of what I just wrote tells me that people were almost certainly correct to decide that you would not be a good administrator. Sorry, but that's how it is. Let me try to be even clearer about what I wrote before, though I do not think it was particularly unclear.

You are not entitled to be an administrator. No one is. The position is one of service to the community. It goes to people who the community at large judges will do the job well. Those members of the community who participated in the decision did not judge that you would do the job well. End of story. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

"...but your apparent misunderstanding of what I just wrote tells me that people were almost certainly correct to decide that you would not be a good administrator." Oh? Let's let the reader determine if he/she can understand your post above -better than I did here, when responding on your talk page -but all the same, thank you for clarifying.--GordonWatts 10:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

---

"If the rights of one are violated, the rights of all are at risk" --Thomas Paine [7]

---

Re:Thank you for suggestions; I have thoughts too. - move the discussion here

I know you have told me you would prefer not to have messages on your talk page (presumably to keep it clean and reduce your eye strain -I don't blame you!).

Yes, so I have moved it back to yours. Please respect that. - Taxman ^Talk 13:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

However, I wanted to acknowledge and comment on your post here at 14:56, 17 September 2005, in my RfA.

You posted to the page when it was locked ("vote closed" type of thing), inadvertently using your Admin powers, but I couldn’t even post to the talk page: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/GordonWatts. It was locked too! (Someone doesn't think I should be able to voice my concerns over my RfA, and a sorry excuse was given: My "general" concerns didn't belong there. They were also my own concerns, so duh they where else would they belong. (Leave it to Wikipedia to silence it's critics, Communist, Anti-1st-Amendment style.)

The page was not locked when I responded. I only saw that it was uprotected by Slimvirgin. I did not get the "This page is protected, please make sure you are following the protect page guidelines when editing" message that admins get on protected pages. I do not know why, as the logs say it was protected at that time. I would not edit a protected page to get my words in when others couldn't. In any case, you do now have places to make your voice heard. The page was protected to keep you from re-adding the nomination from what I can tell. Supressing conversation is never good, but you have to reallize you have created a very charged atmosphere with a lot of ill will. There's bound to be some fallout from that. - Taxman ^Talk 13:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Anyhow, first, I wanted to thank you for suggesting I "bring the issue up on the RFA talk page and point to that discussion from relevant other places." (I was going to do that, in addition to posting in my RfA. (While I was illustrating a point, I wasn't disrupting the Wiki to illustrate the point; I was merely trying to get my fair week, win, lose, or draw, and anyone that equates my little page to "disruption" is sensitive.

No offense, but you were. Restoring the nom after many people disagreed is disruptive. This is a case of even if you are in the right, conceding and having the discussion elsewhere would have gotten you more practical results. - Taxman ^Talk 13:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Now, when no less than seven Admins and Bureaucrats had a prolonged edit war here on the Main Page, no less, I don't see why they were criticized and scrutinized less than me, an RfA applicant: Thet were more "disruptive," since at least 1 or 2 were in the wrong (all versions could not be correct), so why am I described as argumentive, for possibly minor whatever’s, while they are allowed to be Admins, Bureaucrats, etc.?

Double Standard? "you have disrupted Wikipedia by constantly replacing the nomination," Maybe it was removed improperly, and replaced by me with permission of Dan, a Bureaucrat. "and arguing incessantly" Maybe others argued with me first? Your suggestion to use the talk page is good, and maybe I used "concensus" when "slim vote" was a better term, but these are minor compared to the baloney that many Admins do occasionally; I am above most of that, so I don't think we "little people" should be treated differentially; These things are what causes many an editor to quit Wikipedia.

Referrring to "others did much worse than I" is of course very poor argumentative technique and as you well know if of course not a valid legal defense. What you did Stands on its own. Now of course what others do should be addressed too, but your "main page edit war" was a really slow, non contentious one from what it seems, compared to your RFA. - Taxman ^Talk 13:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

That is why we must not only strive for academic excellence, but also moral excellence. :-)

I too want to improve the quality of my neighborhood. Have a good vacation; see you when you come back, or if not, I always have phone and email, if anyone wants to drop a line!--GordonWatts 22:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

On a practical level I wouldn't be surprised if your posts on the main RFA talk page go mostly ignored. They are so long and full of off topic discussion that people probably aren't going to bother responding. You are still clearly claiming you should be an admin, and everyone is going to ignore that. That and Nichalp's comments are a reasonable summary of what most people think. There is one central point that may need a valid discussion and that is the "No big deal" conflicts slightly with how RFA is done in practice and has been done for a long time without much controversy. But the big problem with the way you are presenting your position is that you are leaning on an unreasonably small point to the exclusion of the other part of the policy that says trusted members. Again, not to offend, but the your RFA has clearly shown that you are not trsuted, by a large enough number of people, that it is mathematically impossible for you to gain a consensus for adminship unless you drastically change your behavior. So for practical advice, consider replacing your long essay (in several sections) on the main RFA talk page with one short section asking the bigger issue to be resolved. Anything less than that change in your approach and I'm quite sure you won't get much resolution. - Taxman ^Talk 13:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, there's not much else to say at this point. You're convinced that you're right and deserve to be an admin, despite dozens of editors explaining why they opposed your RfA. You have refused to drop the matter and have flooded Wikipedia with your complaints and arguments. If you're truly determined to become an admin, now is the time to start acting like one. Move on and put this behind you. Or perhaps, just enjoy editing and forget the whole RfA ordeal. Carbonite | Talk 13:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for not getting mad at my frankness; I admit, I may even be too busy in my personal life (cleaning room; looking for job) to be a good admin, so it may be moot. All this will blow over. Thx again for your feedback all the same.--GordonWatts 14:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Ref. Your comments seemingly all over the site.

Oh do shut up, put a sock in it. You have started to sound like a repeating parrot. Giano | talk 15:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• It has been suggested to me that the above sounds a little curt. To be frank it was intended to be, for your own good, just give up for the time being on this whole subject of your failed admin. application and tangents springing from it. People are becoming sick and tired of seeing your arguments everywhere they go (or so it seems). You are sounding like the child who cannot accept "No", so starts a tangent argument, on the grounds that eventually the parent will surrender. Here, that is not going to happen. People are already starting to say they will never support your candidature at any time in the future. They are becoming sick and tired of your rambling justifications for your views. So for your own good please be quiet on the subject. Please do not reply to this, I am not entering into further discussion. I apologise if the initial comment was too blunt. Giano | talk 17:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Have you ever considered that I might be right? (That thought never dawned on the "concensus" that said "let's not put enough lifeboats in the RMS Titanic" -but that "concensus" was wrong.) Think about it, or if I haven't been blunt enough: The majority is not always right. (I'm not trying to offend you, merely tell you the truth.)--GordonWatts 10:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

You are correct that a consensus is not always the right opinion, but in this case it seems to be. From what I've seen in comments on your RfA, by far the most of your edits are to a single article. This is perfectly good behaviour for an editor, but does not merit adminship. Admins should have broader interests. — JIP | Talk 11:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, but it is a "subjective opinion," and no one is right or wrong on such a matter; If you are right, either I missed the policy guidelines -or, if they are lacking, then maybe they need to be updated. Thx for the point, JIP.--GordonWatts 11:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Gordon -

Firstly, let me say (once again) that you have made some valuable contributions to Wikipedia. However, given the recent debacles on WP:FAC and WP:RFA, you seem to have some fundamental misunderstandings of the nature of Wikipedia, and I thought it might be helpful to point out the following:

Wikipedia is not a democracy.

The majority does not rule, consensus does. Consensus is not a 50%+ majority, nor a 75% majority: it means that everyone agrees at the same time. That is the aspiration, and it is often very difficult to attain that objective; in practice, a lower threshold may be used as a proxy for consensus, but we are still aiming for consensus.

Wikipedia is also not a bureaucracy

Wikipedia is not a system of law: the community makes up the rules as it goes along. In particular, you have no constitutional rights on Wikipedia. While Wikipedians will usually accord you the respect you would usually expect in real life (which would usually mean that you would effectively have many of the rights that you might expect to have in real life), at the end of the day, you have no entrenched rights on Wikipedia. You have no right to be an admin; you have no right to expect due process; you have no right to free speech. These might happen, if there is consensus for them to happen; otherwise, they will not.

Policy is not immutable.

Written policy is simply a formulation of widely-held consensus, and it can change if there is consensus for it to change. It is not legislation, and, in practice, policy often changes as a result of a drift in consensus over time without being formally amended. Amendments to the written policy may happen later when people realise that the written policy does not reflect the actual policy in practice.

Two important principles.

The principles of "ignore all rules" and "don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point" are in tension, but they both rather limit the scope for rules-lawyering. Also relevant is "don't be a dick". We can all be wrong sometimes.

Finally, I wonder whether you have noticed that the screeds of rebuttal and counterargument that you customarily post in response to any perceived criticism are rarely effective in changing anyone's mind. You may find that a less confrontational response will ultimately achieve greater success.

I hope you will stick around and expand the range of your contributions, and I also hope you will be successful if and when next you nominate Terri Schiavo on WP:FAC (she certainly deserves a good article), and if and when you are next nominated on WP:RFA. I am sorry to say, however, that you may find that the poor impression that many others have built from your behaviour in the recent events may overshadow your good works for some time to come.

We are all here to write an encyclopedia, and everything else is secondary to that. I hope you will continue to help us to do that, without getting too diverted by all the other stuff that goes on around it. Being an admin is not important: the important thing is writing and maintaining good articles. Featured status is not important: the important thing is that an article is good enough to meet the criteria. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

You are wise and genuinely concerned (not unlike Taxman) -similar indeed both of you are, and thank you to both of you for your advice. However, I wonder at the genuineness of all those participating, but I will assume good faith, and suggest policy be looked at, and accept whatever the concensus is regarding whether to change policy or not; That being said, whatever the policy is, I expect it to be posted where people can see it -and presumably followed. The excuses that "you aren't familiar with 'the way things are done'" is a "codeword" for "we'll do things the way we want and use this excuse if it is different than policy." That needs to abruptly stop. We'll see if Wikipedians can follow their own rules. Thx once again.--GordonWatts 11:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

If you're referring to RFA, the policy is there and it is followed. The policy starts out with "The community grants administrator status to trusted users who are familiar with Wikipedia policies." It doesn't say any unblocked user is automatically granted admin status (in fact is later explains how the consensus is judged by people noting their support or oppose positions). And only later in the paragraph does it say "That said, adminship should be no big deal." (emphasis mine to show the weaker language). What you are doing is claiming no big deal is absolute and everything else on the page does not matter and that you were not automatically given adminship because you got some barnstars and never got blocked, then you were mistreated. You are fundamentally misunderstanding not only the policy as it is written, but how it has been applied for a long time without problem. A quick look down the RFA page before you nominated yourself would show you the reasons that people oppose nominations and you could have looked for reasons people do not get adminship. It happens all the time, and not getting adminship is not the end of the world. And you keep claiming everyone else could be wrong. They could, but given your lack of understanding of our policies and that a large number of people explaining you are wrong have a very long experience with and good understanding of them, it is far more likely that you are the one that is wrong. And I don't appreciate you taking my comments out of context to support your 25 paragraph diatribe about the issue. If you want to quote me, then take to heart what I've said: that you need to replace the volume of rambling with a concise statement of your position. - Taxman ^Talk 12:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

First, I was making a general statement that you seemed wise; I hope that wasn't misunderstood; Secondly, I was not merely referring to the RfA (although that shoe fit) -I was also (even more so) referring to the failed REnomination of the FA-candidate, because I had fixed all the problems (except a brief, small edit war), and yet the article was removed. I do not agree with the RfA outcome, but I have accepted that editors can vote as they see fit, and this vote is generally binding -even if it was in error.--GordonWatts 12:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Then please remove the quote from me because it makes it look like I am endorsing your comments. I don't consent to you using my comments like that especialy if you're going to be so verbose about it. Also if it is the case you accept the RFA outcome even if you don't agree, what is the need for the 25 paragraph diatribe on the RFA talk page? It drastically hurts your cause and isn't going to get you anywhere. Please archive it. There were no policies violated in your RFA. As to the FAC you were specifically informed of the convention that you should wait before renominating. Then the vote went 11-2 against and the featured article director removed it in his discretion as part of his role. That he let it stay for a bit when you put it back establishes nothing but that he was being polite or busy with something else. That two more editors had to remove it three more times after that only says that you don't know how to listen to the community. You should have left it removed when Raul654 took it out the first time. And you're still missing the point that Aloan was trying to make that Wikipedia should avoid the trap of having to codify every single nuance of possible policy in order to enforce anything. That is the path to utter inneffectiveness. Better is to use common sense and do what is best for the community by applying the basic core policies. That was done in all cases here. - Taxman ^Talk 12:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

"Then please remove the quote from me because..." I have reviewed this box, and I don't see where I quote you; I merely said you had given me wise advice, similar to ALooan's advice. feel free to scratch through (or remove if you like) the objectionable comments; I give my blessing and permission, and them, I can see in the edit history what was objectionable. "...because it makes it look like I am endorsing your comments." I meant the implication to imply that you were endorsing a similar theme as that of ALoan, with no mention or reference to details. "Also if it is the case you accept the RFA outcome even if you don't agree, what is the need for the 25 paragraph diatribe on the RFA talk page?" Answer: "If the rights of one are violated, the rights of all are at risk" --Thomas Paine [8] (My "diatribe" was meant to protect the "next guy," so to speak, from being treated in a way different than policy; Change policy if it is not right, I say -or follow it if it is OK.) "Then the vote went 11-2 against..." Yes, I think that's about right, but not before I almost got 50% of the votes in the initial nomination; The fact I was "informed" does not justify this "non policy" action of asking a person to wait. It merely offers notice of intent to impose supraPolicy requirements. "Better is to use common sense and do what is best for the community by applying the basic core policies. That was done in all cases here." I hope by me too. Anyhow, above I mention I am not clear on a few points. Thx.--GordonWatts 13:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Your message on my page

Gordon, I frankly hesitate to reply to you, since my strongest impression from your posts around Wikipedia is that you're not a good listener where this subject is concerned. But since you ask, I will. There's a reason why we have requests for adminship, and comments on those requests by the community, rather than having the automatic adminning of everybody who hasn't been sanctioned or blocked. Whether you're a trusted member of the community is a judgment call for other people. It's not for you yourself to decide, and it's not a matter of having a clean block log. You need to stop posting these sterile, many times repeated arguments over and over; if they were going to convince people, they already would have. Please believe me that that's not me violating the first amendment, or being afraid of the truth. It's just my opinion. Bishonen | talk 19:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

"It's just my opinion." It's your opinion, and it is correct -insofar as the concensus votes rules; however, that does not necessarily mean that those who vote will vote correctly. No one votes correctly 100% of the time, and sometimes, the majority is not correct; A good example of that is when the RMS Titanic boat committee for lifeboats insisted on not putting in enough lifeboats for the people on board. Think about it: The majority is not always right. (I'm not trying to say you were incorrect, and I am not trying to offend you.)--GordonWatts 11:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

New Approach

I can see where you are coming from, GordonWatts, but as Bishonen says, whether you are trusted or not is up to the people. Now I know that majority is not always right, but right now 'majority rules'. You simply need community consensus if you are to be given adminship powers. I implore you to take a different approach to things; my RFA failed a month ago, and instead of acting hurt, I thanked everyone for their opinions and suggestions, took their advice and addressed their concerns. The thing that you are doing will make it bad for you; really, if you continue, I don't think that you will have unanimous support if you opt for another Adminship in the future.

With that said, Im just proposing that you just try to address concerns. You are a valuable contributor, continue doing what you're doing, Go to Recent Changes, Newpages etc, and I can guarantee that others will see that you are workin hard.

• Regarding edit counts: most administrators have been around. Its just that simple. Under 300 distinct pages just isnt enough. Because they participate in AFD, Recent Changes, Random Pages, —before that are given adminship, they have widespread experience and are well-known around the community. I really hope you will take some of my suggestions into consideration. This whole thing will blow over soon (if you let it) and within a month ot two, you will be ready for another try, and really, many of the administrators get promoted after their second, third or even fouth request. Cheers and Good Luck.^{Journalist C./ Holla @ me!}

You seem to be saying that I should (among other things) try to cooperate: OK -you won me over --see the very top of this page for the new press release along those lines: I'm trying to identify concensus -even if those offering feedback oppose and vote me down. See top for my search.--GordonWatts 17:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo's Talk Page

I noticed that when removing your own posts on Jimbo's page you also removed other editor's replies to your comments. I'm not sure this is appropriate. I know that you are not allowed to remove other editor's comments from your own talk pages, I assume this applies to replies to your comments on others talk pages too. I'm just advising you that these edits may be against etiquette and it might be worth checking that you are allowed to do this. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 18:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Thx, Ji, but I don't think SlimVirgin minds; The issue was settleed -plus I noted it in the edit comments. Jimbo will be happy for a smaller page too.--GordonWatts 18:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, just making sure you were aware. Happy editing. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 18:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that you did get in to trouble about this after all. It might be worth checking policy on these matters before making edits. Asking on SlimVirgin's wpuld have also been appropriate. But I'm sure that if you explain the edits were made in good faith, it will work out alright. Peace. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 01:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. Thx.--GordonWatts 08:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

RfA talk

I'm not going to revert your change on RfA. But you're claiming consensus because "nobody voted against you". Note in comments that everybody disagreed with your opinion, but did not vote. Why? Because voting is not the way to gain consensus, and most readers of that page knew that. Ral315 18:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I actually prefer that the "diversity" requirement is not in the RfA requirements, but I put it in there after much debate and LITTLE voting or tangeable feedback that I coul;d understand (can't read minds!) --to make y'all happy. I'll survive either way: I believe in God and vice verca.--GordonWatts 18:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I note that you have taken a recent interest in adminship. I would like to share the observation that adminship is granted to respected users who understand and follow community norms. Insofar as your recent, rather verbose criticism of the adminship process as it pertains to you in several forums falls well outside community norms in a number of key regards, you may find that it distances you from adminship rather than bringing you closer to it. Best wishes, The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Thx for the feedback; I'm trying also to help others in future RfA's by calling attention to hopw policy doesn't always line up with actions.--GordonWatts 08:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Civility warning

Please do not refactor Wikipedia talk pages to make it appear that an editor has "voted" in a poll that he or she has not actually voted in. This is extremely uncivil, and, if continued, will result in you being blocked and potentially banned from Wikipedia.

Your overly confrontational discussion style (as amply demonstrated on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship) is not helping you any. I strongly suggest that you cease attempting to force people to vote in your poll (to say nothing of converting people's comments ABOUT your poll into votes IN it) and start discussing whatever the hell it is that you want changed. To be honest I can't tell anymore what that is; there's so much heat and smoke that whatever your original purpose was has been lost in the conflagration. Kelly Martin 21:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC) I answer him below, so I won't repleat myself here.--GordonWatts 08:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth

GordonWatts, please do not try to speak for me on your poll in Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. I have no interest in voting in your poll, and my reverts to your edits do not constitute a vote. Your actions are unacceptable, and could leave you facing a request for comment or even a block. Thank you. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 21:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Since people have said that I should seek concensus, therefore, I asked for your feedback, but you did not give it, and I did not pretend to vote for you. I said "Apparently User:Szyslak opposes per diff" in the edit summary and also "Apparently User:Szyslak opposes. He gave this logic when reverting," so it would not look like I posted. I am damned when I do ask for concensus (as shown by your complain) and I am dammed when I don't (as shown by others’ screed saying I should ask for concensus).

On an entirely side note, your revert actually hurt the argument that many of you have made that I was not "diverse" enough. You gave this reason for reverting: "rv - this is not a common reason for RfAs to fail. GordonWatts' poll doesn't ban me from reverting this change," but indeed that was a reason my RfA was failing in the initial votes. (Later, people didn't like to be told that the policy was not that strict, but that's another story.)

So, how should I seek feedback? I asked politely for feedback, and people usually want to only give excuses why they can't come to a concensus on the issues that I've mentioned, e.g., "we can't vote" - "we won't give concensus"-type answers; So, User:Szyslak, if you are all big into the proper way for me to properly determine "concensus," then please tell us the right way to determine the concensus on the edit/revert in question.--GordonWatts 08:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Deleting other user's posts

Gordon, you have no right to remove other people's posts from Jimbo's talk page. [9] You are coming very close to being blocked for disruption. I'm asking you for the last time to stop spamming talk pages with nonsense about the adminship nomination. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I acted in Good Faith, Slim Virgin; I did not think you would want to bother Jimbo over an issue that had resolved; I was the bringer of the complaint, and I withdrew my complaint. The fact that you had commented meant I deleted your small comments, and I am sorry if you feel I edited your post without notice, but I indeed gave notice in the edit summary that I deleted it.

I did not "fully" delete your post: Jimbo emailed me regarding that post, meaning he either saw your post or the initial email on the same subject, but I will try to be more careful in the future regarding others' comments. Now, my other question, which my post only, I did delete; I hope you're OK with that.--GordonWatts 08:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The point is that the consensus is already apparent to everyone else - which is why no one is bothering to respond to your polls. To become an administrator, there must be a consensus among the respondents that this should be the case. Someone else who had lost an adminship vote not long ago gave you some good advice above - take your loss on the chin, take heed of people's concerns, stop demanding adminship as a right, and maybe reapply in two or three months. Ambi 09:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

"stop demanding adminship as a right" With all due respect, Ambi, while I might have been demanding or asking or whatever, I have long ago given up that request: Here's an old post that should clarify: User_talk:GordonWatts/RfA#Admission:_The_RfA_can_legitimately_vote_me_down. On the other hand, I'm trying to come to concensus on general policy, not my RfA.--GordonWatts 09:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Come to a consensus on what general policy? There is a consensus on Wikipedia that a person becomes an administrator if there is a consensus among the voters to do so. In the very next section on that talk page, you insist that you should have been granted admin status, that the 90% of people who voted oppose were wrong to do so, and insist that it is for you to decide whether you are a trusted member of the community or not, when there is clearly a consensus that at this present time, you are not. Please, Gordon. If you want administrator status, listen to the people who opposed you, and stop digging. Ambi 09:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

"Come to a consensus on what general policy?" Did you not see the Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Should_RfA_policy_be_changed_re_.22concentrated_edits.3F.22 section??

(Quoting current policy on the project page here) "There are no official numerical standards for adminship; however, most new admins have at least three months of participation and one thousand edits." I would add to that, so it reads:

Proposed Policy: "There are no official numerical standards for adminship; however, most new admins have at least three months of participation, one thousand edits, and most of their edits spread out, not primarily concentrated in one article or category."

They said one thing in policy (no mention of "concentrated edits" vs "diversity"), and did another (used that as a standard). Yes, I know peoples' votes count, but by what standard? We don't know, cuz they say one thing & do another. Asking for clarification is no big sin, lol.--GordonWatts 09:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

You conveniently ignore the first part of that sentence ("There are no official numerical standards for adminship") There is no need to specifically mention "concentrated edits", because it isn't a common issue, and because that list isn't definitive. Everyone who voted on that page was entirely within their right to do so under policy. You can either accept that, take heed of the advice given, and potentially reapply in a couple of months, or keep going the way you're going and likely get blocked for violating WP:POINT. In the end, it's your choice. Ambi 10:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm merely talking on my page (and yours), not making a point and disrupting (although this feels disrupting to my personal life, lol). Also, in the end, it's no real big deal either way, and you have a point, but if you mention the 1000 edits, then you should mention the "concentration" issue, and if you don't mention is due to the "no official numerical standards" clause, then you should not mention the 1000 edits thing -but I see your point about this list not being all inclusive, if that helps things. OK, enough. I appreciate others' opinions, but I think this is being given too much attention. We should merely seek to identify concensus and apply it. We are actually having fruitful discussions and clarifying points, so I am glad I was able to throw in my 2cents worth.--GordonWatts 10:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

One more recent example of policy being changed to address concerns I brought up: [10] I may not agree with it, but I am glad that concensus is being sought here to see what editors thing.Insert non-formatted text here

Personal attacks on me

Hi, Gordon, I'm rushing out to work now, but I just want to say that I've seen Sarah's message alerting me to [11] and also your message denying involvement. I fully accept that you have nothing to do with it. Have you any idea how to report it? Thanks, Ann

No. That's a good idea, though; Maybe that ISP has an abuse dept. Hmm...--GordonWatts 11:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Re Personal Attacks: User:SarahPhelpsjr weighs in.

No offence man, but maybe you should follow the consesus on the spelling of the word in question. SarahPhelpsjr 11:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I'll just elaborate further: Google the word "concensus" and you'll get this message: "Did you mean: consensus"

see it here

Seems like you went through a rough time of it all with the arguments and all. I'm glad I didn't have to go through it, and you are obviously very brave. How do you feel about it all now? SarahPhelpsjr 11:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Fatigue. PS: Users typically click the + symbol at the top and start a new threat at the bottom. I shall do that for you here.--GordonWatts 12:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• Ouch! Spell checker's misprogrammed - I've erred.--GordonWatts 12:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC) (Oh well... it happens.)

Gordon, you said to me: "you ought to put our pages on your watchlist so keep up". I'm sorry I'm having trouble keeping up. I'm obviously not as well versed in the "old school of hard knocks" like you. I'm glad your able to respond to my positive comments "you are obviously very brave" with positive ones yourself, and didn't simply smack me down as a newcomer who needed to keep up. Thanks very much for the friendly way you replied. I'm sure your conduct here is a demonstration of the friendly way you normally engage with the world. SarahPhelpsjr 12:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I mis-typed -- I did not mean to tell you "so" keep up -- I meant "to" keep up, eg, "in order to help" you keep up to date. Sorry! Thx for the positive feedback.--GordonWatts 12:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes I see now, saying "you ought to put our pages on your watchlist to keep up" without explaining what a watchlist is is very polite to a newcomer. I don't know how I managed to get into an argument with you over this Gordon, but do you ever give up? Perhaps you should just let this one slip. Really what is it abiout the way you conduct yourself that makes every small comment turn into an argument? Or maybe I should paraphrase you: "Your move bucko?" SarahPhelpsjr 12:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing with you. In fact, I think you did not catch my mistake at all, and I simply wanted to point it out, so you would see that I didn't mean it the way it was typed. So, it was my move, ha ha... I tkink I'm spending too much time online, so I may correct that. Thx again for your feedback.--GordonWatts 12:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Crossposting

Gordon, thank you for your trouble in posting copies of your messages to my talkpage, but actually I'd rather you didn't. It just swells my page, which grows pretty fast anyway, and makes unnecessary work for you. There's no risk I'll miss replies to me in other places, as I do keep an eye out. Please don't be offended if I delete the copies on my page now—I don't mean it in a spirit of hostility. Bishonen | talk 07:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)