Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Guy Macon

Time to SNOW close this, perhaps?
The candidate hasn't edited in a while and the opposes have started to become repetitive. I think the candidate has enough insight into what they could do to succeed the next time. The opposes are now at more than 50% and make up a fair share of highly experienced editors making it all too certain that this RFA will fail. Shall we stop this bleeding? Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Traditionally (not counting NOTNOW candidates) we defer to the candidate. If they want it to run 7 days, we usually let it run 7 days. Guy is capable of making this decision. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * My thoughts are that very experienced editors such as Guy should be party to the decision to close their RfA prematurely. Leaky caldron (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As Floq correctly says, experienced editors can choose themselves if they want to end something prematurely or keep it open for more comments. Some candidates also may want to choose to use a RfX as a learning opportunity, regardless of the outcome and it's not the job of the crats or anyone else to deny Guy Macon this if they so wish. Regards So  Why  16:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

One solution would be for people to simply stop piling on with superfluous opposes on an RfA that will clearly not pass. 28bytes (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Candidate hasn't edited in over a day...
I mean, I get it, per the section above, the candidate has the right to let the RFA ride itself out, but the candidate hasn't touched Wikipedia in an editing capacity in over 24 hours, leaving questions unanswered. I was just wondering ... is there any precedence or policy for a nominee's editing frequency during nominations? Steel1943 (talk) 08:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * In my second RFB, I have been forced to stop editing for a while as well due to an ISP outage, so they might just experience technical difficulties or real-life problems. There is no policy or precedence that I know of that a nominee has to be active during their own RfX although non-excused non-participation might lead some people to oppose the candidate based on this fact alone. Regards So  Why  08:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's now at the point that 143 supports would be required, without any more opposes, in order to reach the 75% thereshold (or 73 supports for a crat-chat). Guy is a valued editor we don't want to put off. I'd guess the underlying mood is "Please don't make us hurt you any more". Cabayi (talk) 09:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Candidates may take time off during an RfA, we don't have to "snow" close this. Some candidates will take the chance to ensure that all the opposition is heard so they can reflect on it. —  xaosflux  Talk 12:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I personally think candidates are generally best advised to try to keep some momentum to question answering or it will begin to count against them, and perhaps rightly so as an sysop has a duty to maintain momentum in discussions and it is perhaps rightful to judge that in the RfA cauldron. Obviously RL can occur as can technical issues, and the community will likely be sympathetic.  Going off and editing an article and leaving questions unanswered I am sure cost someone some opposes on a recent RfA.  I guess the candidate leaving the RfA audience guessing as to their intentions is the greatest issue ... I think the candidate saying they'd like let the RfA run to pick up more oppose comments for a lessons learned would be respected.  In fact the sooner a candidate is able to give any reasonable explanation for a delay in answering questions to manage peoples expectations will often but not always generally be beneficial in my opinion; no answer or a delayed answer is probably better than a poor quick answer but is always trumped by good answers.15:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC) ( Djm-leighpark (talk) )
 * Can you please sign your posts properly?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * @: Thanks. (I think I typed an extra tilde). Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * This seems like a non-issue to me. Wikipedia editing is not a paid job (as much time as some of us spend here) and people IRL have jobs and families and other commitments, and should never be required to justify missing a day or two because the stuff in their lives that actually matters is more pressing than editing Wikipedia every single day.  -- Jayron 32 15:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not like anyone is required to vote either. Leaving it open is harmless. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 16:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Harmless? Given the general tone of this RFA, the decision to take some time off - or even just retire completely - would be understandable. I would not be surprised if we had just lost an editor from this, though I sincerely hope that isn't the case. Yunshui 雲 水 16:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Its been a day. I have bowel movements last longer than this.  Give him some space, and stop speculating.  Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else has any reason to openly speculate anything about the fact that he's not edited in a little while.  Drop it already.  -- Jayron 32 16:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Personal foul: oversharing. Ten yard penalty. creffpublic  a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 16:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Ten yards is about right. You should've seen the size of that thing.  -- Jayron 32 16:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Although I opposed, from my research into the candidate, I see that Guy has a good sense of humour and makes some very good points I completely agree with, such as the dismissal of the WMF to schedule time for a CAPTCHA replacement for blind people, the complete unsuitability for the Daily Mail on BLPs, and the importance of making sure scientific and medical articles are factually accurate and contain nothing that could (albeit indrectly) cause harm to people (my issue is more in which the way he makes the points rather than their substances). I agree with Yunshui that I do not want to see him leave the project, and if anything I have said has made him feel upset and want to quit, I can only offer my apologies. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm actually a bit worried about him. I hope it's just a power cut, computer problem, or bowel movement. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * RfA is akin to being at ANI, only worse because every edit in your entire history is parsed and assumptions are made. All of your worst interactions are highlighted and criticized...but very few of your best. I can imagine having the RfA go south so quickly might make a person physically ill. I hope Guy Macon comes back as an experienced editor. Lightburst (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Mohanabhil's oppose

 * 1) 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)
 * Congratulations, you were finally able to format your vote properly. RfAs are not for retaliation from disruptive users.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks but I don't spend all life on Wikipedia. Nonetheless, I can read this page and anyone confirm that my comments are within the norms. Mohanabhil (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Bbb23. I do not know if that comment about the above editor's motivation is fair. The editor points to a situation where the candidate was dismissive, condescending. Seems relevant to this discussion. Lightburst (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree with Lightburst. That comment is not fair.  Bobherry  Talk   Edits  17:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Ironically, by biting newbies , Bbb illustrates why civility is important in an admin, and gives further support to all the civility-based opposes in this RFA. Good job, Bbb; way to provide the negative example. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Well said. Since when do we revert !votes for formatting reasons? That's not appropriate at all and Bbb23 needs to show some accountability before we move on. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 17:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It wasn't just reverting, it was rollback (which carries strict terms of use due to the lack of information it carries in the automated edit summary), and if it wasn't reverting vandalism, it was edit-warring. Ritchie333 <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * For clarity, this was rollback (which was first) and this was undo (happened second). &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What bothers me is that Bbb did a very similar thing to another new editor in the very last RFA. We just had an RFC about restricting non-EC editors from RFAs (or at least no showing them the watchlist notice), which came back with a resounding negative: the community wants to open RFAs up to new editors, and continue to invite their participation through watchlist notices. We cannot, as a community, both allow new editors to participate in RFA, while simultaneously allowing functionaries to badger new editors who participate in RFA. It's cruel, it's toxic, we have to pick one or the other. Since the community is allowing new editors to participate in RFA, we must stop the badgering of new editors. Which means no more, please, Bbb. Your intentions are well placed (protect the RFA process) but your actions are counterproductive, as I hope you now realize. – Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ...I unfortunately have had a couple of similar experiences, but I unfortunately cannot recall diffs at the moment. I will say this though, and it can probably be found: I once witnessed an improper WP:CSD by the aforementioned administrator where the page was a subpage of Miscellany for deletion that was a nomination of a subpage of Sockpuppet investigations. The MFD subpage had no valid reason to be CSD'd, and it seems that the only reason it was done was because of the aforementioned admin's seemingly ownership of the whole SPI process. I think I may have even attempted to either restore the page or something similar, but decided that I would have rather went back to my editing than getting into some sort of figurative head butting match. (I suppose anyone can take what I'm saying however they want, but I recall there have been de-sysops for similar behaviors recently.) Steel1943  (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * For the record, I think the aforementioned MFD page was Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Reece Leonard, but I cannot recall with 100% certainty. Anyways, I'm steering off this tangent on a RFA page for now. Steel1943  (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * For the record (Part II), Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Reece Leonard was the page I was referring to per the following four diffs on Sockpuppet investigations/Reece Leonard: . Though the MFD may have been created for improper purposes, the deletion of the created MFD page could also be considered improper. Steel1943  (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Guy’s absence
Please see User talk:Guy Macon. His wife has left a message to say he had a heart attack cardiac arrest. ~ Rhinos F1 (Chat) / (Contribs) 20:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That is most unfortunate, and I obviously hope he has a speedy recovery. For the record (as closing 'crat) I stand by my close, and will not re-open unless he specifically requests it (even though we now know the reason for the absence). Primefac (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Given the circumstances, I think it’s very respectful and even if it was open it would be right to stop until he recovers. ~ Rhinos F1 (Chat) / (Contribs) 20:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I just got back home from intensive care. Not much energy right now but will try to describe the medical situation on my talk page soon. I had no problem letting it run out as as usual and no problem with an early close to save time and effort. Feel free to unblank it; no need for a courtesy blanking.
 * I was actually hoping that the RfA would fail. Being an admin is a thankless job and in general someone would have to be crazy to run. I was willing to give it a shot to see if the community thought that enough new help was needed to vote me in.
 * As a general response to the oppose !votes, I will be studying them and seeing what I can learn, and if I ever run for RfA again I would expect the scope of the criticism to cover only the time from the end of the first RfA to the start of the second, and of course I am aware that it will take time for enough edits to accumulate to properly reevaluate, so don't expect any 2nd RfA any time soon.
 * Finally, thanks for the outpouring of best wishes on my talk page. Much appreciated. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I reverted the courtesy blank per the above. Be well, Guy. —tim /// Carrite (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , one of my favorite things to see a candidate say after a not-fun RfA is that they're going to take the oppose votes on board. Best wishes to you. --valereee (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I asked the wife to post to an open tab left open from when the authorities came to my house and dragged me away the paramedics wheeled me out of the room on a gurney. Nobody, including my wife, has my password. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Unanswered general question: can a candidate ask two questions as well?


I would like to see a good answer to the above -- at least good enough so that any future candidate can say "this question came up before at [link], and the general consensus was that it is/is not allowed"

Argument for allowing: I can see a candidate either wishing that a certain question had been asked or desiring to combine several similar questions.

Argument for not allowing: It might be a way to add a "spin" to the discussion or to attempt to duck a hard question. Assuming of course that the candidate is better at spinning a conversation than the reader is at detecting spin.

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , good to see you back, hope your recovery is going well! Speaking without the benefit of knowledge about the history of RFA evolution, the only linked word "limit" goes to a discussion that was clearly intended to prevent candidates from being flooded with questions, obviously that means whether or not the candidate would choose to add to the swamp themself was not considered. already showed, although with a sample of just one, that it can be done by both getting 99% after having done it, and not getting reverted by by-the-letter enforcers, IMO. In practice, addressing the opposition by asking a question to yourself may not always go the intended way, as the question can say as much or more than the answer that it is tailored to justify. Nominators and friends of the candidate are in the best position to help I think, by both asking the necessary questions and challenging the clearly misleading of the opposes without bludgeoning them. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I posed questions to myself in my first RfB in response some of the concerns raised in opposition. It was unsuccessful, so take from that what you may =)
 * I can't recall any discussions on the topic. As the Question section is a fairly free-form area that the candidate can manipulate almost at will, I personally don't see asking/answering your own questions as off-side. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 17:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Welcome back,, and thanks for the pings. WP:RFA limits the amount of questions to 2 per editor; the reason for introducing the limit was that "A primary source of stress at RfA may very well be the often large amount of questions asked." The candidate is an editor, and there is no introduction of stress when the question comes from the candidate. Also, per WP:RFA, "All Wikipedians (...) are welcome to comment and ask questions". Unless I have overlooked something, there is no reason to assume that asking oneself a question isn't permitted. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Analysis of edit summary usage
Because of health issues, I am not quite up to pursuing this myself, but looking at my analysis of edit summary usage, I am struck by the fact that my stats are so heavily influenced by posts from five or ten years ago. Is anyone here willing to propose that this tool be modified to show stats from the last five years in the pie charts at the top, possibly with another set of all time stats near the bottom? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel like this post would be better placed at the Village Pump (Tech); happy to move it over or add a transclusion there for further input. Primefac (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please do, or just copy it and delete the copy that is here. In general I am happy with all sorts of edits to my posts as long as they are good-faith efforts to improve the discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅; for the record I'm just posting the initial question. Primefac (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Unanswered questions
Note: because I ended up in the hospital I was unable to answer several questions. I am taking the WP:BOLD step of answering them now, even though doing so will not change the result.

Q7: 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?

A:

My first answer is that there are clearly multiple editors who dislike me disagreeing with other editors on various issues, so I simply stopped doing that at the end of the RfA. I get no particular pleasure out of conflict, and am perfectly willing to avoid it going forward. This means one less voice on Wikipedia that expresses opinions on things like whether we should use a source that regularly plagiarizes material should be allowed or whether Wikipedia should treat alternative medicine that is known to be ineffective or even harmful as legitimate science, but there are plenty of other editors who are doing that and will continue to do so without my participation.

My second answer is I am somewhat disappointed at having my words twisted. When I wrote "I try to stay cool" and "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" I was not claiming that I always keep my cool, but rather acknowledging that I have on multiple occasions not kept my cool and offering to apologize for those times when I didn't. It dismays me to see my words twisted into a claim that keeping my cool is something I claim to have always succeeded at rather than something I am striving towards.

My third answer is that some of the oppose !votes confused actual incivility (which, again, I have been guilty of at times) with making a forceful and compelling argument. Others were spot on and showed me where I need to change.

My fourth answer is to ask why do so many editors assume that a new admin will ignore WP:INVOLVED? Once an admin expresses his opinion regarding content, he becomes a non-admin in that area. The only time an admin should use the tools is when he doesn't have a strong opinion about the dispute. This is a core principle that I believe in 100%.

Q8: If you become an admin, will you also take care of deletion?

A:

Probably not. There is a basic problem with how the RfA system treats deletion; you are supposed to cast !votes that usually agree with the outcome, but it is not the job of the closing admin to act as a supervote but rather to evaluate the consensus for or against deletion, paying careful attention to policy-based comments vs. "I don't like it" or "I find it useful" comments,

Q9: 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...

A:

This is a content dispute. My position was that the source is unreliable for the purpose of determining whether an individual or organization is or is not part of a hate group. Other editors have a good-faith disagreement with that opinion. Per WP:INVOLVED, once I expressed that opinion, I would never make any administrative decision regarding the source, and would have remained an ordinary editor in that area.

Q10: How important is WP:Civility to maintaining the encyclopedia?

A:

At the risk of having my words twisted again into a claim that I never made -- that I have always been civil -- civility is extremely important. That is why I changed my behavior at the close of this RfA. I can't help but wishing that some of those who had complaints had discussed them with me on my talk page.

Q11: What hesitated you from wanting to get adminship in the first place?

A:

It's a thankless, shitty job, and anyone who wants it must be crazy. The only reason I decided to run was because I really am concerned about a handful of admins getting burned out at AIAV. I was somewhat relieved to see the RfA fail. I believe that am addressing the legitimate concerns that many editors posted, but don't expect another RfA any time soon.

Q12: Would you be willing to go for voluntary recall every year?

A: I am undecided, leaning towards yes. My main concern is the possibility of those individuals who make their living selling quack medical remedies and want Wikipedia to stop saying mean things about their magic cancer pills gaming the system to recall admins who stop their COE editing. Some of them are very persistent.

Q13: 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: I would tend towards a narrow interpretation. I don't like the idea of too much power being in one individual and tend to err in the direction of too much discussion as opposed to too little.

Q14:. 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: I think the ignoring warnings is key here. I have always had a personal policy that if an admin warns me not to do something I stop doing it at once, whether or not I agree. If I strongly disagree I can discuss it with the admin on their talk page, and if we still disagree I can ask others to weigh in, but not obeying warnings shows that you are a problem that needs to be dealt with.

Q15: You have been here for fourteen years. Why do you need the tools now? Why do you need to be an admin?

A: I am concerned about the same few names doing pretty much all of the AIAV work. I think we need to spread the work among more workers before we start losing good admins to burnout. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)