Chris Troutman blocked for sexism

[Kraken]

As a result of an AN/I complaint by Molly White (T-H-L) (GorillaWarfare (T-C-L)), Chris troutman (T-C-L) has been blocked for a week by Ingenuity (T-C-L) (232/1/0, May 2023) "for blatantly sexist and unacceptable comment[sic]". The comment has been interpreted by several to have been a suggestion by Chris that it would be better if the role currently filled by LDickinson (WMF) (T-C-L), the Wikipedia Foundation Senior Communications Manager, was held by a man. I know.

But if you were hoping it was that simple, clearly you're new to all this. For a start, the comment was Chris bizarrely re-animating a dispute he'd been having with LDickinson (entirely without her knowledge it seems) a good six months earlier. Chris had objected to the way LDickinson had initially ignored and then blown off queries from both Guy Macon (T-C-L) and Jayen466 (T-C-L) they'd had regarding her reply to a story in the SignPost. And I say story, it was infact a one line mention of a piece in the Telegraph by Andrew Orlowski (T-H-L):

"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.....

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)

.....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.

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.....

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)

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.

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......

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)

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.

Certainly it appears a window has been left open for Chris to appeal. He has seemingly been denied due process, possibly been made an example of, and in large part all perhaps due to the emotional way the complaint was handled. But can he possibly get any semblance of justice in this environment? It is Wikipedia, after all.

[Midsize Jake]

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.

It's something Peterson said on the Joe Rogan show, back in 2018, I think - "men are more interested in things, women are more interested in people." Various folks in the "lefty" and "woke" camp(s) have used this as one of the clearest examples of Peterson's tendency to base his ideology on unfair, unsupported, self-serving, or just-plain-silly generalities, whereas social-conservative culture-warrior types will usually tell you that this is just "common sense," or if not, that it's being taken out of context or whatever.

Peterson does say "there's still a lot of overlap between" men and women, and that "it doesn't have anything to do with intelligence," but it's fairly clear that he believes the basic premise and doesn't think it should even be deemed controversial.

Anyhoo, if "justice" here means that the block on Mr. Troutman is lifted, I'd say the chances are somewhere between 10 and 20 percent. WMF employees are pretty much compelled to behave the way Ms. Dickinson did in this case; everybody knows it and most accept it. Perhaps more importantly, as I've stated before (despite her protestations to the contrary), for good or ill Ms. White is part of the leadership, one of the few Wikipedians who most of the WP hoi-polloi can actually agree on — and if this is what she wants, she's going to get it even if it really just amounts to (or is indistinguishable from) heavy-handed dominance behavior.

[Elinruby]

And the women In the room share a look.

[Vigilant]

And the women In the room share a look.

So do the guys.

[Midsize Jake]

And the women In the room share a look.

If you're referring to my saying "even if it really just amounts to (or is indistinguishable from) heavy-handed dominance behavior," that probably is unclear/overstated verbiage on my part. It should probably be something like, "even if there's a risk that certain (i.e., conservative) elements will claim that it's heavy-handed admin-dominance behavior."

Also, whether or not I personally see it that way would depend on what Ms. White's intent was in bringing the case to the Admins' Noticeboard. I don't think it's unfair to suggest she might have been hoping someone (i.e., an "uninvolved" fellow admin) would block the guy, but at the same time I'm not saying the guy didn't deserve to be blocked, either. He probably did, though I'm sure he's a nice guy if you meet him in person.

[Elinruby]

And the women In the room share a look.

So do the guys.

LOL probably.

I will go first. It isn't "heavy-handed dominance behaviour" to say that a man should be doing your job sweetie? This is the same Molly White whose hesitant speech patterns we were making fun of the other day?

[Elinruby]

And the women In the room share a look.

If you're referring to my saying "even if it really just amounts to (or is indistinguishable from) heavy-handed dominance behavior," that probably is unclear/overstated verbiage on my part. It should probably be something like, "even if there's a risk that certain (i.e., conservative) elements will claim that it's heavy-handed admin-dominance behavior."

Also, whether or not I personally see it that way would depend on what Ms. White's intent was in bringing the case to the Admins' Noticeboard. I don't think it's unfair to suggest she might have been hoping someone (i.e., an "uninvolved" fellow admin) would block the guy, but at the same time I'm not saying the guy didn't deserve to be blocked, either. He probably did, though I'm sure he's a nice guy if you meet him in person.

It probably depends on your genitals I daresay, but I don't think I have ever interacted with the guy directly, so that may be unfair.

I remember the name from somewhere but I would prefer not to explicitly comment without looking it up, and I would prefer not to look it up as I don't think it was a good experience. What do I know. I just edit Wikipedia with a female-sounding username, but I am here to tell you that *that* (bites tongue) is not what the laldeedahs of "the movement" probably imagine.

[Anroth]

Its also largely bullshit. As the vast majority of customer service centres are staffed with women and gay men who are happily handling confrontation day in and day out all year round.

The issue with LDickinson is that she's shit at her job, not because she's a woman, but because she's a product of the WMF's insular culture that denies accountability to its service users. Any man who ended up in the same position would be acting the same, because that's how the WMF wants its employees to act.

[Elinruby]

And the women In the room share a look.

So do the guys.

LOL probably.

I will go first. It isn't "heavy-handed dominance behaviour" to say that a man should be doing your job sweetie? This is the same Molly White whose hesitant speech patterns we were making fun of the other day?

And btw I just realized that this does not make clear that I think it is probably true that Jake was channeling what the Krakens of the Wikicology thank, versus his own opinions, and I apologize for wrong-footing him like that. It's been a rough eighteen years and 100k + edits in terms of this sort of stuff, and it absolutely is not going away.

[Midsize Jake]

It probably depends on your genitals I daresay, but I don't think I have ever interacted with the guy directly, so that may be unfair.

Hey, I agree completely. In an ideal world, you could say that "dominance behavior" only applies to sexism when the sexist is actually in a "dominant" position, i.e., has some real power or authority over the person he or she is targeting. But in reality, lots of men simply assume they're in such a position solely by virtue of their being men. (If there are lots of women like that too, you certainly don't hear about them very often. Also, in an ideal world there wouldn't be sexists in the first place.)

To me at least, the question comes down to whether or not Mr. Troutman is really that type of guy, because if he is, Ms. White probably did the right thing in this case. Whereas if he isn't, then the block is probably excessive, especially since he had a clean block log before this and some people take a perverse sort of pride in that. But the Wikipedians aren't going to go to the trouble of figuring that out. They'll just react to his behavior in the immediate incident, so... goodbye clean block log, I guess!

And btw I just realized that this does not make clear that I think it is probably true that Jake was channeling what the Krakens of the Wikicology thank, versus his own opinions, and I apologize for wrong-footing him like that.

No worries!

[Elinruby]

...if he isn't, then the block is probably excessive, especially since he had a clean block log before this and some people take a perverse sort of pride in that. But the Wikipedians aren't going to go to the trouble of figuring that out. They'll just react to his behavior in the immediate incident, so... goodbye clean block log, I guess!

Of course he has a clean block log. Guys are never bitchy. It is known, khaleesi.

And btw I just realized that this does not make clear that I think it is probably true that Jake was channeling what the Krakens of the Wikicology thank, versus his own opinions, and I apologize for wrong-footing him like that.

No worries!

I have said before that the sanity of the moderators is one of the better points of this place. On Wikipedia I would never be able to threaten Kraken with 1066. And very therapeutic it was, too. I was once lectured at Arbcom for threatening to turn Gitz into a frog. Which I did do, but we never got to the why of it <g> Ah well. Good times.

[Randy from Boise]

I've been collecting 25 cent royalties every time my phrase "San Fran Ban"™ is uttered.

In my never-ending desire to keep those quarters rolling in, I'm gonna come up with a fresh trademarked expression for this, ummm, manhandling of our right-wing friend: this is a Kumbaya Block.™

Get used to dicks being thrown to the lynch mob for thought-crime, it's gonna be the first of many here in our Brave New World.

t

[Elinruby]

I've been collecting 25 cent royalties every time my phrase "San Fran Ban"™ is uttered.

In my never-ending desire to keep those quarters rolling in, I'm gonna come up with a fresh trademarked expression for this, ummm, manhandling of our right-wing friend: this is a Kumbaya Block.™

Get used to dicks being thrown to the lynch mob for thought-crime, it's gonna be the first of many here in our Brave New World.

t

Not hearing a good argument for exempting them, but I am listening

[Randy from Boise]

I've been collecting 25 cent royalties every time my phrase "San Fran Ban"™ is uttered.

In my never-ending desire to keep those quarters rolling in, I'm gonna come up with a fresh trademarked expression for this, ummm, manhandling of our right-wing friend: this is a Kumbaya Block.™

Get used to dicks being thrown to the lynch mob for thought-crime, it's gonna be the first of many here in our Brave New World.

t

Not hearing a good argument for exempting them, but I am listening

I'm going back to sleep before you are.

t

[Zoloft]

I've been collecting 25 cent royalties every time my phrase "San Fran Ban"™ is uttered.

In my never-ending desire to keep those quarters rolling in, I'm gonna come up with a fresh trademarked expression for this, ummm, manhandling of our right-wing friend: this is a Kumbaya Block.™

Get used to dicks being thrown to the lynch mob for thought-crime, it's gonna be the first of many here in our Brave New World.

t

I... think I might have blocked a few dozen or so maybe a hundred dicks here... *gestures at an entire website made up of them*

[Elinruby]

I've been collecting 25 cent royalties every time my phrase "San Fran Ban"™ is uttered.

In my never-ending desire to keep those quarters rolling in, I'm gonna come up with a fresh trademarked expression for this, ummm, manhandling of our right-wing friend: this is a Kumbaya Block.™

Get used to dicks being thrown to the lynch mob for thought-crime, it's gonna be the first of many here in our Brave New World.

t

Not hearing a good argument for exempting them, but I am listening

I'm going back to sleep before you are.

t

Either way it hasn't improved the word salad. I still can't find the guy getting shot in the eye. Props for trying that hard for the Spacebook btw

[redbaron]

he had a clean block log before this

Color me surprised, he has been pushing the boundaries of civility for quite a while.

[Randy from Boise]

I guess it is morning now, I will see if I get this typed up before Bennie demands dog frisbee and Bella wants her apple.

1. Care zero about this Jordan Peterson character. I've kind of assumed he's the new Milo — a far-right provocateur who is a bomb-thrower beloved by dumb people for "owning the libs." I think he's one of the retards the YouTube algorithm is always throwing at me watching their shorts because I really like Neil deGrasse Tyson and he is always being interviewed by the schmuck Joe Rogan. Basically my exposure to him is as long as it takes me to hit the DON'T RECOMMEND THIS CHANNEL button — 1.5 to 2 second hits. Whether he is a conservative provocateur or a fascist ideologist or a fascist provocateur is a judgment I leave to others.

2. I don't know Chris Troutman or give two shits about Chris Troutman either — other than to say he has a hilarious surname for a Wikipedian.

3. I think GW is swell. She's basically one of the really great, true-believing, true blue Wikipedians.

4. What I am concerned about is the weaponization of civility rules for political ends.

So, at the risk of making Vig loose his stuff for running long, let's roll back to the original Troutman comment...

The background context relates to a piece on an article in The Telegraph by Orlowski in the Signpost more than 7 months ago, presumably in which he was critical of WMF's fundraising or expenditures. I'll dig that up later, but apparently LDickinson (WMF) is a foundation employee who took umbrage, stating:

"The Telegraph column linked here contains numerous inaccuracies. For background, before the article was published, our team provided a detailed response to questions from the reporter. Unfortunately, no part of the Foundation's statement was included in the published piece. This is not the first time that, despite providing the author with information and answering their questions, they have misrepresented how the Foundation works. Since the piece was published last Monday, our team has contacted The Telegraph requesting an immediate correction on several points related to the Foundation..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 5#Orlowski

Our old friend Andreas/JN466 jumped in with a point-by-point refutation of LDickinson, essentially defending Orlowski. At issue seems to be the liquidity of the WMF's massive endowment

LDickinson also came under fire from GreenMeansGo (T-C-L), who charged "The Foundation treats editors like Reddit treats mods. You're all imminently replaceable," and from Guy Macon — essentially a three-on-one tag-team on a WMF employee who was emerging the worse for wear in a heated debate. Macon was particularly surly, stating in a link-laden riposte, "It appears that a W?F "Senior Communications Manager"[2][3] has the same relationship to communication[4][5] that a fireman has to fire."

Dickinson followed one link and found Macon's 9/10/23 line "There is a word that I choose to avoid that describes someone who writes 'It is misleading to say that just 2% of Wikipedia's revenue goes to hosting costs' and then goes on to "refute" the claim by telling you what was spent on something other than hosting costs. I'm just saying." to be objectionable.

Here is how Dickinson responded to this:

Candidly, your comments here (beginning "There is a word that I choose to avoid that describes someone…") on 10 September made me feel uncomfortable. You may have chosen to avoid calling me a name because you know it is against project guidelines, but the comment is unkind and unconstructive, especially towards someone you are interacting with for the first time. My feelings of discomfort were reinforced by your later comment here (beginning "It appears that W?F Senior Communications Manager…"), which also links to my personal Meta profile. In recent days, I have seen your many messages requesting a response from me, including comments on my personal talk pages and the Communications Department's talk page. I've also seen your comment encouraging others to comment on my talk page, and I received your email requesting that I respond. I feel that I am not being engaged in an appropriate way. I hope this provides clarity on why you have not seen further responses from me in this space.

No debate because "made me feel uncomfortable" ... "calling me a name because you know it is against project guidelines" ... "unkind and unconstructive" ... "My feelings of discomfort were reinforced" ... "I have seen your many messages requesting a response from me, including comments on my personal talk pages and the Communications Department's talk page."

"I don't answer meanies," would be my tl;dr summary, neatly terminating any debate on substance.

It was in response to this Sept. 2023 backstory that the severely clue-challenged Troutman resurrected a dinosaur thread on LDickinson's user-talk with the post:

Some people say that biological sex is a real thing and that a host of generalizations can be drawn from that bifurcation. One of those is that males tend to be more interested in things than people while women are the opposite. Some people with psychology degrees (not me) might also conclude that replying to questions about accountability with a statement that one feels attacked or uncomfortable are typical of those who are more interested in people than things. If I were asking questions about accountability, I might prefer to ask someone who is biologically predisposed to accept confrontation and answer those questions directly. Again, all of this rests on stated priors. I think collaborative projects with unequal levels of power requires measures of accountability. I might assume that someone who claimed to be a leader in external communications would be proficient in responding to customer concerns, from customers who are neither happy nor patient. I don't see how a collaborative project could succeed when those in power are clearly not up to the implicit task of managing confrontation. I insist that WMF become adept at facing confrontation from the editors. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:40 am, 19 April 2024, last Friday (2 days ago) (UTC−7)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1219762603

LDickinson is a woman, I presume.

"If I were asking questions about accountability, I might prefer to ask someone who is biologically predisposed to accept confrontation and answer those questions directly." is completely fucking stupid, everyone can admit. Is it blockably stupid? Maybe.

Here's the thing: in response to a dead thread on someone else's user page, GW dons her white cape and races to AN/I for action...

I was pretty shocked by this comment to LDickinson by Chris troutman, where he suggests that women are biologically "more interested in people than things", and not "predisposed to accept confrontation and answer those questions directly" or "managing confrontation". I see from these comments by Firefly and Novem Linguae that I was not the only person to read these comments as Troutman complaining that he would rather be talking to a man, or — my interpretation — that the WMF should only hire men for such roles.

Such comments are wildly inappropriate for an encyclopedia where, last time I checked, we are operating in the 21st century. Regardless of what Jordan Peterson has to say about it, suggesting to a woman's face that she is biologically inferior and should be replaced with a man who is "biologically predisposed" to "manage confrontation" seems pretty beyond the pale from an experienced editor (or an inexperienced one). Confrontationally yours, GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 3:20 pm, 19 April 2024, last Friday (2 days ago) (UTC−7)

An hour later, I've pretty much figured out the story. This is clearly a case of GW jumping in for a friend. Blockable? Yeah, probably, I guess. Handled with the least degree of drama? Absolutely not.

Bella wants to go out. Lucky you, Vig.

t

[Giraffe Stapler]

Whatever Molly wants, Molly gets. And little man, little Molly wants you. Make up your mind to have no regrets. Recline yourself, resign yourself - you're through.

[Randy from Boise]

Having read the backstory, other than digging out the original Signpost article, I'm not quite certain whether this is the first AN/I party of the UCoC era or the 32,415th episode of Corbetian Game of Thrones.

Probably the latter because UCoC was not invoked.

I still want my Kumbaya Block™ royalty quarters though...

t

P.S. Hmmmm, GW has buttons. She was not an involved party... Why didn't she do a quick, quiet block on her own? Why go to AN/I at all???

[Beeblebrox]

I could be wrong, but I don't recall having any specific interactions or conflicts with this Troutman fellow before. A brief review of just a few comments highlighted in the recent discussion shows someone who has no problem making openly contemptuous comments about women and trans women. That he is blocked for that now is not a problem, that he got away with it for so long is.

[Vigilant]

And the women In the room share a look.

So do the guys.

LOL probably.

I will go first. It isn't "heavy-handed dominance behaviour" to say that a man should be doing your job sweetie? This is the same Molly White whose hesitant speech patterns we were making fun of the other day?

Uptalking is always bad.

[Vigilant]

I could be wrong, but I don't recall having any specific interactions or conflicts with this Troutman fellow before. A brief review of just a few comments highlighted in the recent discussion shows someone who has no problem making openly contemptuous comments about women and trans women. That he is blocked for that now is not a problem, that he got away with it for so long is.

Fuckin' right.

[Elinruby]

And the women In the room share a look.

So do the guys.

LOL probably.

I will go first. It isn't "heavy-handed dominance behaviour" to say that a man should be doing your job sweetie? This is the same Molly White whose hesitant speech patterns we were making fun of the other day?

Uptalking is always bad.

At the rik of seeming humorless.... No never mind. I will assume this is a joke

[Black Kite]

Troutman has been persistently irritating for a very long time. He makes *very* blunt comments that are not exactly personal attacks, but hover around it. He reminds me of ASD young people that I work with that don't have that filter.

You know when you're reading an interminable Support/Oppose thread, and there are people who if they Support it, you know you're going to oppose it (and vice versa). Yes, CT is one of those.

[rnu]

Chris Troutman is a serial asshole who has got away with far too much for far too long for the usual reasons. He got away with a slap on the wrist. He's lucky the discussion was shut down almost immediately.
The interesting question for me is "who is Tonymetz (T-C-L)?" He has 666 edits since joining six years ago. He made six edits in 2018 then went quiet until 2024. He seems to be very interested in the Maher/npr brouhaha and in making sure people don't look too closely at Chis Troutman including the usual disingenuous power user claims of "a pile-on", CT not being able to defend himself and the that the issue is resolved.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Chris Troutman is a serial asshole who has got away with far too much for far too long for the usual reasons. He got away with a slap on the wrist. He's lucky the discussion was shut down almost immediately.
The interesting question for me is "who is Tonymetz (T-C-L)?" He has 666 edits since joining six years ago. He made six edits in 2018 then went quiet until 2024. He seems to be very interested in the Maher/npr brouhaha and in making sure people don't look too closely at Chis Troutman including the usual disingenuous power user claims of "a pile-on", CT not being able to defend himself and the that the issue is resolved.

Tonymetz (T-C-L) is Anthony Metzidis, based on this old userpage declaration of COI in a company called Earny. Judging from his edits, he's interested in alt-right politicians.*
*So here I am, outing someone again. Sure, someone practically asked me to do it, but I could have sent them a PM with the answer to their question, but I know that you want to know, too. Don't deny it.

[rnu]

Chris Troutman is a serial asshole who has got away with far too much for far too long for the usual reasons. He got away with a slap on the wrist. He's lucky the discussion was shut down almost immediately.
The interesting question for me is "who is Tonymetz (T-C-L)?" He has 666 edits since joining six years ago. He made six edits in 2018 then went quiet until 2024. He seems to be very interested in the Maher/npr brouhaha and in making sure people don't look too closely at Chis Troutman including the usual disingenuous power user claims of "a pile-on", CT not being able to defend himself and the that the issue is resolved.

Tonymetz (T-C-L) is Anthony Metzidis, based on this old userpage declaration of COI in a company called Earny. Judging from his edits, he's interested in alt-right politicians.

Started of with a little COI editing.

[Elinruby]

Having read the backstory, other than digging out the original Signpost article, I'm not quite certain whether this is the first AN/I party of the UCoC era or the 32,415th episode of Corbetian Game of Thrones.

Probably the latter because UCoC was not invoked.

I still want my Kumbaya Block™ royalty quarters though...

t

P.S. Hmmmm, GW has buttons. She was not an involved party... Why didn't she do a quick, quiet block on her own? Why go to AN/I at all???

now that's a fair question. I actually agree with most of what you wrote above, except for the conclusion, interestingly. In my opinion the remarks themselves richly reserved the block and were akin to calling a black man "boy" because you can. Interested in the admin etiquette question here though.

The cry of "thought crime" leaves me unmoved however. That ship has sailed. Either eliminate them all or don't exempt the Chris troutmans, is my thought.

[Vigilant]

*So here I am, outing someone again. Sure, someone practically asked me to do it, but I could have sent them a PM with the answer to their question, but I know that you want to know, too. Don't deny it.

YOU....MONSTER!

When will the pearl-clutching tear-dispenser crowd be along to pillory you for this egregious sin?!

Or do they only prostrate themselves and tear out their hair when it's an en.wp admin type?

[Elinruby]

*So here I am, outing someone again. Sure, someone practically asked me to do it, but I could have sent them a PM with the answer to their question, but I know that you want to know, too. Don't deny it.

YOU....MONSTER!

When will the pearl-clutching tear-dispenser crowd be along to pillory you for this egregious sin?!

Or do they only prostrate themselves and tear out their hair when it's an en.wp admin type?

It's apparently just fine if you are from the University of Ottawa however. Just matriculate there as a distance learner. Problem solved.

[Vigilant]

*So here I am, outing someone again. Sure, someone practically asked me to do it, but I could have sent them a PM with the answer to their question, but I know that you want to know, too. Don't deny it.

YOU....MONSTER!

When will the pearl-clutching tear-dispenser crowd be along to pillory you for this egregious sin?!

Or do they only prostrate themselves and tear out their hair when it's an en.wp admin type?

It's apparently just fine if you are from the University of Ottawa however. Just matriculate there as a distance learner. Problem solved.

I'm not following you here.

[Elinruby]

*So here I am, outing someone again. Sure, someone practically asked me to do it, but I could have sent them a PM with the answer to their question, but I know that you want to know, too. Don't deny it.

YOU....MONSTER!

When will the pearl-clutching tear-dispenser crowd be along to pillory you for this egregious sin?!

Or do they only prostrate themselves and tear out their hair when it's an en.wp admin type?

It's apparently just fine if you are from the University of Ottawa however. Just matriculate there as a distance learner. Problem solved.

I'm not following you here.

two recent outings of Wikipedia editors. Well, instances of outing affected that four editors, I believe

[Randy from Boise]

*So here I am, outing someone again. Sure, someone practically asked me to do it, but I could have sent them a PM with the answer to their question, but I know that you want to know, too. Don't deny it.

YOU....MONSTER!

When will the pearl-clutching tear-dispenser crowd be along to pillory you for this egregious sin?!

Or do they only prostrate themselves and tear out their hair when it's an en.wp admin type?

It's apparently just fine if you are from the University of Ottawa however. Just matriculate there as a distance learner. Problem solved.

I'm not following you here.

two recent outings of Wikipedia editors. Well, instances of outing affected that four editors, I believe

Outing Canadians is easy, you can tell them by their big, flappy mouths!

t

[ltbdl]

all i remember about the guy is a comment he somehow didn't get blocked for:

Many on the right wing have accused Wikipedia of being a left wing website. Some editors argue the point but I know better. Now we see a 15 year editor getting very swiftly blocked and de-sysopped for cause all because she spoke against the neofascist orthodoxy of this website. Unfair as it is I can't say I'm sad about it. At least I know how to read the writing on the wall.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... tober_2022

[Elinruby]

*So here I am, outing someone again. Sure, someone practically asked me to do it, but I could have sent them a PM with the answer to their question, but I know that you want to know, too. Don't deny it.

YOU....MONSTER!

When will the pearl-clutching tear-dispenser crowd be along to pillory you for this egregious sin?!

Or do they only prostrate themselves and tear out their hair when it's an en.wp admin type?

It's apparently just fine if you are from the University of Ottawa however. Just matriculate there as a distance learner. Problem solved.

I'm not following you here.

two recent outings of Wikipedia editors. Well, instances of outing affected that four editors, I believe

Outing Canadians is easy, you can tell them by their big, flappy mouths!

t

It isn't clear to me that anyone involved in either incident is Canadian. They both involved University of Ottawa faculty is all I said. Maybe Canadian citizens, I don't know. The point is that the WMF did not have an issue with either one

[Midsize Jake]

Looks like nobody attempted to answer this question:

P.S. Hmmmm, GW has buttons. She was not an involved party... Why didn't she do a quick, quiet block on her own? Why go to AN/I at all???

Hopefully she'll drop by and answer this one herself, but if I really had to guess, I'd say it's probably because of all the drama that got stirred up the last time.

[Vigilant]

Looks like nobody attempted to answer this question:

P.S. Hmmmm, GW has buttons. She was not an involved party... Why didn't she do a quick, quiet block on her own? Why go to AN/I at all???

Hopefully she'll drop by and answer this one herself, but if I really had to guess, I'd say it's probably because of all the drama that got stirred up the last time.

Molly has never had mature judgement.

Oliver Keyes...

[Yngvadottir]

I decline to discuss British politics or the state of the British educational system. Or even preferred British news sources.

Chris troutman is habitually rude, and civility does matter on Wikipedia, not just for the sake of the easily offended, much less the WMF censors, but as a form of respect for fellow volunteers. This wasn't to a fellow volunteer though; it was to an inept WMF shill. There's an element of "Go it husband, go it bear" about this for me: whatsername of the WMF gets insulted, and Chris troutman finally gets blocked for arseholery. But insulting her for "acting female" undermines the anti-WMF cause; her being a woman is not the problem—just as the WMF supposedly expecting its employees to show contempt towards volunteers is not an excuse, and the WMF's apparent preferential hiring of women is neither here nor there (although the WMF itself stereotypes enormously and I'm pretty sure they have me down as a bull dyke if they recognise me as female at all, since I don't blush at bad words or have a pink user box). I've thanked Guy Macon for this edit. I don't trust GorillaWarfare and think she was a terrible Arb (Eric Corbett, Gamaliel); but people can change, and she did better with Fram. And I respect her decision not to make this block herself: she could be justifiably seen as involved based on past actions, or she may have recognised she couldn't be sufficiently dispassionate about someone being blatantly sexist and using men's rights dogwhistles to justify it. At least she didn't invoke the UCOC. I think.

[Zoloft]

I admire Molly White on several fronts, especially her efforts to combat the nonsense and chicanery on the cryptocurrency front. I also believe that no one can come away from Wikipedia completely unstained. It has some virtues, but it's severely toxic.

[rnu]

[...]
*So here I am, outing someone again. Sure, someone practically asked me to do it, but I could have sent them a PM with the answer to their question, but I know that you want to know, too. Don't deny it.

I apologize profusely for my role in this OUTING.



To be precise, I apologize for being lazy and not taking the time to find the barely hidden identity myself. I am sorry and ask for your forgiveness!

[Jester]

all i remember about the guy is a comment he somehow didn't get blocked for:

Many on the right wing have accused Wikipedia of being a left wing website. Some editors argue the point but I know better. Now we see a 15 year editor getting very swiftly blocked and de-sysopped for cause all because she spoke against the neofascist orthodoxy of this website. Unfair as it is I can't say I'm sad about it. At least I know how to read the writing on the wall.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... tober_2022

I mostly remember him for that and the even more egregious comment in the parallel "not just disappointed" ANI where he stated "you folks aren't interested in humanity" in regards to supporters of trans rights. How that didn't warrant an indef then and there is still beyond me. link

[Beeblebrox]

I'll throw my hat in on why Molly didn't make the block herself: sometimes that's the smart move. Raise the alarm instead of just swinging the hammer yourself. if somebody else, (or multiple somebodies) who was previously unaware of the issue is just as outraged, you got something like a consensus and the block is more likely to stand.

I've used this with some of the most obnoxious people I've ever encountered on WP and it has worked quite well. Better than just yelling at them myself ever did.

[Randy from Boise]

I'll throw my hat in on why Molly didn't make the block herself: sometimes that's the smart move. Raise the alarm instead of just swinging the hammer yourself. if somebody else, (or multiple somebodies) who was previously unaware of the issue is just as outraged, you got something like a consensus and the block is more likely to stand.

I've used this with some of the most obnoxious people I've ever encountered on WP and it has worked quite well. Better than just yelling at them myself ever did.

So in other words: sow outrage, fan drama, get the mob riled up — and it's more likely that there will be a hangin'...

Got it.

t

[Beeblebrox]

I'll throw my hat in on why Molly didn't make the block herself: sometimes that's the smart move. Raise the alarm instead of just swinging the hammer yourself. if somebody else, (or multiple somebodies) who was previously unaware of the issue is just as outraged, you got something like a consensus and the block is more likely to stand.

I've used this with some of the most obnoxious people I've ever encountered on WP and it has worked quite well. Better than just yelling at them myself ever did.

So in other words: sow outrage, fan drama, get the mob riled up — and it's more likely that there will be a hangin'...

Got it.

t

It's more like what I detailed here: link I tried to tell this moron to go away, but I said some verboten words when doing so and suddenly it was about me instead and they got a license to keep being a clueless idiot because of it.

When they were all up in my grill again being even stupider despite having another six years of editing experience, I went to ANI instead of chasing them off my talk page, and the correct result was finally achieved.

Consensus is supposed to be the primamry decision-making process on Wikipedia, after all.

[Midsize Jake]

I'll throw my hat in on why Molly didn't make the block herself: sometimes that's the smart move.

I'd say it's always the smart move, if you can get away with it and you're pretty sure the end result will be the one you want...?

The only scenario in which it's advantageous to act unilaterally on a block/ban is when you're concerned that you might otherwise look indecisive or like you just don't care, and in so doing just make more work for yourself down the road as more people test you to see how much they can get away with. But that sort of scenario wouldn't happen so much on a site like Wikipedia, where there are hundreds of admins, because there will always be another admin who's just as hard-assed as you'd prefer to be in any given instance.

I mentioned earlier that I consider Molly White to be a "leadership figure," or simply "part of the leadership" on Wikipedia, but I've also said that I don't think she's all that comfortable in that role, or at least not comfortable being up-front about it. At the same time, the Trump Administration made a lot of American feminists pretty angry, and rightly so — and as a result, many were less likely to put up with even relatively minor incidents of sexist bullshit, especially when they were in positions of authority or "leadership" and could actually do something about it.

In her case, a good example might be the Kudpung vs. GW incident from August 2018, when what should have been a minor "nothingburger" micro-aggression incident got blown up into a huge debacle because Kudpung was (and presumably still is) an idiot who, like many Wikipedians, couldn't just issue a quick apology and move on. GW ran for Arbcom that year too, and participated in our Arbcom elections thread. I was just looking through that thread, and now I'm thinking she's changed a bit since then — possibly because she has a much bigger public persona now and therefore more to lose by appearing "extreme" or "needlessly aggressive" when all she's really trying to do is maintain a reasonable behavioral standard. (As for Trump, and anti-feminists in general, obviously he and they are still around and haven't been completely eradicated from public life like most Americans would probably prefer, so I'm not so sure this is a factor.)

So if y'all don't mind me quoting myself (again) from back then:

Not being a Wikipedian in any way-shape-or-form myself, I personally applaud you for using whatever weapons or cudgels against those people you can find, whether or not that's your intention. (And not as though you're doing this all the time, obviously.) What I don't understand is your apparent unwillingness to entertain the notion that many, if not most, of your fellow Wikipedians expect your Wikipedianism to take precedence over feminism (and if you ask me, probably everything else you believe in). It seems pretty clear from my perspective, and while I know there are plenty of exceptions among the users, I almost have to assume you're rejecting that notion simply because it's politically advisable to do so, or at least not be seen doing otherwise.

Her response to this was simply to say, "I don't see my feminism as being in conflict with my Wikipedianism," which is a perfectly reasonable thing to say, but also somewhat dismissive of what was actually at issue, IMO. So while I don't really mean to be critical of her, I'd say the subsequent posts in that thread are fairly illuminating for those who weren't participants in that whole business at the time.

[Elinruby]

I'll second the "Kudpung is an idiot" notion, having been on the receiving end of his thoughts on uppity editors in the MB RfA.

If the criticism is of GW herself I have no basis for argument as she too is merely someone I have noticed on a drama board to me. Is this an important point that deserves to be researched? (note to Vigilant: this is an actual question. Note how I am not asserting that it is or is not)

I still say good block. I detect notes of "but he was *our* asshole" and ok, fine. Andreas tends to be correct about the things he gets involved in. Chris still made an egregious comment, not even in the heat of the argument. That said, the issue of where exactly the money goes is very valid and does deserve a better answer than it got.

[Cheryl]

To my knowledge I've never had any interaction with Chris Troutman and have no idea what his wiki history is. Speaking as someone who might be described as leftist and woke, I believe the block of him for that statement is ridiculous. Saying that "some people" believe there might be a difference between men and women is grounds for blocking a contributor? Am I missing something?

We've seen a growth over the decades in less tolerance for ideas different than our own and punishment of those who offend our heightened sensitivity to insult. Both the Right and Left are guilty. It seems human nature to try to persuade others to believe the same thing we do and, if that doesn't work, try to coerce them into conformity. Whatever happened to the old saw, "I don't agree with what you say -- but I'll defend your right to say it."

That was my first take as well. After reading Trouthead's clueless post more closely, it feels like the potentially blockable element comes later: "If I were asking questions about accountability, I might prefer to ask someone who is biologically predisposed to accept confrontation and answer those questions directly."

I read that sentence as an unintended compliment to women. Troutman would rather deal with testosterone-fueled males than more reasonable females who express themselves politely. If that is a valid distinction, I'd rather deal with females.

I don't see a compliment, unintended or not. The first half of Troutman's statement, carefully couched to confer plausible deniability, says:
1. Men are interested in things.
2. Women are interested in people.
3. People who say they feel attacked or are uncomfortable are typically women.
4. If I want a direct answer, I should ask a man.

The ridiculous part is that none of that was necessary for his point:

I think collaborative projects with unequal levels of power requires measures of accountability. I might assume that someone who claimed to be a leader in external communications would be proficient in responding to customer concerns, from customers who are neither happy nor patient. I don't see how a collaborative project could succeed when those in power are clearly not up to the implicit task of managing confrontation. I insist that WMF become adept at facing confrontation from the editors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1219762603

[Beeblebrox]

P.S.. That page had to have been watch-listed, it was a zombie thread from months back on someone else's user page... The only other way to be attuned to that is to have been stalking the poster's activity and that is not the complainant's style...

I regularly see people's talk pages pop up on my watchlist and I have to go and look to try and remind myself why I had them watchlisted in the first place. At least half the time I can't recall why.

[Zoloft]

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!