User talk:NTox/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
D'oh! -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
UAA/HP
Hi NTox - I see you've done a tone of cleanup on UAA/HP... but I just moved an entry there and was surprised to see no HP entries in almost a month. Did I miss any dramatic change in the guidelines for use of the HP or have people just been better about either blocking or removing? Thanks 7 00:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, 7. I think it's a combination of a number of things. First, the noticeboard in the last month has, oddly, been less populated with controversial reports that would normally be moved to the HP. Your guess about the reason for this is as good as mine. But I think the more important reason is that people have as of late simply seen little value in that page. It's barely ever used (except by me), and TBH the only thing I do to it is add accounts, and inevitably remove them seven days later, repeat. It's really kind of a redundancy, IMO, since we have CAT:UAA which already exists for the purpose of monitoring marginal username issues - and rarely is action actually required for accounts after they are moved to the HP. So it ends up being a big project moving things in and out with little utility. Plus there is the fact that there is no policy or guideline that prescribes use of the HP. Those are my own reasons, but I would guess that those and more are also the ones that explain why nobody else has touched the page in a month. NTox · talk 05:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks NTox. Have a good wikibreak. 7 14:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Hiya NTox, enjoy your break. I haven't worked with deletion policy in almost a year, so I don't have an opinion on removing WP:NAD from deletion policy, but I can't agree to adding it to the content policies, which all have a gravitas and reputation that NAD has always lacked, and I reverted. Feel free to discuss wherever. - Dank (push to talk) 20:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, Dank. Thanks for the note. Glad to see a message about WIkipedia in my mailbox. The problem as I see it when it comes to policy categorization is that so many of the policies can fit in so many of the categories. Take BLP. Right now it's in content. But so much of BLP tells editors how they should treat living people: conduct. It also talks about removing bad stuff about living people: deletion. It's one of the policies folks believe should be upheld the most: enforcement. It has legal implications. It deals with procedure. Etc. The trouble here is in identifying some kind of criteria to help make the final decision, which are essentially non-existent at this time (And that's okay, since there are more important things to worry about). You talked about gravitas. That's another question. Should we decide not to include a policy in a category because it seems less significant than the other policies in the category? I don't know what people think about that. It was something I considered when I made the change, but ultimately I considered it a marginal issue. NAD, to me, has a crux, and that is content. The page is explaining to people how they should write and not write articles. It's not explaining to people how they should delete pages and revisions, like the deletion policies. That was the basis of my decision anyway, and of course I'd be glad to hear what others think. NTox · talk 23:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Some stroopwafels for you!
|
Hey NTox. I came back from my break and visited CHU. I noticed that you didn't clerk (or beat me up in commenting) on requests and eventually realized that you are on a break. I hope that you'll be enjoying it and will return soon. Cheers! TheSpecialUser TSU 09:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC) |
- Thanks for the sincerity, TSU. It's very much appreciated. Have a good one. NTox · talk 08:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
-- Cheers, Riley is wishing you Happy Christmas! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Yuletide, Litha, Eid, Mōdraniht, Diwali, Hogmanay, Wren's Day, Hannukkah, Kwanzaa, Lenaia, Festivus, Jonkonnu, or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the hugs & cheer by adding {{subst:User:Deliriousandlost/happy christmas}} to your friends' talk pages.
-- Cheers, Riley 21:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
ACC Barnstar
|
The Account Creation Barnstar | |
| Thank you NTox for all the help you gave at ACC this busy month, especially with the huge influx of requests. It has been great working with you and I look forward to working with you more in the future. -- Cheers, Riley 02:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC) |
- Thanks, Riley. And the same to you—I am happy right now to hear from you. There is a lot of good work you do on your end, and given the hundreds of requests that come in I think it makes a lot of new users happy. NTox · talk 04:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 21:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
SarahStierch (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Deaf Wrestling Alliance
I have blocked them now. You do have a point; however, consider that administrators who review those reports often have many to look through, and as much as we'd like to do that level of investigation with all of them we just don't have the time (I do like to edit articles, after all).
In the future, when you make a report where there are lots of diffs (like, say, more than five) to review and nothing that clearly stands out in the contribution history (either an edit summary or one of those bot-appended comments) to indicate what the name issue is, I would suggest you strongly consider including the relevant diff to expedite matters for the reviewing admin, as a few other UAA regulars do. To suggest it's the reviewing admin's job to needlessly duplicate your investigation is akin to, say, calling the fire department to report a fire in the neighborhood but not giving them the address you're calling from, and then getting mad at them when they ask for more clarification and telling them they should be able to smell the smoke.
Thank you, and happy editing. Daniel Case (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Daniel, I would be one of the first to raise my hand if someone were to call for admirers of you at UAA. But this is the issue I'm talking about: taking a thorough look at things before you leap. Just now you have assumed that I was the one who made that initial report, but I was only making a comment. You should have checked the signatures under the report and the comment before you posted here. Indeed, I nearly always include diffs in reports unless the problems are obvious. But what I think may be more important to mention is that I don't think the reasons you've provided for the error constitute an acceptable excuse. (i.e., that there are 'a lot to look through', and that you 'don't have time' to do a thorough investigation).
- Let us suppose a handgun was used in a terrible act of violence at a busy airport terminal. Would all be forgiven if the airport's security said in a press conference, "Well, we have a lot of patrons come through our facility and we don't have the time to do a through check of all of them." No. The solution is to get more people to help if you're backed up with the work. An unfortunate and difficult situation to be sure, but in no industry or situation would the reasons you've provided here qualify as a legitimate excuse.
- In all, I think you would be surprised at how little time such 'investigations' would take to perform. I noticed the issue with Deaf Wrestling Alliance in (literally) less than one minute. We do nearly the same exact work in WP:ACC—e.g., checking requested usernames for policy violations, and our checks require far more complicated analysis, like checking WHOIS data, IP geolocation details, domain registrations, foreign language information, and rarely do these checks take more than five minutes. And at ACC we have a policy of zero tolerance for making mistakes on these checks. I understand that the standards are not as strict at UAA but we have them at ACC simply because they are the right and professional thing to do. It does not matter if there are 200 UAA reports and you are the only admin there. If correctly closing one of those 200 takes 20 minutes, that's how much time you have to take. NTox · talk 23:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- I apologize for my assumption that you had made the original report. However, your response based on that assumption does bear a little responding of its own.
Yes, you are right, we are understaffed at UAA. It's been OK lately, and it's been better with the bots up and running, but in any event it is, to me, still a likely possibility that when I sit down at my computer (not always knowing how much time I'll have to do so), there will be a ton of reports both from bots and real people that may take an hour to sift through and take whatever action needs to be taken. And this I do, usually, after reviewing AIV reports and before reviewing unblock requests.
But I wouldn't mind the volume if all the reports came from people who knew how the username policy works. Regular UAA patrollers who do know that when there's tons of edits it's helpful to include a diff to make the case ... in those events, it's just a matter of reviewing that, then blocking (or commenting on why I'm not blocking). When I can see what the reporter believes the violation to be, it's easier to see how well they understand (or don't) the policy and thus give credence to future reports by that person.
If they don't do this, sometimes it's deducible from the contribs, the tags or a few diffs. In this case it was not (and I did look at a few diffs), so I asked for some clarification. I am not sure that other regular UAA admins wouldn't have done the same.
Once I got that clarification, which you provided in the original reporter's stead, I was indeed able to make the connection in less than a minute and take appropriate action (which constitutes closing the report, not merely asking for more information). Daniel Case (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- I apologize for my assumption that you had made the original report. However, your response based on that assumption does bear a little responding of its own.
help find sources project
Hello NTox, last time we discussed on the Template_talk:Primary_sources. This time I seek for your comments on my drafted IEG grant proposal here m:Grants:IEG/find_sources_2.0. The basic idea is to enhance source-finding and thus citing practices for contributors old and new by providing lists of online and offline resources and some basic general description on the nature of the sources in these resources (per general research/librarian perspective and per WP policies WP:PSTS WP:V WP:RS.
I hope that you will can provide comments to improve the grant proposal. Thanks. --(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng) 00:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
User:MTReapers
Hi NTox, the reason I marked it as advertising is because if you go to their website, they are asking for participants and the email address on their user page is how they are to be contacted. That seems like spam to me?--I am One of Many (talk) 05:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Not the best use of a user page, to be sure, but it's not spam. Spam is content that constitutes overwhelming advocacy or publicity; here is simply a page that says the Mountain Top Reapers are a football team belonging to a particular association, with some contact information. That does not warrant a report for immediate removal. NTox · talk 05:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- You might have noticed that the page was ultimately deleted. To be crass, I expected it probably would be. It's an improper deletion, but certainly not an egregious case, and not one without at least a little gray area. I preface the following by saying that I am someone who quite generally resents hyperbole, but I still would accurately say that I am surprised at how often speedy deletions are performed outside the bounds of deletion policy and its constitutive consensus. With most other things, I think administrators are usually admirable, and have generally solid judgement, but speedy deletions are the one thing that seem to be done with oddly regular carelessness. They're just done too liberally, on pages where there are certainly problems but not enough to fit the speedy deletion criteria—criteria that are there to justify the wipe of an entire page. On Wikipedia, I think it can be very easy to get away with not doing a fair/measured/discriminate analysis of someone's mistakes in favor of simply tagging/deleting/warning them because it's simply easier and, well, there was some inappropriate stuff on their page anyway and it's not worth thinking hard about how bad it actually was. The end result is that we tell ourselves our action is "close enough", or we are deluded the entire time into thinking their blunders are worse than they actually are. These are my general thoughts anyway about speedy deletion (not specifically about you). Here are some more thoughts on the matter: [1] (by somebody else). NTox · talk 12:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 06:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 06:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- New reply in the same section. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 00:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Another reply. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 06:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
AIV header
A curiosity more than anything: What was the reasoning behind removing the criteria that an IP be active now from the AIV header here. Was this covered somewhere? Or was it just never correct? Thanks. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 14:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- The reasoning is that in the AIV context the user is by definition active now if the warnings are recent. NTox · talk 20:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- There are often cases when someone will report an editor that has not edited in an extended period. That header gave guidance that the edits must be recent to be reported. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- No worries here against re-adding it—I understand where you're coming from. I suppose it's more-or-less common sense to me that it's impossible to give someone a "warning to stop" vandalism if they are not "active now" with vandalism. To give somebody a warning for example to "stop eating" makes little sense if they are not currently eating. Thus, the so-called "warning" is not actually a warning at all because there is no logic to hold it together. Just now however I realize that this is probably quite beyond 'common' sense so I would have no issue if you re-add that bit. NTox · talk 21:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- I restored the "active now" message, per Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Blocks_should_be_preventative if on review of the editors edit history a new vandalism edit is unlikely, blocking is inappropriate. Jeepday (talk) 11:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds good. As said, I don't disagree with the idea that they should be active now. It's just a semantic misunderstanding here—as said, to me a warning is not a warning unless the person is currently doing the thing you're warning them about. So since we had already mentioned the concept of warnings in that header, I thought that mentioning that the users must be currently active was redundant. I do however understand that not everyone may understand what a warning is this way, so I'm okay with the re-add. NTox · talk 18:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- I restored the "active now" message, per Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Blocks_should_be_preventative if on review of the editors edit history a new vandalism edit is unlikely, blocking is inappropriate. Jeepday (talk) 11:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- No worries here against re-adding it—I understand where you're coming from. I suppose it's more-or-less common sense to me that it's impossible to give someone a "warning to stop" vandalism if they are not "active now" with vandalism. To give somebody a warning for example to "stop eating" makes little sense if they are not currently eating. Thus, the so-called "warning" is not actually a warning at all because there is no logic to hold it together. Just now however I realize that this is probably quite beyond 'common' sense so I would have no issue if you re-add that bit. NTox · talk 21:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- There are often cases when someone will report an editor that has not edited in an extended period. That header gave guidance that the edits must be recent to be reported. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks; I'm at a conference and didn't realize I'd forgotten to add a notice template. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Inactive account creators. Thank you. Dusti*Let's talk!* 07:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
RFC/N
Re the comment you made here, the reason the username is inappropriate is WP:IMPERSONATE: we have no way of knowing whether the operator of the account is actually the person or not, especially because it's a politician (better known and with a potential for libel problems). I've closed it, though, pending discussion either with the user or on a relevant noticeboard (COIN). Thanks, Ansh666 18:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks; yes, I agree that there is a possible argument with regard to impersonation (though I think in this case it would be weak), but the reporting user was appealing to COI/promotional editing as grounds for a username violation, which of course is incorrect, so that's what I was responding to. NTox · talk 04:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I undid your edit to User talk:Jaquarpvtltd. There are two categories placed by Template:Uw-coi-username which need to be kept until the user is blocked, the COI is found to be non-existent or resolved, or the editor appears to have quit editing. If the editor quits editing for several weeks, both categories can be removed together. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- The category I removed, CAT:UAA, is used for tracking username violations, not conflict of interest violations. Of course, these issues are similar, but different. It has been standard practice for years to remove CAT:UAA from a user talk page if the editor has ceased editing for seven or more days, as it states on CAT:UAA. I removed the category from User talk:Jaquarpvtltd seven days after his/her last edit. NTox · talk 19:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- 3/19 Note: I clean up CAT:UAA quite regularly and had initially intended not to touch User talk:Jaquarpvtltd while I wait for your response. I have just noticed that I have unwittingly passed through it. Did not mean to "re-revert" you. NTox · talk 20:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- This is okay, I should've re-read the guidelines before putting up my initial message and doing my initial change to that user talk page. I mistakenly believed the cutoff time was much longer than 7 days without editing for that particular category. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Richard Hoagland RfC
I noticed you've edited the page before. Please chime in on a critical question. Talk:Richard C. Hoagland/Archive 3#RfC: Should article be trimmed down Thanks!!! :) Nasa-verve (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Talk:CAT:ENFORCEMENT listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Talk:CAT:ENFORCEMENT. Since you had some involvement with the Talk:CAT:ENFORCEMENT redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)