User talk:GordonWatts/Archive07

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

• This archive page is about 104 kilobytes long and covers approximately the dates between February 24, 2007 and May 22, 2007.

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

• Please add new archivals to User_talk:GordonWattsDotCom/Archive08. Thank you.--GordonWatts 08:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

---

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)

NOTE TO FREDERICK: I've agreed to abide by the consensus regarding not using my new papers as a source, so I don't see why you made this comment here. If I agree to abide by consensus, then it is not your right to tell me I can't hold an opinion a certain way.

In fact, you insult the Wikipedia community: You demonstrate that you have very little faith in them to decide what is a good link -and what is not. If you really had faith in the community consensus, you would just let me have my opinion as I see fit, since i am only one vote and have ALWAYS abided by consensus -whether I agree to it or not.

You temper tantrum here is a sign that you are fickle -and get easily swayed by things; Don't let Calton get to you. Just relax: It is not right to be uptight over little things like this. Don't you have faith in the community's ability to weed out bad links? Then demonstrate it -by not telling me I have no right to my opinion on the new policy.--GordonWatts 11:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"Temper tantrum"? Kinda refutes what your apologists were claiming about your sincere and non-hostile nature, doesn't it? --Calton | Talk 11:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

REPLY TO CALTON: [24] So long as I abide by consensus, I can advocate for anything I like - It is my right to vote any way I see fit, even more so with the new policy.

• Item two on the posted restrictions You may not link or suggest links to your own sites. Was any part of that difficult to understand?

• have ALWAYS abided by consensus Only when convenient: if not, you jump through weird rhetorical hoops in attempts to redefine "consensus", and keep at it until people's ears bleed. And now that consensus is that you stop doing THAT, you can't bring yourself to stop. --Calton | Talk 11:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Calton and Frederick can goad me, and it's alright, but I am not allowed to respond.

Fair...? right.!--GordonWatts 11:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"Goading" you? It's attempting to explain reality. That you don't accept reality isn't my problem, and the faux-sincere wounded act isn't convincing. --Calton | Talk 11:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

GordonWatts (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Even though I, myself, may not be substantially hurt by a block or similar, allowing my block to stand would set a bad precedent. Observe: The diffs provided by the admin who blocked me (see admin blocking page) show a little bit of a temper, for which I've apologised, but my main crime is that I express "bad" opinions on my talk pages, such as my opinions regarding my web-based newspapers -or a recent ArbCom case. As long as I abide by Wikipedia policy, I have a right to ANY opinion on my talk pages that I want, and censorship of MY opinions says it's OK to bully others. I may be able to stand it, but how many other people will be bullied by Wikipedians who really don't know ANYTHING about their many good deeds -many of them harder-working than me? I don't think it is right for everyone to bully everyone else -simply because of the opinion they hold, so I support an unblock on my account to send the right message -even though I fear I might not have time to edit much. Also, allowing me to be blocked will send a message that other editors can goad and pick on blocked editors -kicking them whiles they are down. Oh, really?! That must stop, and you may use me to set an example -if you like -or not -it is your choice. My main goal is to help others. My secondary, but still important, goal, is to help myself. If you don't believe me, then read all my personal and Wikipedia pages -that is, almost 5,000 contributions to the mainspace articles and related areas. Just don't some others goad you into an argument.

Decline reason:

No chance, I'm afraid - your every post makes it clear that you are still looking for loopholes to promote your blogs-masquerading as "oinline newspapers" and that you still simply don't get it. Massive ocnsensus on the admin noticeboard that you have to accept the restrictions and move on, or stay blocked. Guy (Help!) 13:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You may cite your own publications... if they are reliable sources. That is, if the source is something anyone could add. No one can add your sources, because they don't meet the reliability threshold. Leebo⁸⁶ 11:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't totally disagree - I am human, but as many people have cited my work (a masters student? I believe), once cited my research on romance [25] -many blogs cite my Terri Schiavo research, and I study also health matters, sometimes cited, I think the weight of the evidence is that my paper IS moderately reliable. I respectfully dissent. You must also respect MY opinion -to be a good Wikipedian.--GordonWatts 11:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion is contrary to Wikipedia:External links. While I would not treat you with disrespect, I am in no way required to respect your opinion simply because you're a Wikipedian with an opinion. Leebo⁸⁶ 12:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Question for Moreschi: How is it "clear" that "this guy is here purely to POV-push, not to build an encyclopedia" -if I've made THOUSANDS of edits in the mainspace on HUNDREDS of articles -which almost never get reverted -and almost NEVER have anything to do with my web-based newspaper -and some of them links to pages of my opponents and enemies? (Like this one: [26], where I added a link to Michael Schiavo, my opponent in court??) Are we psychic now? People -who don't even know me pretending they know all about me -like this editor, Moreschi -is a chief reason I have such a low opinion of Wikipedia.--GordonWatts 12:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Advice from Ann

Gordon, I'm sorry to see that you've been blocked, but I have to say I'm not surprised. I've been trying to help you, and I must say, you've made it really, really difficult for me. I still want to help you, but your behaviour is making me look bad when I support you. I don't particularly mind that, but I think you should consider the embarrassment that you are causing to those who are or were against a community ban. I'm going to be very direct with you, and I'm sorry if it hurts you, but I honestly don't see that gentle hints will work.

You seem to have problems in your behaviour here, even though I and others agree that they are not due to malice. One is that you have an exaggerated idea of your own importance. I remember when you first joined Wikipedia, you kept telling people that you did better than Governor Bush, that you came closer than he did in saving Terri. Other editors found your claims ridiculous. I thought Duckecho's parody was terribly unkind and inappropriate, but he made the point that the 4-3 vote was not over whether or not to "save" Terri, but whether or not to hear your case. To claim that you nearly won is mind boggling. But even if it had been true, it's unattractive to keep telling people about your success. I'm not saying there's necessarily anything morally wrong with claiming that if Governor Bush is notable, you are even more so, but if you see that nobody is convinced, that people are getting bored and irritated, and that every time you say things like that, people are less impressed with Gordon Wayne Watts, then it's just a matter of common sense to stop. The same goes for your "double major". It's not good taste to keep telling people about it. It annoys them rather than impressing them. I would say that most of the regular editors that you're arguing with, and most of those who support(ed) you, have degrees, but they don't keep mentioning them.

You constantly put your posts in different colours. Okay, it's not morally wrong; it's not malicious. But again, it gives the impression that you somehow feel that Gordon's posts are worthy of more attention than other peoples' — an impression strengthened by the fact that when all the Terri Schiavo editors were asked to make a statement at the mediation page in the summer of 2005, you made yours, and then came to my page to say, "Ann, what did you think of my post?" And you went to Ed's page to ask him what he thought. Why? I had posted. FuelWagon had posted. Several people had posted. Why should anybody have to single out your post for comments? It was not any more or less important than anyone else's. These are just little things, Gordon. But, combined with your efforts to get your links included, they build up an impression of someone who is just looking for attention, and that doesn't go down well with the community. People don't like it in real life either.

In addition to that, you annoy people. I'm sorry to put it so bluntly, but it's obvious that you actually know that you annoy people, and instead of asking yourself what you can do to correct that, you continue to post things that you can predict will annoy them, repeating yourself, wiki-lawyering, trying to pick holes in their arguments, and you just won't stop. You seem to think that you have a right to keep annoying people. You don't. All that I can see is that you're digging your own grave, deeper and deeper — and it's very painful to watch.

You have been treated badly on Wikipedia, but your own reaction to this has hindered the people who wanted to help you. When Sarah told you that you weren't helping yourself at all, and asked you to stop posting a reply to each and every argument, it was not because she wanted to ban you or to silence you or to censor you: it was because she saw that your posts would make more people support a ban. But instead of heeding her advice, you started arguing with her.

Calton's behaviour in this has been quite nasty, but because of the way you clogged up everything with your posts, told people to "butt out" and "be off" and "chill out", accused them of lying, and started threatening sanctions on them, you have left him looking almost benign. Let me make this clear: it is never acceptable to belittle a user the way he does. But when the user rejects the advice of experienced people who want to help him, and who will be able to help him if he doesn't continue to do things that annoy others (even though they may not be against policy), then he leaves them almost powerless. I don't blame the ArbCom for rejecting your case. It was a weak case to start off with, and your behaviour on the ArbCom page showed them that if they did accept it, you'd post thousands of words arguing with everyone, and would take up a massive amount of their time. Several administrators agree that Calton's behaviour was inappropriate, but he had the common sense not to address you as Gordy boy on the ArbCom page, or to put "revert not-very-bright troll" on that page, or to sneer at you and abuse you there the way he has done in other places, while you did not have the common sense to make short, dignified posts that wouldn't irritate people. In other words, you demonstrated that his complaints about you are accurate, while he did not demonstrate that your complaints about him are accurate.

I'm going to try to get this block lifted, when I've finished an assignment. I also agree with what Elinor posted on JzG's page (and I made that point myself on the ArbCom page), that while there was a consensus to restrict Schiavo editing, there was not a consensus to allow no Schiavo article editing and limit the Schiavo talk posts. It's either no Schiavo edits at all, or unlimited Schiavo article edits and restricted Schiavo talk edits. I'll try to get that sorted out as well. However, I must warn you that you've annoyed so many people with your recent behaviour that a lot of people who originally would have allowed the first option may no longer be comfortable with it. YOU ABSOLUTELY MUST STOP RESPONDING IF YOU WANT ME TO BE ABLE TO HELP YOU. Every response from you seems to weaken my case (that you're not generally very disruptive, and that people should treat you with respect), and frankly makes me look quite foolish at this stage. If you embarrass me, I can cope with it, but I won't be able to help you.

What I would recommend is that you should be allowed to edit all articles without restrictions. You are not a disruptive article editor, but you are a disruptive talk page poster. Your Schiavo-related talk page posts should be restricted. You should stop mentioning your links, even in your own userspace. I say that not because it bothers me, but for your own sake, because Calton will bring it to attention at an admin noticeboard if you do, and will say that you're proving him to be right, and that you "just don't get it". Arguing about the links on your own talk page will almost certainly shift the position of another person who currently opposes a full ban — and the number of such people is declining by the minute.

Could I suggest, Gordon, that you take a break from Wikipedia? It would probably be best for your peace of mind if you don't even look in for the next few days. I promise I'll try to get this block lifted next week (if you don't make it impossible for me in the meantime). I don't actually disagree with a block, but I very strongly disagree with a permanent block. And if the block is lifted, you absolutely need to stop posting on admin noticeboards, on Jimbo's talk page, and other similar places. Because you, sadly, lack the ability to argue your case without antagonizing people, these posts all have the opposite effect of what you're trying to accomplish.

If I could give you some advice, I'd suggest that you try to get your life into better order. I know you've been bereaved recently, and I'm sorry. You've mentioned your student loan in one of your posts here. Try to pay it off. Some real-life stress may be spilling over into Wikipedia. Don't let Wikipedia spill over into your real life. I wish you well, and I really hope you won't make it impossible for me to get this block lifted. Musical Linguist 12:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note

Per the community sanction, you may not propose links to your site. This is endorsed by ArbCom. Any discussion of the basis on which links could be included will be interpreted as proposing links, which it clearly is, and your user space locked to prevent further disruption.

Let me clarify that in terms which should be completely unambiguous. If you keep this up your talk page will be protected to stop you writing here. You had the argument about your sites, you have lost the argument. Understand? You were wrong, you cannot cite your websites. Your websites are self-published and have no provable authority. No amount of argument will ever change that. You may not link them. You may not cite them. You may not promote them. You may not argue for them. You may not propose them. You may not agitate about them. You may not discuss them. You may not discuss their content. You may not engage in rationalisations about them. You may not discuss their reliability or otherwise. You may not assert that they are newspapers. You may not assert that they represent significant work. You may not fill this page with arguments about how reliable you think they are. All these arguments have been addressed at length, debated, and rejected. Your sites have been reviewed by independent editors who, unlike you, do not have a conflict of interest (which, incidentally, is not superseded by the attribution policy, it still exists), and they have concluded that your sites are not reliable sources. Not at all, not in the least, not even slightly. It has been debated, the debate is over, you lost. No more. None. Not another word.

OK, now I have read that through three times and it seems to me that there is not the slightest potential for misunderstanding on your part, so if you continue agitating about your websites, this talk page will be locked to prevent further abuse, which is a provision under the community sanction which ArbCom endorsed. Just so we are absolutely clear here: No. More. Discussion. Of. Your. Websites. Got it?

And on the subject of making things crystal clear, what Anne said above. Read it. Understand it. Accept it. Otherwise you're out of here, permanently, with no realistic chance of reprieve. And by saying no realistic chance I am not leaving any kind of chink through which to wriggle, I mean simply that all things are possible between now and the heat death of the universe, your being unblocked if you fail to heed the advice above is somewhere in the same realm as, say, all the electrons in the Milky Way galaxy simultaneously reversing their direction of rotation. Only probably not quite as likely. Guy (Help!) 13:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

Blocked: After a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard [27], you have been blocked for one month for general disruption. There was substantial but not unanimous support for an indefinite block (that is, a ban from editing Wikipedia altogether) and unanimous support for a block of one month. Hopefully when you return, you can find a way to work with other editors in a non-disruptive manner, otherwise, community sentiment may call for a reimposition of the ban. Good luck. Thatcher131 05:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Some good has come of this -plus short comments to the Guy in Britian

I took a few days off (look at my user contribs), after sometimes heated discussion about how various editors treat each other -myself included and I was almost expecting that editors here would still be Beating a Dead horse.

I'm pleasantly surprised that others have, to a good extent, have been able to "drop it" and let it go. However, that does not mean that everything went as it should have.

Particularly, I am not pleased that I am treated far worse than some editors who have provoked or attacked more than me. (By this, I am not attacking or seeking the ban of these editors, but truth needs to be told, and I am not a liar.)

• The very first time that I interacted with this editor, Chacor, was when he made insulting comments about my ArbCom case which were disruptive as this editor seemed to suggest. My response to Chacor was not very nice, because I threatened to seek sanctions against him, but that "threat" was no worse than Calton's "threats" to seek sanctions against me. Even though Chacor was the one who attacked me (he took the first punch -and made off-topic, disruptive comments), I was the one who was blocked, not him. (I'm not asking him to be banned, only pointing out that I was disciplined worse when, in fact, he was the attacker. Even though he was more at fault than me, I am offering my apology above -and not seeking any further punishment (since he was thoroughly embarrassed by this comment. Plus, remember, I could (should) have been more polite in my reply. (I should have simply said to stop the off-topic disruption, and to take it to my talk page or email if it was a concern.)

• We find a few editors (Guy and Frederick included) suggesting that I can not post my opinions on my talk page, but we don't punish or lock this page, even when far more insulting things were said. I'm not asking that Duck's page be removed, but all the same, this is a double standard. (But, I add: Guy's advice, in this instance, while not supported by policy, like he claims, is probably good advice. More on that in a bit.)

• We find this editor coming to MY talk page and using the F-word and other insulting and strong language, but I don't recall HIM getting blocked that day: Block logs show he wasn't blocked until MUCH later. Yet, when I make general comments about Wikipedia here, it is not alright to speak against Wikipedia, but that is exactly what THESE people did. So, allowing them to speak on the SAME subject as me "Wikipedia failing" and disallowing me -is plain bias -and school yard bullying.

• Also, both Guy and Core offered to unblock me if I accepted the terms of the Community Action. I did, but they kept beating a dead horse for a while -and did not keep their word, while I took a few days off. (I think that both of them had good intentions here, so I won't fault them for not unblocking me, but to promise something you can't do is not good -and me initially being blocked was unjust because I was the victim, not the attacker -see above regarding Chacor.)

• Lastly, Calton's behaviour was bad if not -or even worse -if not much worse than mine, and he even has raised the ire of a bunch of editors in his recent RfC, not to mention the 5 admins who Musical Linguist names in her post of Ten of Trades, but he has been treated far better than me -or put another way, I was treated worse, which many see as biased or unjust.

• The trend I see here is that discipline against attacking insults or the like is not applied evenly -but, rather, based on who's friends with whom in power -no matter the consensus or facts. I'm not seeking to evade my discipline, and I comply with the restrictions, but that does not mean that I heartily endorse bias or uneven discipline.

• However, I do want to thank Calton for this statement: "...whatever his faults, I've never seen him sockpuppet, I assume because he firmly believes he has The Truth and God on his side* and will be victorious -- so there's nothing I need to concern myself about.
• *The latter part is NOT hyperbole, I'm afraid. Diffs upon request.
  • No need - I'll provide the documentation: Romans 13 (Amplified Bible)--GordonWatts 15:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• --Calton | Talk 00:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)"
  • I hope to live up to your expectations and always be as honest as you think I am -and, yes, that assumption of your is correct.--GordonWatts 15:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• And, I want to thank the numerous admins who have asked others to be more civil. You didn't punish all the offenders as much as I was punished, but I appreciate the efforts. And, I admit, even if the method was arrived at in violation of Wikipedia policy -as I claim -maybe (in the Grand Scheme of things) it is appropriate to block me, so I will have more time to address real life responsibilities.

Oh, there's one more thing. I see your note above, Guy, in which you emphatically state that: "No. More. Discussion. Of. Your. Websites. Got it?" Yes and No.

Yes, I clearly understand what you're trying to say -and I even think your motives are good -and lastly, I think that your advice, legal or not -is probably very good advice, but I have a few problems with what you're seeming to suggest.

Number one, you seem to have an inappropriate preoccupation/obsession over what is a very small portion of my roughly 5,000 edits. (I think I've added my links in like ONE time many years ago out of like almost FIVE THOUSAND EDITS -and only discussed them on a few occasions -mostly discussing unrelated topics -and mostly not being reverted or such.) However, seeing this visceral reaction you have to me mentioning I have a website, I feel I must answer your question above, where you ask if I "Got it?"

No - I don't get it: I am not promoting my websites: I don't need Wikipedia, since I get hundreds of thousands of hits all by myself -with no help from Wikipedia, thank you: [28], [29] (Oops. for got one: [30]--GordonWatts 09:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)) Please, quit beating a dead horse here: I get almost no hits from Wikipedia referrals: [31] [32] [33] [34] -and note, particularly that this was even though the links were there for a few more days before Calton removed them and this dispute ensued. Wikipedia never accounts for more than but a small portion of my web traffic referrals.

I have plenty of referrals from big names such as: The University of Miami, Pro-Life Blogs, Blogs for Terri, and, amazingly, the official website for the 4th season of Star Trek -that's right, the "Original" Star Trek -with some of the original actors involved.

So, I don't NEED Wikipedia to "promote" my websites, thank you! They are doing just fine -with many hundreds of thousands of hits -and any mention of my websites was only to help Wikipedia -not myself or my websites, which don't need any help from a small referral contributor like Wikipedia.

However, even though MANY places think highly of my websites, your advice for me to not mention them here (even on my webpage -except for this brief reply) is probably good advice: For whatever reason, it seems to have created hard feelings, and even though I don't have a conflict of interest (I am not helped by the listing on Wikipedia), there is the definite appearance of a Conflict of Interest -and given that, I think it is (as a practical and common sense matter) right for me to avoid the distraction of this "non-issue" as you suggest. And, you are right that a consensus exists on this narrow matter of my links being used or mentioned -but, and this is the kicker, you are wrong in your claims that this consensus is binding on Wikipedia policy. Look at Wikipedia:Consensus#Exceptions. This says VERY CLEARLY that: "There are a few exceptions that have superceded consensus decisions on a page...Consensus decisions in a specific case is not expected to override consensus on a wider scale (such as content-related policies/guidelines like Wikipedia:Verifiability or Wikipedia:No Original Research), although such consensus might adjust their interpretation over time." What that means, in plain English, is that Consensus decisions in a specific case (like my case) is not expected to override consensus on a wider scale (such as content-related policies/guidelines (such as the Conflict of Interest policy which states "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." -and even this more liberal policy WP:ATT#Citing_yourself -which allows me to even cite myself.

Guy, you seem not only very intelligent, but (and more importantly) well-meaning and dedicated to the project. If you want to convince me to not mention my own websites (even though policy allows this -and overrides any consensus which exists), you might take a tip from Ann's method of addressing this topic. Above, she said: "You should stop mentioning your links, even in your own userspace. I say that not because it bothers me, but for your own sake, because Calton will bring it to attention at an admin noticeboard if you do, and will say that you're proving him to be right, and that you "just don't get it". She is right on both counts: #1: It doesn't bother her for me to discuss it -probably because she knows that it IS policy and that policy superceded consensus, and #2: That -policy notwithstanding -it is still not a good idea. If you think it through, her method was better than yours, and, no I'm not picking on you: I also admit when I've made a mistake, and, after a more thorough review of the Community Action, I think that I DID make a mistake in my initial claims that “no consensus” existed for all the sanctions: A consensus seems to have existed on 1 of the 4 sanctions, which I discovered when I went looking for additional votes up in the text of the page -where some editors may have forgotten to "vote" in the right place. But, I must admit, even being generous and allowing editors to vote multiple times (1st, 2nd, and 3rd place choices, and counting them all as “complete“ votes), this is the only support I could find for your claims of consensus (I’d hate to be your defense attorney!) -but, right or wrong, you and a few admins are in power, and agree or not, I accept the sanctions -with no protest -except for this formal reply to your post above, where you asked me if I "got it?"

Well, this post was long, and I apoligise if this irritates anyone, but many things -both good and bad needed to be given credit -where credit was due. I, like Ann, don't expect to post much in the upcoming weeks or months (I can't even archive my page!), so my tendency to post only once in a while should balance the length of this one reply to all. Thank you for your time, and I hope this has been helpful and/or interesting in some way.--GordonWatts 14:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: It took me only 19 minutes to read my post here -and correct all typos, and I'm a slow reader when I'm trying to "enjoy" it, so, since I don't expect to post much during the upcoming weeks much, I think that the length (1,925 words in my post above) should not be overbearing.--GordonWatts 15:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Gordon, you still don't get it do you? We have very few policies, NPOV and attribution being about it. Everything else is consensus. And the consensus is, your websites are unsuitable, and that your constant banging on about them is disruptive. And that, in the end, is it. No. No, no, no, no and no. Plus: no. And still, however often you are told no, all you hear is "maybe" or maybe "yes". And as long as that is the case, you (not anybody else) will have a problem. End of story. It does not get a lot simpler, on Wikipedia anyway. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Like I said, I accepted your proposition regarding discussion of my websites, so no need to keep beating a dead horse. "Gordon, you still don't get it do you?" Yes, I did get it. Proof: After my last post, I did not continue to beat the dead horse myself over the matter -and in fact, I not only accepted your recommendation, I even offered you advice on how better to make your case. "and not keep revisiting the basis for those restrictions - forum-shopping, we call it." I don't mean to offend you (although this may happen), but you yourself did forum shopping. (I just now realised this: I must be slow today) You did not achieve the consensus in the community discussion on all 4 points under discussion, and you took it to another forum -the "forum of one," where you were the only person in that forum -you made a proclamation, most or all of which was unsupported by the consensus. For an understanding of the concensus policy, see this Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Elonka RfA: This woman got well over half of the votes, but even this was not consensus. Also, you might want to review the WP:Consensus link that I have posted. However, I had let the matter drop -and only logged on because I forgot to include on link -and I see you're still beating a dead horse. I will take the "high road" and not respond further, but, on another note, I see you have said you have some health problems on your website. Although there is no magic cure, I wish you the best, and I would share that my research (and personal experience) is that a vegetarian diet, avoiding cow's milk, eliminates or reduces a lot of health problems. (Links to that research are above in my apology to Chacor, and, yes, they're mine, but I'm not promoting them for inclusion in some article, but rather, like all Wikipedians who post links to their home page. Also, every time I've gone to a Chiropractor, when I can afford one, I feel much better. Lastly, stress is a major obstacle to good health, so since I want to try and do my part (to help everyone avoid stress and be in good health): let me assure you that I don't seek any disciplinary action against you for your transgressions. #1: I make mistakes, and I want forgiveness when I mess up; #2: My catching your errors (even if they are well-intended and actually help me) might bring bad light upon you, and that is punishment enough for me. Now, I've taken your advice, and it would be less stressful for all involved to "let it drop" and stop beating the dead horse. I've replied above, and I am not going to be goaded into over-reacting rashly like I have in the past. Peace to you and prosperity.--GordonWatts 09:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• • So to summarise the above, you really, really, really want to be indefinitely blocked for steadfastly refusing to accept consensus. Yes? I can arange that. Guy (Help!) 08:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Musical Linguist's Comments

Gordon, please don't reply at all. We know what your reply is anyway. Guy, at this stage, you're heavily involved in this case, and you're clearly personally very irritated by Gordon. I suggest that you don't post anything more on this page until Gordon's month is up. You know what Gordon is like, and it's completely unfair to provoke him into a response that may lead to an increase in his block. Musical Linguist 10:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• No, I am not involved. I concluded the community debate, and made a statement to ArbCom, and have done my best to explain to Gordon what the problem is, from the perspective of the community. Fundamentally, though, the problem is - always was - that Gordon will not accept that his websites are not an appropriate source and not appropriate for links in mainspace. I wish you joy of any continuing attempts to explain this, as far as I am concerned the debate is over. If Gordon wants to continue to push it he can, to put it bluntly, get lost. And that is pretty much the community view, as expressed. Job done, as far as I'm concerned. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• • "Gordon, please don't reply at all..." Question: Why should this be fair, Ann? Is it ok for others to provoke me to no end -and to misrepresent my post, such as JzG did in his 08:34, 5 March 2007 reply, above, where he mischaracterizes my post -and for people like him to not get disciplined -but it is not alright for me to post on my own talk page without fear of reprisals and revenge or discipline? Is that fair?
  • Would JzG or others like it if someone threatened them with discipline (such as Guy did to me) for merely posting their opinions to their talk page?
  • Also, did JzG even read my reply? I more-or-less agreed with him (top half of my 09:38, 4 March 2007 post above), and then offered helpful analysis on an unrelated subject (bottom half of my 09:38 4 March post). His reply to my post suggests -if not proves -that he did not read my post at all, but instead attempted to provoke a response from me to get me banned permanently. (Not that it would be fair to ban an editor for merely expressing his or her opinion, as I have here, but the way people treat someone who is "down" is an indicator of their true nature: Selected editors (not just Guy) have "kicked me while I am down" by telling me that I can not have a right to express my opinions on my own user or talk pages -and have revealed their true nature, to be school-yard bullies. Wikipedia is "better" because we have "bullies" to tell people they can't express their opinions.)--GordonWatts 02:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Mail

I received your e-mail. Upon reviewing the relevant threads on the arbitration page and the admin noticeboard, I see no reason to believe your recent block was invalid or not endorsed by the community, and as such I am unwilling to overturn it. If you wish to pursue this matter further I would suggest you send e-mail to the arbitration committee. >Radiant< 19:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Message Received - well after that fact. I have been unable to respond now for quite a while due to having been blocked.--GordonWatts 08:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Page Protected

Mr. Watts,

your page has been protected after I restored your last version.

The editor who 'warred' in this manner claimed you committed personal attacks, but here it appears that you are stating your opinion, however much others don't like to hear it, but not personally attacking.

For example, the policy states '"The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research", is not a personal attack' which is what you appear to be doing, stating facts, not attacking the actual persons on the other side of the debate.

If, however, you decide to attack your opponents, I will be the first to oppose and revert.

You (for now) have the right to express your opinion as the page is protected in your last version whilst this all gets sorted out.

Scratch out: It appears the other editor removed your comments, but they are (for now) saved in the page history. One wonders is censorship of ones opinions will extend to a removal of the edits from the page history. I would hope that the editor who removed your comments would either look at Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_a_personal_attack.3F and show how your committed an attack or else admit he/she was wrong and revert. It appears your are in for a lot of trouble as this last editor (who appears to make an edit a vandalism on your page without support from Wikipedia policy) appears to have 'admin' tools: He or she was able to protect the page, which implies admin status. Best of luck!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.100.190.234 (talk) 02:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

Message Received - well after that fact. I have been unable to respond now for quite a while due to having been blocked.--GordonWatts 08:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Note to any onlookers: Why did I not get a "new message" popup??

I am just now checking my messages, and I am noticing now that I did not get a "new message" popup -which I should have gotten. This is the first time I have logged into the system in ages, and I see new message(s). Huh? Probably time to archive them anyways. After all, admins can cuss on their pages and it is ok, but I can not express my opinion on mine without it being locked up and protected. Some fairness that is. OK, time to send this to archive.--GordonWatts 08:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What are you doing?

This is fairly ridiculous. What are you hoping to accomplish here? Does this improve the encyclopedia in some way? Friday (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"What are you hoping to accomplish here?" Direct answer: Please read the title to the link: I hope to accomplish a Community ban request... because of policy violations. Just read what I wrote., No need to make it more complicated than it is. Really simply. Just read what I wrote. Ta.--GordonWatts 19:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Others have a right to accuse me of things -even when no cause exists, and even if no concensus can be obtained.

I have a right to discuss my concerns too. My opponants have had their "day in court," and should not seek "double jeapardy." If my complaints are stupid, they will fall on their own.

Any attempts to avoid addressing the matter smack of a dictatorship, where only "who has power" matters, not "who is right" --or not "what does the law / rules" states. My answer. No need to discuss this matter here. Any further discussion of this matter here on my page will be speedy deleted, and I will ask the poster to "take it to the appropriate page," namely the page in which the original poster mentions. Have a nice day, Friday. If you wish to opine, that is the proper forum, not here.--GordonWatts 19:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that anywhere on wikipedia is the right forum for this. Wikipedia is not a debating society or a court of law. Friday (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Gordon, please stop. You're only making things worse for yourself. ElinorD (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not current

Your complaint is not current - it was flushed. So this IS the right place. --Fredrick day 19:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Falso. It was not my complaint; It was Calton's complaint. Take your discussion to thye proper forum.--GordonWatts 19:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Posted to WP:AN for review. As far as I can tell you are doing nothign to repay the incredible wastage of time you inflict on the Wikipedia community. Guy (Help!) 20:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding [35], you have a conflict of interest: Step aside. (PS: I am not trying to "make" a point. I am trying to enforce policy.)--GordonWatts 20:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree there could be the perception of a conflict of interest here, so I have undone JzG's block. However I see no evidence at all that you're here to contribute usefully to the project, rather it looks like your goal is to waste our time, so I have blocked you from editing indefinitely. Friday (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to contribute when Bish and Nandesuka began vandalizing my pages. When I realized they were not to blame, I asked myself "Why are they acting this way," and I reaslised that JzG slandered me and made false accusations that he had concensus when, even after Guy repeatedly beat a dead horse --and let people vote multiple times, he could not even get 50% to support any one sanction. So, since he violated "concensus" policy, I saw violation. Also, Guy used inappropriate language on his page, much worse than anything I have ever done, so I sought community action against him there too. Yes, maybe I too have a conflict of interest, but, as the victim, my right to bring action outweighs any COI concerns. However, if my only "crime" was in bringing a community action against him, you are unjustified in taking action. If you have a case, state it in the community page. But to remove my community action is violating Jimbo's orders: "Jimbo has said that "7. Anyone with a complaint should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity," so I would hope that no one wises to punish me for brining this valid complaint." This is not right.--GordonWatts 20:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You appear to have mistaken Wikipedia for your own personal website. It's not, sorry. Friday (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

True, but this does not address my point above: If others could have their day in court (and repeatedly beat a dead horse), why could I not?: Your post is illogical. I have tried to be productive since my return, but the vandalism has forced me to bring charges against the admin who misled Bish and Nande and others. Their continued vandalism could not be ignored, so I had no other choice BUT to bring a community action. It is not only my right, but it was my obligation, and it was the only logical manner in which to address the vandalism. Again, your statement was true, but you still did not address my concern.--GordonWatts 20:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)