User talk:GordonWatts: Difference between revisions

Terri Schiavo

Per Wikipedia:Community noticeboard#Community ban request on User:GordonWatts:

• You may not edit articles related to Terri Schiavo
• You may not link or suggest links to your own sites
• Your participation in Schiavo articles is restricted to making a very small number of brief comments to Talk pages, of the order of one per day. Note that this does not mean one thread, edited numerous times, it means one edit.

Failure to abide by these restrictions will lead either to an outright ban, or to ArbCom (who will almost certainly apply precisely the same restrictions, but with more force). Guy (Help!) 15:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

"* You may not link or suggest links to your own sites" I have just seen this message, so I am not prepared to respond to all points, but this point seems to be in violation of current Wikipedia policy: WP:COI clearly says that "If you feel it necessary to make changes to Wikipedia articles despite a real or perceived conflict of interest, we strongly encourage you to submit content for community review on the article's talk page or file a Request for Comment to the wider community, and to let one or more trusted community members judge whether the material belongs in Wikipedia," not that I suggest links to my web papers very often. Also, Wikipedia:Spam#Canvassing point 6 states that "If your product is truly relevant to an article, others will agree -- try the talk page. We usually recommend that editors be bold in adding directly to articles. But if the above advice makes you concerned that others will regard your contribution as spam, you can find out without taking that risk: Describe your work on the article's talk page, asking other editors if it is relevant." This one requirement alone is a violation of the Wikipedia policy I just quoted. I am interested to see what my the violations are. As I recall, I was accused of linking to my site, promoting my site, and excessive talk, but last I heard, talk is permitted, even if it is a minority viewpoint. To restrict a person's speech based on content seems a violation of Wikipedia policy, but I have not seen the latest posts.--GordonWatts 00:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Free advice - worth every cent.

Hi Gordon, I saw this comment of yours: "I have proof here that others are lying when they claim...". Now, I don't know if people are right or wrong, but I'm sure they aren't lying. At worst, they are mistaken. Can I trouble you to choose your words more carefully in the future? Thanks, Ben Aveling 21:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they are lying; I call a spade a spade. However, I did make a point to be polite, did I not, in the process of calling a lie?

Just this morning, I learned my cousin, Catherine, just died. She was only about 53, and i have been very preocupied.--GordonWatts 00:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about your cousin. Was it expected? No need to reply if you have places you should be - family comes first at times like this, you probably don't want to hear my take on anything to do with wikipedia. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

She had been in very poor health for a long time, so my cousin, Kitty's death was not unexpected, but these things are always grave. Thank you for your sympathies, Ben.--GordonWatts 00:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That can make it easier, not that these things are ever easy. All the best, Ben Aveling 02:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Ben's advice, and I'd like to join him in offering sympathy on the death of your cousin. Regarding Wikipedia, my advice would be to make great use of the preview button. Ask yourself if there's anything in the text or in the edit summary that will irritate people. If there is, do you really need to post it? Can you leave out that bit? Can you reword it? Don't argue over every little point. You're convinced you're right, and I'm not going to argue with you, but I'll just say that even if you are right, if you see people changing their votes to something more restrictive (or changing from "Oppose" to "Strong oppose" at your RFA) because they're irritated by your determination to have the last word, then even if it doesn't tell you that they're right and you're wrong, it should at least tell you that it would be wise to stop doing it. People do sometimes lose what they want because they fight too hard for it, and that seems to have been happening to you. I'm also disappointed at your accusations that others are lying, just as I was disappointed when Calton accused you, wrongly, of lying. I pointed out at the Terri Schiavo talk page that Calton's accusations against you were false, and Musical Linguist pointed out the same thing, in greater depth, at the Community noticeboard. But in behaving the same way yourself, you are actually making Calton look better, and also embarrassing the people who are trying to help you. The child who tells his teacher that he really did do his French homework but the dog ate it is presumably lying (if what he says is not true), byt someone who says that Gordon posts too much or Calton posts too much or Elinor posts too much is unlikely to be lying, since "too much" is an impression, and can't be answered by numbers. Try not to make such accusations, Gordon, as it's a violation of WP:AGF to do so, and doesn't really help your case. Anyway, best wishes, and sorry again about your bereavement. ElinorD (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, ElinorD. I understand that, in some cases, such a claim of lying is subjective (like when I personally feel that someone saying "too much" is false), but remember, I qualify that statement this is merely my interpretation and offer an objective (not subjective) proof with numbers. However, some of the things that I suggested are lies (like that it is alright to ban or discipline a person simply for the content of their posts -or the length, if it is not exorbitant), ARE violations of policy, and such a violation would be morally equivalent to a lie, as it is theft of access. Lastly, whether I disagree or not, I generally try to be polite and flexible, but there is a point to which I will not compromise, and the actions of the others in this case are inappropriate, because the things they did to me (as elucidated in my RfArbitration) are things which they would not want to be done -that is, things which violate policy. Consensus does not trump policy: Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy. I try to be polite, but there is a point where I must oppose inappropriate treatment / violations of policy, since the latter affects numerous parties, and consensus does not trump policy. (If someone hates policy, either change it or leave, lol.)--GordonWatts 02:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I have initiated WP:RfA WP:RFAR action against the other editors involved in the recent ban action against me.

I have initiated WP:RfA WP:RFAR action against the other editors involved in the recent ban action against me. Observe:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Current_requests

--GordonWatts 02:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe you mean WP:RFAR not WP:RFA. I'm guessing you don't mean your starting a Request for adminship against the editors that wish to ban you. --Bobblehead 02:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes; Thank you for caTCHING MY TYPO. --GordonWatts 02:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please be aware that the case may well not go the way you want it to. Guy (Help!) 12:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your observation; Yes, you are correct, but I feel your edit comments here in your post are suggestive of BAD MOTIVES on your part. I'm not making fun of you, Guy, even though I very well may win big. Lastly, I'd like to point out that my naming of you in the RfArbCom is not an attempt to pick on you. Rather, since there were numerous combatants who I feel violated the policy, I had to limit my naming to a few, and you, as the admin who executed the mood of the community were named as a representative party. Yes, I feel you were wrong in some of your votes or requests, but I am not picking on you specifically by naming you. Just so you'd know...--GordonWatts 02:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration notes

We generally ask that opening statements be kept to arounf 500 words. You are not trying to prove your case, but rather to show the arbitrators that there is a case needing to be heard. This is not a new rule but has not been emphasized in the past and not noted prominently on the WP:RFAR page. Following requests from several arbitrators, we are beginning to enforce this more closely. Can you kindly edit or re-word your request to come closer to this guide?

As I was trying to reply to Guy and Elinor, I saw your post in the changes diff, and am just now replying; I'll try to follow the protocol you suggest; Sorry if I "missed the mark," but I don't do this type thing very often.--GordonWatts 02:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, you must notify editors you consider a party to this dispute now, when you file the request, and post diffs of the notifications in the Confirmation section of your request. These parties must have a fair chance to comment. Once the case is opened, the clerks will perform official notifications that the case has been opened. I know you have notifiefd Guy and Calton; if there is anyone else you consider a party to this dispute, please add their name to the request and notify them now. Thank you. Thatcher131 02:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I did notify the editors which were named, but I did not post the diff, since I figured we were on the "honor system," however, after I consider whether others are a "party," I shall go about notifying all the editors and posting the diffs, as you request, Thatcher131; It may take a while, but I shall presently undertake to grant and fulfil your request.--GordonWatts 02:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly how many users were you planning to add to the RFAr? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

At first, I was only seeking to name the person who initiated the improper action against me (Calton) and the poor admin stuck with executing the scarce approx. 60% or less "consensus" (JzG) -that's all. But, based on the comment of Thatcher above, I am naming all those who are involved. Just in case you're curious, I'm almost through -and considering I DID NOTHING worthy of a ban in the first place (made no improper edits, did not edit war, etc), I would appreciate it if you let me add the remaining few editors.--GordonWatts 08:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Um. You do realize the folly of bothering dozens of editors about this, when the point of contention is an alleged tendency to be longwinded to the point of disruption, right? Continuing in this course of action seems as though it might be a tad counterproductive. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I did consider that logic early on, and that is why I did not initially take that course of action, but I have notified all but about 2 or 3 (by my estimation), and it would be unfair to the rest -and be rather inconsistent -so I will finish what I started; Besides, it is probably BEST to get the "whole" story, since, of course, I am alleging that I did not violate any rules -and did nothing "major" except vociferously defend my right to express an opinion -not something worthy of any ban.--GordonWatts 08:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was just some advice. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Noted. By the way, I just now noticed: Of the 33 participants in my request for ban, only 14 supported any one sanction, so this is NOT a WP:CONSENSUS -not even a "slim majority." I guess that honesty doesn't matter to your colleagues, though, huh? Well, we'll find out! If they're honest, they'll do like me and admit they were wrong about the initial presumption that there was a consensus against me. (Yes, I was wrong about that presumption too! I am big enough to admit.)--GordonWatts 10:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You might also be interested in another interpretation of the community ban consensus. ChazBeckett 10:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification; I was just now looking at my watchlist -and saw it -when your message came in.--GordonWatts 10:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Unfortunately your statement may be 500 words more or less, but your rebuttals add another 2000 words to the total. Requests for arbitration is not meant to be a discussion or a debate. I think a rebuttal to the votes of the arbitrators is a reasonable addition, but can you do something about the rest? If your main concern is that there was insufficient agreeement to constitute consensus, a link to the discussion and a brief recap should be sufficient; I would normally expect the arbitrators to follow significant links and verify them as part of their determination. Thatcher131 13:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I just now am checking my messages; I will look into it, and I will probably remove all of it (except maybe a short comment hither and yon; and, if I feel the need to offer long-rebuttals, I will probably link to a diff or -maybe -an old discussion -such as you suggest. However, I may be slow in granting your request, because I want to read all the new messages (diff-by-diff) before I respond in any fashion. This may take some time.--GordonWatts 02:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User:JzG's actions, however well-meaning, were in violation of WP:CONSENSUS

This just in:

I just now noticed: Of the 33 participants in my recent request for ban, only 14 supported any one sanction, so this is NOT a WP:CONSENSUS -not even a "slim majority." User:JzG's actions, however well-meaning, were in violation of WP:CONSENSUS.--GordonWatts 11:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Your response at WP:RFARB

Firstly, I'm not sure why you split my comment in two; it was a single statement. I'm not against you seeking response in brief comments. I was talking about the ones of excessive length, not that I wanted to silence you completely. Feel free to seek consensus in modestly sized comments. However, I can't see comments like "Relax, Leebo: This policy won't kill you." and "I'm not the problem. You are, so relax; it will be alright." helping you in this ArbCom request. Whether you meant it or not, I perceive your tone as condescending. Leebo⁸⁶ 14:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not mean to condescend (that is, I do not wish to imply you are a child or that you are stupid) - let me look again at my reply to see if I misrepresented your position by accident.--GordonWatts 14:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Your condescending tone is manifested in stuff like "Relax; it will be alright", as though I'm fretting over this and need to be calmed down. It's unnecessary. Leebo⁸⁶ 14:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I tried to make major attitude adjustments to myself (see my reply: [1]), correcting my accidental misrepresentation of you and your view -but you still are a little bit too "tense" about some aspects (for example, word length), which are somewhat exaggerated. I usually don't post much AT ALL on the talk pages, so it all works out in the end, but if I am attacked, hey, sometimes I will reply with force and quantity/quality, etc. It is at my discretion -if I must address inaccuracies.--GordonWatts 14:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

On another note, is it necessary to respond to people in the ArbCom request? If they accept the case, then there will be plenty of time to present evidence and discuss each statement. I'm not entirely familiar with RfArb proceedings, but that would seem to make sense. Leebo⁸⁶ 15:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I feel that if I show misdeeds, it is a stronger case that "we need to investigate" please note the two "decline" votes already entered. Yes, I don't much like to respond, but I feel occasionally a lie (or maybe a simple mistake) needs light shined (shone) upon it! Ya know. Besides, IF the case is taken, there is plenty for them to look at: I would kind of prefer they TAKE the case and STOP ALL comments unless solicited from them; We have more than enough facts to proceed. Too many facts dilute the truth -and make it too lengthy to read.--GordonWatts 15:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Why are you dissecting each arbitrator's decision? Accusing them of not reading the case isn't going to win them over, I can assure you of that. Also, the idea that 2 of them decided "before you realized there was no consensus" is bogus. You can't count every person who commented in the thread as the base line for the total number for people who supported a single sanction. I think one of the later statements said that over 85% of the people who commented in the motion to close supported the sanctions summarized by JzG. You can't count all the people who ever posted a single comment in that total. Leebo⁸⁶ 04:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"one of the later statements said that over 85% of the people who commented in the motion to close supported the sanctions summarized by JzG" Since the only options on which a person could "vote" were one which were "against" me, then ALL votes in those columns were, perforce, against me. But -those who were "against" me were less in number than those who were "for" me. The mere fact that a thread or voting option was lacking for them does not negate the fact that they refused to support the options enumerated. "Why are you dissecting each arbitrator's decision?" Did you not see Thatcher's note to me stating that "I think a rebuttal to the votes of the arbitrators is a reasonable addition"?? I agree. Besides, if the vote is wrong, and no one brings it to the attention of the voting arbiter, then an injustice is not only going to happen to me -but it will "set precedent" that this type of rogue Adminship behaviour is OK. Not so fast. "You can't count every person who commented in the thread as the base line for the total number for people who supported a single sanction." Oh? Then WHAT should be the baseline? To count only those against me? No. In figuring who "won the election," you count ALL those who "voted," and anyone who posted to the page, "voted" either in support of an item -or, by silence -not in support.--GordonWatts 04:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

So, in effect, someone who commented and never returned to the discussion (even if they commented that they supported the ban, but didn't post in the motion to close) is a vote "for" you? Leebo⁸⁶ 05:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No! If they commented against me -but did not "vote" on the line, it still counts as a vote against me -and I did go looking for those "stray" votes, and I found, like one, but there were not enough to tilt the scale against me. Most were NOT in favour of any of the sanctions -with the caveat that maybe a slim majority supported some sort of talk page constraints -such as we had a few years ago -constraints that applied to all editors on total numbers of posts -a word length restriction would be more sensible, because we all need to make occasional minor typo corrections.--GordonWatts 05:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If there was a posting restriction (by number of posts) one would have to be pretty petty to say that correcting a typo was more posts than allowed. Leebo⁸⁶ 05:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep. However, when I was blocked that one time for 12 hours, I was mainly doing just that sort of thing (article, not talk), and it was a misunderstanding -I had thought that we had done away with that agreement -as I think I saw other editors making more than 3 per day of copyedit or such.--GordonWatts 05:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Did I read that correctly? Your community sanction is akin to the oppression of the slaves? Actually, it seems to me as though any policy or guideline that doesn't correlate exactly with how you feel is of questionable validity in your mind. Any consensus against you is questionable. If we allowed our policies and guidelines to be bent every time someone said "but what if all of Wikipedia is wrong?" they wouldn't mean squat. Leebo⁸⁶ 14:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No - I didn't say that - just read what is written. I recall saying that sometimes the majority CAN be wrong -and using that as an example. Saying that I am a slave is putting words into my mouth. Just read the whole ArbCom page a few times over (my case and the others on that page for balance) and it may sink in.--GordonWatts 14:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...

I feel you misinterpreted my comments on your community ban discussion. I was merely supporting you being allowed to reply to people who wanted to ban you; however, I do not disagree with the ban (and I'm unsure as to why you named me as a party in your RFArb case). Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 23:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

My interpretation of the rules is that all parties (even those with minor participation) must be named to be fair. Regarding your feeling that I should have been banned, barred, or otherwise restricted or disciplined in some way, you have yet to make your case, but thank you for supporting my right to speak.

Since usually my edits don't get reverted (implying that I am a good editor), I don't see what the furor is all about regarding me editing some article or the other (other than that people don't like my opinions, which are sometimes in the minority)-I mean, I don't, like, vandalize, or edit war: I respect consensus and usually stay far away from 3-reverts.

My beef is that you have people who know almost nothing about me saying falsehoods like that my only purpose is to promote my newspaper or something. Since I have made VERY few comments in all my time here along those lines, this is a falsehood. (I'm not accusing YOU of that, but showing an example of false claims.)

Also, since most of the referrals to my websites DON'T come from Wikipedia's pages, it is not necessary for me to use Wikipedia to promote my websites. It's amazing how much some person who doesn't even know me thinks he or she knows about me -usually just repeating rumors, and assuming. You know where rumors and assuming usually get a person.

However, as a matter of fact: #1: I don't feel I violated any rule, and #2: Even in spite of the fact you regretfully support some sort of ban, voting is now closed in my community action; If you still feel this way, feel free to comment on my ArbCom case, but please don't just spout off -please (if you will) read all the case and facts FIRST -that is, the community discussion (now archived) where you initially posted -and, all the growing pages of the ArbCom case -a lot of people thinkg I was mistreated -and that i am not the only person so treated badly.--GordonWatts 03:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply

It wouldn't have continued... I was just archiving that when I edit conflicted with Mangojuice.--Isotope23 15:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"It wouldn't have continued" Agreed - it was a matter of time.--GordonWatts 15:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Please again shorten your statement at RfAr

An arbitrator has again requested that your shorten your statement on the Requests for Arbitration page. Your statement should not exceed a total of approximately 500 words, including all responses, rebuttals, etc. We appreciated your shortening yesterday and will appreciate your again doing so today. See the "Clerk notes" section of your case for more discussion. Also, please note that I am functioning as the Clerk in this case. I have no role in deciding whether your case is accepted nor in deciding what the rules of the arbitration page are. Newyorkbrad 17:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC) This request is moot since the ArbCom has declined to review the case. Newyorkbrad 21:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh... what? The decision in the community discussion was a editing restriction, rather than a ban. Did something change? Leebo⁸⁶ 21:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Note: this comment was made in response to the mistaken addition of a {{banned}} template to the page. Gordon, you can probably remove these comments once you read them. Leebo⁸⁶ 21:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

em this is not right - this was never under discussion. --Fredrick day 21:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. My fault. I need more sleep. JoshuaZ 21:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Just so there is no confusion - the original restrictions (as upheld by ARBCOM) are:

Gordon Watts should not edit Terry Schiavo articles directly, should not link or suggest links to his own sites, and should restrict himself to making a very small number of brief comments to Talk pages, of the order of one per day. --Fredrick day 21:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yup. This will be enforced, if necessary, by blocks. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo

Jimbo is very busy and gets many appeals every day from users who are unhappy with something and want him to intervene. He almost never does. JoshuaZ 03:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't disagree, but as many people frequent his board, I feel the duty to expose the corruption -for what it's worth.--GordonWatts 03:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)