Revisiting Guy Macon's RfA

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats blecch!
Post Reply
User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Revisiting Guy Macon's RfA

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Fri Jul 02, 2021 1:03 am

This post is brought to you by Moral Hazard. May he always be in our hearts.

Now, it's evil time. :twisted:

For no reason in particular, tee hee, I had cause to revisit Guy Macon's glorious defeat at RfA. And you know what? It was even more of an ABSOLUTE PASTING than I had remembered.

To truly appreciate the scale of his downfall, it was only in March 2020 that Guy Macon was presented to the community as a potential Administrator, with the esteemed nominating editors RickInBaltimore and Doc James saying very nice things about him......
.....someone that I feel would be of excellent service as a administrator on Wikipedia......tireless content creator.....ensuring that articles are sourced properly and accurately......on [sic] the better vandal reporters on the site.....eye for detail.....welcoming and professional manner......qualified to assist with the project in the role of an administrator
making steady contributions to Wikipedia for nearly 10 years.......judgement has been solid......no hesitation in recommending them to become an administrator
As happens a lot at RfA of course (because not paying people is always going to lead to a lack of professionalism), these nominators either didn't really have a well rounded picture of the candidate, which was probably Rick's error, or they were supporting them for reasons that are not wholly aligned with Wikipedia's mission, which was probably Doc James' crime.

In that RfA, reality hit hard for Guy Macon. His actual record, when seen in the round, spoke of a man who was totally unsuited for the role. It spoke of a man who was opinionated, combative, inflexible, and just plain rude.

Failing at RfA can often be quite a crushing revelation for the nominee. To realise that while they might be a perfectly good editor (the Wikipedia community having quite low standards overall), they are not in the top echelon, and so the process can leave them quite scarred.

But usually, since to have even got nominated they must have they have something about them, they have the good sense to take it on the chin. Realising that Wikipedia hasn't yet, despite multiple attempts, found a better way to sort the wheat from the chaff. The best can reflect and return, reformed, to succeed a second time around.

It spoke to Guy Macon's true character, that he went quite a different way. For a start, he chose not to just ride it out, to an inevitable crushing defeat. Nor did he choose to withdraw, with dignity, having seen the writing on the wall. As Guy Macon does a lot, he found a unique and previously unseen way to deal with the situation.

He faked a heart attack. :shock:

I mean, I suppose he might not be lying, but I think there's a reason why the only source that reported this as if it had actually happened, was the uniquely unreliable SignPost, the Wikipedia community newsletter. It has all the hallmarks of a massive lie. Excessive gory detail. Unrealistic timelines. Etc. Etc. Go big or go home.

As we know, Guy Macon is in contact with journalists, so if it was true, you would have heard about it in a reputable outlet by now. It's quite the story, after all. Guy Macon would have most definitely jumped at the chance of being profiled along this human interest angle, if the payoff was a platform for him to get wider attention to his causes. Most likely the finances of the WMF, which of course, has made a few headlines recently, and indeed, historically.

This partclicular manner of pulling the RIP cord on a doomed RfA really was Guy Macon at his best. He turned an embarrassing and crushing defeat, into an opportunity to talk about what he loves most. Himself. He elicited huge amounts of sympathy. And he revelled in it. Guy Macon is nothing if not a born victim.

Most people probably missed it, but he must have been so pleased with how he had turned a resounding defeat into a victory of sorts, he thought nothing about actually committing to newsletter print, an obvious lie.

He claimed....
Did you expect your RfA to go the way it did?

I was expecting a lot of oppose !votes because I have been so active in the areas of pseudoscience and attempting to reform the WMF, both of which resulted in a lot of people being pissed off at me for writing things like WP:CANCER and WP:YWAB or for opposing the use of The Daily Mail as a source. 
Obvious bullshit is obvious.

Here is the state of play of his RfA after just over 1 day (the process runs for seven days). As can be seen by anyone who can read, Guy Macon's candidacy was already in deep shit. Seriously deep shit. He had registered 47 opposes, for only 35 supports, the last of whom had already called it ("The battle looks lost, so this amounts to no more than moral support").

This is the exact opposite of what usually happens when a controversial but competent candidate arrives, wherein they get a landslide of early supports, with the opposition having to work hard to then chip away at it.

We can see what Guy Macon blames this on. We can also see this for what it is. An ABSOLUTELY MASSSIVE LIE. Worthy even of a Daily Mail columnist, if they were even half as disreputable as Guy Macon frequently claims, in print (since for those purposes, defamatory statements about living people, all of Wikipedia is legally a publisher).

It's only natural to want to put forth a narrative that puts you in the best light. This wasn't it. This was just straight up self delusion.

Of those 47 opposes, every single one speaks with remarkable uniformity, to the core issue as they see it. Civility. Or rather, a lack thereof. People were entirely unconvinced that Macon has the required temperament. Words like drama and shouting and snark appear frequently.

His interest in wikipolitics was a point raised by many, but clearly not merely because he was interested in such things, since many are, but because he was evidently too interested, and perhaps for the wrong reasons. And certainly in the wrong manner. An interest solely to fuel a love of drama and conflict, to take advantage of a platform to abuse others he disagrees with, rather than a serious attempt to achieve justified reform.

Not for nothing, I think, does Guy Macon seek out lost causes. Trying to get the WMF to raise less money, and spend what it does raise on building an encyclopedia? Absurd. Trying to stop Wikipedia looking attractive to snake oil salesmen? Absurdly ironic.

Now, of course, we can't dismiss the possibility that all of these people are lying. That they all secretly hate Guy Macon for his stance on pseudoscience, the WMF and the Daily Mail, and knowing they couldn't openly say that in an RfA, they instead pointed to his behaviour.

But that's one hell of a claim. Tough to carry that off. It's not that it doesn't happen, but on this scale? This effectively? To believe that, we really would, ironically, be in the realm of conspiracy theory. As Guy Macon himself likes to point out, There Is No Cabal.

Occam's razor would seem to point us in another direction. Especially when multiple opposers went to some lengths to make it clear that it wasn't his positions they had an issue with, it was his behaviour.....
Oppose, on the basis that this user claims in question 3 to “stay cool” when dealing with controversial discussions, citing WP:Dailymail. Yet, they were objectively one of the most passionate and provocative users in said discussion. While I personally agree with the outcome, constantly insisting (of the Daily Mail) to “kill it with fire” as an alternative to “oppose” speaks volumes in regards to WP:Civilty. In addendum, they were one of the most vocal users in general during the Daily Mail discussion, responding to many opposers of their viewpoint that it could be interpreting that they may have been WP:Bludgeoning the process.
After reading Guy Macon's comments in the 2019 RSN RFC on the Daily Mail I am unable to support the candidate. There is too much failure to assume good faith and respect legitimately differing points of view. (Note: I also supported deprecation of DM).
Guy does good work in combating POV pushers and fringe theories, but......[behaviour concerns]
I agree that while he is a productive editor but his temperament is not a fit for being a sysop.
Does good work and is usually right, but as mentioned in many places above, is often unable to be right without being unacceptably uncivil.
I think the mark of the man is that he saw that feedback, and, well, just ignored it.

But yeah, maybe that's because he is autistic, allegedly. He just somehow missed the subtle cues the community offered. No other reasonable explanation.

:roll:

Post Reply