"Wikipedia should focus on content creation – not social justice campaigns"
It all kicked off in the comments section.
As LDickinson belatedly explained to Guy, she had felt "uncomfortable" and "I feel that I am not being engaged in an appropriate way." She made no further comment, presumably because that was when Chris jumped in with.....
.....and then Jimmy Wales jumped in and things all got very weird. But as far as I remember nobody was blocked and things fizzled out. As they tend to do. It's only the SignPost comments section after all. Who reads that? Nobody.I care very little about your discomfort, @LDickinson (WMF):. Please don't think that your passive manner is going to fix this problem. Guy Macon and others have made points about what could seem to be deliberate financial mismanagement. If you're not up to representing the WMF then this might be the sign that it's time for you to move on to other projects. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Chris now claims he can't recall making that reply or seeing the long follow ups, but for some reason was moved to make a similar retort to LDickinson on her own talk page six months later.
The block for it is questionable at least in the sense it has been placed over the heads of Administrator Novem Linguae (T-C-L) and Arbitrator Firefly (T-C-L), who between them seemed to have already extracted a mea culpa and a promise there would be no repeat, from Chris.....
It is seemingly something Jordan Peterson (T-H-L) has said, or as has been speculated the Maher/NPR farago, that prompted Chris to make his comment. Something in the air.When LDickinson made her comment last year, I responded in that thread with a shorter and more-focused message, which I had forgotten about. (I only see now that Jimbo replied to me in defense of his employee.) Clearly, anyone who complains of feeling uncomfortable should not represent a reviled non-profit to that organization's volunteers, regardless of sex. I thought very carefully today before I posted what I did and couched my comments very clearly, thinking back to what I've heard Jordan Peterson say. Although I find Dr. Peterson's summations on the topic insightful, 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. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
On that score, it certainly seems highly pertinent that Molly and Chris were on this very same day, both commenting (but not interacting) about this very issue over in the SignPost newsroom, coming at it presumably from diametrically opposed viewpoints.
Anyway, for reasons best known to herself, once she had seen what Chris had said to LDickinson, Molly chose to ignore the above developments and instead file her complaint, saying she was "pretty shocked" and that the comment was "wildly inappropriate for an encyclopedia where, last time I checked, we are operating in the 21st century". She even cited Novem Linguae and Firefly as supportive of her case, quite out of context it seems. Nonetheless, it duly resulted in the block being placed in pretty short order. Outstanding service really. Other complainants might be quite jealous at how quickly this seemingly non-urgent matter was dealt with.
In addition to the fact it appears punitive not preventative, the duration is curious. The suggestion that Chris' prior incivilities were a factor is certainly odd, because as we all know, that's not really how things work. If it did, perhaps Chris and Guy, who between them are quite the pair of professional shit stirrers, would have been banned long ago.
What's quite obvious is that this won't fly if certain people are hoping to send the signal that staffers should be treated like any other user. No other user would have been making these comments, or rather, refusing to make a comment, therefore they could not have irritated Guy and Chris for the reasons they were so animated. I'd also question how often any experienced editor ever gets blocked for making sexist remarks. I certainly can't recall one recently, if indeed ever. Although perhaps that is a sign such things are being taken seriously. Which begs the question why the deterrent failed here.
Chris has yet to respond. I dare say he can cope with spending a week doing something else entirely. Can LDickinson or Molly cope with that? Should they even be expected to? Is Chris a man of his word? His record suggests not.
What should trouble everyone I guess, given the context, is whether or not the duration has been specifically chosen to allow time to construct a case against Chris......
My bold. Since the questions of prior incidents had yet to occur, the bolded part can take on a quite different meaning too. Although perhaps this is not the time or the incident to start a conversation with the Wikipedians about the wisdom of only taking Administrative action when you are calm and composed.What the hell. I've blocked them for a week for that completely unacceptable comment. Not opposed to further sanctions. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 22:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)