Guy Macon restated his restatement if his restated summarised restatement of why he is no longer contributing.

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats blecch!
Post Reply
User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Critic
Posts: 388
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 45 times

Guy Macon restated his restatement if his restated summarised restatement of why he is no longer contributing.

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Sun Aug 01, 2021 8:00 pm

This is getting funnier by the day, and sadder by the day. As in, you fucking sad bastard.

I shall post the entirety of the message that prompted Guy Macon to post what must be his fifth attempt to explain why he is sooooo unhappy......
Come Back?

Can you please come back. Younes Zarou (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
If you've never heard of Younes Zarou, that's understandable. He's only been on Wikipedia a week. Seriously.

I shall breeze past what that might mean, because the massive reply it prompted, is comedy gold.

So much so, I'm breaking it down, for comedy purposes.
Thank you for the kind words. 
:lol:
As I explained at User talk:Guy Macon/Archive 4#Quitting Wikipedia
Why is it hidden away? Shouldn't it be prominently displayed on your user pages to assist the hundreds of people who have been left dazed and confused by your absence from their watchlist? Or do you just want any excuse to keep banging on about it? Is it therapeutic or something? Or is it a self harm kind of thing?
a new rule (addressing someone by their username and avoiding all personal pronouns is forbidden) 
False statement is false. It doesn't become true if you just keep repeating it. But please do, the Daily Mail journalists and a whole host of other victims of the Wikipedia cult probably think it's fucking hilarious to see the Wikipedia Administrators refusing to warn or even block someone who is repeatedly telling a self serving lie, like we're all supposed to believe that's not normally seen as a serious offence. The benefits of being a celebrity editor, eh?

Are they refusing to block you because it would show that one of the chief drivers behind the Daily Mail ban is a lying piece of shit? Someone who happily lives in a fantasy world of made up bullshit, when it suits. They needn't wouldn't worry, I think getting blocked for being a transphobic troll has served the same purpose, no?
and I was blocked without warning for violating it. 
No you weren't. You were blocked for "intentionally mocking someone's gender, after a clear previous warning not to."
The blocking admin also called a troll and a liar
And? Perhaps you're imagining some fanciful version of Wikipedia where civility and respect was a thing. If that Wikipedia ever existed, it is long gone. It is now widely accepted that an Administrator can call you a troll and say you are being dishonest, if it is not just some random attack, if it was part of their official business and as long as he has properly accounted for why he holds those views. He has done.

You had your opportunity to dispute it, and it doesn't appear to have worked. The downsides of a hobby where everything comes down to consensus, allegedly. Sometimes Wikipedia is just not fair. Sometimes you feel like you've been screwed over by the Powers That Be. But you're unlikely to garner any sympathy, because you're the person who has done that to many people on Wikipedia, as the very epitome of a powerful editor, and have shown not one ounce of sympathy or remorse.
and accused me of deliberately causing offense
Well yes, that's why he blocked you. If you're not happy with his service, you know what the policy compliant way of going about that is. Not that I'm complaining about the way you're choosing to go about it instead, since it does rather show you are indeed a dirty little troll in almost everything you do. Someone who whines and complains and lies and generally tries to create an emotional response based on a false premise, rather than follow the rules and offer evidence for claims. Surprising, for someone who has themselves claimed, and as other known trolls who count you as a friend have claimed, is a very literal and rules obsessed person. Could it be that your whole Doh! I am such an autistic fuck, what am I like! routine, is itself, a big fat lie?
I honestly thought that avoiding all personal pronouns was a good way to avoid offense, based upon the advice at the Swarthmore College LGBTQ+ page[10] and several similar resources.
Good for you. I like a person who is proactive. But you have previously admitted to having a mental condition that impairs your understanding of social interactions, so why did you not think to run this approach past a neurotypical, for a sanity check? Especially given you had already been warned to watch your step when referring to this user. For I think everyone who is neurotypical can see your primary problem here, is convincing anyone that you honestly thought that "Fæ, please explain in Fæ's own words your understanding as to why Fæ was blocked. In particular, has Fæ's thinking on this changed since [User talk:Fæ/2020#Blocked]]?" wasn't pure trollery?
If I resume editing Wikipedia articles I believe that yet another new rule will be invented and I will be blocked for violating it.
This is what is known as a paranoid delusion.
I thought that I had a solution that would allow me to resume editing articles. That solution is:
Is this this good time to remind everyone that Guy Macon is not actually currently blocked. All this utterly deranged bullshit, this pantomime theatre of lunacy, is about what would make him end his VOLUNTARY exile from the asylum.
1. The admin who blocked me without warning agrees -- without in any way apologizing or admitting fault -- to step aside and let other admins deal with any disruptive behavior on my part.
Maybe it's your mental condition, but to a neurotypical, the obvious question is, why would he? You're still lying about what he did, or at least what he says he did (he blocked you after you ignored a warning). If he steps aside now, he would obviously be admitting that must have been an error. Where is the error? In the eyes of this Administrator, you have already been disruptive. It would be a dereliction of duty for him to ignore future instances. He has rightly said, and nobody is disputing it, if you do this again, you will receive and fully deserve, and indefinite block. The only reason I can think you want him to step aside, is you hope other Administrators will not be so diligent.
2. I post a request at WP:AN asking those other admins to ask me to stop if they think I am anywhere near offending someone over gender pronouns, and asking them to block me if I fail to stop on the first warning.
Why haven't you done this then? Is it because you have already been warned, and blocked? Just because you dispute this happened, doesn't mean any other Administrator is obliged to buy into your bullshit, and reset the clock back to what is the starting condition for a novice editor. As you never tire of telling anyone, you're a fifteen year veteran who has apparently done a lot of research and received copious feedback on the proper use of pronouns now, so why would ANYONE buy into this obvious bullshit that you still need to be warned before the blocks start raining down?
3. I agree to use the templates listed at template:them rather than trying to figure out myself how to avoid offending someone over gender pronouns.
Feel free to do this. If only because it will remind people that the man who pushed for the Daily Mail ban, is so fucked in the head, he needs a computer to help him figure out how not to offend people. Even after he has apparently done all that research and taken on board all that feedback.
In my opinion this would solve the issue and allow me to resume editing articles.
Oh really? Well, let's have a brief pause to remember that in prior versions, you have said you would only return if the community vacated his block reason and Floquenbeam admitted he was acting out of some kind of malice.

So I guess Guy is not so damaged he understands when he is fighting a lost cause. And it only took him a month to realise nobody was buying what he was selling. There's the Guy Macon the Daily Mail recognises. Tell a fucking big lie, in the hopes a small lie will take hold. The big lie is that the Mail would falsify football scores if it saw a profit in it. The small lie is that nobody can know if Marek Kukula is innocent. Both are obvious lies. You always need to consider the source. And as we now know, the source is a transphobic troll who genuinely believes people really will believe he is right about the injustice of this block. He isn't, and that is why he is going to keep watering down these suppsed conditions of return, until he arrives at something that doesn't seem so humiliating.
Alas, the admin who blocked me without warning refuses to step away and let other admins deal with me.
Aw, diddums. He has already said of your pathetic last stand, "[he hopes] we don't lose a productive editor, but frankly, that is his decision, not mine." He is quite correct. If Floquenbeam stepping aside is what will make you return, and he won't do it voluntarily, then you know how you can force him to step aside. You won't do it, and nobody else is going to either it seems, because you have no case.
In my mind this confirms that If I resume editing Wikipedia articles yet another new rule will be invented and I will be blocked for violating it.
Yup. "In my mind" is the key phrase here, given all your disclosures about how that mind apparently works. I suggest you run this nonsense past a neurotypical, who will undoubtedly confirm, you are being a massive tit.
So, no, I won't be coming back.
Bollocks.
To those who have expressed support; please don't escalate this. That is not what I want. Just let it go.
You keep saying this, yet you keep on seizing on any and all opportunity to talk about why you're not contributing, and stating your (ever changing) conditions for a return. Why? Because you want the drama to start and/or continue until your fanciful demands are met. Even though it's been a month and people have clearly decided you just aren't worth it, you still clearly harbour delusions that people care.

Holy shit. Are you the Trump of Wikipedia? :deadbanana:

You lost. Get over it. If you are over it, if you don't want people to raise it, there is a simple way to do that:

Shut the fuck up, you whiney little bitch.

This is not what I want, naturally. Seeing you do this shows the world that you are exactly the sort of person who would have done what you did to the Mail. An obsessive, deluded, never capable of admitting wrong or defeat, lunatic bastard.

The community banned the Mail simply to make you stop banging on about it, didn't they? Just to get a bit of peace from the never ending lunacy. Only you didn't, did you.
To those who have argued that I really am a liar, a troll, and a transphobe; you got your way. I have stopped editing. Please let it go.
Delusional.

It's all in your head. Other than my good self, who isn't going to let it go because you fucking deserve every single ounce of mental anguish you're going through, the people who agree with this block, stopped talking about it a long time ago. Floquenbeam only keeps piping up, because you keep lying about him. So, y'know, if you want him to let it go, you know what to do.

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Critic
Posts: 388
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 45 times

Re: Guy Macon restated his restatement if his restated summarised restatement of why he is no longer contributing.

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Thu Aug 05, 2021 2:00 am

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... ek_and_GCB

Nobody tell Guy Macon that Floquenbeam is currently handing out offers to experienced and wrongfully blocked editors of one second blocks just so the official record can be corrected (in other words, vacate the block and restore their honour, as it were). He is even saying he will hold off doing it just to see if the blocking Administrator himself will accept they did these users a disservice and correct the record themselves (which they did).

What a generous man.

If you didn't know any better, you might think he was trying to rub Guy's nose in it, since Guy's been begging for a whole month for anyone to do this for him, after Floquenbeam's staining of his otherwise pristine block log.

But if not, well, at least it's a handy reminder for Guy of the accepted process - a third party files a complaint at AN/I, a consensus forms that the block is in error, and Floquenbeam offers their honor restoration service.

Which of course isn't available to just any old mook, only the special and valued editors get this service, like Volunteer Marek (with currently just the eight! perfectly legitimate blocks to his name).

Gotta keep the really valued editors, the ones with the good reputations, happy, isn't that right, Guy? :lol:

It's so fun and yet so disturbing to watch them be so cruel to each other.

It's some cold shit, it really is. But if there is one valuable thing to come from a fifteen year service, is that surely you should know and be prepared to pay the price for ever crossing a known hard ass like Floquenbeam. Making him run around repeatedly addressing false allegations that he blocked someone without warning and for breaking a rule he just made up? Trying to get him fired? Declared too emotionally unfit to ever look in your direction?

Gonna piss him off, that. Stick in his craw. Not the Thank You For Your Service he expects.

Oh no, and there was me forgetting, Guy has a doctor's note. He doesn't get these nuances of social interaction, so you should make allowances.

And there's me forgetting Wikipedia is just a private website. Making allowances (and being human in general) is a luxury citizens can only expect from responsible organisations. People who care. Like the Federal government, or ExxonMobil.

Ah well. Shucks Guy, I just don't know what to do for you now.

I guess I'll just keep laughing my ass off.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :twisted:

Don't be discouraged now. Remember, as you have just said, your dispute is only with one Administrator, and you still think Wikipedia as a whole, "rocks".

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 32#Comment
Wikipedia is one of the few places where you can get someone uninvolved to rule on your appeal. Yes, I did stop editing articles, but this should be seen as a disagreement with one administrator, not with Wikipedia as a whole. Also note that I chose to stop editing articles. Nobody made me do that, and the decision was purely my own. I am not the poster child for Wikipedia sucking that you are looking for. Wikipedia rocks. Don't let the fact that I have a disagreement with one individual administrator make you think otherwise.

I am reminded of how I constantly see people in the UK or US making fun of their political leaders with no fear that the secret police will come in the middle of the night and make them disappear. You can make fun of Boris Johnson, Tony Blair, Donald Trump, or Joe Biden. Try going to North Korea and making fun of Kim Jong-un. Try going to Syria and making fun of Bashar al-Assad. Likewise you can disagree with how Wikipedia is run and nobody will kick you out for doing that.
:?

I'm rooting for you Guy, even if nobody else is. Even if you aren't.

Any website that would have you "choose" between your honour and living in the constant fear of an unannounced indefinite block for breaking a made up rule, well, that's just sick, right? No choice at all.

Still, it must be nice to know you have the freedom to make fun of Floquenbeam, and nobody is going to make you disappear. But think on, why is that? Is it because the right to speak truth to power is enshrined on Wikipedia? Even if that truth is just some self serving delusional bullshit you made up. Or is it because they just don't want to have to explain why Wikipedia's chief Mail hater, somehow got himself booted off the site? Becuase transphobic troll turned self serving liar doesn't say much for the integrity of your attacks on the Mail.

I'm just sayin'.

Oh, I nearly forgot. Is now a good time for a Mail journalist to swing by your base of self imposed exile for that interview?

:ugeek:

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 2668
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Has thanked: 237 times
Been thanked: 475 times

Re: Guy Macon restated his restatement if his restated summarised restatement of why he is no longer contributing.

Post by ericbarbour » Fri Aug 06, 2021 12:05 am

I am reminded of how I constantly see people in the UK or US making fun of their political leaders with no fear that the secret police will come in the middle of the night and make them disappear. You can make fun of Boris Johnson, Tony Blair, Donald Trump, or Joe Biden. Try going to North Korea and making fun of Kim Jong-un. Try going to Syria and making fun of Bashar al-Assad. Likewise you can disagree with how Wikipedia is run and nobody will kick you out for doing that.

Ha ha ha. Idiot.

I literally CANNOT COUNT the number of times people have been banned from editing a WMF project, for mocking or insulting an administrator. It is an essential part of their sick little culture-thing. The WMF is not a "knowledge project". It is a middle-school gym class full of bullies and sadists.
-----
As a reminder: Why Wikipedia Will Fail, 2015

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Critic
Posts: 388
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 45 times

Re: Guy Macon restated his restatement if his restated summarised restatement of why he is no longer contributing.

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Tue Sep 14, 2021 9:24 am

Proper mental.

This has got to be the most micromanaged retirement in history.
Of course, its shit like this that shows this isn't a retirement at all. It's the world's longest sulk/tantrum/diva strop.

When's he going to get it? Nobody cares.

Nobody is busting a gut to STAND WITH GUY.

Dare I say it, his contributions to Wikipedia aren't as worthwhile or necessary as he imagined. The place is ticking along nicely without him. Those who valued his edits probably only did so because it meant they didn't have to deal.

And so those people who inexplicably valued Guy before, have probably now either just decided that those weren't edits that particularly needed doing, or they are simply doing them, and have perhaps found that it's not such a ballache after all, especially now the unnecessary drama and trollery of Guy is gone, that they feel the need to fight for Guy.

Of course, a lot has to do with the fact only an idiot would take up the cause of an idiot.....
Sigh. I thought that volunteering to not interact with a blocked user who has a problem with gender issues and asking that the restriction be logged was a simple solution to what I still believe was a bad 48 hour block. But since then the results of that decision have been:

* Floquenbeam threatening to indef me if I say anything at all about the events leading up to my decision to stop editing articles.

* Vaticidalprophet (who I don't remember ever interacting with and who has never shown any interest in the Jasenovac concentration camp) monitoring my posting history and filing this SPI.

* Me discovering that I am no longer eligible for a clean start. I wasn't planning on a clean start, but having the option taken away by my own unwise decision is annoying.

* There may be more ramifications to my decision that I don't yet know about.

Maybe I should go to ANI and ask that the logged restriction be tuned back into a 48 hour block and ride it out to avoid further complications.

Sadly, none of the above have anything to do with preventing any actual disruptive behavior on my part. Here is what it feels like to me; I expressed an opinion about gender pronouns. The resulting discussion convinced me that I was wrong. I have apologized over a dozen times for being wrong. Now I feel like I am doomed to be punished forever for that original (wrong) opinion. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
It's the usual fact free and borderline incoherent nonsense that conveys a scarily deficient knowledge of policy and basic common sense, but smart people will surely realise that if they are seen to speak up for a person who seems to have already decided that skirting the lines of sock policy and suggesting they plan to abuse the privilege of a clean start just to make some kind of pathetic point (since it's inconceivable that Guy Macon would want to permanently lose the one thing he seems to value, the fact he is Guy Macon, 15 year Wikipedia veteran), it would be very damaging to their own reputations.

It is becoming clear (or at least crystal clear) that for all his faults, Guy Macon's biggest black mark is his utter cowardice.

If you want to get your iban converted back to a 48 hour block, then just do it, you sad bastard.

You aren't blocked, and Floquenbeam isn't going to block you if you stick to the rules and make a posting at AN/I that is concise, logical, necessary and free of aspersions and personal attacks, and of course, doesn't continue the transphobic trollery you were blocked for.

It will be a challenge, but you can do it.....I believe in you Guy!

:lol:

The nights are drawing in.

ENTERTAIN US.

:twisted:

User avatar
SkepticalHistorian
Sucks
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 4:00 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Guy Macon restated his restatement if his restated summarised restatement of why he is no longer contributing.

Post by SkepticalHistorian » Tue Sep 14, 2021 5:04 pm

Pathetic: argues over someone’s gender, demonizes Kim Jong Un and Assad and grovels in atrocity propaganda about Croatia.

Post Reply