Jump to content

User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2008/Sep

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


RfA thank you

Newyorkbrad/Archive/2008/Sep, I wish to say thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 82 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to your expectations. I would especially like to thank Rlevse for nominating me and Wizardman for co-nominating me.
                                                  — JGHowes talk - 19 August 2008

Final decision

Would you please change "pursue" to "perform". Pursue would seem to send the wrong signal, or at least seems to be wrong semantically/connotatively.

And by the way, in regards to the "prinicples sections", for the most part, I thought you did an awesome job of integrating everyone's thoughts and concerns. - jc37 22:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I've just read it too. Nice job, though I picked up a few typos. :-) I'm sure you said somewhere recently that correcting typos is OK, but I can't find the diff. Oh well. Carcharoth (talk) 13:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
To Carcharoth, fixing the typos is fine and appreciated. To Jc37, change made. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Speaking of which, I just read this and there seems to be a "not" missing? Or not? Carcharoth (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. Thanks. Would you like to come clerk for us? :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Have you seen the typos in my edit summaries? I could donate a spellchecker. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC) Hey, that's a nice poem in that article!
Thanks. And I'd strongly support the idea of Carcharoth as a clerk : ) - jc37 20:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Please pardon the grammar nitpick (again), but I think it should probably be "... to the best of their ability." (singular) - jc37 01:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

New Isaac Asimov page in the works

I've been making a list of books by Isaac Asimov. Feel free to edit... ≈ MindstormsKid 23:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a great idea, but note that we already have Bibliography of Isaac Asimov. Your page has a lot of extra information beyond what's already there, though. Perhaps you should add your information to that page, or maybe explain why they are different (I think yours is chronological rather than alphabetical). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, mine is categorical and chronological... For now I'm making List of books by Isaac Asimov redirect to the other one. ≈ MindstormsKid 13:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

I selected your name from the list of active members of the arbitration committee and hope you can help me with this problem.

I received a message that states "Editing from 64.12.0.0/16 has been disabled by Pilotguy for the following reason(s): you appear to be editing from a bypassed AOL proxy range." Apparently this block is indefinite.

The problem is, my AOL IP address 209.247.22.166, which isn't even remotely like 64.12.0.0/16, so I don't understand what's going on. I contacted Pilotguy but he didn't respond.

If you understand what's going on, could you please explain it to me? I don't know how I could even get a message intended for 64.12.0.0/16 if my IP address is 209.247.22.166, or how a block placed on 64.12.0.0/16 could affect me.

Based on another message left on Pilotguy's talk page, it appears I'm not the only one who is having this problem.

I had to use Internet Explorer to be able to send you this message. Please respond here on your talk page, because I think that's the best way I'll see it. Thank you very much! 172.163.4.124 (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I am not familiar with the current issues surrounding access from AOL. I know that a number of other administrators have this page watchlisted, and I hope one of them can respond. Otherwise, please re-post your question to WP:ANI (the administrators' noticeboard) and it will get a response there. Thank you for your interest in contributing to Wikipedia. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Responded on AN/I where I saw this message. This guy has canvassed a lot of people it seems. Thatcher 18:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Elonka

If you have the time, I would appreciate it if you took a look at the DreamGuy entry on the WP:AE page, and perhaps commented. Bishonen | talk 18:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC).

Given that DreamGuy's last edits of any substance were 6 days ago, and there is no consensus at this point for enforcement, presumably the AE thread will be closed without action. I agree with many of the comments you have made in the thread. You caption this section "Elonka," but I agree with you that Elonka is at the periphery of examining whether DreamGuy should be blocked under the rubric of arbitration enforcement, and I am not familiar with the history that leads you to characterize her as an "ancient adversary" of DreamGuy's, although I am sure that it is there. I probably should not say too much more because there is a suggestion in the thread that this matter may come before ArbCom again—although personally I certainly hope that matters will not come to that. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Seeing the discussion continuing with no clear end in sight, I went ahead and posted a comment on AE. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Unretirements

Goodness, that RfArb thread about the Sarah Palin protection warring is interesting. But it was seeing Doc Glasgow's name there that really caught my attention. I thought your comment about a motion to force him to stay unretired was very apposite. But then I remembered that he said he scrambled his password, so presumably he'd have to start a new account. I kind of wish I had more time tonight to comment at the RfArb, but it seems everyone has said pretty much everything by now. Carcharoth (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be readily feasible to get him a new password if we were able to induce him to return. Of course, it's up to him. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
LOL! I loved your comment. [1] Could that injunction be extended to cover yourself as well? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom resizing/retiming/re-whatever-ing

Hi Brad! Thanks for your comments at WT:ACE2008. There seems to be a lot of discussion floating around about whether changing one or more out of number-of-tranches, arbs-per-tranche, length-of-term, number-of-circuits and arbs-per-case would improve the throughput of the ArbCom and reduce the likelihood of burnout. There doesn't seem to have been much response from active arbitrators, which leaves us somewhat in the dark as to whether it's a good idea, and how to implement it. There are a number of questions that need answers:

  1. What is the opinion of the committee, or its individual members, on:
    1. Changing the electoral mechanics (how many tranches, length of term)?
    2. Changing the number of arbitrators?
    3. Changing how cases are assigned (number of circuits, size of quorum, etc)?
  2. How, in the opinion of the committee (or its individual members) should any such changes be implemented?

Naturally I'm not looking for any such answers here (although any personal opinions would be very gratefully received). I'm more asking, where should we go to ask these questions, and get transparent, comprehensive and useful answers from sitting arbitrators?

Many thanks in advance, (also)Happy‑melon 23:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

PS: Great to see that you're back! I completely missed that turn-up, which was presumably the idea, but it makes me very happy to see that the good guys won in the end...

Civility

NYB, could we discuss a new approach to civility problem. What I have found works best is to remove or refactor uncivil comments. This is best done by a completely uninvolved party. It is my experience that blocks for incivility never work. The editor always seems to return angry, looking for a pound of flesh.

Of course, if an editor edit wars to restore incivil comments, or completely disrupts a page, then they may need to be blocked. In contrast, a one-off incivil comment should never result in a block, not even if the editor is under ArbCom sanctions. We really need to review the civility restrictions currently in effect and decide whether they are helping or hurting.

This is not a question or writing policy. We need to discuss what are the best methods to enforce current policy. Jehochman Talk 02:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(holding response - I'm about to sign off for the night - will respond here in the morning) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
an interesting idea. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Still giving this some thought.... In the meantime, please take a look at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Civility restriction RFC for some other editors' views. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
An interesting idea as in a terrible idea? The notion of "refactoring" or removing uncivil comments is abused enough as it is, in the form of people taking it on themselves to remove "comments I disagree with" or "comments I disapprove of". To take the most recent scandal: how would it have been better to remove Giano's input in the discussion, than to block him for it? Answer: not better at all, worse. Georgewilliamherbert would in such a case not have been properly told off, and the ill effects would have lasted much longer than a (soon overturned) block. Note that it would have been perfectly according to Jehochman's suggestion: GWH was completely uninvolved. Or do you have any special, perhaps elected, demigods in mind as sole removers of other people's comments, Jonathan? It would have to be something like that, because, in my experience, the well-known self-selected "removers" who go around rousing resentment and quarrels around the place are people of less, not more, than average judgment. Feeling right for that job tends to go with being wrong for it. And then, to compound matters, to block the person who restores their own comments.. who restores them several times, in the indignant and sometimes correct conviction that they weren't uncivil in the first place.. oh, come on, back to the drawing-board. Bishonen | talk 23:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC).
Interesting, in that it should be thought through. I'm not sold on it, or on the idea that it's terrible. I don't know yet (I am sometimes slow to know my own mind). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I am not contemplating this remedy for borderline incivility. Borderline incivility should just be ignored. Redaction is for comments like, "Go f--- yourself" and things of that nature. My favorite edit summary in such cases is "remove gratuitous breach of decorum". I replace the rude comment with [COMMENT REDACTED] so anybody who wants to read the whole thing can look at the history. Jehochman Talk 03:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
But you see my point, don't you, Jonathan? It's not about what you contemplate, but about what will actually happen. Only using rollback to revert blatant vandalism is another thing that's "contemplated," right? And you know how much it's actually used in content disputes. ("Well, *I* think that's vandalism!") Encouraging removal of something so subjective as "incivility" will lead to even more breaches and even angrier arguments. OK, so you can be trusted to only remove four-letter words—I'm sure you can—but so what, really, if it doesn't scale? Aren't we discussing policy—practices that will scale? The trouble is, hardly anything does scale in this area, since none of it can be enforced without good judgment and good faith. Removing comments is an easy way to bait your hot-tempered enemy, just as blocking them is. And unlike blocking, it leaves an angy person at large, to go on a rampage, embarrassing themselves and annoying others. And unlike blocking it can be performed by our ACNs (=Angry Clueless Newbies). These considerations almost make me think blocking has something to say for itself... What we must aim for is a policy that's harder to use for baiting and harder to use as a club. (I rather like this minimal policy, myself.) Bishonen | talk 09:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC).
I like Giano's policy also. Baiting you is so tempting, dear Bishonen, because your responses are models of clarity, brevity and wit. Jehochman Talk 14:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
M-hm. You seem to be forgetting this is the page for telling Brad how wonderful he is, Jonathan. Plus, you also find it dreadfully tempting to refactor my incivility, don't you? Please don't do that. Bishonen | talk 17:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC).
Brad? Who's he? Jehochman Talk 01:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

RE:Sarah Palin

There is an open discussion regarding the tag at Talk:Sarah Palin#Protection tag, and I think you meant ITN, not DYK(?) I didn't know where to post this in reply on the RFAR page. Regards. Woody (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, actually, it's on ITN and DYK. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Who knew, Sarah Palin monopoly on almost all facets of Wikipedia at the moment! ;) Incidentally, where would I have posted a reply to an arb who posts in the "comments from arbs" section on the RFAR page? Regards. Woody (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I replied to you at RFAR about this, in the same section that I posted my original comment, WP:RFAR#Comment by Rjd0060. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Via the law of unintended consequences, your comment about this was cited by Jossi after unilaterally reducing the message. This happened while apparently ignorant that two discussion threads had failed to reach consensus on reducing the template. Dragons flight (talk) 04:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

[2] :) 86.44.27.255 (talk) 04:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

While I'm in the shop, please unprotect RFARB pending any disruption. Krill was writing policy through unilateral admin action back in December. I'm sure a lot of editors would like if "their" pages were not bothered by IP edits, but they realize the nature of the project they signed up for. 86.44.27.255 (talk) 04:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the page log, I see that User:Sam Korn unprotected, presumably to allow Special:Contributions/(Sock)_Doc (presumably Doc Glasgow) to post. Sam then reprotected a few minutes later. Are you asking for the protection to be permanently lifted? Carcharoth (talk) 07:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. I don't see how Kirill's undiscussed December edict [17:44, 10 December 2007 Kirill Lokshin (Talk | contribs) changed protection level for "Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration" ‎ (No reason for IPs and socks to be editing this anyways [edit=autoconfirmed:move=sysop])] is supportable. I asked him to reconsider some months ago, but was completely ignored. More recently I asked on the protect/unprotect request page, where user:stifle initially rejected the request quickly, but after further discussion said he was unsure and would post to the rfarb talk page. This attracted the attention of another wandering IP who mentioned that he too has once or twice since December had something he felt could be helpful to offer. The section promptly fell into the archives. 86.44.27.255 (talk) 09:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I think you are right. Not being of the boldest mien (and not having time anyway), I'll leave that for others (such as Brad?) to take up. Or maybe someone else will read this and start a new thread at WT:RFARB. Carcharoth (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Please feel free to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Totally tangential thanks

After getting a hiding a while back for my use of the word "prolix," I'm happy now to add "pretermit" to the brenneman lexicon. - brenneman 05:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

And I was pleasantly surprised to find myself using the word "apposite" above. I can't adopt pretermit, though. Sounds too much like Kermit! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 07:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
You say that like it's a bad thing! 86.44.27.255 (talk) 07:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Mental images are everything when writing! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 07:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Note from Newyorkbrad

I will be travelling with relatively little online time until Sunday night. To anyone I owe an e-mail or response here, my apologies for the delay. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back to WP. I'm visiting a friend in NYC this weekend. :-) Bearian (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Newyorkbrad

I have returned to editing. I hope to concentrate primarily on mainspace for awhile, although I will also be active in some policy-related areas (such as my effort to have certain Wikipedia-space pages no-indexed). I am resuming my status as an administrator and a holder of oversight rights. I am also prepared to resume my work on the Arbitration Committee, although there may be some matters on which I have to recuse myself as a result of certain events.

I would like to thank everyone who was kind to me during the past few months—on-wiki and in e-mail and on IRC and on external sites. My especial appreciation to those who left kind words on the "tribute" page, to Thatcher for assistance in maintaining my userspace, and to many editors for the great work on bringing Learned Hand to featured article status.

As a personal favor, I request that undue attention of the "Newyorkbrad's back!!!!" variety not be placed on my return. This will be sincerely appreciated.

I look forward to working with many of you—to add and improve articles, to resolve disputes, to enhance Wikipedia's strengths, and to address its weaknesses and growing pains. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

HIGH FIVE. You're back! MBisanz talk 01:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Woot! Didn't even realize you were back until just now. Wizardman 01:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
we're saved. Jehochman Talk 01:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia just got better. Welcome back! Noroton (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

W000000000000000000T!!!!!!!! ≈ MindstormsKid 01:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

What a breath of fresh air to the project. Welcome back, sir. You were sorely missed. I'm absolutely delighted to have you back here, especially regaining your seat on the Arbitration Committee. This really, really makes my day :) - Alison ❤ 01:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Glad you're back!!!!!!!!!! Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 01:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome Back, Kotter. Seriously, glad to have you back editing, and on ArbCom. SirFozzie (talk) 01:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You're back??!! YES!! Your having to leave was a crime, IMO. Good to see you came back. Hope to see you at the Wiknic. Nightscream (talk) 02:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 02:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, maybe the gods have not condemned Wikipedia to lose all its good folks, after all. Huanying ni! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I am tempted to shout Newyorkbrad's back!!!! but you asked us not to do that, so I will refrain. Jonathunder (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back jddphd (talk · contribs) 03:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, and a relief. I said it would be hard to keep away :) --Relata refero (disp.) 03:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back, chief. rootology (T) 04:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back, Brad. Neil is pleased. Neıl ☄ 08:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

My hat comes off to you. The fact that you returned to Wikipedia after off-wiki harassment is something that I couldn't do. I know how that sorta thing feels, but to return to editing after dealing with something like that is astonishing. An awareness ribbon was created for this sort of thing (perhaps you should add it to your userpage)? Mel 09:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC) proof it's me

It's good to see you editing again Brad. Wikipedia is a better place with you here. ATren (talk) 11:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back, Brad. You only get one chance to leave, you know.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm so happy you've returned. I was getting worried that your absence would become permanent. Enigma message 17:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You're invited...

...to the 5th Washington DC Meetup! Please visit the linked page to RSVP or for more information. All are welcome!
This has been an automated delivery, you can opt-out of future notices by removing your name from the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 00:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It was a pleasure meeting you. Let me know what you need from GW. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

for being BOLD :) MBisanz talk 15:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. See my comments on the MfD. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed decision - Alastair Haines

All items pass now, and there's a move to close. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Noted and voted. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
FYI, I (and I hope most arbitrators) have the various proposed decision pages watchlisted, as well as the case status template, so don't feel compelled to leave individual notes for everyone in every case. Thanks again, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I've done it for every case; only the ones that appear to be open for longer than necessary. Anyway, as you might have figured from the timing of when you got the nudge compared to the others, I did consider not leaving one here. They're just to make the close/voting that extra bit quicker (and as a priority) when they're getting stale, and with a couple of exceptions, they usually serve their purpose. If you can clarify that you personally don't want to be nudged at all, that's okay too. Cheers - Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

NottheWikipediaWeekly

Hey NYB, I was just wondering when the best time would be for you to hold the skypecast that never happened? Seddσn talk Editor Review 22:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If Privatemusings lets me know a couple of dates that are good for him and whoever else will be appearing, I'll try to confirm which of them are okay for me. (Not this weekend, though; I'll be travelling.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Just a note, there may be a NTWW recording on 18th September 20:00 UTC Seddσn talk Editor Review 00:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Newyorkbrad. I would like to thank you for your support in my RfA and the confidence expressed thereby. It is very much appreciated. :) The RfA was closed as successful with 73 supports, 3 opposes and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank WBOSITG for nominating me. Best wishes and thanks again, —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Civility debate

Hi Brad, thank you for your note with the pointer towards a civility policy discussion. Of this page, I find the this comment made by Risker to be the most to the point. We cannot have a sensible debate about the sensibility of the civility restrictions if the very civility policy that these restrictions are supposed to uphold is in such dire and ambiguous shape. I think WP:CIV needs to be fixed first and made more clear, short, less ambiguous and meet consensus. No doubt there is no consensus behind the current policy if the horde of admins who runs to block citing WP:CIV is frequently followed by another horde of admins damning that block. And of course the community's opinion is ever more wide. We cannot have policies that do not reflect the consensus of the community as our policies are defined as set of rules that meets consensus.

The real questions, as I see them, are the following:

  • Do we need a policy that would address civility?
  • If yes, is the current WP:CIV adequate?
  • If no, can it be fixed to become adequate by improving it from current shape or is its current state such a mess that it needs a clean rewrite?

I attempted to start this discussion at the talk page of the policy that obviously needs to be fixed. I know you are busy, but since you are one of the few Wikipedians whose opinion most editors, regardless of their differences with each other, find valuable, I thought I ask you to give your thoughts on the matter. Regards, --Irpen 02:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Note from Newyorkbrad

I'll be travelling with limited Internet access until Sunday night or Monday morning. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Requesting uninvolved opinion

There is a discussion at Talk:Liancourt Rocks regarding:

  1. Whether the proposed Disputed Islands infobox is neutral in its presentation of basic article information
  2. Whether there is a valid reason to exclude the proposed infobox from the article

I should note that I am involved in the discussion, but I do not want to influence your opinion should you choose to offer one. I merely want some uninvolved editors to view the discussion and then offer an opinion. If you choose to participate, please post your opinion in the RFC comments section there. Thank you for your time. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for information

As some of you know, I have been working to try to get various non-encyclopedic pages of the project excluded from searches on Google and other off-wiki search engines. I have also raised in a pending arbitration decision the possibility of using some sort of no-index parameter at least temporarily on potentially problematic BLP content (the potential advent of sighted revisions might or might not be coupled with, or moot, that suggestion). In connection with this, I have also suggested that Wikipedia's internal search engine be further improved (many improvements have been made already) so that the NOINDEX'ing of noticeboards and certain other pages that I believe is important for a variety of reasons, does not hamper our internal administration of Wikipedia itself.

Discussion of the various aspects of this issue has been sprawled among various noticeboards and comment pages (see, e.g., [[Wikipedia talk:NOINDEX of noticeboards), the Village Pump, Bugzilla requests, and a mailing list, so I am not sure where the best place might be for me to seek out some information that would be useful to me in these discussions. Therefore, I would much appreciate if anyone could let me know (either directly or by pointing me to a relevant discussion):

(1) It has been suggested on an external site (WR) that all that Wikipedia would need to do to bring its internal indexing up to snuff (without allowing everything to be on Google), would be to buy a "Google appliance" for internal use. What would be involved in doing this, how much would it cost, and would the search engine be usable by anyone or just at the Office?

(2) In the same WR thread, it is claimed that Google already, of its own volition, refused to index our mainspace article talkpages, long before our own Wikipedia discussions of excluding certain pages from indexing began. Did Google communicate this decision to anyone? Do they have a relevant policy that was cited? It's interesting to me that in all our discussion of how excluding user talk pages or pages like ANI from indexing would make it harder to administer the project, no one (that I recall) pointed out that we've done just fine without indexing of mainspace talk. (In fact, this is the first I've heard that article talkpages were excluded from indexing, although I've observed to myself many times that it was surprising that these pages didn't show up very often, if at all, in search results.) On the other hand, I can't quite figure out why Google (or anyone) would have thought that article talkpages shouldn't be indexed, but user talkpages should. Was a rationale ever offered for that?

(3) What can be done to ensure that whatever pages are excluded from Google by robots.txt or "NOINDEX" are excluded from the other major search engines, such as Yahoo!, as well?

(4) Has there been any discussion of the issues relating to noindexing on other Wikimedia projects or on Meta?

(5) Where, exactly, does one find the "NOINDEX" template on a page? (Pardon a truly non-technical question.) If I wanted to see if a given page was indexed or not, what would I do other than search for it?

(6) It has been asserted that the coding on user talk pages was changed from "NOINDEX, NOFOLLOW" to "NOINDEX FOLLOW". Was this done, when, by whom, why, was it discussed, what does it change, and how can you tell any of the foregoing

My thanks again to anyone who can provide some of this information. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC) Two additional questions added, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Brad, just to answer your first part, here are further details on the Google Search Appliance, thanks George The Dragon (talk) 01:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm confident Google could meet our needs. However GSAs start at $30,000 for 500,000 documents, and our volume is far higher than that. WMF might well balk at the price to really meet our needs. (On the other hand, we might talk them into a donation I suppose.) Dragons flight (talk) 03:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
On 3: All respectable search engines obey robots.txt, and the robots meta-tags, which {{NOINDEX}} causes to be included in the html page. For example, I've been monitoring nonindexed blocked user pages since the tag became available. They are emptying out of Yahoo as well as Google. If you wanted this tag to be used in BLPs, you would just have to tell the devs to make NOINDEX effective article space. If you do that, please make the policy very clear. I'm afraid that NOINDEX wars could erupt otherwise. It would be best if the criteria for non-indexed BLP articles be as objective as possible (using a dead trees standard, or something else). Cool Hand Luke 01:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the second part of your question five, you should be able to simply type the complete url of a page into Google to see whether or not it has been indexed; for example, my talk page is, while the talk page for the article J is not. (On the other hand, for some reason, Google seems to have indexed Talk:J. Paul Getty and Talk:J'en ai marre!. Perhaps the punctuation in the article titles throws off whatever formula Google uses to exclude Talk: pages?)   user:j    (aka justen)   02:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
But is there a way to tell from looking at the page itself (either the page or the "edit this page" screen)? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
If {{NOINDEX}} is used, it will show up in the template list on the edit page (e.g. bottom of [3]). You can also check a pages robot instructions by choosing "view source" in your browser, the robot instructions are around line 6 at the top of the HTML. Dragons flight (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Article talk pages, specifically urls with the stem "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:" [4], have been excluded from Google for a long time (years I think). Some article talk pages appear in Google via a backdoor, in which their url is constructed as "en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:", but the main syntax is blocked. As far I know Google did that unilaterally and never offered any explanation. Dragons flight (talk) 03:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Google shouldn't be indexing anything that's /enwiki/w/, that's been on the robots.txt for a while. Mr.Z-man 00:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
My bad, I should have said things like "en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:" [5], I think there may be a couple other valid variants as well. Dragons flight (talk) 00:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

(←) With regard to question six, it appears this request was implemented on September 13, which changed the $wgNamespaceRobotPolicies setting for user talk pages to "noindex,follow" per this discussion.   user:j    (aka justen)   03:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Some answers (some probably duplicates):
1. If its not open source (which it doesn't appear to be) and Google isn't willing to make it open source, the chances of it getting installed are pretty slim. (m:Wikimedia Draft Statement of Principles Regarding Software Use)
2. Its possible, but I can't see why they would, except possibly so that searches for a topic don't bring up an article, and the talk page
3. As long as the crawlers that the search engines use obey robots.txt and <meta name="robots"> tags, they will be excluded. Every major search engine should do this, or they would probably get into pretty major trouble. Aggressive crawlers that disobey robots.txt and friends may get blocked at the servers and denied all access (you'd have to ask Tim or Brion about that though).
4. There's been a few discussions on the OTRS mailing list about noindexing the spam-blacklist archives, and MediaWiki:robots.txt is available to all projects. At least a few of the bigger ones (dewiki, enwikiquote, IIRC, probably more) had things in robots.txt before that MediaWiki page was available.
5. Dragons flight explains this one pretty well.
6. I don't think they were ever "noindex", "nofollow", they were no-indexed recently, nofollow is only used for external links, to prevent spam.
Mr.Z-man 00:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

(Slightly on-topic) - If we were to suggest that the talk pages (talk spaces?) of all namespaces should be disallowed (noting that this is already the case for user talk), where/who would we ask for that to happen? - jc37 00:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It already was proposed. [6] Much of the reaction was negative. Dragons flight (talk) 04:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan

Wikis Take Manhattan


Next: Saturday September 27
This box: view • talk • edit

WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City. The event is based on last year's Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, and has evolved to include StreetsWiki this year as well.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT

WINNINGS? Prizes include a dinner for three with Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales at Pure Food & Wine, gift certificates to Bicycle Habitiat and the LimeWire Store, and more!

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, September 27th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's West Village office. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:

349 W. 12th St. #3
Between Greenwich & Washington Streets
By the 14th St./8th Ave. ACE/L stop

FOR UPDATES

Check out:

This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.

Thanks,

Pharos

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

C68-FM-SV ArbCom decision and a question on AN

Hi Brad. The AN posting about the recently closed C68-FM-SV case has raised questions about the FeloniousMonk FoF, specifically that he apparently didn't protect Phyllis Schlafly [7], although the FoF (that you wrote) says he did. Someone suggested this protection was intended for the FoF instead. A comment from you here could nip this in the bud.--chaser - t 03:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I've commented on AN and we will fix the erroneous citation. Sorry I missed my chance to "nip this in the bud," but I was asleep.... Thanks for the heads up, though. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
No worries. The thread didn't become the situation I might have feared. Thanks, NYB.--chaser - t 23:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
No, it seems to have become a different situation.... Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying that. I really had no idea what I was starting when I asked the question. Apologies for the ensuing mess. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Working Man's Barnstar
I present this barnstar to you for working to successfully close Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV. NE2 06:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Echo NE2. Thank you guys for your efforts. Everyme 14:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan rescheduled for October 4

Wikis Take Manhattan has been rescheduled for next Saturday, October 4, due to the rain predicted for this weekend.. I hope you can make it to the new time, and bring a friend (or two)!--Pharos (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Help get new feature for unwatched pages

Special:Unwatchedpages is currently useless, as has long been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Special:UnwatchedPages. It only shows the first 1000 pages, and is only updated weekly. In the past year, the alphabetical list has never gotten past the number '1', which suggests there are possibly hundreds of thousands of unwatched pages. It's unfortunate, because sneaky vandalism often slips past RC patrol and can be especially damaging to low-profile BLPs.

Several suggested fixes from the talkpage were proposed by User:Ruhrfisch back in February, with no apparent action. One of the best ideas was to simply add a feature or recentchanges that would allow admins to hide watched pages. If I correctly understand the bugzilla report, this feature has actually been coded and apparently works, but it does not seem to have been implemented.

I understand that you helped move {{NOINDEX}} from concept into a reality, so I'm hoping that you can impress the developers with the problem of unwatched pages on en.wikipedia. Cool Hand Luke 20:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. As you will see below on this page, and elsewhere around the wiki, there continue to be open issues and challenges surrounding the expanded implementation of "NOINDEX". Plus, I've also just volunteered to revise and update the Arbitration Policy. I think I had better focus on these two areas for a couple more weeks before turning my attention to the matter you raise. Feel free to prod me on this, though, a month or so from now. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, thank you. Cool Hand Luke 14:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin

In light of the arbitration decision and in the spirit of your recent comments about it, I think it would be best if you made every effort not to refer to SlimVirgin further and certainly if you did not post in her userspace. This will be a helpful contribution to defusing the tensions so everyone can get back to more productive pursuits. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If anyone tries to further promote the idea that the recent case had anything to do with Poetlister, I will protest that visibly and vigorously. Otherwise, I have no problem with what you're requesting. Cla68 (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I sent you an email yesterday. Did you receive it? If it was screened out by your spam watch, I'll resend. That happens to me sometimes with Wikipedia emails. Cla68 (talk) 01:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
No, I did get it, just backlogged in responding to mail, but will get back to you soon. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2008/Sep&oldid=1144574280"