Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/GordonWatts

Initial Conversations
Oppose, unless you drop the DotCom from your username. I think Admins should set a higher standard of compliance with the username policy. I wouldn't anyone to think you were promoting your personal website all over the 'pedia. Uncle Ed 13:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I accept your proposal; I will accept a transfer of edit credits to User:GordonWatts if you think that would be more becoming.--GordonWattsDotCom 15:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that would be a lot better and reflect a lot better on you, and that you should do it anyway. - Taxman Talk 21:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I also agree with the name change. While I am not a person who has the ability to change names, Ed does and since Gordon agreed to it, we could start it after the RFA is over, or unless Gordon wants to do it sooner. Zach (Sound Off) 23:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the feedback, Zach and Taxman (and Uncle Ed) -hmm... Why don't you all log in official votes, since I have given my word to accept your combined proposal here -yes, it's looknig poor, but I make a valid argument -albeit not as good of an argument as some people with like a million edits and nothing but time on their hands. Come and vote -win, lose, or draw, this is just wiki, after all.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Since you have no problem with the name-change, I can find someone for you to take care of the name changing. Zach (Sound Off) 02:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. The name change has been actioned.--GordonWatts 03:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, we all must abide by community consensus. The standards are indeed changing. Perhaps if you branch out and help with editing of "non-Terri" articles or do some vandalism patrol, you'll impress your fellow contributors with your public-mindedness. I was with the project for about a year before being offered adminship. It took me a long time to learn how to do this on-line, cooperative editing thing. Uncle Ed 12:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * This whole debacle is damaging to the reputation of the Wikipedia project. A stop should be put to this now. The application is obviously going to fail, and no good can come of further debate on the subject.  The candidate's views are now immaterial to the outcome, and there is no good reason to proceed with this. Giano | talk 17:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "...and no good can come of further debate on the subject." I beg to differ, Giano | talk: First, if the I really am not qualified, based on "concentrating too much on one subject," as some suggest, then maybe the policy can be updated to prevent unqualified people from getting in; If, on the other hand, Jimbo was telling the truth about it being "no big deal" to promote any user in good standing (by "real" standards, like a block record or something, not contrived by people who just look at 1 or 2 edits and make assumptions), then all the abuse and ill will that is presently and currently occurring here in RfA could be put to a stop: What used to simply be giving a person "a few more tools" (like we might assign a call phone and mop to an employee in good standing), has now become a toxic political process -an insiders club, a clique if you will. If I were so unworthy of trust, then why didn't I get disciplined in the months since I‘ve been here? No, I'm sure that a lot good can come from this. The majority is not always right:


 * clique   ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (klk, klk)
 * n.
 * A small exclusive group of friends or associates.


 * Just remember, Giano | talk, those "smart people" who built the "super boat," the RMS Titanic knew how many "life boats" to put on their big ship. Right? Actually, that little inside "clique" did not put enough lifeboats on their ship, and they thought that this majority was right. Wrong. Wrong then and wrong now. Look at the actual facts. If you're so inclined, actually read the posts here, and ask yourself why those who know me supported me more than those who'd never met me. Then again, some people never will admit to wrong, will they? Some people. QUESTION: Why are you so afraid of letting my application run for the week here? Afraid maybe it will expose flaws in the process? Afraid of a late run of voted coming in for me? RELAX! This is just wiki, and my RfA will not harm you if you're a man, but if it's stopped prematurely, it will send a message that "we don't care about people -we don't follow the rules; We just make up our own policy to suit us; We can't keep out work to comply with policy." Now, that would be harm, Giano | talk, would it not?--GordonWatts 12:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Have another drink Gordon, and then get to bed! Giano | talk 21:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

(Ann Heneghan's) Comment that's too long for the main page
It's distressing to have to refuse to support someone who apparently expects me to support him, and who is already getting so many negative votes. (Well, I'm not going to oppose, either.) In my experience with Gordon, I have seen a lot of very eccentric edit summaries (,, , , , and especially and  plus a tendency to do things that I consider ill-advised, without seeking advice first. Reporting as a 3RR violation something which was not a violation is one example. Opening a vote and declaring it closed two days later is another. Reporting Neutrality to the arbitration committee for "potential abuse" of administrator position when Neutrality had done nothing that required admin powers in his disagreement with Gordon is another. Trying to renominate Terri Schiavo as Featured Article within a few days of its failure may have been another. (I'm not sure that he actually did that, but he certainly spoke of it.) This unfortunate RfA is another example.

I don't want to criticize Gordon unduly for any of this. Being eccentric and impulsive does not imply any lack of intelligence, honesty, or kindness, but it does suggest that he doesn't conform, and that he doesn't have a strong sense of what not to say if you don't want to put people's backs up. In his defence, I must point out that (contrary to the impression inevitably created by his placing of comments under almost every single oppose vote) he has often shown himself to be extremely good natured when attacked and ridiculed on the Terri Schiavo talk page. Very inappropriate and offensive things have been said both to and about him, there, and he has shown absolutely no sign of holding grudges. He has also worked hard editing the article, and I don't just mean efforts to oppose the Michael Schiavo POV; I mean the monotonous, thankless work of correcting grammatical errors, and tracking down sources, as well as uploading his own photos of Terri's grave.

Gordon, I'm really sorry this is going so badly. Stay around, get more Wikipedia experience in other pages, try to conform more, don't act without taking advice, and then perhaps try again next summer, but certainly not before. Ann Heneghan (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I do agree that I act a little weird at times, but (as you generously point out), I try to work with people in good will. In your defense, I may not be ready for adminship due to the fact that I may have "real life" duties and responsibilities that take time away. (I know this was not a point you raised, but I think it is the best argument you could have raised; While I have my faults and such, I don't think I would perform badly in adminship, or else I would not have applied; I think I would have been more conservative and blended in, as I usually do.) While you make many good points, I must disagree on principle: The current policy doesn't lay these standards, and, however good of an idea, they are not policy. Most particularly, the "editcountitis" approach that has been used recently in adminship -and the fact that several editor misquoted me -are both in violation of policy, and I wish to stop both of those -even if it doesn't help me, but to help future Wikipedians; To get rid of the "editcountitis," we would either need to change the policy to allow it -or discipline the users who used it. To get rid of the latter would require a skilled admin to convince the editors involved to not misquote people. I'm easygoing, but this trend affects other people besides me, and I feel it is a trend that must stop -independent of whether I get promoted, and my RfA is just the vehicle to address these problems.--GordonWatts 05:24, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Patsw's vote
From User talk:Blackcap:

Sorry I was so slow to respond, Blackcap, to your question of Pat (whom probably didn't read your question here -probably not on his watchlist, or else he would've fast responded, ??) -and glad Zoe caught the one other typo I missed in the vote count; I took a day off to recover from overuse of the keyboard; I'm human.


 * Pat wrote: 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)
 * You responded with this question, that appears to not be answered (I'm still leafing through the history) --> 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)

My guess is that Pat was lamenting that many editors are liberal and express their POV in their edits, and that he wants more conservative editors to be balanced. OK, I'm generally conservative (except that I wanted some votes recounted in 2002's Fla. Governor's race + my liberal environmental stances) --but the over-arching point is that I don't let me conservative pro-life POV get in the way of unbiased reporting of fact: The Terri Schiavo article reports both sides and sources the assertions with links. You can't tell from reading it whether the writer(s) is/are liberal or conservative; That's how it should be. Plus, I make sure they cites their sources; additionally, I am not alone: Many others have helped make the Schiavo article (and other article) the Grande Articles they are -and they deserve credit.--GordonWatts 05:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

--Blackcap | talk 23:11, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Side Comments

 * Gordon, if you're looking to discuss general RfA problems, as the heading states, it would probably be best to post on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship rather than your own RfA. Carbonite | Talk 15:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thx, but I'm playnig in my sandbox first to make sure it's right. Also, you locked the project page (the other side of this talk page), but "special people" still post to it, and yet I can't reply to them at that place; Do you see a "double standard?" (I think people just can't handle the truth, so they go around and lock little tiny pages like the project "front" page of my RfA; Gee Whiz. It's not a highly trafficed site, or even an article page or the main page; Viewing is voluntary, which raises the spectre of people locking it because they can't handle the truth; any "ill will" is their fault for reading it, lol.--GordonWatts 15:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Using a sandbox is good idea, but this page isn't actually a sandbox since it's not in your userspace. If you're looking to use a sandbox, perhaps you could create a page such as User talk:GordonWatts/RfA.


 * Your RfA has been removed and closed, so there shouldn't be any more editing on it. Since you were still editing, I protected it temporarily. If you agree not to edit it again, I'll take you at your word and unprotect it. Carbonite | Talk 15:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I would like to post answers to the recent posters who slid in after the door shut me out (and add one comment to one I missed), and then I would agree that you should lock it back up. As far as the sandbox thing goes, these "general" comments belong in this talk page as well, because that all describe situations specific to me.--GordonWatts 15:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * There's really no need to answer every comment on your RfA. Most candidates reply to only to only a small percentage of comments. I'm not going to unprotect unless you agree not to edit the page.


 * If the above sections are specific to your RfA, then it is appropriate for this page. From the heading "general RfA problems", it appeared that you were planning on discussing it at a broader level.


 * Just some advice: Let it go for now. Don't let it bother you. Forget the RfA and enjoy editing for a while. Carbonite | Talk 16:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It is obvious that he is commenting on general problems with RfA, not just his own failed candidacy. This is inappropriate for this space. If he wants to sandbox stuff, let him do it on his own pages - if he's not moving this, I'll do it for him. This candidacy is over, and the pages should be locked. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * After examining the "discussion", it does seem to be more general and one-sided than is appropriate for this page. I agree that user space would be the best place for it. Carbonite | Talk 18:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * So, you don't want me to be able to discuss my problems, which just so happen to be described by every general situation? Yes, they're general, but they're specific (to me), and THIS is the place for my specific gripes. Has the 1st amendment died already?--GordonWatts 18:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You are perfectly free to continue at User talk:GordonWatts/RfA or rename that page, or direct people to visit it. You're just not going to discuss it on this page. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 18:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Just a note, Gordon...there is no 1st Amendment on Wikipedia. We regularly ban users who inject their viewpoint into articles (usually just in the case of simple vandalism, but in the real world, such would be covered under the 1st Amendment...)   Ral  315  23:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, but we're sill supposed to be able to openly express our views in dissent. "Dissent" - a scary word to those who locked both the RfA page and this talk page here. Thx for unlocking the page; I shall post a "redirect" note below.--GordonWatts 23:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


 * 1) Main page: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship
 * 2) Misc. Discussions: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales
 * 3) User_talk:GordonWatts/RfA (Backup, in case someone tampers with links above -plus I've saved a copy on my computer, in case some deletionist Admin trots into town.)--GordonWatts 23:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)