Jump to content

User talk:Guy Macon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Trout this user
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 87.200.222.125 (talk) at 17:09, 20 February 2020 (→‎RFA Recommendation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Oil Painting of Civil War Battle of Spottsylvania
A Wikipedia Content Dispute.

Welcome to Guy Macon's Wikipedia talk page.
  • Please Click here to start a new topic.
  • Please post your new comments at the bottom of the comment you are replying to.
  • Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end.
  • Please indent your posts with ":" if replying to an existing topic (or "::" if replying to a reply).
  • I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to.
  • I delete or collapse most messages after I have read them. The history tab will show you a complete list of all past comments.
  • If you find this page on any site other than en.wikipedia.org you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that I have no affiliation with or control of mirror websites. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Guy_Macon.


"Wikipedia's articles are no place for strong views. Or rather, we feel about strong views the way that a natural history museum feels about tigers. We admire them and want our visitors to see how fierce and clever they are, so we stuff them and mount them for close inspection. We put up all sorts of carefully worded signs to get people to appreciate them as much as we do. But however much we adore tigers, a live tiger loose in the museum is seen as an urgent problem." --WP:TIGER


New discussion

Only 993,123,256 articles left until our billionth article!

We are only 993,123,256 articles away from our 1,000,000,000th article... --Guy Macon

Depiction of Wikimedia Foundation destroying Wikipedia with Visual Editor, Flow, and Mobile App

Depiction of Wikimedia Foundation destroying Wikipedia with Visual Editor, Flow, and Mobile App.

--Guy Macon

Calvin discovers Wikipedia

  • "A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction into a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day." -- Calvin, of Calvin and Hobbes. --Guy Macon

Another chart

Page views for this talk page over the last year

Detailed traffic statistics

--Guy Macon

Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet

"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time." --Neil Stephenson, Cryptonomicon
--Guy Macon

Just because you have some money, that doesn't mean that you have to spend it.

Updated essay: see new "2016-2017 update" information near the bottom.

User:Guy Macon/Just because you have some money, that doesn't mean that you have to spend it.

--Guy Macon

The most important[Citation Needed] page on Wikipedia

User:Guy Macon/On the Diameter of the Sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house‎ --Guy Macon

"...It looks like Wikipedia is really pulling out all the stops in their latest appeal to their users..."

Donations Needed: Wikipedia Has Posted An Appeal Asking For One Night Of Physical Intimacy From Each User --Guy Macon

Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years Of American Independence

"The Revolution's main adversaries were the patriots and the people from Braveheart," said speaker Tim Capodice, who has edited hundreds of Wikipedia entries on subjects as diverse as Euclidian geometry and Ratfucking. "The patriots, being a rag-tag group of misfits, almost lost on several occasions. But after a string of military antics and a convoluted scheme involving chicken feathers and an inflatable woman, the British were eventually defeated despite a last-minute surge, by a score of 89–87."[1]
--Guy Macon

Wikipedia: DNA edition

Reasoning

"Reasoning will never make a man correct an ill opinion, which by reasoning he never acquired: for, in the course of things, men always grow vicious, before they become unbelievers..." --Jonathan Swift ( 1721)[2][3]
In modern language that would be
"You cannot reason people out of something they were not reasoned into. They will viciously attack you instead of abandoning their beliefs".
--Guy Macon (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


A YouTube video everyone in the US should watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE --Guy Macon (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two weeks to go before we reach the "14 years of discriminating against the blind" milestone

On 03 February 2006, it was reported to the WMF that our CAPTCHA system discriminates against blind people. See phabricator T6845 and phabricator T241921.

This appears to be a direct violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and leaves Wikipedia open to the possibility of a discrimination lawsuit.

In particular, National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp. was a case where a major retailer, Target Corp., was sued because their web designers failed to design its website to enable persons with low or no vision to use it.

So why, after 13 years of inaction, do we not have a set of software requirements (including a testable definition of "done") and a schedule for solving this?

And no, I will not accept any proposed "solution" that lacks the name of an WMF employee who has been given the assignment of fixing this, a budget that says how much the WMF expects to spend on solving this, a deadline that says how long the WMF expects it to take to solve this, and a way for an independent third party to look at the results and verify whether the requirements were met.

I am left with these known facts:

  • For 13 years the WMF has failed to assign a single employee or contractor the task of fixing this problem.
  • For 13 years the WMF has failed to budget a single dollar towards fixing this.
  • For 13 years the WMF has failed to provide any estimate of how long it is expected to take to fix this.
  • For 13 years the WMF has failed to create any requirements for fixing this. (Note: "Requirements" is geek talk for "please define what 'done' is and tell us exactly how how we will recognize that whoever is working on this is done").
  • For 13 years the WMF has failed to make a plan for an independent third party (which in this case means "someone with a visual impairment accessing Wikipedia with a screen reader") to look at the results and verify whether the requirements were met.

Again, for me to consider this to be something that the WMF takes seriously, the solution needs to include:

  • The name of an WMF employee who has been given the assignment of fixing this.
  • A budget that says how much the WMF expects to spend on solving this.
  • A deadline that says how long the WMF expects it to take to solve this.
  • A plan for an independent third party to look at the results and verify whether this has actually been solved.

--Guy Macon (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New 2018-2019 WMF financial statements

The WMF's Finance department just posted the 2018-19 financial statements. Things I've noticed:

  • 14% increase in support/revenue, 12% increase in overall expenses
  • 20% increase in salaries, 20% increase in travel expenses
  • Slight decrease in internet hosting expenses
  • This year's listed investment income is considerably more than all previous investment income in the WMF's history combined. No idea why.
  • There's mention of a $387,403 restricted grant from Google for "Content creation". No further explanation given.
  • At least four more years before WMF HQ can leave SF, per the lease.

--Yair rand (talk) 07:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I will be updating WP:CANCER in the next few days. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I kind of forgot about this. Will get to it soon. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Main page

I was just commenting on the main page talk page about the fact that we've not updated the main page design in 15 years. Unbelievable isn't it for one of the world's most popular websites! I know you made a good effort to try to get change. We'll still have the same page in 2030!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also find it infuriating that the WMF refuses to gives us an option in preferences to not display the sidebar on the left.
TFSM forbid that I be allowed to devote my entire screen to encyclopedic content! Oh no. That would simply not do. I must have
  • Main page
  • Contents
  • Featured content
  • Current events
  • Random article
  • Donate to Wikipedia
  • Wikipedia store
...and the rest...[4]
Displayed   On.   Every.   Fscking[5].   Page.
I heard[6] that the WMF had to buy $100,000[7] worth of fainting couches because someone suggested to the precious little snowflakes who designed the main page in 1611[Citation Needed] that maybe -- just maybe -- it could be just a tad simpler... --Guy Macon (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Exactly what I always thought on the side bar, I rarely use anything in it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Timeless skin hides the sidebar on smaller screens. If you want some CSS to hide the sidebar for personal use, this will work on Vector: .mw-body { margin-left: 0; } #mw-panel { display: none; } --Yair rand (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Recommendation

Guy, go for it. Seriously you would make for an excellent admin. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I am also getting emails with the same message.
I basically have two concerns, and both are based upon the fact that in a RfA you have to not defend your self.
First, My edit history has a lot of improving existing articles, but not a lot of creating new articles. This is sure to result in criticism and I would be really tempted to defend myself and say that Wikipedia needs both kinds of editors.
Second, there are quite a few people on Wikipedia who absolutely hate my essays at WP:YWAB, WP:1AM, or WP:CANCER. I expect some nasty attacks and I would be really tempted to defend those essays.
I guess what I am hoping for is someone to say "If I see a completely unfair or untrue attack, I will speak up, but if there is even a tiny bit of validity to it, that's for you to handle." --Guy Macon (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
+1 from me as well - I can't really speak for the essays, but as far as I'm concerned, article creation is not a prerequisite for a good admin, and Wikipedia absolutely does need both kinds of editors. I say that out of pure self-interest, of course. From what I've seen you have a level head on your shoulders and would make a solid admin. creffett (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, I think plenty of people will speak up in defense of editors in a range of situations. I think the number 1 predictor of a successful RfA (1st attempt) is whether respected sysops are suggesting you run. There are only two cases in the past couple of years I can think of where many respected sysops suggested someone run for a first RfA and they did not pass. In both those situations I would suggest it was their actions/answers during the RfA when conerns were expressed that made the difference as much as the concerns themselves. 75% of people saying really great things and 25% saying criticism can be though because those 25% feel like a lot more than 25%. However that's still enough to pass. I hope you'll reconsider and run. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Guy Macon:, so to comment on the three aspects you raise (which somewhat mix): concern about insufficient from-scratch articles, concern about controversial essays, and concern about how to handle criticism when you're restricted from self-defence. I'll endeavour to be pragmatic.
  1. Essays - I've had a read through them all (2 i'd read before), and I don't think they've pick up significant amounts of opposes. If I saw people raising it, I'd probably ask a question about it, as most oppose causes are worth hearing the candidate's reasoning on.
  2. Articles - in blunt terms, this will get a few opposes. You have plenty of content creation, but it will still get opposition. Of itself (or even with the essays), unlikely to be enough to defeat your well suited candidature. If you have time you could always create a couple of "C"s of course, but discounting that, I think addressing it head-on in either/both your nomination/required questions would be worthwhile.
  3. Undefended criticism - so the above are right that it's in-RfA activity that has caused 2 major candidates problems in the last couple of years. However, I've not spotted criticism going without objections - usually opposes get a lot of discussion from those supporting. I think it's also just a case of using your questions well, and we know you can write well - it's getting "down in the weeds" that's problematic.
I think you can run and pass. I think you'd pass more comfortably with some more article creation, but I still think you'd pass without it. In either case, you'd make a good admin. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
+1 I've long thought you'd be a good fit for the role. Yes, you speak plainly, but your tireless work maintaining the quality of our content on some contentious areas is invaluable. I'm probably a bit wet behind the ears to offer myself as a nom, but you can expect a detailed support rationale. GirthSummit (blether) 11:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RickinBaltimore, Puddleglum2.0, Creffett, Barkeep49, Nosebagbear, and Girth Summit:

OK, I have thought about it and have decided to run if somebody is willing to nominate me. If anyone decides to do so, please wait until after 6AM in Los Angeles (2PM UTC) so I can be fresh for answering the initial flurry of questions. If someone beats you, feel free to co-nominate. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've (AFAIK) always got on fine with you and this is intended as advice, not a slight, but before you send any RFA live, make sure you have a clear answer to just why you have more than 1400 edits to ANI and almost 1200 edits to Jimbotalk. For anyone skimming your history (and most participants at an RFA won't be very familar with you and will only judge you on what you say, your nominator says, and a brief skim of your edit history), that's one of the key markers of someone who's likely to have a battleground mentality and to be more interested in internal wiki-politics than improving and maintaining content, regardless of whether in your case it's actually true. (Just to put those stats in perspective, I've been an active admin for a decade and during that time have at times been an arbitrator, checkuser and oversighter and been directly involved with some of Wikipedia's more bitter controversies and with some of Wikipedia's most notorious problem editors, and I still have fewer edits to ANI than you; you even have fewer edits to ANI than Newyorkbrad, the closest thing we have to a machine politician.) It won't necessarily tank an RFA provided you have a legitimate explanation, but you need that explanation front-and-center before the opposes based on it start to pile up and generate momentum. Ritchie333 would be a good person to talk to, as he's done a lot of nominating and has seen for himself what generates opposition.
Obviously, as you already know you also want to address WP:CANCER before it goes live, so the issue is framed in your terms not the WMF's; I assume you're aware from Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-02-27/Op-ed that you made a lot of the WMF payroll vote very unhappy there, and the WMF machine is slow to learn and slower to forget. ‑ Iridescent 19:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Pointing out possible problems is probably the best thing you could possibly do to help me.
I will, of course. have to re-address these if they come up during the RfA, but let me take a shot at addressing them here:
ANI:
Here are the last 5 times I went to ANI:
My posts at ANI are mostly in three areas.
First, there are times when I have completely screwed up and been taken to ANI over it. 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.
Second, there are times I ended up at ANI because I edit a lot of pages where there are people who really want Wikipedia to say nice things about what they do for a living. Examples include acupuncturists, promoters of fad diets, and the makers of various electronic products. Sometimes I report them and sometimes they report me, but I have never ended up blocked over these sort of ANI reports.
Third, there are places where I simply add some information or ask a question about a technical issue without reporting someone or being reported. Here is one recent example:
I expressed no opinion on the user who had been reported, and instead simple documented some off-wiki canvassing by an already-blocked user that might explain why we were getting so many SPAs at that article.
Another recent example:
Again this was not about the editors or the dispute, but rather about how the admins should deal with this sort of issue. I am going to quote it here because I think it speaks to whether would I be a good admin:
"A word of caution from a member of the engineering community
"I am an embedded systems engineer. If you are making an electronic toy at a rate of 100,000 units per hour and want to reduce your costs by 0.01 cents per unit I am your man. Medicine, not so much. I don't edit medical articles for the same reason that Colin and Doc James don't edit our articles on Cockcroft–Walton generators, Hall effect sensors or Negative resistance. I am very much an outsider in this situation, but I do understand the human aspect of how subject-matter experts like Colin and Doc James end up interacting with ANI and Arbcom.
"In the above discussion, I am seeing a lot of discussion about user behavior, the usual "he creates content and has friends, so behavior that would get anyone else a 24-hour block gets a warning" bad attitude, and at least some examples of "Yeah, I know we aren't supposed to rule on content disputes, but dang it, this content dispute is just so darn interesting that I am going to forget the basic rules about ANI and content disputes just this once". I recognize the latter because I have seen it when engineers end up at ANI fighting over engineering content disputes.
"My caution is for each of you to watch yourself carefully and only to deal with user behavior, without any hint of ruling on article content.
"Nothing I wrote above should be construed as supporting either side on the content dispute or on the behavioral issues." --posted by Guy Macon at ANI, 15:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[8]
If someone wants to criticize me for posting to ANI too much, it would be nice if they noted the content of those posts. were they helpful, or did they show a battlefield mentality?
Jimbotalk:
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.) And Jimbotalk is a great place to get attention for these things. I will not apologize for posting "Two weeks One week to go before we reach the '14 years of discriminating against the blind' milestone"[9]
--Guy Macon (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Aside - If you stand you'll get my ivote, which will double the number of times I have taken part in the RfA process) -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 14:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
that’s a kiss of death. Please don’t.87.200.222.125 (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guy_Macon&oldid=941781881"