Tryptofish

[CrowsNest]

From time to time, I google "Tryptofish". Over the past year, the off-wiki results have been in large part SashiRolls (or a false flag, but I doubt it) posting at multiple websites about how bad I am, very grudge-y in tone. So, admins, make of that what you will. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

It appears they didn't make much of it. Evidently all Tryptofish wants is to be examined by people with an open mind, carrying no grudges and bearing no assumptions. I think I can oblige. I am nothing if not fair.

First up, please explain these posts...

I will say that I'm not clear why sod and bugger are milder than fuck; does homo stuff get a discount on shock value? EEng 18:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Uhhh, "homo"? Are you somehow unaware that is a slur? Seriously, anyone reporting you for that would just set this discussion aflame and undo an progress that's been made, but that is truly offensive, and I would move to strike or replace it entirely, fast......Snow let's rap 20:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Snow Rise, you may perhaps find that EEng is more aware of those things than you realized. Which is all the more reason to regard civility issues as context-dependent. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Even if he is using it "ironically", it's not appropriate. Slurs should not be used for shock value just to emphasize a point. Indeed, being flippant with a slur like that for a "clever" turn of phrase is not short of the level of offensiveness which results when a hatemonger uses it sincerely. Hatespeech has no place on this project, and Eeng could have made the exact same underlying social point without it, by simply saying "so the sodomy stuff gets a discount?". Snow let's rap 20:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I've left him a note about your comment, and I'll let him reply to you about this. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Uh-oh!

Seems likely are in big trouble now! (not). Apparently, it has been scientifically proven you are homophobic: [294]. Tryptofish 20:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

My inquiring mind has a few questions.

1. Is "homo stuff" either a) acceptable speech in Wikipedia discourse, b) unacceptable speech in Wikipedia discourse, or c) unacceptable but context dependent (excluding the narrow context of discussing it as a term, or discussing article/subject quotes)?

2. If c) and the context really is homosexuals can use it in some context, where can other users verify EEng is in fact homosexual?

3. If the answer to 2. is in his user space, what is your position on EEng's known attitude to communication on Wikipedia - namely to make it as difficult as possible for people to view his user space pages, chiefly by making them too large to load, and too difficult to navigate. I cannot at this time say if he does our does not include any claim of his sexuality in his userspace, due to aforementioned difficulties, but it is noted he has made a declaration in that conversation

4. Even if EEng does include a claim of his sexuality in his user page, on what basis do you assume it is a truthful statement? Do you accept EEng has a reputation for using misrepresentation and even deception in what he likes to call his performance art? Where might a Wikipedia user be able to track all the different things EEng has claimed to be or believe over the years, so as to satisfy themselves they are dealing with an honest person with consistent positions?

5. If 2. is your position, what is the context you think homosexuals can use homophobic slurs on Wikipedia? Is it to be narrowly construed and context dependent, perhaps allowing only the sort of use EEng was attempting here, or should it be allowed in all cases?

6. If it's the narrower context, what is your position on this comment....

Of course we shouldn't have a list of banned words or phrases. Instead we should have civil discourse. I know what phrase popped into my head (which is no doubt more top of mind at the moment) when I saw that you [EEng] felt entitled to test others, and deem them failures if they pointed out the use of a slur, but rather than say that I typed this in the hopes of continuing to have civil discourse. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Given the general reputation of EEng, would you agree with my assumption that the word in question is "troll"? Or maybe even "asshole"?

7. Why the difference in tone between your posts on Wikipedia talk:Civility and User talk:EEng?

[CrowsNest]

Can you imagine being the sort of warped individual who thinks in these terms, never mind being stupid enough to write them down in a public place, so people like me can laugh at them?

For neurotypicals, just seeing "dirty words" can be a trigger to think: "yes, that was incivil" – whereas a lot of passive-aggressive but superficially polite garbage does not trigger them in the same way. And I guess we have, and indeed should have, the same rules for neurotypicals and for those who are not. As a purely practical matter, superficial politeness, when the target does not in any way deserve it, is a useful tool in avoiding trouble from the powers-that-be. Take a look at my user talk, and note how many times I reply to editors by saying first: "Thank you for asking me that here." More than half the time, I'm actually thinking "fuck you". I'm therefore being just a little bit dishonest, hypocritical again, but it is extremely useful in keeping things moving along without a further blow-up. That's my sincere feedback, and I hope that you do not find it condescending.

I don't know why these people don't get it (I do, but, y'know). Being polite to people who don't deserve it isn't basic Wikipedia policy because they want nasty twisted pieces of shit like this writing their encyclopedia, it is policy because if you are capable of being nice to people who don't deserve it, and you aren't secretly thinking at the same time now clever you are for being smarter than the average bear, then you are exactly sort of person Wikipedia wants and needs for the incredibly demanding role of being able to write about controversial subjects in a neutral and dispassionate way where you have no authority over others except your own voice.

In short, no dude, it's you who is the freak. It's you who needs to fuck off. Wikipedia doesn't need people who would waste their time trying to educate morons like Mjolnirpants about this supposed brilliant strategy for keeping out of trouble. He is the trouble, that's how he was made, that's why his mother hates him, and herself a little bit for letting him live. He is never going to change, stupid people never do. You were giving him this advice after he had shown in a quite spectacular way, that he is incapable of change. Which is another pretty good example of what dumb people typically waste their time on.

Wikipedia doesn't need or want people like you. Wikipedia sucks because it can't effectively rid itself of people like you. You are the cancer, your fight against the "neurotypicals" is the real problem.

If you won't voluntarily put yourself into the sea, then others will do it for you. I guarantee you have no brilliant strategy to avoid that fate. Stupid people never do.

HTD.

[CrowsNest]

BUH BYE THEN.....

Statement

I have decided to very significantly decrease my participation in Wikipedia, for an undetermined amount of time. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Leaving Wikipedia because there was no appetite to take BrownHairedGirl to ArbCom for her part in his mate Mjolnirants committing suicide by Admin?

I'm not convinced that you really accept, even in the face of your very real concerns about civility, that you didn't really need to re-block him. And re-blocking an editor for failing to apologize when they haven't necessarily had enough time to calm down and make an apology raises all kinds of concerns about how many times someone can get blocked, and then get blocked again for the same thing, and on and on.

That's where I'm coming from. You can take it under advisement and learn from it for the future, or you can disregard it. If you would like to discuss this further, I'd be happy to. --Tryptofish (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

She was not so inclined, so off Tryp went, toys in hand.

Not before dropping this doozie though.....

For the record, no one here actually knows what gender I am. And, although there is no reason for anyone to know this, because I never said it before, I am a survivor of childhood sexual abuse. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

....which seems to be either a craven attempt to engender sympathy because they are a victim of abuse (sad, but wholly irrelevant), or engender sympathy because they might not be a man (irrelevant), or worse, a horrific attempt to use the fact that because they have never declared a gender, they might be a woman so as to alter people's perceptions of their views/actions, when they are not.

That they might be a woman is irrelevant to whether they are wrong and BHG is right, since Wikipedia's gender issues are systemic, there are always outliers, indeed it is no effort at all to find individual women on Wikipedia, established users and even Administrators, who not only survive but thrive, because they choose (or were raised) to act no better than the standard set by the worst men.

Many editors with certain let's say traditionalist views on Wikipedia's gender problems have been caught trying to sow doubt in people's minds as to whether they might be women simply because they haven't declared a gender on wiki, when we know damn well they are men. Would Tryp be that sort of person? Anyone who thinks the likes of Mjolnirpants should be entitled to do what they do and simply be left alone to cool off whle they wait out their not a cool down block, as if being a tempestuous reactionary asshole is an affliction not a choice or a learned behaviour, or worse as they have tried to imply, something to do with being on the spectrum, it means it has to be considered likely.

[CrowsNest]

I said the thing about my early childhood because I wanted to make the point that editors should not see me as someone lacking empathy, since I was recently caricatured that way elsewhere onsite. I'll observe that it is quite pleasant to spend less time here and more time on other things. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Not sure it really does make that point, but regardless, what it does say is that you've got a real issue judging the emotional level of argument, or to put it more simlly, empathy. No way in hell does any post about the civility of Wikipedia, no matter how impassioned, need a response detailing your status as an abuse survivor. There's so many ways that could go South really quickly, especially in an environment already known for the less than ideal means of communication.

[CrowsNest]

Pure knob-headery.

My message to you
Hi, just a heads-up that I addressed some comments to you at Ritchie333's talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Regarding your comment: I do not at all think that you caused this. Ritchie333 is blocked for his own edits, not for anything you did, and you did not ask him to comment on other editors. I am well aware that almost everybody violates their topic (or interaction= ban and gets warned for it without immediately being banhammered. That happened to Ritchie333 in the immediate aftermath of the interaction ban; I included a link to the warning in the block message. The exchange on Ritchie333's talk page came almost three days after the IBAN announcement, about a day after WTT's warning. That should be more than enough time for "letting off a little steam". While I see that Ritchie333 expresses concern fot Tjla12, he also commented negatively on Praxidicae's edits. He shouldn't have done that. It's unhelpful, and it needs to stop. I do not think a further warning would have convinced Ritchie333 any more than the previous warning. Huon (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

You are wrong, which is very disappointing. I will note our discussion here, on Ritchie's talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Administrators are required to indulge whiny little bitches like this to the nth degree. It has got to drag you down eventually.

If I ran Wikipedia, his only choice here if he didn't like the reply, would have been to keep his mouth shut, or explain what he thinks is so wrong about the extremely detailed reasoning. Keen observers will realize this doesn't even need a new policy, just a stricter enforcement of WP:CIVIL.

Although obviously if CIVIL were enforced strictly, Tryptofish wouldn't have even been in a position to make this inquiry and then rudely dismiss it out of hand, having been blocked for his multiple attacks on the Administrator he has already posted, calling him a "hater", and the "most insane of the insane", for daring to block his good buddy Ritchie. Without naming Huon directly of course, while making it obvious he couldn't be meaning anyone else, because he's evidently that kind of snide prick. For someone so vexxed about a routine Admin action, blocking an editor who breached an interaction ban after ignoring a warning for an earlier breach, you would think he would be able to say what he finds so wrong about the reply.

[Abd]

Civil process is essential to genuine consensus formation, and consensus is essential to neutrality, there is no objective standard for neutrality other than maximizing informed consensus.

Hence I knew that Wikipedia was doomed when Jimbo blocked Bishonen for incivility for three hours, and there was a firestorm, and Jimbo backed down. Three hours for this edit.

Jimbo had the power, but did he have the cojones? What if he actually established civility policy and the "valuable editors" went away? Would he be killing the goose that laid the golden egg? Better not take the chance!