Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:47, 12 December 2020

Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an open door policy. He holds the founder's seat on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees. The current trustees occupying "community-selected" seats are Doc James, Pundit and Raystorm. The Wikimedia Foundation's Lead Manager of Trust and Safety is Jan Eissfeldt.

Sometimes this page is semi-protected and you will not be able to leave a message here unless you are a registered editor. In that case, you can leave a message here

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

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Village pumps

policy

tech

proposals

idea lab

WMF

misc

• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

• view
• edit
• history
• watch
• archive
• talk
• purge

Concern

There are a number of pictures in various articles and on commons that contain sacred temple robes worn by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The problem with this is that the person behind the photos trespassed to get them. The photographer, known as NewNameNoah/Mike Norton, as previously been arrested for trespassing. And now that every temple knows him, and will call the police if he steps foot on the property, Mike Norton has begun forging temple recommends, and handing them out to people, so they too can enter illegally. My biggest concern with this is, as mentioned above, they often show our sacred temple garments and our sacred rituals. These pictures are offensive and disregard the sacredness of the temple. Keep in mind, we as members of the LDS Church, don't like discussing what happens inside these sacred edifices, we don't like to share what our robes look like, and we especially do not like when people bully us by publishing what we hold dear in our hearts. We as citizens of the world, should be respectful to all religions and faiths. I have gone through so many options, and honestly I am running out of options. I have put my problem on Teahouse, talked with several wikipedians, and even debated the deletion of these images. Is there anything else I can/should do? Is there anyway that these images can be removed on the grounds of common respect? Your help will be greatly appreciated! Matthew.weller (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Matthew.weller, Misplaced Pages is not censored. We have plenty of photos that some people find offensive. Muslims frequently rankle that we have depictions of the prophet Muhammed, but we don't delete the photos because they are a useful visual aid. We have plenty of photographs on Misplaced Pages that were taken illegally, but that are invaluable. Take for example the Sonderkommando photographs. Different subject for sure, but illegal, and yet some of the most important photographs ever taken. Many find the photos distasteful, but they are illustrative. Misplaced Pages does not remove photographs for any of the concerns you have raised, I'm afraid. We are an archive of knowledge, and such photos represent previously unknown knowledge, and we are appreciative of our volunteers who provide that knowledge. CaptainEek ⚓ 20:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Do you remember back when you first had this idea?

I have this strange compulsion that User:Paptilian/Official_State_of_Colorado,_U.S.A._Article_Project. means something important. Its still in my head all jumbled up, however, Out of Chaos, Order has been accomplished, to a degree that should you call your attention to the link you might choose to respond. You are being advised that I have dropped your name into the call for assembly and before it goes further (with your referenced) I felt the need for proper introduction. I am User:Paptilian, browser of anything Wiki Foundation, Commons, Data, not sure what all, and as such have requested the attention of the Foundation, my mind tells me this is That Big. For it reaches into the Governor's Office, not just Colorado, but the Secretary of State's office, and that all the way to the President's staff. Ok, admitted, I dream big and in color. But it's true. I leave you with the invitation to attend Roll Call. Yours, very respectfully, User:Paptilian. ps May I have an official user name (I forget what its called at this moment as a lot on my mind in happening. registered name. Paptilian (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Paptilian, ....what in the what? Could you explain that in clear English? And also explain what your various user subpages are about? You do know that the state of Colorado already exists, yes? CaptainEek ⚓ 20:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

A submission request for a Draft of the Outline of Colorado for the improvement of the Outline of Colorado, which is requested on the Project page for WikiProject: Colorado has been requested at Misplaced Pages: Help Desk. I am presently awaiting answers from the desk. This post, answers you question, ....what in the What? I hope this explains my intent, for helping make Misplaced Pages a beautiful place to learn.Paptilian (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC) This issue has been resolved here.Paptilian (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC). Thank you.Paptilian (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

Take this bubble tea for founding Misplaced Pages. I hope you like it! 𝙲𝚘𝚍𝚒𝚗𝚐𝙲𝚢𝚌𝚕𝚘𝚗𝚎 ᴛᴀʟᴋ 07:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for founding Misplaced Pages and giving so many people the ability to learn, discover and enjoy. And also thank you for your trust in letting random people edit your userpage, I know I don't have that much trust! REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

That's a nice thought but Jimbo has a large following that protects his user page. Bob K31416 (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

As I found out! :-) REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I must say, it is strange to see this page so calm, for so many days in a row.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

If Donald Trump's lawyers were arguing against Bradv they would have a field day

• Link to previous discussion: Special:Permalink/993211659#If Donald Trump's lawyers were arguing against Bradv they would have a field day. Re the matters referred to in the discussion on the talk page of Premeditated Chaos (a former Arbitrator) which Bradv so ignorantly removes:

• Ian.thomson gained promotion by deception. All candidates for RfA (except him) declare their alternate accounts. He has at least two, the names of which are similar alphanumeric strings combined with a hyphen and about eight characters in length.
• Conservative blogger Sam Smith (aka Matthew Hopkins) is also unaware that Contribsx is female:

...Furthermore, when ANI unblocked the account they noted that even if it had, in fact, been Mr Shapps he would not have been sock-puppeting but operating a serial account. ANI/Requesting_unblock_of_User:Contribsx . They also noted that he would not have been due a block ... Vordrak 17:34, 29 June 2015

ABOVE COMMENT SUPPRESSED BY MR NOBODY

• Administrator deletions on the Reference desk (almost all of which are executed by ) are accompanied by threats:

• JzG lied in his block rationale. DuncanHill (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I did, he has ignored my question. I also commented on the blocked IP's talk page, pinging JzG, and he has ignored that, and another editor's concerns. JzG has a history of this sort of thing, as I am sure you are well aware. DuncanHill (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt and the emailed threats from other admins. DuncanHill (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

JzG was involved in the threats delivered to Panyd (a WMF staffer):

For some bizarre reason I wasn't aware of a discussion had on this talk page in December 2014 stating that this one talk page, was an exception to this long standing rule.

If somebody had pinged me or messaged me earlier, I would have been more than happy to correct my error (and have done). I've no opinion on the original block. The ring on my finger isn't 'one to rule them all'. I am still a human being with their own agency. Please treat me as such. Panyd 12:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I was specifically addressing you, who linked to the discussion on Jimmy's talk page that clarified the issue. It's unfair to expect me to know about a discussion that happened 5 months ago, and it's very unfair to the IP user to not do everything you can to remedy the situation. I don't check Jimmy's talk page daily, so there was no way of knowing I'd made an error before I looked today.

I posted to clarify how I came to perform the action that I did (which may actually help others who also haven't read a 5 month old post to not make the same mistake), but also to please ask other users to not constantly insinuate that my actions somehow reflect on my husband. If I screw up, that's on me. Apparently I screwed up.

I'm not sure what 'spoiler for Jimbo' means. It was a block made in error. So I fixed it. That about sums it up. Panyd 13:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

If you want to be fair to the IP user you can lift the block yourself. You have second mover advantage. 86.171.246.74 (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I strongly counsel against doing anything for second mover advantage. If an admin action is correct you should be able to convince your peers that it is correct. Using admin access to perform actions known or suspected to be contentious could be grounds to lose that access. Jehochman 17:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Having read the evidence, what makes you think the unblock would be contentious? 86.145.50.7 (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Silence. The following header just about sums it up:

"This Kinda reminds me of 1984..."

Quoting from Jehochman's RfA:

I tracked down the unblocking admin, User:Eagle 101, on IRC and he patiently explained that blocking users isn't our goal and that it's much more satisfying to help them adjust. The user has turned into a productive editor. Getting angry with people doesn't help much. I've learned the importance of trying to be constructive and find common ground whenever possible. Even when requesting a siteban for a long term disruptive editor, I tried to be polite to them and explain what they would need to do to get themselves unbanned. Blocking and banning aren't as good as convincing an editor to follow site standards ... Our goal is never to block somebody. No, we want them to stick around and make valuable contributions.

86.163.126.17 (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

...F P says he will not be bothering to justify his actions. Five minutes later JzG hats the thread using the words “block” and “evasion” again without having referred to SPI. One hour and forty minutes later another IP comes along to explain why ArbCom, Jimmy and Panyd are right and F P and JzG are wrong ...5.150.92.19 14:18, 14 June 2015

Unfounded allegations and deliberately preventing the accused from answering them

An SPI case has been raised here against a user unrelated to this case. JoeSperrazza (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) has added another IP address editor 86.153.131.100 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to the list claiming that it is a sock of the same investigation and JoeSperrazza has used the allegation as an excuse to revert this IP's edits under WP:BE example. The examples of edits that he has provided appear to have little to with the case as given. In addition, the case page has been semi-protected to ensure that none of the IP addresses accused can respond to the case (a request for removal has been filed).

It is worth noting that there has been a flurry of editing activity at Prime meridian (Greenwich) within which two editors are attempting to WP:OWN the article by objecting to what others are editing in. I have to note that Jc3s5h (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) who is also attempting to own the article has also chimed in and reverting the same good faith (and correct) edits. I would therefore suggest that these two may even be sockpuppets ofeach other. 86.145.209.15 (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Since I have been deliberately prevented from responding at the SPI. According to the evidence put up by Jc3s5h (talk · contribs), everyone who edits Misplaced Pages and lives in London must be sockpuppets of each other. That is his sole evidence. With a population of 8.6 million people, I await all the future SPI cases whenever he dislikes anyone's editing. 86.145.209.15 (talk) 12:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

That is nothing more than your determined attempt to make sure that I cannot respond to your malicious allegations where you made them. I note that you continue to add irelevances secure in the knowledge that they cannot be answered.

It is now very clear that Jc3s5h (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) and JoeSperrazza (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) are sockpuppets of each other. Both are intent on reverting the IP address editors without any case having been proven (diff1 and diff2 AND using an identical edit summary].

Both users have also redacted good faith discussion atempts left on their talk pages, diff3 and diff4. It is unusual to find two editors who both clean such comments off their talk pages, even less so, two who claim to be doing it for alleged sockpuppets of banned users before they have even produced a viable case let alone proven the point.

And both users, are intent on proving sockpuppetry relying solely on the fact that the accused happens to geolocate to London. Problem is: that the case falls down because this IP address does not geolocate to London, but around 10 miles or so east of where I am (though it probably will do if my IP address changes - something over which I have no control). 86.145.209.15 (talk) 13:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

A registered editor took the same view:

Something seems very wrong here. There is a list of six similar IP addresses. JoeSper is claiming that the edit summaries of 86.153.131.100 are similar to the previous IPs. They are editing in similar article areas, but many of us do that. Jc3s5h is claiming that 86.145.209.15 must be a sock puppet because he left two identical edit summaries (since he made both edits, the allegation has to be that he is a sock puppet of himself). 86.153.131.100 and 86.145.209.15 are both recorded as dynamic IP addresses belonging to British Telecom and the sequence of edits suggests that they are very obviously the same user. However, there is no overlap and both IP addresses have not been used at the same time, so it is fairly clear that if they are same user, the IP address has recycled.

The much bigger problem is that the accusers are claiming that the IPs all locate to the same place and that this is the main plank of the claim that they are the same user. Geolocate on IP addresses is (deliberately) not precise and the location can be off by quite a number of miles (typically up to 10). The accusers clearly did not bother to geolocate the IP addresses very well because only two geolocate to London England (not six as suggested). The first two geolocate to Watford (around 30 miles away and well beyond the error in geolocate). The last two geolocate to Guildford (which is even further away at around 40 miles). It is clear that the IP addresses as a set are not related to one another. The first two may be. The middle two may be. The last two probably are. However, there can be no relationship between the first two; the second two and the last two. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I take your point, but while I was sifting through the IP users contributions etc., I came across something even more disturbing. Unfortunately, I had to go to an urgent appointment so I had to leave it. The spotted problem was, that if the IP addreses are supposed to be the same editor hoping from location to location, he is doing it remarkably quickly indeed. 86.153.131.100 (located in Guildford made an edit to Prime meridian (Greenwich) at 12:33 on 19/8/15. 86.159.14.119 made an edit to Tennessee State Route 840 from North London at 12:49 on the same day. That is, he travelled the 45 miles between the two locations (as the crow flies - which I don't suppose he can) in just 16 minutes. he would have had to travel at 168 miles per hour assuming that the time interval is between key presses and not taking account of the time taken to compose the edit etc. There are other examples of impossible journey timings, but that one is the best. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I note that the block has been enacted, but should be revisited. Even a WP:DUCK cannot be in two places at the same time. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

None of the IP addresses are anything other than what they appear to be. Legitimate IP addresses used by the UK's largest telecom provider that geolocate more or less exactly where they say they are. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The case remained open for two weeks after the final comment (is this a record?) before being closed "no action" by Bbb23 (who could squeeze sockpuppets out of a stone). 86.141.191.210 (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Cliche Thank You

Thank you for founding Misplaced Pages and making reliable, quality information available to so many who do not have the money to buy a full set of Encyclopedias! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jurysith (talk • contribs) 01:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Tides Advocacy & WMF $8.7 million grant

According to the 2019-20 financial audit FAQ question 2.2.1, the WMF has provided an unconditional grant of $8.723 million to Tides Advocacy to launch the Wikimedia Knowledge Equity Fund. It is for the purpose to invest in new grant-making opportunities in support of groups that are advancing equitable, inclusive representation in free knowledge. Tides is a left-of-center $470 million revenue San Francisco-based grantmaker that operates as donor-advised fund, funneling money from anonymous donors to activist non-profits or political campaigns (sometimes called dark money due to lack of IRS oversight in DAFs). Tides is distinctively partisan because it donates to organizations like the Democratic Party ActBlue and People for the American Way. Indeed, the suborganization that will be used to launch the new fund, TidesAdvocacy.org, describes themselves as seasoned political advisors, financial experts and legal counselors, we know the rule book inside and out. With our infrastructure and ongoing support, our partners can hit the ground running with the right strategies for successful ballot, electoral and legislative campaigns. That sounds awfully unphilanthropic.

I'm aware it's been public knowledge for a few of years that the WMF has established an endowment at Tides, but this seems like a step further. Do you have any views on why does the WMF need Tides to run the Knowledge Equity Fund and why was Tides chosen? Is it not a problem to tie the WMF to a particular political grantmaking network? --Pudeo (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)