Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:12, 30 October 2015

Template:Archive box collapsible

"Misplaced Pages'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

Start a new discussion thread

Only 993062865 articles left until our billionth article!

We are only 993062865 articles away from our 1,000,000,000th article... --Guy Macon

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.

Hope you took my comment as intended...

It's difficult to know when the recipient of a little ribbing might take it wrong. I just wanted to be sure you knew I was kidding. Atsme 23:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I thought it was hilarious. It didn't even occur to me that it was anything other than good-natured kidding among friends.

For my loyal minions (and respected enemies, if any) following along, we are talking about User talk:Notecardforfree#"I personally find administrative law scintillating". --Guy Macon (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Confused

Just confused by ; I approached it as a content dispute that was fueled by bad conduct (and AN does deal with conduct disputes all the time) and intervened only to handle what appeared to be source falsification, which is definitely bad conduct that needs to be prevented. I wouldn't have intervened at all (unless to block edit-warriors or to protect the article) had I known that it was solely a content dispute. Nyttend (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding "source falsification, which is definitely bad conduct that needs to be prevented" you can put on your administrator hat and protect the page or block the user for the bad conduct, or you can edit the page as an ordinary editor and correct the source falsification, but you cannot do both, as you did here. It is fundamentally unfair to the other users to use your admin tools as a supervote on source falsification even when you are sure you are right (and as we now see, being sure you are right and being right are not always the same thing).

What you should have done is to enter the conflict as an ordinary editor and dealt with the source falsification the way the rest of us have to do, calling for admin help as needed at AN or ANI the way the rest of us have to do.

I know that you don't agree with all of the above, and all I can do to convince you is to ask you to please read the thread and note how many people thought that it was a misuse of tools worthy of a desysopping if you intend to do it again, and to pay very close attention to the Kww arbcom case, where Kww was desysopped for pretty much the same thing. Again, I don't care if you agree with me. All I care about is that you said that you won't do it again. As I said, I trust you and believe you when you say that. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Your comment

I saw this. I stated multiple times during the discussion that if Arbcom chose to rule that restoring uncited material to a BLP after it had been challenged for lack of sources was not a BLP violation, I would abide by that decision. It's interesting both that they never made such a determination and that my agreement to abide by such a decision wasn't considered sufficient. I admit that my degree of involvement was at least grey: I think virtually white, but others apparently think virtually black. My contention throughout was that since the restoration of the material was an unambiguous BLP violation, and TRM refused to stop committing that BLP violation after multiple warnings, that greyness didn't matter.

As for any argument that I'm harping about it, I'm more than happy to let the matter drop if you just stop mentioning it. Feel free to leave me completely out of your thoughts, and I will extend you the same courtesy if you wish.—Kww(talk) 02:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

For those following along at home, see

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man,

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Possible abuse of admin tools by User:Nyttend and

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive890#KWW / The Rambling Man.

You can re-argue your case all you want, but the fact remains that the findings of fact included

• Kww cited BLP inappropriately Passed 9 to 2 with 1 abstention
• Kww used admin tools while involved Passed 12 to 0
• Kww has previously used admin tools while involved Passed 12 to 0

The remedies included

• Kww desysopped Passed 10 to 0 with 1 abstention

And the principles included

• Responding to feedback: Occasional errors or deviation from community expectations regarding standards of behaviour or in the interpretation or application of policy are to be expected, and are not incompatible with participation in the project provided that the editor is willing to accept community feedback when the situation arises, and modify their conduct accordingly. However, serious or repeated breaches or an unwillingness to accept feedback from the community (Misplaced Pages:I didn't hear that) may be grounds for sanction. In cases of serious or repeated misconduct by a user with advanced permissions, the tools may be removed, whether or not the misconduct involved direct abuse of the permissions. Passed 12 to 0

That last bit was inserted because you weren't willing to accept community feedback, either during the evidence phase of the arbcom case or the ANI case that preceded the arbcom case. If you want to say arbcom was wrong, that's fine, but please don't pretend that you were ever willing to accept the community feedback / arbcom finding that "Kww cited BLP inappropriately" or "Kww used admin tools while involved" and make a commitment not to do it again. You clearly believe that the consensus of the community and the arbcom decision was wrong on both points, and those were the primary findings of fact that got you desysopped.

As for harping, you have every right to argue your case when someone brings it up. I didn't bring it up to cause you distress, but because it looked to me like Nyttend was going down the same path. Fortunately, he made a commitment not to do it again at the AN/ANI level and the case was closed. You could have done the same. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Read the BLP finding again: that was specifically in relationship to Hoffman. No one has ever found that the Jackman edits weren't a BLP violation. In fact, Thryduulf tried to get a resolution passed excusing TRM's blatant misbehaviour with respect to Jackman:

7)Restoring unsourced material that is uncontroversial and non-negative to a BLP article in one edit is not a violation of BLP as long as subsequent edits provide adequate sourcing. Those restoring should indicate that they will be providing sources and should add sources in a reasonably short period of time, such as the same day's editing session. Controversial or negative material should only be restored if it is sourced when reintroduced.

Fortunately, that didn't pass, which leads to the conclusion that the edits in question were, indeed, BLP violations. What the decision did introduce was the notion that there is such a thing as a BLP violation that isn't exempt fom 3RR. They did that in a peculiar and vague fashion, stating that the exemption is not absolute, but not indicating what the boundaries are. I did state, at multiple times, that my citing of BLP with respect to Hoffman was erroneous, and could only defend it as being a good-faith error on my part. My citing of BLP with respect to Jackman was not erroneous, and Arbcom did not find that it was: only that it was somehow insufficient to overcome 3RR and INVOLVED.

My take on this whole thing is that it sets a bad precedent. I've made numerous unpopular decisions over the years, and many of them came up during the Arbcom discussion: blocking Colonel Warden for his long history of lying, when, at the time I did it, I was unaware that he was member in high ranking at Wikimedia UK; turning Visual Editor off for new editors; the run-in with Philippe for his abuse of privilege relative to PC2, and, finally, blocking an ex-arbitrator. That's combined with a bit of cognitive dissonance: people kept focusing on how truly unimportant the edits TRM insisted on making were, how they weren't contentious, and how they didn't want to see TRM blocked for making what they saw as innocuous edits. That made it nearly impossible for me to get people to address the issue in the abstract: that it didn't matter how innocuous the edits were, they violated WP:V and WP:BLP, and no editor, from IP to standing arbitrator, should have been allowed to make them.

That kind of thing is really what the escape clause in WP:INVOLVED is supposed to support: administrators that deal with abusive behaviour can't suddenly be deemed as "involved" because they've edited in an area and then not allowed to act. That makes it too easy for disruptive editors to serially make every admin that is willing to act incapable of acting. In my case, Arbcom was uneasy enough with my history that they were willing to tacitly rule that BLP didn't create an exemption to INVOLVED. That's not a good general principle, and one that they were unwilling to cast in stone. Don't cast it in stone for them by trying to edit policy to codify it. Let me be the only casualty here, and don't try to make it be harder for admins to get work done.—Kww(talk) 13:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand your argument, and by no means is it obviously wrong. The unpopular decisions argument is particularly compelling; would someone else doing the same thing be treated the same way? I am not sure that they would. That being said, there is an overwhelming consensus from the community that you were not enforcing BLP and that your interpretation of what BLP prohibits was and still is an interpretation that the community rejects. That doesn't mean that you are wrong, just that if you are right the vast majority of experience Wikipedians that have looked at the question are wrong.

" really not protecting anyone from anything, which is the main purpose of BLP policy; BLP isn't a tool in a game of Nomic. There's no justification to wield the BLP Hammer here. This wholesale removal of facts, which editors were in the process of sourcing, serves no purpose. Jesus, just give them a couple of days to source everything. Save the BLP card for when it's really needed, like when someone's reputation is at stake. Using it as an ace in the hole here devalues WP:BLP - makes it less likely to be respected in the future as a legitimate rationale." --Floquenbeam 22:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

"I would also note that WP:BLP is meant to protect living persons from negative material about them, it isn't a catch all for any content whatsoever in an article about them. Adding an prestigious award may or may not be correct, but it isn't what BLP was designed to "protect" them from, so claiming an exception to 3RR isn't really valid here." --Dennis Brown 24 June 2015 (UTC)

"If one makes a block like this, even when uninvolved (and I have not yet measures, let alone judged Kww's supposed involvement here), it should be a reasonably crystal-clear BLP violation, not some business about getting awards or someone putting them in one article and thus denying them of another subject, or something like that." --Drmies 20:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

"By that standard,pretty much all content in a BLP is "contentious" as it could always indirectly affect someone if it is inaccurate. I think there needs to be a good faith belief that it is actually incorrect or likely to be incorrect, or else a request for sources that has not been responded to for a significant length of time, before this sort of BLP removal applies to not obviously contentious content." -- DES 00:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

"Obvious involved block by KWW, but the worst part is the wikilawyering above about how WP:INVOLVED should not apply here... which sounds like "I'm ready to do it again". Right or wrong he was about the contents of the edit warring(s), his interpretation of WP:INVOLVED boundaries is clearly silly nonsense. Kww should drop the stick and recognize he was patently wrong, otherwise that's probably stuff for Arbcom." -- Cavarrone 00:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

"Between the bizarre interpretation of BLP ("it's contentious because I say it's contentious", seems to be the flavour) blocking another admin in breach of involved and the self-righteous issue-avoiding responses on the topic, I've lost a fair whack of faith in KWW and I'm not entirely sure that recognition of error and promises not to repeat (even if forthcoming, never mind the grovelling apology that's due) will restore it." --Dweller 00:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

"This is not the first place that you have shown such an inflexible and arrogant stance, while hiding behind your interpretation of rules that everyone else sees differently." --SchroCat 07:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

"This looks like WP:CRYBLP rather than a valid BLP issue." --50.0.136.194 00:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

"As others have pointed out, WP:BLP is not a license to edit war indiscriminately on BLP articles, nor does it mean you can just block someone because you don't like what they are doing on a BLP. Even if what they are doing is unreferenced for a few minutes. If you are unsure as to whether or not others would have blocked TRM in this case, look around at this discussion. Almost unilaterally, no one else would have. Your argument is invalid. If you had asked here or at WP:ANEW before blocking them, consensus would have been to not block them. Ergo, you're wrong. Any other ex-post-facto justification of your block is invalid. If you are going back and forth with an editor on any issue except egregious vandalism or negative unsourced information about a BLP, it is your responsibility to ask another admin to do the review the situation. And again, if you're belief is "maybe it was negative". Read this discussion. No it wasn't. So just stop." --Jayron32 02:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

"You cried BLP on the Hoffman Awards list article and picked a fight with TRM, when everyone else above seems to agree that was the wrong thing for you to have done, and there seems consensus your application of BLP there was defective." --Georgewilliamherbert 02:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

"My second concern is that it appears that if KWW himself has any argument with any phrase in any article/list about a BLP, he believes it to be "contentious," and that's not what I take the BLP policy to mean. It does not require or encourage the removal of all unsourced statements. If KWW really thinks it does, that's a problem, and it certainly appears that is indeed the case." --KrakatoaKatie 02:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

"Your right that Kww's reading would make our use of the word contentious superfluous. But I would adopt a much more expansive interpretation: first, if someone is making a good faith claim that something in a BLP is not just uncited, but is factually wrong, its contentious under BLP policy. And second, all negative assertions about a living person should be considered automatically contentious. BLP has never required a citation for every single positive factual claim about a living person, and it shouldn't be read to do so." --Monty845 04:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

"If Kww is unwilling to accept a fairly clear consensus about interpreting BLP (not, as he seems to think, about whether BLP is important or not, or needs to be "enforced" or not, but on interpreting what it means). He doesn't need to agree, but he needs to accept consensus is against him - this was not "BLP enforcement" in any meaningful interpretation of the term." --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

"The appropriate response to someone actively working on an article, and slowly adding refs is not "edit war, edit war, edit war, scream WP:BLP, then block". The appropriate response is slow down, let them finish their work, and ask for outside input. If TRM had no intention of providing refs, then such lack of intention would have become evident if you had allowed them time to do it the wrong way. Instead, you edit warred repeatedly, played the BLP trump card, and blocked them. Now we're here discussing your behavior, and more than one person above have called for your tools because of it. If you'd done nothing for 24 hours, and TRM had actually done the wrong thing you're claiming you think they were going to do before you stopped them, we'd not be having this discussion at all. There's no loss to the encyclopedia if you actually let someone break the rules a bit before blocking them, rather than stopping them before they have a chance to break a rule you think they might be on the path to breaking." --Jayron32 03:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

"In Kww's case, he has a horrible combination of poor temperament, hubris, and misunderstanding of policy. His gross misunderstanding of applied BLP policy is just the latest evidence in a longer pattern. If Kww fails to see where he is wrong, how can we assume he'll act appropriately in the future?" --LesVegas 14:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

"Kww has persistently refused to recognize the strong opinions of most commenters that this was a breach of INVOLVED, citing a rather shockingly loose interpretation--in my opinion--of the word "controversial" in the BLP policy to justify his actions." --Writ Keeper 15:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC

"Kww's subsequent attitude (at ANI and on the main case page) of refusing to accept he had done anything wrong is a massive red flag to me. The consensus at ANI was that he had erred in judgement and deed, and yet he continued to argue "those were BLP violations, regardless of the uproar". Uproar, I presume being his description of a consensus he doesn't agree with." – SchroCat (talk) 07:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

"If you revert out information that is relatively benign (isn't calling them a pedo, married to a stripper, etc), it is presumed you are doing so as an EDITOR, as this benign info really isn't a BLP concern, it is simply unsourced information that coincidentally is in a BLP. You can find similar info in non-BLP articles. That is very different than truly contentious material. If you revert out "Bob was a porno star" and used the tools, then it would clearly be an admin action, even if you've done some editing on that article, as it would fall under the exceptions listed in WP:INVOLVED. But the uncontroversial reverts is a matter of editorial decision, not protecting the integrity of the person's reputation, which IS the goal of BLP. So an editor (you) continues to edit war, ignored BRD (albeit to a lesser degree than TRM), and didn't use any dispute resolution methods, but instead gets mad, switches hats to "admin" and blocks someone. You whipped out a gun in the middle of a knife fight. I really do believe you don't see it that way, but the community does, clearly so. As for BLP, the intent trumps the words, and the intent is clearly to protect the subject from defamation or unsourced negative material. Tiny, neutral facts that are of no consequences shouldn't require the admin tools, no matter who the other editor is." --Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

"TRM's "policy violations," if they were policy violations, were not unambiguous because WP:V and WP:BLP do not require (and certainly do not unambiguously require) the citations to be added in the same edit as the information. And the BLP "violation" was only arguably a violation if you interpret the information to be "contentious" because a single editor objected to it, which places way too much weight on a single AE resolution by a single administrator, which is not policy. But even if that single AE case was policy, this would still be WP:INVOLVED because it would put way too much weight on the straightforward clause to permit the party that made the objection, and thus made the information "contentious" to also be the administrator making the block. That would be like an administrator involved in an edit war blocking the other party for a "straightforward" 3RR violation." --Rlendog 14:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

"You don't get to (apparently arbitrarily) decide that something is contentious, edit war over it, and still be uninvolved enough to block. The entire purpose of BLP is to protect people; what you did protected nobody from anything. BLP is not a bludgeon to be wielded however you like. If you can't see that by now, then I guess there's nothing else to say." --Writ Keeper 20:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

"A good faith belief that one is enforcing BLP extends far enough to cover acting unilaterally. It does not cover past that point that multiple other uninvolved administrators, including an ex but longtime arbcom member, tell you "Hey, I don't think that's a BLP violation, can you calm it down?" or "Stop". It does not cover past that point if consensus afterwards was that it was clearly not a BLP violation. BLP enforcement is not a shield fashioned to cover up any abusive admin actions that were contrary to how Misplaced Pages works. Wherever a fuzzy grey edge is, this case clearly and unambiguously went past that into black." --Georgewilliamherbert 21:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

That's a lot of people telling you that there was no BLP violation... --Guy Macon (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a lot of people that insisted on addressing whether the content itself was a BLP violation, for which the argument that it is not is at least a reasonable one, and, indeed, consensus is against me on that. Few of these people cared to address the issue of restoring uncited information (as opposed to inserting it in the first place), and the more I tried to get people to look at that issue, the more I was accused of not listening, despite their continual refusal to listen to and engage that question. For all that people accuse me of not listening, that point infuriates me to this day: the requirement for citations on material that has been challenged is, indeed, unambiguous (there's simply no other way to read "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation" with regard to material that has already been challenged), but people conflated the policy about original insertion with the policies about restoration. I agree wholeheartedly that the consensus is that unsourced awards do not rise to the level of BLP violation: I disagree, but consensus went strongly against me on that. The restoration of unsourced material after a challenge was a BLP and V violation, and Arbcom rejected the principle that would have excused it.—Kww(talk) 02:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. I am one of those people, even though I have read every comment you have made on the subject (including the ones above), very carefully. I have also studied the policies in question again and again in the process of watching every arbcom case, most AN/ANI cases, most medcom cases, and being an active DRN volunteer for the last three years.

Perhaps if I explained why I am of that opinion, it would help us both to understand better. (Note that I am completely open to the possibility that my thinking is wrong here, and I am assuming that you are as well). I don't see that there is an issue of restoring uncited information (as opposed to inserting it in the first place). I see an issue of restoring uncited information that you, Kww, personally removed. There is only a BLP violation if the information is contentious. Calling it contentious when there is only a single editor objecting to it is questionable, but calling it contentious when you yourself are the single editor objecting to it and then putting on your admin hat and blocking based upon it being contentious is completely over the line. If we allow that it gives you too much power.

I could go back and poll every person I quoted above, and I would get near 100% agreement that neither inserting nor restoring the material was a BLP violation. "Contentious" means that someone has a reasonable suspicion that the information is incorrect. You did zero research to find out if it was right or wrong. All through your comments you have made it clear that you didn't remove it because you thought it was wrong, but because it was unsourced.

The fact of the matter is that unsourced claims of awards are almost never wrong or even contentious because the (usually newbie) editor that inserted the claim is almost always inserting correct but unsourced material, On those rare occasions when it is incorrect it is almost always immediately corrected by another newbie, again without a source. Then, usually within hours, an experienced editor goes though the list and adds sources, which is what was happening here when you made your deletions and edit warred then misused your admin powers to keep the material deleted. These pages have been operating just fine this way for years,

I suspect that you just skimmed the quotes above. I know I would have I suggest that you read them carefully and consider what the community is telling you. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't skim that at all: the word "contentious" doesn't apply to the prohibition against reinserting challenged material. For the material to be a BLP violation as originally inserted, it has to be contentious. For reinsertion, it only matters that the material was challenged for being unsourced (again, All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation" doesn't include the word "contentious" anywhere). People are conflating "challenged" and "contentious", when they are separate and distinct concepts, and that's the point that keeps getting lost: I agree that the consensus is that the material was not contentious. It was challenged, however, and that's all it takes to prohibit reinsertion without a citation.

Any editor can challenge information as being unsourced in any article at any time. When that editor removes it, no editor, IP, standing arbitrator, DRN negotiator, nobody can put it back without an inline citation (or, in unusual cases, a consensus generated somewhere that the challenge itself was somehow flawed). It's prohibited by both WP:V and WP:BLP. In my history as admin, I've blocked multiple editors for restoring challenged information without a citation, and while everyone has been merrily discussing whether the information in question was contentious, they forget that the only meaningful question is whether it was challenged. Even if I was absolutely and completely incorrect that the material is at all contentious, that doesn't make the challenge for lack of sourcing invalid.

That is the core of my complaints about people not reading and understanding all of WP:BLP. BLP isn't a two-line policy that says "don't say nasty things about people without sources". It's got multiple parts, multiple prohibitions, and multiple nuances. One part is the one that people usually think of when they think of BLP: "don't say nasty things about people without sources". There are parts about weight that are judgement calls, quality of sourcing that are judgement calls, analysis of bias that are judgment calls, but part of it is an explicit repetition of WP:BURDEN: information that has been challenged for sourcing cannot be reinserted without an inline citation, no matter how innocuous it is. If you don't think that the repetition of WP:BURDEN is important, try to get a consensus to remove it. I sincerely doubt you would succeed.—Kww(talk) 18:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

clearly we are not going to agree on this, and a large number of experienced editors, administrators and arbitrators all agree with me what it does indeed make a difference that you challenged the material, you removed the material, and you blocked a veteran editor and fellow rather than asking an uninvolved admin to do it for you. I hope that the fact that I don't agree with you on this doesn't cause any hard feelings; I have always thought that your contributions were excellent whenever we have happened to be working on the same article. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It's true that we probably won't agree. It's a shame that no one actually engages my point, though: nothing in our policies makes WP:BURDEN optional for "veteran editors", neither WP:V or WP:BLP would have permitted his edits, and nothing in his behaviour gave the slightest indication that he was willing to stop restoring uncited information. It remains, in my mind, a routine block of a disruptive editor that blew up for political reasons, not policy reasons.—Kww(talk) 01:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for letting me know that this was being discussed once again, and once again giving the former admin Kww a soapbox to claim he was doing things right, despite both the community and Arbcom finding otherwise. The sooner this broken record gets hauled into the trash, the better. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

There are two kinds of opinions I disagree with: Obviously wrong, illogical, stupid, or otherwise bogus. Areas where reasonable people can and do disagree, and where the person disagreeing with me has reasonable arguments and evidence even though they did not convince me. This is definitely . --Guy Macon (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Without your last-ditch effort, the conflict may have not been resolved and it would have been a lose-lose situation for everybody. I appreciate your good faith effort in bringing out the diplomatic nature in us all. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Editors like you bring substance to the concept of a fair and involved wiki-community. Δρ.Κ.  01:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Your questions to the now former WMF chief of finance

Re this, Byrd no longer works for the WMF as of September 30, so don't expect a response. I just noticed they got around to locking his WMF account today, so in any case he'd have to use a different account to edit. What, don't all organizations announce personnel changes on mailing lists? That's what all the hip youngsters these days are into, right? If you want to monitor WMF staff changes, the most comprehensive "official" place to find out appears to be the Foundation Wiki. I saw your edit while poking around on Meta, if you're wondering. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! One can only wish that someone at WMF had posted a notice on his talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	I appreciated your willingness to have an open conversation and you showed great maturity here in listening to other people's ideas. Mkdw 05:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Emeco 1006

FYI. You were involved in the article previously, so I thought I'd give you a ping. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 23:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey, good to hear from you again! Always glad to help. See my comments on the article talk page. Also, keep in mind that I am interested in dealing with editors who harass those paid COI editors who follow our rules, so please ping me if you see that happening. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey Guy. Do you think I can bother you with this from a couple weeks ago? David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 21:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Swarm ♠ 08:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Swarm, I have read the email. The answer is yes, you have correctly described the situation and yes, I would like you to do what you offered to do. You didn't ask this, but I also have no problem with the ANI case being closed with no action required. I consider your explanation of our outing policy to be quite sufficient and agree that any violation was probably unintentional. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Sent you another one. Swarm ♠ 04:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Misplaced Pages refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition?

You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Misplaced Pages's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I have volunteered for the Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission.

See Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Electoral Commission#User:Guy Macon. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the hard work

Wow! "Aaron" was a sock puppet of somebody who was banned. He even had a conversation with himself from a different IP address. It took a lot of work for you to remove all of his talking on Computer program. Thank you for the effort. Timhowardriley (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC) WarKosign”

RfC: administrator election reform

Misplaced Pages:2015 administrator election reform/Phase I/RfC --Guy Macon (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Did you hear about this?

All I can say is "wow". Jeh (talk) 04:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

That's really unexpected. My fist thought was "could this be mistake?" but Bbb23 is really solid and unlikely to get this sort of thing wrong.

I just looked at the following pages:

https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=I+B+Wright&users=DieSwartzPunkt&users=User%3ALiveRail&startdate=&enddate=&ns=

http://tools.wmflabs.org/betacommand-dev/UserCompare/I_B_Wright.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/I_B_Wright/Archive

Not enough to use the WP:DUCK test alone without without CU evidence, but not completely unrelated, either. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You asked for it

You're in, by unanimous consent: . --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• Cheers! Let's hope the responsibilities to be thrust upon you aren't as foreboding as Flo's header makes them sound. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It was a tough, hard fought election; the mudslinging, the backroom deals, the huge contributions by lobbyists... :)

In the words of Pope Francis after learning he had been elected pope, "May God forgive you for what you’ve done”. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Bad ideas

You said: "Joel R. Goheen himself may be notable enough for a BLP article, based on sources like this". Geez, don't give ideas to someone who's been repeatedly abusing Misplaced Pages, including spamming, sock puppeteering and block evasion. :) -- intgr  08:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

(For those following along at home, this is in regard to User talk:Nyccontrib#This is not a boilerplate message.)

Good point. I doubt that Mr. Goheen would be happy with the BLP article, seeing as how the reliable sources say things like "The state attorney general on Wednesday charged Shuttle America and several affiliated companies with deceptive trade practices and civil theft, saying the firms accepted money from potential employees and did not provide promised jobs.... Also named in the suit are Joel R. Goheen, president of the JRG companies and founder of Shuttle America" and " administrative proceedings instituted against JRG Trust Corporation, individually and formerly doing business as Shuttle America and Joel Goheen" --Guy Macon (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

History of reverting back to an older version on different articles

This is not the first time you reverted back to an older version on a page. I remember on another article you did the same thing. Do you agree you won't revert way back to an older version on other articles in the future? I hope this pattern won't continue. QuackGuru (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Opted-out of message delivery