Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:27, 2 June 2009

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252Auto-archiving period: 2 days

Archives

Index -index- As of January 16, 2003 September – December 2005 January 2006 January – February 2006 February 2006 February 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 - late May 2006 May 24 - July 2006 July 2006 - August 2006 August 2006 Most of September 2006 Late September 2006 - Early November 2006 Most of November 2006 Late November 2006 - December 8, 2006 December 9, 2006 - Mid January 2007 From December 22, 2006 blanking Mid January 2007 - Mid February 2007 Mid February 2007- Feb 25, 2007 From March 2, 2007 blanking March 2-5, 2007 March 5-11, 2007 March 11 - April 3, 2007 April 2 - May 2, 2007 May 3 - June 7, 2007 June 9 - July 4, 2007 July 13 - August 17, 2007 August 17 - September 11, 2007 September 14 - October 7, 2007 October 28 - December 1, 2007 December 2 - December 16, 2007 December 15 - January 4, 2008 January 4 - January 30, 2008 January 30 - February 28, 2008 February 28 - March 11, 2008 March 9 - April 18, 2008 April 18 - May 30, 2008 May 30 - July 27, 2008 July 26 - October 4, 2008 October 4 - November 12, 2008 November 10 - December 10, 2008 December 5 - December 25, 2008 December 25 - January 16, 2009 January 15 - January 27, 2009 January 26 - February 10, 2009 February 8 - March 18, 2009 March 18 - May 6, 2009 May 5 - June 9, 2009 June 10 - July 11, 2009 July 12 - August 29, 2009

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I want the Unblock in spanish wikiquote

Hello dear Jimbo, my IP adress is blocked because a mistake, I`m a innocet user, but Drini hates Jehova's Witnesses users, and he is a proscriptor and a very bad enemy of us. I want, please, the desblock in spanish wikiquote, because I`m working constructuvely. Can you Speak with Drini the Ip's policeman an say him I'm innocent an I`m not a vandal? Thank you very much. --87.220.31.209 (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jimbo, I wait for a response. Thanks. --87.220.31.14 (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

General note for everybody: Drini is a steward who has confirmed that the above IP belongs to a sockpuppeteer. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a sockpuppeteer. Drini hates Jehovah's Witnesses users because he likes Maya's gods. I was working constructively but he hates Bible quotations in the proyect. If I'm writing here is because I'm innocent. I want the desblock. --87.220.31.238 (talk) 10:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What does "desblock" translate to in English? --64.85.222.62 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"Unblock", (or "disenblockification", if you're not into that whole … brevity thing). pablo_hablo. 14:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a vandal, I want unblock because I'm innocent. --87.220.31.238 (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo is not going to interfere with something like that. If you want to be unblocked, you are going to have to take it up with whoever blocked you. J.delanoy_adds 18:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone thought of asking on eswikiquote village pump? Any of the regulars will confirm that he's been a problem user for a year and half. The whole "religious persecution" and "worshipping mayan gods" thing has been played before, some insulting usernames with that card are logged here: . Please, if this continues just go and ask the people on eswikiquote and you'll confirm what I'm saying. -- m:drini 18:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

What a lot of names! Anyway, 87.220.31.238 (talk · contribs), you will have to request your unblock at the site where you are blocked, as M. delanoy suggests. pablo_hablo. 19:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm innocent, I'm not a vandal, I'm workimg constructively but Drini hates Jehova's Witnesses users, these are my last contibutions: Do you think I'm working constructively in the project when I'm editing pages like John Quincy Adams, Peter Hamilton Raven, Jane Goodall? obviously I'm not a vandal. --87.220.30.124 (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

As you've been told, you need to plead your innocence on the site where you were blocked. No-one here is able to help you. --Tango (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Is a requirement that administrators be tolerant, Drini it is not, therefore you must to expell him from Wikiquote.--Oo 19 oo (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you understand now? I'm a innocent editor. --Oo 19 oo (talk) 11:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Sigh, here we go with the crosswiki harassment. , , and cherry top of the cake where it shows the same underlying ip. No big deal, just for the record in case this pops up again (when the next batch of sockpuppets is nuked). -- m:drini 14:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a wandal. I want the unblock in spanish wikiquote. I'm innocent. Are you going to speek with Drini for the unblock? --87.220.31.154 (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Leave Jimbo alone. Listen to what the other editors have told you. Go to es.wikiquote and request an unblock there. This situation has nothing to do with Jimbo. Griffinofwales (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I want Jimbo talks with this administrator for the unblock. --87.220.31.154 (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I want the unblock now. --87.220.31.154 (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This in the English Misplaced Pages. If you want to complain about the Spanish Wikiquote, do so on the Spanish Wikiquote. No-one here can or will help you. Jimmy doesn't even speak Spanish, as far as I know. --Tango (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I have the IP blocked there, then I can not to speak there. This is the Jimbo Wales page. He is an administrator and he can to speak with this another administrator for the unblock. --87.220.31.154 (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

He is an administrator here, on the English Misplaced Pages. He isn't an administrator on Spanish Wikiquote (). You can still post to your userpage or email somebody and ask them to post your request for you. --Tango (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This problem can to end if Jimbo speeks for my unblock. Is very simply. --87.220.31.154 (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Threats will get you nothing and may lead to a block on en.wiki. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly seems to be building up a viable rangeblock. Rodhullandemu 23:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

How is Jimbo supposed to judge the case without speaking the language the disagreement took place in? --Tango (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

How is the anon to make his complaint when he doesn't speak English. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 00:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you really criticising someone for not writing in perfect English when it isn't their first language? I thought we were above such things... --Tango (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Not perfect English? This comment is unfair to those for whom English is not a first language but who have made the effort to learn it and thus contribute usefully here. The anon's English isn't good enough to make sense and as a result he or she keeps saying the same thing, this is not in any way useful. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 17:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Red links

Hi, Jimmy Wales.

I'm from the portuguese Misplaced Pages where some users criticize the featured articles only because they have red links. You could answer if we can or not criticize red links in featured articles or lists, only by changing the layout? What is your opinion?

Regards, ⇨HotWikiBR 13:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

minus 10 points for spelling his name wrong, but I'm pretty sure a FA shouldn't have many (if any) redlinks PXK /_C 13:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Haha... Typing error. I agree that a FA shouldn't have many red links, but at pt.wikipedia some users are removing red links in articles that are important to the reading of any visitor of the page. That's a really problem. I think that Misplaced Pages is an 💕, and not an complete encyclopedia, and for that it requires the support of its editors, and, in parts, of the red links.
  Regards, ⇨HotWikiBR 14:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If a redlink is important then it wouldn't be red. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

An FA should be featured by it own, no? ⇨HotWikiBR 14:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Darren, that is simply not true and you make the assumption we have 100% coverage in saying. While in some areas this is true because we have excellent coverage there are many areas, eg in our coverage of the so called Third World, where our coverage is poor ad red links are often to articles on important subjects we do not have coverage of. And that's just speaking of the en wikipedia, wikipedia in other languages are often sporadic and have many new articles needed. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 14:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Redlinks are one of the great features of Misplaced Pages. They say "I'm an important topic, write an article about me". Red is just a challenge to add something blue. Franamax (talk) 07:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think red links are not desirable in an FA as they detract from a "professional look" to the article, but I think we should not oppose them becoming FAs strictly because they exist. I would encourage the editor(s) of an FA with red links to at least create a stub article to explain the link. — BQZip01 —  16:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Red links in featured articles should be dealt with by adding content, not by removing links. --Carnildo (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, I agree with you. Here is an example of the removal of red links. Here is an example of the automatic traduction, only to set the redlinks to blue. Both examples to the same article. ⇨HotWikiBR 11:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Please help

I'm really, REALLY sorry to request your intervention in an arbitration case, I honestly believe the committee is making a mistake. I was recently topic banned from editing Scientology articles as a result of the second arbitration case on that subject, for edits I made before the first case. I've contributed numerous quality images to the project, shaped up several challenging articles, haven't violated the terms of or been blocked because of the first case, nor have I been involved in any edit warring so I really don't understand why a topic ban out of the blue is necessary.

Please also note that the arbcom imposed a blanket set of topic bans in this case, including editors who weren't involved in the first case and had even stopped editing prior to it. (For example the first case was May 2008, User:Orsini stopped editing in 10/2007, and was one of the recently topic banned.) Here's the case: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Scientology Anynobody(?) 02:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Just as a note, there's already a discussion about appealing this above, and I've e-mailed Jimbo about it. So he's on the case. That doesn't mean he'll decide to do anything, but he is aware of the issue. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much :) I'd actually started an appeal, then several others started their own appeals and to make a long story short this was the best way I could think of to not get lost in the growing discussion. Anynobody(?) 20:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyeverybody, where is that activity going on? I wouldn't want people to pour too much effort into disorganized processes or appealing things that are really beyond the scope of what I might consider. (What those boundaries might be are more or less unknown - appeals are traditionally very rare other than - for the most part - fairly easy ones for me to sort out.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

D'oh!, It's right here, I should've included that too in my initial post. Anynobody(?) 23:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom again

I can sympathize with the people objecting to ArbCom's Scientology performance. Rather than solve the issue by helping create an excellent article and protecting it, they crudely eliminate one side of the argument and leave the article in the unrestrained hands of the other side. I have recently been topic banned for a year from Prem Rawat articles. A quick read of the evidence I've gathered on my talk page, heading "ArbCom decision", will demonstrate that this was an absurd miscarriage of justice. And their one year ban of Rumiton beyond belief. If you haven't time to read it, please let me know. I tried to email you but it keeps getting bounced. Thanks.Momento (talk) 06:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

re: "18-month Cyberstalking Scheme" allegations

Hello! I am Jared Smith. I have not taken the time to edit Misplaced Pages pages for some time under my own username JDS, and therefore I couldn't remember my password, so I created a new account so that I could address the founder of Misplaced Pages, Jimmy Wales here on his talk page.

I just now sent an e-mail to Misplaced Pages administrator user:Versageek.

I am puzzled that my brother Jordan's appeal to Jimmy Wales was archived without any public or private response. Jordan told me has twice spoken with Mike Godwin, and that Mike Godwin told him last week that he would look in to my brother Jordan's complaint. Jordan told me that he has not heard from Mike Godwin or any Misplaced Pages administrator in response to his posting here last week, even though quite a few Misplaced Pages editors and administrators have blocked him from editing articles or even his userpages. My brother Jordan also told me that it appears that no one associated with Misplaced Pages will reply to him or help him or even try to investigate his complaint against certain persons who he alleges are anonymously exploiting Misplaced Pages pages to publish on the worldwide web false and hateful things about him. I don't know if that is true, but that is what he told me. He told me that he explained the problem on this Talk Page, and when I went to see, there was nothing here. So I looked in the page archives, and I found this.

I did some research and found that the anonymous person which my brother complains about, is bragging at his userpage that no Misplaced Pages administrator will investigate, and he further slanders my brother at his talk page and at other users' talk pages, and also constantly monitors and possibly wiki-hounds certain contributors to Temple Lot (which I created in March of 2004) and Church of Christ (Temple Lot).

I am curious why no one at Misplaced Pages will investigate whether Good Olfactory is the same as Snocrates. I am curious as to why Good Olfactory was able to cause the request for sockpuppet investigation to be deleted. Has that happened before? To where a request for sockpuppetry investigation has been deleted at the urging of the subject of the inquiry? I'm curious, is all. I don't know whether Good Olfactory is the same as Snocrates or G77 or anyone else, I'm just curious why Good Olfactory was so easily able to block any inquiry. I do notice that Good Olfactory replies at Snocrates Talk Page recently, so maybe they're not the same person. Or maybe they are both the same person and Good Olfactory is convinced that no Misplaced Pages administrator will investigate, even though quite a few Misplaced Pages administrators denounced Snocrates in February 2008, "13. No. We do not allow proven sockpuppeteers to become administrators. Jehochman Talk 17:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)" and "I have warned both users. Jehochman Talk 15:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)"

If you look at page history for the article Temple Lot which I created more than five years ago, you will see that most edits have been made by Snocrates and Good Olfactory.

I am a member of the Church of Christ (Temple Lot), and would like to add more facts and information to the article.

Why has the article been blocked by Good Olfactory and Luna Santin? They say it is because Versageek blocked my brother Jordan Smith from editing, in December 2007 when he complained that Snocrates and some other persons were stalking him. I mean, that's what he says, I personally don't have an opinion as to whether he was being stalked or not.

I'm curious, why aren't the articles for Temple Lot and Church of Christ (Temple Lot) tagged as being edit-blocked? Why was Good Olfactory able to edit-block one of the pages and also block inquiry as to whether he is the same as Snocrates? I'm just curious, is all.

Mr. Wales, I'm also curious, what do you think of Mormons? I notice that you took seriously and responded publicly to a complaint regarding Scientology, is it because you are worried about the rumored tendency of Scientologists to sue anyone who supposedly slanders or libels that organization? I am curious: What do you think of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or the Latter-day Saint Movement in general? What do you think about the Church of Christ (Temple Lot)? Do you know anything more about the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) than what has been included or not included in the Misplaced Pages article about it? Have you seen the information which Good Olfactory deleted last November and last week? What do you think of Joseph Smith, Jr.? He is related to me on my mother's mother's side of the family. Joseph Smith was hated and slandered by many people when he was alive, and by many people after he was murdered, such as by James Walker of the Watchman Fellowship. James Walker, President of the Watchman Fellowship, apparently hates both Joseph Smith and Jordan Smith, and his article is the main resource which Misplaced Pages editors consider a reputable,credible source about my brother, even though my brother has said that everything which James Walker and the Kansas City Star published about him is false. What do you think about Joseph Smith? And what do you think about people who respect him, and who respect the Book of Mormon? Do you think that people who believe in the Book of Mormon, such as Mitt Romney and Brent Scowcroft -- are stupid or bad people? Do you believe they are crazy? jared d. s.mith 07:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unfrayed (talk • contribs)

re: "18-month Cyberstalking Scheme" allegations

Hello! I am Jared Smith. I have not taken the time to edit Misplaced Pages pages for some time under my own username JDS, and therefore I couldn't remember my password, so I created a new account so that I could address the founder of Misplaced Pages, Jimmy Wales here on his talk page.

I just now sent an e-mail to Misplaced Pages administrator user:Versageek.

I am puzzled that my brother Jordan's appeal to Jimmy Wales was archived without any public or private response. Jordan told me has twice spoken with Mike Godwin, and that Mike Godwin told him last week that he would look in to my brother Jordan's complaint. Jordan told me that he has not heard from Mike Godwin or any Misplaced Pages administrator in response to his posting here last week, even though quite a few Misplaced Pages editors and administrators have blocked him from editing articles or even his userpages. My brother Jordan also told me that it appears that no one associated with Misplaced Pages will reply to him or help him or even try to investigate his complaint against certain persons who he alleges are anonymously exploiting Misplaced Pages pages to publish on the worldwide web false and hateful things about him. I don't know if that is true, but that is what he told me. He told me that he explained the problem on this Talk Page, and when I went to see, there was nothing here. So I looked in the page archives, and I found this.

I did some research and found that the anonymous person which my brother complains about, is bragging at his userpage that no Misplaced Pages administrator will investigate, and he further slanders my brother at his talk page and at other users' talk pages, and also constantly monitors and possibly wiki-hounds certain contributors to Temple Lot (which I created in March of 2004) and Church of Christ (Temple Lot).

I am curious why no one at Misplaced Pages will investigate whether Good Olfactory is the same as Snocrates. I am curious as to why Good Olfactory was able to cause the request for sockpuppet investigation to be deleted. Has that happened before? To where a request for sockpuppetry investigation has been deleted at the urging of the subject of the inquiry? I'm curious, is all. I don't know whether Good Olfactory is the same as Snocrates or G77 or anyone else, I'm just curious why Good Olfactory was so easily able to block any inquiry. I do notice that Good Olfactory replies at Snocrates Talk Page recently, so maybe they're not the same person. Or maybe they are both the same person and Good Olfactory is convinced that no Misplaced Pages administrator will investigate, even though quite a few Misplaced Pages administrators denounced Snocrates in February 2008, "13. No. We do not allow proven sockpuppeteers to become administrators. Jehochman Talk 17:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)" and "I have warned both users. Jehochman Talk 15:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)"

If you look at page history for the article Temple Lot which I created more than five years ago, you will see that most edits have been made by Snocrates and Good Olfactory.

I am a member of the Church of Christ (Temple Lot), and would like to add more facts and information to the article.

Why has the article been blocked by Good Olfactory and Luna Santin? They say it is because Versageek blocked my brother Jordan Smith from editing, in December 2007 when he complained that Snocrates and some other persons were stalking him. I mean, that's what he says, I personally don't have an opinion as to whether he was being stalked or not.

I'm curious, why aren't the articles for Temple Lot and Church of Christ (Temple Lot) tagged as being edit-blocked? Why was Good Olfactory able to edit-block one of the pages and also block inquiry as to whether he is the same as Snocrates? I'm just curious, is all.

Mr. Wales, I'm also curious, what do you think of Mormons? I notice that you took seriously and responded publicly to a complaint regarding Scientology, is it because you are worried about the rumored tendency of Scientologists to sue anyone who supposedly slanders or libels that organization? I am curious: What do you think of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or the Latter-day Saint Movement in general? What do you think about the Church of Christ (Temple Lot)? Do you know anything more about the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) than what has been included or not included in the Misplaced Pages article about it? Have you seen the information which Good Olfactory deleted last November and last week? What do you think of Joseph Smith, Jr.? He is related to me on my mother's mother's side of the family. Joseph Smith was hated and slandered by many people when he was alive, and by many people after he was murdered, such as by James Walker of the Watchman Fellowship. James Walker, President of the Watchman Fellowship, apparently hates both Joseph Smith and Jordan Smith, and his article is the main resource which Misplaced Pages editors consider a reputable,credible source about my brother, even though my brother has said that everything which James Walker and the Kansas City Star published about him is false. What do you think about Joseph Smith? And what do you think about people who respect him, and who respect the Book of Mormon? Do you think that people who believe in the Book of Mormon, such as Mitt Romney and Brent Scowcroft -- are stupid or bad people? Do you believe they are crazy? jared d. s.mith 07:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unfrayed (talk • contribs)

Mr. Wales, I'm relieved to see that you do review your Talk Page regularly, including today. How can I email you directly? I would like to email you the contents of my email to Versageek earlier today and also the contents of my brother's email(s) to her last Friday, if you don't mind. The emails contain documentation, news articles in the past 30 years about my brother's avocations as a Civil Rights worker, an award-winning investigative journalist in print and internet medium beginning in 1981 , and, as with myself, a researcher or practitioner in various cultural or philosophical traditions. For instance, there is a photograph of him on pages 54-55 of the July 28, 1980 edition of Time Magazine, in the photo he is at the Presidential Candidate's press conference on July 16, 1980 when Ronald Reagan formally announced his running-mate choice of George Herbert Walker Bush. My brother has had Secret Service clearance and is accredited press, at the time the photo was taken, and since then. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and other law enforcement agencies have repeatedly intervened on my brother's behalf in the past four years or more, sometimes in dramatic, newsworthy incidents in Jackson County, Missouri, but after 1991, all local and national press has avoided reporting on anything regarding my brother evidently for the same reason that a number of Misplaced Pages editors have also avoided doing so (religious and political bias versus Jordan Smith or other controversial Mormon rights activists. While he was an Anthropology Major at the University of Utah, a lengthy report was published about him in the Salt Lake City Tribune Newspaper on September 11, 1987. He or I can email you a .pdf copy of that report. While he was a Humanities major at the University of Missouri, Columbia, several reports were published about him or by him, in 1983. And when he was named "Missouri Journalism Student of the Year" by the M.I.P.A. based at MU's School of Journalism, and also by the Kansas City Star/Times, this article and a number of others were published about my brother. News reports and photographs in regards to the church fire/protest in January 1990 can be provided, and statements made by various persons under oath, which have never been published online or in print, can be emailed you privately, in the which you would quickly realize that my brother Jordan Smith is a lifelong anti-bigotry activist native to the San Francisco Bay region (Berkeley, CA in 1964 to be exact). who first encountered defamation schemes by influential bigots here in the Midwest, and then--he claims--some fanatical bigots in the internet community, most especially James Walker, President of the Watchman Fellowship who my brother says promised him during a phone conversation on February 11 and March 13 of this year that he would revise or link to information at my brother's personal website when it became available, but my brother says James Walker reneged when he realized that the facts about my brother and about the 1990 political protest are so opposite as James Walker and spin-offs have portrayed it for the past 19 years, first in the organization's print newsletter, and then in an unmodified reproduction of it published online since 1995. Me and my brother's grandfather J. Edward Johnson was both a fan of, and acquaintance of, his fellow Boalt Hall graduate Earl Warren, both were Swedish-American advocate attorneys in their respective fields of practice.. J. Edward Johnson is featured at these online sources, and his epic work "History of California Supreme Court Justices" is frequently cited in the Misplaced Pages article Roger J. Traynor. In conclusion, my brother Jordan told me he has finally figured out that he shouldn't mention laws, law enforcement, law enforcement agencies legal disputes and so forth when contributing or attempting to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and he told me that if his username Jsmith51389 is unbanned, he would not again violate Misplaced Pages prohibitions in that regard, and only mention such things in private emails with friendly editors or administrators at Misplaced Pages, such as yourself. Pardon me, I just literally LOL'd...because ultimately, this is all very entertaining, and Jordan Smith has told me this was a chief motive of his when he "torched the roof" of the unoccupied building, and then asked police if he could perform a rain dance: To try and make the political and religious discourse of Jackson County, Missouri more interesting, inquisitive, informative and humane. This has been taking place, Jordan Smith told me he met with Jackson County, Missouri Prosecutor Jim Kanatzar two days ago at a town hall meeting as well as with some other community leaders, and Jordan said he is pleased about the idealism and honesty and creativity he sees enacted by many public servants here and elsewhere in the state of Missouri. I am very confident that you and Mike Godwin and many other Misplaced Pages administrators will bring redress to a bizarre, complex, but real situation once you know what is going on, instead of the intentionally-foisted falsehoods about the Latter-day Saint Movement, about the Temple Lot, and about interested persons and parties involved therewith. I may be reached via email at my Talk Page. Thank you! jared d. s.mith 18:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ban appeal

The following is from m:User talk:Jimbo Wales and posted on request of the writer by weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC).

Hello Jimbo,

As I am unable to post at en:Misplaced Pages, and email results in an error message, I am posting this here.

I have been banned from en:Misplaced Pages by the local arbcom without explanation or evidence of wrongdoing. I wish to appeal this ban, to see my rights restored in full, my block log cleared per WP:BLP as it contains erroneous accusations of legal threats, and aggressive hounders dealt with.

Let me know if you want to hear my case. I am an editor in good standing on various other wiki projects, and have always contributed to Misplaced Pages in good faith.

Kind regards, Guido den Broeder 14:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

After a brief review of recent events, and familiarity with past events, I decline at this time to hear your case.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Your involvement in discussions regarding Objectivism on Misplaced Pages

Ciao, Jimbo. There's recently been a concerted effort to clean up the encyclopaedia's much maligned coverage of Objectivism. I realise that you generally prefer not to comment on this topic, but rumours are a-swirling that senior figures in the Objectivist movement have been in contact with you voicing concerns and trying to influence matters. If it's not too much trouble, could you clarify whether this is something you are concerned with or that should be left entirely to the editors of the articles in question? Mahalo,  Skomorokh  16:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as content matters go, Jimmy is just a normal editor--he has no special authority on the tone and tenor of content in any article, no more than any other editor and consensus, he's one voice of many in regards to that, but can obviously weigh in. As for that article you linked, it doesn't "malign" our coverage of Randian stuff. It just says he thinks the articles are too long and "boring". rootology/equality 17:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I know the score on the role of Jimmy Wales (as the most prolific contributor to that page), I need to verify if possible whether or not Jimbo is in active contact with the individuals in question and/or intends on making a public statement about the issue.  Skomorokh  17:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'm not getting what the "issue" is? rootology/equality 17:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I intend to treat this case in the same way as any other, which includes - of course - respecting the privacy of people who may contact me privately seeking advice on how to handle sensitive BLP issues. I have no special intention at the present time to either make a public statement nor to avoid making a public statement. NPOV is non-negotiable. If I were to weigh in with a comment regarding the underlying content issue (I was, 10 years ago, an amateur near-expert on the topic) I would do so with facts and arguments, and expect my argument to be respected on the merits, not because of my special role here in Misplaced Pages.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation, I appreciate it. For the time being we (the active Objectivism editors) will continue as usual (at {{Objectivism and Ayn Rand Cross Talk}}) but do let us know either here or at that page if there are issues raised by outside parties you think need addressing. Mahalo,  Skomorokh  10:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Flagged Revisions update - requesting an update from Jimmy

Jimmy,

Can we get an update from the horse's mouth on where we are with Flagged Revisions for BLPs, and what the approximate ETA is? If you still have the authority to do policy by fiat, and you do believe in protecting BLPs, why can't we just get it done with? If there is some technical hitch we're waiting on Brion to sort out, we can still make it policy, and just leave it pending till Brion turns on the light switch. That would give people time to go over to that Sandbox wiki to experiment and learn, and to let us begin hashing out who gets "approver" status and how.

The recent disgusting fiasco at Catherine Crier was repugnant. Go read the history, and use your magic status to go look at the Oversighted revisions, then answer me: if you have the ability to unilaterally enforce policy, why haven't you yet in the wake of this kind of crap? How much longer are we going to have to wait? If this costs us a couple of old-school hardline "FREE WIKI" editors, good riddance. If it costs us 1,000: Good riddance. Some things are more important than others.

I'm being bold and formatting this to separate Jimmy's reply from others. I consider the section headings part of my comment proper; do not remove them unless you're Jimmy himself. rootology/equality (Signature time stamp removed by me under WP:IAR; this can be removed as a section by Jimmy if he does not want it here--I will restore any other removal, or Archival Bot removal; this was posted June the First.)

Jimmy's reply

• I fully support the implementation which garnered the consensus of the community and have asked that it be turned on as soon as possible. I feel that this implementation is not strong enough, but it is a good start. Once the tool is technically enabled, I think that policy will move over time to the appropriate balance, just as protection and semi-protection did. I believe it likely that I will be for a long time in favor of cautious expansion of the use of the tool for more articles - but I respect the concerns people have about it (the length of the backlog in German Misplaced Pages has been too often too long, in my opinion).

I think we are simply waiting now on Brion. He has suggested "before Wikimania". I hope that's right.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Other comments

• see this for the latest from Brion. It's gone quiet again since (I've offered a hundred buck or so extra targetted donation to try and speed things up!) - My understanding of the status is that the community have clearly asked for (a trial of) flagged revisions, and it's yet to be implemented technically. Privatemusings (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• It seems like a trial on BLP articles would be uncontroversial. RxS (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Whether it's uncontroversial or not, it's time it happened. لennavecia 02:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, do we have any idea how many BLPs have been semi'ed in the past couple of months? Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Archives are kept at User:Lar/Liberal Semi, but it won't include any protected through RFPP or otherwise. Could possibly have a bot run a query. لennavecia 05:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

for making Misplaced Pages possible. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 22:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Administrator difficulties

Mr. Wales, I am having an issue with some administrators whom I feel are punishing me for disagreeing with them by blocking an IP address I was editing with (discussion here, and abusing the term wikilawyering to broadly dismiss my complaints about administrator decisions that are contrary to both the guidelines and the spirit of Misplaced Pages. They are also trying to suppress my complaints about heavy-handed and excessive use of restrictive tools by maintaining a block. I will attempt to address this as briefly as possible for your input.

While not logged in, I accused another user, on his user talk, of not paying attention while reverting one of my edits, in a manner that could be considered a harassment; the user responded to each of my comments and his only specific complaint (which he did not express initially) was he took the mocking that he was not paying attention as a personal attack. He never asked me to leave him alone, but without notifying me posted an RFP to get his user page protected, claiming "IPs harassing". I could no longer speak to him on his user page and had no desire to, however at WP:RFP, I placed on his page, as it was unwarranted (only one IP, mine, for months in his page history) and contrary to policy (pp must be for heavy continuous vandalism, and indefinite pp must follow previous pp) and would prevent other IPs from notifying him that he improperly reverted their edits.

After I contested the indefinite page protection, the same administrator that issued the protection blocked me for seven days for "harassment/personal attacks".

I feel that I was blocked by the administrator for challenging his page protection, even though I used the proper channel on the RFP page. I was was blocked for seven days instead of the recommended 24 hours, officially for harassing one user (in four comments in under thirty minutes, with no prior history of harassment, unconstructive edits, or bad faith behavior). I felt that this was unwarranted and excessive and I "threatened" to contest the administrator's decision with my account (this account) if he did not unblock me (I expressily promised to leave the other editor alone).

I then filled out an appeal for unblocking template (saying again I would leave the other editor alone and citing numerous guidelines that I feel clearly indicate the block was excessivly heavy handed) and was denied the appeal, one of the primary reasons given that the editor had asked me to leave him alone and I didn't, which wasn't true (again he never asked me to leave him alone, he want straight to page protection).

I appealed again and was accused of "wikilawyering" and arguing that two admins were wrong and I was right (about being blocked contrary to guidelines?), told that I had made a threat of harassment (my vow to contest the administrator's decision), and there was no reason to believe my behavior would change (despite my repeat promises to leave the other editor alone and only question the administrator's actions).

Again I feel I am being outright punished (and blocks must not be used for punishment according to blocking policy) for disagreeing with an administrator and questioning his decisions. I will end by citing Misplaced Pages:Administrator_conduct#Administrator_conduct "editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions" and your own statement "I want to dispel the aura of "authority" around the position ".

I'm sorry I wrote so much, thank you for your time and I value your input in these circumstances.

edit: I feel I should clarify I don't care about being blocked per se and I will accept that this account will probably be blocked for "block dodging"; what bothers me is administrators too quickly and excessively issuing blocks and page protections; I feel these actions are contrary to the nature of Misplaced Pages as they stifle and alienate good users who make isolated mistakes. Some guy (talk) 05:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not block this user, IP appears to be User:69.105.172.180. I'd like to deal with this. Prodego 06:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)