Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Risker (talk | contribs) at 06:16, 24 October 2008 (→Lar case: core privacy issues are just that). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Index of archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Happy Newyorkbrad's Day!

User:Newyorkbrad has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Newyorkbrad's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Newyorkbrad! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

Thanks very much, of course. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:EVula/Userboxes/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Urgent question

How much time elapses between the time a new Misplaced Pages page is created and the time it starts to show up on Google or other search engines, and on Misplaced Pages mirror sites? Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This might be helpful. I'll ask someone who knows and see if I can get a quick capsule answer. Avruch 20:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Based on experience, for Google it can be as little as a couple of minutes. Doing new page patrol I often Google the title of a new, poor, page to see if there's any hope for it and get the newly created page as one of the top hits. Easy experiment: go to Special:NewPages and Google for some of the more recently created ones. I think you'll find it's normally very quick. Mirrors I have no idea about - usually slower, but it probably depends on the mirror. Iain99 21:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I've just tried this; at the moment Google's not finding anything much less than an hour old, but I'm sure there are times when it's a lot faster. Iain99 21:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that Google, along with Answers.com and not sure who else, pays the Wikimedia Foundation in order to get a live feed of Misplaced Pages data and changes. It's noted that the Foundation gets some income from this, in the FY2007 financial report . Google may use this to get new pages into the search engine more quickly, but I don't know the details on what Google does. --Aude (talk) 00:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for the information, to those who posted above as well as those who responded to my "NOINDEX" queries last week. Anyone else reading here, please let me know if you know anything further. This is germane to some research I am doing on how we can improve our practices and procedures relating to BLP's and related issues, with the intention of setting forth some specific recommended actions (as opposed to topics for continued endless discussions) and doing my best to get them implemented, perhaps in conjunction with a small task force of knowledgeable users, during the next couple of weeks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Google picks up new articles within a day, and often within an hour. The size of Misplaced Pages is quite small compared to Google's ability to index pages. Jehochman 14:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right. It's very fast. Wikimedia should do something about this, ergo ensure that Google delays listing new articles for a few days or a week. It's frustrating that (1) BLP issues get listed at Google before they can be dealt with here, and Misplaced Pages is being (2) used to create notability for fringe, non-notable topics. -- Fyslee / talk 14:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Easy peasy. Ask our developers not to include new articles in the feeds until they have been patrolled. Jehochman 14:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea! On second thought: how about until they are either patrolled or 24 hours old, whichever comes first? (Or some other appropriate length of time). ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Canadian election ITN item

I just wanted to let you know that I liked your rewrite of the ITN item on the Canadian election. I had formulated the previous wording, but now that a government is being formed, yours is more apropos. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that you approve, Newyorkbrad. Thank you. Happy editing! --PFHLai (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Question about SSP cases

Hi, Newyorkbrad. Can non-admins perform closures at WP:SSP if the case is clearly solved (i.e. checkusers have come back and all the suspects have already been blocked)? Specifically, I'm referring to WP:Suspected sock puppets/Astutescholar. If non-admins aren't allowed to do this, then would you mind looking into it? Thanks. Happy editing! SunDragon34 (talk) 09:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me for jumping in here but I saw this as I watch Brad's page and I have processed almost 700 SSP/RFCU cases. Yes, non admins in good standing are free and welcome to comment on these cases, fix formatting errors, and close them in cases such as this. Obviously you can't block anyone yet. SSP is almost always one of our biggest backlogged areas and any help there is welcome. Normally the admin that blocks and tags cases will close it, but here he seems to have forgotten. All you need to do here is put {{sspa}} above the == line on the Suspected sock puppets/Astutescholar subpage and a bot should archive it soon. Sometimes the bot won't for various reasons and it needs to be manualy moved to the archives. I'll gladly answer any other SSP or RFCU questions you have. Brad, sorry if I step on your toes here. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Abtract

In the ArbCom discussion, a temporary injunction was approved to keep the current restrictions in place until a decision was made. Abtract appears to have broken that agreement, again, by editing the Lassie disambig page when he can clearly see I have edited it before and in what seems like a fairly obvious response to recent discussions on my talk page regarding Lassie articles. Where should this be noted? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If you believe there has been a violation, you can add it to your evidence and also report it to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration enforcement for review by an administrator. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I added it to my evidence page. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

On RFArb page

It seems that a backlog may be developing in clarifications and other requests. This one is the oldest (almost 2 weeks old) but still does not have any arbitrator views, and I presume that's why the clerks have not archived it. Things are obviously beginning to queue up this month, but I think an update on the status is needed from an arb. (eg; if it's going to be/still being discussed on the mailing list or if it is dismissed and can be archived or...etc.) Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Although I have broken this rule in the past, I usually think that requests for clarification are best answered, in the first instance, by arbitrators who participated in deciding the case whose clarification is being sought. The Martinphi-ScienceApologist case was decided before I became an arbitrator or even really knew much about the arbitration process, so I thought it might be best to allow other arbitrators to weigh in. However, I suppose that not too many who were on the committee in 2006 are still watching the page faithfully, so I suppose the newer group such as myself should weigh in soon if no one else does. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll nudge/nag a couple of the arbs who voted on the case, so hopefully one of them can get the ball rolling in the next day or so. But it'll still probably be worth looking into; it's one of those cases that often pops up on the RFArb page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Fred Bauder, although he's otherwise stepped away from arbitration after his years of hard work, has been known to comment on requests for clarification of decisions he was part of, so you might try him in addition to the current arbitrators who were sitting in 2006. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Email

You've got it. KnightLago (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Ginger Jolie arbitration

I strongly urge you to reconsider your position on this matter. The underlying issue, it seems to me, is the application of a most imperfectly formed rule of decision established by the Arbitration Committee. The Committee members should take responsibilty for the problems caused by their actions, as I spell out in more detail on the request page. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 02:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I will take another look, although I don't promise to change my opinion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I have provided a more detailed explanation of my reasons for believing that DRV is not suitable on the request page, in response to later comments. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 23:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Case needs intervention

I request some urgent arbitrator's intervention into the pages of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2 and I am leaving this same note to all four Arbitrators who commented on the case so far.

The pages of the case have deteriorated beyond reasonable due to the conduct of some of the case participants. Please take a look at this new section of evidence for details. Yes, many bitter cases are filled with nonsense claims but there must be a limit to how much outright crankery can be tolerated at the ArbCom cases without any action taken.

Case' pages being turned into a total mess adversely affects the chances of the cohesive outcome. Too much nonsense in the cases pages buries the constructive entries and make the whole pages unreadable or incomprehensible. This leads to the arbitrators' non-participation in the discussions, which, in turn, brings, and I am not going to sugar-coat this, the case's outcomes being often too disconnected from actual concerns raised at its pages. This is why, I am calling for a rather unusual remedy to be applied to a case itself.

I would like to request that some aggressive clerk-like work is applied to the pages of the case: the workshop and the evidence. This cannot be left to clerks since this requires application of the discretion on the cases merits beyond the freedom given to clerks. If you could go over the current evidence and workshop pages and aggressively remove the patent nonsense and senseless rants (including my own entries if they are perceived as such), the benefit would be two-fold. First, it would make case pages more readable and, thus, more useful. Second, it would send a strong message to all parties that their conduct in the case is being monitored and may have consequences that would, hopefully, switch everyone to a more constructive mode. When looking at the pages you would see at once that the nonsense there is abundant and its presence disrupts the case.

I am not requesting any sanctions against anyone at this point. All I am asking is to return some normalcy to the case' pages.

Thank you in advance. --Irpen 21:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

After requesting "ethical_conduct" from ArbCom, Irpen found my evidence so important that he decided to intervene, contrary to his own request. I replied here (please see "bare facts").Biophys (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Supper table

For rising to the occasion with some greatly kneaded humor when it was yeast expected, please enjoy some (not pelted) dinner rolls.

alanyst 04:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I once tried explaining a particular ArbCom case to ordinary (non-Misplaced Pages) law students. I'm glad there were no rolls around. Cool Hand Luke 13:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Note from Newyorkbrad

I'll be travelling with limited Internet access until Monday. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Lar case

Brad, as we've been asked not to post on the proposed decision talk page, I'm writing here instead to confirm that Wikitumnus, Crum375, and I have waived our right to privacy in this case, subject to the minimal conditions one of us requested. (Crum waived his via me, so by all means write to him to confirm.) This means there is no longer a need to restrict evidence, nor indeed to hear the case in private at all. I want to confirm here that even the parties to the case have not seen the evidence, and are therefore not able to address it. It has been the most secretive case I'm aware of in my four years at Misplaced Pages, which has been both unfortunate and inexplicable. With the right to privacy waived by everyone who was checkusered, I request that you correct this as soon as possible. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 04:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

SV, I think it is not wise to post content here that would not be welcome on the arbitration pages. I request you blank this section and deal with Newyorkbrad via email. As NYB says above, he will be away until Monday. Should you accept my recommendation feel free to remove my comment as well. Jehochman 04:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, the three of you may not object, but I do. I do not believe that it is appropriate to post full details of checkuser results anywhere on Misplaced Pages - and that is essentially what you are asking for. Fact is, you do not know whether or not there is private information that involves individuals other than the three of you, or whether or not other users' private information was revealed during the checkusers that have been described, which as you know is likely to happen. Whether or not any or all of you authorise it (and the authorisation needs to be made personally to the Foundation, not to English Misplaced Pages's Arbitration Committee) is unimportant. The Arbitration Committee would be setting a precedent by permitting such release of information. In the future, pressure could be brought to bear on parties in other cases to permit release of their private information. It genuinely shocks me, SlimVirgin, after all of your years of crusading for the protection of this very sort of information, that you would so cavalierly wish to establish such an onerous precedent. I understand your anger, and that of the other two editors, but this is not an appropriate solution. Risker (talk) 05:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

SV said the three of them waive their right to privacy, I'm sure she won't mind any uninvolved bystanders' (if there are any) privacy still being guarded. What I mean is, Risker I don't think she meant it like you think she meant.:) Sticky Parkin 06:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Think about it for a minute, Sticky Parkin. Can't you hear it now: "Well, if SlimVirgin can waive her privacy rights - and everyone knows what she's been through - I don't understand why you would say no." And yes, SlimVirgin has been through a lot more than almost every other Wikipedian when it comes to privacy invasion. It is that which is the dangerous precedent. It's pointless to reveal partial CU results - we already know what they say. Revealing the IP addresses of these individuals can have effects on other editors who may also use those IPs, not to mention other non-Misplaced Pages users of those IPs. I can entirely understand why the three editors involved are angry. Their anger does not override core policies - not just of Misplaced Pages but of the entire Wikimedia Foundation, who at the end of the day is responsible for the use of the information being discussed. Risker (talk) 06:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)