Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin
< September 24 September 26 >

September 25[edit]

Actors from New York City sub-cats[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn by nomiantor. Euryalus (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Is a categorization of Steve Burton (actor) since he was raised in Richmond Heights, Ohio in Category:Male actors from Cleveland, Ohio logical, or should we limit categories like this to the city proper? The answer to this question is key to deciding how many of these categories we create, and which ones we have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC) [reply]

This issue even gets trickier with Category:Actors from Detroit, Michigan. Tim Allen was there but he never lived in Detroit, he lived in Birmingham, Michigan. To me this shouts "not in Detroit, you are misplacing". Of course I have spent much of my life trying to build awareness of Sterling Heights, Michigan and will point out to any who care that Macomb County, Michigan has more residents than Detroit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC) [reply]
If we are going to have Category:Actors from Santa Monica, California, than we should not include anyone from beyond the city limits in Category:Actors from Detroit, Michigan. If we scrap that category, but stay with Category:Actors from Orange County, California, than I would say we can include people from Highland Park, Michigan, Ecorse, Michigan, Hamtramck, Michigan, the Grosse Pointes, Harper Woods, Michigan, Redford Township, Michigan, River Rouge, Michigan, Lincoln Park, Michigan, and maybe even Dearborn, Michigan and more so Dearborn Heights, Michigan in the Detroit category. However as long as Category:Actors from Long Beach, California exists, we can not in good conscience place Birminghamites in the Detroit category. This is especially true since there are people who live north of 8 mile who avoid going into Detroit ever, at all, in any way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual upmerge all, to both parents. (e.g. Category:Actors from Brooklyn → Category:Actors from New York City and Category:People from Brooklyn etc. These categories are an intersection, and the nom's incomplete proposal would lose one attribute.
    The nominator's rationale and other comments are far too verbose, and never get to the simple central point: that in terms of acting, it is irrelevant which borough of New York the person is from. These actors pursue their careers in the many acting venues around the whole of the city, and commute as needed. (Many of them actually pursued their acting careers elsewhere, such as in Hollywood, making the distinction between boroughs even less relevant). This is already set out in the guideline WP:OC#LOCATION, and the nom should have linked to that rather than posting so much that many editors will feel it is TLDR. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I actually do propose a secondary merger to Category:People from Brooklyn etc, at the end of the nomination. I am also trying to deal with issues brought up at previous related CfDs, and some of the is the argument that these have nothing to do with where acting occurred, only with where people are from.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If these nominations are withdrawn, I undertake to open an RFC on the issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw so we can go to RFC It appears that there is a major issue here that we have no clear idea how to move forards on. There are lots and lots of issues involved here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Lists by military conflict[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. The Bushranger One ping only 13:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. These categories, which are subcategories of Category:Lists by military conflict, currently use three different naming formats. I suggest standardizing them. "FOO-related lists" is a format that is commonly used for list categories, so that is what I have proposed. (I don't think including "military" in the names is necessary: generally, it could be seen as redundant (wars involve militaries), but also some of the contents (like lists of films about the wars) may not be best described as a "military list". Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mountains-to-Sea Trail[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is basically a follow up from this discussion which was closed as no consensus since there was a mix of trails, some of which probably should be deleted and others kept. So I'm sorting through that list to see which ones merit a separate deletion discussion. Again the question here is, are the places along the trail defined by the trail? Is a forest defined by a trail that runs through it? Also are trails that intersect with other trails defined by that intersection? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • For a few of the articles in this category (e.g. Neusiok Trail) the M-to-S trail may be a WP:DEFINING characteristic, so selectively upmerge then delete. DexDor (talk) 19:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but consider creating a navbox template for this trail. Most of the pages in the category are only peripherally related to this trail, and the trail itself is too new to have become a defining characteristic even for the few topics that are closely related (like Neusiok Trail). However, a navbox could be a good way to display the relationships between the individual components of this trail, the protected areas that it crosses, and the other trails that it connects to. --Orlady (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We do not need "Places on trails" catgegory in most cases. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not defining to the articles involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People educated at the National Institute of Dramatic Art[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (as noted, per general practice with categories, "alumni" can cover anyone who attended the school). Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to the "Foo alumni" convention of Category:Alumni by university or college in New South Wales. For some reason, these alumni have been categorised as if the Australian the National Institute of Dramatic Art (NIDA) was a secondary school, whereas it is a third-level institution.
I have already fixed the parent category[1]. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Category should be limited to graduates ("alumni") rather than anyone who ever attended NIDA, even short courses ("educated at"). WWGB (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. This proposed renaming is not about changing the scope of the category. It is purely about renaming from the convention used for schools to that used for tertiary institutions.
      The convention of all such categories on Wikipedia has been to use the inclusive definition of "alumnus", as found for example in Merriam Webster's entry for "alumnus": "someone who was a student at a particular school, college, or university". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Transformers locations[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge both to Category:Transformers (franchise). Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories have become needless. Category:Transformers locations only includes Category:Transformers planets, and even that only includes a list article, and two of the most famous planets, Cybertron and Unicron. This is way too little to warrant separate categories, the articles can go to Category:Transformers (franchise). JIP | Talk 15:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 79.180.48.58[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: procedural close. This category is populated entirely by transclusions of {{IPsock}} on certain user pages—as such, it can be deleted only by removing {{IPsock}} from the user pages in question. However, evaluating the appropriate application of {{IPsock}} is beyond the remit of WP:CFD, and so I have referred this matter to the Administrators' Noticeboard. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Improper use of ipsock template, applied in violation of WP:HSOCK, none of the ips have been blocked for socking. GregJackP Boomer! 13:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are suspected socks, and can be even that after a negative SPI (it is technically limited). keep. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Actually, according to the policy, they can not be tagged as suspected socks. The policy states "Only blocked accounts should be tagged as Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets and only upon sufficient evidence that would stand up to scrutiny." (emphasis added). GregJackP Boomer! 14:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is YOUR interpretation of policy. The "suspects" category has ALWAYS been used for suspects, blocked or not. The current wording is totally inconsistent and illogical and was added after I had last looked at that part of the policy a few years ago, so I was not consciously acting in violation anyway. As it is, it still makes no sense, so it's still dubious how one can violate it by tagging suspects, although I won't be doing it until this gets sorted out one way or the other. Claiming I was "in violation of WP:HSOCK" under those circumstances is a dubious claim. One can only be in clear violation if the rule is clear, and it isn't.
    @Beetstra:, you may wish to help fix the problematic wording. Take a look here: Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppetry#Illogical_wording_2. You may have to try to ignore the comments of some editors who are trying to poison the well of anything I do. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Simply being an "IP hopping editor" (meaning dynamic IP) is not sock-puppetry. These are all clearly IPs of the same ISP (two ranges). If the ranges are disruptive, report them to ANI etc. As far as I can tell, the most egregious thing any of them has done was a bit of edit warring a year ago, for which one of the IPs received a short block. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • History. This was an infamous Fluoride Action Network edit warrior. We keep track of IP-hopping edit warriors. Only one of the IPs used by this person was blocked, but they forced semi-protection of article(s) and caused lots of disruption. They got pretty nasty at times. We were very long-suffering, but it also wasted a lot of time. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was there any real evidence of that? Can you point me to the SPI which was conducted based on that evidence? GregJackP Boomer! 16:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPIs don't work on IP-only editors, without any logged-in edits at IPs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure they do. Checkuser doesn't work on SPIs, but checkuser isn't magic pixie dust either. Behavioral (beyond the super-secret, can't tell you) evidence actually still works, and admins actually will take action based on behavioral evidence. It's called the WP:DUCK test, but you do have to have actual facts. Otherwise, one is just making personal harassment list. GregJackP Boomer! 18:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No guidelines should prevent us from marking disruptive editors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not but policy WP:HSOCK should. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 11:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's against policy despite all the whining. Certain editors are not special that policies do not apply to them. Keep your lists at home on a piece of paper where they can't be construed as personal vendettas if they are so important. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:James singles[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. The article will continue to be categorized as a single through Category:1985 singles and Category:Factory Records singles. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The instructions at Category:Singles state Individual songs should not be listed here, nor should they get categorized by categories of the types "Singles by [artist]" or "[Artist] singles". Instead, songs should all go under subcategories of Category:Songs by artist. Singles should be categorized in Category:James songs instead. GoingBatty (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that categorizing James II as a song is incorrect, so I've crossed out that sentence above. However, the instructions at Category:Singles state that singles should not be categorized by artist. GoingBatty (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And where did those instructions come from? They appear to have been added by an editor without an edit summary or any evidence of being based on consensus. Some random comment does not constitute policy. Is there a policy-based reason for deletion? --Michig (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are no other by-artist subcategories in Category:Singles. To me, that is evidence that there is a pretty strong consensus for this practice and that the comment that has been added is therefore anything but "random". You don't think you are the first user to have created such a category, do you? The other similar ones that have been created in the past have no doubt been discussed and deleted/merged. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps they have just met with same assumption that you have made. There simply is no good reason why we shouldn't have by-artist singles categories. We have such categories for albums and EPs. To not have them for singles is at best inconsistent. --Michig (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I wasn't really assuming anything—I was just using a rhetorical device (badly, apparently). These types of categories have been discussed at CFD a number of times, beginning in 2006. The consensus has always been to not have singles broken down by artist. There is major overlap with the songs categories, which is probably one reason for this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's all it is - an overlap. Lots of songs are not singles, some singles don't share their names with songs. Many editors confuse songs and singles but that's something that should be corrected, not reinforced. I still don't see a good reason why we shouldn't categorise singles by artist. --Michig (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs might be able to fill you in on the full reasoning. I know it's been discussed a number of times, but I don't know all the content of what has been discussed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Delete Category:James (band) songs where it will join 5500 + other categories artist songs. There is no other category artist single, so there is a big hint there, too. I have also moved the sole entry in the category from from James II (single) to James II (song) because that's the way it's done on Wikipedia. For those that don't understand the difference between a song and a single, a song can be sung but a single is a commercial venture. LOL. I note that a previous incarnation of this category was moved to James songs and is now being moved on again as per Good Olfactory, below. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Richhoncho: - Based on Michig's comments above, I don't think that's correct. Apparently, the James II single contains two songs - neither of which is named "James II". GoingBatty (talk) 23:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment. Other James articles are
  1. Jimone which starts, Jimone was the first EP...and is categorised, interalia as a "James song"
  2. James II (single) which also listed as an EP-Stub
  3. Village Fire which starts ... was the third EP... and is categorised, interalia, again, as a "James song"

These three articles follow one after the other in the James chronology.
There are no other categories, *artist single*, WP does not do articles about singles but about songs, EPs and albums. Now because of one obscure band on one obscure chart (noting #2 is claimed}, sorry, I see nothing here to warrant the creation of yet another categorization scheme based on strict adherence to terminology which itself changes almost daily! Nor do I see any reason why WP must slavishly amend it's guidelines because of this one band. This is important to consider because if this category is allowed then every other artist will be entitled to create and use Category:Artist singles. 5000+ plus duplications of existing categories. If Michig feels so strongly about this naming scheme then the debate should be taken to the music project and debated there.--Richhoncho (talk) 06:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP has lots of articles about singles. We don't have other 'singles by artist' categories because the same editors keep pushing the same ideas on how they think articles should be categorised. Jimone and Village Fire being categorised as 'James songs' just shows how daft the current approach is. --Michig (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are a lot of articles on songs released as singles. The practice of titling singles that isn't the name of the primary song (most commonly referred to as the A-side) on the single is not common and creating a scheme for such is overkill. For such singles that do exist as articles, they should probably be put in the albums project rather than songs project because, like albums, singles are produced, while songs are written and performed. But rarely is the production of a single notable. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are lots of articles on singles. Lots which have little content about the songs that appear on a single, but where the majority of content is about the *tracks* on the single, how long they are, who produced them, where they were recorded, when they were released, the sleeve art, the chart positions, etc. - all of ahich are attributes of a *single* and none of which are attributes of a *song*. Which project relates to what article is not relevant to this discussion. Many songs are not singles. I am still to see a single good argument for not categorising singles by artist. --Michig (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. Why would anybody wish to categorise by the distribution and packaging methods (ie single) and not the product (ie song). --Richhoncho (talk) 05:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Michig: - I see that Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars added Category:James (band) EPs. So if Jimone is the band's first EP and Village Fire is their third EP, is James II their second single or their second EP? GoingBatty (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I posted a notice at WikiProject Albums and WikiProject Music and hopefully, we'll get more opinions that will make this decision clearer. Liz Read! Talk! 19:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Something that some people don't seem to be getting: A single is not a song, it is usually a release with at least two recordings of songs and associated artwork that people buy, often putting it in the charts. The argument that by categorising singles (which we already do by year by the way, which makes the argument against doing it by artist make even less sense) we would be 'categorising the distribution and packaging methods' holds no water. Live albums are packaged, released recordings of live performances - should we also not write about live albums, but only about the performances? We have 504 subcategories within Category:Live albums by artist. We have 291 articles in Category:The Beatles songs, but very few of those were released as singles. A category for Beatles singles would be useful (many of those articles contain details of the single releases), but we don't do it simply because a small group of editors decide that 'we don't do it'. It doesn't make sense. --Michig (talk) 07:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do get it. I have said so above. A "single" is the packaging and means of distribution, whereas the song is the product. "Singles" belong is discographies, whereas some songs deserve articles. And yes we do categorise singles by year, and singles by record company, too, because that is their product. An artist's product is the song/music.
  • Rename article, delete category This is essentially a two-track EP. There is no lead or A-side and consequently no B-side, so it's just two songs that were released independent of any other release. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't an EP, so that doesn't work. --Michig (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Michig: - So if James II is their second single, what was their first single? If Village Fire is their third EP, what was their second EP? GoingBatty (talk) 03:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't assume that unsourced statements in Wikipedia articles are correct. --Michig (talk) 07:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Michig: - Good point - I've added {{citation requested}} to those articles. GoingBatty (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is, some editors have some odd views about these things, not seeming to understand what 'EP' actually means, and I have even had to explain to people that singles have B-sides and are not generally individual tracks. If we stuck with terminology and definitions that reliable sources use (in this case those that the several respected discography books have used) rather than allowing a handful of editors to make up their own definitions we would have a better encyclopedia with regards to music articles. --Michig (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 71.3.101.247[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. User:GregJackP's argument based on policy is sound, at least as I read it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No indication of proven socking, templates placed in violation of WP:HSOCK GregJackP Boomer! 05:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are suspected socks, and can be even that after a negative SPI (it is technically limited). keep. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, according to the policy, they can not be tagged as suspected socks. The policy states "Only blocked accounts should be tagged as Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets and only upon sufficient evidence that would stand up to scrutiny." (emphasis added). GregJackP Boomer! 14:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nobody should be above the law. Editors can keep these lists at home if they are so important so they aren't misconstrued as just harassment. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Railway stations on the Cleveland Way[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: (1) That a station has "access to" a walking route is subjective - it depends how far off the route you're prepared to walk, (2) categorizing stations by what they are near is a recipe for horrendous clutter on station articles (stations near the sea, near a park...) and (3) a station shouldn't (per WP:SUBCAT) be categorized under Category:Footpaths (via a category currently at CFD). DexDor (talk) 04:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Having access, which is subjective, to a trail is probably not defining as far as I can tell for these. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – a railway station will provide access to all manner of roads, buildings, parks, lakes, hills etc, but none is likely to be defining. Oculi (talk) 23:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- It may well be useful to use the railway to get to a particular stretch of the path and then to walk to another station, but we do not need a category for that. The main article should be sufficient. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 187.208.150.144[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: procedural close. This category is populated entirely by transclusions of {{IPsock}} on certain user pages—as such, it can be deleted only by removing {{IPsock}} from the user pages in question. However, evaluating the appropriate application of {{IPsock}} is beyond the remit of WP:CFD, and so I have referred this matter to the Administrators' Noticeboard. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: None of the IPs have ever been blocked, added in violation of WP:HSOCK. GregJackP Boomer! 04:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or rename to functional description) It's probable that the user is disruptive, and they should be noted as sockpuppets somehow. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but unless someone is going to take them to SPI, they can't be tagged as socks under current policy (WP:HSOCK) and we have an editor tagging people and IPs anytime he sees a dynamic IP edit. One new editor hasn't been back in over a month, plus the information that he is telling both the IPs and registered editors is not in accordance with policy. These are being established as part of a witch-hunt without sufficient grounds other than "secret" evidence that is not being shared. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 05:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This one is a tricky situation and part of a much larger story. A few days back a massive proxie and linkspam attack on huge numbers of articles occurred, and this was an effort to keep track of them and fix their work. Needless to say most of them are blocked as clear socks of the same commercial source, so the category is totally proper.
Unfortunately this nomination shows extreme lack of due diligence and bad faith. The reason for the creation of the category is clearly stated. I was tagging IPs which were clearly being operated by an illegal and banned bot, and many were indeed blocked, so this is a proper use of the category. Don't let events elsewhere cause you to exercise bad faith in everything I've ever done.
Many editors were involved in the efforts to keep tabs on what was happening. This was my small effort. I think that bots have been created to undo much of the proxie's work, so this may not have much of a purpose anymore. I have over 8,000 articles, plus just as many talk pages, on my watchlist, and literally most of them lit up all at once with exactly the same edit summary and edits. In my nearly 9-10 years here, I have never seen anything like it. It created quite the alarm for the whole project. This was the only known way to keep track of them quickly, and I also quickly gave up. It was too massive an attack. Others are dealing with it now. You can read more about it here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Mass_rollbacks_required. It turned into a huge CF, with varying POV on how to deal with the situation. I haven't follow along with further events or even read the whole thread at AN/I. My effort was only at the beginning and was a good faith effort to deal with a clearly illegal/against policy use of a rogue bot. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except that no policy or guideline provides for labeling entire groups of IPs as socks without an SPI, or providing any evidence to that effect. This wasn't your only time of 1) mislabeling individual IPs and registered editors against policy, or 2) misstating policy and threatening both registered and IP editors. GregJackP Boomer! 11:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: as per GregJackP. "I Think", "Probably", and I am Superman are not legitimate reasons to violate current policies. The page does that and needs to go showing the good faith that the creator/offender hasn't attempted. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 12:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are suspected socks, and can be even that after a negative SPI (it is technically limited). keep. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, according to the policy, they can not be tagged as suspected socks. The policy states "Only blocked accounts should be tagged as Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets and only upon sufficient evidence that would stand up to scrutiny." (emphasis added). GregJackP Boomer! 14:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's still against policies. These non-AGF editors can keep any list they want on their home computers but they want them public to rabble rouse other editors into treating them a certain way in hopes an admin will indeff them. It just plain harassment and the reason Wikipedia has well discussed policies. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll write more later but I think there is a significant difference between the de jure application and the de facto application which should be clarified. NativeForeigner Talk 17:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep category but delete inappropriate content and file a LTA. This is the most perplexing case yet. The "sockmaster" is indeed blocked as open proxy. But all the 17 "sockpuppet" IPs listed in the category (as a regular page) in this edit have made no edits whatsoever (unless the articles themselves have been deleted) and haven't been blocked either. However, the few IP user pages included by tagging the other few IP are indeed blocked, e.g. [2] or [3]. Someone should file a WP:LTA for this if there's more than meets the (non-admin) eye. Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fixed the error that made those IPs show up as not having edited anything [4]. The remaining problem is that most of them haven't been blocked, even though they have a behavioral similarity with the "open proxies". Given that most of those IPs are in poor countries, this might be a case of MEAT (people incentivized to add those links somehow.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. I have never seen anything like this. My huge watchlist suddenly turned into a mass of exactly the same edit summary. This was an obviously well coordinated bot attack using proxies. This could not have been done by humans editing by hand. I only scratched the surface and gave up when an automated way of dealing with it was developed. I acted in good faith to protect the encyclopedia. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mbreht[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: procedural close. This category is populated entirely by transclusions of {{Sock}} on certain user pages—as such, it can be deleted only by removing {{Sock}} from the user pages in question. However, evaluating the appropriate application of {{Sock}} is beyond the remit of WP:CFD, and so I have referred this matter to the Administrators' Noticeboard. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: User Mbreht was found by CU to be unlikely to be connected to sock (Battomi), yet was listed as a suspected sockpuppet anyway, in violation of WP:HSOCK. GregJackP Boomer! 02:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Battomi/Archive. Now you know why we have the "suspects" category. It has ALWAYS been used for suspects, blocked or not. The current wording is totally inconsistent and illogical and was added after I had last looked at that part of the policy a few years ago, so I was not consciously acting in violation anyway. As it is, it still makes no sense, so it's still dubious how one can violate it by tagging suspects, although I won't be doing it until this gets sorted out one way or the other. Claiming I was "in violation of WP:HSOCK" under those circumstances is a dubious claim. One can only be in clear violation if the rule is clear, and it isn't.
I filed an SPI (we were dealing with a named account, so an SPI is much easier than with an IP), and my suspicions were largely confirmed. When the result about Mbreht came out, I did the right thing and removed the tag, with this edit summary: "Clearing this to give Mbreht a second chance and to start afresh." That was the right thing to do, isn't that true? That Mbreht was likely a sock or meat puppet of Battomi is still highly likely, but we can't do much in this type of situation, so he's welcome to edit. Unfortunately his English is so poor that communication is very difficult, and self-promotion is frowned upon here. There is a huge COI in this situation. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You really don't understand do you? Why would he need a fresh start? Because he socked or because he was falsely accused of socking? You didn't even apologize to him for falsely accusing him of socking. You know, falsely accusing people is "frowned upon here." You still don't give up, and make a personal attack on Mbreht even after a checkuser cleared him. GregJackP Boomer! 11:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: SPI was negative and personal policing actions should be frowned upon. Page is harassment, and disrespectful of SPI admins. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 12:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are suspected socks, and can be even that after a negative SPI (it is technically limited). keep. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, according to the policy, they can not be tagged as suspected socks. The policy states "Only blocked accounts should be tagged as Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets and only upon sufficient evidence that would stand up to scrutiny." (emphasis added). GregJackP Boomer! 14:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POINT .. Moreover, policies are descriptive. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Suspected by whom? Even thought the SPI clerks disagree? I need to start a few suspect lists of my own and see what happens. Its just not allowed, not good faith and creates more angry vendetta sockpuppets174.118.141.197 (talk) 21:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or rename to functional description). They are disruptive editors, socks or not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive according to whose definition? Editing your watched articles doesn't make them disruptive. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive according to ANI. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive =/= sock. List them somewhere else. GregJackP Boomer! 03:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. User:Mbreht has a clean block log. The sock category page is at best used inappropriately for something that should at ANI (disruptive editing) or is downright a sneaky attack page. User:Battomi was found to be socking (and blocked for merely two days) and his socks are/were also pretty obvious given their names, but you can tag those as his socks if you want. Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Borromi should be the proper name for the category, but we don't usually change the names. But nothing prevents us from doing it now. The SPI was named Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Battomi, although, Borromi was indeffed. To fix this, the category should be repopulated, but the tags reworded to point to Borromi. The instructions in the deletion tag clearly say "Please do not empty the category." Emptying these categories by removing tags deletes valuable evidence, and destruction of evidence, in the real world, is a crime. Here it's very disruptive. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Falsely accusing someone of a crime is also a crime in the real world, as is jailing someone without evidence. Here, even when you find out you're wrong on tagging someone, like here, you don't even apologize. I hope that you did note that DoRD went through and did a mass deletion of pages like that which were started by you. All we are trying to do is to clean up the mess that was caused by the indiscriminate and improper tagging of users, both IP and registered, as socks without evidence and outside of policy. BTW, in the real world, when someone is falsely accused and arrested, their records can be expunged to remove the taint that was improperly placed on their name. That's what we are doing here. GregJackP Boomer! 14:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MrX, do you have any actual evidence or proof that Mbreht has socked? I haven't seen any. GregJackP Boomer! 03:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course if I had proof, he would be a confirmed sockpuppet. Brangifer presented behavioral evidence on the SPI page, which I concur with based on my extensive interactions with Mbreht. - MrX 13:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. So you have proof, via the CU/SPI, that they are not socking, but you want to use that as proof that they are socking? I would suggest that you drop the stick. Labeling someone as a sock after a checkuser has proven that they are not socking is a personal attack, and violates WP:HSOCK. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 14:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Almost everything you just posted is illogical or a complete misapplication of policy. First of all, checkusers can not "prove" that someone is not a sock, nor is that what the checkuser said in the SPI. Secondly, when evidence is provided of behaviors that do not conform to community standards, that is not a personal attack (see bullet 5 for WP:WIAPA). Thirdly, considering that you raised this discussion and have commented six additional times, you may want to consider that stick advice yourself. - MrX 15:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_25

Leave a Reply