This is a Wikipediauser page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chris_troutman.
This user opposes the Wikimedia Foundation's arbitrary, opaque, and dictatorial office-banning of administrators when the community and ArbCom are more than capable of handling the issue themselves.
Following an RFC, the policy on restoration of adminship has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, T5, has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.
"I believe that when editing divisive articles, one should remember that Wikipedia is, ultimately, a website; it is not worth becoming so emotionally invested over that it spoils enjoyment of other areas of life."
"Whatever Wikipedia as a community is doing, it is more of a vehicle for contributors' self-indulgence than it is a concerted endeavour to bring free knowledge to the world."
"Fans want to create a paratext that will be read and that will disseminate facts about their chosen media object, and that approval of their efforts encourages them to continue. Fans favor Wikipedia over other forms of participatory culture largely because of the site's infrastructural nature, which guarantees both an audience (ensuring that the fan's work will be read and that information about a media object's canon will be successfully disseminated) and a mechanism of implicit approval. In other words, fans choose Wikipedia over other forms of participatory culture because the site is better able to both broadcast and validate their work."
"Not everyone is destined for adminship, and that especially includes "I'm gonna clean up Wikipedia, dammit" thinkers. You'll note I'm not an admin and haven't asked to be one in many years. I am also that sort of editor, and recognize this viewpoint is a conflict of interest with that we need and expect from an admin. People on a mission – one that's worthwhile – are generally of better use at Wikipedia unfettered by the restraints of adminship, anyway (and happier). It just sometimes takes them a while to realize it."
"Also people should bear this in mind should Troutman ever come up at RFA. He'd clearly be of the Sandstein school of inflexible robots. He should never be given any position of authority over anyone else."
A: Wikipedia does not allow any company or individual to edit their own brand no matter how wrong the information present on it may be. But it allows your competitors too (sic) which makes it prone to wrong edits or spread of misinformation. In the past, Wikipedia has very clearly banned organizations and individuals for ignoring this policy. However, there's a loophole, where Wikipedia itself says, If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."
.png?lang=en){kind=spacer}
.jpeg?lang=en){kind=small}
.jpg?lang=en){kind=small}
.svg?lang=en){kind=small}
.jpg?lang=en){kind=small}
