Has Wikipedia gone woke? (Chris Troutman blocked for sexis

[Kraken]

This was perhaps one of the reasons I got banned from Wikipediocracy.

Chris Troutman was recently blocked 1 week for sexism.

There are two good writeups, my timeline here (collapsed section), and Tim's broader summary here.

To me, it's not even controversial to say Molly has ridden roughshod over her colleagues, policy and all known Wikipedia precedent. She has used emotion and triggering, and her own status and gender, to get what she wanted. A statement block. A virtue signal visible from space. A flex to crush all flexes.

It is entirely possible for both of these things to be true....

1. Chris said something sexist.

2. Molly reacted like a fully paid up member of the Woke Police, not a long serving very knowledgeable Wikipedia Administrator and former Arbitrator.

And it worked. There's been zero dissent. Zero. The fear is palpable. As you would expect if Wikipedia has quietly been captured by the Wokerati.

She cannot be defended. Not by anyone who knows a thing about how Wikipedia is supposed to work. And I have defended her in the past, when she was being an actual feminist, not an agent of woke.

Nobody who knows anything about Wikipedia can be blind to what it means to be hit with a week long block for sexism. Chris can now be canceled very easily. One tiny mistep, and he's gone. So it matters if that block was an act of sheer and total abuse of power by someone who at that very moment had a very specific reason from wanting to shut Chris up (protect Maher) in addition to the desire to react to sexism.

And indefinite block would have been challenged, and this would have all come out. What she did. The circumstances. The sheer audacity of it.

Things very much not normal. Wikipedia blocks are not punishments or a message to the wider community, much less the media. This has been a principle since forever, as Molly knows fine well. She has gone fully off the reservation, and nobody is willing to stop her.

This simple observation also seems to have offended Zoloft's politics. No surprise, given he admits to being left of Maher, from whom Molly no doubt derives the confidence to do such a thing.

On Wikipediocracy, it's apparently very controversial to point out what should be some really rather obvious things to experienced Wikipedia critics who date from earlier times, when certain men with certain views really did get away with murder on Wikipedia. Would the current generation of Wikipedia editors even a have a clue why this was such a terrible abuse of power by Molly? Probably not.

And who is going to tell them? Not Zoloft.

[ericbarbour]

Yeah whatever. One post would have been sufficient.

OF COURSE WP is "woke". It always was--in certain circumstances. Molly went after Troutman (that's not one of your sockpuppets, is it?) because she knew insiders would support her. Tag teaming is the order of the day, for any cultlike group.

[Kraken]

Note that Zoloft has deleted the post with the timeline, and all other posts by me that debunked every innocent explanation of this block offered up on Wikipediocracy and the absurd justification of it on Wikipedia. Deleted every post by me bar the OP, but I bet he would even do that if he thought nobody would notice. He did all this even though he claimed all he as doing was removing "off topic" and "toxic" posts. Seriously. He is that blatant. That confident nobody will challenge him on this basic matter of fact.

Because that's just what you do when you're trying to refute claims you're protecting an Administrator who took abuse of power in pursuit of woke to terrifying new heights with this block.

No doubt with the thread suitably detoxified of literal evidence of her wrongdoing, soon we will see Molly turn up at Wikipediocracy to claim her block was entirely above board and if anything totally normal. And there will be no dissent, regardless of the evidence that still exists on Wikipedia. Not now Zooft has shown with his own use of his awesome power to literally control the narrative on his domain, what the official party line of Wikipediocracy is in this matter. Sure, you can chitter chatter away in vaguely critical but entirely unevidenced ways that stick to the immediate and obvious timeline of events and posts. That suits Zoloft and Molly. It helps to push the theory that those who think she did wrong here are just being mean, or worse. Not analytical. Not unbiased. Not journalistic.

Because that's just what you do when you're an independent turner over of the rocks of Wikipedia, isn't it?

You would crazy to think otherwise. Crazy to think the wildly left wing Zoloft and the wildly left wing Molly White would ever do anything other than tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, about an action where the beneficiaries were the wildly left wing Katherine Maher and the losers are the Wikipedia editors and watchers who might have quite liked to have been given a chance to review the right wing coverage of the appointments of Maher as head of NPR. Which of course Molly dismissed as misinformation, and who she was in (indirect) dispute with Chris over exactly that point when he magically found himself blocked from Wikipedia for sexism. Total coincidence. Not even worth mentioning, on or off Wikipedia.

A fever dream.

The analysis comes from the experts. Absolute fucking numpties like Beeblebrox. A man so blind to reality if it contradicts his conspiracy theories and victim complex he genuinely thought his appeal of his suspension as an Arbitrator had even a tiny chance of success on the merits. Prat. I could demolish his absurdly half-assed interpretation of this block with ease, using nothing but facts. Hence why I have been cancelled. That's not the kind of expertise Zoloft values. Because it reveals the truth. Something Beeblebrox is very uncomfortable with. Because it's 100% true, he was suspended for being untrustworthy. By people who have that absolute power and responsibility on Wikipedia. Nobody else. He should know. It was his fucking job too. Prat.

[ericbarbour]

Because that's just what you do when you're an independent turner over of the rocks of Wikipedia, isn't it?

Once again: do not waste your time trying to do it on Wikipediocracy. Failure is inevitable, followed by ol' Wee Billy tossing you out and disappearing threads.

Still think you should toss it all on a blog. Cheap and easy, and unlikely to disappear (if you choose the right host).

[ericbarbour]

As long as we are mentioning the idiot Beeb: does anyone think we should have a "Doxing Discussion" subsection on this forum? Might as well put all the "most evil" discussion in one place.

[Kraken]

Anyone who was unconvinced this was a woke block, witness the gaslighting going on to justify Chris' entirely unsurprising indefinite block applied days after the original expired. Applied by Beeblebrox. The guy suspended as an Arbitrator because he can't be trusted with confidential matters.

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

There have been no further sexist comments by Chris. He merely stood by his past comment. For that, he has been blocked. And we're being asked to believe this isn't a punishment block. That this isn't a block that would make a Communist proud. Fuck off with this bullshit.

Chris didn't even get a chance to say whether that was to be taken as meaning I stand by the parts of my comment some people interpreted as sexist. It was just assumed that was what he means. How could it not be? Look his record! And that is by no means a fair or unbiased interpretation given his only block for "sexism" (his only block for ANYTHING EVER) came after he had apologised and committed not to repeat it.

Molly White openly admits she had already seen Chris apologize and commit to not repeating the original comment, but she came to AN/I anyway. Why? What policy justified this blatant act of forum shopping? Why aren't people outraged at this blatant admission that she knew this apology meant she couldn't issue a block, but she filed a report knowing it would end up in a block? Because she knows "sexism" triggers people. Far more than "incivility", a policy famously applied in a subjective manner. Even though on Wikipedia, sexism is merely a subset of incivility.

Why isn't Vigilant all over Molly's face, scratching their eyes out? Isn't this a textbook example of an advanced rights holder being a "dick" to the powerless?

No, not this time. Because WOKE ASSHOLES STICK TOGETHER.

ArbCom needs to take this now. The lies are already becoming blatant. But because it's powerful users lying to powerless users, they are getting away with it.

Wikipediocracy is backing Wokepedia to the hilt of course. Right up to the fact Beeblebrox is giving a running and judgemental commentary of his Admin actions on Wikipediocracy and looking for praise from the wokerats who he knows reside there.

HELLO.

THE GUY HAS ALREADY BEEN ADMONISHED BY NEWYORKBRAD FOR EXACTLY THIS KIND OF CONDUCT UNBECOMING.

He ignored the warning. Doesn't give a fuck.

This is how Woke rolls. The rules are subjectively applied. Decorum is optional.

All that matters is the mob.

[Kraken]

Look at the SHEER RAGE from these woke bastards.....

I don't know about the administrative expectation, but my expectation is that Mr Troutman will fuck off and not darken our doors ever again. Everyone who does not come out with such troglodytic statements should be able to edit Wikipedia (or even work for the WMF, about whom I have been very critical) without looking over their shoulder to see whether he is goimg to do it again. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The only people who need to look over their shoulder are the people who don't have the kind of powerful friends you need to prevent yourself from being punished with the block tool or subjected to a trial for the same crime over and over until the assigned Political Officer gets the judgement the Politburo demands.

The very idea an WMF staffer lives in fear of such things is laughable.

Fuck off with with bullshit. Who but these woke shills is going to buy it? It's not even getting universal support among Wikipedia editors. So why are people pretending it is?

You have been telling people to fuck off for lacking the required PURITY for years.

You have been showing this level of ARROGANT ASSHOLERY to people who have given years to Wikipedia and who YOU SHOULD FUCKING KNOW FINE WELL are entitled to full appeal rights and assume good faith unless or until someone among this woke hate mob finds the balls (and the evidence!) to propose a ban, for YEARS.

Where has it got you? Every year, the number of people who hate you rises. The number of small donors falls.

Google and Amazon love your capacity for evil. Pay handsomely for it.

This is why Wikipedia is a failure. This is why Wikipedia is bleeding active Admins.

Most normal people don't like being this much of a shitweasel with a badge. They don't like being seen as agents of communist purges and the enforcers of woke agendas. They want to be seen as fair and reasonable protectors of a universal asset.

That's why they're walking away. You've only got a couple of hundred left.

They're going to be easy meat for trolls and griefers now they can see your total lack of morals. Your transparent agendas. Your buttons.

Beeblebrox doesn't have the stomach for it, that's for damn sure.

[Kraken]

Worth noting this was all kicked off by Doug Weller.

And if that guy is Wikipedia's social conscience, something has gone seriously wrong.

[ericbarbour]

This is why Wikipedia is bleeding active Admins.

Currently down to 438. Lowest since early 2005 (I keep saying that, and it's true--admins were being promoted like crazy during 2005-06, the line was literally going straight up). And some of them are "playing numbers games" to look "active enough".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ors/Active

343 are listed "semi-active". Meaning they are circling the drain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... emi-active

76 are "inactive", meaning they might be kicked out any time. Note how many are notorious abusers, and some are VERY long-term insiders. Please feel free to explain to the rest of us peons why these people spent 10-15 years fighting over Wikipedia like mad dogs, and now they are just forgotten names on an obscure list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... s/Inactive

And how many have actually left or been chucked out? 1429.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... nistrators

As I've said before, these lists tend to be bullshit. Even so, on average we can go back years, and years, and you can see the numbers slowly decline.

Those are very bad numbers. Wp continues to skate on its thin ice of "good public relations" partly because very few people know about the corrupt, raging-insane crap going on behind the scenes.

[Kraken]

The 1984 show continues...

Unsure whether an indef is needed atp, but Chris has a massive issue with civility that's existed for years now. Every single interaction I've seen him have with new editors consists almost entirely of him snarkily insulting their intelligence, competence, or work while being of absolutely zero help in actually explaining anything to them. He seems to enjoy insulting other people every opportunity he gets, and it's unsurprising that he's chosen to frame this latest incident as him pissing off the woke mob or whatever. AryKun (talk) 09:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is true - that illustrates exactly why an indef is needed. How many times does someone need formal warnings and admonishments? AusLondonder (talk) 10:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

How many did Eric Corbett get (widely accused of misogyny)? Or The Rambling Man (widely accused of xenophobia, and STILL NOT BLOCKED)? Or Roxy The Dog (literally blocked for hate speech?)

EEng claims to be gay just so he can say FAG on Wikipedia. You want to know how many second chances he's been given?

This is all public record. Wikipedia's verifiable history.

They're all pretending this block is about Chris' long history of hate crime and abuse, because IT'S FUCKING OBVIOUS IT ISN'T.

You ALL did barely nothing about it compared to similar editors, who got jammed up in block after block and Arb Case after Arb Case. So either he entirely flew under the radar for YEARS, or his past offences weren't as objectionable to the community as is being claimed by the woke police, who love nothing more than rewriting history.

I know which one it is. Which narrative is the truth. Wikipediocracy knows which one it is. Chris sure a shit knows, if you're stupid enough to think he's gonna let this go. Let you carry on like this isn't what it so clearly is. Punishment. Virtue signalling.

The Devil knows which one it is. He'll be up to get you woke bastards soon enough.

He's coming for you, Zoloft. Tick tock.