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)

In that case, you are using his board to soapbox and disrupt. That is not useful. JoshuaZ 03:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What now? Are we going to censor expression of opinion -when they don't fit within our "bully" mentality? I don't see you posting to all the other disgruntled editors who often post there. I smell censorship in the air. Careful. We worked several hundred years to get rid of slavery -so i have a LOW view of the human race; Just when I was thinking the best, I see a comment like one you posted. Bad view on things, Josh: If you are going to censor, then do it to all --or NONE at all. (In case you don't get the drift, I'm not a vandal -that is, I don't post hundreds of messages to Jimbo's board -nor do I threaten -or slander. You've got the wrong guy here.--GordonWatts 03:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Gordon, the ArbCom rejected your claims. Appealing to the general community on Jimbo's talk page is not going to change your situation at all. And Jimbo's board is nto for "exposing corruption" it is for messages relevant to Jimbo. This wouldn't be that different than if I went to talk:Main page and complained about the POV in a little stub somewhere. It isn't censorship to ask that you don't use Jimbo's page (which already has high enough traffic as is) to pontificate on matters which don't concern Jimbo. JoshuaZ 03:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"And Jimbo's board is nto for "exposing corruption" it is for messages relevant to Jimbo." Well, since Jimbo has authority over ArbCom, technically, I am able to appeal to him. How do you know I didn't do that? If you don't know, you should ask someone. An appeal on a valid matter To Jimbo would certainly qualify as "messages relevant to Jimbo" -whether he takes it up or not, is NOT your call, Josh! Since many think I was treated in violation of policy, I have valid concern. --GordonWatts 03:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? You just said right above that you "don't disagree" that Jimbo is very unlikely to listen "but as many people frequent his board, I feel the duty to expose the corruption" JoshuaZ 03:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct- "unlikely" - but I did not say "impossible" -read what I wrote -don't add to it.--GordonWatts 03:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo himself could agree with the sanctions that were levied and Gordon would continue to appeal. To whom, I do not know, but it's a near certainty. Leebo⁸⁶ 03:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct. And your point? (Let me qualify: Jimbo could support ArbCom - Correct -as far as appealing beyond him -that is NOT certain. If you disagree, I'd like to hear who is "above Jimbo." God, maybe?--GordonWatts 04:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That's the point, Gordon. There isn't anyone to appeal to above Jimbo. Leebo⁸⁶ 04:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• (Mainly directed as Josh, since he's an admin, but a general statement to all in context) If people like you spent as much time enforcing Wikipedia policy (such as WP:Consensus and others) as you do on side-issues, as this above, we wouldn't have near the problems we do! I'm not picking on you specifically, but using you as an example, as you are the latest to make a mountain out of a molehill -and then make a molehill out of a mountain -double screw-up.--GordonWatts 03:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Determining consensus is not a head count

It's not. Your user page states it that way though. Leebo⁸⁶ 05:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You dont stop do you?

[2] making accusations that there is a "cabal" is simply not civil and not necessary. Furthermore, AGF aside, it looks clear that you simply made this edit as part of your general protest of the cabal and such. Stop. You are being disruptive and just ruining the signal-to-noise ratio. JoshuaZ 05:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I can read, thank you. That is my belief. If I see evidence of editors voting against people without good evidence, it is my right to label tham as calal or bullies. Truth is truth -I can only be polite so long, when others are bullied. Maybe you do have a point, though. I'll mull on the nuances...--!!!!

And while we are at it, regarding your userpage- do you think the removing Arbitrator forgot to vote? There's no point in an arbitrator voting and then removing it. If there vote will remove a matter, they simply remove it. This is common sense. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. JoshuaZ 05:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the more important point is: Why does ArbCom support admins who violate WP:Consensus? THAT's the bigger issue -if you want to talk about something.--GordonWatts 05:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The consensus of the ArbCom is that WP:CONSENSUS wasn't violated. Leebo⁸⁶ 05:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You need more than 5 or 6 to make a "consensus," and arbitors are not exempted!--GordonWatts 05:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

How many arbiters are needed for your definition of "ArbCom consensus" then? You realize that you needed 4 more Accept decisions than Decline decisions for them to take it right? At the point where 5 had said no, you needed 9 to say yes. Leebo⁸⁶ 05:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Gordon, in the past the ArbCom has considered arbitration requests to be rejected when they reached 3 or 4 rejections. You should be happy they even let it go until 5 had formally weighed in. I'm also going to suggest something- even if you don't understand how consensus works here and think you have a better understanding, maybe, just maybe, the people who have worked on this project for years and the arbitrators who are the most well-respected editors have a better idea of what constitutes consensus on Wikipedia than you do? JoshuaZ 05:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What now? I'm blocked? For what?

What now? I'm blocked? For what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AGordonWatts

This block happened right after I voted for an editor -against the votes of other editors, and the worse thing I might have said was that I thought others were a cabal -hardly an insult -my opinions.

Sounds like more bullying to me by User:Coredesat who has been playing with my block log -for no identifiable reason. --GordonWatts 05:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Honest mistakes, I misread the ArbCom decision. --Coredesat 05:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"Honest mistakes, I misread the ArbCom decision" I accept your explanation, C, but after 11 block/unblock actions (9 of them in the last few days and 7 of them by you), I was wonering what was up...--GordonWatts

Blocked again

Given that you have been nothing but disruptive since the appeal of your editing sanctions to the ArbCom was denied, I have blocked you indefinitely. --Coredesat 05:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you please specify what I've done that has been disruptive? (In Wikipedia, the only thing I could have done is post something, so show me the diff, and give me your argument. I await your answer.)--GordonWatts 05:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. You could've just dropped it, but you went on a tirade across various pages, including disrupting a community ban debate on another user. You can't do that. --Coredesat 05:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply to your claims these diffs were disruptive:

I have a right to express my opinions on my talk page; You are out of order here, C.

Here, I posted my opinion on the subject at hand, no different than any others, so your singling me out shows you are picking on me, that is, biased, or bullying. Also, what if I was appealing to Jimbo? He is in charge of ArbCom, right? I think I'll tell Jimbo that you don't approve of me posting on his page, alright? I'll show him your post here. OK?

[11] I was not starting any trouble here. I was responding to Calton's comment on word-length. If you don't block him for posting this -but do block me for merely replying, I see this as proof of bias, that is, picking on someone simply because of their views -not because of anything he or she did. (I posted on the same subject as Calton -and was merely replying, my right as much as it is his right to post.)

This is a true statement: It is my opinion he is spending too much time on this and not enough on policy. Besides, the very fact I was just denied by ArbCom hints that you are trying to kick me when I am down. You will not help your reputation, nor will you be doing right, by doing so.

[12] I have a right to my vote. The only thing I might have done here that is inappropriate is call others a cabal. However, much worse things are done all the time. Users all the times use strong language -or insults worse than this, and nothing is done. Apparent bias on your part. (Even were I wrong, I apologised when it was apparent I may have offended anyone.) IO have a right to vote as I see fit.

[13]I might not have been as polite as I should have, but my question was legitimate and valid. I certainly did not threaten or hope to censor anyone here.

[14]These are not only my opinions, but also, i have a right to express them on my page -even harsh criticism such as I have here -so long as it is sincerely my beliefs -and not meant or made to harm or hurt. Ever heard of constructive criticism? See my talk and from page -where I make suggestions on how to improve Wikipedia -by getting ads and paying editors, and such. I'm not a hater. I merely defend myself and others -like anyone else.

[15] That is not only my opinion -it is probably correct. And, it is on my talk page. I don't tell you what opinions you should have or not have on your talk ,page, Core, now do I? It's your space, and I support your right to express your opinions there.

To Conclude:

That I'm helpful to others is all that counts, and, yes, I've focused on my ArbCom case a lot recently, but, hey, what IF I'm right? Are you saying I don't have a right to appeal to them -or fight for what I believe is right? I fought a hard fight in my ArbCom case, but I made efforts to be polite and factual -and comply with word count too -even though tat was hard with as many critics as I had.--GordonWatts 06:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

And it doesn't help matters, that during that time you made not a single edit to mainspace anywhere. Every edit was related to your campaign (except possibly the disruptive edit about Khos's blocking, but even that seems pretty clearly connected). I suggest that if you promise to be a productive editor and stop being disruptive about this, Core may consider unblocking you. JoshuaZ 05:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - if you promise to drop the issue and become productive, I'll unblock you. --Coredesat 05:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue was already dropped at the time you blocked me. Although I reserve the right to post occasional commentn on my page, my posts recently were an expression of my right to reply to others. I see where you're coming from, but only getting onto me about it is not productive. Do you think it's right for others to poke fun at me -and then it not be ok for me to respond? Such as when Calton continues to make an issue of the word-count and such. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.--GordonWatts 06:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: "if you promise to drop the issue and become productive" Core and Josh: Look at my mainspace edits: I'm practically always productive if I'm not having to defend myself (If people don't pick on me, then I don't argue back.)

• Most all my mainspace edits have always been good -and most not reverted. Do as you please on the block issue, but do know that I am never trying to offend anyone, and I would rather be blocked and not offend someone -than be unblocked and offend them. I answer you in detail regarding the diffs you found above.--GordonWatts 06:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• I would rather you read my replies -and block me -than to unblock me without actually checking up on the facts. (What I'm saying here is that I'm putting your welfare ahead of mine; I hope you review the facts to your satisfaction before you do anything at all; You'll feel better about this if you review the matter, I think.)--GordonWatts 06:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Well, I started a new discussion on ANI (at least I can do that part right). Whether I (or someone else) unblock will end up being related to the outcome. --Coredesat 06:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't fully understand what you mean "being related to the outcome." How can your action "be related?" Blocking and unblocking are have a direct cause and effect action -not a mere "relatedness" - right? --I would rather you just take your time and look at my hundreds of pages of main space edits -if you have a beef --as far as my opinions, do not fret over this matter: My opinions do not harm anybody, so no real concern exists, and I would prefer that I could edit -and continue to help out as I have, but if not, then you all will have to keep this pace in check on your own -and without my help.--GordonWatts 06:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Actually, if you agree to drop the whole issue, I'll still unblock. --Coredesat 06:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
        • "Actually, if you agree to drop the whole issue, I'll still unblock." Well, I was going to drop the issue anyway, so why not promise to do so now. After all, I appealed to the highest place, and the matter can't go any higher -even though I maintain that, for the most part, I and others were treated unjustly. However, comments by me on user and talk pages (such as the italicized above) are my prerogative (just as you can post to your pages as you see fit). Now, and if I occasionally slip up and say something about that case, that is normal, as many people will talk about this case for years to come.--GordonWatts 06:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

em.. no.. I'll be honest you are just a run of the mill POV warrior - we see then come, we see them go, people will struggle to remember what this was about in two months. NOBODY will talk about this for years. If you drop it, I support you being unblocked - BUT if you want to keep wikilawyer and making WP:POINT posts about it - I think you should be blocked for good. This is my only post about the matter and I will not be drawn into conversation with you about it as I find it frankly unproductive. --Fredrick day 07:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I am pro-life, and have a bias, but when editing, I don't let my bias get in the way of "fairness." Observe this edit, where I put in a link to Michael Schiavo's site -I fought him tooth and nail on State Court -and lost, so no -I'm not a POV warrior, but I can understand that some may feel this way.
• Also, I want to know why people think I am not a good editor -if that is so, then what about those thousands of good edits I made on hundreds of pages in the main space -and all. People saying stuff like "It is quite clear this person has no interest in collaborating" [16] -no, it's not clear. Apparently, this editor has not seen my thousands of edits on hundreds of mainspace pages -which were accepted and not reverted. All that's apparent is that "a cut dog barks". (That was a phrase former Gov. Lawton Chiles said -which literally means that if you provoke a person -like I've been provoked, they will holler and bark -and you should not criticise them for it, because that is to be expected.)--GordonWatts 07:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Apology to User:Chacor

• • Note: I can't post anywhere else -I'm banned or blocked -whatever you call it -so I'm constrained to post here.

In case you did not see the post on the thread "Unblock of Thekohser?" I apologised to you -because you were offended by comments I made -I'm not exactly sure WHAT it was I said or did that offended you, but I think I can guess, so I will try to reply in kind:

• At the admin Incident notice board, you write: "(at WP:CN - the first time I had interacted with him) and getting met with a hostile response (along the lines of "stop harassing me or I'll get you sanctioned"),"
  • Yes, I was harsh, because you approached me on a topic which was not the topic of the page, and I felt as if you were kicking me when I was down (I had lost my ArbCom case, remember?) -but I did not need to be that harsh -if you would have been offended. MY only purpose was to ask you to take the ArbCom conversation to another place (such as my page or similar).

• I made the general comment: "unlike the rest of the cabal, I actually looked at his contributions" -which I later thought might have insulted others.
  • I was angry at what I thought was mistreatment of one editor, and i yelled, no different than if you yell at someone for attacking a person. But, I do not wish to offend you by that statement: There is a chance that the votes against Thekohser were justified -and they my comment was unjustified -but I felt otherwise -and that is why I spoke up. Regardless, if I labeled you all a cabal, I should have been more clear as to WHY I thought that -and offered proof that you didn't look at his contributions (or admitted it was only a guess on my part).

• you also mention "wikilawyering on the arb request"
  • While this may be offensive -it shouldn't be (and is not meant to be insulting -it's merely my right to bring my case -strongly or otherwise). Even if I am wrong in the way I handheld my case, it is NOT an attempt to insult you. Further, what if I am right? Don't I have a right to Redress of grievances like anyone else? (Did you even look closely at my case? If the admin in question had no consensus, then he is wiki-lawyering, is he not?)

• You said that I was "disruptive on his talk page"
  • I agree that I should not use my talk page to insult anyone -and if I do, please point it out -don't just get mad --but rather discuss it with me -I may not agree, but I WILL hear your side. I have email and talk page to communicate if you have a gripe about my talk page. OTHERWISE, my talk page is my prerogative to use as I see fit -I defend your right to post on your own talk page.

• You said I was "trolling at WP:CN..."
  • I admit I got angry and reacted inappropriately, but I did not think you would be offended. (My reply here is not an attempt to get blocked -unblocked -or the like. I just am upset I may have offended someone who I don't know.)

• Lastly, I've noticed general comments from many editors on the Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents page, and these people are saying all kinds of things about my editing that aren't true. I mean, I've made almost 5,000 edits to hundreds of mainspace pages, and almost all are not reverted -and almost NEVER is anyone angry at me (look at my block log: here.) If I'm such a trouble-maker, folks, then why were there almost no serious blocks (not counting this past week) -in all my thousands of edits. I mean, really, people acting like they know my life history, when all they know about me is that I defend myself and argue back -and occasionally lose my temper -hey, don't we all defend ourselves and get a bit hot at times? That's not especially significant, so I think it wrong for people to say all these things (like: "It's quite apparent that Mr. Watts..." ) No, it's not apparent -when they know almost nothing about.
  • In spite of the fact I'm quite hot about people who don't know me saying loads and loads of things about me -I still do not wish anyone to be offended. Block me. Unblock me. Mr. Spock me, for all that matters (*see below), but know: Although I occasionally get ticked, I do not find any pleasure in unnecessarily offending anybody, and to this end, I feel I offended Chacor, therefore I am taking my precious time to apoligise, since he-or-she may not have seen my post here, where I apologised in that page.

The others, I must assume, are not offended -since they did not specifically say so -just irritated that I'm defending myself -unless you state otherwise. If I have offended anyone else, let me know, and I will try to make good.

If anyone doubts that I am sincere, please note these FIVE non-profit (mirror) websites, dedicated solely to helping improve health -not seeking any money or advertisement: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. I work day and night to try and help out other people -in real life -in many different areas -this is just one of them.--GordonWatts 08:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

*(From above) "Block me. Unblock me. Mr. Spock me, for all that matters" -- That section is meant to convey that it is less important for me to be blocked or unblocked- what is more important -in this short life -is that I spread good cheer- not anger. Of course, I am upset at being blocked, but I am more upset at the thought I may have offended a person (or persons) whom I don't know.--GordonWatts 09:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Gordon, several of us are saddened that it's come to this, but the problem is, ultimately, with you, as I think you must by now realise. Nobody disputes that your motives are good, it's not motives that cause the problem.
  • By now, I (myself) don't dispute that you are factually correct: There is a consensus that I'm a trouble-maker of sorts -but is it justified? Or, rather, is it merely because I protested that you wrongfully claimed consensus in the recent past -when it was not so? If the latter is true, then the current consensus (against me) is partly due to the fact I protested a wrongful claim of consensus in the recent past. I'm not trying to lay a guilt trip on you -only show you cause and effect: The result today is not all the fault of my actions yesterday. (Also, if you look at the diffs that Core provided in my block page, most of them were harmless expression of opinion, and many were on my talk page -MY talk page, which I can use, so long as I don't threaten, slander, or attack. I did nothing more then opine -express my opinion -and reply to others. The ones who provoked me were NOT disciplined for discussing my ArbCom case, but I was disciplined for replying to them. Now, Guy, what do you think about that??
• The problem comes from the fact that your style is excessively verbose,
  • If you cut a dog, it will yell -and so will I -that's not abnormal! (You'd do the same if you felt you were cheated in, say, a community "discussion" or similar.)
• you have a tendency to endlessly rehash the same arguments
  • No - not endlessly, ...For example, I lost a request for Adminship, and hard feelings resulted, but I let it drop. So, don't presume to think it is hopeless. Thank you for your defense of me, but I would ask my harsher critics to at least look at my thousands of edits on the hundreds of main space article -where there is usually NO problem -unless someone provokes a fight. Hey, I just MIGHT BE right in some of my claims, eh?
• despite them being discussed and discounted by others, and you seem reluctant to accept the possibility that your interpretation of things may be wrong - at least in Wikipedia terms, meaning unsuitable for inclusion due to WP:NPOV#Undue weight. I see some hope that you could be unblocked if you give a categorical undertaking to abide by the restrictions I outlined above, and not keep revisiting the basis for those restrictions - forum-shopping, we call it. If you will settle down and simply work on articles not related to Terri Schiavo, it is quite possible you would be a productive and valued member of the community. But not on the Schiavo articles. Even your erstwhile supporters have pretty much deserted you there, because you have pressed matters beyond the point where your opinion is wanted. Sorry, that's just how it is. Suggest typo fixes and the like, but please, please move on. I think I can gather agreement from other admins to unblock if you agree to that and stick to it. Guy (Help!) 09:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I do not plan to cause any hard feelings or disruptions whether or NOT I'm able to edit. Yes, I may bring this up on occasion (we all will discuss this in the future, I'm sure, so don't penalize me any more than the others who discuss my ArbCom case freely without penalty. That is not an unfair request, is it?) I'm a Christian (as you say you are on your page), so I feel the duty to go the extra mile -even of others don't -but I still have a right to hold my opinions about this (or any) matter -and opine and express them on my talk pages. I mean, really, if I'm not attacking anyone, should you say I lose my right to hold my opinion and express them on my own talk page? Is that right?--GordonWatts 10:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"Even your erstwhile supporters have pretty much deserted you there, because you have pressed matters beyond the point where your opinion is wanted." No, it;s not all my fault: Even when I fell silent for a few days in the community discussion, things did not go fairly, and eventually you decided 14 or 15 of 33 was a consensus -and then, later, a consensus really did support action against me -so, I don't blame them for giving up: The consensus policy wasn’t';t followed, and then later, the consensus really did go against me. Even though I am right in some of my claims, the odds were against my supporters: It is neither their fault not mine totally.--GordonWatts 10:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion: I forgot, I apologise, but here is the basis for much (but not all) of my anger: I see others being mistreated like myself. What if I'm right in my claims that a consensus did not initially exist in the now-closed community discussion? Then that would mean that ArbCom's handling of your actions would send a message that other admins could arbitrarily abandon WP:Consensus and other policies.

I'm not picking on you. But, just imagine that I AM correct on my claims you didn't follow policy -and that ArbCom did not do it's job. That would mean that ArbCom is harming others, and don't you think this justifies me protesting? I'm upset at my treatment, but I'm only one person: How this affects others is the MAIN point: How many others will be harmed by ArbCom's actions?

By the way, I've had time to consider things: I think that on one of the 4 points you raised in the community discussion, you may HAVE had a consensus. (Even though you only got 14 votes on one matter, I looked up in the text and found a few others floating around -who had failed to sign the voting poll.) But, I still would like a mathematical breakdown of the other 3 conditions on which you allege consensus existed. I am done arguing, but my ears are open to hear the numerical analysis to justify your claim of consensus. Thanks in advance.--GordonWatts 10:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Strange update [22]

Since I had been criticised for advocating a citation to my web-based newspapers, I think this find is interesting. WP:ATT#Reliable_sources has superceded WP:COI, [23] and the new policy not only allows me to advocate my own newspapers -but also CITE them myself -like it or not. Observe:

Citing yourself

See also: Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

You may cite your own publications just as you would cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you are regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Be cautious about excessive citation of your own work, which may be seen as promotional or a conflict of interest; when in doubt, check on the talk page." WP:ATT#Citing_yourself

Thus, I can only conclude that the restriction reached in the community discussion mentioned above (regarding me citing or discussing my web-papers) is now ALSO a violation of policy. ... Interesting...--GordonWatts 10:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You may cite your own publications just as you would cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you are regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia

For the 50th or so time, Gordon, it is not, never has been, and never will be a reliable source: the COI provision is only the icing on the cake. It's not a reliable source -- period -- no matter how much smoke you blow. --Calton | Talk 10:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: To those who would want to ban me for simply following policy here, that would not be right. Since almost none of the diffs that Core showed in my recent block are harmful at all, any over-reaction by admins to my post above would be inappropriate.--GordonWatts 10:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)