Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


There is a red link to Help:Group rights on the Special:ListGroupRights page. Perhaps an admin could modify whichever Mediawiki page contains the bad link? --Andrew from NC (talk) 09:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done - It is better to create the page than remove the link :) Chenzw  Talk  09:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Good point. --Andrew from NC (talk) 09:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Protecting all templates?

Hello, we have just seen the second attack involving the modification of a template. Given this, would it make sense to semi-protect all tohse templates that are not protected yet? - How many anonymous users do you know that will touch templates? --Eptalon (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it makes a lot of sense. I believe the software can be changed to make the template namespace automatically semi-protected. Majorly talk 12:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
It is possible, but we will need to open a bug so that the developers can make changes to localsettings.php. Is this IP in the range of the last IP that was blocked for the same thing? A range block may be needed (as in the 1709 vandal). Chenzw  Talk  13:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
It is the same range and also used for extensive vandalism over the last few months. It appears to be a school IP or similar in its activity. I have softblocked it for one month (it is well past the one month block point given the high volume of vandalism, but lets try that for now). There is the potential for collateral damage as there is one high volume contributor who has used this range over a short period near the beginning of the month, so soft blocking is best for now. Of the accounts registered/used through the range recently, there is one good, one unknown, and multiple bad. (CU check was re-run as a continuation of previous request)-- Creol(talk) 16:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

CheckUboter status

This night, this big mistake by a Bot makes me think that our community needs a special status for people monitoring bot flags and watching them.

We have already checkusers (No! thanks) patrollers (I've not got enough time) and of course admins (in July 2008 three people like me around the one thousand edits mark failed their RfA) and that's why I'm asking the community not to vote now but first to take time to talk a little about this proposition.

In my mind, a checkUboter should browse quite each day the RC looking for the robots not only to find such above-mentioned mistake (happily not so frequent) but also to talk with bot owners if their summaries are not enough simple to be easily understood by ordinary Users discovering them on their watchlist. ONaNcle (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That actually isn't that big a mistake. And I would say that was human error rather than bot error, because the user is running that script as bot assisted which means a human checks the edit before the bot makes it. Probably a slip of the finger by the looks of it because his other edits for that disambig are correct. And it was corrected right away, which makes it seam that it was the same user who corrected their mistake. -Djsasso (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Tehsil articles by IP

Hello. The IP creating Tehsil articles is at it again, and he has completely ignored all the helpful comments we gave him. He is still creating POV articles, not to mention not adding {{stub}} to the articles; leaving us the only ones to do so. What should we do from here? -- Ryan†Cross (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

And they all need to be moved to their correct title, that takes hours. --American Eagle (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Technically, the IP address isn't doing anything wrong besides have an extreme point of view. Nothing a little copyediting won't fix. Also, having a POV is one thing, but he hasn't gone to the next step, which is edit warring over the POV. It is when they start to edit war over the POV is when a warning might suffice, and if they continue, then a short 24-hour block should do the trick :) Cheers, Razorflame 21:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
He's created for 300 articles... we would have to fix all of them. -- Ryan†Cross (talk) 21:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Best get started'll only take a few hours, if not longer ;P Cheers, Razorflame 21:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Rep to Razorflame: Of course he hasn't started edit warring. Why should he , as long as his POVs go unchallenged? Rather happy situation for him, isnt it? --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 12:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Sitenotice: "Registration for Wikimania 2008 is open."

I request we change MediaWiki:Sitenotice to remove "Registration for Wikimania 2008 is open." Wikimania 2008 ended a few days ago, so it doesn't make sense to have this up there. Thanks! Staeiou (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed, thanks. Majorly talk 22:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Can you change it to what is on the commons site? It's something about global accounts. --Terryblack (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Main Page

Is there a reason why anonymous users can't edit this page? Cassandra 20:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I semi-protected it in June; most of the contributions of anonymous users were vandalism.--Eptalon (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it should be open to all people to help report issues with the Main Page. Vandalism can be reverted. —Giggy 00:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I support an unprotection. It's been a month, and if IPs start vandalizing again, you can always protect it again. And we can always revert their edits. -- Ryan†Cross (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Unprotected then. Majorly talk 01:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Username issue?

I'm not sure if there even is a guideline for usernames here, but surely User:Total_Spastic is unacceptable? MindTheGap (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The page here? - Yes its graphic, but not particularly offensive; lets see what Gwib says.. --Eptalon (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


I keep getting a message saying:

Wikimedia Foundation Error

Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem. This is probably temporary and should be fixed soon. Please try again in a few minutes.

You may be able to get further information in the #wikipedia channel on the Freenode IRC network.

The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organisation which hosts some of the most popular sites on the Internet, including Wikipedia. It has a constant need to purchase new hardware. If you would like to help, please donate. If you report this error to the Wikimedia System Administrators, please include the details below.

Request: POST, from via (squid/2.6.STABLE21) to ( Error: ERR_ZERO_SIZE_OBJECT, errno [No Error] at Sat, 26 Jul 2008 18:59:20 GMT

What should I do? It does it with many pages I edit when I try to submit the changes! (on both computers that I use) --Terryblack (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing. It's a common problem. It should be back to normal soon. You managed to post this message, so it's not that bad. Majorly talk 19:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Anon banned from discussion...

I edit here as an anon, and have done so for some time, but I don't participate in discussion as such, so here I am under my username to discuss.

Template_talk:Anon states that IP can not discuss anything. I've not ever seen the such since I've been here. I disagree and would like some eyes over there. Its unheard of to silence a user just because they are anon. Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

IP's can discuss on talk pages (there's no policy or guideline against it), though getting a username is encouraged. I'm sure that Majorly misunderstood your comment.--TBC 20:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. I think he understood. I get they can't vote on RFA, but they should be able to discuss things. The template needs specification it that's the case. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll just throw this out, remember that IP that started the entire shift in VGA critera? That not only was a discussion, but started tougher VGA and the process of GA. --Gwib -(talk)- 20:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, I misinterpreted. IPs sure can comment wherever they like, be it RfA, RfD or GAs. They just aren't allowed to vote. IPs, as good faith as they may be, could be anyone - sockpuppets for all we know. We treat them the same as a brand new user, unless, of course they have a productive history. I could log out, for instance, and double vote in an RfA, which would not be fair. It's intended to prevent vote stacking and rule breaking. Majorly talk 20:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we should take that on a case by case basis rather than potentially scaring off people by giving the impression (right or wrong - a newbie wouldn't understand the ins and outs we're familiar with) that their opinion isn't welcome. —Giggy 01:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

(undindenting) Hello; unnamed editors can comment (but not vote) in RFA (see the Criteria for Adminship page). VGA, and GA voting rules were made with WP:CFA in mind, they explicitely state: Any named editor can vote (Meaning: unnamed ones cannot vote); Requests for deletion explicitely say: Unregistered (IPs) and new users can make suggestions, but their ideas may not be considered, especially if the suggestion seems to be made in bad faith. The opinion of users who had an account before the start of the request may be given more weight or importance. (Basically meaning: usually IP votes are not considered). Plus as an IP, you cannot run or be nominated for adminship, and you cannot move pages. Other discussions (votes) are not restricted to named users.--Eptalon (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Computer and video games

I'm not sure exactly how to do this, but could we transfer the contents of this category to Category:Video games? That's the correct name; all the subcategories use that naming convention, it's the EnWP name, etc. etc. Thanks. —Giggy 12:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Giggy, create the new cat, recategorise all the articles in the old cat into the new cat and then apply for speedy deletion of the old cat as an empty cat. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Time for my bot to do some work :) Chenzw  Talk  12:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I was hoping there was an easier solution than doing it by hand, TRM. :-) Looks like Chenzw has found it. —Giggy 12:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I am encountering some *ahem* technical difficulties (the server is damn slow), if it doesn't get better today, I will do it tomorrow. (it will ultimately be done) Chenzw  Talk  12:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The Fox and the Hound

There's an anonymous user that is serially disrupting The Fox and the Hound articles.

Modus operandi usually involves undoing other edits, removing my conversation with Majorly about the article, and now using weird edit sumamries. His fixation on the article makes it obvious it's him, so I doubt that is CU is needed/will be approved, but 1) is this disruptive enough and 2) does it warrant semi-protection? Cassandra 00:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've locked The Fox and the Hound (film) article, but if this disruption continues I may consider a range block on this guy. Seriously, what a ridiculous thing to edit war over. If he was a little more communitive, maybe we could discuss this, but blanking of discussion and mass undoings without comment are just disruptive. Majorly talk 00:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Majorly. Cassandra 00:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The user's been using the Disney edits (most of which are copy-and-pasted from the EN articles) as a cover-up for vandalism, which typically isn't noticed because of the high volume of edits he/she makes. Case in point, this edit to the Lion King article.--TBC 05:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


User: added "he likes to touch little gils" (yes, gils) to the Al Gore article three times. Looking at User_talk:, this user has been banned before in May, and then given several final/last warnings. Staeiou (talk) 04:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Six acts of vandalism in a row. Just put this on WP:VIP Staeiou (talk) 04:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The IP in question is part of the school IP range "Catholic Education Office of Western". This range has had two ViP reports in the last 24 hours, multiple warnings, 12 blocks overall (up to a two week period on one IP) and zero good faith edits in the last three months. - Repeat vandalism, multiple (12+) blocks have not had any effect. I extended the block (and unblocked this particular IP for technical reasons) to cover the entire range for a period of 3 months. The range affected is very small (/27 -32 IPs total) with no collateral damage at all in recent history for named accounts. -- Creol(talk) 05:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


Hello. This article was protected, presumably because of vandalism-recreation. I've created a non-vandalism article at User:Giggy/4chan. Could an admin please unprotect the target and move my version of the article to it, please. Thanks. —Giggy 14:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done-- Creol(talk) 14:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
And I've moved it - tholly --Turnip-- 15:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks guys. :-) —Giggy 15:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


Hello fellow admins; after consulting with other people I have come to the conclusion that Ionas68224 has been punished enough. I have unblocked him, in the hope that he can help us make this encyclopedia better. I have restituted him to the status of normal user, all the rules that apply to normal users also apply to him. Thank you for your understanding. --Eptalon (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly urge that all newer admins who aren't familiar with his situation to read through all the archives on simple talk, this board, his talk page, etc. and get a handle on the problems he caused, rules broken, etc. in case you have to deal with future incidences. Of course keep in mind that all of us (administrators) are part of an evil cabal conspiracy and should have our names, addresses, birthdays, social security numbers, and other personal information published for all to see. -  EchoBravo  contribs  02:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
He wasn't punished at all. The block was to protect to wiki and its users from his actions, not to punish him... -- Creol(talk) 03:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have never published any administrator's address or SSN. --Jonas Rand · (talk) 04:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

An add-on to Creol's comment: Blocks are preventative, not intended to be used as punishment. -- RyanCross (talk) 05:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Addendum to the Addendum to Creol's Statement: Blocks should be preventative, and are not intended to be used as punishment. Jonas Rand · (talk) 05:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) My choice of words was bad; I did not want to say punishment. What basically wanted to say: The other long-term blocks we have were done for worse offences than his. Since it now is about a year since his first block, I unblocked him. If he acts civilly, he is a welcome addition to our editing team. --Eptalon (talk) 08:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but how are we to treat him in case of (potential) vandalism? Use the usual {{test}}, {{test2}} --> {{block2}}? Use the {{repeatvandal}} or simply use the Benniguy-esque rules (only edit articles and talk pages of admins)? AGF or not? --Gwib -(talk)- 16:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The templates are just there for convenience and shouldn't be overused. Talk to the guy. If that fails then block him again. If you (as an admin, voted for by the community) don't feel comfortable giving him a personalised warning and/or block then discuss it with other admins. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
And for you to have to ask "AGF or not?", I'm a little surprised. It's a basic tenet of Wikipedia. So yes, AGF. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not that I don't feel comfortable, I just view Ionas as a unique 'case'. Whether or not he should be treated as a repeatvandal or is given a fresh start is too important a decision for me alone to make. People (as I'm sure you've seen) have different opinions and I wanted to address them all before coming to a conclusion.
Ditto for AGF. --Gwib -(talk)- 17:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
You should be able to trust your own judgement in this matter. Take every of his edits on its own merit. It's quite easy to block him again should he go off the rails. Remember all blocks are to protect the Wikipedia, nothing else. Admins should all be capable of dealing with scenarios like this comfortably. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
If I do something in the future that makes an administrator feel uncomfortable or that is thought of as unfavorable, please discuss it before blocking, and assume good faith. I doubt I will do somthing considered as such, but if I do, please warn me on my user talk page first. To clarify, a scenario:
  1. I get angry about something, and start vandalising and disrupting with the "ALL ADMINS NEED TO BE BANNED, EVIL!!!" thing, after multiple good edits.
  2. An administrator goes to my talk page, pointing this out and warning me.
  3. An administrator (does not matter whether this is the admin that warned me) starts a discussion on this noticeboard.
  4. A discussion takes place as to whether I should be blocked or unblocked. Consensus should be your only authority.
Again, this is very unlikely to happen, but if it does, this is ideally what would happen, IMO.
Jonas Rand · (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
If that happens, that's obviously not in "good faith". I would not warn you if you started vandalising or causing major disruption in that scenario. You have received multiple warnings for that in the past, so we would assume that you know it by now. I would immediately block you, go to the admin noticeboard, and discuss whether or not to renew the ban after the short-term block expires. Blocks are used to stop immediate disruption, then we discuss how to deal with it. Archer7 - talk 22:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see a consensus discussion as to whether administrators should "block first, discuss later". As far as I know, a consensus has not been reached. If there was a general (discussed on-wiki) agreement that this should be done, please give a link to it. I understand that I should not vandalise, and I am not compelled anymore to do so. My opinion is, in the case of mass vandalism, talk page spamming, or disruption, especially if run by an unauthorised bot, block, then discuss with the user. If it is resolved with the user first, unblock and/or warn. If not, find out what the community thinks.
As for me, I most probably will not be engaging in that behavior again, despite what has happened in the past. — Jonas Rand · (talk) 23:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, a consensus was not reached on whether you should be unblocked in the first place. As to the vandalism, that does have consensus. If any user knowingly vandalizes and has been previously warned sufficiantly about vandalism but continues to vandalize, then that user get blocked. You have certainly been warned enough times that it is safe to say you know what is vandalism. If you continue to vandalize, blocking is pretty much a given the same as if it were anyone else vandalizing. There is no reason to treat you any differently than any other user. You vandalize, you know you are vandalizing, you face getting blocked. -- Creol(talk) 06:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) Just as a clarification: After a discussion amongst admins (with no consensus), I personally took the decision to unblock you (in the hope of you doing productive edits). As to the block first-talk-later case of vandalism: I have done it several times (mostly with vandal-only accounts), and so have other admins. I assume you know trhe rules (they are lnked in the post I left on the talk page). If you start vandalising, I assure you, you will probably get blocked before the 3-4 warnings a new user gets. There are rules. You keep to the rules, you are fine; you break the rules, and you will be treated like any other guy that does. --Eptalon (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Jonas, please remember that we are not here to make sure everyone's happy. The blocking tool is meant to stop disruption, so that we can be most productive. If you get angry and you can't control it, then I'm sorry but you will be blocked when it happens and possibly banned. We are people and we do understand that people make mistakes, but our priority has to be minimizing disruption to the encyclopedia. We give second chances when we think it won't happen again, not because we think people are sorry for what they've done, or that they weren't in control of their actions. Archer7 - talk 08:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand that I am not given any special treatment, but an eye will be kept on me. If there is vandalism from my (or anyone else's) account, it is a de facto standard to "block fist, talk later" to prevent a massive rampage. — Jonas Rand · (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Besides, you'll still have the option of discussion on your talk page even after blocking. So in reality, everyone does get what they want: absense of vandalism and discussion of potential blocks. --Gwib -(talk)- 18:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Disney vandal

Should we block this vandal's (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#The Fox and the Hound) IP range? He's repeatedly circumvented his blocks and has recently created a bunch of hoax/nonsensical articles like Vicious Bird of Pray and Disney's Magical Things.

Possible IP's being used by the Disney vandal (in addition to the ones mentioned above by Cassandra): (talk · contribs) (talk · contribs) (talk · contribs) (talk · contribs) (talk · contribs) (talk · contribs) (talk · contribs) (talk · contribs) (talk · contribs)
This user typically works on Disney articles or other cartoon-related entries. Vandalism includes blanking, nonsense, obvious hoaxes (like this edit), and randomly creating articles directly copied from the EN Wikipedia. --TBC 01:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm no networking expert, but I think the range is too wide to be blocked. It would cause immense collateral damage, even the IP's mentioned by Cassandra (which include an IP outside the range). I'm not even sure a range can be defined for this vandal.— Jonas Rand · (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
If that's true, then we either have to revert on sight or semi protect every Disney-related article, which seems like a huge reaction to this one person. Cassandra (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Have the IPs outside the range been checked for open proxies? Blocking the 68.220.* range should be alright, though. Chenzw  Talk  01:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
If he is using open proxies, then it looks like blocking on sight would be the most effective method. However, the problem is, some of his edits look constructive at first glance (like this edit summary he used when partially blanking the WALL-E entry).--TBC 02:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
One of the things I noticed on your revert was that this IP added more interwikis, which I manually restored (I will not read the WALL-E article until I've seen teh film). But he also added an interwiki to Majorly's userpage (which was reverted) and other misc. deeds. Cassandra (talk) 02:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting and edit conflict) Well, just like, we should leave a message on his talk page, directing him to our policy pages, and then keeping an eye on him. If he does not change his editing habits, then it is a block for him. Chenzw  Talk  02:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

(replying to Cassandra) His vandalism tends not to be obvious. He usually mixes constructive edits with disruptive ones, which makes it hard to detect which IPs belong to him.--TBC 02:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
He's partially blanked the WALL-E article again using yet another IP address (with the same edit summary as well). WALL-E article has been reverted and protected.--TBC 02:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Add (talk · contribs) to the mix. Do we block on sight? Cassandra talk 01:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be the best option. He's been repeatedly warned and blocked before; he should know better by now.--TBC 01:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


I had wanted to wait for a response from Razorflame, but as he does not seem to be available,, I feel I should make the post I made on his talk page available to a wider audience for consideration MindTheGap (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Razor, this edit is about as clear a violation of w:WP:OWN was I think I've ever seen on any Wikimedia project and another example is here. Given you appear keen to inform people you are contemplating another adminship bid soon (which may be against the spirit if not the letter of w:WP:CANVASS), it's probably not a good idea to give those who have opposed in the past any more ammunition to use against you. Regards, MindTheGap (talk) 02:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

AN is mainly for discussions that require administrative actions. If you want a larger audience, take this to WP:ST. Also, Simple isn't as active as EN, so don't expect an immediate reply from other editors.--TBC 02:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


I think there's a bug in this; admins with more than one word in their username are not highlighted. I thought I was going crazy after Majorly added American Eagle and The Rambling Man and neither were highlighted. But when I added myself, my talk page was highlighted in blue immediately. And I just switched TBC to Tree Biting Conspiracy; he does not show up in blue either. Cassandra (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Another thing is EchoBravo. His talkpage link is not highlighted because he already set a background for the link, thus it creates two conflicting backgrounds. This is not a bug in the program, this is something that EchoBravo should change (I'm still used to calling him Browne34).
As for this bug itself, it may be that spaces in the array entries are not recognized as usernames, and that they must be replaced with underscores. — Jonas Rand · (talk) 00:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, does it work? If not, I am going to change it; I think I know how to fix it. Chenzw  Talk  01:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I just tried underscores and that didn't work. Cassandra (talk) 01:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I have replaced some single quotation marks with doubles; hopefully that will make it work. Chenzw  Talk  01:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
No. Maybe %20 (URL Encodeing) will work, but I can't see why it would do that. — Jonas Rand · (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) That should do it; I checked the one over on EN and it uses %20 also. Chenzw  Talk  02:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it works. Thanks to both of you for fixing this. Cassandra (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Proposed good articles

Everything on this page needs archiving (and needed it a while back... these pages are going stale.... PVGA needs more comments too! :-(), and the archives are fully protected. Could a friendly admin go ahead and make the edits, please. Thanks. —Giggy 09:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Changed the protection level for the archives to semi-protected; I trust our named editors to handle archival, if necessary. --Eptalon (talk) 10:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


Hi, does this wikipedia have somewhere I can go to request full page protection of my talk page? Thanks John Sloan (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Here. --  Da Punk '08  talk  21:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 Done Cassandra talk 21:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Don't mean to steal this finished convo, but could I get mine protected? Not a threat for vandalism, but there's no reason for my page to be moved, so... - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Er, since when do we fully protect talk pages? I've unprotected it, as legitimate messages may need to be left. Majorly talk 22:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Er, with all respect Majorly, could you please re-protect my talk page per my request. I want all messages left on my master accounts talk page. Full protection ensures this. On en.wikipedia, if anyone wants pages in their own user-space protected they can have it protected! Surely the policy is the same here!? John Sloan (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
That's your talk page. I would think that user talk-space is different from user-space. -- RyanCross (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. I'll fully protect your userspace for sure, if you like, but not your main talk page. Please don't get angry about this, it's not a big deal. Majorly talk 23:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
In general, I don't see why we can't protect a user's talk page if they are not editing actively on this project. Does this apply in this case? —Giggy 01:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
We should only protect people's talk pages in extreme circumstances. His reason for wanting it protected, to ensure that everyone uses his home wiki talk page, doesn't fit with the philosophy anyone can edit. I'll tell you what - if anyone ever leaves a message there, that isn't regarding this project, I'll immediately remove it and send it to the enwiki talk page, and then fully protect here. Is that OK? Majorly talk 01:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I have absolutely no stake in this, but that seems like a perfectly OK compromise. —Giggy 02:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. There's certainly no good reason to protect his talk page. Userspace is just fine, but talk pages shouldn't be protected for no reason. There has to be a good reason if he wants his talk page protected. -- RyanCross (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Protection should only be used to prevent vandalism which has either a high potential to occur or a high potential of damage. Just because a person wants people to talk to them in a specific place does not present a threat to the wiki that needs to be dealt with. The only user talk pages that should ever be protected are those of blocked users/socks who are using their ablility to edit their talk pages to disrupt. While there are certain short term exceptions (vandals targetting a certain person, for example), generally these should be the only user talks which should be protected. -- Creol(talk) 06:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree to the compromise. Oh, and I never get angry over small matters like this :-) John Sloan (talk) 10:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy you understand this. :-) -- RyanCross (talk) 10:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
But can I get my user page semi-protected/move protected? I do make some people unhappy on the! - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 Done Majorly talk 19:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

User: and Pakistan "stubs"

I've blocked this anon IP for 72 hours for continuing to edit against advice and for blatently removing {{rfd}} notices from his own articles again and again. Just wanted to let you all know. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've also blocked for stunningly similar edits as abuse of multiple IPs. Please be vigilant. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Now that he is abusing multiple IPs, we cannot AGF anymore and should block on sight. Chenzw  Talk  11:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
WHOIS check says both IPs are Carephone Warehouse Broadband in Manchester, England. Just keep an eye on the range. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
It's sad that a few disruptive IPs give a bad name to IP editors. Majorly talk 13:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) Looking at this particular case, I have always had the impression that the edits were more or less ok; except for a few (rather small) things that could probably be fixed quickly; the problem is that this requires two-way communication (also called dialogue), which we have not been able to establish so far. IIRC there are a total of 3-4 editors that edit pakistan/kashmir-related articles; two are listed above. --Eptalon (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and in this case there's no doubt they speak English if they work in a call centre in Manchester. Also, when {{rfd}}'s are removed despite warning, it's gone too far. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
With a number of categories this user has created, we need to rectify them to meet to MOS. For instance, Category:Mountain Passes of Pakistan should be Categeory:Mountain passes of Pakistan (and all pages recategorised), Afghan-Pakistan Relations should be Afghan-Pakistan relations etc. Can someone with AWB fix these please? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 Done "Category:Mountain passes of Pakistan" and "Category:Mountain Ranges of Pakistan" and moved page to Afghan-Pakistan relations. Category:Mountain Passes of India still needs to be done. - tholly --Turnip-- 08:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) is back and is adding in categories onto articles that would need to be referenced in order to be added, and might start to do other edits. Just thought that I would let everyone know :). Cheers, Razorflame 00:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Rivers of Pakistan

Hi - following a deletion discussion I have been doing some work on Rivers of Pakistan. The sorts of issues I have come across are that there is no referencing and there is plagiarism - as well as poor quality English expression. For example the article Hingol River was created by  (talk · contribs) and was a copyvio from . It was also identical to the English wikipedia version of the article which was created by User:Siddiqui . This user was among several banned for one year per en:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan. Note also sockpuppetry by User:Siddiqui discussed at en:User_talk:Thatcher/Archive20#Paknur which resulted in blocks of sockpuppets of Siddiqui in June 2008.

I thought maybe what I had learned about the article creation and the issues surrounding that editor at English wikipedia may be of some use to admins here - noting of course that behaviour and sanctions on English wikipedia does not prejudice views about behaviour and sanctions here. I discovered this thread subsequent to post by Eptalon and others at Wikipedia talk:Notice board for Pakistan-related topics - ie [1] and [2] --Matilda (talk) 22:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


Can an admin please take a look over RfD soon please as their are some requests that should have closed over a week ago and some require WP:SNOW I think. Cheers. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 22:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh Gwib has done it now, its ok. Cheers. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 22:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)