Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:58, 8 September 2008

POV messaging to gather votes by kashmir cloud

Urgent To-do item, NOW for all Indian Wikipedians

Save Pakistan occupied Kashmir article from Permanent Deletion, please read below. HELLO Xxxsacheinxxx Please save Pakistan occupied Kashmir article from deletion. The article has been hijacked by Wikipedians of Pakistani origin who are demanding its deletion. Remember, once deleted its gonna be extremely hard to recreate it. This is not a wasted attempt because all claims in the article are well sourced. Please consider the following:

1. Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir is the term used by the Indian government, and for legal reasons followed by the media and Indian publishers

2. The term is POV on Misplaced Pages, but it is real, because it exists, and cannot be *deleted* away.

3. Redirecting PoK to Azad Kashmir is not the solution. Geographically, Azad Kashmir is a small region of the area labelled as PoK. Therefore, territorially speaking, it is inherently false.

4. Additionally, the term Azad, which means free, is also a POV. Free in what sense? From Indian administration?

5. As a responsible encyclopedia, it is our responsibility to mention what the term means, the area under it, who has dubbed the name, usage of the name, the reasons why it is called, and legal usage in India, Pakistan, and major countries/groups. The page should not be more than two-three paragraphs long, and must point to the articles on Jammu and Kashmir, Kashmir, the Kashmir dispute, Azad Kashmir, and FANA.

Wikipedians of Pakistani origin want this removed and replaced with just the Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas article because it speaks the truth. Anybody with an account can vote. If none please create one right away and vote for keep.

PLEASE DELETE THIS MESSAGE BEFORE VOTING. a similar warning is on wp:india page

Please oppose the page to be deleted. It is requested by Pro Pakistani Wikipedians who want all trace of it to be vanished. Do so immediately!. Key in keep followed by reason.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Xxxsacheinxxx" Can you see it now meco? 86.158.235.148 (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC) this message is courtesy of our noble kashmir cloud or is it User:J-3b56 or cast788 the reason kashmir cloud made double accounts was to force his propaganda from the POK article onto other users to stack up votes also he is blocked so it was a desperate attempt by a desperately biased editor to force his veiws across sadly it has worked to some extent as many users he messaged are indian (im not anti indian) and they will obviously agree with him to some extent as you can see i didnt run around like a mad dog persuading pakistani editors to vote and then sneakily delete the message good day 86.158.235.148 (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You spoke to soon :-) Pahari Sahib 16:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Aha! Agreed! As for your IP, sir, I'd advise you look here: . What does this mean? ] (talk) 23:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

218 *** is the ip of kashmir cloud lol anything else??? 86.153.130.47 (talk) 09:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. You first accused 117.X.X.X as Kashmircloud's sock. Now you accuse 218.X.X.X. How can one user use IPs from such different ranges? Even you know, as you're on dynamic IP, your IP only moves around the 86.X.X.X range (and very rarely 81.X.X.X). It doesn't mean every anonymous user who opposes you is Kashmircloud.  S3000  ☎ 10:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

kashmir cloud has been using more 4 accounts to push his biased messages across stop trying to protect him86.153.130.47 (talk) 10:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Can I move the discussion regarding canvassing by various users to this page? Keeping it in the mainspace makes it look cluttered.  S3000  ☎ 10:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the administraters need to see the evidence of canvassing rather than hiding it away in a discussion 86.153.130.47 (talk) 10:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Not hiding, but to make the page more organised. We can make a note on top of the page to refer here for proof of canvassing.  S3000  ☎ 11:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

excuses

for editors who say there is need for a single unified article for pakistani kashmir if you cared to open both of your eyes and read both pages i give PAKISTAN ADMINISTERED KASHMIR page which clearly states 3 of the territories under pakistani control i.e azad kashmir,northern areas,trans karakorum tract. So whats the new excuse beside the unification garbage besides i dont see jammu under jammu and kashmir or kashmir valley so this hypocrasy against pakistan must end or you can expect a edit war of epic proportions (which will happen once this POK article gains popularity and a increasing number of pakistani editors discover this) make your choice peace or war 86.158.235.148 (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC) p.s so what if india calls it occupied who has more standing the international community or some indian editors 86.158.235.148 (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Mess and protection

This afd is really in a messy state, and the discussion is difficult to read. and with dynamic IPs and various canvassing and sockpuppet cases abound, wouldn't it be better to initiate a new, semi-protected AfD? --Soman (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Why initiate a new one? RPP for this existing one. You don't expect us to start from scratch. It's not difficult to continue canvassing even if a new one is opened. As you saw, those canvassing usually contacted well-known users and added their canvassing messages in project pages. It's as simple as they'll repeat the process. I fully support semi-protection on this one. Can we do it?  S3000  ☎ 11:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is a mess. I'm a bit wary about semi-protecting an AfD discussion, though if another admin were to do it, I wouldn't say a thing. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is an opinion goat, can't have perspective articles on one subject. Here's a piece of cake, enjoy. http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSDEL5233620080904. — Orion11M87 (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a last resort measure. What we need is a constructive discussion. If it's to be acheived by semi-protecting, we should consider doing so.  S3000  ☎ 11:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Block

I've blocked this chap for sockpuppetery User:Nhjy43. Do add the relevant text as I am about to log off. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Closure

I would like to personally close this AFD. I acknowledge that I have a conflict of interest since I voted in the AFD, and have actively participated in it. If you have any reservations, please feel free to oppose it here and I will recuse myself from closing it. Else, I will close this AFD in 24 hours by doing the following:

1. Deleting the history of the current POV text Pakistan occupied Kashmir
2. Recreating Pakistan occupied Kashmir and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir as a redirect to Pakistan-administered Kashmir
3. Protecting the two pages (sysop protection) from editing and moving.
4. Updating the text on Pakistan-administered Kashmir page by this version: User:Nichalp/Kashmir
5. Enforcing protection on the Pakistan-administered Kashmir page by preventing unregistered users from editing, and preventing non-sysops from moving the page.

Do let me know if this procedure has the consensus of the AFD participants. Thank you =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If anyone protests that you are "an involved admin", I may just follow that list myself. My only contribution is to add a note regarding canvassing. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hold on admins. Lets go slow step by step. I have posted 3 questions. That may challenge some of the above steps. --gppande «talk» 19:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC) These questions have been answered many days ago freind your a bit slow 86.153.128.50 (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

What about canvassing will the admins know that kashmir cloud has send POV messages to many editors to save the POK article 86.153.128.50 (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with nichalp (or anyone else) following the 5 step proposal outlined above. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 19:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)