User talk:Guy Macon/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Guy Macon. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

The hair barrette engineer?

[Boring dispute that was resolved long ago deleted]

The hair barrette engineer? Isa (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I specialize in the microcontrollers that make the toys talk and move. Think 5 to 10 cents for all of the electronics other than batteries, and production quantities of 100,000 per hour. The hair barrette has a specialized plastics engineer who says things like "if we use the pearlescent pink plastic I will have to thicken the clasp so it doesn't cold flow and fall off the head during shipping. Here are some samples of both versions." Then we need to decide whether to change the color of the hair, skin, or fabric because of our new choice of barrette color. So it really is an important decision even though my only real contribution was handing out copies of http://web.archive.org/web/20120214002707/http://www.klab.caltech.edu/cns186/papers/Jameson01.pdf and starting a discussion about whether the females on the room should decide on the color. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Please tell me that last discussion was a joke. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Nope. It's a completely accurate description of what it's like doing engineering for a major toy manufacturer. And it really is important; saving a penny off the cost of making a toy without impacting sales saves enough to buy a house in Malibu. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I wind up in the same kind of discussions all the time. It takes a lot of jet fuel to fly a pound of avionics around for the lifetime of a jet, which means it's worth a lot of engineering time to shave an ounce off of something.—Kww(talk) 00:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Reminds me of this: "We need you to draw seven red lines. All of them strictly perpendicular; some with green ink and some with transparent. Can you do that?" Isa (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Domestic violence against men

Sorry, I did not mean to infer that you were being requested to respond, but felt that if I mentioned your name, you should be aware of it. I'll drop a note here next time so I don't cause a misunderstanding in the future. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 20:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I am just trying to get everyone to stop making comments about editors and stick to talking about content. Your recent "Do you have a COI" comment, for example. Not appropriate on an article talk page. Either file a case at WP:COIN or stop taking about it. Don't ask any questions or make any accusations concerning editors. Just talk about content and sources. Don't respond when someone else does it. Don't ask them to stop (they already know that you want them to stop from previous comments). Just stay silent. If this behavior continues, I am going to file a report at WP:ANI, but of course anyone who stops when I ask them to doesn't get reported. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'm good with stopping. GregJackP Boomer! 01:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

A block from sixteen years ago

Actually, "only" six years ago (and I agree, not a real precedent for anything). Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC) I don't think we're living in the decade you think we're living in :) Also, threaded replies are frowned on, and there's a 63.8% chance you're going to get yelled at by a clerk because of it. Although actually, probably not, because no one is going to read that whole thing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Copycat. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh God, you know you're slow when NYB beats you to the punch. And writes a shorter message too! --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Um... (Checks lame excuse file) Counting in Dalek years? I meant to type "~6 years"? My little brother was using my computer? Ah here it is. Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!! Come see the violence inherit in the system!!! --Guy Macon (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Just remember (though I often forget myself) that on the arbitration pages, inline is out-of-line. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Point well taken.

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Ah, nice and slimy! Just the way I like self-trouts. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

And *I* still care! Proudest moment of my wikilife! Well, along with the time Bishzilla blocked FT2 and got herself admonished. Bishonen | talk 08:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC).

ANI comment

Your comment here concerns me.

Really? You really believe that I was the cause of this?

I'm extremely disappointed in that analysis of the situation. GregJackP Boomer! 20:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't believe that you are the cause of this. I think that Jytdog has been trying to pick a fight with you for a long time, that your responses to Jytdog haven't been perfect but neither are they over the top, that Kingofaces jumped in a started behaving the same way Jytdog was acting, and in particular dismissing the work you and others have done on legal articles, and that suddenly you and Kingofaces found yourselves in a nasty dispute in an area where he considers himself to be an expert. That last bit is only a small part of the overall problem, and by no means the start of it, but in my opinion it is where things really went off the rails.

So far the consensus at ANI seems to be that all three of you have been part of the problem. It seems to me that your contribution to the problem is a lot smaller, but I may be biased because I have a favorable view towards you. It isn't zero though, and the best thing to do at this point is to say something like "I got frustrated and did X, which I should not have done", repeating as needed. There is no shame in that,because we all lose our cool at times when faced with frustrating behavior by other editors. And again, I see your behavior as rather minor. That would free up ANI to deal with those who are taking a strong "I did nothing wrong, you need to punish the other fellow" stance. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up, it makes me feel a lot better. I did say on the thread that I had reacted poorly and was wrong, and will say so again if I need to do so. I appreciate your comments here. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 21:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Qualcomm Snapdragon

I noticed on WikiProject Cooperation, you said you were interested in engineering/technical articles, so I wanted to let you know about my COI work for the Qualcomm Snapdragon article here. I also pinged the engineering WikiProject, etc. CorporateM (Talk) 00:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I will have some free time to look at it this afternoon. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Guy Macon. If you have time, I was hoping you might revisit the page here. As mentioned there, the separate list article seems to have addressed Kvng's concerns and given that other editors already supported the replacement, I think we're ready now. Thanks for chiming in! A separate list article I think was a very on-target fix. CorporateM (Talk) 23:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

CorporateM, No problem. I will look into it tomorrow. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I have a couple others under discussion here and here if you have time to participate, but I don't mean to overwhelm you. Public Storage was originally written by someone in a legal dispute with the company and Invisalign is mostly done, but I'm trying to finish it up so that it will be GA ready. CorporateM (Talk) 21:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

RfA for Liz

Sorry Guy, I reverted as it has been archived. Cassianto ^Talk 19:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I posted my !vote, noticed the yellow background, and went back to self-revert only to see that you beat me to the punch. Thanks for fixing my error. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a feeling we have all experienced! Like sending a text message to the wrong person and then trying frantically to cancel it en route! Oh bugger, I've just told my boss I love him! Cassianto ^Talk 19:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

My wires also got crossed there for a second

Guy, I mentioned in my message that there's a late support thread in the RFA's talk page, perhaps that's the place to comment instead. Not sure if the 'crats will take those into consideration. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: "anti-gnome 'content creators get a free pass' cool-aid"

You might want to re-read that RfA's opposes more closely. No one proposed any such "free pass"; rather, actually being here to work on the encyclopedia, not just participate in its subculture, is one among many important criteria a lot of editors want to see from admin candidates. A:B → B:A is not valid logic. Not passing someone because they're missing one criterion does not equate to passing anyone who does fulfill it, since there are other criteria. And many of the editors with such a criterion in mind are WP:GNOMEs. While I did see a few people expect to see some FAs, that doesn't appear to be a majority viewpoint, and my own comment there made it clear that I accept, indeed encourage, gnoming as valid content-editing experience; even GregJackP agreed with that. Habitually wading into talkpage and noticeboard fights that don't concern you isn't gnoming, it's drama-mongering. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 22:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, quit doing that. I can't take it! If you continue to post stuff that I agree with, my whole self-image will be shot. Oh, wait...

Seriously, what Stanton said is right. I prefer to see an FA or two GAs, but there are always other ways to show content creation ability, and what content creation does is show a knowledge of policy, ability to work with others (at least on articles), etc. I know that admins don't need to be able to create content, but they have to be able to understand and support content creators, and to keep the riff-raff away. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 23:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

LOL. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Greek statue from 110 BCE of a girl showing her mom a laptop computer

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Skateboarding dog

Bishonen | talk 10:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC).

Wow. I bet Britannica doesn't have an article on skateboarding dogs... --Guy Macon (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Why are you reverting?

The two users who are reverting my edits on Ghulam Ahmed Pervez are removing counter-arguments to their points of view which are cited. This is against NPOV. The "differing opinions" section I created highlights both sides of the issue, they want it deleted, even though it contains citations and sourced material. They also claim my edits are "promotional" (referring to the major ideas section) when that is not true. e.g. Go to Max Weber's page and there you will find his ideas sourced from his own work. How is this any different? I'm reverting your edit. If you don't agree, please state your case on the talk page or contribute your opinion to the escalation on the administration page where the escalation is currently posted on this issue. Thanks. Code16 (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. You made an edit, your edit was reverted, and according to our rules which are clearly explained at WP:BRD, WP:TALKDONTREVERT, and WP:EW, the article stays in its previous state while the two of you discuss the issue on the article talk page. If you continue to edit war, you are likely to have your editing privileges revoked. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

In passing...

Based on past interactions, I have no problem with you at all. I am sure we have disagreed on things but they are probably things on which reasonable people may disagree. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey! This is the internet!! No being reasonable allowed. Now get back in there and call me a bedwetting pedophile Nazi! :) --Guy Macon (talk) 08:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

It can't be helped Guy, Guy shops at Wal-Mart. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 08:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Me? I did shop at Wal-Mart on occasion, I got asked for ID buying beer (I am 50 ferchrissakes). I should have tried buying something harmless like a gun, I guess. But we don't have Wal-Mart over this side of the pond, they own a different brand (where I don't shop). Guy (Help!) 09:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

First Guy: Is your name not Guy?[1]

Roxy: No, it's Roxy.

Second Guy: That's going to cause a little confusion.

Third Guy: Mind if we call you 'Guy' to keep it clear?

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I happen to know Guy, that Guy shops at Asda. -Guy the dog™ (Resonate) 10:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Not me, guv. However, as Guy no doubt knows, we live in the world of Cheers: every barman knows our name. "Hey, Guy, what can I get you?" Guy (Help!) 11:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

We need Guy Heilman. I'd mix him a fruity drink at the bar, put a couple of chopsticks in it and say, "Have a hickory daquiri, Doc !!" -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 13:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Question

Hi, Guy - I'm a bit confused over the purpose of being IP exempt? Does it apply to editors who have a user account, and then possibly edits from a smart phone or iPad that tends to sign one out automatically after a certain length of time, and then if the user posts a comment not knowing their signed-out, it goes through anyway under an IP address? That has happened to me more than once using the iPad, and I don't quite understand the consequences or why it matters. I noticed yours says IP exempt. Just wondering... Atsme^📞📧 13:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

What you describe happens whether or not you are IP exempt -- it is the normal behavior of Wikipedia when you are not blocked in any way.

The IP exempt user right only makes a difference when Wikipedia has hard blocked the IP address you are using. If that happens, you cannot edit when not logged in (as an IP address) and you cannot edit when logged in either. (Soft IP blocks are different; they allow you to edit when logged in). You would know it if this happened to you (very unlikely) because you would get a big red warning notice saying that you cannot edit.

In my case, I sometimes edit Wikipedia when on business trips to China, and when I take those trips I access the Internet using the Tails (operating system) and the Tor (anonymity network). I do this because it is very likely that my Internet connection is being monitored by industrial spies and by the Chinese government. When you access Wikipedia through Tor, you can read but not edit -- all Tor connections are hard blocked. The IP exempt user right allows me to bypass the hardblock while logged in.

BTW, if anyone reading this thinks this might be a useful thing for vandalizing or sockpuppeting, IP exempt users get a lot of extra scrutiny. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Guy. I'm a neophyte when it comes to such things and what all IP usage entails, and speaking of entails, I recently learned how to cook a mean lobster. 😆 The closest I've ever been to the technical aspects of the internet was back in 2003 when I first met Charles Herzfeld and his lovely wife. They were my home-away-from-home neighbors in the same complex/same island for 12 years but our visits were few and far between. I'm still trying to figure out how to properly identify socks and surmised that it's all pretty much guess-work based on patterns. I have a pretty good grasp of meat puppetry. Think I'll stick with copyediting and focusing on articles I feel most comfortable editing and leave the other to the experts. Atsme^📞📧 20:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

E-Cat again

In my role of theoretical physicist I'd like to make comment on your describing the e-cat at something that cannot possibly work: simply this, that proofs that cold fusion 'cannot possibly work' are based on unjustified simplifications, such as neglecting the possibility that some coordinated activity in the condensed matter environment may enable the Coulomb barrier to be overcome (and other mechanisms may be possible also). It is pretty well impossible to prove a negative in science. Brian Josephson (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall having said that the E-cat is something that cannot possibly work. If I did, I was mistaken. It is extremely unlikely that the E-cat will work. Due to the Coulomb barrier, claims of low-energy nuclear reactions are extraordinary claims and require extraordinary evidence. If you think that I said that the E-cat could not possibly work, please show me where I said that and I will reword it. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

^{(talk page stalker)} Hmmm...this discussion is reminiscent of an early episode of The Big Bang Theory. I imagine it's so because I've been playing catch-up on the 70+ episodes I missed during the 10 months I was out of the country. The programs were recorded to DVR, and I'm now down to 55 episodes. I will be watching them with renewed interest. 👀 😊 Atsme^📞📧 16:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

How Did You Notice

Out of curiosity, how did you notice this? --JustBerry (talk) 04:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Because I have been involved in dispute resolution for a while, I have collected the following pages on my watchlist:

Any edit to any of the above shows up on my watchlist. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Nice. --JustBerry (talk) 05:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank u

Thanks for your long-ago suggestion that I put my idea-opinion into essay form. (I finally had the balls to do it. WP:Let the smartest among us restructure. Amateurish, I know, but hey, it was result of maybe 30 minutes!) Thanks again for the encouragement. Sincere, IHTS (talk) 10:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:FIX idea

As we seem to be the primary editors on WP:FIX, howsabout you and I work on the longer typo lists, and leave the ones that have less than 100 errors to any newer people - to kind of allow them to 'get their feet wet'? What do you think? :) Sct72 (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Excellent idea! Agreed. Another idea (maybe good, maybe bad): I was also thinking that whenever we get a new database dump, we might want to put something like "help needed" in place of our names. Don't you just hate it when the paparazzi follow you around because you are a famous Wikipedia typo fixer? :) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I have used the listed names in the past to contact previous editors to see if they want to help out again. As for following, the only ones that seem to do that have a stick firmly placed up their .. never mind. Then again I probably don't see 1/10th of the disputes you do! Sct72 (talk) 00:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Citation in Comparison of command shells

In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_command_shells&diff=682665310&oldid=682117627 you changed "the the" to "the" in a citation. While the latter is the correct one, the original text on http://tldp.org/LDP/abs/html/bashver4.html has this error. So, I'm wondering whether this correction is adequate here. Said otherwise, should text in citations be corrected on Wikipedia? Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Good question. MOS:QUOTE says:

"If there is a significant error in the original statement, use [sic] or the template {{sic}} to show that the error was not made by Wikipedia. However, trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment (for example, correct basicly to basically and harasssment to harassment), unless the slip is textually important."

In this case, the text was not textually important, so I corrected it. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

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 [2]; 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 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)

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man,

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

Wikipedia: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 (Wikipedia: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.

"[Kww's actions were] 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 Wikipedia 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: [A] Obviously wrong, illogical, stupid, or otherwise bogus. [B] 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 [B]. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I have volunteered for the Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission.

See Wikipedia: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

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

Did you hear about this?

[3]

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/wiki/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: [4]. --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”.[5] --Guy Macon (talk) 18:44, 27 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)

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 Wikipedia, including spamming, sock puppeteering and block evasion. :) -- intgr [talk] 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"[6] and "[Securities and Exchange Commision] administrative proceedings instituted against JRG Trust Corporation, individually and formerly doing business as Shuttle America and Joel Goheen"[7] --Guy Macon (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Could I have your advice?

I am currently trying to deal with a plural naming convention problem involving four articles:

There seem to have been multiple move requests (on both sides of the issue), whether they should be plural or singular, However, it seems that the ice skating crowd always seems to lean toward the naming convention which technically should be singular, while the roller crowd says that it is going too far with the naming convention rules as they are always used in pairs.

Now that you are up to speed, and knowing that you have experience in dispute resolution, my question is this: as the move requests seem to be blocked by non-consensus on both sets of pages, how in the world am I supposed to get both sets of pages to use the same convention? Clearly both sides cannot be right and personally, although I agree that it is a bt of a grey area, I side on the singular, as I argued in the most recent move request here.

Where is the best location to bring up a discussion to decide what naming convention should be used for all four articles? The requested moves board has so far been unhelpful in resolving this problem so I am unsure of how to proceed, and I hoped you could offer insight. InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere} 12:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this and I have decided that I really don't know what is best here. I would suggest going to WP:DRR and selecting the Dispute resolution Noticeboard. Sorry I can't be more help. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Help with Southern Strategy editing

Guy Macon, As a member of the DRN I was hoping you might offer some suggestions to me with regards to dealing with an editing dispute on the Southern Strategy page. I have now had changes I made undone by Scoobydunk 4 times in the last 2 weeks.[[8]] He doesn't agree with the material I've been trying to add and opened a NPOVN discussion related to the content.[[9]] His arguments didn't gain support and the topic seems to have goon stale over the last 10 days. I have requested the topic be closed. Last night I edited again and per BRD I tried to rephrase and change to address Scoobydunk's concerns.[[10]] I posted a talk page discussion related to the changes at the same time.[[11]] At this point I'm frustrated with an editor who isn't engaging in a productive talk page discussion related to the material, who is claiming the material I'm adding doesn't meet RS standards (See my talk page reply where I refute this claim). Now I'm trying to figure out the best way to resolve this issue with 3rd party help. I'm sensitive to claims of forum shopping because I was, wrongly in my view, accused of forum shopping for Scoobydunk's NPOVN discussion. Also, so long as that discussion is open I can't open a DNR which I think is the correct venue for this issue. So I'm asking you for help in finding the correct way to resolve what I feel is a content dispute that has also involved disputed behavior on both mine and Scoobydunk's part (this is explained as a tangent of the NPOVN [[12]]). Thanks Springee (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

As I said, I would really appreciate your suggestions here. Springee (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I will look at this Monday evening. I made a conscious decision to tale a break from any Wikipedia disputes over the log holiday (here in the US) weekend. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

OK. Sorry to pester you over the holiday weekend, I hope you have a good one. Springee (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

If you can take the time I really would appreciate some input and thoughts on the Southern Strategy page. Perhaps from a holistic POV. Springee (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I looked it over, though about it for a while, and decided that I cannot be unbiased regarding that page. I don't think that Wikipedia should have pages that define any group by allowing that group's enemies to do the defining. Alas, any time I express this opinion, I get accused of favoring the group -- If I say that we shouldn't define those who call themselves "pro choice" with the term "anti-life" I am accused of being against abortion. If I say that we shouldn't define those who call themselves "pro life" with the term "anti-choice" I am accused of being for abortion. A good example is the term "climate change deniers". If I attempt to argue against that term as being a clear NPOV violation, I am accused of taking sides on the underlying issue.

I object to the fact that the Southern strategy says that republicans appeal to racism instead of saying that sources X. Y and Z say that republicans appeal to racism and that the republicans deny it. I am not, however, willing to invest any of my time fighting a battle over this -- there are other Wikipedia pages that do worse -- which would likely end up at arbcom. Because I object so strongly to the content of the page, I do not feel I can be unbiased concerning the behavior of those editing the page. Sorry that I could not be more help. All I can suggest is starting with WP:DRR. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that thought. I think you have hit what bothers me most about the page. Any wiki page that seems to be a collection of assusations presented as consensus is simply not encyclopedic. Looking through the talk history it looks like I'm not the first editor to try to clean things up by presenting other sources and POV. Anyway, the canvasing ANI [13] which seems a lot like a second try at a pervious ANI [14] is enough for now. In the future, if it is OK with you, I might ask for suggestions regarding how best to get other eyes on the article. I'm going to take a break from it for a while. I've had enough of the battle ground. Thanks anyway.Springee (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Southern Strategy.

For those following along, note that my post to NPOVNB only talks about article content, and that I have expressed no opinion regarding any user behavior. I don't do that unless I have taken the time to research the editing history of the users involved, and I have not done that in this case. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

...aaaand I just got accused of being a republican on the NPOVNB. Which would only be true if we were talking about Julius Caesar and the demise of the Roman Republic. I have almost no interest in politics after Diocletian. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

So you admit you are a republican!!11!! ;-) And honestly, there *is* some kind of tenuous connection between republic-the-concept and the modern-day USA-republicans-the-political-platform, or at least, some subfactions thereof. :-) Personally, I'm suspicious you are some kind of calendrical deviant... I notice you ALSO admit to celebrating "the log holiday (here in the US)" which proves you are not just a republican, since you live in the USA after all and are an admitted 'Julian' republican, but additionally a tree hugger of some kind! p.s. "Wikipedia should not have pages that define any group according to that group's enemies." This is correct. "I am not, however, willing to invest any of my time... other Wikipedia pages that do worse... likely end up at arbcom." Sadly that is ALSO correct, at present; but it is not your fault, it the wiki-culture we have all jointly created. Anyways, just dropping by to note that your opinion is the proper opinion to hold, and not blaming you for choosing to spend your time elsewhere... even if you are a log-holiday-celebrant... but of course, since Abe Lincoln was born in a log cabin, that alone almost certainly makes you a COI-encumbered Republican. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

You have exposed my Terrible Secret. :) I did stop tree hugging, though, after a bad experience with a Ceiba chodatii... --Guy Macon (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I have thoughts on the subject but I said I was done for the time and will stick with that. I think there are ways that these things can be better handled in the articles such as a policy of erring on the side of inclusion when even a few reliable, conflicting sources can be found (that doesn't mean Weight needs to be equal). Anyway, I support your efforts. Springee (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia: The Game

Wikipedia The Game - a trivia game about everything
Contains 300 Wiki Theme Cards, 4 Dry Erase Boards, 4 Dry Erase markers, 100 Tokens and a Sand Timer
You can play with anyone, anytime
Three exciting Wikipedia games inside to challenge your brain: Wiki-Trivia, Wiki-Ranks and Disambiguation
This game is not sold or endorsed by the Wikimedia Foundation.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B011KVZ6TM/

--Guy Macon (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Heh heh. :-) Almost certainly a trademark violation, despite the 'not endorsed by' disclaimer in the small print. "Wiki" is legal, but Wikipedia is officially protected, as is the puzzle globe. Prolly needs to be renamed "WikiTrivia The Game" or something like that, to pass PTO muster. I emailed meta:Special:Contact/licenseabuse, so WMF legal can either work out a licensing deal for a percentage of the $20 purchase price, or cease-n-desist the unauthorized commercialization. p.s. WikipediA: The Shaving Cream! 75.108.94.227 (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

question about transparent random selection of 200 arbcom voters , for proposed signpost exit poll

Since you demanded a recount... and since I see the other two election-commissioners already have talkpages busy with their ACE2015 duties... I figured I would dump this question in your lap. :-)

I've been helping User:GamerPro64 work on the regular Arb-Report column for the WP:SIGNPOST, and there was a suggestion made that maybe the next Arb-Report could cover an exit poll, of people who have been voting in ACE2015. If you've been following the discussions at User_talk:Dennis_Brown, User_talk:Opabinia_regalis, User_talk:Slimvirgin, and the talkpages of your fellow commish folks, you probably know that there is a reasonably amount of interest in finding out what sort of folks have been voting this year. So, my currently-vague proposal, is that I would like to write up some exit-poll questions for the voters, and then leave a usertalk message for 5% of them, selected pseudo-randomly from the list -- https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/list/560?limit=5

Now, I could always download the list myself, and do some kind of random selection therefrom. But for transparency reasons (and in case this becomes a "regular thing" that happens in arbcom elections going forwards), it is probably better to see whether a neutral party can do the selection-work. Writing up the questions to ask is also a sticky wicket, but probably that can be managed using existing procedures (RfC or somesuch). So my question for you is, let's say that some signpost person wanted to get a randomly-chosen list of 200 unique voters from the list of all voters (discounting all greyed-out and struck-thru votes to avoid accidentally weighting the randomness towards those who re-voted). Who would be able to do that work? One of the election commissioners? One of the scrutineers? And how would the work be done, with maximum transparency?

p.s. In terms of WP:DEADLINEs, the next issue of ArbReport is *dated* for Wednesday December 2nd, WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-12-02/Arbitration_report, but that datestamp is actually when the rough draft process begins. Actual publication will happen this coming weekend, in other words, the evening of Saturday the 5th (or sometimes "a day late" on Sunday the 6th which is also when voting ends this year). Thus, if we are going to have a reasonable response-rate to the proposed exit poll, ideally we would get some questions written up by Wednesday, send out the 200 usertalk requests early on Thursday, and then process the initial results Saturday morning. There is some tension between getting accurate answers ("can you remember whom you voted for and why?") by asking as soon after the voter comes out of the SecurePoll as possible, and the worry that voters who have not yet voted, or who plan to re-vote, might alter their behavior should they hear about the exit-poll predictions *prior* to the polls actually closing, see Exit_poll#Criticism_and_controversy, so that also may need to be taken into consideration. Thanks, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Just got back from a real life issue that took up the last few days. I am looking at this now. More later. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I have composed some rough-draft questions off-wiki. It is probably too late to get broad participation, but I will like put the questions into a subpage today, and if you have time to help me figure out a transparent way to select people to exit-poll, myself or some of the other signpost contributors can drop them a usertalk note. As they reply, over the coming week, I can recalc the survey-results, and update the "12-02" signpost with rolling data as the results come in. The arb-report will be published late Saturday, so we should get responses from the most active subset in time for the initial publication-deadline, and I usually keep updating the contents through Tuesday or so.

One simple way we could do a *roughly* randomized subset , is for you to give me a pseudorandomly-picked number between 15 and 25 inclusive. There are ~2600 raw WP:BANGVOTEs now in the arbcom election, and if I take every 25th voter that will give me just over 100 exit-poll-participants, whereas if I take every 15th voter that will give me just under 200 exit-poll participants. If you have time to do it more rigourously, so that re-votes and struck votes are eliminated, that is preferable, but if time is a concern, then please visit your favorite online pseudorandom number generator website, and have it spit out an integer in the 15-to-25 range, then tell me what the integer was. Thanks, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Online pseudorandom number generator website? Real cryptonerds use Hardware random number generators. :) Here is a number selected by a HRNG: 18 --Guy Macon (talk) 14:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. :-) p.s. Although it would not be fully transparent for me to suggest it, beforehand, this is the online one I was thinking of -- http://www.fourmilab.ch/hotbits/ -- measures radioactive decay for the randomness, site run by John Walker (programmer). Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Essentially the method used by the HRNG in my lab. I see that fourmilab uses a commercial Geiger-Müller detector; I think I will order one and retire my homebuilt detector. Mine is not halogen quenched. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Question, what do the various annotations mean? Some of the 146 names are greyed-out, some are struck, most are both. But there is at least one name which is greyed out, but not struck, and one name which is struck, but not greyed out. And the implied follow-up question is, should the nine usernames which are currently struck and/or greyed out, be included in the exit poll? At first I thought struck out meant invalid vote, e.g. under the 150 edits or something, but now I'm wondering if re-votes are also being annotated thataway. Please advise. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure. Pinging @Mdann52: and @Mike V:.

Also see: User talk:75.108.94.227/exit poll possible participants list --Guy Macon (talk) 08:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Greyed out = duplicate vote, only the most recent by each user is counted. Struck = ineligible (sockpuppet, duplicate vote, blocked/banned etc.). Some duplicate votes are struck, others aren't, but it is completely arbitary whether they are or not, and it doesn't matter as all but the most recent duplicates are ignored by the software. Mdann52 (talk) 12:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay thanks. So for the purposes of the ACE2015 exit poll, at least, we are doing a rough-n-ready selection of a subset of the ~2855 raw votes, every 18th one per HRNG output. Black-text-and-struck usernames will be *elided* from the ACE2015 exit-poll list, because they are sub150edits/socks/banned/etc and thus ineligible. Greyed-text usernames *will* be included in the exit-poll list, however; I'll fix that up shortly. This is slightly sub-optimal, because it would be preferable to get every Nth voter from the ~2674 de-duplicated list of vote. Next year might attempt that more-optimal approach, to avoid slightly prejudicing the exit-poll-sample towards people who re-voted (by approximately 2855/2674 == seven percent or so). It would help, if the SecurePoll extension had a GUI-option, with some checkboxes at the top which said "show greyed-out votes" and also "show struck-thru votes".

p.s. Not sure if, now that the voting is over, the election-commissioners are morally free to participate in the exit-poll-effort. If anybody wants to help refine the questions, though, they are at User:GamerPro64/ACE2015_exit_poll. We will prolly be sending the exit-poll-questionnaires out in the next 24 hours, maybe even the next 12 hours. In particular, I'm interested in cutting questions or verbiage, if possible! Less verbiage means more respondents. Publication-target of the exit-poll-results has been pushed back to the WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-12-09/Arbitration_report (which despite the name will actually be in draft-mode until Saturday the 12th or Sunday the 13th). Feel free to WP:BEBOLD with the questions and/or with the results-report. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 08:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

My only advice would be to run this rather quickly... Mdann52 (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Where to ask questions

Guy, Where is the place where one asks general questions. For example, I recently wanted to ask about the meaning of the RS guidelines. I really wanted to ask that question without reference to a specific article. How should such a question be asked? Thanks Springee (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

For general knowledge questions (not questions about Wikipedia itself): Wikipedia:Reference desk
For questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia (not policy questions): Wikipedia:Help desk
For questions about technical issues, policies, and operations of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Village pump

Village pump is divided into five sections, You want Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). --Guy Macon (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Request Edits

Was wondering if I could ask you to review a few if you have time.[15][16][17]. Some of these are 1-2 months old and 2 of them are pretty small/simple/minor. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 16:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:38, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Fair call

I see your point. :) Thanks for cleaning that up. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year

HNY, Guy. I just want to let you know that I'm a big fan of your work here. I'm curious, have you made a list of any major "WTF" practices (Re:how completely messed up practices become normal) that we can address? I think it would be an interesting exercise to attempt to address a single issue with you in a leadership position pushing forward. I'm confident in your abilities. Viriditas (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The WMF stonewalls me when I make reasonable suggestions. See User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 189#Page Weight Matters, User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 190#optimizing, meta:2015 Community Wishlist Survey/Archive#Start a project -- a real project with measurable goals and a schedule -- to reduce page weight and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T105136 for an example of the WMF developers stonewalling me and Meta:Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard#Frequently Unanswered Questions for an example of the WMF accounting dept. stonewalling me. I have posted the above two requests every place that anyone has suggested, and I have received nothing but silence from the accountants and developers. I have gotten a bunch of involved people posting their guesses as to what the WMF would say if they were talking, so at least I am not lonely... :( --Guy Macon (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Would you be willing to write an editorial for the Signpost? Personally, I think it would be great and might at least get the ball rolling in the right direction. Viriditas (talk) 07:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Great idea. Give me a few days; I am a bit swamped at the moment. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Since it's weekly, I'm sure you would have several weeks to write it. Or, you could time your editorial to coincide with an upcoming event or news item for timeliness. Viriditas (talk) 07:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Estimate of costs

Regarding this edit: although it doesn't necessarily change your line of argument, solely based on your excerpted quote, the stated amount is a monthly bandwidth cost, and so your scaling up of the cost for 2015 is off by a factor of 12. Thus you've only increased the cost by a bit more than 8 times, rather than a hundred. isaacl (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! In the words of Barbie, "Math Is Hard!" :) --Guy Macon (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Juniper MX-Series

Seemed potentially in your interest area for technical subjects. The proposed draft and Request Edit have remained on the Talk page for more than a month without response. Was hoping you might take a look. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 21:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Some more commentary on board events

Guy, you may find these useful for your "In the news" section:

Wikimedia Foundation bins community-elected trustee, The Register
The Crisis at New Montgomery Street, The Wikipedian
Meltdown at Wikipedia?, Posthegemony blog
Strategy and controversy, Liam Wyatt's blog

Best, --Andreas JN 466 11:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources wrt Flow-Based Programming

Hi Guy, thanks again for your support - I can now edit again, so I thought I would ask for help from a WP expert. I looked up "primary sources" on WP, and apparently still don't understand what is meant by them - the discussion in question is in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG . I am wondering if you could explain what (the other) Guy is concerned about in terms I can understand - it seems strange to disallow important (IMO) references that would be of interest to readers, but allow references that (I assume) can talk about them. Maybe you can suggest remedial action I could ask someone to take (as I can't do the edits myself!). TIA. Jpaulm (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Guy Macon:I am really curious what is the logic behind JzG's "primary-inline" tags. I wonder if you could explain it to me - JzG's responses are too cryptic for me! If WP only accepts secondary sources, how does it record information about new discoveries? But this question just illustrates how confused I am! :-) TIA Jpaulm (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Checking in!

Just checking in with a fellow WP:FIX typo-fixer, seeing what you've been up to. And I see by the religion-related contributions, one of your resolutions for the new year was to pull your hair out. :) (kidding, seriously.) Anyhoo, it looks like we have a couple new people at WP:FIX, plus another is creating a bot for the database dumps, see the talk page. Good luck and see you over there! Sct72 (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Flat Earth

I read your flat earth argument on your page. I wanted to let you know that you should pick a better topic. Since people did not believe the earth was flat, your argument that they did and, therefore, were wrong is invalid. 199.15.144.250 (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

You might try reading our article on Flat Earth before claiming that "people did not believe the earth was flat" in the 4th century BCE. You likely have confused the 4th century BC belief with the modern misconception regarding belief in a flat earth during the 15th century CE. We have an article on that as well: Myth of the flat Earth. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Religion in infoboxes

I apologize for undoing your edit to Western Reserve Academy, having now read the RfC involved. Please note that other nonsectarian schools, like Phillips Exeter Academy, still retain their nonsectarian status listed under 'religion' in the infobox, which was the basis of my edit. I would have liked to have been linked to the RfC in your original edit summary so that I would at least have been educated about your proposal and its success. Drasil (talk) 07:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with your clearly good-faith revert. Alas, linking to the RfC would have required a time machine (friendly smile), because the edit was made on 18 October 2015‎ and the RfC was posted on 31 December 2015.

I thought that I had removed "non-sectarian" from the infobox of all schools (not disputing the point if anyone reverted) but I missed Phillips Exeter Academy because I was searching for "religion: non-sectarian" or "religion: nonsectarian" and did not search for "Religious affiliation(s): non-sectarian". Thanks for catching my error. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Question

Looks like there's reasonable consensus on the NOR noticeboard. What's the procedure there - is it closed automatically after a waiting period or do we have to ask for a close? Given the discussion there and your previous RfC (which appears to resolve this unambiguously) how do we proceed? Are the RfC and NOR decisions binding? D.Creish (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I am at a bit of a loss here. Normally I would say to just do the reasonable thing -- implement the consensus at the NOR noticeboard -- but we are dealing with some decidedly non-reasonable editors here, so any solution will have to be shoved down their throats by an admin and backed up with blocks. I say wait until the Rfc ends and an admin closes it, then see where we are. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

"Why, exactly, can't we try a completely different approach as a limited-time experiment?"

Can you change #5 to something more like

5. Post a warning template on the talk page (without any mention of it here) of any regular who does anything other than the above.

Otherwise it can be read as saying that it's okay to do something other than the above, as long as you mention it on the talk page. (Which I don't think was your intention.) —Steve Summit (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. Good catch! --Guy Macon (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

ANI/user name thing

Hi! I thought I should reply here rather than on the ANI report to avoid it getting (even more) off topic. I hope you don't mind that I brought up your username. While I think Malik Shabazz's threat would be pretty serious for any editor, I thought it bore mentioning that it would be doubly so in your case. I did notice that you'd carefully avoided bringing the issue up yourself, which I think shows a lot of good faith on your part. Hope you're holding up okay. Marianna251TALK 09:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I am glad that someone brought it up. Thanks!

Apologies

You may have wanted to settle this more quietly but I take a dim view of retaliatory threats to go to the media over content disputes. AE Request is now open. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

You did the right thing. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 15:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Just in case you missed it.

J. J. Goldberg, 'Bernie Sanders Keeps Talking About Being Jewish. Why Won't We Listen?,' The Forward 26 February 2016.

I often disagree with this writer's views, but this is a commendably sane review of the whole issue, which is really about a conflict between two constituencies in American Judaism, the sleeve pullers of one-of-"us-ism" (who often unwittingly play into the hands of one-of-"them-ism"), and the Isaian universalists, like Sanders, who think their particular ethnoreligious background is, while important, not something to be worn on the sleeve or brandished politically, because they see themselves predominantly as integrated into a larger tradition, of which the 'Jewish' component, though seminal, if manipulated one way or the other, only lends itself to the divisiveness already toxically rampant in most other 'confessional' politicians. As a politician, Goldberg remarks, Sanders like many others wishes to represent a broad national tradition, and all of his constituency. If only more from the Evangelical, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, whatever, subcultures could take a leaf from his book, that place would be saner than it has been for a long time.Nishidani (talk) 11:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

That article makes a good point. On the Bernie Sanders Wikipedia page, we are being bludgeoned by a small minority pushing an unsourced claim concerning Bernie Sanders' religion, but in the process of repeatedly pointing out the total lack of sources where Bernie Sanders himself (not some anonymous staffer) publicly self-identifies as belonging to a particular religion, we must not lose sight of something very significant and notable, which is Bernie Sanders' strong and well-sourced identification of his Jewish heritage and ethnicity as being something that has made him the person that he is and has led him to hold the positions he holds. Explaining and sourcing this properly is an important part of making Bernie Sanders a good article. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Your "anonymous staffer" argument, which you repeat over and over again, is entirely lacking in evidence, as you have no knowledge or evidence that Bernie Sanders did not write those words himself, and every reasonable presumption under the sun is that he approved those words and that they therefore constitute an entirely legitimate self identification. Your obsessive and repetitive insistence on this point, implying that only you are capable and qualified to perceive "the truth" is really quite concerning. Why are you so determined to spend months bludgeoning this issue? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

Cullen, if someone characterizes himself as a "secular Jew", and also characterizes himself as being of the Jewish religion, then the situation would seem more ambiguous than you perceive the Sanders situation to be. And even if that ambiguity were to be resolved, we would still not necessarily be able to say that being of the Jewish religion is a "key feature" of the BLP subject, as required by MOS:INFOBOX. Unfortunately, it is a common human trait to deal with absence of knowledge by projecting our own preferences into the void.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. And this includes projecting when pointing out that Sanders did some stuff for Chanukkah, lit a memorial candle, and excercised one aspect of the high holy days. Doing those things are not indicative of one's spiritual faith any more than a Catholic non-Catholic who put up an Advent calendar, lit a prayer candle, and is avoiding chocolate during Lent. We should not interpret actions and engage in WP:SYNTH -- Cullen has been here long enough to know this. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 10:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

...and to know that "you have no knowledge or evidence that Bernie Sanders did not write those words himself" fails WP:V, a "reasonable presumption that he approved those words" fails WP:OR, and that presuming without any actual evidence that someone approved something doesn't even come close to being self identification. I do not envy the uninvolved administrator(s) who will be closing this RfC. He will have to deal with a number of invalid arguments like this.

Anythingyouwant hits the nail on the head when he says "Unfortunately, it is a common human trait to deal with absence of knowledge by projecting our own preferences into the void." The right way to deal with absence of knowledge in this case is to leave the infobox religion entry blank and to explain the subtleties with citations to reliable secondary sources in the body of the article.

There is zero evidence that Bernie Sanders self-identifies as being a member of any religion, and thus the clear consensus at

Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes

and

Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 28#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion

applies. As far as I can tell, if he wins he will be the first US president who does not self-identify as being a member of any religion. Our society appears to be becoming more accepting of religious diversity. Has anyone who does not self-identify as being a member of any religion ever gotten this close to winning the presidency? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I've agreed with most of what you write on nearly all of this. That doesn't give me any leverage. I would only ask that you think a little about the larger context. I've a long record of being harassed, quite insistently, by editors charging me as an Israel-baiting, anti-Semitic prick. I have generally never acted on this, except in very exceptional circumstances. You don't have to take my word for it that MS has a record for exemplifying great neutrality for nearly a decade in the most stressful and distressed area of Wikipedia - all but abandoned by admins for its difficulties (I/P area), and he has been an invaluable resource for this encyclopedia. One should try not to lose sight of the larger picture. Regards Nishidani (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Guy, can you point to any instance in the entire history of Wikipedia where it was decided to not attribute material at a person's website to that person?Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Any website that has a staff of paid writers may have material that Wikipedia attributes to the writer (if known) or to the website (if the author is not specifically indicated) rather than to the owner of the website. More to the point, as multiple editors have pointed out, the "self-identify" portion of WP:BLPCAT must be satisfied by a direct quote from the individual, not by something written by someone who works for him, including anonymous writers of PDFs that can be found on that person's website. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

NOTE TO ALL: In the interest of not having multiple discussions on the same subject all over Wikipedia, please consider all of the above questions to be asked and answered. If (as often happens) you disagree with, are not satisfied with, or will not accept my answers, please discuss it on the article talk page where is belongs. Any further discussion here will be removed. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

QuackGuru

I tried to advise QuackGuru that if anyone was bludgeoning the process, they were by making demands of Jimbo Wales that couldn't be satisfied in the same space and time. They reverted. But we know that QuackGuru is a combative editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Experiment

Hi there!

I'm the one who started that discussion on the village pump regarding username policies. I would like you to help me by conducting the following experiment with your test account. Could you, while logged in as TestAccountZboxx3R7ql001, navigate to the NLWIKI? No need to do anything there, just go there so that your account will appear as newly created on the wiki. That way I can see if the folks there really have enforce this "confusing username" policy.

Many thanks! <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. Logged on, read a few pages, set my preferences to English, made a test edit to my talk page. --(Guy Macon editing as) TestAccountZboxx3R7ql001 (talk) 03:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

OK. I am curious to as why you were not noticed by any of the admins there. If you could make a few more changes, perhaps in the article namespace, that would help me understand this matter much better. Thanks! <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I have zero knowledge of the language used, so I can't really edit any articles on that Wiki. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders

Guy, thanks for the advice. At the moment I'm not interested in pursuing it. The closer's responsibility should be to gauge consensus - the strength of the arguments matter insofar as they convince the community, not the closer. Apparently what we have instead is a super-opinion - ultimately all that matters is the opinion of a single admin - it's an admin-as-jury model rather than admin-as-judge. It should be obvious (and worrying) how easily that's abused. Putting any more effort into what is effectively a roll of the dice seems pointless. I appreciated your input in the debate, always well-reasoned and the car/ford analogy was hilariously accurate. Take care. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the wording

at JW talk p. DGG ( talk ) 06:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Important message copied from WT:RD

I understand that some users on here may be familiar with user called guy macon on here. I have been asked by a family member to pass on the message that Guy was involved in a traffic incident a few hours ago. His situation is serious but fortunately he is stable. If any users wish to pass on messages of support, I will try and pass these on to his family.

Thank you for any support during this difficult time. Lynda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.108.156 (talk) 10:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

This is false information. I have been in no accident of any kind and me and my Subaru are just fine. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Good thing, too, considering this post:[18] (smile) --Guy Macon (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Probably best to delete the messages as trolling. I erred on the side of caution, but glad that all is well. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I try not to give Trolls the attention they desire by deleting run-of-the-mill trolling. Best to ignore the troll. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I am confused about a deletion you made

I would like to understand what you did so I don't repeat the error again. You removed my blog URL from my User Page and labeled it: (Deleted scoop.it blogspam.) I am not a super experienced editor so I can't quite figure out what was going wrong here. Was scoop.it spamming someone? Thank you for your help. Have a good day. NegMawon (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

If you look at my edit history[19] starting at 17:04, 16 February 2016 and ending at 20:34, 16 February 2016 you will see that I removed 130 instances of scoop.it spam that day. See WP:BLOGS and WP:LINKSPAM.

If you would like to learn more about what is and is not allowed on your userpage, see WP:UPYES and WP:UPNOT. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Insightful

For all my ~~minions~~ talk page watchers, here is a new XKCD comic about Wikipedia: http://xkcd.com/1665/ --Guy Macon (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

My role

At the biography article (Marjorie Cameron) is wholly procedural—I was at JW's Talk page for a separate reason, noted that a book author's query had caught JW's attention, looked to the article's Talk page to see what the status of the issue, and on seeing that JW's perspective was not considered, produced his comment (and my concurring opinion) at that Talk page—so that the two responding editors, at that Talk page, would no longer dismiss the concerns of the over-cited book author.

Otherwise, my opinion is stated in my Talk, there; I think the best way to proceed is to move paragraphs in clear violation (one source, close paraphrases drawn entirely from the author's work) to Talk, leaving placeholder section stubs, then to guide repopulating the sections from a small set of sources (rather than just the one). This spoke as a former Prof, and not as a Wikipedian. This redaction of clearly violating paragraphs will go a long way to satisfying the concerned book author, and will make clear you are serious about compliance with WP:VERIFY. We have recently taken the fully plagiarised Dixie Walker in the same direction, and it seems to be working (stub in place, material slowly repopulating).

Otherwise, note, if you go to the book author's Talk page (an IP page), I let him know that while the issue of overuse could be addressed, his specific demands for including and excluding things would likely not be to his satisfaction. See that statement, there. I also encourage him to register.

Cheers, Le Prof. Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

DRN help needed and volunteer roll call

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself on the list of volunteers at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering#List of the DRN volunteers.

First, assistance is needed at DRN. We have recently closed a number of cases without any services being provided for lack of a volunteer willing to take the case. There are at least three cases awaiting a volunteer at this moment. Please consider taking one.

Second, this is a volunteer roll call. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to this roll call list. Individuals currently on the principal volunteer list who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after June 30, 2016 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after June 30, 2016, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.

Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page)

Blue Coat Systems

I seem to remember at WikiProject Cooperation you said you were interested in topics with a technical leaning. No rush, but thought you might be interested in participating as I work to improve the page with a COI if nobody already invested in the article responds. See:[20] CorporateM (Talk) 15:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Wtshymanski at ANI

Strewth! You were quick out of the blocks. I reformatted your link addition not because I though it was wrong, but because I thought I had added it and not got it right. At least the two match in style. Thanks for your interest anyway. 85.255.232.219 (talk) 13:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

ANI close

Hi Guy! I closed (nac) that sea lion barking on ANI but wanted to say that if you wish to pursue a tban further, more power to you. Just seemed like that post was going nowhere fast with a noisy sea lion in the rear seat. Feel free to revert if you wish. Hopefully they'll return to Pier 39 quietly. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Very well. We shall resume in an hour. :) Good call. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I really should refer to that comic more frequently. Makes me giggle every time. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Nines Complement of One Billion

Is the Do Not Archive Until date arbitrary, or is that the actual time of the little-known concealed binary doomsday? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Answered. Do not archive until the end of the world, or at least the end of this server. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

(What we passed 16 years ago was the naked decimal doomsday, and it was a self-defeating prophecy. The prophecy wasn't wrong; it was just averted. Sometimes the prophet would say, "If you do not repent, you will face the wrath of God." That has an out clause. Sometimes people repent. They repented of using two-digit years in time. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

See Fact Checking: Adams Law of Slow-Moving Disasters for an interesting take on this. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

In short, humans are relatively ingenious, and, if a problem is anticipated, a solution can be found. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

As to Y2K, there were certain systems where there was a particularly high degree of panic that they would fail, where I knew as a fact that those systems could not have Y2K failures. One of the particular lines that was repeated the most frequently by the panickers was that Social Security would stop being able to print Social Security checks (and that healthy older people would riot and blood would run in the streets). I was reasonably sure that Social Security in particular wouldn't have a Y2K problem, because it had to have four-digit years, because, when Social Security was first automated in the 1950's, it was paying old-age pensions to people who were born in the nineteenth century. There was also panic that electrical generation would stop. That was nonsense. I had worked on a power plant monitoring system, and I knew that power plant monitoring systems do not use a date as such for monitoring (possibly only for reporting to management), because they measure time from an epoch, often from 1 January 1970, and 1 January 2000 was just 14400 seconds after 31 December 1999. There was also concern about bank software. Banks had known about Y2K in January 1970, because banks hit the Y2K wall in January 1970 when trying to generate amortization tables for 30-year-mortgages. (They may have hit the wall again in January 1995 on car loans if they hadn't imported the fix to mortgage loans.) So I had known that two of the systems that there was a particularly high level of panic about were things that couldn't possibly fail. I wouldn't have been surprised if inventory control systems, written in ancient stupid COBOL, had failed, but that would have been a nuisance to the stores, not a disaster. In any case, people repented of the idolatry of the two-digit year. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I saw only one actual Y2K bug, and I was looking hard. The "today is..." on a website rolled the year over from 1999 to 19100 (it was fixed the next day). Of course by being cute with the expiry date I just set myself up to have archiving on those parts of my talk page kick in if nothing changes between now and 2038. I think I will risk it... --Guy Macon (talk) 02:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Help with a COI request?

Hi Guy, it's been awhile. I hope things are well with you. As the heading gives away, I'm reaching out to see if you would be willing to weigh in on a proposed update that I've been having the darnedest time getting anyone to look at. The subject is Hilary Rosen; I am working with the firm she runs to bring the article up-to-date and make it a more well-rounded picture of her career. The article has been somewhat hostile and little-edited for a few years now, so there's some real inertia built into the page. I've reached out to editors previously involved with the article, and relevant wikiprojects, yet have received no reply in nearly four weeks. If you're willing, you can find the open request here. Let me know what you think when you get a chance. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it very much. As I progress, I'm going to try to rely on the same projects and previous editors as before, but if things remain very slow and you're willing to revisit later, I might check in again. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 12:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Commas

Could you two please sort out your differences over a beer rather than here. I personally value both your contributions and watching you spat over commas, Oxford or not, is depressing. Thanks Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Nobody is having a spat. He made some bold changes, and I reverted them, giving my reasons. Please see WP:BRD. He shouldn't be making mass edits just to add or remove oxford commas, and he certainly shouldn't be making mass edits just to put two spaces after a period -- a change that has zero effect on the displayed page. For those who wish to make mass changes to articles, we have a nice list of things that should be changed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fix common mistakes. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, OK, I was simply, and hopefully politely, suggesting a little introspection. Clearly that is not happening - your decision - but disappointing. Oh, and please, I don't need to be told about policies and guidance, I have been around long enough to know already. Thanks. At least your response was better than your esteemed interlocutor who simply binned the whole conversation into an archive including everything that preceded it. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe that any amount of introspection would lead me to behave other than as described at WP:BRD. The "D" is currently taking place at User talk:Whoop whoop pull up#Oxford commas. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

BLP and categories

Regarding your edit here, the addition wasn't a BLP violation since George Carlin has been dead since 2008, and BLP policies only apply to the more recently deceased (within a year or two) and living per WP:BDP. The CFD you initiated does however bring up a valid general concern. We'll see how that plays out. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Good point. (Note to self: next time, smoke crack after editing Wikipedia...) --Guy Macon (talk) 13:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Or try something a little less potent perhaps? -Roxy the dog™ bark 13:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

That gave me a good chuckle :P Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Think you are good at image editing? I have a challenge for you

See File talk:500 x 500 SMPTE Color Bars.png#Challenge. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

West Side Story

I'm Riff. Cause when you're a Jet, you're a jet all the way from your first cigarette to your last dying day. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

General American and California English

Hi! I saw a while ago that you had some inquiries about whether Californians speak with a General American accent. Assuming you are yourself a native Californian, I'm going to ask you a few fun questions that you can answer at your leisure:

Which sound represents best how you pronounce the "short E" vowel in the words bet, mesh, or dead (listen to all of them!): Sound A, Sound B, Sound C, Sound D, ?
For you, do these pairs of words rhyme: spa and thaw; cot and bought; song and gong; gods and broads?
Do you make this distinction in the pronunciation of the word rider versus writer: listen here?
Which sound represents best how you pronounce the "short A" vowel in the words bat, cab, or laugh: Sound A, Sound B, Sound C, Sound D?
Which sound represents best how you pronounce the "oo" vowel in the words soon or too (this may be difficult to determine!): Sound A, Sound B, Sound C?
Does the word centaur rhyme with store or star?
What do you call the flying insect that glows in the dark?
What is your generic term for rubber-sold shoes used for athletic activities, regular everyday walking, informal settings, etc.?

Afterwards, I'd be happy to explain what I know of the relationship between California and General American! Wolfdog (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I know I'm a bit late to this (a month!), but this is actually pretty awesome. I used to do something similar when speaking to people about the Floridian accent. (Us crackers tend to say "ch-rap" instead of "trap" and "j-rum" instead of "drum".) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

thanks for the notice

Thanks for the ANI notice, however, I'm going to stay away from Wikipedia for the next few months for the reasons stated here. In fairness, I should note I actually wrote the text that is currently at that article (though, obviously, it was intended to be contextual and introductory, and not the entire article). Ironically, despite the huge number of participants, no one has really edited any content, virtually all the words continue to be what I originally wrote. It's just been a series of mass deletions and restorations. I tried opening a RfC to resolve the issue but even the RfC was deleted, so I'm not sure there's anything more anyone can do and we should probably just let the article die for the good of general peace and tranquility. I sincerely wish you the best of luck but I'm just too beat down by this to continue. LavaBaron (talk) 05:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Not necessary to remove double spaces

Just so you know, the number of spaces following the terminal punctuation of a sentence in the wiki markup makes no difference on Wikipedia; the MediaWiki software condenses any number of spaces to just one when rendering the page (see Sentence spacing). More info here: MOS:PUNCTSPACE. Cheers! --RickyCourtney (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I know. In this particular case I am dealing with an editor who added double spaces to many, many articles. He stopped when multiple editors reverted and complained, but has refused to discuss it or commit to not starting up again. So I decided, just for those few pages where he had previously edit warred to retain the added doublespaces, to wait a couple of months and remove the doublespaces from those articles. In general, I ignore doublespaces on Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Request

You appear to be a reasonable, non-partisan editor which (if my quick review of your recent contributions is accurate) the James O'Keefe article could use more of. Your increased participation there would be welcome.

I reverted one of your edits here which moved the 2016 video reception to the general reception section. Since most incident-specific criticism is listed in incident-specific sections (some with their own reception sub-section) it seemed best to keep the general "Reception" section to general criticism (and defense) of his methods. Reasonable? I've been trying to organize the article over the last week or so. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I saw that and thought it was a good call. If I get time I will look at the article and see if I can improve it further. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard reverts

@Guy Macon: Compare this [21] with this [22] there was vandalism --Asterixf2 (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

This is being discussed on your talk page. I see no reason to have another, identical conversation here. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Since he has reverted this material five (5) times and has been warned by you twice, it's a clear 3RR violation. Do you want to report it, or should I? GBRV (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Hold off please. I am in the middle of composing the filing. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

You were so wrong on this and you pushed another editor to be blocked. That's on you. See WP:REDACT which isn't a how-to guide, it's a guideline. Vami IV's edits were in violation of this guideline.--v/r - T P 19:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

He was blocked because of his own behavior; edit warring, WP:TPOC violations, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:BATTLEGROUND. I tried to talk him out of doing those things. If you think that violating WP:TPOC and WP:EW are acceptable behavior in response to someone not following WP:REDACT you are greatly mistaken. Misbehavior by another editor is never justification for misbehavior in response. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

He was not in violation with WP:TPOC which is what I am trying to tell you - and now you are WP:IDHT. He told you that, and now I'm telling you. The WP:REDACT part of the talk page guidelines, which you continue to ignore, lays out what Vami was supposed to do. If you don't understand that, then do not bother explaining talk page guidelines to anyone else because we don't need your misunderstandings unnecessarily escalating problems in the future.--v/r - T P 22:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I am listening just fine. I am listening to you make certain claims about what is and is not in certain policies, apparently without any support from the actual wording of the policies. Please quote the exact wording of WP:TPOC or WP:REDACT which allowed allows Asterixf2 to delete comments which are in violation of WP:REDACT and to edit war to keep the comments reverted in the face of multiple editors telling him that he cannot do that. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I am WP:BOLDLY copying this conversation to User talk:Ritchie333 (the blocking admin) and will discuss it there --Guy Macon (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

TParis Asterixf2's behavior goes well beyond just his revert battle that you're discussing. If you look at his record, he has a long pattern of combative behavior and was previously blocked on March 17th for what the admin described as "Tendentious and disruptive editing" (see his full block log). The incident with Vami IV was part of a nasty conflict that has evidently gone on for over a week (judging from the edit histories of the relevant pages), and has entailed his repeated deletion of large amounts of properly sourced material. When I restored some of this deleted material today, he wrote a note on my talk page warning me not to revert him, claiming he had deleted only "self-published" material but that clearly wasn't true (one source was an academic journal, another was a print encyclopedia, and the others likewise were not self-published as far as I can tell). His decision to keep reverting Vami's attempt to add a greater explanation of his own position is frankly rather astoundingly combative. Technical rules aside, what would be the justification of repeatedly deleting his opponent's explanation of his position even if it was technically in the wrong spot? Why not just move it to the correct spot instead of deleting it five times even after being warned twice? This seems to be part of a long pattern of belligerence which is most definitely disruptive in the extreme, it seems to me. GBRV (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to say that I was only involved in this dispute for a day and a half. --Vami IV (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Puto autem fututam...

As far as I can tell, you did nothing wrong except being in the wrong place at the wrong time and running into a disruptive editor, and perhaps not being familiar with the best way to edit/ammend a comment after it was replied to (something that a simple explanation would have corrected). Asterixf2 has been blocked, so I advise just sitting back and staying out of it. We are now on a more *cough* interesting issue. Some folks think that shutting down talk page access was going too far. I can see good arguments on both sides on that issue. Some folks are making certain claims about what is and is not in certain policies. In my opinion they are doing so without any support from the actual wording of the policies in question, but I have asked for a direct quote from the policies in case I am wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

GDTs in series with MOVs

Hi Guy. I'm currently researching this topic and I stumbled upon your entry wondering why someone had advocated putting GDTs in series with MOVs. I thought you might find the following article interesting/informative. Regards, Mike http://www.wseas.org/multimedia/journals/power/2012/54-510.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.147.4.25 (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Fascinating. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 03:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The Elephant In The Room

(Moved to User:Guy Macon/Wikipedia has Cancer)

Wow. Just wow. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I found someone who thinks that that 300X spending increase was a great idea, and is advocating even more spending. See User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 209#The elephant in the room.

Interesting information:

Assessing endowment performance (Vanguard, PDF)
Wikipedia has a ton of money. So why is it begging you to donate yours? (The Washington Post)
Wikipedia fundraising drive: Should you donate money to the Wikimedia Foundation? (International Business Times)

--Guy Macon (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Third closer necessary for referrer info RfC?

Hello again. I've been thinking. Is having two closers performing joint closure enough, or should we have one more closer to volunteer the joint closure? Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 10:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

There are at least three aspects to consider here.

First, let's look at the past performance of the WMF is response to consensus/requests from Wikipedia.

ACTRIAL reached consensus in 2011[23][24] Here we are in 2017 and still no trial.[25]

In 2014 we reached a concensus regarding Superprotect and Media Viewer.[26][27][28] It took until late 2015 to remove superprotect[29] -- after it got coverage in The New York Times. (We did get Jimbo falsely claiming that Superprotect has been lifted,[30] so that's something.)

So, from the basis of what is likely to be stonewalling, more closers are slightly better, but probably will not be enough. I am afraid that we may have to go to the press just to get an answer.

Second, there is a high probability that certain WMF employees, having failed to convince anyone during the RfC, will show up at the WMF page where I post the request, arguing that the RfC in invalid. I expect the usual arguments (The RfC was flawed, the closing admin failed to see the "real" consensus, we didn't have enough time, there are a thousand imaginary people who support us but who did not comment on the RfC, etc.) Having three closers will weaken such arguments.

Third, a lot depends on the nature of the closing statement. If it simply reports the consensus, two closers seem sufficient. If it goes on to address the question of whether Wikipedia or the WMF has the final authority on what referrer information we send, we really need three or more experienced and uninvolved admins to make a joint statement. I fully intend to publicly support the closer's decision whether I agree with it or not. If the "who decides" question is addressed and the decision goes against what I would like the answer to be, supporting it will be easier if I can say that three uninvolved admins agreed on the closing statement. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

My statement from my talk page: "It's ridiculous that you should need additional admins to close the RfC. If you are trying to do so because the WMF feels it will be helpful, I will gladly argue with them about it. If you feel on your own that it is helpful, I will gladly argue with you about it." Power~enwiki (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do not see the words "in the opinion of User:Power~enwiki this is ridiculous" anywhere in you WP:CANVASSING policy. Do you withdraw your accusation of canvassing, or do you have evidence of canvassing that we haven't seen yet? If indeed you want to "gladly argue with about it" (which is not necessarily a bad thing if the arguments are based upon evidence in the form of diffs and the exact wording of the policy you believe is being violated is quoted), please start by telling me exactly what you find wrong in my reasoning above. "It's ridiculous" isn't quite specific enough. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I withdraw any accusation that you're violating WP:CANVASSING. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I would really like to hear why you find my reasoning insufficient. This RfC affects every page and every user on Wikipedia, it is part of an ongoing battle between Wikipedia and the WMF as to who decides what the content of Wikipedia shall be, there is a high probability that certain WMF employees, having failed to convince anyone during the RfC, will show up at the WMF page where I post the request arguing that the RfC in invalid, and it is likely that I will be stonewalled and have to go to the press to force the WMF to respond. Any one of those would seem to be more than sufficient to want four or even more closers. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Power~enwiki for response. George Ho (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

If the WMF feels that "a consensus assessed by two admins" is qualitatively different from "a consensus assessed by four admins" in any way, I will have strong words for them. Beyond that, I can't speak to the behavior of "certain WMF employees" and would rather not speculate about it here. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Power~enwiki, I am still waiting to hear why you find my reasoning insufficient. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Keep waiting. I feel I've explained myself sufficiently; if you're convinced the WMF will act in bad faith I have nothing to say on-Wiki in response. Power~enwiki (talk) 08:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, Guy Macon. Umm... I was advised to step away from the referrer info RfC. Therefore, you can communicate with two volunteers (Winged Blades of Godric and Cyberpower678) and decide whether more than two closers are necessary. Also, I was told to leave my request to have third closer up to others to respond. Well, if having two closers is enough as said by Power, then I'll accept. You can tell Godric and Cyberpower678 to go ahead without having any more closers if you wish. Otherwise, if you decide that a third closer is necessary, then let's wait. You decide; I think my work is done after relisting it. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

While the decision is your to make, I really wish that you would reconsider.

I have no idea whether your closing will be what I want it to be, but even if it goes "against" me in some way, I really think that this issue needs your sound judgement and attention to detail.

In particular, I would really like the closing to discuss existing English Wikipedia consensus on whether the WMF can order us to add or delete content outside of the everyone-agrees-that-this makes-sense Office Actions (possibly with a reference to Superprotect), and whether I should post a specific RfC if that existing consensus in unclear.

I would like the closing to discuss existing WMF policies on the same question (much of which you have already done - see [Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy]). I know that I am far less familiar with WMF policy than English Wikipedia policy, and I would expect the same to be true of most of those who read the closing comments.

So again, please reconsider. I really think Wikipedia needs you.

If you decide to stay out, that's OK -- purely your decision to make. If that happens I intent to post my own request four three or more closers at AN, then to post an RfC about whether there is any requirement for an admin to withdraw because one or two people wish to set an arbitrary limit of how many closers an RfC can have. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not volunteering to close. I haven't declared closing the discussion, and I don't intend to join the team closure. I was just trying to assist your RfC into making the closure smooth. Well, I relisted it because... well, more questions were made soon before the initial 30 days were up. --George Ho (talk) 11:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Overview

Here is an overview for any talk page watchers who want to figure out what we are talking about:

I posted an RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy which was extended to 60 days because questions were added right before closing.

Because of the reasons detailed at [31] I requested multiple closers. Up until earlier today three admins (User:George Ho,User:Winged Blades of Godric,and User:cyberpower678) indicated willingness to participate in a joint closure.

George Ho put in the request for more closers, then User:Power~enwiki accused me of WP:CANVASSING by asking for too many closers.[32] George Ho them amended his request from three or more to three.[33] Power~enwiki then retracted his accusation[34] and refused to say why he found my reasoning to be faulty.[35]

Up to this point I had no problem with any of this.

Then User:Isaacl claimed that George Ho is not qualified to be a closer[36] because he asked for more than two closers, and because he used his own best judgement rather than following a "concensus" consisting of Power~enwiki and one admin (User:Only in death) who thought more than two closers are uneccesary.[37] after which George Ho withdrew from pariticipating in the joint closing.[38]

Only in death is certainly someone worth listening to -- he does careful work and usually gets it right -- but basicly he was asked if more than two closers were needed and replied by saying that in his opinion that they are not. Nowhere does he indicate that more than two closers are not allowed.

Power~enwiki can be ignored, He has zero arguments, just snarky replies as can be seen from his replies above.

Isaacl's opinion is based upon a policy that he made up. Administrators are allowed to use their own best judgement when only one person has a valid disagreement with them. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Umm... that is partially incorrect. I am not one of the closers actually, and I am not an administrator. Neither is Godric. Actually, I was trying to make the closure smoother and more sensible, though I did not join the team closure. Then I was told not to "facilitate" anyone else's RfC. --George Ho (talk) 11:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Likewise also not an administrator ;) Against my general opinion I think an admin should close this however, not because it is necessary given the clear consensus, but because it will prevent future drama. 3 would be overkill. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Slap me with a wet trout for failing to check. I have seen the two of you do such good work over the years that I assumed without thinking to check that you were admins. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Note I made no statement to George regarding closing the RfC (as stated above, George did not plan to close the RfC), nor did I give advice on policy. I gave personal feedback on George's work on facilitating RfCs (trying to call for closers, asking clarification questions, and so forth) regarding understanding and interpreting the comments others have been giving. At no time did I say George should stop doing something in accordance with any policy. George is of course free to decide how much (if any) of this feedback to take into account, just like the feedback you're offering. isaacl (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Subaru and you

Hey Guy, I saw that your ANI report about the persistent vandalism on the list of Subaru engines article didn't really get any traction (ha!). If you want to spin me up on the details, I'd be happy to help you watchdog the article. A Train^talk 21:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Super Mario

Who would have guessed that thinking tools for ANI discussions could be found in 1980s video games? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Contesting your close at ANI

I'm giving serious¹ consideration to formally contesting your close of the ANI thread about me, here. Closing a thread about me when I have not yet had the opportunity to respond with a single snide remark, vacant witticism, or thinly veiled personal attack is highly improper².

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

00:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

1. Here "serious" should be read as "entirely not serious".
2. Ironically, this very message fulfills my self-imposed duty to provide snark in such discussions, so on second thought, we're good.

What's with this "we're good" garbage?? This is the INTERNET! Now get back in there and call me a nazi pedophile bedwetter, then complain on Jimbo's talk page. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 03:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

What was I thinking, you starving-African-child-molesting, gooosestepping, 88-tattoo-sporting, secret amazon shopper?! I'll have you kicked off wikipedia for this! I know Jimbo personally! I'll have you banned from every website with a login form! When I'm done, you won't even be able to trash-talk Hillary Clinton on Conservapedia!!!!!1!1!1oneone!one ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Good to see that you are getting with the program. [ http://www.guymacon.com/flame.html ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I suddenly feel at home. -Roxy the dog. bark 21:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

You sir, are a hemorrhoid on the butthole of life. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Re SPLC on WP:RSN

Hi, You wrote: "If there is a BLP problem, post it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard." Did you perhaps mean post it at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the error. I fixed it. (Note to self: next time, smoke crack after editing Wikipedia...) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Americans with Disabilities Act and CAPTCHA

Hi Guy, now that I have looked a little more in detail into what the ADA protects I think it is unlikely that wikipedia editing falls under it. This is based just on my own understanding, and if a qualified american lawyer comes along then their interpretation should trump mine. But to quote ada.gov "The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) prohibits discrimination and ensures equal opportunity for persons with disabilities in employment, State and local government services, public accommodations, commercial facilities, and transportation." After a bit of a search I don't think wikipedia can credibly come under one of those headings. All of the other high profile cases (TARGET, Berkley etc) have very different circumstances. "public accommodations" is the most ambiguous term that is not something that I have ever come across before - but I can't find an example of a non-profit website being sued under that term by a volunteer and everything I read seems to interpret this as talking about commercial companies offering services to the public. I think that wikipedia should be accesible for disabled people as a matter of principle - if we claim to be a free encylopedia that anyone can edit we are failing our mission if people are prevented from doing so for any reason... but not very confident initially that the ADA will be a useful tool. AlasdairEdits (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Question about diffs

Hi, Guy - when checking out a diff on a very long page, the diff view shows a LINE:# and then a + sign in the margin showing the diff. Let's say it's LINE: 357 - is there a way to find that line in the article view below the diff section? I'm not seeing where the lines are numbered, and can't figure out what purpose the line # has in the grand scheme. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

As the politicians always say, that was a great question! We need more questions like that. Are there any more questions?

Seriously, I don't know either, so I asked here: Wikipedia:Help desk#Line numbers in diffs. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) While I don't have a direct answer for you, I will give you what I normally do if I'm struggling to find the edited line. I'll just use my browser's "Find" function to search for some of that text within the article itself. Once you piece together 3-4 words, many times that will be enough to find that paragraph within the article. --Bassmadrigal (talk) 14:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Here is the annoying thing about this; when I write software, my thinking goes like this: "This robotics manufacturing system will be used by roughly 3,000 customers on a daily basis. Even as simple a change as leaving out a line number that nobody uses and saving each person one second's worth of wasted time adds up to over 40 man/hours per year. Saving everyone 30 seconds by making the menu clearer will save the users over 1200 man/hours. It makes sense to spend a few extra hours making sure that the user interface is clean with no unneeded information". How much more does this apply to a website with 48,329,610 registered users who have so far made 1,255,193,053 edits, created 61,923,509 pages of all kinds and created 6,916,860 articles? We are spending millions and millions every year (See WP:CANCER). Why do we still have useless information on the diff screen? Why didn't we either drop the line numbers at the top or number the lines below? It is frustrating to know how to do things right and then to see the WMF get the most simple things wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I just recently told Jimbo I think their response to criticisms of the WMF is unhelpful, and in the process mentioned how widespread those criticisms are. And here's another page I watch with more criticisms.

Also, your design philosophy is right up my alley. I concur wholeheartedly with your statement above, and not just about diff pages. I've noticed a large number of inefficiencies in the mediawiki platform. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Be sure to watchlist User:Guy Macon/Proposals. I am still in the preliminary stages, but that will be the central place for any improvement I will be proposing. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Done, and thanks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Your edit summary and comment "I will now return you to the usual apologists"

Guy, you've been around long enough to know better than that. Doug Weller talk 15:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

You are right. I let my frustration show through, and that was wrong. Sorry about that. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

See [39]. I just unwatched the page. I stand by my assertion that NPOV is being violated, but I am withdrawing from attempting to address the problem as a lost cause. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

WMF response to Wikimedia referrer policy RfC

Hey Guy. In case you didn't see it, the WMF has posted a response at Wikipedia talk:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The advisory RfC

Guy, let met start out by saying I think you undertook an enormous amount of effort on something having little to do with you to produce something positive for the project. I sincerely applaud your efforts. It's very magnanimous of you to do so. None of what I'm about to say is any comment on you in any respect.

In its stated purpose of advising ArbCom, the RfC's outcome I think is something other than anyone expected.

From a straight we-should-go-this-way perspective, the RfC has failed. It does nothing to inform on that issue. There are only two proposals that have achieved more than 50% support, and those only barely so. #4 has 57% support and 2a has 61.9% support. I'll come back to that 61.9% figure. Consensus isn't a number. But, the numbers can inform as to how divided a pool of participants is. Looking deeper into this division we can see problems. For example; one voter voted in opposition to 2a, saying 5 years had been long enough. The very next opposition vote opposed lifting the ban at all; those two positions are 180 degrees opposite of each other, yet both oppose 2a. Then, we have several votes that are second choices. Are they really supporting? Hard to know; they might shift their opinions given the presence of only 2a as an option. We don't know. If we discount their support, we get to the 61.9% figure. If we don't discount, and we claim 2:1 support for this measure, there's going to be massive controversy over it. 2a _seems_ have support, but the reality is otherwise.

This gets even more convoluted when we compare this 2a proposal against the results with proposal 4. We can't say we support 2a and we support 4. They are opposite to each other's intent.

The only other proposal relative to Δ is 7, but as you said in your opposition to that proposal, Δ's already done that, and ArbCom was supposed to take action in regards to it (and apparently hasn't). So, Δ could do it again, but we'd be back at the same square we are on now.

The net outcome of all this is the RfC has effectively failed to produce any coherent direction that ArbCom can look to which the community supports. What it has done an unintended job of doing is showing how divided the community is, and how dramatically muddy the picture has become. It's become a gordian knot problem.

ArbCom's solution to gordian knot problems is to go after (read; dispense with) that which is central to the dispute, whether the editor who is central to that dispute has done any wrong or not. Very frequently they ignore the problematic behavior of several (if not dozens in some cases) editors involved in the dispute. This is why we end up with cases titled after a specific editor, and why we always pass sanctions against that specific editor and rarely do so against anyone else involved in a dispute. ArbCom's general take on this will be (1) there's a dispute, (2) Δ is central to that dispute, (3) maintain the status quo of banning Δ from the project. There. Problem "solved".

If there is to be a way forward, there has to be an RfC that is strictly regulated, and not disrupted. It needs to have very specific questions such as you would see on a ballot at a polling booth. For example, it might start with:

Should Δ's ban be removed?

- Indicate support if Δ's ban should be removed, with or without restrictions
  1. Support --User:John Doe
- Indicate oppose if Δ's ban should not be removed regardless of restrictions
  1. Oppose --User:John Doe

If there is sufficient support to move forward, then a subsequent set of questions might address what type of restrictions should be used. For eaxmple;

Should Δ be restricted to one account?
Should Δ be topic banned from NFC?
Should Δ be banned from using semi-automated tools?
Should Δ be banned from using bots?

Etc. Etc. My thoughts here are that the RfC as currently crafted can never show a direction because it's too open ended. Either we support the notion of Δ being unbanned (the elements of restrictions or not come later) or we don't. If there's support, for a possible unban, then we can start trying to untie the gordian knot of what elements of the unban have to be in place for the community to support it. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

There is a lot of wisdom in what you say. If somebody else (perhaps you?) were to propose such an RfC, I would be happy to withdraw mine simultaneously with the new one being posted. My only condition would be retaining the part about non-binding and advisory. I am reluctant to post such a replacement RfC myself, because I am already under heavy attack, being called an asshole, accused of bad faith, having my comments edited, and being tag teamed by one Betacommand enemy who considers any correction caused by me learning new aspects of the case to be a personal affront and another who considers any lack of correction (even "correcting" things I never wrote) to be a personal affront. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I've long held that certain people need to be interaction banned in so far as Δ is concerned (I don't wish to name names, as that is not the point here). Some of them are involved in the RfC discussion. It is effectively impossible to have a reasoned, rational debate regarding Δ due to the presence of these individuals who get extremely agitated on the subject of Δ. Starting another RfC, even if structured as I suggested, will fail because of a few reasons; (1) the presence of the aforementioned people, (2) the willingness of the community to turn this on its ear and attack the person who started it (as you've been direct witness to) and (3) no controls over the RfC when (when...not if) it goes pretzel shaped and needs the presence of clerks to manage. On a personal note, I have been direct witness to this as well. Have a look at this mess. I don't believe that a community run process can properly managed this. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I just read that entire thread. Quite depressing. It is sad to see some good-faith editors trying to figure out what the right thing to do is while others are throwing stink bombs and lighting dumpster fires. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

COI Requests

Hi Guy Macon. I was wondering if you had the time to do one or two COI reviews. One of them is three distinct issues I raised with some recent edits made on a controversial issue regarding America's relationship with a Russia-based IT security company.

The other involves a shared draft on an IT security company that would better balance the article and bring it up to GA standards. (it's possible Bilby will respond to this on, as he was involved on the Talk page some years ago and I pinged him)

CorporateM (Talk) 18:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I started on the first. Will try to get to the second later today. --Guy Macon (talk)

Hi Guy. Just wanted to check-in and see if you were still planning on working on these. No worries if you are too busy; just didn't want to ping someone else if you were still planning on taking a look. CorporateM (Talk) 18:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

If you have time

Hi Guy Macon. If you have a few minutes, I was hoping you might be willing to take a look at a few places where I have made COI requests/questions:

Broken links question[40]
BLP issuesdiscussion (I've done some digging on this since. These edits are likely motivated by a political thing with him and Hillary a while back.
A second draft after incorporating some feedbackdraft A couple editors have commented previously and may or may not also jump in.

Of course, you may be pre-occupied on Wikipedia elsewhere, but thanks in advance if you do spend the time to review. Best regards. CorporateM (Talk) 19:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

"Would you mind showing me evidence of any negative thing any sea lion has ever done to you?"

Click on this link first: http://wondermark.com/1k62/

Click on this link second: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMDtibc13fc

--Guy Macon (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

That first link reminds me quite a bit of an editor I encountered soon after I registered here... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Timeline

Thanks for posting that timeline on Jimbo talk.

There is something else that is not mentioned in it, that happened between these two events:

January 29, 2016 Lila Tretikov with the statement that the grant paperwork could not be released due to “donor privacy”
February 11, 2016: Juliet Barbara, Senior Communications Manager, publishes the PDF of the September 18 Knowledge Engine grant approval document publicly on the Wikimedia Foundation wiki.

It's that the Signpost inquired with the Knight Foundation whether the Knight Foundation would have any objection to the WMF's grant application being published, along with the Knight Foundation's letter confirming the grant. (That inquiry is briefly mentioned in the opening paragraph of Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-10/Special_report.)

The Knight Foundation responded that their default is openness and that they generally leave the decision whether and how to release the grant paperwork entirely to the grantee – although the parties would of course need to check with each other before releasing joint documents, just out of courtesy.

The Knight Foundation told us they communicated with the WMF on Feb. 11, and that the WMF then responded by publishing the document immediately.

Hope that helps.

Cheers, --Andreas JN 466 18:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I just updated the timeline. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Cool. Also note this edit, which includes the statement that publishing the paperwork without advance agreement from the donor "breaks donor privacy". As an editor and commenter on that page, he could hardly have been unaware of that being the official reason given by the WMF Executive Director for not publishing the grant paperwork. But this doesn't fit with the Knight Foundation's assertions that there was no objection to publication on their part, that their default is openness, and that the decision whether or not to publish is generally left to the grantee.

If the Knight Foundation really didn't have any objection to publication at any time, one is left wondering why this robust response wasn't followed by publication of the grant agreement a month earlier, and why instead he appeared to approve of, rather than challenge, the Executive Director's "donor privacy" explanation.

Clearly, something (or someone) prevented publication of the paperwork before February 11. It's never been explained who or what that was. I can only think of two possibilities. One is that the Knight Foundation, contrary to their assertion to the Signpost in February, did object to publication at that earlier time. The other is that the ED and the board desperately wanted to avoid publishing the paperwork, and put out the donor privacy statement as a smokescreen. The fact that the Knight Foundation had openly publicised the grant as starting on September 1, while the WMF kept it under wraps until the January announcement, would seem to make the latter more likely. Cheers, --Andreas JN 466 21:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

In reference to a RFC....

When you wrote at WP:AN asking the closers to explicitly write out --....a thoughtful joint statement regarding whether Wikipedia or the WMF controls Wikipedia content; I had reservations on whether it would be an over-reach for the closers!
But proceedings like this resulting in execution of something in direct contraventions of an RFC---has compelled me to believe the utter necessity of your sought opinion on the matter!(Apparently these guys aside from coding, have vested upon themselves the magic wand that has a mandatory necessity of zero experience on en-wiki to do all these f***ing businesses.)And there are always some guys in support of them! Winged Blades^Godric 11:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The cancer is in remission!

Hi Guy. You'll be happy to hear that the projected Total Annual Operating Expenses for the WMF for FY 2016-17 are $63,000,000,[41] which is almost $3,000,000 less than the Total Annual Operating Expenses for 2015-16.[42] Of course we won't know the actual final numbers for another month or so, but hopefully they will be somewhere in that ballpark. Kaldari (talk) 04:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Great news! --Guy Macon (talk) 06:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposing projects for Community Tech

DannyH (WMF), I have something that I would like you to think about when you get a bit of time.

How about a help page where editors like myself can go to find a step-by-step explanation about how best to make a technical proposal and have someone on the Community Tech team spend, say, five minutes evaluating it and putting it on a page where such proposals are to be discussed?

The reason I bring this up is because I was feeling very discouraged when I saw the call soliciting proposals for a community wishlist, put a fair amount of effort drafting up a proposal (see meta:2015 Community Wishlist Survey/Archive#Start a project -- a real project with measurable goals and a schedule -- to reduce page weight), submitted it in the place where the instructions said to submit such things, and then didn't see it on the list of proposals that we were supposed to vote on. I don't expect the WMF to automatically accept and implement my suggestions, but you could have offered a bit of help. You could have said that you are putting a developer on it, total effort not to exceed four hours, to make a couple of test pages with and without my suggested changes and measure the page weight. Or at the very least you could have told me that it was now on list X and that there are Y suggestions from other Wikipedia editors that are in line that need to be evaluated first.

BTW, I made a tactical error when I made that proposal. I assumed that the reason why it was being ignored was because it was too expensive, and so I stupidly pared it down to one small change that could be evaluated using no more than an hour or so of the developer's time so we could see if my idea was good or bad. That small change was rejected as well. I should have stuck with my original proposal. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I'm sorry we didn't do a better job of explaining why that proposal was rejected. The reason is because your request was explicitly outside of the scope of the Community Tech team. As it says at meta:Community Tech#Scope: "Tasks that are not in scope include... improving site performance." The WMF has a dedicated Performance team that works on site performance and actually did a lot of work on reducing page weight and page load times last year, in part due to community requests such as yours. Kaldari (talk) 07:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Guy Macon, is it okay if we move this to another page -- either on Meta or one of our user talk pages? I'm glad you asked the question, and I'm happy to talk to you about it, but it's not relevant to the other NPP conversations.

But, actual response: our team made some mistakes in our first year, while we were trying to figure out how Community Tech would actually work. We first set up a Community Tech/Project ideas page, which was originally just supposed to be a brainstorming list for the team, but people started posting ideas and having discussions, and we thought, okay, let's see what happens. A few months in, we learned about the German Wikimedia chapter's Technical Wishes Survey, and that was a much clearer and fairer way to propose ideas, and measure community enthusiasm for each idea. So we ran the 2015 Community Wishlist Survey, modeled on the Wikimedia DE's survey, and people participated, and we built stuff.

But -- we didn't know how to transition from the "Project ideas" page, which was sort of happening on its own, and the Community Wishlist Survey. We didn't really know how the interaction between our team and the community was going to feel, and we did what I now recognize as an unbelievably clumsy thing -- we just posted a notice at the top of the Project ideas page that it was being deprecated, and encouraged people to submit their ideas to the Survey page instead. Then we moved all the content from Project ideas to an archive page.

Now that we've done this a couple times, it's obvious that wasn't the right way to handle it. We should have talked to each person that posted on Project ideas, and helped them transfer their ideas into the Wishlist Survey format. When we ran the 2016 Survey last November, we were much more clear about how to submit proposals, and when there was a proposal that didn't fit the rules that we'd set, we worked with each person to either improve their proposal, or explain why we were archiving it. We figured that out in 2016 because we learned from the mess we made in 2015.

So -- I'm sorry we screwed that up. It's totally disappointing and frustrating to have a whole discussion on that Project ideas page, and just have it archived with no explanation. That wasted your time. On the up side, if you've got an idea that you want to propose for the 2017 Survey in November, we've gotten a lot better at this. :) -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

DannyH (WMF), the Community Wish list was a good idea and contrary to what some might have believed, I never inferred it wasn't. My harsh criticism over it was that blatantly obvious, serious issues concerning essential software were being given low (or no) priority and relegated to the wish list as non-urgent / non-essential gadgets. The type of crowdsourcing facilitated by this kind of wish list is an important way not only of obtaining ideas that the devs and WMF might not have thought of, but also in making the community feel it is part of the development process - approaching the German industrial model I mentioned earlier. But I think we're getting off-topic now for this talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)`

DannyH (WMF), I have no problem with the move to my talk page.

I still think we need a central help page so that engineers such as myself who are not paid WMF staff can make suggestions, offer to help, etc. As I said, it is really discouraging when you put in a fair amount of effort making a proposal and the reaction is indistinguishable from being ignored. All the worse if you find out years later that someone at the WMF is working on the issue you raised, but nobody told you or gave you a link to a place where you can see what progress has been made.

So, to avoid the exact thing happening with the suggestion I just made, please indicate with an [X] one of the following answers:

[ ] The WMF has decided not to create the help page you describe.

[ ] I am the wrong person to ask about the help page. The correct person is staffer X, who has been informed of this conversation.

[ ] The WMF has decided not create the help page you describe. It has been assigned to staffer X, and you will get an update here when it is done.

[ ] Is existing help page X what you were looking for? Can it be modified to be more suitable?

[ ] We have the following questions about your suggestion; [List of questions].

[ ] Other: ______________________________________

Any answer, even a simple "fuck you, go away", would be vastly preferable to making a suggestion and getting no response. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's very frustrating when you've worked on something, and you just get ignored or brushed off -- after all, you're trying to help.

Phabricator is the closest thing that I know of to what you're asking for -- it's not a wiki page, but it's where developers working on WMF-related software communicate and do their work. You can create tickets to file bugs, or to propose suggestions. If you tag your suggestion with a particular team's workboard or a project workboard, people will (hopefully) respond.

I read the ticket that was created for your page weight suggestion -- phab:T105136 -- and I see that you did finally get an answer from Krinkle last month. That's quite a long time since you first posed the question, but it looks to me like GWicke and Whatamidoing also tried to help you with your questions, and Quiddity created a page on mediawiki.org about Browser load and JavaScript research. Were you able to reach out to him?

Sorry if I'm sort of bumbling around in this answer; I'm trying to figure out if that's the situation you want to talk about, or if I'm missing something. Can you tell me more about what you're looking for? -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 05:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I am looking for a help page where editors like myself can go to find a step-by-step explanation about how best to make a technical proposal and have someone at the WMF spend, say, five minutes evaluating it. I want instructions so that the suggestion eventually gets evaluated by someone in the WMF management chain who has the authority to make a decision and assign resources to get it done (or to reject the idea -- some suggestions need to be rejected - and tell that to the proposer.)

If Phabricator is the only way for a suggestion to reach the WMF and be decided on, then the help page should explicitly say that. If there is same magic method for reaching the managers who make the decisions using Phabricator, that method needs to be detailed on the help page. Right now it really looks like putting something on Phabricator reaches the developers.

Wikipedia:Phabricator redirects to Wikipedia:Bug reports and feature requests and the link to submit a task is labled "How to report a bug".

I have been involved in software and hardware development for many years, and I know the difference between reporting a bug to the developers and submitting a suggestion for a project to management so that, if approved, developers and a budget are assigned to it. I want to see a help page explaining how to do the later.

I suspect that part of the problem is that the Wikimedia foundation simply does not have a method for an engineer who isn't a paid staff member to submit a suggestion for a project to WMF management so that, if approved, developers and a budget are assigned to it. This may be a problem that someone at the WMF needs to solve before they can fulfill my request for a help page. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I've also been involved in software development for many years, and I don't believe that I've ever seen a system like the one that you're describing. Management doesn't usually have an open suggestion box that comes with an SLA; that's usually the responsibility of people lower in the organizational structure. The Foundation creates an annual plan each year, which determines which projects get funding and staff. Those are important decisions that don't change overnight.

That's not to say it's impossible for you to reach out to anyone in the organization that you want to talk to -- you can find the user names for most staff members on the staff page, and leave messages on their user talk pages, or just send an email. I'll ping Quiddity from the Technical Collaboration team; maybe he has better information or suggestions thatn I do. :) -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 06:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thus the word "eventually". I expect lower-level employees to prescreen such suggestions, especially if you get a lot of them.

If there is no method where editors like myself can make a technical proposal so that the suggestion eventually gets evaluated by someone in WMF management who has the authority to make a decision. May we please have a help page saying that? I keep asking about a help page, but I never get a "yes", "No", "Maybe later, we are thinking about it" or anything similar.

Unless I hear otherwise, I am going to assume that the answer is "No. Nobody who works for me is going to create such a help page. You will have to ask elsewhere". --Guy Macon (talk) 07:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. Nobody on my team will create that help page. I think the appropriate department is Technical Collaboration, and User:Quiddity (WMF) is a good person to talk to. I've pinged him here, or you can reach out directly. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Guy, You're on the right path, sorry it hasn't been very clear.

Wikipedia:Bug reports and feature requests is the right place to start. Engineers and everyone else are welcomed to submit bugs and feature requests through Phabricator tasks. The best way to get it in front of folks it twofold. One, follow the best practices linked from that page on how to report a bug.

Two, while Phabricator tasks are reviewed by staff, volunteers, along with our bug wrangler, tagging a task helps to get it in front of the right team (and thereby decision makers). MediaWiki.org has a little more on what tags exist. Department/team pages on MediaWiki.org also often have the appropriate tag listed. For example, see Discovery's page for their tag (#discovery)

For an example of what happens next, I regularly work with Deb, the Product Manager for Discovery. Once every week the team has a short meeting where we go through newly added tasks to the Discovery tag. If we have clarifying questions a team member will add them to the task. Phabricator will send notifications to folks subscribe to the task as updates are made.

As you may know work is prioritized around annual plans and then tracked in quarterly goals. Related specifically to your concerns around performance you can see the team's goals for the coming fiscal year.

You can imagine the diversity of tasks extend from the simple, "a few hours to fix/implement" to "It is going to take a substantial amount of work, we need to plan for this.".

Talking to Quiddity we noticed that the Wikipedia:Bug reports and feature requests page leaned very heavily on the "bug" side of things. He just took a quick pass to make it more clear that this process is for bugs and feature request equally. He also made it a little more clear the importance of tags and setting priorities on tasks.

I hope that helps point out the process. Happy to help clarify. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Not collecting stamps again

Hi Guy Macon. Given some of your recent comments at the Village Pump, I wonder if you'd like to take a look at the lead sentence of Islam in Europe. If you're busy or otherwise disinclined, I'll get to it eventually. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 21:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Electronic Harassment

Have you considered that the the NSA or FBI may have done some sort of homeopathic attenuation on the electronic signals? Is it possible that the 12X (that is, 10^12) attenuation makes the signal have one-trillionth (short scale) of the detectable strength, but one trillion (short scale) the harassing power of the original signal? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe a single-atom-thick tinfoil is the proper homeopathic defense then. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hacker News

[43] In case you hadn't seen that. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

TTR and DTTR

Hello. The Betacommand RFC has enough arguments already, so I figured I'd stop by your talk page for this one. (Disclaimer: While I voted against your proposal, I don't think the RfC was in bad faith or anything, and think you should be able to say whatever you dang well want in the intro. This is hopefully unrelated to the argument you have there with Beyond My Ken.)

Also the arguments at WP:TTR are much stronger and more compelling than the arguments at WP:DTTR. I have never seen anyone who compared the two essays come to the opposite conclusion -- other than disruptive editors who don't like getting user warnings when they misbehave. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm someone come to the opposite conclusion (who isn't trying to be disruptive). TTR is unconvincing, DTTR is correct for a multitude of reasons.

I think a good analogy is the policy against "cooling off" period blocks, which are extremely discouraged by policy now after being used a little in Wikipedia's early days. Even if a proponent of such blocks wouldn't be offended by being blocked themselves for a 24-hour period, the objective fact is that some people are enraged by such a block, and it only makes things worse. It doesn't matter if "you" think it's fine and no big deal; others do, and you need to take that into account.

In the same way, I personally find it an utterly grievous insult to be templated. It's especially worse when it's an "unmerited" templating which by definition will happen at least *some* of the time from people who think that placing the templated warning is perfectly reasonable. How many people are the same? Who knows. But even if it's a "low" amount - say 20% of active editors - something that enrages 20% of the user base and makes their Wikipedia experience more negative is something that sounds really bad for editor retention and that should be avoided. The benefit from... I dunno, a firm commitment to equal treatment for all editors... doesn't seem to match up to the loss.

I have no idea if this is at all convincing to you to change your mind, but I hope that even if not, you respect that there exist non-disruptive editors who firmly support DTTR as the correct policy to have. SnowFire (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe all of the templates need to be rephrased to be a little less threatening. Or maybe a "level 0" set, phrased for regulars, would help. The wording of the templates I commonly use isn't really suitable for regulars, yet it's often the case that what needs to be said could be supplied by "boilerplate". Jeh (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, first to state the obvious; neither TTR nor DTTR are policies. They're opinion pieces, and nothing more. That doesn't make them invalid by default of course. When people are noting DTTR, it's usually as above; it enrages people to be templated. Ok, fine, let's accept that as true for the sake of discussion. Do we have any evidence that not templating the regulars and giving them a handcrafted message instead reduces rage? I don't think so...we just have (once again) opinion. We don't know. For my part, I use templates regardless because I know that the templates have gone through a vetting process to make sure the language is correct and cites the relevant policies. I'd rather not get wording wrong when I know I have a resource the community has approved that doesn't have it wrong. Further, if someone is so easy to be enraged by receiving a template for something they shouldn't have been doing and new better, they need to be looking in the mirror; that is the source of their anger, not the template. Lastly, there's an enormous body of policy and guideline here. I frequently (and I do mean frequently) encounter people who've been here for years and have absolutely zero clue about certain policies and guidelines. To presume that someone with an unspecified amount of experience and time here is knowledgeable about all policies and guidelines is quite the presumption. I've been here many years and I'm still running into things. What experience should bring is the understanding that you don't know everything, and if you encounter something new you need to investigate. In that context, if I did something wrong, I most definitely would want to get a template to help educate me correctly. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

(Smile) Well gosh darn it! Now I am not going to be able to say "I have never seen anyone who compared the two essays come to the opposite conclusion"! (smile). Unless.... (cough) If we change SnowFire's mind I can still say it. Whatayasay, old buddy old pal? There could be a 20% raise from your current salary of $0 it it for you... :)

Seriously, though, it is a bit annoying the way WP:DTTR is used in practice. 99% of the time it is used as if it was a policy, to beat someone over the head for doing something that the actual policies allow. Even Snowfire in his comment above implied it with "there exist non-disruptive editors who firmly support DTTR as the correct policy to have" (emphasis added).

In fact I am tempted to add a disclaimer at the top of that essay starting with "if you are reading this because someone posted a link to DTTR as if it were a Wikipedia policy..."

I really like the idea of a level 0 set for regulars. Too often I am faced with three bad choices:

Use a template that says "welcome to Wikipedia" on someone who has been here for years.
Use a higher level template that is harsher and less friendly than I want it to be
Hand-craft a message, wasting my time for the dubious advantage of being blasted for whatever wording I chose.

That last bit is important; I strongly believe that someone who is willing to fire up the old flamethrower over a template is extremely unlikely to refrain just because the warning was handcrafted. In fact, I often get the feeling that what enrages them about the template is that they are unable to pick it apart like they would with any sort of handcrafted warning. a level 0 set would give me a less-bad choice. Who here is a good wordsmith/diplomat who can write up some really good language for this? User:MjolnirPants? User:Robert McClenon? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

How about "hey you have obviously been around WP, and I know you are a DTTR person, so I am giving you this less-formal notice to ask you to... use the talk page instead of reverting/not insult people/not add unsourced content to WP/______ at the fill in page." Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I am willing to try to work on a project to rework the existing messages, as long as it isn't taken that I think that DTTR is a good idea. I don't. I think that DTTR is a terrible essay, implying that the regulars are "special" or "better" than run-of-the-mill editors. I have wondered whether DTTR was largely advocated by a subset of editors known as "excellent content creators" who are excellent content creators, but some of whom are known to be rude and dismissive of newcomers and to exercise article ownership, and who don't like being warned. If the level-1 templates are wrong, then they are wrong for all editors, not just for the regulars; and I have seen regulars who needed to be given regular edit-warring warnings, or even to be given level-2 or level-3 warnings. Just because an editor is regular doesn't mean that they aren't having a bad day. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, my main goal was to reduce the hyperbole in claims of the essays' relative support by 20%, so I think I said my piece on that.

Also since people jumped on it, okay, "policy" is an overloaded word. DTTR is the correct "policy" in the vanilla English sense of "system for how people approach problems" not in the Wikipedia sense of "formal policy," IMO.

A lot of your & Hammersoft's comments are about how disruptive editors are wrong and need to be smacked down by righteous talk page justice. Well, maybe. The point of DTTR is, however, that EVEN WHEN you are totally right and the other person is totally wrong, the backlash from templating means that it is better for Wikipedia to not use a template. Some of them might be jerks and wrong anyway. But using a template is only going to make a bad situation worse. It's possible they'd have reached for their flamethrower, but why would you want to intentionally increase the temperature of it? I think that handcrafting a message - even a short, terse one along the lines of "please read WP:RELEVANTPOLICY, it says that your action is not permitted" - will get you a *better* response, even if it still won't always be one you want. Call that a "level 0" template - look at the template you were going to use, and just steal the policy links, and paste 'em in. "You've been around, please double-check these policies, they're why I reverted you."

I'm going to call out one of Hammersoft's lines though for special treatment, because it's something I personally find frustrating.

"Do we have any evidence that not templating the regulars and giving them a handcrafted message instead reduces rage? I don't think so...we just have (once again) opinion."

Well, no, you have something more than that. I'm *telling* you that this is true. You can argue that people who think like me are stupid and wrong, or that they're very rare, but you can't claim you know their feelings better than them themselves. (Example: A: "You're not having fun." B: "Yes I am." A: "No you're not." Who is right, A or B? There IS a correct answer, not "it's just an opinion.") This kind of stance is very frustrating because it denies people their own agency. (And if I need "evidence" or proof of this, I'll offer that I stopped reporting vandals to AIV after I got template'd for not having jumped through all the proper warning hoops... despite there being an explicit exception for bot-powered fast vandalism of multiple articles in short succession, which is what I was reporting. If *I* get reported for doing this, why should I bother? Screw this. And that was even a happy case where everyone agreed afterward it was a good report and I shouldn't have been templated; the damage was done.) SnowFire (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

So your position is that if someone says something is true then it must be true? That it isn't possible for them to claim that templates enrages them but handcrafted messages make them feel warm and fuzzy when in reality any warning enrages them no matter what the form? Interesting theory.

In your case it sure sounds like you had a problem with being warned when you didn't do anything wrong, not the format the warning came in. Even if you swear up and down that you really enjoy being warned when you didn't do anything wrong if only the warning is formatted a certain way, I would have to see an example or two, because humans (myself included) are pretty good at self deception regarding what they would have done in a situation that never occurred. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's kind of exactly why I dropped the message off when I was only tangentially involved in your dispute. Coming from someone you're currently in a flame war with? Hard to tell, some people seize on any excuse to quibble with a warning. Coming from someone you are *not* in a current dispute with? I'm not sure why you'd think people would lie. So yes, that's what I'm telling you: there exist some people for whom a template enrages them and causes them to ignore what you had to say, and a handcrafted message causes them to read it, check the policy, and either politely continue to disagree or maybe even change their ways slightly. (Myself included, perhaps.) Maybe it won't always qualify as warm & fuzzy, but it will be better, and that's what's important.

As for my case, I had a problem with the format. Being a Proper Rational Human, I can tell myself that it shouldn't matter, but it totally did. It was a signifier that the person dropping the warning didn't really check the case closely and was being lazy via some automated-response script. If the person had wrote just a single short sentence - "I haven't banned the user yet because you need to apply uw-warn-vandalism-4 first, sorry, WP:SOMEPOLICY, ping me after you have or if you think I missed something" - then I'd have been capable of having a conversation, I can see their reasoning, I know that they missed something and what, there's a path to proceed forward. A faceless template that recites to me the same procedure I already damn well checked? Ugh. I would imagine I would be even less receptive if I already had a personal dispute with the person and they templated me rather than just directly said their case and firmly asked me to stop. SnowFire (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

OK. I can see where you are coming from. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@SnowFire: I wasn't suggesting it wasn't true for you. I was speaking in the abstract. Looking at the entire population of editors here, we have no way of knowing if templating a regular is less likely to induce rage than a handcrafted message or if it is the other way around. I grant it angers you. That's fine, and I don't mean to state that makes you wrong. Let he who is without anger cast the first stone. We all get upset from time to time. My anger is no more valid than yours, or vice versa. But again, this isn't the point. From the abstract view, we have no way of knowing. It's a situation where you can't make everyone happy. For my part, I try to take the pathway that I think is least likely to cause a negative reaction. But, in the end, it's a guess. We don't know how the recipient will react. So, in that respect, both TTR and DTTR are both very valid opinions. Knowing beforehand where each is appropriate with reasonable certainty is nearly an exercise in futility. With you, I now know that templating you is not the right course. I know that because of this conversation. If we had not had it, I would not know that. Now I do know, and at anytime in the future if I find cause to template you I know not to do so. But, if I never had encountered you before, I wouldn't know. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has cancer

Over that articleWikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-02-27/Op-ed i would like to personally tell you that i think the WMF shouldn't spend more than 16 million USD annually. Why? well, we all know that 3 million go on to the servers and colocation services. They have 300 staff, say everyone has a 1000 USD Per month salary. That makes for 3.3 million USD annualy in staffing costs. Now it's 6.6 million USD annually, and everything else goes to the bank. Now im saying 16 million because they have to pay for office spaces and other misc costs, not to mention they like to help others. My point is that the WMF should spend 4 or 5 times less money than they actually do because, as you said, it's like a cancer, and nothing can go on forever. Pancho507 (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I of course agree. BTW, the Signpost Op-Ed is out of date. The current version is at WP:CANCER. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Re:It's almost like if nobody has done the math... Say the servers have a fixed running cost of $4m a year. With reserves on the order of $90m, the WMF could run "barebones", being able to run the servers for 20 years straightwithout requiring crowdfunding.Pancho507 (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Federated Wiki maturity?

Looking through [44] how far would you say Federated Wikis are from going into production on large projects? SciHaus (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

It isn't abandoned -- the last change was Dec 22, 2017 -- but I have no idea how much progress is being made. I would expect the Smallest Federated Wiki to be 100% complete before they start working on a federated wiki for larger projects.

For those reading along at home who don't know what we are talking about, read [ https://www.wired.com/2012/07/wiki-inventor/ ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Want to help with a silly project?

The "conversions" section of User:Guy Macon/On the Diameter of the Sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house could use expanding. See List of unusual units of measurement for ideas. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

"Edit war"

Hello dude. I wrote to Wtshymanski talk page, but he did not answer, just deleted my question, and I tried, maybe he write a meaningful answer to my question, without cause, withdraws my edits, and you,gives him the truth. I think in the English Wikipedia I stop my activities, as there are "strange" editors. As U. Tivadar Puskás, Hungarian inventor, what was the problem and the justification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by InterCity(IC) (talk • contribs) 20:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

(This concerns this edit:[45])

Per WP:TPOC Wtshymanski is allowed to delete anything he chooses from his own talk page, and is not required to respond to you in any way. You are required to follow our policy at WP:EW.

Please discuss whatever content dispute you have concerning a particular article on that article's talk page. I will not address the content dispute here; this is the wrong place for it. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Adding my links back to the QB64 page

I posted this same message on my talk page, and I figure I would post it here.

Guy Macon, Please explain to me how my links are inappropriate for this web page (qb64). I have been part of the QB64 community since 2011, and I started The QB64 Edition long before QB64.org came into the picture. If there are any external links that should not be on this page it is "Black Annex is the best QBASIC game you've ever seen - an indie video game compiled in QB64 (incorrectly stated to be QBASIC game in the article)". The QB64 Edition (located at qb64.thejoyfulprogrammer.com) is primarily about sharing various projects created in QB64, and to socialize with other QB64 programmers. It was created in 2014 when QB64.net (the official web site of QB64) went down for two weeks and we didn't know when it would be back up.

In my point of view, the links to my QB64 programming forum is just as viable and legit as QB64.org (another official QB64 partner site), and far more valuable then the "Black Annex" link. I feel that the "Black Annex" link should be removed and mine put back in.

If my links (in the external link section and in the infobox) are inappropriate, then I would appreciate a good reason as to why that is, and what makes the other links appropriate.

--Waltersmind (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

(This concerns this edit:[46].)

You are correct about the black annex link. I have removed it as spam.[47]

Before I spend a lot of time explaining why you shouldn't add links to your own work to Wikipedia, please read the following pages: Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations, and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Once you have read understand our policies, I will be happy to discuss with you how to add links to your own work to Wikipedia without violating our policies. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I read your essay

...on One against many and almost have it memorized, (ok-that was an exaggeration). I found it very good and was just what I needed to read. Thank you for the time you put into creating it. I do want more advice from you because I couldn't find it in the essay. In a number of articles that I create, content is changed, reverted, deleted and so on. I'm okay with that because lots of times the article is improved. One common interaction that I have is when the content I have added/created is analyzed and instructions are given to me (not suggested!) on what is wrong or what needs to improved. The editor making the comments states that something is missing and needs to be included-yet the missing content actually exists in the article. I want to be 'nice', amicable, consensus-driven and not insult anyone. BTW-this has nothing to do with what I am working on at the moment. I've purposefully put off questions like this for months so that a specific editing issue that I have can not be linked to this message on your talk page. If I correct the other editor with diffs and other such documentation I feel more confrontational than what I would like. I have also noted that this other editor reacts in a way that suggests that they are insulted. They are highly respected, and prolific. What are some options, in your opinion. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 22:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

(The essay in question is at WP:1AM.)

This can be a real problem. Some editors are really good at creating content but really bad at getting along with others. Or it could be that you are simply wrong -- I can't tell without examining the edits in question. What I do in such situations is to start a new thread on the article talk page that doesn't in any way mention the other editor -- just the content. I try to phrase it as a question, not an assertion. Something like "I have a question. The article currently says 'the moon is made of green cheese' but To a Rocky Moon: A Geologist's History of Lunar Exploration, by D.E. Wilhelms says it is made of rocks/minerals. Which is correct?" --Guy Macon (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Wensleydale -Roxy, the dog. barcus 22:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The new 1000 byte edit summary limit

My input: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposed alternative solution. --Guy Macon (talk)

... and now I know the latin for Vcard! -Roxy, the dog. barcus 08:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

.....cool! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

help desk

hi, I noticed you answer questions at the help desk as well, I post there yesterday[48] but haven't gotten any response, can you help? thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#WikiProject Medicine/Stats/Top medical editors

BTW, you will get better results if you give your questions a descriptive title so that people reading the table of contents can tell what question you are asking. A lot of editors will not bother reading something titled "hi". --Guy Macon (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

your right, thank you for posting at [49]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

NextThing Store

Are you able to access the store?

The store used to be here: http://getchip.com/pages/store but I cannot access this link any more, it used to be present as a link on all pages of http://getchip.com but it vanished from most pages. Only on the forum page the link persists.

I never claimed that getchip.com is defunct, only the store.

Please revert your deletion. Treutwein (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

You might also take a look at this thread on their forum Treutwein (talk) 09:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for my error regarding what you were saying was no longer accessible.

Anyone who reads the NextThing forums knows that NextThing has a reputation of taking months or years to ship an order and of ignoring emails and deleting posts regarding the problems. Alas statements like "As of March 2018, the store is unreachable and vanished from most of the menus on their web pages. Apparently Next Thing has finished their business" are Original Research and are not allowed on Wikipedia. You need to find a reliable secondary source per WP:V and WP:RS. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Need help finding citation for NAND gate in analog mode

See Talk:7400 series#Need help finding citation for NAND gate in analog mode Especially helpfull would be someone who speaks German. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Wondered...

...if you saw this link I posted in the JW discussion? The image at the top of your page fits well. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

(Reads entire article...) Fascinating! I fiound this bit especially interesting:

"When Dreger criticizes liberal politicization of science, she isn’t doing so from the seat of a trolling conservative. Well before she dove into some of the biggest controversies in science and activism, she earned her progressive bona fides."

My philosophy is that a good argument is a good argument and a bad argument is a bad argument, no matter who makes the argument. Here we have the assumption that only a liberal is worth listening to when criticizing liberals and that any criticism from the right should be ignored as "trolling". (Liberals criticizing conservatives is, of course, allowed).

The reality is that both sides have some thoughtful, well-reasoned arguments and both sides have some real idiots who are so clueless that if you dressed them in a clue skin, doused them in clue musk, and had them do the clue dance in the middle of a field of horny clues at the height of clue mating season, they still would not have a clue. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

We're in the Money

Hi Guy. Would you happen to know if this song is protected by copyright? I stumbled across an old Google discussion thread where someone calling himself, of all things, "Guy Macon" said this: "Works published from 1923 - 63: When published with notice (Under the 1909 Act, works published without notice went into the public domain upon publication. Works published without notice between 1-1-78 and 3-1-89, effective date of the Berne Convention Implementation Act, retained copyright only if, e.g., registration was made within five years. 17 U.S.C. § 405. The copyright term was 28 years + could be renewed for 47 years, now extended by 20 years for a total renewal of 67 years. If not so renewed, now in public domain. (Source: Tom Field / Lolly Gasaway. Last updated 11-5-98)" Any recollection of that at all? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure. It is from Lolly Gasaway of the University of North Carolina [ https://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm ] I no longer recommend that page as a source. Instead I recommend [ https://copyright.cornell.edu/publicdomain ] as being more complete and up to date. Make sure to read note 1.

We have a page on the song: The Gold Diggers' Song (We're in the Money)

The song was copyrighted in 1933 and Warner Bothers kept up with the renewals as they do with everything they own the copyright on, so it went into into the public domain 67 years after 1933, in the year 2000. That's the sheet music and the lyrics, not the audio recording or the movie.

But what about the sound recording? Looking at the Cornell page under "Sound Recordings Published in the United States" The original audio recordings of The Gold Diggers' Song (We're in the Money) pass into the public domain on on 15 Feb. 2067. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks, Guy. That's really useful. Phew! only another 49 years then. I assume the copyright for the audio recording also covers the music in any clip of the film itself (although the source of that clip (e.g. a DVD) might itself have a separate copyright? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes. The phrase "Audio Recording" includes a phonograph, CD, MP3, TV show or movie in the form of a DVD/Videotape/film, etc. A clip or an entire copy of Gold Diggers of 1933 would have a 1933 copyright, (but the clip may be under fair use) and so would any songs performed in it. The DVD might tell a lie and say otherwise, but any more recent copyright would only include newly created material such as the DVD menus, any commentaries or special features, and the cover art. Many DVDs do not make this clear.

BTW, here is a video that you are free to copy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4 (smile) --Guy Macon (talk) 12:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Guy. What an utterly charming and delightful video! Simply spiffing, I'd say. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC) (p.s. I have no intention of stealing your bicycle.)

Talkpage stalkers, I need your help!

Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market needs to be expanded. This topic is hot right now, and at User talk:Jimbo Wales, Jimbo wrote "I'm interested in bringing this to wide attention in the community [...] about an upcoming vote in the European Parliament which is very important". Please jump in an expand the article. I am offering double the usual pay... --Guy Macon (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Cory Doctorow just published (full disclosure: with a small amount of input from me) an analysis on the Electronic Frontier Foundation website:

The EU's Copyright Proposal is Extremely Bad News for Everyone, Even (Especially!) Wikipedia --Guy Macon (talk) 00:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Receiving stolen goods

I have stolen this without credit:

As of Wednesday, 27 November 2024, 23:06 (UTC), The English Wikipedia has 48,329,610 registered users, 121,836 active editors, and 851 administrators. Together we have made 1,255,193,053 edits, created 61,923,509 pages of all kinds and created 6,916,860 articles.

Should credit be given to anyone? :) --Timeshifter (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Everything I contribute to Wikipedia (along with everything else I post on the Internet) is licensed under the CC0 License. Basically you can treat it like the standard CC BY-SA 3.0 License but without any attribution requirement. So you are welcome to reuse anything I write anywhere without crediting me. In fact, you can even claim that what I write is your own work, with the risk of everyone mocking you when they find out. :)

For others who might read this, please note that you want to use this in your edit window:

<div>As of {{CURRENTDAYNAME}}, {{CURRENTDAY2}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}, {{CURRENTTIME}} (UTC), The English Wikipedia has {{NUMBEROF|USERS|en|N}} registered users, {{NUMBEROF|ACTIVEUSERS|en|N}} active editors, and {{NUMBEROF|ADMINS|en|N}} administrators. Together we have made {{NUMBEROF|EDITS|en|N}} edits, created {{NUMBEROF|PAGES|en|N}} pages of all kinds and created {{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|en|N}} articles.</div>

...which displays as...

As of Wednesday, 27 November 2024, 23:06 (UTC), The English Wikipedia has 48,329,610 registered users, 121,836 active editors, and 851 administrators. Together we have made 1,255,193,053 edits, created 61,923,509 pages of all kinds and created 6,916,860 articles.
(bold added).

...the difference being that my version gives the latest numbers the first time you see it and updates every time you refresh the page. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

TCP/IP

I know you have done a lot of low-level technical work. Has that involved TCP/IP? A discussion here (and at bottom of talk) needs people who understand the topic. Johnuniq (talk) 07:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Internet protocol suite#The reason for the confusion, and a suggested way forward --Guy Macon (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)