User talk:Guy Macon: Difference between revisions

Note: Any editor has my permission to replace the content of my user page (which I cannot edit) with a copy of the above notice and then delete this note. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for intentionally mocking someone's gender, after a clear previous warning not to. next one is indef.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Floquenbeam (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Guy Macon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

In my opinion there should be some sort of warning or discussion before blocking an editor with a 15-year clean block log.

I really was trying to do the right thing. I had a good-faith belief that completely avoiding all personal pronouns and only using the username was the right thing to do. It never occurred that calling someone by their username was wrong, but I would have instantly stopped if asked to. I really was trying to avoid offense. You can claim that I am lying about that, but I have always been honest about my motivations. Like anyone else, I may lie to myself, but I have never knowingly lied to anyone on Wikipedia.

As a person with high functioning autism, I am very good at following clear instructions, and that is what I was trying to do here. Perhaps, as is common with autistics, I misread something, took it too literally, or missed some emotional nuance. If so I apologize. I did my best.

If Floquenbeam had bothered to talk to me like a human being and tell me exactly what to do I would have complied to the best of my ability. In fact, I would have instantly volunteered for a one-way interaction ban, hoping that that would solve the problem. Note that I had completely avoided all interaction for well over a year, only reluctantly commenting on an unblock request.

I am quitting Wikipedia because I do not believe that I was treated fairly. I don't know if I am ever coming back. Whether or not this appeal is successful, please log me as having volunteered for the one-way interaction ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Guy has agreed to take an indefinite interaction ban with Fæ (talk · contribs). See Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Voluntary. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming to this fresh, and my thoughts are: 1) I believe Guy thought he was doing the right thing and 2) There is no obvious reason why Guy contacting Fæ improves the encyclopedia. I would suggest my offer to Floquenbeam is this : I will unblock Guy if he agrees to take an indefinite interaction ban with Fæ. I'm going to assume with his 15-year track record that he knows what an interaction ban is.

PS: As someone who went 13 1/2 years without a block, trust me - quitting in anger isn't the answer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie, if you want to unblock subject to an indef 1-way iban, I won't object (as I note on my talk page, and as I really believe, I'm not perfect), but I don't think that's optimal. There is no evidence that Guy thought he was doing the right thing, and plenty of evidence that he knew he wasn't. I know I should sugar coat that so we don't lose a productive editor, but frankly, that is his decision, not mine. If Guy wants, I can go into more detail, but I don't think that would be welcome. For now, suffice it to say that Guy, on his post on Fae's talk page, links to a clearly worded warning: "However, if Guy does choose to refer to Fæ again, he'll be blocked for personal attacks/harassment for using anything besides the singular 'they' ".

I did what I thought was best, you do what you think is best, and then Guy can decide what he thinks is best. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly agree to voluntary indefinite interaction ban. Given the bad blood involved two-way may cause less trouble in the long run but I am fine with one-way. And yes, I fully understand what an interaction ban is and the consequences for violating it. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good man, Guy. You'll get over it. What if I quit every time I got blocked? EEng 18:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You really think that Guy's "level best" doesn't include even glancing at Fæ, where the text If you need a pronoun to refer to my account, I prefer the courtesy of a singular they rather than she, he or anything else has been for at least seven years? I was in the process of declining the unblock request when I edit-conflicted with you, Ritchie; I trust your judgment, so I won't, but honestly, I don't buy it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"If you need a pronoun to refer to my account", and Guy dealt with it by not using a pronoun. I don't think this is a fair block. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The block was based on a failed attempt at mind-reading - that contribution was not "intentionally mocking", it was following instructions to the letter, something autistic people are good at - followed by a shot in the dark without any warning. This was badly done. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my case, I haven't seen that. However, in fairness, I can't see any reason I would need to contact Fæ other than possibly to review an unblock request, so in my case that would be a reasonable explanation. As Guy is a self-described "high functioning autism", I'm prepared to believe that blocking for something that may be obvious to us, may not be obvious to him. So it's worth upping the ante a bit. The alternative is, as I see it, Guy rides out the block (48 hours is not that long) and gets indeffed some time down the road. Regarding the edit conflict, I haven't specifically closed out the unblock request, so if you think declining serves the project's best interest, I don't have an issue with it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just because someone has had a note on their user page for seven years doesn't mean anybody is compelled to read it. I don't look at every user page of people I talk to.

I saw this and immediately thought, WTF??! ...and was about to summarily unblock, but I paused to review the now-deleted talk page comments and the ANI thread. When I came back, I see others have commented.

I feel that Floqenbeam's block here was over the top. A simple prohibition against any further interaction with Fæ would have been better. And the fact that Fæ is now indef-blocked makes it simpler. I would go farther and recommend avoiding interacting with anyone who makes a fuss about their preferred gender pronoun, but try to respect their preferences if interaction is unavoidable.

Me, I don't give a shit if people call me he or she or zir s/he or hem or whatever, but I share Guy's objection to the singular "they" and I prefer not to be called "they" as I am singular, but I wouldn't make a fuss about it, my personal identity has a much larger scope than a damn pronoun. We're here to build an encyclopedia and our gender, sexual preference, religion, personal pronouns, etc. are all secondary to that. No, not secondary. Irrelevant. Or should be.

Yes, I also believe that Guy was trying his best to avoid a conflict about pronouns while trying to adhere to his own preferences for proper English usage. I support unblocking with an interaction ban. And I agree, quitting in anger doesn't solve anything.

@Ritchie333: I'm still inclined to unblock the account if you don't. You got here first. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To those who have read my mind over the Internet and know that I am lying, all I can say is that I am being straight with you and telling you what my thinking was at the time. Also that, now that I have been told not to, I will never refer to that user by their Wikipedia username again (especially easy to do because I just volunteered for an interaction ban means never referring to that user in any way.) --Guy Macon (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the several comments in response to yours that have the same tenor as Floquenbeam's rationale for blocking you? If you did see them, were they not enough to prompt you to re-evaluate your questions? The Land (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]