User talk:Chris troutman

Committed identity: 53034b2749273e66509e3f88fd103b4882f16345902df017ef05f53fcdaa37eb69268ba4777ee04b32c2a6d6fc308063da7f51adb04a5addd52649c095c47659 is grammatical article for the hash function SHA-512 commitment to this user's real-life identity.

SMcCandlish's On the Radar

On the Radar:  An Occasional Newsletter on Wikipedia's Challenges view talk edit — "Comments?" links go to OtR's own talk page, not those of the original news-item sources. "Wikipedia still has a moderator diversity problem. Its new chief wants to fix it." (Cristiano Lima, The Washington Post, 15 September 2021) According to WashPo, WMF has tapped a South African nonprofit executive and lawyer to be its new executive director. While I've been saying for a decade that WMF has to stop hiring software- and online-services-industry people to run an NGO, and hire NGO people, this one – Maryana Iskander – is rather cagey and bureaucratic, or comes off that way in the interview. First up is a belief that the WMF Universal Code of Conduct (drafted in supposed consulation with all WMF editorial communities but largely ignoring all their feedback) is the key to diversifying Wikipedia's editorial pool. (And as always in mainstream media, "Wikipedia" means en.wikipedia.org.) The entire UCC is basically a restatement of some key WP (and Commons, and Wiktionary) policies plus some WMF "vision" hand-waving. It's questionably reasonable to expect a largely redundant document, which was created for projects that lack sufficient policy development, and which has and will continue to have little impact on en.Wikipedia, to cause a sea change in who volunteers to edit here. That takes real-world outreach on a major scale. One would think a nonprofit CEO would already get that. Next up, Iskander makes rather unclear reference to section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This content-liability shield has been much in the US news lately, as a target of the Republican Party in its feud with "big tech", especially social media sites deplatforming far-right writers for anti-democracy propaganda and misinformation about the public health crisis. Iskander is correct that WMF isn't in a danger position in this, but the article strongly implies that Iskander and WMF are keenly interested and involved. Even when prompted, Iskander does not meaningfully elaborate, and just offers an education-is-important dodge. So, we need more actual information on what WMF is doing with regard to efforts to revise section 230. Moving on, Iskander says something alarming: "Wikipedia has seen a huge amount of increased traffic around covid-19, [so has] worked on a very productive partnership with the World Health Organization to provide additional credibility to that work." That's hard to distinguish from a statement that WHO has editorial plants who WP:OWN the relevant articles. But it's cause for concern whatever the truth is. WMF should not be "partnering" with any external body to influence the encyclopedia's content (especially not one that has taken as many credibility hits as the WHO). There's something potentially interesting in here, though devils could reside in the details: "a lot of the basic access issues might technically look different [between SA and US], but how people understand what information is available to them – how they access it – those issues exist everywhere". What is this going to mean on a practical level? Is MOS:ACCESS going to be better-enforced? Is Simple English Wikipedia going to be reintegrated into the main site as alternative articles? Is the mobile version of the site going to stop dropping features? Is WP:GLAM going to turn into a bigger effort? There are a hundred ways (sensible and otherwise) this statement could be made to affect policy, funding, and the end "product" (though one suspects nothing important will change for the better unless the internal culture of WMF's organizational leadership also changes in a major way, such as by diversifying the board of directors, toward more academics and nonprofit people instead of tech-industry rich people). In short, I have hopes that Iskander's NGO background will make for a better exec. dir. fit than that last two we've had, but right out of the gate she's saying strange, too-vague, and even troubling things. And nothing in the interview actually suggests anything like a fix for WP's editorial diversity problem, which the headline suggested was going to be the focus.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] [Comments?] "Imposing orthodoxy: Left-wing activists are using old tactics in a new assault on liberalism" (staff writers, The Economist, 10 September 2021) "It is possible to detect eerie echoes of the confessional state of yore", and today's far left is recycling techniques from fun times like the Inquisition." I've been saying this for years, and the article is a good summary of how "left-wing" and "leftist" do not always align with "liberal". It's an observation too few mainstream writers have been willing to make, but the truth of it explains a great deal of disruptive PoV-pushing on Wikipedia. Illiberal left-wing activism is often harder to detect, and harder for the average editor to publicly resist, than far-right extremism, which we tend to recognize then delete on sight.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] [Comments?] Study confirms what we knew already: People edit here to change public perception (Barbara Page, "Edit-a-thon participants are motivated by desire to change the views of society", The Signpost, 24 May, 2018) An Information Research survey shows that people's editing motivation is often "their desire to change the views of society", and also that they view Wikipedia as a "social media site". This isn't news to us, and the material doesn't have a huge statistical sample, but I would bet real money that it will be re-confirmed by later studies. This has systemic bias, neutrality, and conflict of interest implications (also not news). What we don't really think much about it is what this means for Wikipedia long-term, as everyone with an agenda becomes more aware that they can try to sneakily leverage Wikipedia articles to boost their side of any story, especially after the Trump 2016 US presidential campaign proved that powerful results can pulled off by organized manipulation of "social media" sites (whether WP really is one or not is irrelevant if the public thinks it is).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply] [Comments?] WMF Community Wishlist Survey is system-gameable (SMcCandlish, 19 December 2017) The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey has closed; the results are here, and as disappointing as in previous years. This process is fundamentally flawed, for numerous reasons: Only the top-ten proposals will get any resources devoted to them, no matter how many there are, or how urgent or important they are. It's a straight-vote, canvassing-allowed, no-rationale-needed, short-term "popularity contest" – normal Wikimedian consensus-building is thwarted. This setup encourages people to vote for the 10 things they want most, then vote against every other proposal even if they agree with it. Proposals cannot build support over time. There's no "leveling of the playing field" between categories. Important proposals of narrower interest (e.g. to admins, or to technical people) never pass, only the lowest-common-denominator ones do – and the most-canvassed ones. Too few Wikimedians even know the survey exists or when it is open, which greatly compounds the skew caused by focused canvassing – the intentional spikes actually determine the outcome. I've drafted some suggestions for making it work better.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  18:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] [Comments?] Archived stories: Wikipedia co-founder on WP's flaws – and potential replacement? (SMcCandlish, 2 June 2018 (update of original 11 November 2015 story)) "Time Inc. Buyer Helped Koch Brothers Airbrush Their Image Across the Internet" (Lee Fang, The Intercept, 1 December 2017) New "Wikipedia:Nations and Wikipedia" page (Fixuture, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), 26 June 2017) RfC to require paid editors' disclosure of advertising to edit (Doc James, and 100+ Wikimedian respondents, Meta.Wikimedia.org, 13 September 2017 – December 2017) At last, an RfC on paid use of admin tools (Smallbones [original proposal by Jytdog], Wikipedia talk:Administrators, 20 December 2017) Wolves nip at Wikipedia's heels: A perspective on the cost of paid editing (Smallbones, The Signpost, 25 February 2016 (updated 29 June 2018)) WMF Exec. Dir. Tretikov resigning (Patricio Lorente, Lila Tretikov, meta:Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard, 25 February 2016) "WP:BOGOF" stance helps derail an adminship after conflict at AfD (SMcCandlish, 6 February 2016) "Inside the game of sports vandalism on Wikipedia" (Jeff Elder, Wikimedia Blog, 6 January, 2016) "Hundreds of 'black hat' English Wikipedia accounts blocked following investigation" (Ed Erhart & Juliet Barbara, Wikimedia Blog, 31 August 2015) "Are Pakistan articles being manipulated?" (Gamaliel, Wikipedia Signpost, 18 February 2015)

This editor is a Master Editor II and is entitled to display this Platinum Editor Star.

This editor is an Auspicious Looshpah and is entitled to display this Book of All Knowledge with Secret Appendix.

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.

Chris troutman uses the Wikibreak Switch template, and plans to update this notice if a wikibreak is taken.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If I have been active and have not yet responded, please place {{Talkback}} on my page as I may have missed your response. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.

—Wehwalt, July 30, 2014.

You should know
23 This user talk page has been vandalized 23 times. 5.9 This user has 5.9 centijimbos.	This Wikipedian remembers Wadewitz.

Today's Events November 15, 2025
Birthday Ben_Kenobi151, dscos, Ianlopez1115, PeeJay
Adminship Anniversary Joyous! (2004)
First Edit Day Theleekycauldron
Edit | Purge Other events: this month | this year

Archived discussions

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 5.

Depiction of W?F destroying Wikipedia with Visual Editor and flow.

Thank you

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

I am ashamed to say that I only just noticed your departure. Thank you for the numerous improvements you have made to Wikipedia over the years. We've ­worked together infrequently but productively, to the extent that I was once accused of being your sock puppet. We will especially miss your willingness to point out deficiencies in the WMF whilst others meekly admire the emperor's new clothes.

I remain unblocked merely because I have been more cowardly than you in submitting to Wikipedia's obsession with political correctness. I would certainly never dare to suggest that neuroscience of sex differences actually exists. I have learnt from the punishment administered to you, and will maintain my silence.

I will understand if you never wish to see another Wikipedian again, but I sincerely hope that you are able to return when the time is right. Thank you once more, and I wish you all the best with whatever fills your newfound free time. Certes (talk) 13:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference I feel it’s important to mention this section was heavily refactored in this edit. Also: Chris Troutman is not blocked from his talk page; he simply doesn’t seem to care. We shouldn’t censor non-troll edits from people’s talk pages because we think they might be offended by them. Dronebogus (talk) 12:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dronebogus: when an editor is blocked or banned site wide, they should only use their talk page for discussing an unblock. This can include reasonable discussion about the behaviour to help the editor understand why they were blocked and how they need to change, but there's very little room for arguing your behaviour was okay and especially not if it's not in the context of requesting an unblock. Some venting is generally ignored soon after a block provided it doesn't cross too far over the WP:NPA line but that's about as far as it goes. Okay they are also allowed simple technical maintenance e.g. removing any content they are allowed to remove, setting up or modifying auto archiving and perhaps to make other such simple requests without requesting an unblock. So while Chris troutman could have removed those comments if they wanted to, responding to them in anything more but a perfunctory manner likely would have lead to them losing talk page access. So User:Rhododendrites was correct that they could not have really responded to that discussion. I make no comment on whether this means they should have been removed. Nil Einne (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Block reason

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

@Just Step Sideways Could you point me (and others) to the AN(I)/AE/etc. discussion or any other place where there is a rationale and/or consensus to block this editor? TIA _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1155#Sexist comment by Chris Troutman Nobody (talk) 05:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@1AmNobody24 Thank you _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

standard offer

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Chris troutman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

To editor Beeblebrox: You blocked me a year ago and I've not edited here since. I will not repeat the behavior that got me blocked.Chris Troutman (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline without prejudice. As per my comments below, closing this to give Chris troutman an opportunity to make a different request to be taken to WP:AN. However, Chris is free to simply refile their request if they disagree and a different admin will review it. In this case, it would not be abusive to refile exactly the same unblock request if Chris believes WP:AN is not necessary. Yamla (talk) 10:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This request should be taken to WP:AN (...or where else higher other than simply a mere admin discretion). After all, the consensus agreed to block the said user at WP:ANI. George Ho (talk) 03:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, this should be discussed at WP:AN. My reading is that the block was upheld by WP:ANI, thus becoming a de-facto WP:CBAN. Chris troutman, please consider rewriting your request with this in mind, then ask that it be taken to WP:AN for discussion. --Yamla (talk) 10:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mostly inactive lately, but I would add that "I won't do it again" isn't super compelling if you don't spell out what you did, why it was wrong, and how you came to understand that, which you certainly did not seem to at the time. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 19:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:American Numismatic Association logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:American Numismatic Association logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 08:15, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]