| Revision as of 02:44, 5 May 2007 view source71.100.190.234 (talk) Restore last version based on the fact that last editor did not show a Misplaced Pages policy to support his/her edit: Unless Mr. Watts' claims can be proven to be false, he may state his opinion← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:50, 5 May 2007 view source Bishonen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators80,309 editsm Protected User:GordonWatts: anonymous (ahem) edit warring. Next edit → |
| (No difference) | |
Revision as of 02:50, 5 May 2007
]In a recent dispute, I was voted down 6.0 to 2.5 (long explanation about the half a vote thing)
While I don't like losing the vote (the voting is used to mathematically determine the consensus, since no other logical means exists), nonetheless, I am mature and accept the outcome, but I got in the last word -right or wrong -on the matter (at least, it is the last word, as of this writing). Observe:
On both the page where the dispute broke out and here on the main talk page, I point out that many feel that Misplaced Pages is NOT a reliable source and cite these argumentative editors as part of the reason. I could be wrong, but often times editors disagreeing with me will make generalized assumption (like Geocities or AOL or blog links are not reliable) -and not look at actual policy. Not all editors just babble; some of them make good points, and I concede I am wrong on a few points (such as my erroneous suggestion that Terri's Fight did not have special status when in fact policy does make exceptions to links from the actual participants).
OK, what I really don't like about this wiki is how many people often don't adhere to actual guidelines but sort of make up excuses for their edits; People making a case should use the actual policy as it is written to make your case; opinions don't count here.
I get in the last word on Schiavo link dispute: Many people don't consider Misplaced Pages itself reliable -so what was that again about those links not being reliable,...--GordonWatts 09:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
New news: please see my talk page for a Request for ArbCom intervention.--GordonWatts 02:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- UPDATES: ArbCom has decided to decline review of my case, even though they never got the required "one more decline/reject vote" for "the case to be de-listed." . (The arbiter removing that forgot to wait for a 6th vote -or vote himself! Whoops.
- In short, ArbCom's refusal to review the case (here) effectively supports the admin who violated WP:Consensus.
- In addition, ArbCom arbiters were deaf to the many editors who urged ArbCom to review. Also, they had no respect for the opinions of the many editors who supported my claims that I (and others) were mistreated -and that no disciplinary action was taken.
When you don't pay your employees, you get what you pay for: Low quality editor labour. (Maybe Misplaced Pages could help itself by taking out paid advertisement -and then using that money to hire editors -they'd probably have more time to do quality work if they were paid -and didn't have to work a "regular" job. Just my 2 cents' worth of helpful advice.)
Only at Misplaced Pages -where the admins can't count! Only at Misplaced Pages: Where a minority (no more than about 14 editors here out of a total of 33 participants) somehow constitutes a WP:Consensus.--GordonWatts 05:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)