Chris Troutman blocked for sexism

[Beeblebrox]

I removed a lot of off-topic and toxic posts.

If anyone not banned would like any of their removed post content sent to them for reuse, PM me.

Thanks!

you're doing the Lord's work

[rnu]

I removed a lot of off-topic and toxic posts.

If anyone not banned would like any of their removed post content sent to them for reuse, PM me.

Thanks!

Now I'm gonna have to check what the original topic was. Something about sexism, I think?

[Elinruby]

I removed a lot of off-topic and toxic posts.

If anyone not banned would like any of their removed post content sent to them for reuse, PM me.

Thanks!

Now I'm gonna have to check what the original topic was. Something about sexism, I think?

According to Kraken at sucks, it was

face ripping eye gouging ball cutting harassment. And when it didn't work, I didn't rise to it, why he silenced me. Cancelled me.

This is of course the mating call of the classic incel ring-tailed booby (T-H-L). But for what it is worth, Crow, I apologize for guessing that you would be insecure about your education.

I will now resume standard civility protocol, pausing only to point out that not only am I not American, I am a "they" not a "she", and I've told you that before. So. Sorry not sorry that this makes you uncomfortable. I almost registered at sucks to demonstrate some actual faceripping, but nah. Not sure me shots are up to date.

En avant.

On the actual topic, as opposed to what Kraken thought it was, is there any doubt there is a problem? Bilateral, mind you. I think there is truth to people being afraid to criticize the Ladies who Lunch. I say this however as someone currently researching editor renaming procedures so I have some other thoughts on the subject as well. Oh well?

(edit for typo fix)

[Midsize Jake]

Now I'm gonna have to check what the original topic was. Something about sexism, I think?

"Who on WP decides what is sexist," actually. If it was just "sexism" in general, this would probably be the most active subforum on the whole website.

Anyway... Mr. Troutman's block expired a few hours ago and he's back doing mundane, non-confrontational editing tasks, so I guess if there's any lingering animosity he's decided to keep it to himself for the time being.

[Anroth]

I don't imagine he would have any tbh. He is many things but not stupid. He knew when he was posting it he would rile some people up. I imagine the block just reinforced his sense of superiority.

[Beeblebrox]

It appears Mr. Troutman is doubling down upon the expiration of his block. The old ANI thread was unarchived and re-opened to adress this.

Aaaaand fuck it, I indeffed him. Doubling down on the sexism is not really compatible with a collaborative project.

[rnu]

It appears Mr. Troutman is doubling down upon the expiration of his block. The old ANI thread was unarchived and re-opened to adress this.

Aaaaand fuck it, I indeffed him. Doubling down on the sexism is not really compatible with a collaborative project.

Just when I thought he was smart enough to know when to shut up.

[Midsize Jake]

Just when I thought he was smart enough to know when to shut up.

It's possible that after having a week off and then just performing mundane tasks for a couple of days, he realized it was all a huge bore and he'd rather just punt the whole Wikipedia thing completely — but having also been completely radicalized, he had to go out in a "blaze of glory"/suicide-by-cop type of scenario, just to show 'em.

I guess I can't really blame him, though of course it's probably his fault he got radicalized in the first place.

[TheMintyMan]

this sounds like double jeopardy at this point. Are we punishing editors for their opinions now too? I thought ANI was not supposed to be punative
The subject should be allowed to continue and if they err again, a new ANI should be opened with the copious context from here. Tonymetz 20:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Sigh.

[orangepi]

Good block. His "I'm not being sexist, I'm just being passive-aggressive" comments needed to end.

EDIT TO ADD:

All you did was prevent me from keeping WP:BDC up to date and reverting vandalism for a week. A lot of good that did anyone. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:BDC is Wikipedia:Birthday Committee (T-H-L), "an unofficial Wikipedia group that wishes Happy Birthday to members found in the listings at List of Wikimedians by birthday, Wikipedia:Birthday Committee/Calendar, Category:Current Wikipedia birthdays, and through their talk pages".

[Midsize Jake]

Well, technically what he said this time was...

...I made a truthful comment to a WMF employee (which I stand by) and I got blocked for offending the political beliefs of a particular admin, who was egged on by others of the same persuasion.

He might think the "truthful comment" was simply his assertion that the WMF's Comms Director, Lauren Dickinson, has a tendency to avoid confrontation — not that she avoids confrontation because she's female and that it would therefore be better to hire a man to do her job instead, which is what people were actually (and rightfully) upset about. (People who have been radicalized often fail to appreciate that the falsity of their arguments is usually based in the premises of those arguments, and that the false conclusions are simply the inevitable result of the false premises, blah blah blah.)

I'm not going to say that blocking him this time was a mistake, but there's a decent chance this will be picked up on by the right-wing media as evidence of "runaway wokeism," which will unfortunately play directly into the WMF's hands by taking attention away from the original point of the dispute — namely the WMF's financial issues (if not actual corruption) and lack of transparency about them.

We should probably start looking into those financial issues more seriously here, if only to help get things "back on track," so to speak.

[Beeblebrox]

It isn't lost on me that we probably have some pretty similar opinions when it comes to certain aspects of the WMF, and also the context in which he made those remarks was regarding a discussion about Valjean, whom I've had very negative interactions with myself, but none of that changes the underlying reasons for the block. The more I read the previous threads about them them more obvious it is that this was long overdue.

[Elinruby]

It appears Mr. Troutman is doubling down upon the expiration of his block. The old ANI thread was unarchived and re-opened to adress this.

Aaaaand fuck it, I indeffed him. Doubling down on the sexism is not really compatible with a collaborative project.

Thank you. Good block. He didn't seem to see that true as his statements about the WMF may be, they were not themselves the issue, which was framing it terms of the biology of the person he was speaking to.

[Beeblebrox]

It appears Mr. Troutman is doubling down upon the expiration of his block. The old ANI thread was unarchived and re-opened to adress this.

Aaaaand fuck it, I indeffed him. Doubling down on the sexism is not really compatible with a collaborative project.

Thank you. Good block. He didn't seem to see that true as his statements about the WMF may be, they were not themselves the issue, which was framing it terms of the biology of the person he was speaking to.

He certainly seemed to understand where he went wrong last week:

I agree with you that my suppositions about gendered differences confused the real point I made in October of last year, which is about competence. It doesn't matter why I think LDickinson is incompetent and I shouldn't have posited my thinking on the subject. While I often condemn many editors for their incompetence, I don't usually surmise why unless it derives from conflict of interest. Clearly I was wrong to needlessly surmise here, and I'm going to halt doing that ever again on these servers, and you are right to question my judgement.

That's almost an apology and seems very insightful and self-reflective, and yet today he says it was a factual statement and he stands behind it.

Which is it?

[Elinruby]

It appears Mr. Troutman is doubling down upon the expiration of his block. The old ANI thread was unarchived and re-opened to adress this.

Aaaaand fuck it, I indeffed him. Doubling down on the sexism is not really compatible with a collaborative project.

Thank you. Good block. He didn't seem to see that true as his statements about the WMF may be, they were not themselves the issue, which was framing it terms of the biology of the person he was speaking to.

He certainly seemed to understand where he went wrong last week:

I agree with you that my suppositions about gendered differences confused the real point I made in October of last year, which is about competence. It doesn't matter why I think LDickinson is incompetent and I shouldn't have posited my thinking on the subject. While I often condemn many editors for their incompetence, I don't usually surmise why unless it derives from conflict of interest. Clearly I was wrong to needlessly surmise here, and I'm going to halt doing that ever again on these servers, and you are right to question my judgement.

That's almost an apology and seems very insightful and self-reflective, and yet today he says it was a factual statement and he stands behind it.

Which is it?

Some prejudices run deep. I can't get my Polish neighbour to stop saying "raghead" even when he is sitting in the local diner, which is owned by a man who wears a turban, even as he is eating food made by a cook who is probably not Sikh, since he doesn't wear a turban, but does prefer Punjabi music to the country-western and hard rock favored by the other employees.

[The Blue Newt]

It appears Mr. Troutman is doubling down upon the expiration of his block. The old ANI thread was unarchived and re-opened to adress this.

Aaaaand fuck it, I indeffed him. Doubling down on the sexism is not really compatible with a collaborative project.

Thank you. Good block. He didn't seem to see that true as his statements about the WMF may be, they were not themselves the issue, which was framing it terms of the biology of the person he was speaking to.

He certainly seemed to understand where he went wrong last week:

I agree with you that my suppositions about gendered differences confused the real point I made in October of last year, which is about competence. It doesn't matter why I think LDickinson is incompetent and I shouldn't have posited my thinking on the subject. While I often condemn many editors for their incompetence, I don't usually surmise why unless it derives from conflict of interest. Clearly I was wrong to needlessly surmise here, and I'm going to halt doing that ever again on these servers, and you are right to question my judgement.

That's almost an apology and seems very insightful and self-reflective, and yet today he says it was a factual statement and he stands behind it.

Which is it?

I hope you realize that is a false dichotomy.

[greenday61892]

It appears Mr. Troutman is doubling down upon the expiration of his block. The old ANI thread was unarchived and re-opened to adress this.

Aaaaand fuck it, I indeffed him. Doubling down on the sexism is not really compatible with a collaborative project.

Thank you. Good block. He didn't seem to see that true as his statements about the WMF may be, they were not themselves the issue, which was framing it terms of the biology of the person he was speaking to.

He certainly seemed to understand where he went wrong last week:

I agree with you that my suppositions about gendered differences confused the real point I made in October of last year, which is about competence. It doesn't matter why I think LDickinson is incompetent and I shouldn't have posited my thinking on the subject. While I often condemn many editors for their incompetence, I don't usually surmise why unless it derives from conflict of interest. Clearly I was wrong to needlessly surmise here, and I'm going to halt doing that ever again on these servers, and you are right to question my judgement.

That's almost an apology and seems very insightful and self-reflective, and yet today he says it was a factual statement and he stands behind it.

Which is it?

I wouldn't say it's even "almost" an apology, it doesn't feel like an apology at all. It feels more like "I'll not say out loud it so it's quieter but I'm still gonna act on my bigotry"

[The Blue Newt]

It appears Mr. Troutman is doubling down upon the expiration of his block. The old ANI thread was unarchived and re-opened to adress this.

Aaaaand fuck it, I indeffed him. Doubling down on the sexism is not really compatible with a collaborative project.

Thank you. Good block. He didn't seem to see that true as his statements about the WMF may be, they were not themselves the issue, which was framing it terms of the biology of the person he was speaking to.

He certainly seemed to understand where he went wrong last week:

I agree with you that my suppositions about gendered differences confused the real point I made in October of last year, which is about competence. It doesn't matter why I think LDickinson is incompetent and I shouldn't have posited my thinking on the subject. While I often condemn many editors for their incompetence, I don't usually surmise why unless it derives from conflict of interest. Clearly I was wrong to needlessly surmise here, and I'm going to halt doing that ever again on these servers, and you are right to question my judgement.

That's almost an apology and seems very insightful and self-reflective, and yet today he says it was a factual statement and he stands behind it.

Which is it?

I wouldn't say it's even "almost" an apology, it doesn't feel like an apology at all. It feels more like "I'll not say out loud it so it's quieter but I'm still gonna act on my bigotry"

What “bigotry” is he acting on? A preference for one genderlect, by the look of it.