Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Guy Macon


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it. 

Guy Macon
'''Final (52/73/10); ended 21:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC) - candidate has gone offline and numerically the nomination is unlikely to succeed. Primefac (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)'''

Nomination
– Today, I'm happy to nominate someone that I feel would be of excellent service as a administrator on Wikipedia. Guy Macon is tireless content creator, working on improving articles, and ensuring that articles are sourced properly and accurately. Additionally Guy Macon is on the better vandal reporters on the site, and an extra set of eyes that can help with the removal of vandalism here is always welcome. One thing an admin needs to also understand is how content is key on Wikipedia, and Guy Macon's work on Slackware is something to highlight here. Working in collaboration with edits, and discovering how something such as NNTP assigned dates in the past was able to give an accurate time of the creation of the application. A minor detail, but one that does matter if looking for accuracy.

This eye for detail, and his welcoming and professional manner, makes him qualified to assist with the project in the role of an administrator. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Co-nomination
– Has been making steady contributions to Wikipedia for nearly 10 years (and been here even long than that). Their judgement has been solid and I have no hesitation in recommending them to become an administrator. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
 * To be honest, for the longest time I have been of the opinion that I don't want to be an administrator. What made me reluctantly change my mind was seeing a few hard-working admins doing most of the work in some areas, which led to concerns about burnout. If I can take care of some of the noncontroversial detail work (things like blocking someone who is in the middle of a spam run) I think this would benefit the encyclopedia. With that goal in mind, I accept the nomination.
 * For the record, I have never engaged in any paid editing. Guy Macon is my legal name, and I have verified this with the WMF. I edited as an IP for a few months in 2006, and one time (five years ago?) I tried using an alternate account when I was in the middle of some real-life harassment. I don't even remember what username I used, and it was only a handful of edits. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I intend on working on areas where there is either a backlog or where a few administrators are shouldering most of the work, which can lead to burnout. In particular I keep seeing the same few names responding to WP:AIAV reports. I also plan on responding to a lot of noncontroversial protected edit requests. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Unlike some editors who are good at composing entire articles, I am the type who focuses on getting factual details right in existing articles. I consider my essay at WP:1AM to be a net positive for the encyclopedia, and a lot of people have indicated that it helped them. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: I often edit in the areas of pseudoscience and fringe theories (see my essay at WP:YWAB), and have ended up in conflict with acupuncturists, homeopaths, and others who's livelihood is threatened by what Wikipedia says about their practices. I also had a lot of conflict with other editors over the decision we as a community made in the WP:DAILYMAIL case. I try to stay cool, and when I find myself getting annoyed or angered I tend to withdraw and let someone else deal with the situation.


 * There are also some cases where I was completely in the wrong and others where I was technically in the right but handled it really poorly -- or perhaps I should say I acted like a jerk. In such cases I have had to put aside my ego and apologize. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.


 * Additional questions from Leaky
 * 4. Are there any aspects of WP:ADMINCOND and WP:ADMINACCT with which you disagree and why?
 * A: After reading the above question, I went to the sections mentioned and read them once again, slowly and carefully. I not only agree with them, I enthusiastically agree with them. If anything, I would like the exception described in Super Mario effect to go away. (Please note the first entry under "notes" on that page and who it was that posted it...) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 5. You are the 7th highest contributor to the Talk Page of the WP co-founder . I'm interested to understand the attraction to that page.
 * A: Yes, I am interested in internal wiki-politics. Anyone who reads WP:CANCER can see that. I think the WMF spends too much, doesn't give enough details on what they spend it on, and refuses to take steps to protect our endowment from someone in a future WMF draining the principle to pay for Wikimanias. I also want the WMF to stop discriminating against blind people, and I want them to start producing high-quality software. (As I always do when I mention the software, let me be clear that the actual developers know how to make great software and have done so for other organizations. The problem here is management.) Jimbotalk is a great place to get attention for these things. I don't, as a rule, discuss them in main space. In my opinion, my posting things like Two weeks to go before we reach the '14 years of discriminating against the blind' milestone is a net positive. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Nnadigoodluck
 * 6. With the recent desysopping of 3 admins by the ArbCom, what would you do to ensure that you comply with WP:ADMINACCT and WP:ADMINCOND if this request is successful?
 * A: The obvious answer is "don't break the rules in the first place". I know that sounds like a cop out, but it has always been my policy that when I am warned not to do something I stop doing it even if I disagree. As long as I do this, any block will have to be without prior warning. Yes, there are things that will get you instantly blocked, but I have never been tempted to do any of them.
 * The above obviously isn't a good enough answer. What if I do violate and ADMINACCT/ADMINCOND and keep doing it after being warned? In that case I would resign under a cloud and save ARBCOM a lot of work. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Additional questions from creffett
 * 7. There have been a number of concerns raised in the "oppose" section about your civility and general temperament. How do you respond to those concerns? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creffpublic (talk • contribs) 20:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * A:


 * Additional question from LPS and MLP Fan
 * 8. If you become an admin, will you also take care of deletion? --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 23:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * A:


 * Additional question from The Four Deuces
 * 9. In my opinion, your political views have affected your interpretation of content policy. How can I be assured that it will not influence your actions as an administrator?
 * My example is a comment you made that the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) was wrong to call the World Congress of Families (WCF) a hate group "because they have an unpopular political position." (13:09, 30 August 2017) While that was 2017, last December, you accused the Southern Poverty Law Center of "lying". (11:16, 12 December 2019}
 * The WCF promotes the criminalization of homosexuality and holds gays responsible for the spread of AIDS and pedophilia. Whatever you think about those positions, they are generally described as hate in reliable sources and it's unhelpful to add your comments on your personal opinions in article talk pages.
 * A:


 * Additional question from MJL
 * 10. How important is WP:Civility to maintaining the encyclopedia? &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 04:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * A:


 * Adittional question from Can I Log In
 * 11. What hesitated you from wanting to get adminship in the first place?
 * A:


 * 12. Would you be willing to go for voluntary recall every year?
 * A:


 * Additional questions from Robert McClenon
 * 13. This question is about speedy deletion. Do you think that the speedy deletion reasons should be construed expansively, to increase the amount of poor-quality content that can speedily deleted, or construed narrowly, so that only the very worst quality content is speedily deleted and other material is dealt with in other ways, such as XFD?
 * A:


 * 14. This question is about civility, which is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. Can you clarify your concept of civility, and what do you think should be the standard for when editors should be cautioned, warned, or blocked for breaches of civility?
 * A:


 * Additional question from SchroCat
 * 15. You have been here for fourteen years. Why do you need the tools now? Why do you need to be an admin?
 * A:

Discussion

 * Links for Guy Macon:
 * Edit summary usage for Guy Macon can be found here.

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.''

Support

 * 1) Support As nominator. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Support As ordinary voter Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Since we're doing this. ——  SN  54129  15:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Yep. Reyk YO! 17:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyone who intends to work in AIV has a Support from me, as a general rule... King   of   Scorpions  18:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC) Support no more. Moving to Neutral.  King   of   Scorpions  19:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) I see no issues with Guy getting to help make Wikipedia a better place. No obvious risks, net positive.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Support – I'm always happy to see a new RfA, but this one has me particularly excited. Guy is a very experienced editor, knows his way around the project, and is one of our very best at dealing with the endless stream of nonsense that comes up in fringe topics. – bradv  🍁  18:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Support: I've had agreements and disagreements with Guy over the years, but have always found him positive and rational in his views, and willing to work towards solutions to problems. Having "clue" like that is surely one of the most important skills that an admin can have. He'll be an asset whatever work he finds himself doing. --RexxS (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) support--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) Support All the best. — Nnadigoodluck 🇳🇬 18:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) When I was learning my way around here I thought he was a sysop for the longest time. After all he knew his stuff in a wide variety of contexts. I am super happy they've decided they can be of service in this way to the project now. This is an enthusiastic and excited support. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - Experienced. No concerns. Agathoclea (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Fully trust the judgement of Doc James  and a long term user has been around since 2006, clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * * Pppery * it has begun... 18:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Been waiting for this!  Puddleglum  2.0  18:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Given the recent penchant for axing high-productivity admins, we need high-productivity editors to step up and boost the ranks. Clueful plus passionate is a good combination. Must say I am not enchanted with the frequent presence at Jimbotalk, which these days resembles a Commedia dell'arte stage with the same limited cast of types slugging it out on every single topic - but they seem to be able to keep that separate from WP editing. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) I've seen Guy around plenty. I don't believe that he would abuse the tools if given.  SQL Query me!  19:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, I guess it is needed at this stage--Ymblanter (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) Support (really rather strongly) Since I started editing here, there have been certain names that come up on the talk pages of articles that I'm interested in again and again and again - Guy's is one of them. Guy works on a lot of fringe areas, where numerous people come along regularly to push one or other form of woo, novel interpretation of evidence, or other point of view. His ongoing efforts to keep our content factual, rational, and based on mainstream science is awe-inspiring. Like a modern-day Cnut, he strives against an internet-inspired tide of conspiracy theorists, quacks, flat-earthers and other opportunists, and I can honestly say that the example of his tireless endeavours in that arena was one of the key motivators in my own decision to get more involved in editing here. Does he sometimes express himself stridently - yes, that's fair, but when you are faced with sealioning POV-pushers, it can be wearing making the same arguments again and again, knowing that they will be ignored. Has he ever made a strident argument that is not well-based in policy (not to mention mainstream academic thinking, and basic common sense to boot) - not that I've seen. This is an editor whose tireless devotion to the project cannot be doubted, whose knowledge of our policies, guidelines and procedures has been demonstrated repeatedly, and who I see as one of the biggest net positives we have in the arena in which he works. If given the tools, I am confident that he would not abuse them, and that he would put them to good use in keeping the encyclopedia in good order. Girth Summit  (blether)  20:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) Support – He’s not already an admin? On civility issues, I am a strong believer in keeping the tone civil. But, there are times when speaking frankly can be useful; the Daily Mail RfC2 being a good example. Keeping the trash sources and trash conspiracy pushing out of an open encyclopedia is a massive effort. WP is short on admins and many admins, sensibly, avoid the really messy articles. Guy excels at both article improvement and mopping up the spills. If he’s willing to deal with the administrative backlogs, he will be a welcome addition to the effort. O3000 (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 7) Clue? Yes. Experience? Yes.  Competent? Yes.  Cares about project?  Yes.  Cares about quality?  Yes.  Sweet-natured? Ummm... It seems a shame to lose a potentially productive admin over a too-sharp tongue, but I do understand the opposes. Some of those diffs are legitimately concerning, and go beyond dealing with trolls, and would be even worse if spoken by an admin with their cloak of invincibility.   It's not enough for me to oppose over, but it does concern me.  I wonder if there's anything Guy could do or say to ease the minds of some of the opposes?  He does seem pretty self-aware, and he does not seem like someone who will say something just because he thinks people want to hear it, so I'm hoping he hits Q7 out of the park, and people believe him, and switch to support.  But even if he doesn't, I'll still support, while encouraging him to take civility opposes seriously. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 8) support, He has been making very valuable contributions for over 10 years which I think is exactly what should be encouraged here. Long standing editors are tried and, more importantly, have proven their trustworthiness. They know the ropes and rules of conduct. Having a short tongue should not prevent the Admin tools being awarded. I have no hesitation in supporting and sincerely hope “opposes” by exceedingly short term editors will be discounted.  Giano    (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - No doubt Guy Macon is assertive, determined, and rarely sugar coats his words, but I can think of few people who are more dedicated to this project in just about every respect, or more knowledgeable. I often disagree with him, but I cannot think of a single instance where I found his comments to cross the line of civility. I find myself in agreement with almost all of the support comments so far. - MrX 🖋 22:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - Guy demonstrates true civility by not wasting people's time. Guy's willingness to work with problem editors is also commendable. We need more of that. Grayfell (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Guy Macon is sometimes overly passionate and verbose when opposing those who want Wikipedia to present fringe topics at the same level as evidence-based science, but he is sufficiently smart to know that using the admin role requires a different approach. Also, the first oppose contradicts itself by suggesting that this refdesk disagreement shows civility/temperament problems—that section shows calm and considered responses focused on the issue (are ice blocks heated in a microwave oven?) and GM's responses are totally correct concerning the acceptable and unacceptable ways to handle the disagreement. Johnuniq (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. No question regarding his experience and ability to use the tools.  Regarding temperament, I have edited alongside Guy at MfD where he impressed me with the effort and precision he puts into getting things right in a collaborative way.  He has high standards, and should not be penalised for advocating actions that achieve this. Britishfinance (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 13) Yes, Guy spends a lot of time trolling on the sillier parts of WP like Jimbo-talk and the reference desks.  And yes, he can be abrasive, sometimes absurdly so.  But I share the experience of many of having been surprised to discover that he wasn't already an admin, and I think this speaks to the fact that on net his contributions are massively positive.  For that reason, I think that actually having him as an admin would be likely to make Wikipedia better rather than worse. --JBL (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 14) Support- I appreciate his work on the project. Solid asset IMO.  Aloha27  talk  00:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 15) strong support per Girth's excellent assessment. Praxidicae (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 16) Support Valid concerns among the opposers, but I think he's a genuine good egg, and recall a few times where he seemed the most collegial out of the whole crowd. My bet would be that if he gets the bit, he'll step up to the role, and moderate his occasional over zealousness. Net positive. FeydHuxtable (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 17) Support- a lot of people spend a lot of time on the Founder's talk page and I've often wondered if they hope to gain anything by getting noticed there. However, Guy constantly addresses at least one particular serious issue which should concern everyone. It's not a reason to oppose a highly qualified, long-time user's bid for the mop. I've exchange many positive views with Guy over the years, and what's good enough for is good enough for me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 18) Support We need to top up our depleted reserve of highly active, experienced, clueful, and crusty admins. Johnbod (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 19) Support A - he's a productive contributor; B - he clearly is familiar with Wikipedia policies; C - the opposes are unconvincing; D - if his behavior is acceptable for our current administrators, it should be fine for a prospective administrator. Natureium (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 20) Strong Support No reason to think this user couldn't be trusted with the tools. I find the opposes unconvincing. --rogerd (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. Joining the 52% supporters, I lend my full and humble backing to an editor and candidate I'm positively certain would make an excellent admin. The concerns expressed by the several opposers are of little or no concern for me. I've worked with the candidate, who has been around far longer even than I have, and have learned a good deal from him. With the present need for good and helpful admins, we should think twice before we take issue with this admin candidacy!  PI Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 04:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Guy will be an amazing admin. No issues from me. Giltsglid (talk) 04:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC) Confirmed sock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to assume bad faith here, but much like Izodtrues and Grittrue below, this is Giltsglid's first substantial edit. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible support. Oppose voters mostly seem to have an axe to grind. Izodtrues (talk) 04:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC) Confirmed sock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , just out of curiosity, do you not find it odd that someone's first edit to Wikipedia is to an RFA? Sir Joseph (talk) 04:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Grittrue (talk) 04:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC) Confirmed sock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Guy possesses a wealth of experience and will make an excellent admin. A low threshold for nonsense is a bonus, in my view. Yunshui 雲 水 10:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Support The battle looks lost, so this amounts to no more than moral support, but I would just say that Guy is a good editor and can make a good admin, and I have no concerns on the issue of civility that others have raised (unfortunately I have seen far worse behaviour from other long-time admins, who would certainly fail if they were to submit themselves again for RfA ). Hzh (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) I'm unsurprised to see this RFA going exactly the way I predicted it would, but I still have no problem supporting. As far as I can see the oppose section consists largely of people rehashing mostly years-old grudges and with the exception of a single incident on the Reference Desks I can't see anyone raising any legitimate concerns about anything recent. (Frankly, I'm inclined to take the position that what happens on the Reference Desks stays on the Reference Desks. For—quite literally—years they've been a cesspool in which Wikipedia's normal social standards are ignored; if I were to head over there and start enforcing WP:Civility, WP:Verifiability and WP:Neutral point of view, I could probably legitimately block every active editor there within a month.) I don't recognise at all the monster being painted in the oppose section; as someone who disagrees with Guy all the time, and is a watcher of numerous pages in which other people disagree with Guy all the time, I don't recall ever seeing him being anything other than reasonable when other people have disagreed with him. I do wish he'd unwatch ANI and Jimbotalk—they're both an unhealthy environment whose structure makes disputes fester, leading to the kind of revenge-is-a-dish-best-served-cold behaviour in the oppose section, but it's not fair to penalise someone for doing what plenty of other people (including quite a few of the opposers) also do. I have no concerns at all either that Guy would misuse any part of the admin toolset, nor that he wouldn't be accountable if anyone reasonably queried or challenged an action. &#8209; Iridescent 17:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Where you're right is that many of the opposers are not opposing because they feel that he'll misuse any new powers. They're expressing a general discontent that a certain sort of aggressive behaviour has been tolerated for far too long: I'm the expert, I can quote every WP:WHATEVER by heart and I wrote half of them, I've write umpteen FAs or whatever and you're a complete idiot, etc. Most of us have had a certain amount of this over the years. Up to now the only option available to editors who can't tolerate this sort of behaviour has simply been to leave: an option that many many have taken. Thankfully, post Framgate, "ordinary" users are felling somewhat more empowered and expressing they're views through RfAs, one of the few avenues available to them. Hopefully the WMF are looking on and feeling somewhat more empowered too. Nigej (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - Do I trust Guy to use the tools properly? Absolutely. I also would expect honesty and accountability.  Not everyone can handle "honesty" around here, unfortunately, nor can they get over grudges.  That said, there isn't any question I would trust Guy with the few extra tools the admin bit gives you.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Moral support as exactly an example of where our broken and overly bureaucratic system for taking away the mop means that we're unwilling to grant it to people who are highly experienced and perfectly able to push buttons, when the vast majority of the button pushing is entirely uncontroversial.   G M G  talk  22:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. (Moved from neutral.) I still have concerns about snark and sarcasm; they corrode the community. But I have seen Guy working far better than I could in dispute resolution, so I have confidence that he will take on board that a major part of being an admin here is avoiding the need to use the block button. And after Iridescent linked to the thread on his talk page, I saw this statement there: For a while there I drifted into being overly aggressive and even insulting. That was wrong. I took a long hard look at my own behavior and started disengaging more and confronting less. I expect to do some serious apologizing when people bring these sort of issues up. That's more or less what I'd hoped to see here at the RfA. Ultimately I do regard him as someone I can trust with the buttons. And not the sort of candidate to oppose as a gesture of Power to the People, whatever one's opinion of the WMF's treatment of the community. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Based on what I have seen he has done good work on this website. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) Support I see good edits from Guy Macon pop up on my watch list on a regular basis, and I can't recall encountering anything negative. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) Support This RfA is a lost cause by now, so this is mostly moral support. I feel GM has done some nice work fighting against POV-pushers, and although he might be uncivil, I kinda understand that the perpetual POV-pushers must get really annoying over time. <b style="color:#060">L293D</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 03:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 7) Moral support - The opposition is valid and well-deserved. That said, I'm morally supporting for the record to note that Guy is an overwhelming net positive in the face of the problems, and is a long-term and trustworthy editor who could certainly be trusted with the tools. I encourage him to work on his communication skills and attitude in disputes and re-run after showing the community that he has taken their concerns seriously and rectified them. ~Swarm~  {sting} 07:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - echo the sentiment of overwhelming net positive, and would make an excellent administrator. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 09:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 9) Moral Support - Unfortunately, there are too many concerns raised for this RfA to pass, but appreciate you going ahead with the RfA despite all the incidents. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 10) Support as a clear net positive. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 11) It's a shame that Guy Macon has civility issues but I'm not going to let that stop me from supporting him as he's an amazing candidate. I've come across him several times over the years and, even though our interactions have been very limited, he's always come across as sensible and knowledgable. Also, this is just brilliant. We definitely need more admins who are tough enough to take on conspiracy theorists and alt-right lunatics, to stop them from damaging the quality of the encyclopedia. We don't need to treat BS as equal to facts. Big support from me. Acalamari 16:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 12) SupportTelosCricket (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - I don't think he'd abuse the tools -- Versa geek  17:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 14) Support, Should be fine with the tools. I can't actually find any argument that says Guy will abuse the Sysop flags, which is unrelated to "Civility" reason.-- AldNon Ucallin?☎ 17:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Seems to have a good understanding of Wikipedia's policies, and offers good suggestions for how to construct/format articles. --- Avatar317 (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. Jonathunder (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose recent behavior contradicts the answer to #3. fiveby (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC) (involved in dispute)
 * 2) Oppose per WP:CIVILITY. I'm sure different users remember different snarky and aggressive comments by Guy Macon, of which there are plenty, but this one from June 2018, calling another editor a "delicate little flower" and "challenged" in a very condescending manner was bad.  has called Guy Macon's tone aggressive and unnecessary: . --Pudeo (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

PAGE ]]) 17:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. The instructions at User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased. advise against merely linking to it and instead, to "cut and paste the entire thing".  This is a really inappropriate thing to suggest, and while not the worst thing in the world, I think it points to a bigger issue.  I think that Guy Macon does quite a bit of good work in this area, but his general demeanor at WP:FTN is often troubling.  Take this post for example where he shares the contents of an email sent to him about the essay.  The only reason for this was to hold the sender up to ridicule among the regulars there.  I can certainly understand the desire to do so, but there's a time and a place for it, and a public on-wiki noticeboard isn't that.  There are probably other examples I could point to, but I think this serves as a decent example to show why I think administrative rights shouldn't be granted.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 18:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, on the basis that this user claims in question 3 to “stay cool” when dealing with controversial discussions, citing WP:Dailymail. Yet, they were objectively one of the most passionate and provocative users in said discussion. While I personally agree with the outcome, constantly insisting (of the Daily Mail) to “kill it with fire” as an alternative to “oppose” speaks volumes in regards to WP:Civilty. In addendum, they were one of the most vocal users in general during the Daily Mail discussion, responding to many opposers of their viewpoint that it could be interpreting that they may have been WP:Bludgeoning the process. This also contradicts their answer to question 3, when they state that they tend to withdraw from discussions whenever they get annoyed (or angry) with the opposing party. Let me reiterate that I do agree with the outcome of the debate, but I do not think that their tone during the debate was appropriate, and did not sound like somebody who wanted to work through the discussion civilly. (Diffs will be provided in a later edit). Utopes (talk / cont) 19:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose: After reading Guy Macon's comments in the 2019 RSN RFC on the Daily Mail I am unable to support the candidate. There is too much failure to assume good faith and respect legitimately differing points of view. (Note: I also supported deprecation of DM). <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 19:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose due to a growing concern over lack of civility (which contradicts Guy Macon's answer in default question 3) that is echoed by many other editors... King   of   Scorpions  19:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. I saw this name, and I immediately connected it as someone with civility issues. Turns out that others above me have the same concerns, so it seems I was somewhat accurate in my assumption. And then, I recalled where I've seen this name before: Wikipedia talk:Reference desk. Per some of the search results for "Guy Macon" in the archives of Wikipedia talk:Reference desk, results are mixed between potentially informative responses and head butting with other editors, even in some results that occurred this year. So, I'll have to oppose for now. Steel1943  (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose: Their reply to Q3 is contradictory to their behaviour.  NonsensicalSystem (err0r?)(.log) 20:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Temperamentally unsuited to being an admin. I've known Guy here for years. For a long time I had respect for them as an editor with considerable knowledge and ability. However at some point this changed and they've since been persistently hostile: both to me personally (I have no idea why, I've no beef with them), and I don't think I'm unique in being on the receiving end of this. As an example, a very minor disagreement over wording WP:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2019 November 29 turned into this: Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 132 On any article where Guy sees the chance, I get behaviour like this:  Andy Dingley (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)  If the RefD issue was handled in such a 'calm and considered' manner, how did it end up here?: Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive400 Andy Dingley (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC) "Civility and drama" are mentioned below, which I think is an interesting conjunction: I could forgive the lack of civility, and Guy's straightforwardness is preferable to the cloyingly polite back-stabbing we also suffer, but it's the drama. Every disagreement instantly gets turned up to 11. No-one simply "disagrees", they're part of A Great Confederacy against him. That's the problem. Andy Dingley (talk)
 * 8) I see too much problematic behavior above of various sorts. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...  20:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose per the civility concerns, especially in light of the fact that ArbCom has recently desysopped multiple admins for, among other things, substandard communication with other editors. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 20:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 10) Very Strong Oppose there was an instance in the past (which I won't link to in order to relitigate) where Guy Macon edited an already started and already !voting RFC and inserted one line into the RFC. He then used that RFC (with his one line inserted) to stir up unnecessary drama, which at one point in time, even had Jimbo involved. I also echo those above who mention civility, and his extremely aggressive editing style. He also edits with a grudge, in my case, he couldn't believe that someone agreed with my edits, and accused me of being a sockmaster which resulted in his being warned for that. We do not need more admins with behavioral issues. Whether I have a past with him or not is irrelevant, we need admins who don't hold grudges, don't have civility problems, don't accuse people of being sockmasters, etc. We can do better. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , my statement above makes it clear that we are opposite sides of this fence, so I hope you don't think this is out of line. I have to say though, that I think that it is highly inappropriate of you to mention a specific event in your vote without providing some sort of link that would allow people to look into it for themselves. As it stands, this is all your interpretation of an encounter, with no opportunity for others to review and evaluate. Please either provide links to allow others to review the encounter independently, or strike. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  21:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , Here is a link to Guy Macon accusing an IP editor of being my sock: . I forgot to add the hounding part, while he keeps a grudge, he will follow you around as well, as he did to me. He also started an AN thread about me where I was archiving threads (perhaps there was a valid discussion to be had there, but instead of just referring to me as "Sir Joseph", he referred to me as "Sir Joseph who recently came off a one-week block and is under a six-month topic ban," even though those were irrelevant and again, just because he had a grudge., I hope this is enough, I can paste some other DIFFS where his behavior is atrocious, if we do need more admins, which I don't know if we do, it's not someone who has a very long history of civility problems. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you for providing the diffs. I withdraw my suggestion that you strike, but I will note, for the benefit of anyone who isn't inclined to click through, that these are both from 2016. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  23:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose In a nutshell, anyone spending that much time on WP:JIMBOTALK isn't spending enough time on improving and maintaining the encyclopedia, and helping others do so. It's a major red flag for me. "Yes, I am interested in internal wiki-politics." - I personally run full speed in the other direction away from them wherever possible. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , you know (I hope) the regard in which I hold your own contributions, and I'm generally not an oppose-vote badgerer. However, the idea that Guy Macon isn't spending enough time on improving and maintaining the encyclopedia is nonsensical. I can respect someone not liking the way he goes about it, but very few admins spend as much time and energy as he does doing just that. If you find spending time on JIMBOTALK to be a reason to oppose, then I can't gainsay you, but please don't suggest that Guy isn't spending enough time on content work when he's clearly one of our most dedicated and enthusiastic contributors with regard to the quality of our content in his area of interest. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  21:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * To be fair, even if Guy spent 90% of his time on Jimbo's talk page, his non-Jimbo editing would still be more helpful improving and maintaining the encyclopedia, by an order of magnitude, than some other rando admin who's RFA you supported recently. Actually, a lot of admins hang out there; it seems mean to prevent someone from being an admin because he's doing something other admins are already doing. Not badgering you here, just food for thought. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I don't mean that Guy doesn't contribute in mainspace enough; rather (on the face of evidence presented here) he spends too much time arguing and causing drama, when that time would have been better spent further contributing in mainspace instead of prolonging said drama. WP:1AM rings alarm bells too, particularly as it's presented as an example of best work as opposed to some GA worked in collaboration with 1-2 editors which is one of the best "kicks" you can get out of this project, in my view. I don't get into all those sort of conflicts, I wonder why he does? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  23:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , he does because of the nature of the subjects he chooses to work on. We don't all need to get into these conflicts, in the same way that we don't all need to be doing counter-vandalism if enough people are already doing it - but it's a bloody good thing that someone is willing to step in. Pages on pseudoscientific concepts, alternative medicine, conspiracy theories, whatever - they have a regular influx of new editors who have read just enough of our guidelines to start an argument in a RGW sort of way, and who will find it hard to hear counter-arguments. I'm not sure whether WP:1AM has ever successfully changed anyone's mind, but I'm convinced that it's a good-faith attempt to explain to such people why they might not be permitted to rewrite an article on their preferred flavour of foo in the way that they'd like to. GM isn't out there looking for conflict - he's just holding the line to make sure that we don't wake up tomorrow to discover that Wikipedia says that sitting in a pyramid made of goji beans cures/causes cancer. That's a good thing. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  00:15, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not so much where he works but how he behaves. That Daily Mail thread reported by Andy Dingley above is a good example; JzG started a thread asking why we hadn't started doing more work to clean up BLPs, a position I agreed with, and Andy questioned exactly what the issue was. I was interested in finding out Andy's view on this and hoping we could come to some sort of understanding or agreement. Instead, Guy walked in, threw in an ASCII art related personal attack at Andy, and caused the debate to deteriorate. That's exactly the behaviour I do not want to see. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , since everybody else is being too polite to point it out, I personally run full speed in the other direction away from [internal wiki-politics] wherever possible would possibly be more credible coming from someone who hasn't made 1500 posts to ANI. Waiting more than four days between opening a thread at Wikipediocracy to insult someone who disagreed with you at a RfB and sneering at someone for saying "Yes, I am interested in internal wiki-politics" might help, too. &#8209; Iridescent 20:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Oppose per everyone above me. I unfortunately cannot say that I have had a single positive interaction with Guy Macon. These behavior issues need to be resolved long before an RfA should be even considered. Also, I am really unimpressed with the nominator's statements. Nihlus  22:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Seems completely unsuitable per above comments regarding aggressive style. Not the way we should be going. Nigej (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Oppose per all of the above. Lacks the temperament needed for an admin. Shame, too, because he'd otherwise be an exceptional candidate. OhKayeSierra (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose as above, too many valid concerns raised. GiantSnowman 22:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose I don't personally know Mr. Macon so well, but I unfortunately cannot support given the above opposes. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per Deacon and Utopes. Wikipedia is not a battleground. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. Temperament issues and a talent for stirring unnecessary drama. Not a good candidate to be our administrator.--Darwinek (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. I disagree with some of the folks in the support column who characterize some of Guy's comments as speaking frankly, lack of sugar-coating, etc. The fact of the matter is that he has a history of taking an aggressive and sometimes uncivil approach to conflicts, which is behavior we need less of in the admin corps, not more. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. Seems a touch too combative and the interest in "internal wiki-politics" just screams of someone that would come to the attention of ArbCom one day. KaisaL (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC) -- An addition: this diff is hugely concerning, not least the aggressive ableist language. Putting a person that communicates this way (regardless of context) in any position of responsibility would set a terrible example and I'm surprised so many users are choosing to support when diffs like that exist. KaisaL (talk) 06:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose per concerns regarding civility. Class 455  ( talk |stand clear of the doors!)  00:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. Civility problems and excessive interest in high policy. A person who is uncivil as an ordinary editor will be even more uncivil as an administrator. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC).
 * 12) Oppose unfortunately, per above. Concerns with civility and temperament.  -  F ASTILY   00:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose I only got as far as poor temperament and incivility and shouting and dismissing other editors. We have no need for more sarcastic or snarly administrators. The sarcasm and condescension is easy to see in this RFC. Lightburst (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose Guy does good work in combating POV pushers and fringe theories, but also seems to spend a lot of time at Jimbo’s talk page, the reference desks and ANI, which leads to think there would be too much wiki drama as an admin. P-K3 (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 15) Per multiple above; I agree that while he is a productive editor but his temperament is not a fit for being a sysop. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose I honestly was not unaware that Guy was still a plebe...  because reasons: 1) we have enough guy admins; 2)  slipshod co-nomination;  3) per "etal." and their support column; but mostly, 4) Guy doing what he does in oppose links #1 and #2 and #3 and #4... --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 02:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose For all the new editors, old editors, and for the comments above. In my early days of regular editing, I had an encounter with a snarky admin who deleted a huge amount of of my content on a given page, without notification, and refused to give me a direct answer as to why. Just one snarky retort that essentially (in less pleasant terms) was telling me to get lost. That admin wasn't desysoped until many years later.  Let's not elect admins like that in the first place; let's not put anyone through that kind of experience. — Maile  (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose had a personal interaction with Guy Macon here, . He/she was not just rude, they were rude while being ignorant of basic facts (such as what a pawn odds game of chess is like, props to Kaldari for explaining it). I give Guy Macon props for retracting everything he wrote, but still: calling someone a liar and highlighting it in boldface while being ignorant of basic facts is something I cannot endorse in an admin. Banedon (talk) 05:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * His exact boldface words were: Your statement "...the fact that Leela can win at pawn odds" is a lie. It's usually best to disagree using less emotive words, such as "unproven", "mistaken", "unverifiable" etc., but GM's statement was not a personal attack. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 06:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * A "lie" is commonly defined as "an intentionally false statement", "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive", "an intentional falsehood" or a variation thereof. Even if one only wants to use the word as a synonym for "untrue", calling a statement a "lie" not only conveys that one believes it to be untrue but also that one believes the person who made it did so with the intent to deceive. Regards So  Why  08:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I recognize that and agree that it was a very poor choice of words, but in modern US colloquial usage the word lie is often used as a synonym for "untrue statement", not necessarily with a pejorative connotation. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 13:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * When I hear something like "'x' is a lie", I immediately think of an infamous parliamentary debate on Northern Ireland, where Revd Ian Paisley said "The people of Northern Ireland would say to me, "Why did not you stand by what you said outside the House?", and I stand by what I said. It was a falsehood: it was worse, it was a lie." and was immediately ejected from the House of Commons. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. There are enough civility issues highlighted in the diffs presented above to prevent me from supporting. Sorry. — sparklism hey! 07:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I don't doubt that they've done good work on Wikipedia, they've certainly done far more than I ever have, but I don't think they have the right kind of disposition to be an administrator. I have personal experience seeing them WP:SHOUTing a few years ago (it was my first time seeing them back when I was still somewhat new to Wikipedia, so that's what I've come to associate their username with) and if it weren't for the other oppose !votes suggesting that this is reflective of what their temperament is like today I would've stayed neutral. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 08:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per above diffs. No admin is perfect, but most admin mistakes are reversible. However civility issues, where it leads to the point of driving off other users, are not and therefore civility is the keystone (IMO) to being a good admin. Clearly Guy has major issues with this, and therefore I have to oppose. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 08:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose RFA today, RFAR tomorrow. I believe it would be in the best interests of the community to not promote Guy at this time. Nick (talk) 09:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Despite the enthusiastic response to Q4 the evidence provided above (and below) strongly suggests that it is a case of honoring the policy more in the breach than the observance. Leaky caldron (talk) 09:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose: my main criterion in RfA is always civility and here the candidate is not on strong footing. I'm going to quote the Elon Musk comment in full because it's so concerning: I am sorry. I had not realized that you are a delicate flower who gets triggered by such mild comments. True, being able to survive the rough and tumble of a normal conversation is a rudimentary skill that many of us "normal" people assume everyone has an easy time of mastering, but we sometimes forget that there are "challenged" persons in this world who find these things to be difficult. If I had known that this was true in your case then I would have never have exposed you to even the slightest criticism. It just wouldn't have been "right". Sort of like parking in a handicap space. I wish you the best of luck in the emotional, and social struggles that seem to be placing such a demand on you. This is in response to someone suggesting that Musk is Canadian.  I always try to make sure my opposition is actionable and constructive, so I don't like opposing over one two-year-old diff, but I see some other serious civility concerns throughout this section (and not just from the people Guy has been in disputes with). To Guy Macon, in order to get my support in a second RfA you need to admit that your tone and attitude have been unacceptable and change your behaviour. If you're angry and write a comment, leave it in the edit tab for an hour or overnight and then come back to the tab and if you still think it's an acceptable tone then post it. — Bilorv ( talk ) 09:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Power hungry. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 10:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose Does good work and is usually right, but as mentioned in many places above, is often unable to be right without being unacceptably uncivil. Scribolt (talk) 10:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose reluctantly. Civility and drama concerns outweigh the good work they have done here.  Alex Noble    - talk  11:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose Accomplished and hard working by all means. Unfortunately there is a need to greatly improve on how they engage with others – their extraordinary lack of self awareness leaves me lacking confidence that they would be able to cope satisfactorily at this time. Thincat (talk) 11:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose Per the above: just too aggressivly uncivil from time to time. - SchroCat (talk) 11:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose - the civility issue can’t be ignored. The examples cited above, particularly the shouting, the Daily Mail thread, and the comment in the Elon Musk discussion, aren’t acceptable for editors generally, and certainly not for an admin. Maybe I’m a delicate flower, but if I were in the receiving end of such comments from an admin, it would certainly disincline me to continue working on the ‘pedia for awhile. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose, worried about the above.  13:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BEANS X3 (talk • contribs)
 * 14) Oppose. Guy Macon does stellar content work, but I have serious concerns over his ability to remain dispassionate when enforcing Wikipedia policy and mediating conflict.  It is no negative reflection on his work as a Wikipedian, but not everyone has the temperament to be an effective administrator.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 15) GorillaWarfare and Nick have it 100% spot-on. ~ Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 14:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose, with no disrespect to your hard work and dedication but it seems you have a habit of rubbing people up the wrong way (to put it diplomatically). Essentially, I agree with Ritchie and Molly—there's too much potential drama from you being an admin, at least at this point in time. The politics is a necessary evil that most of us could happily do without, but it exists to serve the encylcopaedia, not the other way around. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 15:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 17) Strong Oppose, no editor with this level of civility issues should hold any power. ArkayusMako (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose per : unacceptable, and sound advice from Bilorv. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose per Gorilla Warfare among (many) others.  Calidum   16:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose, too many instances of invcivility. Hog Farm (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose, long history of incivility. In fact he is of the old usenet "flame war" school who amuses himself by creating new ways to be uncivil. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What this really shows is that we need to have a system of getting rid of editors, not just stopping them becoming administrators. Nigej (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) *In case others don't follow the link, just a note for posterity that it is not evidence that Guy "amuses himself by creating new ways to be uncivil". Characterizing it that way is really unfair. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Strong oppose, mainly because of the behavior issues mentioned elsewhere. This user doesn't seem to have the right civility for an admin. GoodCrossing (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just changed my vote to strong oppose as I keep finding more and more serious incidents where Guy was less than civil, notably As a relatively new user, I'm particularly interested in having admins be helpful and not having such an attitude when dealing with conflicts. Guy, IMO, seems to be more interested in fueling conflicts than in resolving them. I also noticed the lack of activity in the RfA, which I don't find particularly good considering the candidate needs a pretty good answer to Q7 to have any more Supports. GoodCrossing (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Bilorv's comments and the general concern about the editor's civility/behavior. Aoba47 (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose In addition to the incivility in the diff given by Pudeo (which happened to be directed towards myself), there was a similar example from a couple weeks before that comment. He implied another editor is mentally challenged ("short bus") in the edit summary and simply stated "go fuck yourself, asshole" as part of the discussion . I realize it can be easy to get tilted online and lash out, but there should be higher standards for sysops. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - I don't like to say that someone can never be an admin no matter how hard they try. I don't think Guy is ready just yet. Civility is one of the key qualities an admin should have because if admins are biting newbies, that's a problem. He needs to stay calm when making difficult decisions. At this point, I'd encourage the candidate to withdraw the nomination and request adminship again in at least 2 years and seek advice from other editors before requesting adminship again. Interstellarity (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose the recent December 2019 RefDesk thread coupled with the  comment from 2018 shows continued WP:CIVILITY issues which don't seem to have stopped. In short fails my criteria. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 00:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose The issue I have here is the possibly of behaviour towards people that he doesn't seem to be on the right train of thought and could be trigger happy if that is the case. HawkAussie (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. I feel that positive tone and nuance, and constructive verbal expression by an admin is incredibly important. it eclipses the importance of anything related to mere technical features, imho. --Sm8900 (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per Andy the Grump's testimony on Wikipediocracy, in which he attributes his pulling away from the project to the nominee's behavior in dispute resolution. He's not the only one there chirping. Carrite (talk) 03:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose Yikes, no. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose has done some good work but we need fewer admins with civility problems, not more.  Hut 8.5  07:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose knowing how to interact with others in a respectful and non-confrontational way is key for an administrator. I'm sorry but I can't support this request, despite the otherwise tremendous contributions.  Schwede 66  09:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose The edit provided by Galobtter is not an isolated incident. Most normal conversations do not include a "rough and tumble" and anyone with the admin mop and pail needs to know that. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 11:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose per civility issues. 1.02 editor (T/C) 11:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 13) A few years ago, this would have been a very easy support on my part. Unfortunately, the examples of unwarranted hostility cited above lead me to believe that Guy should first take a breather and try to step back from disputes before letting his emotions get the better of him. Once he gains more control over his temper, I would be glad to support. Kurtis (talk) 14:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 14) A person who wants others to believe that Wikipedia is biased and also wants to enforce such a view does not deserve to be an admin. Mohanabhil (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Discussion moved to the talk page. Primefac (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Per Q3 and Deacon. <mark style="background:Silver"> Bobherry  Talk   Edits  17:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Candidate has left most of the questions unanswered for almost 48 hours now. If they don't intend to participate here, they should at least have the dignity to withdraw. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:-.3em;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK
 * 1) Oppose on civility grounds. Striker force Talk 18:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per civility issues raised above. Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 18:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Guy has become so upset with my fact-checking him on Jimbotalk that he has repeatedly asked Jimbo to ban me. He characterizes Foundation growth as exponential, as if that would be a bad thing, going so far as to invoke the name of a terrible disease to try to sway the reader with emotion, when fundraising growth has actually been linear. His politics are to complain about criticism of the right wing in terms of criticism of the left wing, and as such are uncomfortable to me, and from my interactions with him I have no doubt that he would use administrator status to try to advance libertarian and authoritarian politics along with austerian, Austrian, trickle-down supply-side, elitist, dangerous policies including but not limited to the intentional introduction of bias and the deliberate squelching of inconvenient accuracy. EllenCT (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , Guy has become so upset with my fact-checking him on Jimbotalk that he has repeatedly asked Jimbo to ban me. Would you mind providing diffs? I searched through the talk page archives and could not find this, and it's a serious accusation to make. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 20:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is a diff for you. Guy Macon asked Jimbo Wales if it is time to ban EllenCT from his talk page. Lightburst (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose as per the reasons pointed above me. There's no need to rehash what has been said. This user does not have the temperament to be admin. QueerFilmNerd  talk 20:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Neutral

 * Neutral, leaning toward Oppose: The opposers raise a serious point. In my view, civility is very important, and those who claim to uphold it while there is evidence to the contrary will not receive my support... King   of   Scorpions  19:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC) I leaned too far and fell over. Moving to oppose. That is my final decision.  King   of   Scorpions  19:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , if you're really done moving, then please indent and strike your oppose vote. creffpublic <sub style="margin-left:-8ex"> a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 20:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What I meant to say was, moving to oppose is my final decision. I didn't phrase it right. Clarified. King   of   Scorpions  20:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * moved from "Neutral" to "Oppose". Steel1943  (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , yup, but the original wording was apparently a bit ambiguous (This is my final decision) - I thought "this" referred to "neutral," not "oppose." KoS has since clarified. creffpublic <sub style="margin-left:-8ex"> a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 20:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * 1) Moral support I agree with GirthSummit and O3000 that Guy's a valuable asset to the project, and I hope to support one day because of it. However, I think Buidhe's concern about assuming good faith makes me very concerned about biting newbies. While some supporters were helped by Guy as new editors, I worry about the other editors on the other side who may not be around to comment on this request and how to weigh those competing concerns. I would suggest taking the opposes on board. The answers to the questions say the right things, but editors are concerned that there's a discrepency between word and action. Assuming that you do mean what you've said, I would say think about your current approaches and how to improve them. For example, you say that you try to leave discussions when the editing gets hot, but editors seem concerned that you may not remove yourself soon enough. I appreciate the contributions you make without the administrator tools, and regardless of the outcome of this request, I hope that they continue. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutral for now. Recalling an e-mail exchange I had with Guy a couple of years ago regarding one of the incidents mentioned in Oppose !votes, I was about to ask what I think would have been my first question at RfA, but I see creffett has asked substantially the same thing. I would really like to support this RfA. I've seen Guy Macon doing a lot of good, for example in dispute resolution, and speaking a lot of wisdom (even though I think that in articles on alternative medicine, our zeal as a community not to misinform causes us to tip too far into condemnation for a neutral reference source, and even though I have never seen any good come out of Jimbotalk). But there's far too much snark on Wikipedia already, and one of the main roles of admins is to calm things down by explaining, before somebody winds up being blocked, or leaving. So I'll park here for now, with that explanation of my concerns and thoughts. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC) Moving to support. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW, my feelings are broadly similar to yours. Ultimately, I decided that the right way for me to deal with "I would really like to support this RfA" was to go ahead and support the RfA.  (Not that anyone else should feel bound by that, just my 2c.) --JBL (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Neutral. Not sure why the RFA is doing so poorly so quickly. Guy Macon certainly won't be our worst admin by any means! I'll review the discussion in a few days to see what everyone else says, but my impression of the candidate has consistently been positive.  &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 04:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I immediately moved from Support after reading 's comment above. I clearly am more in the dark than I thought. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 04:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Guy Macon has good editorial judgment, and I wouldn't mind another sysop who thinks like he does. I reviewed a random sample of his contributions, and from those I checked, I didn't observe him to be an uncivil editor.  I did feel that he's a little brash, and I noticed that his participation in a discussion doesn't usually lower the temperature.  I'm unwilling to oppose over it, and with relatively minor changes to his choices of words, I'd be up there supporting.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 14:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) I would love to support: I have seen the candidate so many places, with so many good comments and contributions, but i have also seen snippiness and that's less than ideal in an RfA candidate ~ to be sure, there are plenty of current admins whom i'd like to take to one side and suggest they calm their tongues down and think before they write, but they aren't the subject here.  Call this a moral support, because i can't oppose. Happy days, LindsayHello 14:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral: Where a candidate has had possible behavior and temperament issues in the past its perhaps really important for them to clearly identify the recognise the epiphany moment which will probably have needed to be at least 18 to 24 months previously; and to have identified any lapses since that baseline. Sometimes it is a failed RfA that provides that baseline.  My feeling is I am reluctant to support unless I go through the many oppose !votes with deep scrutiny, deeper than I am prepared to do; on the plus side the candidate would likely be a useful admin.  There may be a concern candidate spends too much time on certain boards but again I'd need to take time and effort to scrutinise that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) 23:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral: Curious about the answer to Q7. I think there's a difference between giving snark to POV pushers compared to newbies. --Spacepine (talk) 09:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral: Pending a sufficiently good answer to Q7, which I'd hoped there'd be a response to by now. I'm currently fluctuating between weak oppose, "true" neutralness and weak support, so am going for the middle at this point. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral: I initially planned to jump in as support, but I'm currently in the same boat as Nosebagbear and Yngvadottir. Will wait for Q7 before making a final decision. creffpublic <sub style="margin-left:-8ex"> a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 16:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yngvadottir is supporting, did you mean something else? --JBL (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , sorry, I recognize I didn't phrase that clearly - I was referring to Yngvadottir's original (now struck) neutral rationale. creffett (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral Been thinking this over for a while and I really can't go either way. I see no evidence that Guy would abuse the tools, which is the main reason we have RfA's. He's certainly experienced, and would know how to appropriately do all of the many admin tasks. We also need to replace the rapidly depleting stock of super active admins. But many folks have raised civility concerns. I'm of the opinion that we're being puritans as of late, expecting our admins to not just be exemplars, but to be perfect. Everyone makes a few mistakes, and I think we should be more forgiving than we are, but boy howdy Guy makes it real hard. All in all, I could neither bring myself to support or oppose. I'd be happy to see Guy pass, but don't see that happening at this time. If Guy had a very calm year that showed he had taken civility concerns seriously, I'd urge him to run again. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, Moral support, Oppose the opposers, Not yet, Oppose anything but neutral. Guy I'm sorry, but I've been on the verge of picking each of the above choices.  It takes a lot of types of people to make an encyclopedia, and your type is certainly one of them - one that we need a few more of. It takes a lot of different types of people to be admins around here, but I don't think your type is one of them. The nomination by Doc James goes a long way for you. I'd like to compare both you and me to . He is one of the few people I know around here who can forthrightly speak his mind almost all of the time, marshal the facts in support of his position, and actually convince most people.  We need more editors like that. You and me - well we get the first two right most of the time, but often fail on the third. Even though we tend to oppose each other about half the time, I have to say that we agree about many things. Sometimes you make it really hard for me to agree with you though. What really scared me away from support however was learning that you are the 7th most prolific (by edits) contributor to User talk:Jimbo Wales and I am the 5th most prolific (4th and 3rd by text added).  Now that's scary! With all due respect to admins, some of us have better things to do than be admins.  Better for us anyway.  All the best.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 19:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

General comments

 * I really need to stop voting in RFAs before about day 5. By then, the opposers will have dug up the evidence that I'm too lazy to find myself... King   of   Scorpions  19:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * When you've been watching them for some time, there's no need to... ——  SN  54129  19:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * King of Scorpions You have been here 6 weeks. It is unlikely at this early stage that you would have the evidence gathering capability which is frequently based on personal experience. I agree that you need to slow down and not dive in with comments which you might later regret. This was suggested to you elsewhere. It is a shame that sound advice has been ignored. Leaky caldron (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , you were right. I should have listened to your advice earlier. Consider this an apology for my ignorance. I think I'll just work on mainspace stuff for a while... King   of   Scorpions  19:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * U|King of Scorpions Discuss it with your mentor - they are best placed to advise you. Leaky caldron (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * One doesn't have to be an admin to help Wikipedia combat the influx of pseudoscience and conspiracy theories. Indeed, there's an argument for an editor heavily involved in this struggle to avoid becoming an admin as they are (recently) rightfully expected to uphold a higher standard of civility which will probably (if they are a good admin) temper their contributions going forward. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * To be abundantly clear: I asked Q7 because I'm bothered by the fact that RfA candidates are in a tough place when the opposes find something - there isn't a place where they can just share general comments if not asked the question, and it looks like bludgeoning if they start replying to oppose !voters directly. I'm hoping that that question will give Guy Macon a way to address the civility concerns without directly engaging specific oppose !voters. For my part, I think that how he responds to those concerns will be almost as important as the civility concerns themselves. creffett (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Candidates can ask two questions, too, though? :) I used one of them and was prepared to use the second one if necessary. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * /, huh, I wasn't aware that that was allowed (pretty sure I didn't participate in your RfA), an interesting point. creffpublic <sub style="margin-left:-8ex"> a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 13:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Three back-to-back confirmed sock !votes in support on an RFA that's going south and unlikely to pass. I suspect a few supporters might rethink if attempts are being made to use socks to increase the percentage, but I can't imagine any RFA candidate would try that route considering the damage it'd do to their rep, so is that just unrelated spam? KaisaL (talk) 06:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's just some random troll. Ignore them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for clarifying, wouldn't have wanted people to think it was related to the candidate at all when that's not the case! KaisaL (talk) 07:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear what that is IMO, when it says CU confirmed sockpuppet of an LTA. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have also gotten notification of multiple failed attempts to login to my account, FWIW. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm getting repeated notifications for that too. No idea if it's related. However I also filed at SPI today and I've been getting hatemail from what's obviously that sockmaster too. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.