Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GordonWatts


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

GordonWatts
Withdraw nomination: Reasons Since "(4/29/5) ending 13:55 [23 September 2005] (UTC)," my "adjusted" closing time, has passed, and I only received about 12.12% of the vote, I am withdrawing my nomination. Normally, a failed nomination does not need to be withdrawn, but I wish to formally make a withdraw, because a few editors appear to have been offended, and I want to let opposing editors know that I am not mad for differences of opinion; In fact, I am quite busy with personal matters and sometimes find it difficult to even edit (so my failed RfA might have helped me), and am now on a "wiki-break" due to being overworked (not due to any hard feelings). Thank you to all those who offered feedback, both my supporters, opposition, and the feedback of those voting neutral.--GordonWatts 15:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Note: I have repoened this nomination at Gordon's request; please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. &mdash; Dan | Talk 15:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Nomination removed again by User:ALoan. The vote has closed. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Final: (4/29/5)

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


 * Reply to various comments that I did not understand the meaning of "concensus" regarding my 4-3 example: Several users have made comments below that I do not understand the meaning of "concensus" with claims that my "4-3" example was not "concensus." MY REPLY: When making edits to an article, and trying to chose between two competing versions of one small (but important) paragraph, recently, there was a 4-3 vote that went in my favor; After no other editors weighed in, I declared victory, but many users here question that, claiming that I needed a "more clear" concensus. They suggested I get more feedback, which would be 10-15 editor. I RESPECTFULLY DISSENT: This is absurd and untenable: Getting 10-15 editors to vote on every single little change is unreasonable an (for all practical purposes) impossible; It was quite a feat to get seven (7). The vote was not to "accept an RfA applicant," which might require a 70% vote or more; Rather, it was choosing between two competing intros; since one HAD to be chosen, the one with most votes was the only logical choice. There were no other choices on the table, and my version won, so it is unreasonable for you to expect the losing version to be posted while we see further feedback. What version do you think we should have used? Conclusion: With only two versions on the table, and with no more votes, I had no other choice here: Waiting would cause conflict, so I had to declare a victory and move on -I made the best choice, and if I am wrong, tell me where I am, and if not, I deserve your vote -at least on this matter: "Concensus," here was anything over 50% -concensus for other matters may be different.--GordonWatts 06:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * NOTE: In light of the "piling it on" aspect of this RfA, I would respectfully ask every person who has in mind to comment to please read this entire page before commenting; this is not too much to ask: I have read every single comment, supporting or opposing, and sometimes scroll through the page history diff-by-diff: I think everyone is making too much of a big deal out of "granting" minor additional admin powers to many new users, not unlike "granting" map, flashlight, and cell phone "rights" to a person who is going on a business trip; "No big deal" to assign a person a map, cell phone, and tool kit, with flashlight, if he/she's going on such a business trip to do work -and is an employee in good standing. Thank you.--GordonWatts 07:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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


 * Support
 * 1) Support Everyone get a vote in wikipedia, to be fair, and since many of those who gave me barnstars will support me later, I will log in a vote for myself, as further justified by the new comments in the intro above, which are based on actual formal policy, not simply "the way things are done."--GordonWattsDotCom 00:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support There needs to be more diversity among the admins in how they relate to editors who are political and cultural conservatives. patsw 01:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I apologise if I have failed to understand, but is your reason to support GordonWatts that there needs to be more diversity among admins? I can't imagine that being a good reason to support a nomination because it has absolutely nothing to do with the understanding and respect for WP policies and guidelines, abilities, or other admin-related features of the candidate, instead supporting based only on his political attitudes and the attitudes of other editors. That makes no sense to me, and I'd be obliged if you'd show me wrong or clarify your vote. --Blackcap | talk 21:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Cooperative user, dropped the dotcom from his username on request, would only protect an article if there was an edit war. Uncle Ed 12:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I have my reasons to support him, although many others don't. As long as he doesn't abuse his power, and use his POV in articles, then he should be an admin, but that's just what I think. The Fascist Chicken 18:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Of the 400+ article edits, well over 95% are on articles relating to Terry Schiavo. See main edits. There's almost no mainspace experience outside of these articles. While editing in one very specific area is fine, I'd like to see more diversity. Also, I didn't really like the answer to the first question: "See my comments above and extrapolate." Carbonite | Talk 14:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)Gordon's blatant refusal to let the subject drop despite many requests from other editors leads me to agree with Carnildo. Due to his extremely poor behavior in this RfA, I would oppose Gordon in any future RfA. Carbonite | Talk 11:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Carbonite, you are mistaken: I indeed did "let the subject drop": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GordonWatts/RfA&diff=23523348&oldid=23522577#Admission:_The_RfA_can_legitimately_vote_me_down In this post, I state that I will not ask to be promoted if the vote goes against me; That being said, your attitude here is a chief reason why many leave Wikipeida. If, however, you meant "refusal to let the subject drop" to mean "the RfA process is broke" as this "subject," then, yes, you're right: I am not letting this drop at this time: " If the rights of one are violated, the rights of all are at risk ." --Thomas Paine --GordonWatts 13:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I looked at that link you provided, and it doesn't look quite like 95% (but I'm not prepared to hand-count thousands of edits). I seem to have contributed to many other article, such as Plant City, Florida, Florida District Courts of Appeal, Christian views of Jesus, Christianity, and even Abortion, a different, but controversial topic. Also, the "extrapolated" answer is good, because you have a personal responsibility to "extrapolate" for deeper answers -just like myself and the other editors have the same responsibility. I'm a 39-year old college-educated professional, and with like many 15-year olds running around with adminship, I'm sure I'm as mature as are they.--GordonWattsDotCom 14:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * If you'd prefer to call it 90%+ Terry Schiavo-related edits, that's fine with me. The point is that an overwhelming percentage of your edits are on a tiny number of articles. I can't support someone who's experienced such a small part of Wikipedia. Regarding the "extrapolated" answer, as a candidate you have a responsibility to provide clear and concise answers. You basically told other editors "figure it out for yourself". Carbonite | Talk 14:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: edit breakdown is here. Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 15:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * That link shows the breakdown by namespace, which although light in article edits, doesn't look that out of place. The real issue is apparent when you look at contributions to articles. It was calculated below by User:Dragons flight that 80% of article edits contain the word "Terri" or "Schiavo" in the page title or edit summary. This figure is a "floor" as it doesn't count edits on related articles such as Living will, Palm Sunday Compromise, Not Dead Yet (group) or Mel Martinez. The actual percentage is almost certainly higher than 90%. Carbonite | Talk 15:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Look more closely at the edit count: It is more like 60% -and when yo consider that not all pages with "Terri" in them are really Terri Schiavo (some are other people who have slim relatedness, like Mel Martinez, it's probably more like 40-50% --maybe less?--GordonWattsDotCom 16:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * What? Have you looked at your own article contributions? You can't seriously state that 40-50% of these edits have nothing to do with Terri Schiavo. I'm not going to argue this anymore. Carbonite | Talk 16:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * As Dr. McCoy on Star Trek would say, Carbonite, "I'm a doctor, not a calculator." Besides, so what if it's a little lopsided? Would you want a doctor who was a jack of all trades but not a master in his field? Would he be unqualified to do many things in life, just because he had a special talent in one area? Are you sure you're not persecuting me for my talent? Because, if you ignore my special talents and abilities in one are, I am balanced: Now, if I were a "newbie," then a lack of talent would be a more valid concern. Think about what you are doing; Am I just a dumb country hick who doesn';t know how to use a computer? It's your move.--GordonWattsDotCom 17:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Gordon, I suggest that you tone it down. You're not being attacked, but you are being critized, something that you opened yourself up to by nominating yourself for adminship. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) No way Has tried to force external links to his own highly partisan site into the Schiavo article, insists that repeatedly voting is a suitable mechanism for building consensus, then castigates users if they do not participate, and is more or less a one article POV warrior. Has also on numerous times insisted on the insertion of volumes of irrelevant minutae into the Schiavo article, which detracts from article, which is now bloated and unwieldy. The fact that he wants more than anything the ability to page protect is highly worrisome, given the history of the Schiavo article. Gordon, why don't you write a book about the topic, which is what it seems you would like to do here? Fawcett5 14:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * (quote) "The fact that he wants more than anything the ability to page protect is highly worrisome" An admin is not allowed to protect a page on which he or she edits; your lack of knowledge should indicate that your vote is not based on sound knowledge of wiki-policies.--GordonWattsDotCom 14:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comments: All the links that we add in the advocacy section are "highly partisan," but of the total links, very few are to papers that I have links to. See the Schiavo talk page where I do not object to removal of links to stories I wrote -if a suitable link can be provided to an equally good site, but in all fairness, some news events for the Schiavo saga were only provided by my paper: If you think I'm being self-centered, then I challenge you to find any other news agency that covered this story, but if you look at the court docket, there indeed was a hearing, so, it is "not" self-centered to post a link to one of my stories if it was the only link available.--GordonWattsDotCom 14:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose . Strong oppose. I don't think I've ever come across Gordon before (having never personally edited the Terry Schiavo article!) so can't comment on the way in which he conducts himself one way or another. That said, there's far too much of a single focus in all edits to be anywhere near suitable for adminship. There's nothing wrong with specialising (although I'd hope for specialising in one field, rather than one article), but I'd expect a potential admin who happened to be specialising to be also contributing heavily elsewhere. A figure of 90% Terry Schiavo to 10% of other article edits is being quoted. In an ideal world, I'd like to see that ratio reversed. KeithD (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind remarks, Keith; however, I do not know that it is 90% --it may be, but a look at the edits at the link above indicates, 90% or just 70&, I have contributed to a whole bunch more article besides just Theresa "Terri" Schiavo; Lastly, there is nothing wrong with a specialist, but, no, while I haven't counted them, I doubt it's 90% --for example, in my recently failed Featured Article nomination of Schiavo, one or two editors said the vote was like 12-2 or something, and it was more like 7-10 --a lot of miscounting going on there -Miscounts & misquotes all the time happen, so, no ,look again at ALL my edits and see if it really is like 90% -- may not be.--GordonWattsDotCom 16:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I've changed my vote from oppose to strong oppose. That may appear even more like piling it on as I've already had my say, but I resisted doing so until I felt I couldn't resist any longer, and felt it necessary to do so. I previously said that I hadn't come across Gordon and couldn't comment on the way he conducts himself. Having seen this RfA, and the way he has, I now can. The constant rebuttal of oppose votes, and his insistence that the system is wrong when the vote doesn't go his way, seems wholly out of line with the measured neutrality that I feel is necessary for an admin. Furthermore, even if his ratio of Schiavo edits to non-Schiavo edits was reversed, I suspect I would still oppose a future RfA on the grounds of the conduct I've seen at this RfA. Sorry Gordon. I've read your all your arguments at length here, and all you're doing is convincing me how eminently unsuitable you would be as an admin.
 * "The constant rebuttal of oppose votes, and his insistence that the system is wrong when the vote doesn't go his way, seems wholly out of line with the measured neutrality that I feel is necessary for an admin." How do you know, KeithD, that the system is not wrong? Hmm? You assume that it is not broken, as yet unproved, and then use this assumption to prove itself: circular reasoning. The constant rebuttal of oppose votes..." So? What's wrong with rebuttal? Maybe there is a problem that needs rebutting. You assume to many things, one for example, that the system is all good and well. That is not a given. "I previously said that I hadn't come across Gordon and couldn't comment on the way he conducts himself." The only four editors on this page who know me well are the first three "support" votes and Ann Heneghan, who voted "neutral." Even Ann has said (in this page's talk section) that I am respectful of those with whom I disagree. Since you admit you don't know me, let me point out one salient thing: Of all the people who have gotten to know me, three supported me and one voted neutral. Those who didn't know me, generally voted neutral or oppose, with one exception, God bless his honest soul. Why, for example, do you think that Uncle Ed, the former ArbCom chair and experienced Wikipedian would vote for me? Did you know that he was our mediator for several months, and Uncle Ed has gotten to know me quite well, as has Pat Sweeney (patsw). Don't you think it's kind of funny that the better users know me, the more favorably they voted? Maybe you were right: You don't know me, and all you know of me is that I used the word "holocaust" in a sentence and that I object to oppose votes. Well, let me tell you, if you had people vote against you unjustly, you would object, and you know this is true, so please do not criticise me for this.--GordonWatts 07:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * If you believe that to be the case, then the answer is to get yourself known by more people. Admins are appointed by consensus, not by being vouched for by a couple of members. KeithD (talk) 07:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I find Gordon's comparisons between this RfA and human rights abuses, spousal abuse, and the Holocaust, downright offensive. KeithD (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I am sorry you feel that way, Keith, but I feel I would offend more by not speaking up about the various abuses editors have to endure; so, the holocaust always elicits a responce, but no comparison is exact, so you have to be content with the current limitations of the English language, and understand that ny intent was to help out.--GordonWatts 08:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that I didn't get a chance to properly explain myself, but I ran out of time the other day. You take issue with my post below, in which I say: "Should we have simply "followed the crowd" and allowed human rights abuse, holocaust, wife abuse crimes, and other injustice, simply because "that's the way they do things?" Why is this offensive? I never compared my situation to that of the holocaust. They are both abuse, but not comparable in magnitude at all. Rather, I was saying that people back then simply "followed the crowd" and the results were tragic; My point? 1st: If we make the same mistakes here, maybe it won't kill anyone, but I'm sure that editors simply following the crowd here is likely to cause more contributors to angrily leave, alienating users because we just "followed the crowd" instead of following policy. My 2nd point is much more important, hence the color: Do you know what killed a lot of innocent Jewish people in Germany in the 1930's and 1940's? No, it wasn't a sudden turn to evil; The German people, great and noble citizens, first started taking small shortcuts, like how they treated gypsies, handicapped, or communists, and when others saw that this was "wrong," do you know what they did? NOTHING. They simply "followed the crowd." Then, a little later, they seized the assets and homes of Jews and other "undesirables." MY POINT? Small mistakes and shortcuts, just "little" evils, led, eventually, to the most massive tragedy in modern history! So, the next time you scoff at me for criticising you for "following the crowd" instead of following JIMBO'S clear and plain "no big deal" policy, just remember: Evil habits led to evil actions, and you too, my friend, are human, and slide down the slippery slope downward. "It will never happen to me." That's what millions of honest, hardworking, educated Germans said, but guess what? IT HAPPENED TO THEM, and it can happen to anybody, you and me included -if we let it. Now, that being said, you would have reason to be offended if I were using the "holocaust" to help myself in my RfA application, but we know that is not true: My "holocaust" argument will likely decrease my RfA chances, but if it saves even one life, because someone listened and decided to not take a shortcut, then my action is worthwhile. (It is worthwhile anyhow, because that is the intent of my heart -to help prevent people from being lazy people who just do what they want; If you want the standards for Admin raised, then seek to change policy; I think that would be a good thing, but until then do not make RfA's an "inside clique.") Some may question my reaction, but if you are misquoted and libeled and subjected to a biased treatment, you will object too, so I am not doing anything extraordinary; I am merely being a little less lazy than the more recent RfA applicants who've failed, and trying to be more polite than them.--GordonWatts 07:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I appreciate what you're trying to say, Gordon, but I also appreciated it when you first said it. I still don't feel that this RfA warrants being even mentioned on the same page as the Holocaust, spousal abuse or human rights abuses. To do so does an immense disservice to those who have suffered - and that's suffered the worst and the least of those things. I suggest you take this RfA on the chin, chalk it up to experience, and, most importantly, listen to and learn from what your peers have said, rather than finding ways to convince yourself that their opinions don't count. KeithD (talk) 07:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Absolutely not. Passion about certain subjects and even Wikipedia itself is a very good thing to possess. This, however, is a question of pure obsession. Gordon is privately and professionally obsessed with the Terri Schiavo-affair. This alone disqualifies him from being a constructive admin. Gordon has shown very little sign of understaning what actually makes Wikipedia work. Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo is a very good example of this. / Peter Isotalo 15:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - I have no problem with specialisation (even to this extremity) but 400ish article edits, is simply not enough for my standards to support. --Celestianpower hab 15:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thoughtful comments, Peter, and celestianpower. Yes, I admit that I don't have as many edits as probably every recent applicant for admin (some of these editors have worked very hard), and, yes, I have recently focused on just one sub-set of articles in my specialty; However, if you look at the policy for adminship, Jimbo Wales clearly states that it should be "no big deal" for a user in good standing to be an admin. Even though I often walk right into the middle of a very contentious edit war or difficult articles like abortion, Schiavo, Jesus, Christianity, etc., I have never been blocked, or even disciplined in any way, so I am qualified: Yes, I'm not as experienced as others, but the admin position gives only slightly more tools than a regular editor, and that is why Jimbo says it should be no big deal for an editor like myself to walk in and be admin; If I were asking for power to hire-and-fire, and delete pages, and such, that would be different. I have added comments to these concerns at the top and have tried to answer every single concern, and -even when I disagree -show respect. We all get into edit wars, but those who don't run and hide, but try to work things out are the ones who are winners. Is this clear and easy to understand here?--GordonWatts 04:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Strongest Oppose Possible. 4-3 "consensus?" 4-3 is a squeaker. 5-2 is a majority. 6-1 MIGHT be a consensus. Concerned as above with TS POV push - especially the recent discussion regarding "Typically only legally." Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 15:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Hipocrite, please see the top of the page for a better discussion of "concensus."--GordonWatts 06:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "4-3 "consensus?" 4-3 is a squeaker" True, it is a squeaker, but that was seven people discussing one small paragraph, and you can;t get 15-20 people to make a "clear concensus" on every single edit, lol. We did the best with the seven people we had in that "4-3" squeaker, but a vote was a vote, and it should have been honored.--GordonWatts 03:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "regarding "Typically only legally." So? Typically only legally "What?" It is not false to say that hospices typically only legally allow terminally ill patients, but you didn't look at that part of the edit in question; I am not pushing any POV regarding Terri's situation; I merely stated a fact about what "typically" is done in hospices: If you don't believe me, Hipocrite, then you go into a hospice and see how many 39-year old handicapped women you can find. None. You are a "hypoctite," Hipocrite, because you criticize me for truthfully defiing the terms used, yet, you would not want to be criticised in the same way, and if you don't believe me, look hospice up in a dictionary sometimes: It is defined as that end-of-life place, not a place for cripples. I am not taking sides on the Schiavo issue in my edits; I am only using the proper dictionary definitions of the terms: I am telling the truth (dictionary doesn't lie), so your critical remarks and attitude are without merit.--GordonWattsDotCom 16:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Please stop breaking the list. I do not intend to debate the facts of the matter - for all I care, you are, were, and have always been right, about everything, ever. As above, however, the fact of being right doesn’t in any way change the method in which you prosecute your case. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The proper placement of my answer is more important than not "breaking the list' of numbering system: The votes can be counted without the "list," lol. Now, how would you suggest I "prosecute" my case, if I'm right, as you suggest? If you have an answer, I listen; if not, then I prosecuted it properly. I listen and wait.--GordonWattsDotCom 17:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You relied on the assertion that you were factually accurate, rather than verifiable. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, Slim Virgin told me that edit format was important, so I will imitate your format and add the additional ":" full-colon. "You relied on the assertion that you were factually accurate, rather than verifiable." OK, now vote-count notwithstanding, you mention factual accuracy; So, what's your point? If I was factually inaccurate, point it out; If not, you will have to withdraw your remark. I know this is looking bad, but you made a point, and I am not being mean to simply request, yea, demand an answer -in the politest of terms -from you.--GordonWattsDotCom 17:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You didn't follow that debate, Hipocrite: I agreed to remove that, and so did all the other editors; the section is now agreed upon by all concensus; Go over to Schiavo and see if you can find the "typically legally" language -or any recent demands by anyone that is be put in. You can't. Please get your facts straight, lol.--GordonWattsDotCom 15:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I hate having to justify my opinions like this in RFA's, but since you accused me of not following the dispute, let me reiterate - the recent discussion regarding. Not the fact that you eventually gave up and let the words go away - but the way that you prosecuted your case. Also, exercise due care in commenting here to not break the numbered list.Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Coment below responding to Phroziac is dishonest. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) In pushing recently for the Terri Schiavo article to be promoted, this user showed wilful disregard for how the community treats FA candidate articles and when the nomination was removed he reverted several users to put it back in. Worldtraveller 15:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Correct: I replaced it because only Mark, the Featured Article's editor is supposed to remove it, and when he removed it one time accidentally prematurely and I replaced it, he was active and online for while and did not object, so no one else had a right to remove it; When they did, I was gracious and permitted it, but, technically, what they did was not permitted. The only other admin to have removed it was Nichalp, and he told me: "I can't take away your right to nominate the article...I (or anyone else) can remove it though if it is not correctly formatted and message the original author," allowing me to repost it when it was formatted correctly (because the page transfer to the Archives didn't transfer properly), so please do not criticize me for following orders and following Policy here --sometimes "concensus must bow to policy (and when I fixed that, he did not object). So, yes, two "non-admin" editors improperly removed my nomination, and I replaced it, Worldtraveller, for it was not their place to remove it: They were not the Featured Articles editor; I permitted them to keep it off in the spirit of goodwill, but, mysteriously, that page is still actively edited by many users, so maybe I was right after all. I exercised good will -the other editors who removed it were wrong -well-intended, yes, but wrong, so do not criticize me, Worldtraveler, for this.--GordonWattsDotCom 16:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - I wasn't sure if I should just not vote on this, since I don't know him, or oppose this, until i saw this: User talk:Ral315. I just don't like that attitude where age should be used like that. -- Phroziac (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The dispute, Phroziac, was one single edit, in which I added news in the Sign Post, and it was deleted, by what appeared to be a random editor, as I didn't know that Ral315 was the regular editor; So, had I not mentioned that I was a college professional, I would have been negligent in my duties, because I could have been perceived as a high-school student; Since negligence is not a good trait, you should not criticize my point: I was telling the truth; Are you offended by the truth? Am I not a college-educated professional? After all, you admitted you don't know me, so what is objectionable about simply identifying myself? Should I instead lie and or hide my identity if it is in question? I do not like your attitude and wonder what motivates you to ask such questions. I have contributed many hours and obviously been very helpful; See e.g., the many barn stars at my user page. Those people know me, so maybe you should consider if you are on solid ground without having known me .--GordonWattsDotCom 15:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF only goes so far. You mentioned the ages just to let everyone know how old everyone was? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Hipocrite, I gave my age so people would know how old I was; Listen, even if I don't make my adminship, I do not wish to offend you, but you must understand that anyone would get upset if people such as yourself gave a Strongest Oppose Possible for simply sticking to dictionary definitions of places, be it hospices, or whatever. Dig? you are getting stresses over this, and that is not good for you and your health; Maybe I won't make admin, but I **do** want to see you live and be unstressed and happy, healthy, etc., OK?--GordonWattsDotCom 16:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Only about four hundred article edits, many of them minor and most of them to Terry Schiavo.  (Wikipedia-space edits are also mostly Schiavo-related.)  Recent posting to Village Pump suggests lack of familiarity with how 'consensus' is defined and achieved. I am concerned that this editor might be tempted to use his admin abilities in disputes at Terry Schiavo. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "admin abilities in disputes at Terry Schiavo." First, it is not spelled Terry, with a "Y." Secondly, we all know that an admin who is regularly editing one article can not use his/her admin powers there. The very fact that I spend most of my time on one article means that I would have "no" conflicts of interest in a very large number of articles; If you like doing all the "wiki-cleanup," then you will be doing it, when I am not nominated, but don't blame me in the aftermath of hurricane RfA denial, ok?--GordonWattsDotCom 15:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You're right; my mistake on the name. I've been reading too many other comments with it misspelled, I suppose.  That said, the work you've done so far on Wikipedia has demonstrated very little involvement with any activities, articles, policies, or discourse not related to Schiavo.  I'm concerned that your very concentrated experience there may have given you a distorted perspective on how Wikipedia works.  The comment "...Schiavo has been surprisingly stable; Edit wars are normal for ALL pages..." suggests a lack of experience with the vast majority of Wikipedia articles where collaborative editing proceeds without acrimonious dispute, edit warring, or page protection.  The fact that the comment was part of an ill-advised renomination of Terri Schiavo at FAC immediately after its last nomination failed also bolsters the notion that you haven't been fully steeped in the 'unwritten rules' of how things are done here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * My statement about edit wars is entirely right: They do happen on all pages -from time to time; If you read anything more into my statement, then you were not being fair in giving me the benefit of the doubt when I wasn't totally explicit and clear: Of course, edit wars all the time are not normal. Please give others the benefit of the doubt like you would like to be treated.--GordonWatts 11:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. There are many reasons I'm going to oppose this nomination.  First, you seem to think that age has to do with maturity, as you've said on my talk page and on this nomination.  User:Ilyanep became an admin at the age of 13, and is one of our better contributors.  On the opposite end of the spectrum, there are grown men who vandalize Wikipedia.  So your assertion that age has ANYTHING to do with adminship is grossly mistaken.  Secondly, your edits are all mainly in one area.  You have an average of 11.60 edits per page, according to Kate's Tool.  This is significantly more than any other admin I can think of.  I have an average of 1.57, Redwolf24 has an average of 1.76, Phroziac has an average of 1.70, Bishonen has an average of 3.55, David Gerard has an average of 2.34, etc.  This shows that you do mainly edit articles like Terri Schiavo.  Thirdly, you've only made 422 article edits- not nearly enough by my standards.  And, lastly, I personally do not think you know policy well enough- you cite in your Questions below that a 4-3 &quot;consensus" was not followed.  Anything 4-3 is not consensus.  That means that nearly half of the people who voted disagree with what you wanted to do.  Consensus is not a vote, where 1 vote can mean the difference between one result and another.  If there's that close a division, more discussion is needed on the talk page.   Ral  315  15:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 *  Ral 315 , please see the top of the page for a thorough discussion of concensus.--GordonWatts 06:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. It is important for admins to accept that not everything will go their way all the time, and to be able to gracefully accept the consensus of the community when he personally disagree with a result.  Based upon these recent edits,   , I have doubts that the candidate yet understands the nature of consensus. --Allen3 talk 16:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Your are using a prohibitted double standard. I have carefully reviewed your comment above, in which you say that I should accept concensus of others before thinking to be promoted. While I think I had explained my actions in my reply on that page, I honestly could have made a mistake in judgment in that case. However, I feel that you and other editors are not treating applicants for admin in the same way you treat current admins: Here, for example, at least seven admins and bureaucrats got into a prolonged edit war, on the Front Page of Wikipeida, not just some obscure FA-page; and, I did not hear any criticism from you or your friends -while minor questionable judgments by me are reason to deny adminship. Why? I too am a Christian, and I believe in adhering to the highest principals, and that is why my disappoiintment is exaggerated: Further, these double standards happen not just to me but to others, and that is why we must follow Christ's example (John 13:15) and then go above and beyond and do greater works: John 14:12, with reference to your user page. Those "greater works" surely included you speaking out about "double standards" for "the privileged." So, while I'm not perfect, I do think I'm at least as qualified as the next person User_talk:GordonWatts/RfA to get a few extra tools to help me help my community, since the policy is quite clear that those with my qualifications are permitted these extra tools. On a side note, while I was very upset at your post, it has caused me to dig deeper for answers, and I am very grateful: Thank you for your comments in this manner.--GordonWatts 23:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Allen3, you say I should accept concensus? Well, that is true, and, in the end, I never have refused to accept concensus (or else I'd be gone, banned, or something else) -however, if you suggest I should not defend myself against half-truths above, you are asking the only weak and two-faced admins be present, ones who will agree with everything someone says, "yes men," so to speak. If you are criticizing me, then remember, you brought the criticism first, and therefore, maybe you are the one who can't accept it when you are wrong; I may (or may not) be voted in admin, but that does not change two things:
 * 1) I am right on many of my rebuttals;
 * 2) Since I am right on many (even if not all), I feel a duty to speak what I feel the truth; if you criticize me for this, you will invariably end up with liars who do not respect the truth; It's your move, but if I am replaced with those who would dishonor thr tradition of respect for other people (that's how I got the Barnstars I did in this several-month period), and things backfire, don't blame me because it is your vote (and others) that would accept thoise who are not so certain to speak up for the truth as they best know it.--GordonWattsDotCom 16:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I really dont think that you are ready for this yet. Having an edit total of well over 2000, only about 200 distinct pages have been edited. Please get around more (edit at leas 1000 distinct pages), and come back in about a month, and you will have my support. I also, I concuer with Carbonite . Journalist C./ Holla @ me! 
 * I may very well be ready now, but even if that is the case, I appreciate that you made your point without having to either insult or falsely characterize me. Thank you for your decorum, Journalist. The other editors above seem to have a problem, and if they keep this up, then this unpaid job of admin (not much higher than my current position in abilities and edit powers) will fall to one of them, but I will not be around to help -only "holler for help" as the saying goes; Some of the criticisms are valid: I am not perfect: However, I have made many more contributions to the grand scheme of things than many others. Pretty soon, I'll be taking my Geritol and whipping my old-man's cane, lol. Did these editors take a look at my Barnstars or "non-Schiavo" edits? I think not. Mind readers and clairvoyants, they are; they don't need to do these things. Adminship to them is not a matter of abilities, experience, or desire to benefit; it is a personality contest. Oh, well, that's what you get when you don't pay your help. That's my 2c worth; Not trying to be mean or anything, but how would you respond to all that above...?--GordonWattsDotCom 16:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Mate, you seem to be whipping out them barnstars as if they mean that you're not criticisable. If some bloke puts a little award on your page, it in no way means that everyone should simply accept that the person who did so knew you, and so you're going to be a good admin. In case you didn't notice, not a single person who had given you a barnstar has voted "support" on this RfA, which I would think says something. Also, no-one's making this a personality contest. There are some very good reasons out here for opposition, including poor understanding of consensus and other policies, extremely low article diversity, age biases, POV pushing, obsession over a solitary article, and few article edits. None of these are personality problems. I highly suggest that you read arguments against you before dismissing them. --Blackcap | talk 21:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * talk, please see the top of the page for a better discussion of "concensus."--GordonWatts 06:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "including poor understanding of consensus " Thanks you for challenging me on thar points, Blackcap, but see my similar answer to another editor with this concern: "4-3 "consensus?" 4-3 is a squeaker" True, it is a squeaker, but that was seven people discussing one small paragraph, and you can;t get 15-20 people to make a "clear concensus" on every single edit, lol. We did the best with the seven people we had in that "4-3" squeaker, but a vote was a vote, and it should have been honored.--GordonWatts 03:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * If you had read my comment, you would notice that there are six issues apart from consensus. As to your reply regarding that solitary point, it only goes to show how little you understand how consensus functions. 4-3 is a squeaker, and is not consensus. It is "no consensus." After reading your statements on this page thoroughly, I can only add a strong oppose. I feel that you have given me no choice, especially with your comments about how adminship is "no big deal." This is true, it is no big deal, but it shouldn't be given to just anyone, esp. if that person may abuse the powers it entails. Adminship is a mop, but a sometimes sturdy one, and it should be treated with respect. --Blackcap | talk 06:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "there are six issues apart from consensus" I did not know you needed clarification, and I have been rather talkative, so I decided to abstain, but to address your concerns, here goes: "In case you didn't notice, not a single person who had given you a barnstar has voted "support" on this RfA, which I would think says something." Yes, it says that some of them are busy with college (real life things) and others see this RfA pulled early and don't think it matters anymore, because everyone is simply "piling it on" and "following the crowd," and often-times misquoting me, lol. "There are some very good reasons out here for opposition, including poor understanding of consensus" Since I address that at length elsewhere in this page, I did not respond earlier; To see my new replies on that, I suggest either reading this page, or paging through the page history here. "POV pushing" I do not push any pov -everyone has a POV, but my edits state facts, not opinions, and I source them with links; That is why I have never been disciplined -even when in the middle of many edit wars on "hard" pages, like Schiavo, Abortion, Jesus, Christianity, etc. "obsession over a solitary article" That does not disqualify me from adminship; reread the Wikipedia policy I posted at the top of the page; If you disagree with policy, take it up with Jimbo, not me, mate. "and few article edits" I've edited over 200 distinct article, and while I admit many people have outdone me, I meet the requirements and have also demonstrated that I can handle controversy without getting blocked or disciplined. That clean record should count for something. "I highly suggest that you read arguments against you before dismissing them." I've read every single argument on this page -from top to bottom, mate; Have you?--GordonWatts 06:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Absolutely not. Andre ( talk ) 20:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose as per User:TenOfAllTrades. He appears to be a one-issue (or as close to it as makes no difference) editor. While that is not necessarily bad, the one issue he's involved with is severely contentious, and from the way he has conducted himself on Terri Schiavo's talk page I am not certain that he will use admin powers judiciously. His confrontational responses to particular comments above also concerns me, as well as terms like "no brainer" when it comes to this nomination, implying that people who don't vote in support are therefore wrong in some way. Absolutism does not make for good compromise or consensus. Maybe in a few months, if things start to settle down or if he can show a greater diversity of edits. Or would Gordon agree to never use his admin powers in respect of Terri Schiavo related articles? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Seems to be a one-issue editor who has serious problems understanding our policies.  Try again in a year or so, once you've got some experience here.  Don't bother re-applying -- I don't believe you'll ever be suited for an adminship. --Carnildo 03:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Since I've provided justification for my claims that I am right, are you sure that your attitude change is not merely a person refusing to admit when they're wrong? That attitude ("I'm always right") is not appropriate of an Admin, and I admit when I'm wrong, so maybe you should too. Being bitter over a minor RfA application is not good for you, Carnildo, and you should not criticize me for simply asking that the current RfA policy (the 'no big deal" standard) be either followed or policy changed: It is not wrong of me to try to make the place a better place for newcomers and future RfA applicants.--GordonWatts 11:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I admit I don't know everything about all policies, Carnildo, but according to the current policy that should not be a requirement of adminship; According to Jimbo Wales, it should be "no big deal" if the user is in good standing: Look at my "block log" -it is a perfect and clean record: So, I am saying that your vote here, while your right to vote as you see fit, shows that you do not have a clear understanding of the RfA policy, as I stated above. Since I raise a good point, I am feel the need to ask you one small question, and please don't deny me this: Did you actually read this entire page here, with the votes, answers, and replies? Thx, Carnildo: I await your answer at your leisure.--GordonWatts 04:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I don't have a problem with a user simply because they are a "one-issue editor", as Carnildo put it above. However, I do have a problem with granting adminship to a user who has only been editing for four months. Whilst I recognise there have been a few exceptional users who have been granted extra privileges very early on in their time on Wikipedia, I do not feel that should become the norm. Regardless, a consideration of all the circumstances is appropriate. However, this does not go well for GordonWatts. He patronised one of our younger Wikipedians based upon his age, and seems to have a confrontational attitude towards this RfA in particular, spamming oppose voters with messages and inserting comments all over the vote list. I do not feel comfortable with making this user an administrator at this stage, so I feel compelled to vote oppose. And that's the end of it as far as I am concerned - I will not change my vote. Any messages relating to this RfA from this user on my talk page will be ignored, and I do not wish any comments to be inserted after this vote. - Mark 05:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC) (edit: comment by User:GordonWatts removed from here to the comments section at the bottom of this RfA, as per my request not to have any comments inserted after my vote. Mark 05:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC))
 * 2) Oppose Strongest Possible Oppose, now and into the future, with bells on. At this point, it might be considered piling on, and my reasons for opposition (narrow interest, few edits, probable POV problems) have been mentioned. But I'd also throw in the confrontational and argumentative way he has approached this nomination -- with nearly every oppose remark getting an argument from him -- as a very bad sign as to how he approaches opposition in general. --Calton | Talk 05:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Calton, Since I am right that others have not applied Wikipedia policy (and set the standards unreasonably high -see the top of this page), I would be wrong to remain silent. If stating the truth is "confrontational," then I'd rather be that; silence implies acceptance of people who defy Jimbo’s "no big deal" policy above, and alienates and offends many users, who have left in disgust; All that must stop.--GordonWatts 05:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Since I am right... Stop right there. This is why you're entirely unsuited for the job, and why giving you any degree of responsibility in a collaborative environment is a very bad idea. This is collaborative project, with collaboratively developed rules intended to smooth the way towards achieving project goals: when 90% of respondents say that you're wrong about the collaboratively developed rules, then bucko, you are wrong, both practically and by definition. Trying to Johnny Cochran your way through the overwhelming opinion AND the plain language of the words (what part of "trusted member of the community" escaped you?) tells me that either you don't understand how collaboration works ordon't care. So not only do I oppose it now, I will oppose any future attempts to muscle your way into this position. --Calton | Talk 00:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It is very important that you understand this: There is no policy stating that RFA voters must vote a certain way. Just because Jimbo says adminship should be "no big deal" does not mean the community must feel the same way. We are allowed to have whatever standards we want. N (t/c) 01:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Mr. Watts has appealed to Jimbo Wales to overturn the results of this vote and to grant him adminship by fiat. This clearly shows that Mr. Watts has no interest in consensus or in community. I had no intention of voting on this until this action occurred. User:Zoe|(talk) 06:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, Zoe, I did appeal to Jimbo, but your description of my post here is absolutely false -with all due respect. I did not ask for adminship by fiat; I simply asked Jimbo to either enforce the current policy -or change it. The reason that many users have left in disgust is the lack of enforcement of policy, and all this must stop. The fact you misquote me here indicates you didn't read my post to Jimbo, and that alone is concern enough for me to write: Whether or not I make admin, I think it is important for me to help you avoid the misunderstandings that you will inevitably encounter when you misquote people; the fact you didn't read my post led to a second error: you applied the wrong standards to my application. Just "following the crowd" can sometimes lead to you following them off a cliff, eh? (Did you also fail to read this page here?)--GordonWatts 06:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I read what you wrote on Jimbo's Talk page, that's what brought me here. You seem to believe that the RfA process should be dumped altogether and everybody who applies automatically get adminship.  User:Zoe|(talk) 06:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for fixing my vote-count typo, Zoe; You don't know what I believe, and your only hint is what I've written; "Dumped?" Well, no, but close: If you will actually read the current policy (and not simply "the way we do things," lol) then you will any editor in good standing (including Gordon Watts) should be admin’ed. Period. Look, your opinion is important, but if you do not like this policy, you should talk to Jimbo, not me; I'm not the right bloke to fix that policy; PS: Please read the post on Jimbo's page; that 'bout sums it up. (And if you've read it, please re-read it; I read every single comment here; I don't see why others can't do likewise, lol. Read them slowly over a cup of coffee or something equally tastey, and then talk to me; My ears are (almost) always open.)--GordonWatts 07:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you don't really seem to be in good standing, or this wouldn't really be a problem. --Blackcap | talk 07:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not a bad bloke, mate: If I were in "not" good standing, I would have long-ago been disciplined or blocked, or such; Your argument is assuming I'm not in good standing and then using that assumption to prove your assertions & claims. The main factors influencing the lopsided vote are the tendency for people to "follow the crowd" once there were a few bad votes, and the tendency of people to oppose that which is different or oppose change; The early pulling of my vote didn't help, but surprisingly you must think I am qualified: If truly you thought this nomination were a loser, you would let it sink on its own. See the note at the top, if you get a chance: It's new and concise. PS: I came to Wikipedia to help out and volunteer for free my time - why all the opposition to that?--GordonWatts 07:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I thought the name change was very admirable and it seemed like this user was making an effort to work with the wiki community. But the appeal to Jimbo is really too much.  The kind of person who complains about the rules when they don't get their way is not the kind of person who should be an admin.  I'm sure he will protest that, no, of course it's not just self-interest, it's the policy that's broken, but the time to change or correct the policy is before a run for adminship, not after the vote fails to get you what you want. Gamaliel 07:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words,  Gamaliel, but I must respectfully dissent: the time for policy change is anytime it's wrong; There is only one "today," and we can't procrastinate. If, on the other hand, you suggest I should have asked the policy be changed beforehand (assuming Jimbo's "no big deal" policy really is wrong, and that's a stretch), I must point out: I did not know there was a potential problem beforehand. I am smart, but not psychic and clairvoyant. But the appeal to Jimbo is really too much. If there is a problem that is undressed at the lower levels, then a failure to "go to the top" is wrong; Consider: Many times humans have made tragic mistakes simply by "following the crowd" instead of questioning what was wrong, and seeking an authority to intervene. Human history is chock full of stupid mistakes, but to continue to make the mistakes and not learn from them is what is really "too much." Do you not agree?--GordonWatts 07:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * This isn't some great injustice, it's some extra priviliges on a website. If it is indeed "no big deal", then it is also no big deal if you are not awarded these priviliges.  If we are "making too much of a big deal" by not granting you these priviliges, you are making too much of a big deal protesting your failure to receive them. However sincere your desire to correct this supposed wrong, it will inevitably be seen as in your own self-interest due to the timing of your revelation.  True, you are not psychic, but if you were unaware of such a supposed problem before now perhaps you are not familiar enough with this website to be an administrator. In the end, what it comes down to is that I dislike people who "game the system" to try to manipulate the rules by interpreting them in such a manner that they get their way, regardless of how those rules are implemented in history and practice, and this is what it appears what you are trying to do here, and it shows me you aren't suited to be an administrator here, sorry. Gamaliel 07:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "I dislike people who "game the system" to try to manipulate the rules by interpreting them in such a manner that they get their way," RE-read my post to Jimbo here: I did not "game the system" by saying I should necessarily be admin’ed; Contra: I said that I either wanted the policy followed -or, if the policy was "bad,&quot; to have it changed formally, so other users aren't alienated and offended, and leave Wikipedia in disgust; Reading the tenor of your post, I think you trust that my intentions to help my fellow-man/woman are noble and sincere; You are right: Why else would someone do these unpaid jobs like this? The little I get in return from Wikipedia for myself (having notoriety of being an editor here, and that occasional link to a story I wrote) is very insignificant to the work I put in it; thus, we can conclude correctly that i just cam here to help other people: Why all the opposition to that? And, to address your other point, "lack" of adminship should be no big deal: Correct: However, people failing to follow policy is dishonorable and disrespectful, and this is a cause of many people leaving Wikipedia in disgust, something which is justifiable for me to advocate opposing: How many other people will continue to leave in disgust and be offended and alienated. This is wrong, and it should stop; I hope to see the stupid mistakes of mankind in the past and avoid them; Is that wrong? Should we have simply "followed the crowd" and allowed human rights abuse, holocaust, wife abuse crimes, and other injustice, simply because "that's the way they do things?" I think not! Your points are good, Gamaliel, but you miss the big picture: How I am treated is a model for how others will be subjected to actions which violate policy and stir ill will.--GordonWatts 08:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Gordon, your nomination has failed, and your name has been removed from the main RfA page. I'm not sure why this page remains here, or whether it should be archived, and I'm not a bureaucrat so I'm reluctant to do it. I'm requesting, however, that you not post on this page again, as it's creating a degree of ill will, which is not doing you any good. Maybe you can try again in the future, but the more you post here, the less chance there is of any future attempt succeeding either. By all means reply to this on my talk page if you would like to, and I'll be happy to carry on discussing it with you on your talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * To avoid any more stress (why are people stressing??), I am going to acknowledge your post here; I'll be glad to give you my thoughts, but I have stated my case here pretty well (if anyone reads it or not, is a different story?). If people took as much time in simply following policy thant giving reasons why it can't apply here, we'd not only spend less time, but we'd also have loads more admins and be much more able to handle the continuous Spam and vandalism that occurs. Yes, you may contact me through any means listed on my user page (and I list several), but I must agree with you that it is not adding much for me to reply much here on out; however, if there is one person whom I can help by a reply and I fail to, I would feel bad. To the passer by, if you have questions about my positions here, you may re-read my other comments here on this page. I'm sorry for that hard feeling, and I understand the many points raised, but principals are important too. If this is unclear, read this ever-growing page. My adminship (earned by my clean record, varied contributions, positive barnstar feedback, etc.), while important, is not as important as the pattern we set in the way we treat those with whom we dissent -and the compliance with policy by Wikipedia users is not unimportant too. PS: Don't contact the bureaucrat: I already have. See the talk page of Mr. Smith, the bureaucrat who prematurely pulled this RfA. (I was replying when I got an edit conflict; I think I'm going to get a good night's rest and refrain from further posts here until the bureaucrat responds.)--GordonWatts 08:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've written above that the vote has closed, and I added Gordon's name to the failed nomination list. I'll leave a note on his talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "Actually, I've written above that the vote has closed, and I added Gordon's name to the failed nomination list." SlimVirgin (talk) , I am accepting bureaucrat Dan Smith's offer here to reopen and adjust the closing time of my RfA, and as soon as I get a chance, I will formally notify him.--GordonWatts 09:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) This is slightly nightmareish. I don't understand why Gordon is persisting. Ignoring all his article edits, his behaviour on this issue alone demonstrates lack of suitability. You don't seem to pick up when to drop it. Secretlondon 16:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "This is slightly nightmareish. I don't understand why Gordon is persisting." Why don't you ask him? He is persisting because he sees many other editors having to endure abuse, not just here, but everywhere when policy isn't followed or enforced, and people just do what they want. Look, policy may not be perfect, but follow it -or change it. "Ignoring all his article edits..." You should not ignore my edits, if you want to see who I am. I've made almost 3,000 edits, so check it out. "...his behaviour on this issue alone demonstrates lack of suitability." So, just because someone protests, that makes them wrong? Have you ever considered that maybe the person protesting might be right? Think about it before you assume too much. "You don't seem to pick up when to drop it." I will stop when the job is done, which should be around the 20th of this month -or a few days later -to make up for the premature pulling without my consent. If you have a problem with my RfA, I'd suggest you don't know when to drop it. As I said to the editor below, and YES, I'm not perfect, but I've been a good editor, so I would not likely change my trend in adminship. At least those editors who actually know me think I am a good editor (The first three "support" votes have known me at least since May, and read the "Neutral" comments from Grace and Ann, who have known me a lot longer than you, my friend.)--GordonWatts 09:11, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) NOW that this has been re-opened my vote is OPPOSE STRONGLY.  Mr. Watts seems to be very arguementive and note willing to take criticism without making a BIG deal of it and making it into something more then what it was intended. As an admin he will surely get have critics for some of his actions and I fear that his reaction may not be those reflected well towards adminship. Terry  T 16:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Terry , you say: "Mr. Watts seems to be very arguementive and note willing to take criticism without making a BIG deal of it." What if I'm right? Then, would it be right for me to remain silent? Think about it, because I could be right in my assertions that I meet the "policy" requirements. "and making it into something more then what it was intended." Maybe I need to make something more of it, if there is abuse that causes many others to quit Wikipedia is disgust and engender ill will. "As an admin he will surely get have critics for some of his actions..." EVERYONE will have critics except dead corpses, lol. I'm not dead, and neither are you, so we both will have our critics -no matter what. "...and I fear that his reaction may not be those reflected well towards adminship." Dude! With all due respect, chill out; I've been a good editor, and I don't see any change in trend.--GordonWatts 09:11, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) All administrators should have a thorough understanding of consensus.  Mr. Watts has demonstrated that he does not.  (Also, his practice of coloring his talk/Wikipedia page comments is extremely irritating.) &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "Also, his practice of coloring his talk/Wikipedia page comments is extremely irritating" I apologize, Cryptic, for the color in some part, but that is "proper protocol" in many boards: Every user has his or her own color, and it makes it easier for people to identify the speaker; Most people don't find my dark blue too loud or bright, and when needed, I use black, like here. "All administrators should have a thorough understanding of consensus." Your point? If you look at the very top of this page, you will see a detailed reply to those who thought I didn't understand "concensus." Yes, I agree that, for example, in RfA cases, you might need a 70-80% concensus, but when choosing between two options, and you have to chose one, then 51% is just fine; Plus, see the discussion at the very top to explain why sometimes you cant get 10-20 users to have concensus on every single issue. Top of this page. Thx.--GordonWatts 08:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I've come to respect your dedication and I believe you are trying to do the best you know how, but it is very clear that you do not have the types of qualities we look for in admins. I'll purely offer this as advice of what I think you would need to improve on since that seems to be what you are looking for. You are repeatedly demonstrating a lack of understanding of how this community works and each time claiming that we are all wrong. Sometimes it's right to stick up strenuously for things, but first self assess and make sure you are right. It's clear you are failing to do that, and when that happens and you repeatedly stick up for things where you are clearly wrong, is what makes you appear combative. Admins need to be able to admit when they are wrong. Your understanding of consensus is particularly lacking, and the fact that it has been attempted to be explained to you a number of times and you still fail to grasp it is a big problem. Admins must also be able to set aside their personal biases and work for the greater good. You are clearly failing to self assess accurately. You seem to think that everyone that doesn't get banned should be an admin. That's not what no big deal means. What it means is we should give the benefit of the doubt to people that have demonstrated the ability to understand, implement, and enforce our policies. You have unfortunately clearly demonstrated the lack of ability to understand many of our policies and community norms and standards. That means you are not admin material yet, even if you haven't been disciplined for anything. Not being disciplined just makes you eligible, but really doesn't get you all that far towards meeting the standards for adminship. So please take this to heart. You can and do have good qualities, but just having some good qualities isn't enough if the negative qualities show enough reason to believe you wouldn't make a good admin. Instead of trying to force your will on things, try stepping back to self assess and observe until you learn and grasp the policies and norms of the community. If you've been around Rfa for long enough (or even just read a good sample of past nominations and the talk page discussions), you would be able to see the kind of behavior and consensus that is being looked for. It's not terribly hard to get admin status, but again, you've shown a number of reasons why you're not ready for it. Sorry for being repetetive, but it seems no one else has been able to get through to you. Maybe repetition will help. - Taxman Talk 17:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "I've come to respect your dedication and I believe you are trying to do the best you know how..." Thank you, and yes, I think I should oppose what I think is mistreatment of many very qualified RfA applicants, based on arbitrary, "numerical" standards that are not always real-life normal. "...but it is very clear that you do not have the types of qualities we look for in admins." Clear to you and about 20 others, but not to me; The majority is not always right. To assume so would not be reasonable. "Sometimes it's right to stick up strenuously for things, but first self assess and make sure you are right." Well, unless the rules and policy are changed, then, yes, I'm right. If I were asking to be a sysop or a bureaucrat, that would be different, but admins do not have "super dangerous ninja weapons," as some hint, lol. "Admins need to be able to admit when they are wrong." In case you didn't read the top of the page, I apologised to Hipocrite for an inappropriate comment I made; we are all human. "Your understanding of consensus is particularly lacking..." I just posted a special section at the top of this page because a number of users had similar concerns. Please see above, Taxman. ~ "You have unfortunately clearly demonstrated the lack of ability to understand many of our policies and community norms and standards." Here is where I would like to correct you, Taxman: If the "norms and standards" (e.g., editcountitis and looking at "concentrating on "Schiavo") are different then "actual policy" (e.g., "no big deal / any user in good standing / like me here), then guess which wins? You guessed it. Policy. If you don't like the policy, then seek to change it -but, if not, you are wrong, simple as that. "You seem to think that everyone that doesn't get banned should be an admin." Correct. "That's not what no big deal means." I'm afraid it does. While I can't locate the diff offhand, I've seen quotes that indicate that 95-100% of ALL users should be admins, and since the ratio of users to admins is MUCH too GREAT, then I'd say we do need many more admins. Remember, Taxman: I'm not applying for sysop or bureaucrat: I'm just asking for a flashlight and a mop, lol. "You have unfortunately clearly demonstrated the lack of ability to understand..." Your assertion, shared by many here, but remember, it in unproved: 25 or 30 users here is still very small compared to thousands of wikipedia editors. "You can and do have good qualities, but just having some good qualities isn't enough if the negative qualities show enough reason to believe you wouldn't make a good admin." Thank you for your kind words, Taxman, and I know you are sincere, but remember, you were wrong on the recent vote we had to insert a reporting of the hospice placement for Terri Schiavo! You could be wrong here, but thank you for being a gracious loser that time, and I will concede my Admin application graciously here if I lose the vote count too, but that does not mean I think the RfA process is being done according to policy -that is fairly. It is not. If it were, we'd have a lot less "ill will," and you know that to be true.--GordonWatts 08:45, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Well the big problem here is you are still far from understanding consensus. 4-3 is a vote, and for limited instances such as small wording disputes is acceptable if no more participation can be gotten. But it is certainly not consensus, nor rough consensus. You have repeatedly called it consensus and that is a complete misunderstanding, and your failure to understand that after it has been explained many times is troubling. For ex a 4-3 vote if used to support a certain wording or inclusion of a fact should be quickly reversed if a consensus appears for going the other way. Other methods such as compromise or trying to get more explanation from the oppose voters to see their points should be tried. Finally the bigger problem here is you are in violation of WP:POINT. You feel the policy is that any editor that hasn't been banned should be an admin under no big deal. You have a right to your opinions, but since that is not how RFA works in practice, you have disrupted Wikipedia by constantly replacing the nomination, and arguing incessantly. 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. That way it's not you trying to argue your way into adminship, but the issue is still handled. - Taxman Talk 14:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I replied in further detail to your long post here, but the short answer is thank you; I am trying to post my concerns to the appropriate public pages; yes, the talk page here was locked as was this one, and I couldn't reply to your post here. Am I being silenced?--GordonWatts 23:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) If he insists on finding out what the community thinks of him, I guess this is what he gets. Merely within this discussion, obvious problems with Gordon include his poor understanding of consensus, his sense that adminship is an entitlement, and his refusal to accept any responsibility for his treatment of others (notably Ral315). These flaws are already enough to keep me from trusting Gordon to be an administrator, without even needing to investigate his conduct as an editor of encyclopedia articles. --Michael Snow 17:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Michael Snow, "problems with Gordon include his poor understanding of consensus" see the top of this page for why 51% concensus is right in some situations, where you only have two (2) choices and must chose one; "his sense that adminship is an entitlement" It is an entitlement, if I meet the guidelines in policy; that you want to make up rules and not follow policy is a bad reflection of you, not myself, even if I am not voted in; "responsibility for his treatment of others (notably Ral315)" Also, you did not read the Ral315 conversation: I did not criticize him unfairly (for example, make fun of his 15-year old age, as some have suggested) -Conversely, I criticized him for reverting my edit without discussing it on the talk page with either me or the regular editors; He did not identify himself as the editor-in-chief, and thus he alone was responsible for the misunderstanding; Even if I was a little rough on him, that is not relevant: We are all human, and many admins are much more argumentive than I am, yet they are not removed, so my good standing" status is all that is currently required under policy, and your comments about Ral315 are exaggeration, nothing more.--GordonWatts 08:24, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Intractably and verbosely argumentative, very unlikely to work harmoniously with other admins. Strong possibility he would engage in wheel wars and ignore policy: for instance, he considers that 4-3 in his favor is a consensus, yet 24-3 or more against him isn't. -- Curps 18:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Curps, You must have missed my prior discussion of consensus: Please see the top of this page here where I show the different standards of "concensus," and why I was not wrong in the case you allege.--GordonWatts 06:50, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose because of User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 126. To be blunt, seems to be frequently whining that "adminship should be no big deal, so why are you opposing me???" N (t/c) 19:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "because of User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 126." Why do you oppose my post to Jimbo; Since you provide no answer, I am sure that you are merely "following the crowd." I am not convinced. "be blunt, seems to be frequently whining that "adminship should be no big deal, so why are you opposing me???" ANSWER: Because, while my adminship may not be such a big deal, your insistence to are hold applicants to higher standards than those laid out in policy will offend and anger users who are depending on you and your colleagues to follow policy, and, in the end, damage the reputation of Wikipedia. Also, if you claim that my lack of knowledge about the "unwritten rules" is proof that I am not ready, I will point out to you that the "unwritten rules" obviously are not important, or else they would be "written rules." If you want to use "editcountitis" for a standard, then seek to change the policy, but if not, then follow the current "no big deal / good standing" policy that is currently in force: NOTE: While I am criticized in this page, I am a member in good standing: Arguing that I am unfit, and then using your allegations as proof of them, is "circular reasoning," and is a logical flaw: Prove to me first that I'm not an unfit editor, and then you can make your argument. Your vote here is not proof. It is an allegation.--GordonWatts 06:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, opinionated ruleslawyer. Bishonen | talk 21:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Bishonen, if people would follow the rules, I would not "lawyer-complain."--GordonWatts 08:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Adminship is not a right, it's a privilege. Whether one becomes an admin is up to the community. If the community doesn't want to grant someone adminship for whatever reason, whining and bickering about it won't change our minds. Generally, such extreme overeagerness is not considered a good trait in an administrator. Gordon, you're doing a good job as an editor. If you keep up the good work, express yourself in a more civil manner and show strong interest in janitorial tasks, come back in about six months or so and you'll have a much easier time gaining adminship. I urge you to stop trying to argue and ruleslawyer your way to adminship. It's getting on our nerves and making this RfA a very unpleasant experience for all of us. Finally, this is a warning, not a threat: If this incivil behavior continues, you could find yourself facing a request for comment or, even worse, a request for arbitration (not from me).   [ +t, +c, +m ] 07:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind feedback, Szyslak. I may be wrong to complain about my opposition votes, because, in wiki, others should complain for me; HOWEVER, that being said: I am complaining, yes, even "whining and bickering" about this process because it has failed MANY Wikipedians, not just GordonWatts: I feel that the promises of wikipedia to allow any editor in good standing admin rights is a broken promise and also feel that what was once a simple granting of "extra tools" (like, say, a flashlight, cell phone, and map for an employee to use on a business trip) has become a political football, an insiders crowd, "clique." Thing. I will accept a vote it goes against me here, but I still feel that users who apply a higher standard than policy (the "no big deal" standard) are wrong and in violation of policy, and will eventually get disciplined. I don't want revenge, and also I appreciate your positive feedback, but let me note that admins often display the same argumentive attitude that I do, when they think that they are right, and they are not removed from adminship, so if they are not prevented from being argumentive when they think they're right, then neither should I. If you trust me as an editor, then you should trust me as an admin: Remember, Szyslak, I'm not asking to be a steward or a sysop; I'm only asking to be an admin; If I were asking for a "real high" position, then I would agree, but every day, good, qualified editors are denied Adminship because of political infighting, and this is not healthy. We are short on editors, in case you haven't looked at the number of users vs the number of editors, lol.--GordonWatts 08:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You betray your ignorance of Wikipedia policy once again: "admin" and "sysop" are the one and the same. Andre ( talk ) 05:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You are correct: I goofed up, but you posted when the page was locked, and didn't give me a chance to reply. I got lucky, so here goes: I saw your post at above, and you posted to a locked page, using your Admin privileges, so when I tried to reply, I found an unpleasant surprise: It as locked. However, you were correct: I didn't know what a sysop was: I thought it was some really high position. That being said, we all make mistakes, and my minor “vocabulary” gaffe (which is easily fixed with 1 minute + El Dictionary) -was minor compared to these serious revert wars, involving no less than seven Admins, on the Main Page no less! So, when you and other extraterrestrials keep silent and pretend you can't speak Earth-language, we all know it is a double standard: Admins can do all kinds of things that would raise shouts of criticism from a "small, little" RfA applicant. Is there a double standard --a major cause in editors quitting Wikipedia left and right? If so, is not the right thing to do simply oppose it vocally? You can speak up.--GordonWatts 23:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. This is the first time I've been moved to oppose an RfA, despite the piling up the poor fellow is receiving. I have read every comment on this page, and on this vote's talk page, and have a few things to say. While a scale of importance to my concerns shouldn't be read into the order that I present them, the first thing that caught my eye was the statement by the candidate: "First, it is not spelled Terry, with a "Y."". This from an editor who seemed to ignore, for whatever reason, how everyone else spells consensus for most of this discussion. If the reason for the misspelling was inattention, that doesn't bode well for a potential admin. If the reason was contempt for Wikipedia culture's unwritten constitution, that bodes even less favourably for a potential admin. I'm assuming it was the former, but either way, the tone of the rejoinder brought to mind glass houses, motes and beams, etc. One cavalier interpersonal example of many, but perfectly indicative this editor's seeming contempt for (or at least impatience with) dissent from his views. The next thing was the appeal to Jimbo to bypass the RfA consensus. My third concern is the preponderance of time spent on the Schiavo articles. IME, I've dealt with similarly focussed editors before, especially on (the formerly known as) VfD, and the consensus almost always went the way this vote seems to be going. There is nothing wrong with a specialist editor, but IMO an admin needs the breadth of vision to handle the arguments of others with aplomb, even if only to know when to recuse themselves. Fourthly, as far as the barnstars go, I have been given a barnstar by a sarcastic vandal before. It is buried somewhere in my talk page archive. I'm not saying this candidate wasn't awarded his stars by respectable editors in good standing, but rather I am indicating how much weight they hold for me. Which brings me to my final point. GordonWatts mentions repeatedly how mature, smart and right he and his arguments are, and I don't doubt he holds those convictions sincerely. But my vote doesn't reflect that, it reflects how I feel about the candidate, after careful consideration of all the arguments he and others have presented here. Fire Star 08:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Neutral
 * 1) KHM03 15:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC) -- He certainly has been doing noble work on the Schiavo tragedy, but I'd just like to see a greater diversity of edits before granting him sysop rights; maybe in the future.
 * 2) While I have worked with Gordon on the Terri Schiavo article, but since I started to talk to him after the controversy started at the article, I am not sure if he has the good qualities that an administrator needs. However, due to his legal background, I would welcome for Gordon to be used in some type of way to clear up legal issues, such as the Fair Use laws. Zach (Sound Off) 23:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) I quite like Gordon. I don't think he'd abuse the powers. But of course I don't think he should be an admin. I would though support him if he would walk away from Terri Schiavo and work on other stuff for a few months. Not doing so indicates a lack of understanding of what wikis are and what they do. Grace Note 01:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Grace. I have reduced my editing on Schiavo due to "real life" obligations, but to answer your questions about abuse, let me make one point: I have not abused my editor powers (as shown by me not having ever been blocked even when walking into the middle of edit wars on very contentious articles). Thus, it is not likely I'd ever use admin powers on Schiavo (unless it was to deal with vandalism) --unless i had been away from the article for a long time -and was no longer a regular editor. SECONDLY, admin powers where you are an editor is not always "bad": Taxman, one of our newest editors, did this per concensus, and thus used his admin powers where he edited and argued with us (and was gracious when his side was not supported by concensus) -but he was not criticised, because his admin powers were within concensus and justifiable, but I might have asked another admin to unlock the article so it would not give the perception of "abuse." Taxman did nothing wrong, and I think everyone is making too much ado about "GordonWatts'" admin powers: I have not betrayed your trust as an editor: Even in hot edit wars, I respect my neighbor, and have NEVER, repeat never been blocked, banned, disciplined in any way -I'm not perfect (read this entire page, and you'll see), but I've "earned" my stripes as an editor -even though many editors are more experienced and have more time to edit, you don't want to deprive me of my admin tools: In theory, 95%-100% of ALL editors should be admins. Hold on a sec, and I'll get that policy link. BRB. I can't find that diff, but read Jimbo's statement at the top, where I quote him and describe adminship: It's simply getting a few more tools, like a person who's going to go on a hiking trip and wants a map, flashlight, and cell phone: No big deal to grant him "flash light rights." Now, I am not asking for power to delete user names or shut down the system; See the difference? PS: 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. Scary.--GordonWatts 03:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Gordon continues to demonstrate lack of understanding of consensus. While I disagree with the complaints sometimes levied when a nominee uses the word "vote", comments like that to Hipocrite above ("a [4-3] vote was a vote, and it should have been honored") are a conceptual error rather than a vocabulary issue.  Gordon should note that, conversely, many admins extend discussions even when proportional votes meet the 70%-80% consensus range simply because a 2-0 or 3-0 vote does not indicate a consensus. &mdash; Lomn | Talk / RfC 15:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 *  Lomn, You to misunderstand the issue of "concensus": Please see the very top of this page here, where I discuss the different standards used, and show that I did not need anything more than 51% to post my version of the two versions discussed.--GordonWatts 06:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I am placing an extremely reluctant neutral vote, for reasons which I shall expand on later. It would be wrong to vote for someone as admin merely because he shares my POV in many issues, or because I like him. I am very sorry that this RfA was ever started. If I had known beforehand, I would certainly have advised against it. Ann Heneghan (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC) Update: I will add my reasons to the talk page for this RfA, as I think they may be more appropriate there. Ann Heneghan (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


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


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

CAN WE SAY ILL WILL - I am basically new to Wiki so forgive me to point this out, but aren't these RfAs supposed to be removed before they create "ill will", let alone "great ill will" what is being created here. It is obvious that Mr. WattsDotCom will not get the necessary votes. Can we close this issue and move on? Maybe I am in the wrong. --Terry 17:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I would like to second Terry's comment. Nothing useful is likely to come of prolonging this misguided, and seemingly doomed to fail application for adminship. The applicant should be encouraged to re-apply when he has greater experience of the workings of Wikipedia, and a wider range of editing. Giano | talk 22:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I, too, ask that this RfA be stopped. At this point, it would take a nearly unprecedented number of support votes and no additional oppose votes for Gordon to achieve a favorable consensus. I don't make this appeal from a basis of any policy at all, just human decency. In every single case above, when Gordon is confronted with a rationale for why he should not be an admin, he alters reality to suit his desire. Gordon refuses to accept that he may not be suited for adminship, and chooses instead to adhere to a myriad of alternate explanations ranging from a broken RfA system and a bandwagon effect stemming from the vehement opposition this request has faced from the very beginning. These actions are those of a person with a tenuous grip on reality. I beg for a bureaucrat to shut this down before any more damage is done to Gordon's psyche. It's gone far enough. It's already off the RfA front page, let's just stop it now. Fernando Rizo T/C 08:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I sympathize with your decency and respect, Fernando, and you make good points, but I have early and often admitted that I have some shortcomings; however, you are wrong on one technical point: I do not need as many additional "pro" votes as you suggest: If a few "oppose" votes changed, that would both reduce "against" and add to "support," with a double effect; I don't know how likely this is, but the cost of not standing up for that which is right will in the end damage the community psyche more than any small thing that can happen in this one-week candidate: Disgruntled editors quit in disgust all the time, and that is a problem which has happened because of the "bandwagon effect" you mention here. I think we can do better, so I ask that the admin repost this for the week (adding a few days to make up for pulling it early) and let the votes fall where they may. We should view this as a much-needed learning experience. Mr. Smith, or another bureaucrat may indeed pull this, but I do not think it would be wise in the long run. That is just my take, but I stand by it, after much reflection. The only benefit that can come from pulling the nomination early is extra time in "real life" matters for the editors involved, but I don't think that justifies turning a blind eye to the problems that have caused situations such as these in the past -situation which shall recur if not addressed.--GordonWatts 08:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

GordonWatts, having failed to argue his way into the job, has apparently decided to go over everyone's heads and argue directly with Jimbo Wales. See his talk page for details. --Calton | Talk 07:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I have removed a comment by User:GordonWatts from after my vote to this comments section (there is a reason for this comments section), as per the request in my vote. His comment is as follows:
 * "and I do not wish any comments to be inserted after this vote." That is not a good attitude -especially for you, an administrator yourself: This is wiki, and I have a right to reply so long as I am polite and factual: I did not patronize Ral315 because of his age; If read the dialogue (you see), I patronized him because he went in an reverted an edit without properly identifying himself as an editor with that responsibility. He acted irresponsibly, and gave the appearance of youthful drive-by vandalism, so you are not justified in blaming me for his mistake. (I apologized for the misunderstanding when I found out he is the editor-in-chief, but that does not change the fact that he is the one who acted irresponsibly, not myself; my comments on age were justified and based on his conduct, not an insult.)--GordonWatts 05:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

If Mr Watts wants to continue to discuss my vote, he may do so here. - Mark 05:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A. See my comments above and extrapolate.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. I am one of several "heavy" contributors to Terri Schiavo, and, while she didn't make Featured Article status, we have improved the article for readers on all sides of the issue, so it is not biased and rather accurate, if not a bit excessive. Also, on Jesus and related topics, I have contributed lightly.
 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A. Yes. (If you have no conflicts, it is mathematical proof that you're a dead corpse, lol.) On the talk page of Schiavo, I lamented the fact that a recent 4-3 concensus on a certain edit was later not honored, and I felt cheated. How I dealt with it? "This is just wiki, after all," but we still want to present to our readers articles with all major points of view explained. We should also help the editors feel welcome -even those with whom you disagree. Especially those people, who may be stressed or the sort. People are important.

and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.