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 — "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) [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) [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) [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 ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  18:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC) [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.

—Wehwalt, July 30, 2014.

You should know
23 This user talk page has been vandalized 23 times. 6This user has 6 centijimbos.	This Wikipedian remembers Wadewitz.

Today's Events April 16, 2024
Birthday none
Adminship Anniversary none
First Edit Day 78.26, Ramaksoud2000, Vermont, MrOllie
Other events: this month | this year

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

Welcome to the drive!

Welcome, welcome, welcome Chris troutman! I'm glad that you are joining the drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Fix a random page lacking sources

CactiStaccingCrane (talk)18:43, 1 February 2024 UTC [refresh]via JWB and Geardona (talk to me?)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

If Jimmy wales isn't completely and utterly ashamed

Do you really, actually believe the bullshit big-pharma/corporate propaganda that's on the Robert Malone page right now? Or is someone paying you or controlling you in some other way to push these blatant lies? YOU ARE EITHER EXTREMELY STUPID, like Idiocracy level stupid, OR A PIECE OF SHIT LIAR AND ACCOMPLICE to probably the biggest and most cowardly crime ever committed against humanity in its entire history.

In these past 10 or so years ESPECIALLY since the covid pangimmick i've watched this wikishittia go from an ok-ish but extremely biased source for SOME forms of information on a few topics, to yet another complete shithole of a mouthpiece for globalist propaganda & lies just like all of mainstream media. If Jimmy wales isn't completely and utterly ashamed of what this has become, he very damn well SHOULD be. Delt01 (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks

Sorry you had to get involved in the recent mess on my Talk Page. That's a downside of being a stalker! Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull: No problem, at all. I'm a stalker by choice. (There's even an award for it!) Wikipedians should be free from harassment and it takes a team effort to enjoy a robust defense. I'm glad for your sake it was some harmless spam as opposed to the hate-filled vitriol our admins get. I don't get much drama on my own user talk so I find a few good watering holes where trouble congregates so I can get my fill when hungry. I've also found that deranged newcomers often think that they're successfully pressuring a single Wikipedian so when help shows up from out of the woodwork the offenders find themselves rightfully chastened. I, myself, enjoy the aid of those Wikipedians who stalk my user talk and I am grateful for that friendship. It turns out that it was me who welcomed you to Wikipedia almost six years ago, and you've been drawing the right sort of attention since then. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for your help with the edit request on Data breach! Buidhe paid (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Data breach GA

Hi Chris, I note you took a careful look at Data breach while doing transfers of its old content. It has been nominated for a GAN, at Talk:Data breach/GA1. I thought I'd let you know in case you would like to make comments here or at that page (and to be clear this is a notification, not a request!). Best, CMD (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Where is Kate? for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Where is Kate? is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

My "partisan derangement"

Please, tell me about my "partisan derangement". You obviously don't like it, which reveals your bias. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I am against biased editors who allow their beliefs to drive editing, when it should be that a complete survey of sources drive our editing. More than once you've made claims of psychological projection which, I think, speak to your inability to persuade. If you don't like my responses you can file at WP:ANI. Otherwise, just admit you got in over your head and find somewhere else to edit. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Re-review

Hello Chris Troutman – I'm sorry if this is not the right place to do this, but I was told if I want my article about Betsy Taylor to be re-reviewed I should ask the original person who rejected it (you) to read it again. I have changed a lot of the language to both establish the subject's notability, add sources of people talking about her, and remove a lot of the content that was "peacocking." I would really appreciate you taking a second look at it, thank you so much. Jeanvaljeanjacket (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jeanvaljeanjacket: I get the sense that you did not carefully follow the instructions I already provided. I should not have to repeat myself. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I did my best to follow your past instructions and those changes are reflected in my latest version. As you suggested, I removed all the external links, removed many citations that were from articles she wrote or was quoted in, and removed language to suggest that this is a vanity project. I am not sure what else to do to prove her notability – I would think that her inclusion in United Nations conferences on topics that she helped develop, interviews on national news sites like CBS, and multiple published books would be sufficient, but maybe I am just missing something. I don’t mean to make you repeat yourself, and I am just genuinely at a loss! Thanks.   Jeanvaljeanjacket (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jeanvaljeanjacket: Yes, you did those two things. What else I had said explained that notability on Wikipedia is not what you think it is. The boards she sat on don't matter. Where she went to school does not matter. What TV shows she was on doesn't matter. You might think that they would matter but I'm telling you Wikipedia does not care. We need significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, so that excludes all her employers and any interviews, appearances, or publications of hers. Sources like what she published (her website, The Grist piece you cite, her contributor bio at HuffPost) are all unallowable. Citations like this page from The Summer Chronicle does not even mention her. So you have no claim of notability, which is why I rejected you submission with no hope of appeal instead of simply declining your submission so that you could re-submit with changes. I posit Betsy Taylor won't be notable until we have obituaries published. I'm not saying that to be dismissive or macabre; most people will never be notable and the few that are won't have sufficient source material until after they are dead. I don't see a way this could be published so you should find something else to write about. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Notice of vandalism

Notice of vandalism, intentionally inflammatory headlines, unsourced content Pixel-Lead453 (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that the intention here was to warn you that the editor reported you at WP:3RRN. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Russ Woodroofe: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SergeS18 Chris Troutman (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Indeed, I should have started the SPI myself, but they are so overworked there, and I hadn't made the connection with earlier accounts. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)