User talk:Guy Macon: Difference between revisions

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]

EEng, well, you'd probably have a much shorter block log. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 20:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that salt works better when thrown over one's left shoulder...on wounds, not so much...but brilliantly said, nonetheless. Atsme 💬 📧 13:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure they'd find a way to block me in my absence. EEng 05:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent response. If only I had half your wit...oh...wait...that would make me a half-wit. Atsme 💬 📧 13:26, 30 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]

I say the following in complete seriousness: I know G.M. fairly well, and he won't mind my saying that he's an extremely literal person. For him to follow those instructions in exactly the way posited would not surprise me in the least. EEng 05:03, 30 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]

(edit conflict × several) Guy, I don't see that anyone has actually explained the reason this might be taken as offensive, which I suppose is one point in favor of believing you meant no ill will. In general, deliberately avoiding someone's pronouns (unless that's what they prefer) is seen as dog-whistling, essentially an obfuscated version of using the wrong pronouns. I can elaborate on that if you'd like, but that's the one-sentence version. If you say you didn't mean it as offensive, okay, but for your future reference, that's a good way to reliably offend any trans or nonbinary editor—and an IBAN from Fæ, of course, won't keep you from having to refer to any number of other editors who take they/them pronouns. I know I would be offended if I caught someone pointedly calling me "Tamzin" 16 times (by my count) in a single comment. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 19:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since you expressed confusion about this, someone requesting a particular set of pronouns is almost always exclusive to third person, even in contexts where it could be taken to literally refer to first or second person. If someone says "my pronouns are they/them," but doesn't say anything about second-person, I think it's safe to assume that it is okay to address them as "you". -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 19:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)That is the first time anyone, ever, has tried to explain that to me. Thanks! It moves me from trying to follow arbitrary rules into starting to understand why this is upsetting some people to the point that they are calling me a liar to my face. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you ever have questions about any such things, feel free to reach out on my talk or by email. Same goes to anyone else reading this. I think people often don't know who to ask about these things—most people recognize, I think, that it would be wrong to pick a random trans/nonbinary person and assume they're interested in discussing sensitive gender topics, and there's also the fear of asking a question that will cause offense. But, in my case, I'm always happy to answer good-faith questions from anyone. I've taught basic queer studies to 7th graders in an area with almost no visible LGBTQ community, so whatever question someone's afraid to ask, I guarantee I've heard worse. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 19:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If someone refers to you repeatedly by your username, I suggest considering it as an honest good-faith attempt to avoid offending you. We have greater things to be concerned about. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would offend me. Whether I took it as intentionally offensive would depend on context. I try to assume good faith as much as possible, which is why, when Guy says here he didn't know something, I'm offering clarification of a norm he seems to have not been aware of.

As to the rest, I think we have nothing greater to be concerned about than editors feeling welcome to edit here. If avoiding offense doesn't matter, why is civility our fourth pillar? -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 19:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion came up in a slightly different context elsewhere last month. Basically, for those of us who have identified as "he/him" since the year dot, it can be difficult to get it right unless you've got gay or transgender friends (which I do) and hence have direct first hand experience of how it affects them. It is a learning curve, but it is (or should be) very much appreciated by those it affects. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: You inspired me to go write Wikipedia:Editors' pronouns. Very much a first draft, and probably too long, but I aimed to discuss the two main issues that came up here, as well as a few others. Critique or improvements very much welcome. There's also a section at the bottom for anyone to list themselves as being open to being asked general questions about this kind of thing (intended mostly for trans/nonbinary people, but open to anyone well-versed in the topic). -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 22:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If someone advises you that repeatedly referring to them by their username is offensive, I suggest considering it as an honest good-faith attempt to explain that they find it offensive. I would not suggest telling them that it isn't, and I especially would not recommend poking fun at them over the thing they just told you they found offensive. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I hope you'll reconsider retiring. The last thing Wikipedia needs is losing yet another long-time contributor who's good at combatting pseudoscience. I'm sure it must suck not having a clean block log anymore. Well, admins tend to get itchy block fingers around the topic of pronouns - just ask EEng. I've considered what I would do if I ever got a block for whatever reason, and I wouldn't retire over it. It's not worth it. Lots of very well respected and productive editors have block logs, even fairly long ones. Hope to see you around. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:05, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear! We need more editors like you, Guy! Not less! With every expert editor lost, it gets harder and harder to argue an XFD for WP:EXR. And that page is my sworn nemesis. /s--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 05:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I waited until I could write "welcome back", but sadly, that was not to be. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what was going on, but I would be very very concerned if using a user name is a blockable offense. I myself have wondered if that is a way forward with the whole pronoun thing, use their names, rather than a pronoun. And (assuming this is true) for a first offense (given what I have seen other users allowed to get away with). This just muddies the whole interaction thing to a degree where you (literally) have no idea what will give offense and where (literally) anything will. If Guy wishes to leave I will not talk him out of it, because if the atmosphere here will now be one of fear lest you (in a good faith attempts to meet people's demands about how they wish to be called) get blocks for insulting them then I can have every sympathy with their decision.Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I note that this was part of Fae's unblock request, which (to my mind) does not bode well for their future interactions. They have made their username a trigger and battleground issue.Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, who's going to write ha ha only serious stuff like this now? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This makes me very sad, despite the fact that Guy and I often disagreed on a few topics. His deliveries were more matter-of-factly but always respectful. I've never seen any indication of malice in any of his responses. Just curious...is WP now offering safe areas where editors are free to speak their minds and share their thoughts, or do we just have safe areas where editors are sheltered from free speech and free thought? There's usually a flip side to everything, right? I can certainly understand why safe spaces & gender neutral pronouns are somewhat difficult to grasp for many who were in college during the 60s-70s. Jiminy Cricket, my memory doesn't have the speed or accuracy of a 100 TB hard drive, so it's a chore just trying to remember all the acronyms for our PAGs, much less remembering individual user names, and the gender preferences of those respective users. I'm still trying to adjust to the paradigm shift from analog video to digital, and print to the internet. Sorry, but editor IDs are getting rather deep into the creation of a new micro-WP world, and it's going to require some major retraining of one's thought processes, especially for busy editors who are here trying to build an encyclopedia. Where are the safe spaces for those editors who may be feeling confused, apprehensive and uncertain about all these changes to the English language, and why does it appear that there is little to no consideration being given to them as a result? I truly need to read all the relevant information so I can get up to speed on what's happening in our community because some of us are being asked to forget 40-50 years of learning experiences, many of which have become second nature. It certainly does add a rather chilling effect to the WP working environment. Atsme 💬 📧 13:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to stay away from this page, as it is clear (based on Guy's comments on User talk:The Land) that I am not welcome here either. But when people repeatedly misrepresent the block rationale, I think WP:ADMINACCT kicks in, so I'm sorry Guy for posting here once more. The claim, repeated by several people here who should know better, that the underlying issue that I blocked Guy for was his confusion about pronouns, or that Guy was somehow defending the purity of the English language, is a red herring. Guy was blocked because he inserted himself into a discussion about someone he has had a long-running feud with, and intentionally mocked their gender, after a very, very clear warning not to do this exact thing again. The narrative that this block is further evidence that poor put-upon straight cis people are scared and need a safe place in this politically correct climate is complete bullshit.

Any further questions that are WP:ADMINACCT-related should be asked elsewhere (my talk page, ANI/ANI, ArbCom, etc.), as I am not going to post where I am not wanted again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

intentionally mocked their gender Repeating that false accusation of lying toward someone who has quit exactly because of that false accusation is tantamount to WP:GRAVEDANCING. You don't know when to stop, do you? You won, you damaged the project by removing Guy from it. Be happy and leave it at that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to make some things clear.

• Floquenbeam is not unwelcome on my talk page. If I don't want someone on my talk page I will ask them.
• I have not quit Wikipedia. I have quit contributing to the encyclopedia. I intend to continue responding to comments on my talk page and maintaining essays such as WP:1AM and WP:YWAB.

Here is a brief history of this issue.

1. Like many people born in the 1950s, I have never liked using a plural to refer to a single person. It just feels like bad grammar. So the first time I realized that they did not wish to be called "he" (which seems like a perfectly reasonable request) I started looking for a solution that met their preferences and my desire to avoid what to me to was jarringly bad English.
2. I have close ties to the LGBTQ+ community. It started out when I was working as a volunteer on the campaign to defeat 2008 California Proposition 8. As one would expected, many of those working on that campaign were the ones that would be affected. I found that we had a lot in common besides not wanting California to discriminate against them.
3. After the campaign, I was asked to set up the sound system for a bar that caters to that community (I am among other things, an experienced audio engineer). They liked my work, I liked how I was treated compared to other nightclubs I had worked on, other clubs hired me, and as a result I because close friends with several members of the LGBTQ+ community. I also became a big fan of the Fran Blanche YouTube channel.
4. So I called up one of my friends who is transsexual, and asked them about "he" and "they". I really wanted to know how to best handle this. They suggested that I try "Xe", commenting "They will appreciate the effort and will tell you if they want you to use something else". That was my first mistake. I should have asked them (Not my friend. Another "Them".) for explicit permission. I meant well, but I blew it.
5. There was a complaint at ANI, which is where I made my next mistake. I felt that I was being bullied by a third person into using "they" instead of what I in good-faith believed was another perfectly acceptable gender-inclusive term.[1][2][3][4] I dug in my heels for a bit. I was wrong.[5] I know now that I will be punished forever for that ANI thread and that it cannot possibly be true that someone as obviously evil as I seem to be could possibly have learned something and tried to change.
6. The instant Floquenbeam told me that there was a rule against using "Xe" and that I was required to use "They" (I honestly did not know of the existence of any such rule) I instantly complied, and have been trying to use "they" and "them" whenever possible ever since. Which of course was used as evidence against me.[6]
7. It has long been my policy to comply with any request by any admin whether I agree or not. I have the option of bringing it up at ANI but for me not doing what I was ordered to do was never an option. Floquenbeam knew this. Besides the evidence of me precisely following their previous orders my policy was clearly specified on my user page and talk page.
8. Note that at no time did anyone pay the slightest attention to my obvious bewilderment and explain why this is such an issue. User:Tamzin was the very first person to do that. (very helpful, BTW. I agree with 100% of it).
9. So, over a year later I found out... something that I have agreed to not discuss. So I pondered: should I comment? If so, how to do so so as not to trigger the wrath of Floquenbeam?
10. I was genuinely worried that in this case personal pronouns were a mine field. I had what I believe was a legitimate concern that Floquenbeam has already decided that I am liar, ("I'm not going to participate further in the conversation on Guy's talk page if the entry fee is having to pretend he is being honest")[7] a troll, ("trolling by Guy Macon removed.")[8] and a homophobe ("intentionally mocking someone's gender")[9].
11. So, having concluded that using any personal pronouns is a mine field. I decided to not use any personal pronouns and just call them by their username. I even checked to see if other editors were calling them that and whether they had ever complained about anyone doing that.
12. BAM!!! New rule! Avoiding all personal pronouns is also against the rules! Floquenbeam knew that they could have asked me to stop doing that and I would have. Instead my previously clean block log now contains the lie that I intentionally mocked someone's gender. In case anyone hasn't noticed, that bothers me. A lot. It is based solely on mind reading and the assumption of bad faith.

So I am not "rage quitting". I have calmly decided to no longer contribute my edits to Wikipedia (other than maintaining some essays) because trust was broken. I trusted Wikipedia's administrators to warn me if I do something wrong. I expected them to trust me to stop when warned whether I agreed or not. I trusted that blocks are preventative, not punitive, and that, as my user page and talk page clearly specified, you don't have to block me to prevent any behavior. Just ask.

Now I have no idea what new rule will be invented in order to indefinitely block me. I just know that however hard I try and no matter what I say, I am doomed. I did my best to follow every policy and guideline to the letter, and I did my best to do exactly what Floquenbeam ordered me to do. Clearly my best isn't good enough.

Maybe it is because of my autism. Maybe I interpreted things too literally. Maybe I missed and am still missing some emotional nuance. If so, this could have easily been resolved by treating me as a human being and simply talking to me.

Will I ever return to editing? Only if:

• Floquenbeam is no longer a Wikipedia administrator, or Floquenbeam agrees that they are WP:INVOLVED and will ask another administrator to deal with any disruption they believe that I have caused.
• Floquenbeam gives the other administrators at WP:AN permission to decide whether to give me a one-minute block with the summary "The community has decided that the summary of the previous block entry is vacated" or something similar. I am prepared to accept the decision of the community on that one. I am not prepared to accept Floquenbeam withholding permission and thus refusing to allow the community to make that decision.

I don't anticipate either of the above ever happening. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]