< August 29	August 31 >

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia vandals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete/transfer - per WP consensus that vandals should not be glorified with subpages; most of the subpages have already been deleted. If their is any information in the remaining pages that might be useful, it can be transfered to WP:LTA.--Lorrainier 16:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The project pages are beyond the scope of WP:CFD, so you should probably list them separately under WP:MFD. --Cswrye 02:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is certainly not the consensus. This category is useful in guarding against vandalism. --M@rēino 22:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It seems to be a consensus as nearly all of the vandal subpages have been deleted.--Lorrainier 05:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment an act of deletion, unfortunately, can be done without concensus. I would be interested in seeing where a list of such concensus exists. - Jc37 22:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not from this vantage point there isn't. Stirling Newberry 10:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- a "vandal hall of fame" only encourages more imitators. -- The Anome 22:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment not sure what is up for deletion here. "Subpages" implies this is not a category so this isn't the correct place to list. --pgk^(talk) 22:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -Doc 00:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC) (Delete the category - I think we'd need to consider the LTA pages seperately - keeping any refering to subtle and current vandals - kill the rest). --Doc 10:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful in tracking vandals. By the way, where was this consensus reached? --Ryan Delaney ^talk 00:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me what use this actually, specifically, is? What use is it in tracking vandals? How is it actually used? Do you use is, and to what end? --Doc 00:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Ryan Delaney - I know that there was recently a nomination to delete the Counter-Vandalism Unit, and there is currently a nomination to undelete it. I'm not sure if that's what Lorrainier was referring to, but if it is, there are quite a few editors who question whether or not that constituted consensus. --Cswrye 02:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I have used Category:Indefinitely blocked Wikipedia accounts during one of my past encounters with a vandal, and I can see how it (along with the similar categories for vandals) could be helpful to others. Guidelines are good at telling you how to handle vandals, but sometimes it can be beneficial to see the actual process that was taken against one. If an argument develops about what constitutes vandalism, seeing some precedents can help make a point against it. In my case, I looked at some of the users that were blocked in the past to see what type of vandalism they were doing and the types of warnings and blocks they received. By looking at some of their edits, I could see what constituted serious vandalism (such as what might require the ((blatantvandal)) warning) and minor vandalism. I could also see how this might help look for patterns of vandalism since many vandals target certain types of pages. There may be some things that "glorify" vandalism, I don't think that a category (which does nothing more than list the vandal's name) really does that. --Cswrye 02:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - once all of the subpages are deleted/transfered, it will be an empty category.--Lorrainier 05:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying keep this one, because I once used a different one. Perhaps you can enlighten me how did the category of 8000+ names help you in you r encounter with a vandal. What new information did it give in "see the actual process that was taken against one"? WP:VANDALISM lists the types of vandalism which I would suggest is far better use of time than working through 8000+ entries in a category to see if something is similar to vandalism someone else did. --pgk^(talk) 06:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Lorrainier, if the project pages in this category are deleted, this category should be deleted as well. My reasoning would still apply to the other categories up for deletion though (I linked them to this one so I wouldn't have to rewrite my argument multiple times). pgk, I didn't look through all 8,000 entries, of course. I only looked at about ten or so to see some examples. If the category is gone, I would have no way to look at any of them unless I just happened to remember the name of a previous vandal. Yes, WP:VANDALISM is good, but again, actually seeing how a vandal was handled (maybe even seeing mistakes that were made by others so you don't repeat them) is also good. --Cswrye 13:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so how did you know which 10 to look at which were going to be similar to the situation you faced? If you are saying that the specifics weren't important just the general "process" wouldn't it be better to enhance WP:VANDALISM to give worked examples rather than relying on people getting lucky? --pgk^(talk) 17:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a random selection. I know that's not a representative sample, but combined with WP:VANDALISM, it told me what I needed to know. I'm all in favor of enhancing WP:VANDALISM as much as possible, but I don't think it can replace seeing the actual behavior of vandals and the people who stop them. It's like the difference between reading something in a textbook and seeing it done through a job shadow or internship. Both have advantages, and there are things you can learn from one that you can't learn from the other. Another thing to keep in mind is that different people may interpret Wikipedia policies and guidelines differently. What one person considers obvious vandalism may not be considered vandalism at all by another. That's the reality of human nature, and no changes made to WP:VANDALISM will ever overcome that. A lot of decisions made on Wikipedia are based on precedents, and a seeing the actual actions that were taken against a vandal can help users in their interpretation of the policy. There's value in knowing what NOT to do as well as what we should do. --Cswrye 22:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well I'm not personally convinced that you can extract any useful information that way, but assuming you can would you not agree a category consisting of 1000's of examples and growing is excessive? --pgk^(talk) 22:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one's going to look through every entry, but I'm not sure of a good way to pick and choose which entries to keep to use as examples. I'm not convinced that it hurts anything to have them there, and it could potentially be helpful. --Cswrye 23:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess we'll have to differ, I look through the list of deletes here and see many people involved in anti-vandalism work for a long time, and in my own experience I've never once refered to this category when dealing with vandalism. I was hoping you'd come back and give me something solid to work on but you seem to be saying that you randomly clicked on 10 and luckily found something useful to the situation you were looking at. --pgk^(talk) 06:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete per User:The Anome. Naconkantari 15:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all categories in the "vandal hall of fame". --kingboyk 16:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG Delete on wheels! per all the "delete" votes above. -- FrostytheSnowman ^'sup? 16:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... or transfer. -- FrostytheSnowman ^'sup? 16:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Why is everyone so keen on denying recognition? From what I can tell, it's an essay. If people have reached consensus to follow its principles, then make it an accepted policy. Until then, it's just an onofficial, crappy essay. And in the words of Cswrye, There may be some things that "glorify" vandalism, I don't think that a category (which does nothing more than list the vandal's name) really does that. SoaP 16:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per The Anome - it's making too many imitators. Unless the vandal is created by the IP who was the vandal, just delete the category. Bigtop 20:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Some users are so dangerous that they can put the encyclopedia into major trouble. One of them is Primetime. He has a subpage here, and he keeps inserting copyvios from other encyclopedias. If people don't know what was going on, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Compton's, and our other competitors will jump at the opportunity to shut Wikipedia down in a court of law, and then go back to selling encyclopedias that are unaffordable to many of us. Another one (which was removed from this category so that it would not be deleted if this category got deleted) dealt with the Anonymex vandal gang. Wiktionary had a similar vandal known as Wonderfool. He attacked Wiktionary in the same manner this vandal gang is rumored to be trying to do by creating a sockpuppet which became an administrator, and then used his admin powers to block the other administrators and go on a rampage which included unblocking Willy on Wheels among other users. Wiktionary could not do a thing to stop this because the only steward was on an airplane at the time of the rampage, going home from WikiMania. A developer eventually had to manually tweak the database to remove his sysop flag to stop him. He did this because he was once an administrator at Wiktionary who was desysopped after going on a similar rampage. He seemingly reformed, but no one wanted to grant him sysop tools due to his earlier rampage. Therefore, Wikipedia cannot afford to delete this category due to the potential of a few vandals to possibly ruin Wikipedia. Some did not merit pages, because they did not pose major threats to Wikipedia like Willy on Wheels, the Communism vandal, and MascotGuy, but losing track of vandals like Primetime can get Wikipedia shut down. This category should be reserved for vandals who are believed to present a truly mortal danger to Wikipedia and those that are very hard to spot like Headley Down. Jesse Viviano 16:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree that not all vandals vandalize for attention. I would like to keep the subpages of particularly serious vandals. -- FrostytheSnowman ^'sup? 18:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dang it. I forgot to name the sleeper account Wonderfool used. It was Dangherous. "Dangherous" exists in Wikipedia and is a sleeper account that tried to become an administrator here, and has not been blocked yet. See this for how this sleeper tried to become an administrator here, and this and this on what this sleeper did on Wiktionary. Jesse Viviano 20:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a vandal would ever be granted adminship tools. Sure, it happened over at wikitonary, but IIRC, at Wikipedia, it's physically possible for an admin unblock themselves (though it's not allowed). -- Selmo ^(talk) 20:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderfool never vandalized until he became an administrator on Wiktionary. It is just a shame for somebody with this user's acting skills to waste them on Wiktionary (and attempt to do so as Dangherous here) instead of using them as a spy for the CIA to infiltrate terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Jesse Viviano 21:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the off-topic bit here, but this needs to be said: If someone, in trying to "get Wikipedia", does hundreds of good, useful edits, in order to build up enough trust to become an admin, then "attacks" by deleting the main page and unblocking some already abandoned sockpuppets, I'm sorry, but Wikipedia "won". Undeleting the main page is trivial, and re-blocking the sockpuppets is too. Something like Primetime's quiet addition of copyvios is a real danger, or an admin who quietly screwed with things might be, but a "rampage", unless done by a developer with shell access, is fundamentally a triviality. If more than a few good edits were made, the encyclopedia won. People seem to forget this. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No more troll feeding. — The Future 18:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Willy on Wheels has been given more recognition for destroying Wikipedia than anyone who helped in building it. Vandals should be ingored completely. -- Selmo ^(talk) 19:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep since I support the delete of the generic "block" categories. This category is specific, and should be/have been retained as it can be useful. It is unfortunate that the sub-pages are being deleted without apparent concensus. - Jc37 22:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Useful for what? Keeping them organized? All we do is block throw-away accounts like Willy on Wheels socks, so why should we keep giving them attention for thier disruption? — The Future 01:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete per WP:DENY, which I believe in 100% even though it is not official policy. —Mets501 (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:DENY. (with exceptions for specific pages people can show a specific need for, such as Primetime). Take your SWAT team mentality elsewhere, please. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Ryan Delaney and Son of a Peach. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest possible keep per Ryan Delaney, SoaP, Jesse Viviano, and Idont Havaname. ~ct|e 21:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - See below rationale--Lorrainier 16:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This category is useful in guarding against vandalism. --M@rēino 22:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  You've got me intrigued now. How is a list of 1000's upon 1000's of names useful in guarding against vandalism? --pgk^(talk) 22:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC) (For reference in the 16/8/2006 database dump there was 8000+ names in the main category alone)[reply]

• Delete -- a "vandal hall of fame" only encourages more imitators. -- The Anome 22:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -Doc 00:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No valid rationale for deletion --Ryan Delaney ^talk 00:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - See my reasoning above. --Cswrye 02:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, utterly useless. the wub "?!" 10:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per nom. Naconkantari 15:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all categories in the "vandal hall of fame". --kingboyk 16:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per DenyRecognition. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 03:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  An essay? 1ne 07:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. Would you prefer I copy and paste the essay to this page as a delete reason, rather than linking to it? // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 03:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is useful information. Perhaps better put on a user's talk page than on the user page.Stirling Newberry 03:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

? This is a category. What useful information is in the category which isn't in the block log? (Note this isn't about not having a note on the user page/talk page saying indefinitely blocked, it is about categorising those pages). --pgk^(talk) 06:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ability for an overworked admin to find such information. Sockpuppet attackers rely on "security through obscurity". I was just blocked in an edit war with a socket puppet serial harrasser, simply because the very well meaning admin couldn't find the information needed to see that it was a known sockpuppet range. The deletionists here are protecting sockpuppets and assorted other problem people. We've already reached the point where recognition is given to persistent trolls - see GNAA if you need proof. Stirling Newberry 10:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Cswrye. 1ne 07:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Why is everyone so keen on denying recognition? From what I can tell, it's an essay. If people have reached consensus to follow its principles, then make it an accepted policy. Until then, it's just an onofficial, crappy essay. And in the words of Cswrye, There may be some things that "glorify" vandalism, I don't think that a category (which does nothing more than list the vandal's name) really does that. SoaP 16:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I'd like to know is why you're so against others wanting to deny recognition.--Lorrainier 00:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bigtop 21:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. My reasoning is not based on WP:DENY. Simply put, nobody has expressed a useful purpose for these categories. I do not think they do much harm, either, but they are a stupid form of instuction creep: these category's very existence implies that an indef-blocked user that hasn't been slapped with the right tag to be put into one of these cats hasn't been "properly handled" yet. Also, one must worry about making sure you've put them into the right dated category, etc. It's a bunch silly hoops that a lot of strange people (at least one of whom checkuser has shown to be a vandal themself) seem eager to jump through, and nobody has pointed to one blessed thing it actually does for the encyclopedia. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think that the templates that are put on a blocked user's userpage will automatically put them into this category. If they don't and this category is kept, I would recommend changing the templates so that they do. With that in place, there wouldn't be an extra steps to go through to put a blocked user into the appropriate category. --Cswrye 22:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The templates do, but what makes you think we need to create a user page and subst: a template on it when we block User:BunchofgrapesDrinksFetuses or some other blatant, vandalism-only account with a handful of edits? See, the templates are part of the same package of instruction-creep goods, and the category has you thinking they are a requirement. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Some users are so dangerous that they can put the encyclopedia into major trouble. One of them is Primetime. He has a subpage here, and he keeps inserting copyvios from other encyclopedias. If people don't know what was going on, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Compton's, and our other competitors will jump at the opportunity to shut Wikipedia down in a court of law, and then go back to selling encyclopedias that are unaffordable to many of us. Another one (which was removed from this category so that it would not be deleted if this category got deleted) dealt with the Anonymex vandal gang. Wonderfool attacked Wiktionary in the same manner this vandal gang is rumored to be trying to do by creating a sockpuppet which became an administrator, and then used his admin powers to block the other administrators and go on a rampage which included unblocking Willy on Wheels among other users. Wiktionary could not do a thing to stop this because the only steward was on an airplane at the time of the rampage. A developer had to manually tweak the database to remove his sysop flag to stop him. He did this because he was once an administrator at Wiktionary who was desysopped after going on a similar rampage. He seemingly reformed, but no one wanted to grant him sysop tools due to his earlier rampage. Therefore, Wikipedia cannot afford to delete this category due to the potential of a few vandals. Some did not merit pages, because they did not pose major threats to Wikipedia like Willy on Wheels, but losing track of vandals like Primetime can get Wikipedia shut down. Jesse Viviano 01:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what your arguments have to do with the categories in question -- ones like Category:Wikipedia users indefinitely blocked in August 2006. Could you explain? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I mistakenly put this vote on the wrong category. Striking through my vote. I seem to be very mistake prone lately. Jesse Viviano 15:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per Bunchofgrapes. —Mets501 (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not very useful anymore. I was when there wasn't a million of them, but lets not feed the trolls anymore. — The Future 18:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but only the non-specific ones. Categories such as: category:IP addresses blocked because of suspected sock puppet evidence as of August 2006 should not be deleted. - Jc37 22:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A list of every petty vandal who has been blocked is entirely unnecessary.--Lorrainier 16:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This category is useful in guarding against vandalism. --M@rēino 22:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- a "vandal hall of fame" only encourages more imitators, and the software already has a list of indefblocks. -- The Anome 22:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -Doc 00:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Doesn't hurt anything, could be useful for record-keeping. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 00:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be specific, if you can show how that would be practically useful I will change my vote. --Doc 10:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - See my reasoning above. --Cswrye 02:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The table of templates in the heading should be moved somewhere, it is rather useful. —Centrx→talk • 04:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, utterly useless. the wub "?!" 10:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per nom. Naconkantari 15:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all categories in the "vandal hall of fame". --kingboyk 16:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, Might be useful for record keeping. If it isn't, delete. -- FrostytheSnowman ^'sup? 17:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the block log is a far more accurate method of record keeping. --pgk^(talk) 17:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per DenyRecognition. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 02:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Why is everyone so keen on denying recognition? From what I can tell, it's an essay. If people have reached consensus to follow its principles, then make it an accepted policy. Until then, it's just an onofficial, crappy essay. SoaP 16:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - so you're saying that you want vandals to be glorified?--Lorrainier 22:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either with you guys or against you guys, eh? 1ne 06:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - see my reasoning above. These categories in all their multitudes are confusing and create the mistaken impression that there are required processes one needs to follow after blocking User:JimboWalesEatsInfantSpleens. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Indefinitely blocked IP addresses, and remove all registered accounts from it. Some IP addresses are blocked indefinitely, and need to be unblocked someday. People change ISPs, move, and die. We need to make it easy for someone to know which IPs are blocked due to a reason other than being open proxies, and eventually remove them. It would be nearly impossible to find such addresses otherwise without a bot to read the IP block list, to check to see if the block was done because the IP was an open proxy, and then print out the results. Jesse Viviano 00:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think that there are really any non-open proxy/zombie computer IP's on that list. I could be wrong though. —Mets501 (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Here is an example of an indefinitely blocked address: User:24.174.10.231 Jesse Viviano 03:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - 100% useless —Mets501 (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No more troll feeding. — The Future 18:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• According to the banner at the top: "This is a top-level category. Pages should not be placed directly into this category, which groups subcategories of users that have been indefinitely blocked from editing." Therefore, Empty of pages, but Retain it as the top-level category for the subcats, since it is useful. - Jc37 22:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "top level categories" are being put up for deletion too, which all the "top level categories" do is organize the other categories for deletion. — The Future 01:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether they are or not has nothing to do with this CfD. If it turns out that concensus wishes to delete ALL the sub categories, then put this up for CfD again, and in that case, it would likely be Speedied. But in the meantime, I think it should remain as the top category for the sub cats. - jc37 20:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Security through obscurity is a proprietary philosophy. Stirling Newberry 21:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ryan Delaney. 1ne 06:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Why does Wikipedia need a list of every stupid username that has been created? Would it actually be of use to anyone?--Lorrainier 16:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Since these accounts were closed for their name, there is no reason to preserve them on the system, let alone encourage hits to their pages. --M@rēino 22:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above -- The Anome 22:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -Doc 00:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - One advantage of having a list like is to see precedents. If another username is nominated for blocked due to being appropriate, it might help some people to see some past names names that were blocked to see if similar reasoning might apply to blocking the new one. Maybe that's not an important feature, but since it doesn't hurt anything, I have a minor preference to keep this category. --Cswrye 02:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Username blocks don't go into a great rationale. If you think something needs a username block I doubt anyway searches through the 8500+ names in this category to find one similar to see if they can justify it. Using a sledge hammer to crack a walnut seems the analogy here, why not look at WP:USERNAME to see if it could be considered inappropriate? That's somewhat smaller lists the high level cases complete with rationales, 1000 times more useful --pgk^(talk) 06:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, utterly useless. the wub "?!" 10:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Naconkantari 15:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, useless category. --kingboyk 16:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per DenyRecognition. This is not even useful for establishing patterns; it is far too vast and disorganised. Establishing patterns is much better accomplished in #vandalism-en-newusers and #vandalism-en-wp, where users monitor new account creations and add patterns and keywords to a filterbot in real-time. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 02:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It doesn't "glorify" vandals (it justs lists their names) and we can still find them all in Special:Listusers; if I can get cratted so I can change their names to something warehoused, then all for the better. Oh, and that it gives me a good laugh to see all that stuff. SoaP 15:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Were not here so you can get a good laugh. Because we can find them in Special:Listusers is more the reason to delete the useless categories. — The Future 01:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For humor, visit Wikipedia:Blocked users with bizarre usernames (once it is restored).--Lorrainier 22:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment regardless of whether it is kept or not, it was an interesting array to see, showing how sensitive certain admins who block mildly suggestive names while the clever spoonerism employed by well-known editor User:Yuckfoo who has been here for years is left alone. Carlossuarez46 17:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bigtop 21:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as above, confusing feature-creeping category. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - pointless, completely unnecessary —Mets501 (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No more troll feeding. — The Future 18:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per User:Mareino- Jc37 22:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Completely useless and unnecessary.--1568 23:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete useless--Konstable 06:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Runcorn 19:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd listed this for renaming on this page, but I obviously hadn't, as pointed out by an admin and a member of the category. Here's a "relisting" to match all categories of category:Wikipedians interested in collecting.--Mike Selinker 15:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse renaming. Bastique▼^parler _voir 15:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to simpler name per nom. Dugwiki 19:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Would also support Category:Wikipedians who collect coins. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry. Obviously it should be that. I fixed the nomination.--Mike Selinker 02:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for simplicity per nom. --Cswrye 02:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - Jc37 22:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Piacenza F.C. players to Category:Piacenza Calcio players

• Rename, Proper name of club is Piacenza Calcio. Bigdottawa 15:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Cswrye 02:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Runcorn 19:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, Proper name of club is Piacenza Calcio. Bigdottawa 15:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Cswrye 02:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom (and article name) - Jc37 22:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, most of these are not imposters but boring trolls. User:(21:06:15) ***bumm13 has no friends IRL, basically or User:JoanneB sucks the chrome off Jake Remington's trailer hitch are hardly likely to be mistaken for the real things. These attack accounts are created by unrelated individuals and there is no point to lumping them together or categorising them at all (see also WP:DENY and the debate below at below) --Doc 08:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:DENY is an essay. 1ne 22:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete all per me --Doc 08:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. Those accounts were blocked, for good reason. They have no contribs. There's no point in collecting them all in a category and thus giving their creators way more recognition than they deserve. --JoanneB 10:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, public pillory. --86.134.56.248 11:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC) IP has three article edits.--Doc 11:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Striking because the IP commented again below. — The Future 01:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all snuff out the free publicity, these categories really contribute nothing to the task of eliminating vandalism. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. These categories are doing nothing but taking up space. I doubt anyone has ever used them for a serious purpose. At best, it's giving attention to whoever created these accounts, which will encourage them to create more. We really don't need this. (And what happened to that "Delete unused usernames" proposal? Ideally we need to erase these offensive account names altogether) – Gurch 11:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it's a public pillory, and the usernames are already hidden by Special:Listusers. I doubt you're going to flick through that in a hurry! --86.134.56.248 11:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC) IP has already opined--Doc 11:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Torch them all. Hyperbole aside, we don't need to keep statistics. Blocked users are blocked. Mackensen (talk) 12:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No earthly use. --Tony Sidaway 13:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - These categories help keep track of which users are blocked and why. The ones that aren't imposters should be removed, but this category will help distinguish the real users from their imposters. —Cswrye 13:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Few of these are convincing imposters - most are just abusive trolling names. The ones that have edited a bit, and who might be confused for the genuine article can have 'imposter' marked on their userpage - but you make no case for categories.--Doc 14:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See my reasoning above. --Cswrye 02:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"help distinguish the real users from the imposters", if the imposters have been indefinitely blocked why does this help? Isn't that fact that they have very few edits and got indefinitely blocked a bit of a give away? --pgk^(talk) 06:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Re: Cswrye, why do we care why they are blocked? As long as the block log is reasonably informative ("username violation", "page move vandal", "vandal only account", "dopelganger" etc) we don't need anything more. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as a tool for use in anti-vandalism enforcement. --M@rēino 14:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions like this will be discounted, unless they explain how it is userful for that purpose. Assertions without reason do not convince. --Doc 14:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Well, I'm not convinced by your reasoning, either. This category is useful because WP:AIV often works by looking for patterns. Remember, a blocked user can come back simply by creating a new user name. If that new user's first edit looks like vandalism, maybe it's a previously blocked vandal, or maybe it's an innocent newcomer who didn't know about the sandbox. How can we tell? Often, it's by following the pattern established by previously blocked accounts. --M@rēino 22:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You seem to be somewhat confused as to what this category is, it is blocked imposters no need to look for past patterns relating to vandalism, if someone is an imposter of a legitimate account then it gets blocked. Perhaps you can give me a real (as opposed to abstract example) of when you have used one of these lists to list someone on WP:AIV ? (In my copy of the database dump from 16/8/2006 I can't see you having ever edited WP:AIV, I'll double check later to make sure I haven't made a mistakeIndeed I had made a mistake, I'll look through them later and see if I can track down examples where this category may have been useful--pgk^(talk) 09:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)) --pgk^(talk) 06:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've been through the fifteen reports I have found you made to WP:AIV prior to 16/8/2006, majority are IP addresses engaged in simple vandalism, couple of dodgy usernames (Shitmaster 5 and Vandalizer3) and one posting an admins phone number (I guess the alkivar troll). No mention of being impostors against any of them or suspecting that they are the same as one of these imposters, so I'm at a loss to work out how this category is helping you in fighting vandalism. --pgk^(talk) 18:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Addhoc 14:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. These categories serve no useful purpose other than boost the egos of the users being impersonated. Bastique▼^parler _voir 14:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, more trouble than they are worth. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete All per WP:DENY. Naconkantari 15:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that WP:DENY is an essay and is not an actual policy or guideline. Many, including me, consider it very unrealistic. --M@rēino 22:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note there isn't even an essay for which prescribes populating these categories, which many find unrealistic including I guess all those who have moved for deletion --pgk^(talk) 06:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - the less recognition this idiotic vandals receive, the better, dammit!--Lorrainier 16:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Any reson you voted multiple times? - Jc37 22:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Waste of time. the wub "?!" 16:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Dugwiki 19:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Look at the size of mine, er I mean delete can't see why we need these listed by user other than some sort of bizarre vanity --pgk^(talk) 21:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- giving them attention is counter-productive, and only encourages more imitators. -- The Anome 22:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom.--Lorrainier 05:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Any reason you voted multiple times? - Jc37 22:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - what purpose does it serve to list users who were already blocked. This is counterproductive - time would be better spent improving articles. MartinDK 11:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just wanted to say that my category has real imposters. The kind which can be very easily mistaken for the real thing. Check 'em out. Category:Imposters of AlexKarpman. conio.h • talk 11:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  There are some of these - and their userpages should remain marked as 'imposter' for the avoidance of doubt. But we don't need a category.--Doc 11:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  That's why it was a comment and not a vote. I have no opinion regarding the categories. Just mentioned that there are "real imposters". conio.h • talk 13:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• What's there more?! Delete, we have no need for a vandals hall of fame. --kingboyk 17:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (ironically). I created the imposter structure to eliminate the vandal top-of-the-category contests that seemed common; the idea was that with a huge number of subcategories, being at the top of any given category becomes ever less meaningful. Obviously, things didn't work out that way; instead, we ended up with pages that indefinitely store malicious comments and libel, as if we were to create a [[Category:Libellous edits]]. Delete per DenyRecognition. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 02:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:DENY isn't even official policy. And still, I insist on the WP:WAREHOUSE scheme of renaming accounts. SoaP 16:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAREHOUSE isn't a policy either. — The Future 01:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom and WP:DENY, despite WP:DENY isn't even official policy. Bigtop 21:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as above, confusing feature-creeping category with no actual use. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Son of a Peach. 1ne 22:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - per most everything above and WP:DENY (even though it isn't official policy) —Mets501 (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No more troll feeding. — The Future 18:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. - Jc37 22:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Konstable 06:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete. It's basically a vacuous category getting added to a lot of Democratic politicians like Kennedy, Kerry, Dean, Gore, etc. Are we to name every Democratic party office holder here? Do we then also list them as Critics of Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda as well? The point is that _obviously_ they are critics, they are in the _opposition_ party. Now, Republican critics might be a useful category, or foreign critics. But this is silly. Derex 08:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Calsicol 09:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I could swear we just deleted this. Delete.--Mike Selinker 12:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I thought that this was deleted as well. --Cswrye 13:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Addhoc 14:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This category could include thousands. Bastique▼^parler _voir 14:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In addition to the above comments, the category definition is too subjective. What constitutes being a critic? Any disagreement? For instance, Nancy Reagan doesn't agree with George Bush on stem cell research, but is otherwise a supporter. Should she appear in this category, since she's criticized him? And what about people who are in the other party but agree with Bush on some issues? This category is too open to POV interpretation. Dugwiki 15:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Note also CFD 2006-08-11 Critics of George W. Bush, CFD 2006-08-15 more critics of Bush, and of course CFD 2006-08-16 Intellectual's who wear blue socks on Thursdays that are Critics of George W. Bush. -choster 18:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. List is vacuous. --Tbeatty 18:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or speedy as a recreation. It's not a new category just because you changed the title a little bit. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And see also Category:Republican Critics of George W. Bush. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Requires original research to determine who is or isn't a "critic". Inherently POV. Morton devonshire 02:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Shouldn't a deletion template be located at the page in question? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I too, was wondering if we hadn't already deleted this. If concensus says delete again, can we stipulate that this concept (X critics of GWB) be speedied in the future? - Jc37 22:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia navigation templates to Category:Interwiki category linking templates

• 'Rename'

• Category:Wikipedia navigation templates to Category:Interwiki category linking templates or Category:Interwiki intercategory navigation templates — either of these is a better descriptive rename of the 'bad name' (Interwikily, speaking) that was renamed herein back in June from a 'worse name', one I'd misrembered and such.

These are part of the sister projects interwiki sharing and linking in compliance with WP:Btw, I guess, and a direct spin-off of the Maps recategorization project ongoing on the commons along with all the consequent image retagging. The templates tie the two sister spaces together, along with some forthcoming links that do the same for a small set of other sister's categories.

Moreover, this is not a good name off en.wp, particularly on the commons, for many people on those other sister's bemoan the chaotic-seeming give and take (and trolls and edit warring, and picyune discussions about not much) and so prefer not to be here. I can hear some people there grind their teeth every time they read this current name on the commons. <g>
   A) Retagging Can not be done by BOT, it messed up the template logic back in June.
   B) The good news is the tagging is automatically done by the few control templates, so the hand editing is simple when you know where to look.
    You get the cat moved, and I'll move the contents by fixing the templates. (What a deal!) // FrankB 08:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:University College London alumni. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 03:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per above. Michael 04:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Cswrye 13:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom - Jc37 22:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Notable fencers into Category:Fencers

• Merge, If they weren't notable, they wouldn't have articles. Move them to the parent or in specific cases to one of the other subcategories. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. Michael 04:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Cswrye 13:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above. All articles are supposed to be "notable", so the word is redundant. Dugwiki 15:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Twisted86 16:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. the wub "?!" 10:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Hanbrook 19:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom - Jc37 22:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom --digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 18:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete CSD G7 - author's request, category empty. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 08:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC) Category:Slaves of the Musilm world (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]

• Delete, My typo. It is category:Slaves of the Muslim world. Mukadderat 01:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If you place the ((db-author)) template on the page, it will be speedily deleted. --musicpvm 02:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Michael 04:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.