User talk:FT2

IMPORTANT NOTE - PLEASE READ IF YOU ARE HERE TO ASK A QUESTION ABOUT AN ARTICLE, PAGE, OR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION: I work in a wide range of Wikipedia areas, including article improvement, policies, abusive users, and disputes. I've been an editor 19 years, an administrator over 17 years, a past CheckUser and Arbitrator, and an OTRS volunteer since 2007, so I can often help with many Wikipedia problems. In particular I help newcomers, administrators and experienced editors/users who want to improve and resolve tricky articles/disputes/problems, or where articles have poor content, or cover living persons. Any issue or Wikipedia question is fine. Please do feel free to ask here or else email me – I will always notice messages on this page and I usually answer quite quickly. However I can be busy or away from the net, so it's fine to ask someone else if you haven't had a reply. You can also ask questions at the help desk or the #wikipedia-en-help chat channel.

I will always leave a response on this page to any genuine request for help or notes left for me, so please check back here for an answer. If I have commented, edited, or taken actions elsewhere, I will also say what's happened and where to look. As I don't always track other pages, if you want to be sure I noticed or you want a reply, please leave a note on this page. If you've recently left a note on the same topic, please help me track the matter by continuing in the same section as before.

Current discussion summaries

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Arbitration Committee proceedings recent changes purge this page view or discuss this template Case requests Currently, there are no requests for arbitration. [edit] Open cases Currently, no arbitration cases are open. [edit] Recently closed cases (Past cases) Case name Closed Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024 Clarification and Amendment requests Request name Motions  Case Posted Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 7 June 2024 Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads none none 4 June 2024 Amendment request: India-Pakistan none (orig. case) 7 June 2024 Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions none none 10 June 2024 Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland none (orig. case) 21 June 2024 Arbitrator motions No arbitrator motions are currently open. 8 June 2024   News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation publishes its Form 990 for fiscal year 2022-2023 Technology report: New Page Patrol receives a much-needed software upgrade Deletion report: The lore of Kalloor In the media: National cable networks get in on the action arguing about what the first sentence of a Wikipedia article ought to say News from the WMF: Progress on the plan — how the Wikimedia Foundation advanced on its Annual Plan goals during the first half of fiscal year 2023-2024 Opinion: Public response to the editors of Settler Colonial Studies Recent research: ChatGPT did not kill Wikipedia, but might have reduced its growth Featured content: We didn't start the wiki Essay: No queerphobia Special report: RetractionBot is back to life! Traffic report: Chimps, Eurovision, and the return of the Baby Reindeer Comix: The Wikipediholic Family Humour: Wikipedia rattled by sophisticated cyberattack of schoolboy typing "balls" in infobox Concept: Palimpsestuous Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Hi! Would you mind reviewing your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Shapero? WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:EVENT describe what types of events are suitable to be the main topic of an article, not what is suitable as article content. Or are you saying that every article should be purged of events that doesn't meet that policy and that guideline, even if they are properly referenced? As far as notability goes the application of the GNG is always somewhat subjective in the disputed cases and I was surprised to see you simply going with your own interpretation over the rather strong consensus. Cheers/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Sure. Slightly fully explanation will go on its talk page tomorrow when I'm home, and I'll review it as well to see if I still agree with myself. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rich Shapero. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now seeing the 'Del/undel selected revisions', was the bug fixed? If not, we should probably quickly act to disseminate information about this and caution against using it on log actions subject to breaking per your concerns. –xeno^talk 13:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and almost certainly not (I'm CCed on bugzilla for the relevant threads). Going to ask around. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:VPT#Activated Single-Revision Deletion. –xeno^talk 19:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update - RevisionDelete has been enabled for admins (as most here know) - but only for one revision per action. The checkboxes that allow revdelete on multiple revisions in one action are disabled for admins.

The underlying bug issue has not yet been fixed. As best I can guess the idea is that limiting RevDel to one revision per action should stand a chance of being workable. Needs testing though.

My tentative conclusion from testing it so far - log links do still break with deletion, in some cases badly, but the damage is mitigated by the fact it's limited to one revision per action. This does make it much easier to figure out and fix any issues, if the problems described were to happen.

I am continuing to test it and check how the issues stand, I will then post a summary on-wiki. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm. Unless I misunderstand you, I think you're incorrect when you say "The checkboxes that allow revdelete on multiple revisions in one action are disabled for admins" This was done by checking off three revisions and using the Del/undel selected button. –xeno^talk 20:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats odd. I did exactly the same (I think) and it refused to. Werdna said he enabled "single revision delete" too. If you're on IRC can we catch up there to try and figure out together what's going on here? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I can't get on IRC right now. Maybe later this evening, if my son doesn't monopolize me =) But I was definitely able to hide 3 at once: [1] –xeno^talk 21:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, /notice or privmsg me or email later then when around. In the meantime I've posted an update at AN to try and mitigate any issues and provide some kind of suggested good practice until we're all more sure what will happen. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to ping NawlinWiki who is deleting revisions like they are going out of style. –xeno^talk 22:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I never got around to IRC, I didn't really have much face time with the PC last night. –xeno^talk 18:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was reading AN and followed the thread to here. When the revDel feature is stable, I'd like to see this page history cleaned up. There are many revs that quite clearly meet WP:CFRD#2 (which is an invalid anchor due to it starting with a digit). It's the work of our most unwelcome vandal and his /b-tards. I started the page and could put you in touch with the founder of the organization (who is shocked at what is in the page history) Thanks, Jack Merridew 02:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Main issues on that page fixed now. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's fine. I know there were issues there and with me that required careful judgment and that is why I brought this to you. Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Any comments on Wikipedia talk:REVDEL#"Delete edit comment" → "Delete edit summary" ? –xeno^talk 13:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Penbat has, IMO without regard for the ongoing discussion and apparent current lack of consensus on the Mobbing discussion page, restored his edits with an edit summary and notes on the Talk page that cast my edits as Vandalism. I would greatly appreciate your feedback and/or intervention. Thank you for your assistance. Doniago (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a Wikiquette Alert regarding Penbat's conduct towards me, given that the WP:AN discussion was archived without resolution and Penbat's aggressive behavior towards me has continued. Penbat has been notified. Doniago (talk) 04:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a Wikiquette Alert regarding Doniago's bizarre aggressive timewasting conduct towards me. Doniago's aggressive behavior towards me has continued. Doniago has been notified. --Penbat (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FT2!

Any reason in particular you changed the visibility of a revision that was already deleted? I do not immediately see the usefulness of this, as the page was already only visible to administrators, but perhaps I'm missing something. Regards, decltype (talk) 02:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It made an obnoxious edit summary less "in your face" to a passing admin reader. No ultimate net benefit as you rightly notice and no real net cost. Probably best not done on deleted edits, in case the log bug impacts it, so feel free to reverse the visibility hiding and thanks, on reflection you're right. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the clarification. Since it technically meets RD2 I do not see a need make another log entry just to undo it. I just wondered if there was some profound reasoning behind it. Regards, decltype (talk) 03:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like to ask for your input here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Minphie. Recently you commented on Minphie's conduct and we ask if you could come and give feedback at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Minphie as the editor appears not to have taken any heed of the community's feedback on his approach to editing. If you don't remember your exact interactions with Minphie, it is detailed in the RfC/U page. Thankyou for your time, --Figs Might Ply (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Godwin is paid by Wikipedia. Wikipedia also presumably pays the water and electric company. Perhaps, CU and oversight could be a paid position. Hire people and bond them. I heard Wikipedia had a big budget so hiring one professional checkuser could go far to address the problem. One professional CU working 8 hours a day could probably clear the CU board quickly. Wikipedia is in San Francisco. I am sure there are hundreds of computer science graduates from Stanford University and the University of California, Berkeley who might apply for the one full time position.

This is one of many "other" solutions that are possible. Good luck in picking a solution! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually been considered. And more than once, rejected. I'm not sure the links, but it's come up a few times. Mainly the issue is that so much of checkuser relies upon knowing your community - like a good police officer is most successful if they are on a "turf" they know very well and can spot stuff that doesn't quite fit. Paid checkusers could manipulate the data but would not as a rule have the knowhow where to go, what it might hint at, what behaviors it might link to, all the dozens of things checkusers as seasoned enwiki admins can draw upon. A second problem is Wikipedia is in many languages. So to do this WMF would potentially need to employ many dozens of people in many languages. Finally there is a lot more than one person's work to do. Even full time you'd need several. I guess (but don't know for sure) that these are some reasons it hasn't ever gained traction. It sounds good but fails on practical value. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your words of wisdom. An administrator who I regard as wise has taken a wikibreak. In view of your wise answer, I come with another question to you, instead of to him.

Amanda Knox has been deemed not notable enough for an article despite more than a year of extensive international coverage. Other accused murders with far less coverage have been deemed notable for separate articles by AFDs. Futhermore, there are very non-notable people, like Fawaz Abd Al Aziz Al Zahrani, some of whose article have been subject to AFDs, never resulting in delete. Some may want to keep memorials to the Guantanamo Bay prisoners despite WP not being a memorial.

I do not seek drama. Many might say "go ahead and nominate some articles for deletion", but I am more interested in seeking wisdom on how to achieve consistency. Wise editor, FT2, I seek a tiny portion of your wisdom. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can give it a go. I can see why the case might seem like a good candidate for an article. There has been a lot of coverage of Knox, over an extended period, from several angles, and the coverage has beyond doubt focused on her as a person not just the murder case she was involved in.

There are two big reasons it's likely to fail. Despite the notoriety and attention, she is still basically only notable for the one event, and WP:BLP1E says we would normally have an article on the event. Sometimes we do have an article on the person as well as the event, but usually that's when we can't cover the person's life with the event, and their whole life becomes worth documenting or such. In this case it's a judgment call but probably still a BLP1E case, what's useful to cover about her purely pertains to the criminal case, its prelude, its aftermath.

Second, especially for criminals (or alleged criminals) we often play a bit cautious in articles. Do we really need an article on the criminal, when most of what's relevant for encyclopedic purposes is covered under the crime. That kind of thing. So yeah, borderline case but if I were forced to choose I would probably side with BLP1E, simply because there is not one thing of wider notice about her, except the one event for which she's in the press and its aftermath. Caveat, I haven't thoroughly researched the matter or the media though. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's starting to look complicated. Is it not possible to simplify? My perennial fear is that people won't bother to think it through unless it's simple. Tony (talk) 13:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good call - better now? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution to the problem[edit]

Looking throught the comments, if someone were to declare "all the candidates have been appointed", this would not be the consensus. If someone were to declare "some sort of new election", others would be upset, some of them believing that this is an emergency where CU/OS must be appointed within the hour or there will be a massive number of deaths or injury (true emergency).

Choosing either is not selecting the consensus.

When there is no consensus, compromise is sometimes necessary.

Disclaimer: Brainstorming is when one makes suggestions without being afraid of being called an idiot. In doing so, an innovative suggestion may be made. The following is brainstorming.

There could be the declaration that no new CU/OS are appointed. However, the title of "Provisional OS" or "Provisional CU" could be appointed to a limited number of people. The title of "provisional" is to highlight that they are different from the others. They will be under greater public review, have a limited term, and must submit a report of their actions daily (posted on their talk page). In the interim, there will be new elections as a concession to those who say that election rules should not be significantly altered after an election has taken place.

This proposal will be liked by nobody but incorporates ideas of several opinions. Also, it is brainstorming.

This proposal is also among the very few that attempt to reach compromise.

Good luck in trying to find a fair idea that has widespread support. We are cheering you on! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that in the gentlest way, this doesn't work. You need a better understanding of how CU/OS operates and what these functions do. I'll try to explain.

The ultimate appointing body for this community is Arbcom itself (40% of CU/OS are arbs and another 25-30% are ex-arbs). Arbcom has varied how they are appointed over the years, to encourage wider input while retaining its role of quality control and comfort with the appointees. At present Arbcom chooses to ask the community to express a preference between the users who have indicated an interest and Arbcom would be comfortable to agree as giving access. In this case the problem is that the community has not shown the level of preference set out in the election rules. In other words, Arbcom could as easily have set rules at 50%, 60% or anything else when they announced the election and then it would not have been a problem, but the election was announced with a percentage at 70% so it is.

They are trust positions. It's like "provisionally" giving people keys to private data. There's no provisional - they are trusted enough to view the data, or not. There's no halfway, and no scope for "if we don't like their use, withdraw their access later". Adminship to an extent is "they look okay, no reason not to", because if they do wrong then its incredibly rare any lasting harm will arise. You appoint these tools from the opposite perspective, affirmative trust and knowing if they do wrong then harm may result.

So if "provisional" doesn't make sense, what about extra regulation? Well, the issue here is that these tools aren't under public review, full stop. Rmeoval of privacy based material followed by reposting the private material so everyone can agree nobody should see it, doesn't make sense. Ditto, though less obviously, for Checkuser. These tools aren't public tools and the data they work on isn't public data, so the public will not be able to access the material (like they could with ordinary edits and admin actions) to check it. The regulation for CU/OS is largely by other CU/OS, and Arbcom itself (via its audit subcommittee). That's a Foundation policy and it goes to the extent that you can't appoint just one CU or one OS on any wiki - there must always be 2 or more precisely so they can scrutinize each other's actions.

Extra data for you to take into account in considering your view. Hopefully it will help. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer. I seek not to argue with you. I seek to find a compromise when the consensus does not exist. Lowering the standard after the election has significant opposition. Not lowering the standard after the election has significant opposition. Brainstorming is a way to find a compromise.

You mention that the positions are a position of trust, more so than admins. Admins generally have to get 80% support. CU/OS are lower at 70%. It seems that using the definition of trust at 70% (not my definition but the election rules), only one person met that definition.

Provisional makes sense because it fulfills the "don't change the rules after an election" people but the "appoint them now" people get their man appointed.

As far as regulation, this makes complete sense. The provisional people would just list the results they made public. For example, FT2 could write on his talk page (if he were a CU), "I published the following CU results....CU results on SSP cases 1, 2, 3." This information is already public, just scattered. This regulation would also try to appeal to those opposed to breaking the election rules by having the appointed provisional people be special appointees.

Can you think of ways to combine the wishes of the "appoint now" versus "don't change the rules to get the election results you want" people? Again, not to argue, but to think of hybird ways to compromise between two opposite views. Note that among the millions of WP users, I am the only one trying to find a compromise solution. Hope others will help try. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brainstorming's a good thing. I hope it's helpful. I'm not in any sense a "moderator". I've set out a framework and useful guide, so the community can consider what's best. The appointing body has listed people it trusts, asked for a preference from the community, but has set rules that mean everyone got excluded. Logic (to me) says that at this point with the exclusion of the one user who got >70%, there are only 3 options: CU/OS are appointed (two suboptions - we either do or don't ask for more community views on the candidates), or CU/OS are not appointed. All other options including any change to the assessment mechanism (percentage etc) fall into one of these 3 cases.

The percentage at RFA and percentage at CUOS is a very different basis - those at CUOS already got virtually unanimous agreement from all arbitrators (or all who expressed a view) and will have been scrutinized quite deeply as part of that. In that sense a fair representation for the trust for CUOS is probably around 95% at Arbcom (> 90%) - if they get one serious oppose or a couple of minor uncertainties, the answer will often be "not now/not yet", and those views will be based on scrutiny.

But no, provisional doesn't make sense (to me) because I can't see what exactly is (or could be) provisional about it. They are allowed to view WMF data or they are not allowed. If they are okay to view it then why would they stop being trusted later? And with all OS and probably half of CU work being off-wiki, and the half that's on-wiki being clear anyway to anyone who tracks SPI, and the wider community unable to do any kind of checking anyway, what's the point of a partial list of cases? More food for thought. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the solution is to acknowledge the opinions of two large groups (and probably some of the subgroups). Throwing out the election or changing the rules after the election so as to elect some does not have the consensus. Neither does a new election (of course, a new election addresses the fairness and ethics issue). So the brainstorming idea is still the only idea to try to compromise. So far you have picked faults with some of the ideas but nobody has suggested a compromise. I wonder why not?

As far as the issue of term limits, arbitrators have a given term. By giving a short term to new CU/OS then trying to resolve the issue, it can't be that bad because that's what arbitrators are given, a term. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm thinking that's misguided. We're finding out what response has consensus, so the statements you make about what does and doesn't have consensus are flawed - we're presently finding the community's views. You next ask why nobody suggests a compromise, but I think I've explained the issue is that there are only a very few practical alternatives, the rest (whether compromise or not) collapse into those for this one set of appointments. (See explanation under "Some other option or variation"). Last, the comparison doesn't work either. Arbitrators, appointed for fixed terms (with option to restand), assess disputes, cases and privacy functions of the wider community. CU/OS are toolholders not judicial positions (so to speak). CU's analyzing technical data in one case and OS's remove private/defamatory info in the other. Like admin tools (only more trust needed) once trust is given for a tool, it endures until they cease activity or something changes. Arbs retain CU/OS after arbship terms end for exactly this reason. Last, to repeat my observation above, "provisional" doesn't make sense with CU/OS, nor does a "short term". These are trust based tools. To repeat from above, they are trusted enough to view the data, or not. There's no halfway. I think that's mostly why your arguments aren't making much headway nor gaining much support. The role is different from arbitratorship and the CU/OS tools different from on-wiki public or admin tools. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Part of a compromise is to take equal chunks of several proposals. Usually, few people like it but sometimes more people accept it. Compromise is usually not dictating that one side gets its way. It's usually not taking 99% of one view and 1% of the other views, though often politicians will do that to claim a false compromise. Even I don't like my compromise idea but it's better than imposing my idea on everyone else or some other person's idea on everyone else. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, but in this case it's not clear what proposal might exist that is not seriously flawed compared to the existing ones. It's worth constructing proposals amenable to as many people as possible, but I've looked now at the question of "temporary" or "provisional" for these roles and it doesn't make sense or seem to mean anything. Even the comparison above is plainly incorrect ("arbitrators have fixed terms" - no they don't for the tools). I can only repeat what I said above. The suggestions so far don't work for me. I can't see a way to make them useful to the community, and I see their flaws. I'm not voting on proposals but my comment is, these ideas just wouldn't work. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I seek not to argue with you. What I see are drastically different opinions, many of them within the bounds of being reasonable, but difficult to decide without ignoring many opinions. It is easy to declare "I select A as the answer, not B and C, though I've carefully considered B and C (ha, ha B and C lost, tough luck)". It is harder to come up with a compromise taking ideas that are reasonable but that one doesn't like. Try to come up with other compromise ideas! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have, however in this case there aren't any with a significant chance that come to mind. Part of the art of a matter like this is to distinguish options that are likely to have a chance of gaining traction and being useful. Sometimes there are several, sometimes one or two, sometimes none, and sometimes only time will change the communal mood to allow actual solutions. A good test here is that almost no credible experienced users are diving in to propose alternatives. As an example, the only option that has (#4) has so far got low levels of interest - 3 responses and all opposed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean that I am now a FT2 designated "credible experienced user" or that I am not one? Ha, ha, don't answer unless it's a yes! It is too bad that over 200 people voted yet few are offering an ideas, even an oppose or support, to the RFC. Thank you for your effort in drafting the RFC. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does the RFC have an end date? June 29th? With something of this importance, it is better not to say that it ends when someone says it ends. Otherwise, one could say that it ends when I win and continues if I am losing. Of course, if we say ahead of time that it ends some time after two weeks, then nobody should think that we are short circuiting the time period. So an alternate would be no sooner than June 14th but as long as a month.

I bring this up not to make trouble but to prevent trouble! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Berghuis v. Thompkins

After 3 hours of silence to police questions....

Do you believe in God? Yes

Do you pray to God to forgive you for killing John Smith? Yes, oops.

That is like...

In the court room: The People of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts versus John Smith. Charged with 2 murders (error in speaking) in the first degree.

Two? I only killed one guy! Oops! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i suppose i am the only one laughing.....  :( Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your comments. Joe Chill (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you don't expect me or someone else to fix your cites. I won't and that's being lazy. Joe Chill (talk) 23:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't "expect" any given person to. My focus in editing was on identifying whether the section was written from a neutral point of view - which directly affects whether readers will get a balanced representation of the topic. The cites went in there quickly with the view that I'll fix them if time permits (if not they'll eventually be put into proper "cite web" format). But the NPOV matter was more urgent. Given your request for a DYK hook on the article, the existence of poor flow, tone, a few sentences needing improvement, and the like, needed fixing much more quickly, so I did.

However, not to worry. Just 21 minutes later another user fixed the cites [2]. Isn't collaboration great :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you call poor flow and a few sentences needing fixing is personal taste. I like what you did with the article, I'm just saying that isn't even close to a major issue. Joe Chill (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For adding non-formatted references. This should really be a trout but I'm in a good mood. Mjroots (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FT, I emailed you a few weeks ago to let you know as a matter of courtesy that I was considering requesting an unblock for Peter, and again tonight to tell you that I was about to post it. You can see it here on AN. I'm letting you know here too just to make sure you see it. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I've moved it into chronological place because it looked as though the supports might be supporting those additional points. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, sure. Hopefully they are factual enough to be useful. I've added a sample diff so you can see what I mean. Can you ask him to explicitly confirm on the stated behaviors as part of this? Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He agreed to avoid interaction, and I'm sure that will be broadly interpreted, because lots of people will be keeping an eye on it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up - collapsed this as it's lengthy though. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-issues questions[edit]

Hey - I removed your proposed issues as they were not phrased as "one-sentence questions." Please feel free to rephrase them into questions, or contribute your thoughts elsewhere on the workshop page. Thank you. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missed that bit . Okay! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, I have listed Berghuis v. Thompkins as a Good Article. Please consider reviewing a nominee for Good Article. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:TubingTommy posted on Keegscee's SPI, claims to be Keegscee. I have asked User:Georgewilliamherbert who has been wranglin' the socks of Keegscee previously to get with a checkuser and flush out the other ones and rangeblock, but he appears to be offline for the moment, hence I bring this to your attention. -

Taken care of by Georgewilliamherbert. Take Care. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if I've missed an announcement somewhere, but is it still best to avoid using Revision Delete on multiple revisions at once or has that bug been fixed? I can see you've had this and related conversations more than once, but I'm not an admin so some of it still escapes me. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and thanks for checking. The bug's half fixed, ie, the basic functionality is there. Werdna's working on the other half but (with Pending Changes being released) could be another week or a bit more. May be okay but until tested can't be sure. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've had a look at your DYK nom for this article. I've only started reviewing DYKs (so I could be wrong!) but on first inspection it seems to fall short of 5 x expansion if you want to have a look at it. GainLine ♠ _♥ 15:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted an article which should be restored:

• 02:51, 22 May 2010 FT2 (talk | contribs) deleted "John O. Merrill" ‎ (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): Essentially "Was a partner in a big firm". Would need more reason to sustain an article.)

Your decision-making in this instance was flawed. The fact that Britannica considers this figure sufficiently important to include in its online encyclopedia for children is sufficient argument for the article to be restored -- see here.

Please do what you can to rectify this unfortunate mistake.

When restored, you may trust that I will add material sufficient to clarify its legitimate status as an article.

Thank you. --Tenmei (talk) 21:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A note at User talk: زرشک#Speedy deletion nomination of John O. Merrill suggests that it may be more conventional for me to ask you to "userfy" what was deleted?

John Ogden Merrill (b St Paul, Minnesota, 10 August 1896— d Chicago, Illinois, 13 June 1975) was an structural engineer and founding partner of the architectural firm of Skidmore, Owings and Merrill (SOM).<:ref name="wilson">Museum of Modern Art (MOMA): SOM citing Richard Guy Wilson (2009). Grove Art Online, Oxford University Press.</ref>

Merrill's notability

Merrill's contribution to the firm was seminal. He is credited with establishing the multi-disciplinary nature of the firm.

SOM defined a new architectural approach of team work and total or comprehensive design, since the firm undertook everything: design, engineering, landscaping, urban planning and interiors. Also an innovation, especially given the quality of work and the prominence of the firm, was that none of the founding partners actually designed.

The unique character of SOM’s work was influenced by the engineers who became partners in the practice.<:ref name="wilson"/>

The bottom line—this person is an appropriate and necessary subject for an article in our Wikipedia context. --Tenmei (talk) 02:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be glad to let you have a copy of the page text. I've sent it by email to you.

In terms of suitability for an article, as I understand it, Merrill's "claim to notice" is due to the company (work done by SOM, size of SOM, etc), and also because of the important changes he made to that company. Is that roughly correct? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know the answers, but I will undertake to find them.

Let me explain why I developed the article about Nathaniel Owings, who is the "O' in Skidmore, Owings and Merrill.

I was invited for tea at the home of one of the hibakusha whose career as an interior designer had been entirely at SOM. In September 2008, I created the article here as a token gift to offer my hostess at tea. In 2010, it is only an accidental oversight that Talk:Skidmore, Owings and Merrill is still on my watchlist in 2010; but there you have it.

The projected "stub" or "start" which results from my small investment of time will become another gift I bring to tea. I have no continuing interest in John O. Merrill beyond what is needed to rebut the rationale which informs this speedy delete. --Tenmei (talk) 13:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please userfy Talk:John O. Merrill. --Tenmei (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored both current and previous versions for you - see here. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John O. Merrill is not an appropriate article for the speedy deletion process. --Tenmei (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Justification

The burden of research supports the notability of John O. Merrill; and the following is sufficient to rebut any "speedy deletion" argument. In summary, the notability of John O. Merrill is verified by reliable sources: (a) the obit in the New York Times, (b) the article in the Grove Art Online, (c) the article in the American National Biography and (d) WorldCat Identities ... plus (e) the previously mentioned but unused article in the Britannica online.

Notes

^ a b c d e f g h "John Merrill Sr., Architect, Dead," New York Times. June 13, 1975.

^ a b Museum of Modern Art (MOMA): SOM citing Richard Guy Wilson (2009). Grove Art Online, Oxford University Press.

^ "Merrill, John Ogden," (1999). American National Biography, Vol. 15, pp. 360-361.

^ a b c d Lehman College Art Gallery, Skidmore, Owings and Merrill (SOM), Merrill bio notes

^ Westcott, Ed. (2005). Oak Ridge, p. 61., p. 61, at Google Books

^ Nauman, Robert Allen. (2004). On the Wings of Modernism: the United States Air Force Academy, pp. 72-80., p. 72, at Google Books

^ Wilkes, Joseph A. and Robert T. Packard. (1989). Encyclopedia of Architecture: Design, Engineering & Construction, Vol. 4. p. 454.

^ "Radical Design Dropped For Air Academy Chapel," New York Times. July 4, 1955.

^ "Residential Work Rising in Chicago," New York Times. February 14, 1937.

^ "Name Consultants for Building Code," New York Times. March 26, 1950.

^ American Institute of Architects Historical Directory, Merrill, ahd1030138

^ a b WorldCat Identities: Merrill, John O.

References

• Nauman, Robert Allen. (2004). On the Wings of Modernism: the United States Air Force Academy. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. 10-ISBN 0252028910/13-ISBN 9780252028915; OCLC 52542599
• Westcott, Ed. (2005). Oak Ridge. Charleston, South Carolina: Arcadia Publishing. 10-ISBN 0738541702; 13-ISBN 9780738541709; OCLC 62511041
• Wilkes, Joseph A. and Robert T. Packard. (1989). Encyclopedia of Architecture: Design, Engineering & Construction. New York: John Wiley. 10-ISBN 0471633518/13-ISBN 9780471633518; OCLC 300305038

The article text explains that John O. Merrill is

1. Notable for design and development of the US Air Force Academy campus; and he provided on-site architect construction oversight for the project in Colorado Springs, Colorado
2. Notable for design and development of the Manhattan Project research campus; and he provided on-site architect construction oversight for the project and for the new community which was created at Oak Ridge, Tennessee
3. Notable for design, development and construction of the permanent US military facilities on Okinawa, including the still controversial Kadena Air Force Base
4. Notable as a founding partner of the prominent international architectural firm, Skidmore, Owings and Merrill (SOM); and also notable for his seminal influence on development of unique SOM corporate culture

Thanks. I would agree. Notice that it isn't a matter of personalities or defensiveness. The issue was evidence. before there wasn't. Now there is. Specifically, an NY Times obit is enough to suggest notability all on its own.

Be aware that the claim "Built notable project X so must be notable" or "Founded notable firm X so must be notable" generally fails due to WP:NOTINHERITED (the X might be notable but it doesn't demonstrate those involved in its creation are). To put it simply, architects design and help built things, the same way accountants count things and help run businesses, and writers write things. Its the daily work of all architects to design and built things.

The key here is evidence he himself was notable, not that he built notable things. The single NY Times obit by itself is enough to show that. A career that included building some big military objects (putting it crudely) by itself does not.

I put it crudely, not to offend, but to explain in very basic terms, the distinction and significance. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got the full obit from NYT, if you want to use it for source material. Its not copyright free or fair use though, so I can't put it on wiki. if you want it by email, please email me and I'll send it to you. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your offer, but that won't be necessary. I have full online Times access. One question remains: What next? May I now post John O. Merrill in main space? --Tenmei (talk) 01:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to write it in user space I'll be glad to cast an eye over it and see what cleanup may be useful. It might help.

Update - left a few review points here. Those aside and a bit of minor copyediting, it looks okay to go.FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On June 21, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Berghuis v. Thompkins, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...so I guess we should have a community discussion on whether we want it enabled here? –xeno^talk 12:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would be nice to see how it works, and noting also it's still marked "experimental". I've asked if it's enabled on any WMF test wiki. It would be good to see it in action, not least to be able to explain and screenshot it (and point others to where it can be tested) for any possible discussion. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably need to file a quick 'zilla to get it enabled on testwiki:. –xeno^talk 12:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bugzilla:24158. –xeno^talk 14:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and got there first. (bugzilla:24157). One or the other's a duplicate :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lol. –xeno^talk 14:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Left it to you to strike one out. I could just see the scenario happening where we both did that, too :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ha! Go ahead and request sysop on testwiki while we wait: testwiki:WP:RQ#Requests for Adminship/Bureaucratship. –xeno^talk 14:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

← In case you haven't been keeping up on the bugzilla'en, we're currently awaiting a code review for the RevisionMove so that it can be enabled on the WMF branch (or something...). –xeno^talk 15:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This Arbitration case is now moving into the Workshop phase. Please read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Workshop to understand the process. Editors should avoid adding to their evidence sections outside of slight tweaks to aid in understanding; large-scale additions should not be made. Many proposals have already been made and there has already been extensive discussion on them, so please keep the Arbitrators' procedures in mind, namely to keep "workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible." Workshop proposals should be relevant and based on already provided evidence; evidence masquerading as proposals will likely be ignored. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have requested a move for WP:Ownership of articles → WP:Page ownership. As you participated in the previous discussion, could you please voice your opinion again regarding this move, as it is my intention to restart the discussion with a clean slate. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 23:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - posted. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have mentioned you at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and User talk:Nihonjoe. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, would not have been aware otherwise. Posted at both. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last point was addressing both points 3 and 4 (which were synonymous in that they were dealing with questionable/good standing). I'll ping you (before the week ends) when I've looked at it properly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded at the policy talk. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I appreciate your comments and criticisms. I know more work needs to be done here, unfortunately, my schedule does not permit me to respond immediately to this. My intent is to continue the make improvement to this BLP however, I have become swamped with work assignments. Can we keep the bulk of the content in my user space? I will not move into article space without significant improvement as I find it, nor will I move it without review. All that I have done has been in the open, I have not deleted anyone's comments. I would really hate to start over though. Thank you! (User talk:Lisa Snead)) Cre8tivedge 19:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cre8tivedge (talk • contribs) [reply]

Sure - restored the June 18, 2010 11:57 version (latest) for you at User:Cre8tivedge/Frank Mangano. Best! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for returning this to my user space. I do see where significant changes need to be made and your statements are fair and clear! Thanks again!

User talk:Lisa SneadCre8tivedge 18:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cre8tivedge (talk • contribs) [reply]

Hi, just a note to let you know that the RFC discussion you started has closed "Immediate steps" poll by FT2 and is in need of assesment and the next step, whatever that is to be, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note I sent you email; hopefully things make more sense. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. That topic is stuck in my throat and I could write pages and pages about it. Luckily for you, I am rather busy with real-life work so I will just blurt out a few disconnected thoughts.

Well, sorry for this long rant. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sorry if I'm troubling you, but, I was trying to put an email link on my page, or find how to email another user when they don't have a link, and I saw the link on your page, and I just wanted to ask how you put it there. I will be truely thankful if you can answer me. Zarin87 (talk) 04:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you'd posted to Antigrandiose (talk · contribs)'s talk page. I'm bothered by the way he not only uses his userspace as facebook/myspace, but also copies into it other people's posts. Worth taking to MfD do you think? Dougweller (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with this. Done. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I see User:Antigrandiose is tagged for MfD but not in the MfD - and not only is he using it as Myspace, but as I said, he's copying other people's posts into it, eg from here [3] - should this be of any concern? And bits of other articles, templates, etc which has ended up with his userpage having article categories. Dougweller (talk) 05:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't MFD that one, someone else did. This 2nd MFD is probably what you're missing. If the snips of other people's posts are an actual problem (laundry list or suggesting they are biased or idiotic etc in the context of his other templates or anything) then that's probably best dealt with by mentioning at that MFD, or dropping him a brief note that that we don't (or shouldn't) "knock" other editors that way and please desist. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... You didn't even give me a chance to respond to your inaccurate "quick corrections." You'd rather just delete something than risk being shown wrong. I'm left with the feeling that I was waylayed, by two or three people, who had a problem with my page that was far out of proportion to the problem that other editors and administrators had/would have had with it. --Antigrandiose (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like your post here at MFD, this is fairly inaccurate.

Your page contained genital closeups, sexual innuendo, and repeated sexual posts. Your posts included inappropriate edits like this, edits that claimed a term you added was taken from a source that in fact was your own interpretation like this, inappropriate incivility like this, interface-hiding CSS, and posting fake "bot" warnings to an IP user that their editing would be "monitored" and to "stay off nakedlittleboys.com" like this (in apparent retaliation for removing your sexual gallery [4]). The times your editing was appropriate were also equally noted. You had a bunch of warnings by other users and ignored them. You were told the content was unsuitable some weeks ago and ignored that too, promptly recreating a bunch more sexual related content instead.

You'll notice in fact I didn't "just delete". Far from it. I removed the disruptive CSS style in the one HTML code it was a problem (not affecting the displayed content but fixing the layout), de-linked a number of userboxes showing sexual content (but did not delete the actual userboxes themselves), and asked the community to spend a week discussing whether the rest should be kept or removed as is our norm.

I suggest a quick read of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT which may give guidance on when this kind of thing can become disruptive. I notice someone else suggested you use a humor site for your humor posts. As many people have told you, this is an encyclopedia and an encyclopedia-writing community. We have norms. You have simply been asked, again, to ensure you follow them. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You recently !voted on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Microformats. This is a courtesy note to let you now that I have now posted, as promised, my view there, and to ask you revisit the debate. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FT2. I closed a RfC today - Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Request_for_Comment_on_Fox_News_Channel. The close has been disputed - User_talk:SilkTork#RfC_close_on_Wikipedia:Reliable_sources.2FNoticeboard. Would you take a look at it to give your view and hopefully resolve the matter one way or the other. SilkTork *^YES! 00:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you expressed this concern at an earlier date, I think your attention and participation is invited here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a long time IP editor, I'd like to know if there was any discussion before you changed the coloring of the text. As it stands, it's overbearing, distracting, and is alreading causing a bit of eye strain. Any chance I can get you to change it back, or at least to something with a bit less contrast? I really understand the desire to grab attention, but this is a bit over the top. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 07:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One could probably split the difference and only highlight the first of the two sentences. Would that be better? Or in the alternative, maybe black text on a soft color background would accomplish the same purpose of highlighting the box without causing eyestrain? Dragons flight (talk) 09:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the second option - it draws attention without inducing panic for the casual editor and the need for filtered glasses for established ones. Tan would be a nice neutral colour but I'm not particular about it. And thanks.69.181.249.92 (talk) 10:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am the original creator of the article Flying humanoid, which you deleted in May 2008. Could you possibly restore the article in my userspace so that I can improve the sourcing? --Uga Man (talk) 21:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI –xeno^talk 16:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on that page. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who previously participated in the discussion to adopt policy verbiage that is being used as a rationale to delete "vandalism sandboxes", your input would be appreciated on the matter: Wikipedia talk:User pages#Userspace Vandalism Sandboxes. Gigs (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you created the new 'Clean Start' policy page. I have a question about that policy, and don't know where to ask it, so I there I'd start with you. There is a "new" user whom I suspect is a returning user trying to make a clean start. The previous account has not been banned or sanctioned as far as I can tell, but had been blocked, more than once, for various violations (edit warring, harassment). It has been retired (not active for 1+ year, 'retired' box on the user page), but the "new" account is editing in the same topic area (which is a highly volatile one on Wikipedia), and making contentious edits (e.g. - blanket revert of several days worth of edits , undoing 20+ edits by 4 editors). This appears to be in clear violation of WP:CLEAN START, which says 'a user who then re-enters disputes and topics where their conduct was likely to be noticed (blocks, disputes, disruptive editing, contentious and edit warred topics, and the like) may be seen as evading scrutiny'. The question is what can be done about this? I am not sure a sock puppet investigation is the right way, because technically, I am not sure if this is sock puppetry. HupHollandHup (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without knowing more, or knowing the situation, see if this helps.

The ability to start again is open to almost anyone, and trying to start again is usually fine. The main thing is that people may need to know about someone's track record to assess (for example) how to handle concerns over their behavior or edits. For example, you might expect to handle a genuine newcomer differently than someone who's been round months, had warnings, and "knows the ropes". So this is more about clarity and transparency. If their editing is a concern you probably have a fair right to check if they are the same person returning.

On the face of it, it wouldn't be "sock puppetry" (even though covered in the same policy) because you haven't suggested that they run multiple accounts at the same time, shut down one account then promptly restarted with another, etc. Your best bet is to look carefully at the evidence - do their edits look the same, is there evidence you could show other editors from their edits or other contributions? Or is it purely a complete guess?

If there is no evidence, then best take them at face value as a new user. If there is some evidence to suggest they are the same person your best bet is to be non-contentious. Ask them by email or on their talk page, something like "I notice your editing reminds me of a user who once edited these pages, are you new here?". Emphasize that you are not seeking to "do" anything nor saying anything's wrong, but as it's a contentious topic and their editing suggests they might be a returning user to the area, you would like to know if they are a genuine new user or a returning "old hand". Don't threaten or accuse, be open, friendly, and ask. Make clear that it's mainly so you know what level of knowledge to assume (for example).

If you still aren't happy with the response, explain that it's important if they are a returning user with "history" in that discussion they need to disclose it. Again cite the policy more so they can check the position (ie to help them) and not as a "weapon" or to attack them. Then see what happens. Ultimately if there is evidence in their behavior and they persistently deny it, and their conduct were disruptive or a problem, then you would need to raise it on the talk page of that topic (is probably best) to ask other editors of that topic to comment on your concern and the evidence.

But bear in mind this may be a user who has done nothing wrong at all, could be a newcomer, and be civil, courteous, inform them the concern/question/issue, but assume good faith in your approach. If you have no evidence then think twice whether you have any basis to say anything. If there is good evidence and you can't sort it out by private dialog, then raise it with co-editors, again in a civil manner.

Hope this helps. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, FT. There is very strong evidence (in my opinion), otherwise I wouldn't bring it up. The evidence comprises behavioral similarity (editing the same set of articles, from the same POV, often repeating similar arguments, and apparent familiarity and "history" with other long-term editors), identical language quirks (both users are self-admitted non-native English speakers, as well as technical (limited to what a non check-user like myself could gather) which point to the same geographical area and the same ISP. I believe the evidence is strong enough that a CU request would be granted. I could e-mail you the evidence in private if you'd like. HupHollandHup (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sensible to ask. Would be fine to look at it for you and give suggestions. Email's good. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I've sent you some material. (there's more, as in the course of putting this together i discovered that the old account had actually used more than one account (they are linked by the user himself, but I didn't have the time to go over all the other old accounts' contributions- but did find some that link all three). fee free to discuss this over email if you think there are privacy issues. HupHollandHup (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have a reply by email. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate it. I wish no adverse consequences for the user - merely that he truly starts afresh, by avoiding the contentious area he was previously involved in. HupHollandHup (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're really stretching the definition of "nutshell" there! (must be a walnut or coconut) –xeno^talk 13:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It needs dividing into a nutshell v. intro (you'll notice there is no intro so far!). Haven't finished yet. Want to help? :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go over it once you're done ;p –xeno^talk 13:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have a go. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll need some time for the page to percolate, but at first blush what I noticed was "various pages or discussions related to your conduct that will cease to be relevant to the project " is given greater emphasis than it was in the former, where it was a bit of a throwaway mention ("other pages which affect them alone"). And this was not your doing, but I've just noticed the "Replacing references to the former username with references to the replacement username," <-- I'm not sure if this is meant to refer to signatures, but going through replacing signatures en masse seems to be counter intuitive, no? –xeno^talk 14:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Looks like you pre-empted that last bit =)[reply]

That first one is deliberate. A common critisicm (and source of confusion/upset/misunderstanding/dispute) over right to vanish is the extent to which "vanishing" happens and what it provides. Some users believe it provides anonymity, removes their contributions, removes all discussions they were in, removes all sections and pages where they were adversely mentioned (eg on others' talk pages). So this rewrite makes a lot clearer what exactly is done. The pages and sections that are usually deleted or blanked in RTV are those where the user's conduct is the topic of discussion - SPI, ANI sections, RFC, RFAR, etc. We also may delete if asked, their user and talk pages. It's making clear what expectation a user should have, to prevent people coming to RTV with incorrect beliefs about what can and will be done, and equally to prevent gamers seeing RTV as a means to remove everything and requesting RTV as a way to bypass a bad record, when in fact we never have removed "everything". Being explicit on what is actually done for "vanishing", preventing unrealistic expectations or belief in loopholes, and making clear it's for permanent departure only, are key points that were not so clear before (or could be read favorably by a gamer). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does it remove (archived) ANI sections? I've never seen that... –xeno^talk 14:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No reason why not, in principle. If an ANI section covered a user's sock-puppetry or sought consensus on a ban for edit warring, or discussed their real-world connection to the topic, and the user genuinely wished to vanish, that would probably be a fair request to blank or collapse under right to vanish. The section could easily have been archived by the time the request is made, or shortly after. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

← re: "finally" I understand your desired use (i.e. "full and final" departure) but it might also be read as "Thank the maker - this guy is finally leaving" ;> –xeno^talk 14:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's such an important point - a number of people considering RTV have left briefly, been banned, stopped editing, come back, etc. It needs to be clear this is when they are ready for a final and forever decision, nothing less. Both of those words probably matter. Is there a better way to say it? ("When a user makes an irrevocable decision to leave forever"?). If so, go ahead. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd let you know why I removed 'finally'; will think about the best way to say it unambiguously. –xeno^talk 14:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be clear this is when they are ready for a final and forever decision, nothing less. Both of those words probably matter - that it's fixed/final, and that it's forever. There is some redundancy but it needs to be really clear as its target audience is people who may have thought they were leaving on other occasions and then cooled off. ("When a user makes a categorical decision to leave forever"?) if you can think of a way, go ahead. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FT2: Your user page [[User:FT2/LTO]] may be in violation of WP:USERNOCAT. The Category that it appears in, Category:Periods with timeline in infobox, appears to be a maintenance category, so it seems reasonable to allow user pages to appear in the category while development of a page is proceeding. Your user page in question does not seem to be in active development. Do you think you should comment out or otherwise deactivate the code that is putting this page into a category? Thanks for your consideration. --Fartherred (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good catch. Fixed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wikithanks Ribbon.png
Thanks for the minor copyedits you have made to the ARKBK and Bunyoro articles! Skibden (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Deepwater Horizon oil spill - May 24, 2010 - with locator.jpg is from May 24, but the disaster is from April 22 ... whats wrong? Palu (talk) 23:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing. The image is a satellite photo of the spill showing the spread around a month after the explosion. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this is totally off in left field, but I like that recap table you used here. do you think i would be worth the effort of turning that into a template for more general use in summary-type situations? I'm happy to do it, I just don't know if it would get used sufficiently to justify the effort. --Ludwigs2 23:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For pointing out the exception to the topic ban. I assumed there had to be one, but had not seen it. Lots of luck with the rewrite, Sandstein has some good points, but progress is occurring. My main goal is to make sure that user talk pages are in scope (i.e. not an exception to the ban).--SPhilbrickT 19:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Draupner close-up.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I think. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to stop by the AfD and see how I've improved the underlying article. If you've still got concerns that you want me to address, feel free to let me know, but I think I've fixed everything, except the title--which I agree needs work and better options are currently being discussed both in the AfD and the article talk page. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply