Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Guy Macon

Guy Macon

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (33/2/3); Scheduled to end 17:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Nomination

Guy Macon (talk · contribs) – 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

Guy Macon (talk · contribs) – Has been making steady contributions to Wikipedia for nearly 10 years[1] (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 Wikipedia:Super Mario effect to go away. (Please note the first entry under "notes" on that page[2] 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 [3]. 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)[4] While that was 2017, last December, you accused the Southern Poverty Law Center of "lying". (11:16, 12 December 2019}[5]

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? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

A:

Discussion

• Links for Guy Macon: Guy Macon (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• 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. ——SN54129 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)

5. 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)
6. 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)
7. 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)
8. support--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
9. Support All the best. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 18:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
10. 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)
11. Support - Experienced. No concerns. Agathoclea (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
12. 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)

13. Been waiting for this! Puddleglum^2.0 18:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
14. 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)
15. 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)
16. Support, I guess it is needed at this stage--Ymblanter (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
17. 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. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
18. 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)
19. 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)
20. 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)
21. 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)
22. 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)
23. 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)
24. 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)
25. 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)
26. Support- I appreciate his work on the project. Solid asset IMO.   Aloha27  talk  00:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
27. strong support per Girth's excellent assessment. Praxidicae (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
28. 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)
29. 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 Floquenbeam is good enough for me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
30. 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)
31. 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)
32. 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)
33. 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)

    Izodtrues, 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)

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. Jimbo Wales has called Guy Macon's tone aggressive and unnecessary: [6]. --Pudeo (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
3. 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 • videos) 18:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
4. 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)
5. 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). buidhe 19:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
6. 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)
7. 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)
8. Oppose: Their reply to Q3 is contradictory to their behaviour. NonsensicalSystem^(err0r?)_(.log) 20:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
9. 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),[7] and I don't think I'm unique in being on the receiving end of this.[8] As an example, a very minor disagreement over wording WP:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2019 November 29#Microwaving food turned into this: Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 132#Boiling on the Science Desk On any article where Guy sees the chance, I get behaviour like this: [9] 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?: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive400#User:Gem fr reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: users warned) Andy Dingley (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
10. I see too much problematic behavior above of various sorts. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
11. 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. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
12. 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)

    Sir Joseph, 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. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

    Girth Summit, Here is a link to Guy Macon accusing an IP editor of being my sock: [10]. 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. [11], 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)

    Sir Joseph, 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. GirthSummit _(blether) 23:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

13. 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

    Ritchie333, 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. GirthSummit _(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? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

    Ritchie333, 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. GirthSummit _(blether) 00:15, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

14. 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)
15. 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)
16. 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)
17. Oppose as above, too many valid concerns raised. GiantSnowman 22:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
18. 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)
19. Oppose per Deacon and Utopes. Wikipedia is not a battleground. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
20. 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)
21. 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)
22. 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)
23. Oppose per concerns regarding civility. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 00:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
24. Oppose. Civility problems and excessive interest in high policy. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC).
25. Oppose unfortunately, per above. Concerns with civility and temperament. -FASTILY 00:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
26. 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)
27. 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)
28. 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)
29. 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)
30. 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)
31. Oppose had a personal interaction with Guy Macon here, [12]. 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. buidhe 06:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

    @Buidhe: 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 SoWhy 08:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

32. 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)
33. 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.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 08:03, 4 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)

King of Scorpions, if you're really done moving, then please indent and strike your oppose vote. ^creffpublic _{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)

(edit conflict) @Creffett: King of Scorpions moved from "Neutral" to "Oppose". Steel1943 (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Steel1943, 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 _{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)
2. 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)

   @Yngvadottir: 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)

3. 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. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

   I immediately moved from Support after reading Maile66's comment above. I clearly am more in the dark than I thought. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:38, 4 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... ——SN54129 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)

Leaky caldron, 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)

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)

---

• 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)