Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/GordonWatts

message: It's distressing to have to refuse to support someone who apparently expects me to support him, and who is already getting so many negative votes. (Well, I'm not going to oppose, either.) In my experience with Gordon, I have seen a lot of very eccentric edit summaries (, , , , , and especially  and  plus a tendency to do things that I consider ill-advised, without seeking advice first. Reporting as a 3RR violation something which was not a violation is one example. Opening a vote and declaring it closed two days later is another . Reporting Neutrality to the arbitration committee for "potential abuse" of administrator position when Neutrality had done nothing that required admin powers in his disagreement with Gordon is another . Trying to renominate Terri Schiavo as Featured Article within a few days of its failure may have been another. (I'm not sure that he actually did that, but he certainly spoke of it.)  This unfortunate RfA is another example.  
I don't want to criticize Gordon unduly for any of this. Being eccentric and impulsive does not imply any lack of intelligence, honesty, or kindness, but it does suggest that he doesn't conform, and that he doesn't have a strong sense of what not to say if you don't want to put people's backs up. In his defence, I must point out that (contrary to the impression inevitably created by his placing of comments under almost every single oppose vote) he has often shown himself to be extremely good natured when attacked and ridiculed on the Terri Schiavo talk page.  Very inappropriate and offensive things have been said both to and about him, there, and he has shown absolutely no sign of holding grudges.  He has also worked hard editing the article, and I don't just mean efforts to oppose the Michael Schiavo POV;  I mean the monotonous, thankless work of correcting grammatical errors, and tracking down sources, as well as uploading his own photos of Terri's grave. 
Gordon, I'm really sorry this is going so badly. Stay around, get more Wikipedia experience in other pages, try to conform more, don't act without taking advice, and then perhaps try again next summer, but certainly not before.  Ann Heneghan (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do agree that I act a little weird at times, but (as you generously point out), I try to work with people in good will. In your defense, I may not be ready for adminship due to the fact that I may have "real life" duties and responsibilities that take time away. (I know this was not a point you raised, but I think it is the best argument you could have raised; While I have my faults and such, I don't think I would perform badly in adminship, or else I would not have applied; I think I would have been more conservative and blended in, as I usually do.) While you make many good points, I must disagree on principle: The current policy doesn't lay these standards, and, however good of an idea, they are not policy. Most particularly, the "editcountitis" approach that has been used recently in adminship -and the fact that several editor misquoted me -are both in violation of policy, and I wish to stop both of those -even if it doesn't help me, but to help future Wikipedians; To get rid of the "editcountitis," we would either need to change the policy to allow it -or discipline the users who used it. To get rid of the latter would require a skilled admin to convince the editors involved to not misquote people. I'm easygoing, but this trend affects other people besides me, and I feel it is a trend that must stop -independent of whether I get promoted, and my RfA is just the vehicle to address these problems.--GordonWatts 05:24, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Ann Heneghan's) Comment that's too long for the main page 

message: From User talk:Blackcap#Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GordonWatts:
Sorry I was so slow to respond, Blackcap, to your question of Pat (whom probably didn't read your question here -probably not on his watchlist, or else he would've fast responded, ??) -and glad Zoe caught the one other typo I missed in the vote count; I took a day off to recover from overuse of the keyboard; I'm human.
*Pat wrote:Support There needs to be more diversity among the admins in how they relate to editors who are political and cultural conservatives. patsw 01:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding Patsw's vote 

message: Taxman, an admin, told me here that "The much better way to handle the issue if you think there is a serious problem in the way the RFA policy is handled would be to let your RFA stay removed then bring the issue up on the RFA talk page and point to that discussion from relevant other places," which presumably include this page here.
Some of you recall my recent "failed" RfA applicant, and my concerns are surely specific to myself, but my attempt to discuss my concerns was opposed: Admins at the talk page of my RfA, Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/GordonWatts, locked both the RfA (vote closed) --and its talk page! (Their excuse that my problems were only "general" did not have merit: My problems, while they surely affect a "general" wide range of users, were also specific to me as well, but they were afraid to have that material posted, and I did not have unblock magic.)
So, since these are "system-wide" problems that affect loads of persons, here are the locations where discussion is currently held:
# Main page: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Some_general_RfA_Problems:_Taxman_said_this_was_the_page_for_it
# Misc. Discussions: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales
# User_talk:GordonWatts/RfA (Backup, in case someone tampers with links above -plus I've saved a copy on my computer, in case some deletionist Admin trots into town.)--GordonWatts 23:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Press Release: My concerns re RfA were not allowed to be posted publicly