User talk:Ashley Y/2008

Durban Strategy

Hi Ashley Y. I'm a bit clumsy with wiki markup and protocol, so please forgive me if I'm writing in the wrong place. Just wanted to tell you that I recently signed in, saw your message about the Durban Strategy article that I started, and responded on its talk page. Thank you. Yours tharsaile (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment

I meant to not sign it. John Reaves 11:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I know, but you did write it. —Ashley Y 11:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not important who wrote the section. John Reaves 11:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Granted

Use it only to remove obvious vandalism. It is given easy and easily removed. Enjoy.--Doc ^{g - ask me for rollback} 23:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I always hate it when people say "rvv" in a content dispute, so I'll be good. —Ashley Y 23:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Notice

Do not vent your anger at your fellow Wikipedians if they are just making simple comments on your editing, even if it's on your own talk page and you revert it right away. Users can still see your edits if they look through your edit history or are browsing Recent Changes.

We are trying to improve Wikipedia, not anger users. Redbull47 (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

What? —Ashley Y 23:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

About the "UR STUPID" edit. Redbull47 (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, I suggest you examine that a bit more closely before leaving snotty and accusatory messages on people's talk pages. —Ashley Y 23:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you- you really said "UR STUPID", unless it was someone else on your account. And let's not fight here. Redbull47 (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

See. That is considered a Personal Attack, although it is not directed at anybody specifically, it violates policy. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not even allowed to call myself stupid? I think that's stretching WP:NPA. —Ashley Y 00:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You can if you'd like. I don't consider that calling yourself stupid though. You didn't say "I am stupid", you said "UR STUPID" (bolded for emphasis). I'd like not to have a big debate here, so please just refrain from those types of comments. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The "U" referred to myself, since I was the target of the accusation. See if you can figure out exactly why I did that. And as for the big debate, who exactly came to whose talk page to complain? —Ashley Y 00:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I like your edit

at WP:ATT.  :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Okopipi (software tool)

An editor has nominated Okopipi (software tool), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okopipi (software tool) (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 04:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Individual-i

A tag has been placed on Individual-i requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Tagishsimon (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A new Oxbridge user box

Ashley Y...I am currently in the process of writing a user box for all of the colleges that are part of Oxbridge. This template is meant to replace your current college template. Please take a look at the work in progress and comment on it. My main concerns are college abbreviations and color choice. I am using scarf colors for the colleges. Thank you. - LA @ 17:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Humanist Wikipedians

Hello Ashley Y. A user who use this userbox, should be in Category:Humanist Wikipedians, and not Category:Wikipedians interested in humanism. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. —Ashley Y 11:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Ashley Y/Userbox/Believes in Allah

User:Ashley Y/Userbox/Believes in Allah, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ashley Y/Userbox/Believes in Allah and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Ashley Y/Userbox/Believes in Allah during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Action Jackson IV (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Pleased to meet you, Ashley. I notice that the userbox in question is not being used by you, nor were you the last to edit it, and the message has been changed. I just edited it to fix the grammar. What's the story of this userbox? The MfD could be extraordinarily disruptive, I'm trying to get it speedy closed, the last thing we need is a debate over fundamentals of religion. It seems some people want to interpret it offensively.... --Abd (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I collected a bunch of religious userboxes after it was decided to move them out of Template: space (WP:UBM). —Ashley Y 19:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Just the facts, eh?

If you're so concerned about the facts, check yours. Christianity is not the only belief system that believes non-followers are damned. T geier (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity

Hello Ashley Y/2008!

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Christianity The goal of WikiProject Christianity is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Christianity available on Wikipedia. WP:X as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Christianity, but prefers that all Christian traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

I have noticed your Christianity userboxes and I thought that you might be interested in this project also - Tinucherian (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Odwalla

Hey, I saw you edited the Odwalla article a while ago, so, if you have a moment, could you help out a N00B like me and stop on by? Thanks! (BTW, I also posted on the article talk page!) Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of Zionism and racism

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Zionism and racism, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Zionism and racism is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Zionism and racism, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 08:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

IAR talk page

Ashley Y, be honest, of all that discussion, have you gained any better understanding? Do you think you've helped anyone gain a better understanding of your point of view? Are you just doing this for fun?

I'd be happy to carry this on here, do you think any of us are being productive anymore on the IAR talk page? I'm going to sleep soon so I'll be taking a break anyway. I'd urge you to as well.

Let's try again tomorrow, here. Give it a rest for now. None of us has improved an article for several hours - that's probably not a net benefit for the wiki. Talk later. Franamax (talk) 06:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, when people start feeling testy, it's more a sign that they've run out of arguments than that they're dealing with someone unreasonable. I'm not accusing you of that, but it's something to watch for. —Ashley Y 06:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I do urge you to read WP:IAR/V though. —Ashley Y 06:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh, you will never find me running out of arguments :) Except when I do run out of arguments - when I'm persuaded I'm wrong in my thinking - then there is a brief gap and I argue for the other side. Never a problem there. It is late at night though, and I do like arriving at some kind of understanding.

Another reason people sometimes get testy is when they see the other party run out of arguments and instead take the same arguments around in circles again and again without making any advances. I've tried to meet your points, but they seem to keep shifting, there doesn't seem to be anywhere where we could say "ok, that's resolved, lets go to the next point". That makes it difficult for me, I like to see at least some progress.

I have read the /V page, it has some good stuff but it also has just plain random stuff. Why is it there, who put it there, when? It gives no context, it's like you tipped a museum room into a storage box. Which one is the dinosaur bone, which is candy floss, which is the preserved nuclear warhead? It's all just stuff. Regards (&gnight) Franamax (talk) 06:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring rules

I thank you for your interesting post at my talk page. What you said is thought provoking, and I'm working on a reply in which I go into a bit of detail about how the rules relate to different areas of Wikipedia work. That relation certainly varies from one part of the project to another.

I am curious, though. Is it your opinion that someone who is blocked for actions is one area should refrain from improving Wikipedia in some other area, by evading their block? If so, then why? Is the project hurt by such an action? -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

They should probably refrain, as they are taking a chance on either not getting caught or on the admin being understanding. —Ashley Y 19:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Is the project hurt? Why refrain from improving Wikipedia? I do not understand your reply to contain a reason. What am I missing? Do you think an admin would be right to "catch" them improving the encyclopedia? According to what bizarre understanding of common sense would that be a crime? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The project might not be hurt, but the user could be. I must confess I'm not all that familiar with likely actual admin behaviour (as opposed to ideal admin behaviour), but if it were likely that an admin would extend the block, then I would counsel against it. —Ashley Y 03:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What would you counsel the admin in that situation? Do you think that counseling people to defer to possible admin abuse has the effect of enabling said abuse? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to pop in an unsolicited comment here, imo, if you have been blocked, it's a reasonably good indication that you currently have a problem with understanding which rules to follow, which to ignore, and when to do either. Continuing on a course of determining a necessity to ignore a rule in order to improve the wiki would be fraught with danger. If you are spotted doing so and are found to not be making a material improvement, you will face an increased sanction - so I for one would advise the blocked user to use other means - email me, for one. And I would further say that the best way a blocked user can maintain or improve the wiki is to figure out the problem points in their own behaviour and how to fix them, then go about asking for their block to be lifted based on a promise to improve. The best way to improve Wikipedia is to have a whole lot of unblocked editors working together, obeying and ignoring rules, and caring about each other. </rant> Franamax (talk) 04:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes... I think there's a lot of good sense in what you say. I think it would depend on the situation, honestly. If I were blocked, but I were on a library computer and noticed a simple typo somewhere, I would absolutely fix it, rather than emailing someone. If I wanted to perform some action similar to what I was blocked for, then I hope I would consider the argument you've laid out here.

I think what I'm saying is in line with the idea that blocks are never punitive, but always preventative. If we're not talking about the type of action that you were blocked to prevent, then I don't see how a preventative block would proscribe the action.

On the other hand, if you are doing something that is not improvement, and you're "caught", then I would say the increased sanction makes sense, and incurring it is worth doing, in order to learn what one has apparently not yet learned.

Your last sentence is one I certainly agree with in every way. I hope that anyone who is blocked is also provided with the necessary knowledge of how to improve their contributions and avoid future blocks. I'm very leery of the idea of admins as cops and rules as laws, which seems to be implicit in many people's understanding of the blocking policy. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I would counsel the admin not to extend the block. But it's not clear to me that extending the block is widely considered abuse, and if it's not so considered, then I would advice the blocked editor that they might have their block extended if they evade the block for any reason.

If I were blocked, I would not evade to edit in another area unless I could be sure that there were consensus that this is acceptable behaviour. Looking around I don't have evidence of such a consensus, though perhaps it exists. If there is no consensus, then I'd likely have my block extended. Wikipedia might benefit from my edits up to then, but I would lose. —Ashley Y 04:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a reasonable approach. I would put up more of a fight, which I think is also reasonable. If an admin extended a block for a reason that doesn't involve preventing damage, then I would seek input from the larger community on that admin's behavior. Speaking as an admin, I would like to know if some admin were behaving in that way, so we could stop them. Admins who think they are cops damage the project.

I'm a bit puzzled how this type of block evasion would be detected, with enough certainty that you're willing to say "I'd likely have my block extended". Does that mean it's likely that someone is playing sleuth, and trying to catch you in unrelated areas? Who on Earth is doing that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if I'm not doing anything wrong, why hide it? For instance, should I create User:Ashley Y 2 with a note that I'm using the account to evade a block so I can editing in an unrelated area? —Ashley Y 01:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Um... I don't think I've suggested that anyone hide anything. Have I? All I'm saying is that, were I blocked for edit warring over some issue article, if I were reading anonymously at a library, and noticed a typo in an article about a band, that had nothing to do with that issue... then I'd fix the typo. Is that equivalent to suggesting that someone hide something? What am I missing?

Creating a second account sounds bizarre and non sequitur. That would be like asking to create a disruption while attempting to be quietly helpful, which is all I've suggested anyone should be. Quietly helpful. Are we against that? Should that user in that library not fix the typo in the band article? Just leave the error there? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that it's OK to evade a block to fix something unrelated. But surely it's a little bit easier to edit with an account? Why not be completely explicit about it? After all, you're not doing anything except improving and maintaining, and you're carefully avoiding the original locus of the block. Why is this creating a disruption? —Ashley Y 07:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose you could do it... why make noise when one could be silent? I don't know; it doesn't seem like much of a big deal. I don't always log in to make simple edits - is there a problem there? Does it hurt the project if I sometimes refrain from logging in? Is being "completely explicit" directly helpful, in and of itself? Is the goal to bait legalistic people into complaining that you're "evading a block"? That seems odd.

I guess one could force the issue, if it were important to one, but if that is the goal, then that's the definition of disruption.

The easiest, least heat-generating way for me to improve Wikipedia while I'm blocked is anonymously. Improving Wikipedia trumps any priority about "explicit"ness. Or doesn't it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

For minor edits, I do not find there to be any difference between editing with an account and editing without one. The account only becomes useful if one is following specific articles (on one's watchlist), but one can use "User contributions" just about as effectively without logging in. Unless I need to do a page move or admin action, I never need to be logged in, and I don't notice an efficacy difference, except where it comes to page moves or admin actions. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure improving Wikipedia trumps any priority about "explicit"ness, and no, one is not necessarily hurting the project by being anonymous. But surely one is not necessarily hurting the project by being explicit either? I mean, it seems like a matter of simple honesty.

I must confess I'm a little confused. Consider: editors P and Q both get blocked in area A. Both want to make some improvements in unrelated area B. P does so anonymously, but this gets detected for some reason (say, a checkuser). Q creates a new account Q2, and on User:Q2 writes "this is a second account of Q created so I can edit in B, and I promise to not use it to edit in A". And then Q goes ahead and improves in area B.

Now if I understand you correctly, an admin should not extend P's block. That's good. But apparently Q is "creating a disruption". Surely Q acts at least as well as P? Why is the honesty and openness disruptive? After all, Q chooses to do nothing except improve or maintain Wikipedia. —Ashley Y 07:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

User Q is not necessarily creating a disruption. If there is some cop-minded admin on the lookout for Q, then Q would probably do well to fly under the radar. It really doesn't make a difference in probably 99% of cases, and the other 1%.... what on Earth is this conversation about?

If you can improve the project more effectively by logging in, then log it. If you can do it more effectively by editing anonymously, then edit anonymously. If you can do it more effectively by using a "good hand" account, then use a "good hand" account.

If you seriously think that I'm claiming that honesty and openness is disruptive, then you are missing my point by LIGHT YEARS. Is that intentional? All I'm saying is, "do what it takes to improve the project while generating the least heat." Why do you insist on finding some way in which I'm wrong? What's up? -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well earlier you seemed to suggest that creating a second account would be disruptive, which struck me as very odd. But if it's not, then that's OK. —Ashley Y 08:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It was actually you who suggested that a user might get "caught". If getting "caught" is a real concern, then creating a second account would make that happen very easily. If getting caught is not a concern, then create as many accounts as you like. There are no absolutes here except for "improve the encyclopedia". -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ashley, why do you need to draw a definite conclusion out of this, on the lines of "you...suggest" vs. "if,,,not"? Ignoring rules is not conducive to drawing conclusions. It's a judgement thing and a conscience thing. Don't ask for definitive answers, the rule to IAR's is designed to prevent definite answers. Franamax (talk) 09:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm merely inquiring as to whether a particular action should be considered disruptive or not. I don't see why I can't draw conclusions about that. From that, maybe, I might shed light on IAR.

An action "should be considered" disruptive if and only if it de facto creates a disruption. Nothing that fails to create a disruption is disruptive. No other criterion is worth anything. The only thing that should be considered disruptive is that which disrupts. Keeping in mind that you control your own actions, and not those of others, figure out how to avoid creating a disruption. Whatever that takes, nobody cares how you avoid attracting trouble. Just avoid it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you think an admin should block Q2? —Ashley Y 09:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent) As I've said, I think the first (and basically only) priority for a blocked user is to understand why they've been blocked, figure out a new course of action, communicate with an admin, get themselves unblocked based on a promise of reform, prove they mean it - then get on with productive editing.

GTB is talking about a certain clear situation: if you're currently blocked and see a simple typo, you're in a position to correct it anonymously, ignore your block and get the job done. I do agree with that however I think it's unrealistic. People generally get blocked because their judgement has gone wrong somehow. In that case, they need to be very careful about what they think a "typo" is - for example, they could interpret "Jew" as being a mis-spelling of "evil Zionist conspiracy" and helpfully IAR to improve Wikipedia - then they repeat the action that got them blocked.

And your Q2 goes right over to the other side of the question. You are talking about openly declaring your intention to ignore your block. In essence, you are declaring your own ability to judge what the problem was in area A and your ability to stick only to areas B, C and D. Yet you have just been sanctioned for your erroneous judgement. You are no more trustworthy using your second account - and if you are trustworthy, why not promise an admin that you will avoid area A and ask for an unblock? GTB is completely right there, creating a second account with the declared intention of evading a block on account-1 - it's just not gonna end well, don't you think? Franamax (talk) 10:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

That may well be true, but I think GTB is saying that Q is not necessarily disruptive, and that creating a "good hand" account (Q2) is OK if it helps Q improve Wikipedia. —Ashley Y 10:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and that's a big IF. If Q can convince other human beings, in real time, to accept the use of her "good hand" account, then I'll be impressed. It's much more likely to upset people, but the day it doesn't, I'll be there celebrating with you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yah, you're possibly right in that thinking. I suppose it comes down to how you interpret "evading a block". The example you gave seemed like an open declaration of defiance - "I have decided to invoke IAR to continue editing". That's a little different from the other open course - like any good-standing, blocked, banned, vanished, outed, disruptive, trollish or just plain weird editor - if you appear in another guise and don't repeat your bad (or otherwise identifiable) behaviour, you're just any other editor, right? Franamax (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If you can use a good-hand account without it creating a disruption, then good work. If you can edit anonymously without it creating a disruption, then good work. The ONLY absolute is to improve the project while generating the least possible heat. Everything else is up to judgment and conscience. Franamax is correct that looking for some list of criteria about what is or is not disruptive is totally misguided. What is required is mindfulness, thoughtfulness, and a genuine desire to help the project. Don't look for rules to follow; use your judgment in each context.

Creating a "good hand" account might or might not be disruptive. That is based on only one criterion: does it create a disruption? If you declare your intent to evade a block, that will very likely bother someone and thus create a disruption, but if you can find a way to make it work, then good job. Nothing is "necessarily" disruptive until it creates an actual disruption. Then it is. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little unclear about at what point a disruption is created. At some point, an admin notices Q2. They could say "no big deal", and then there's no disruption. Or they could say "that's bad" and block Q2 and extend the block, and then there's a disruption. So it seems to me it's the admin (or admins and others collectively) that decides whether there's a disruption or not, not Q. —Ashley Y 00:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd agree with that. It sounds like life. You're not always in full control of the effects of your actions. Q has some control over the situation, and others have some control. If we're all being wise about it, nobody will be "blamed", but frankly, that never happens, and Q might end up with the (utterly fictitious) "blame". The point is to try to act wisely, keeping context and the tendencies of others in mind. There is no foolproof formula for not creating disruption. On the other hand, nobody will hold you eternally culpable for making a mistake. We all live and learn, and that's built into the system, precisely because we don't run on an unforgiving and unyielding ruleset. IAR takes care of that.

If I were Q, I would probably just edit very quietly and anonymously, if I edited at all while blocked. Doing otherwise is a bit quixotic, but that doesn't make it dead wrong, nor does it mean that it will never work. There's a big world of possibilities out there.

If I were some kind of judge, declaring fault and credit (which thank God I'm not - yecch!), I would say that the disruption was created partly by Q's naivete, and partly by the blocking admin's misplaced "cops and robbers" mentality. I wouldn't block either of them for it, but I'd point out to them that they were being naive in the one case, and silly in the other. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Religious people

I have nominated Category:Religious people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Parthian Scribe 03:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hummus

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here.

Spartaz Humbug! 12:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Modest Barnstar
		For Talk:Hummus#Policy, please. Self-explanatory, no? Tiamuttalk 00:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! —Ashley Y 00:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)