User talk:Cahk

Please click here to leave me a message. I'll use Template:Reply to to respond on my talk page.

Archives

Prince Musa'ad bin Khalid Al Saud wikipedia page

Hi Cahk,

Based on latest recommendations, the lead page is added. Also, some new reference is added there. Please have a look and let me know if anything more to be done to make this wiki-page fully effective.

~Rishi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishi.kh (talk • contribs) 11:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rishi.kh: Another editor has already reviewed it in the mean time.--Cahk (talk) 10:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

Thank you for making a report about ClarissaWeeks62 (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, the user was not warned. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you. Killer Chihuahua 12:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@KillerChihuahua: Those are spambot accounts. I report at least 3-4 accounts a day on such spam account. You can see my edit history to confirm the same.--Cahk (talk) 12:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's fine, except we actually have policies about this shit. There are admins who happily ignore those polices; I am not one of them. Killer Chihuahua 12:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@KillerChihuahua: AIV states "Except for egregious cases, the user must have been given enough warning(s) to stop their disruptive behavior." A spam farm with 7 accounts in the span of a few hours should constitute as egregious case. The AIV guide states "What constitutes "enough" is left to your best judgment". I would also point out this has been discussed on previous occasions on [1] and [2] --Cahk (talk) 13:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a basic spambot. If you don't recognize that, you're not qualified to be reviewing the reports. Vermont (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you intend to malign me, we're not going to get very far. Policy, which was written by a great many people, states clearly on item 2 "Except for egregious cases, the user must have been given enough warning(s) to stop their disruptive behavior." If you can't follow the rules, you're not qualified to be reporting anyone, to toss your rather hostile words back at you. Slap a warning on the dang userpage before you report. Killer Chihuahua 11:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@KillerChihuahua:, are you seriously arguing that we should be warning NTSAMR spambots? We don't even do that before locking them. Vermont (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@KillerChihuahua: I don't profess to know every policy in Wikipedia, and would always welcome to exchange of information/knowledge. It's clear to me you have no plans to change your mind despite multiple VERY experienced editors and administrators advise to the contrary. I hesitated in making the following comments - but I thought about it and urged to because behavior like this ([3]) suggest a serious lack of civility. As an administrator who has been largely absent for the last 6 years until being resysoped 3 weeks ago, I would suggest toning it down, especially at experienced editors who can spot the "painfully, astonishingly, clearly obviously" bots. --Cahk (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have received both positive and negative feedback, as you will see if you peruse my talk page. The negative has been hilariously uniform in telling me that I'm ignorant and/or lack experience. Bots haven't changed that much in 6 years, that's not a helpful argument. Killer Chihuahua 12:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The No Spam Barnstar
	Thank you for your diligence in dealing with spambots. Praxidicae (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no review on Musa'ad bin Khalid bin Musa'ad bin Abdulrahman Al Saud

Hi Cahk. The article is available on search engine without lead section. I have added lead section and other edits to my article, but I don't see any review by other reviewer/ patroller. Can you help, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishi.kh (talk • contribs) 13:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rishi.kh: The article has already been reviewed by a new page patroller. Once that's done, there are no other review options available. Search engines will take some time to refresh the content, but I have no expertise on that front.--Cahk (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]