Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bishonen (talk | contribs) at 22:36, 24 May 2007 (Protected User talk:GordonWatts: I was wrong to unprotect. (expires 20:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC))). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User_talk:GordonWatts/Archive01

User_talk:GordonWatts/Archive02

User_talk:GordonWatts/Archive03

User_talk:GordonWatts/Archive04

User_talk:GordonWatts/Archive05

User_talk:GordonWatts/Archive06

User_talk:GordonWatts/Archive07

This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Misplaced Pages. (see: block log • contributions • page moves • current autoblocks)

+ replies to Bish, Michael

(cur) (last) 00:00, 23 May 2007 Bishonen (Talk | contribs) m (Protected User talk:GordonWatts: Protecting seems overkill. I recommend everybody who hates to read Gordon's arguments to avert their eyes.

Thank you for the suggestion, Bish. That is what I had asked others to do in the first place -to actually read the other person's argument.--GordonWatts 20:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Gordon, I recommend you to post with restraint, or it will be protected again.

I try *always* to post with restraint (e.g., polite, assume good faith, no curse words, foul language, etc.) even if others don't do so.--GordonWatts 20:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirm)

Huh? What? "Autoconfirmed?" - What do you mean? And, by corollary, what do you all mean when you write: " (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled)?"--GordonWatts 20:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

(cur) (last) 00:02, 23 May 2007 Bishonen (Talk | contribs) (280 bytes) (rm protection template. Semi-protecting. Full protection seems overkill.

I agree. It seems now days overkill happens a lot too much.--GordonWatts 20:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I recommend everybody who hates to read Gordon's arguments to avert their eyes. Gordon, I recommend you to post with restraint.)

I agree it was worth repeating.--GordonWatts 20:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

(cur) (last) 00:28, 23 May 2007 MichaelLinnear (Talk | contribs) (896 bytes) (removing temp category)

Huh? I looked at your edit, and the info box seems to look the same as before. What were you trying to say, Michael?--GordonWatts 20:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

One more thing: Even if I feel that I have a moral right to express my opinion just like others on their user pages, it seems that your suggestion ("Gordon, I recommend you to post with restraint") is appropriate (I agree, Bish), since the "rules" governing expression on one's user pages are not uniformly enforced -that is, enforced the same as with others, so I think I shall restrain myself from expressing opinions of any sort on this page. Can't we change that? Lack of uniformity in enforcement is unfair and wrong: The rules are "for all" --- or "not at all" -anything else is just not fair or just.--GordonWatts 20:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Gordon, you asked about why the admin wrote this when blocking you "(anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled)." They didn't write that, it's the description of the parameters of your block. When users are blocked, there are different settings that the admin chooses, and they're automatically displayed there. You might ask which each parameter is, because I'm not sure myself, but it's not like the admin was trying be cryptic. Leebo /C 20:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your attempt to help me here, Leebo. I knew it was not the admin himself/herself penning that. (I knew it was some computer mumbo-jumbo.) But, since the "buck stops here," and each admin is responsible for that which he or she edits (including this), I figured it would be a good segue to inquire. Some of that computer-Internet stuff looks like greek to me!--GordonWatts 20:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Question for admins: What about my editing was inappropriate?

Before we get going: If you've come here to flame, I will have to ask you to leave: You are not welcome. If, however, you want to act normally, you are welcome to opine; constructive criticism is always welcome. Just don't get off-topic and dicuss the cat down the road, the dog in the yard, or the mouse around the corner, OK?

I'm thinking about using the {{unblock|your reason here}} template to request an unblock, but I do not want to use this template before getting some feedback -because overuse of this template is *bad* manners. Alright. I could be wrong, so I am open to corrective actions on my part if that is needed.

To that end, I have tried to email privately to several of my detractors, so as to discretely discuss this matter, but when I do I often get accused of sending "hate mail" or similar.

So, to keep from being falsely accused, I will just ask my question in the open -that way I (hopefully) won't get misquoted.

Since my last block expired, I began editing again, and since then, the only "questionable" thing I have done was file this Community Action here against one admin.

So, it is logical to assume that my action against Guy Chapman was what I did that was perceived as "inappropriate," that is, the complaint in which I claimed JzG/Guy had not followed concensus in his closing of the Community action against me, here.

Alright, so then my question to the admins who make the claim that I was wrong is this: "Why was I wrong to claim JzG acted without concensus?"

Of the 33 users who participated in the motion to close and the various other "Auxiliary straw" polls, which time was there a concensus on anything?

• Was it the 1st poll ("Limit to one post per day on Schiavo-related talk pages") in which 39% supported the recommendation and 61% did not support it? (13 divided by 33 is only 39%, and only slightly more if you don't count the one anon IP who voted.)

• Was it the 2nd poll ("Probation / mentorship") in which only 15% supported and 85% did not support it? (5 of 33 is 15%.)

• Or, rather, was "concensus" reached in the "Community ban from articles and talk pages related to Terri Schiavo" poll, in which 14 of 33 users supported it? (14/33 is 42%, almost half support, and 58% do not support) People could vote as many times as they like, so we could expect a large support for a "Community Ban" if it were a viable option. However... history tells us that...

• A "Community ban" on Mr. Gordon Watts (me!) as we recall, got only 21% support (7 of 33 participants) and 79% do not support.

• Not content with this failure, my detractors kept beating a dead horse and got an Auxiliary straw poll going.

In the Auxiliary straw poll, Calton quotes me saying I agree that inserting links of my webpages is bad but that others should not be stopped from discussing it. For what it's worth, this proposal only got 30% support and 70% did not support. (In fact, Misplaced Pages:Consensus#Consensus_vs._supermajority states that even a Supermajority is not necessarily a concensus, only a first approximation.)

I don't know what Calton was trying to illustrate here, since the only time I inserted a link from one of my articles was way back in 2005, when I was still new -and then only with concensus.

Hey, I could be wrong here: Maybe I was disruptive, but if that is the case, then some of my detractors (such as JzG, Friday, SirFozzie, or Daniel e.g., WP:AN or Trebor or Will Beback or even Fredrick day (as shown on the Com Sanc. board) might explain why I was wrong to claim that JzG acted without concensus above...

The reason developers allowed blocked users to post on their own pages was to foster discussion of disputed actions, so I am doing just that.

Basically, there are only four responses I could receive here:

1 - Admin explains why I am wrong to claim JzG acted without concensus. I still await an explanation of how *less* than 50% could constitute a concensus.

2 - Admin explains why I am right. This would require an unblock and an apology. Later, if I cause trouble, that can be dealt with, but to punish me for bringing a valid action against JzG Guy is simple harassment and abuse.

3 - It is theoretically that both sides (me and my detractors) could be wrong. If so, both sides need to be held responsible for their actions.

4 - The admin reading this could block me instead of answering my question ("Why was I wrong to claim JzG acted without concensus?") -This would prove that Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey is correct in his claim that there are indeed "double standards I encounter in this English Misplaced Pages. Rules are rules, and they should be absolutes and apply to everone equally, not subject to change beause enough people "wikiality" them away or bend them for others." , which remind me of Communist Governments that don't like to be questioned: These dictatorships silence those who question them, because they have no moral force. Let's not follow this path of dishonour. Haven't we learned from the mistakes of dictatorships yet?--GordonWatts 21:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)