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)

(edit conflict)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 SoWhy 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 SoWhy 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) )

@Djm-leighpark: Can you please sign your posts properly?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bbb23: 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. --Jayron32 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. --Jayron32 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. --Jayron32 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)

   @Bbb23:, I agree with Lightburst. That comment is not fair. Bobherry Talk Edits 17:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

   Ironically, by biting newbies [1] [2] [3], 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. LEPRICAVARK (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 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

   For clarity, this was rollback (which was first) and this was undo (happened second). –MJL ‐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 Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion that was a nomination of a subpage of Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Reece Leonard: [4][5][6][7]. 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. ~ RhinosF1_(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. ~ RhinosF1_(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)