Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 16 April 18 >

April 17

[edit]

Template:Blocked user

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, I'm aware this is likely going to be a controversial nomination, but I think it's a discussion worth having and I'm willing to be the one who raises the point: this template comes from another era of Wikipedia where indef blocks were significantly less common, when marking people as blocked wasn't a gadget that could be enabled in preferences, and where the tagging had some benefit.
Right now this template is mainly used by inexperienced users who want to be admins and go around tagging userpages of users who have been blocked with it.
The only cases where tagging is needed, socking and a community ban, already have their own templates. This only serves as grave dancing, as any block can be appealed, adds no new information that isn't available in logs, and is generally only used by people who have no real reason to use it.
I say we delete it or mark it as historical or something, but right now, it serves no real useful purpose to the project. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As it is, this template serves no purpose whatsoever. Nearly all indefinite blocks aren't tagged, and it's a busywork task that creates no utility because users who care about the block status of a user have much more accurate ways of finding out than the existence of a rarely-applied templare. Also, the template feeds into the punitive-block perception. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The only time this is ever used is by over eager pseudo-admins and people who haven't been on Wikipedia since 2009. Praxidicae (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or mark as historical or otherwise discourage use. This would only be useful if it were universally added to all userpages of indeffed users, but it isn't (and IMO shouldn't be), so it's not particularly helpful. Natureium (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless there are alternative templates for non-indefinite blocks and shared IP addresses. I get the point about indefinite blocks but it could potentially be useful for shorter lengths, where the user is not banned. Aiken D 18:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do non-indefinite blocks need a template (that isn't placed by most active admins) on the userpage to indicate the user is blocked? They're notified on the talk page. Praxidicae (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aiken drum: This template is meant to be placed on (or to replace the contents of) a blocked user's user page, and since, in practice, we never do that for temporary blocks or IP addresses, I'm not seeing how it would be useful to keep this template for that purpose. —DoRD (talk)​ 22:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I wasn't expecting to contribute to this discussion as I don't normally participate in TfDs, however I find myself agreeing unequivocally with each of the points above. The template no longer serves a useful purpose as it has been superseded by more specific templates and, as the nominator states, it is more often than not misused by over-enthusiastic new(ish) accounts looking to involve themselves in admin-type tasks and for gravedancing.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What ^^^^^^^^ they said. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 18:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I forgot that this template exists. I completely agree with TonyBallioni and Ponyo. It has no legitimate use. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - is there such a thing as a template disambiguation page? It could be useful to have one here, to point to the more specific templates ({{banned user}}, {{sockpuppet}}, etc.), but there's not much loss if it's not possible. ansh666 18:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    {{Wikify}} is an example of basically that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Category:User block templates contains a bunch of templates, some useful, some not so much. —DoRD (talk)​ 00:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Right now this template is mainly used by inexperienced users who want to be admins and go around tagging userpages of users who have been blocked with it. Yuuuuup. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As above, not a helpful template; likely just encourages unwanted behavior by well-meaning users, and placing a black mark on a user page that hasn't socked, been banned, or dealt with by OFFICE doesn't help. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does nothing but needlessly raise temperature. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 19:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This template has long outlived its usefulness. —DoRD (talk)​ 20:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree with everyone above (except the one who wants to keep it). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yes please! It's like having religion in an infobox—if something exists enthusiasts will use it in ways that are not helpful. Editing the talk page of an indeffed user shows a big red box with "This user is currently blocked...with an expiration time of indefinite" so a badge of shame is not required. Poking problematic users never helps (many of them sock for retribution), while leaving them alone allows many of them to leave us alone. Johnuniq (talk) 00:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions I don't doubt the nomination statement, and especially respect the nominator, but as I read the discussion so far I have two points of concern. First, is there an example of some new user screwing around with it? Second, this would entail altering how to deal with the userpages of indefinitely blocked users; it's hardly unprecedented for people to deceptively use {{retired}}, and there are plenty of rightly indeffed users whose userpages are better off not languishing as they are/were (I can cite examples as needed). Neither of these inherently means this template must be kept, of course, this is simply trying to flesh out all the implications of deleting this template. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    To the second point, it's just not something that's really ever done, so there's really no change. When was the last time a sysop blocked an account and then placed this or did anything at all? As mentioned, we only do it for socks or banned users, and we have other templates for those cases. Userpages of blocked users, as long as they weren't being used maliciously, just don't matter. If blocked, they can't alter their userpage anyway. To the first question, yes, although I don't think there's value in calling anyone out, as it's (usually) done in good faith (ignoring editcount obsessions and the like). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only time I ever see this used is by good-faith newcomers who think they're being helpful by going through block logs and tagging blocked users' userpages with it. It serves no useful purpose—anyone who needs to know whether someone is blocked can see if someone is blocked—and the act of tagging can itself be disruptive. There are numerous examples of blocked users who have been patiently waiting out either their block duration or the six months until they can make a standard offer request, who see someone later coming along to blank their userpage or add a {{blocked user}} mark of Cain, and give up expecting fair treatment and instead become either sockpuppeteers or vandals. ‑ Iridescent 07:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not opposed to deletion, however this is used to tag indefinitely blocked ip addresses, which we should continue to do. The transclusion at {{Indefblockedip}} should be subst:ed and the 22 indef blocked ips that directly call the template should be converted. --Danski454 (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    this is used to tag indefinitely blocked IP addresses this is a problem as we shouldn't be indefinitely blocking IP addresses (with very few exceptions.) Praxidicae (talk) 13:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, we have another way to find indef-blocked IPs that is more complete than looking for transclusions of that template. —DoRD (talk)​ 13:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The bot has recently been listing IP addresses that were blocked as proxies several years ago, and has now stopped updating the page. For an updated list (although with blocked proxies included) there is Special:BlockList. Peter James (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Template has not been used as much in the later years…-216.25.187.5 (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is still being used, and most recent uses have been by administrators and experienced users. That it's occasionally used disruptively by inexperienced users isn't a reason to delete; they would probably misuse another template such as {{Banned user}} instead. {{Blocked user}} can occasionally be used to replace content placed by the blocked user (for which {{Inactive userpage blanked}} or {{Retired}} wouldn't be accurate) or to replace incorrect sockpuppet templates. Specific templates such as {{Sockpuppet}} or {{Indefblockedbecause}} are likely to be incorrect in many of their uses, and there seems to be no sockpuppet template that can be used without specifying a "master" account. Selecting a page at random from the list at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Indefblockvandal I found the reason in the block log was "block evasion", not "vandalism"; of course it could be the block log that's wrong there (as it often is) and it's rare for errors in block logs to be corrected just as it is for bad blocks to be lifted. For accuracy we could replace all other block templates with this one. Peter James (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • All instances of this template being used should be reevaluated and it should be removed from some user pages where it has not been used correctly. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, you can just find the information out under User contributions if I'm not mistaken. John M Wolfson (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude {{Indefblockedip}}. This nomination seems ambiguous - I'd like to see {{Indefblockedip}} reverted to a time when it didn't include the templates being nominated for deletion. I'm fine with deleting the others, although I think they can sometimes be useful, but I believe {{Indefblockedip}} falls outside this nomination (it wasn't listed) and actually serves a purpose. Firstly, I have never seen that template misused. Secondly it is probably the main, if not the sole user, of CAT:INDEFIPs (which probably should also have been included in this nomination). Third, in reply to some points above, we should hardly ever be blocking IPs indef, however we do, and we have. There are some rare exceptions and this category contains some of them. It offers a ready list for review, and it is a much more dynamic place than the alternatives - the database reports and Special:BlockList are really unhelpful in this respect. I'm not saying that the template and category are perfect, but I don't think they should be bundled into this nomination. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
zzuuzz I feel the need to point out that a fair amount of IPs, randomly sampled, in that category were tagged by an indeffed LTA...Praxidicae (talk) 14:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I won't ask for an exact percentage of the traffic through the category, as I know it's small. In any case this doesn't really change anything. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not really sure what’s ambiguous about the nomination, but for the record, I intended to include the indefblockip. As has already been pointed out, there are much better ways of figuring out which IPs are indef blocked and admins really shouldn’t be indef blocking them to begin with, to the point where if an admin is issuing indef blocks of IPs, they probably don’t know that template exists. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I mean ambiguous only in the sense that neither the template nor category were listed, and the template is also not tagged. It's just mentioned by a commentator half way down this discussion followed by a couple of delete-like comments and a vague impression that it's meant to be included. It's fine saying what we shouldn't do, but the fact is that we do and have indef-blocked IPs, and the other methods of tracking the IPs are no improvement. It's useful to have a place to put this hive of scum and villainy or this OTRS block, for example, neither of which have seen much enthusiasm for an unblock despite multiple reviews. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I intended to include all the sub-templates, and it’s showing up as advertised on them when I view those pages, but I’m sorry if there was some missing notification, TfD really isn’t my thing... Yeah, I’m not going to unblock the first one, but the OTRS block actually seems like the perfect example of why we shouldn’t indef block IPs, and I’d be inclined to unblock it right now unless I’m missing something. Regardless, I don’t find the template particularly useful in either case, and as Praxidicae points out, we have to balance the existence of it inviting inappropriate use (very high) with the theoretical future appropriate uses (low). I wouldn’t be opposed to it being substituted on pages where you think it is currently useful, but I’d also oppose keeping it around for the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think I'm a TfD regular either, but I repeat my point that I've never seen this IP template misused. If you want to unblock that IP, be my guest if you've taken the appropriate precautions. I know it's not the only request-block in that category and that some are still assigned to the same institution - these are probably trickier. But my point really is that that's all fine because that is what this category (and hence template) are actually used for. I think we all appreciate that indef-blocked IPs are significantly different from blocked accounts. Indef-blocked users just sit there until they request unblock. IPs need some outside review and this template is a good way of achieving that. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if the user group who deals with banned users has voiced that this template is not used and is not needed and is mostly used by users who shouldn't use it, then that is a clear case for delete. --Gonnym (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2019 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:CL welcomeuser

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was userfy. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal template in project space from the same user which should really be replaced by the community one {{Welcome}}. Gonnym (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2019 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:CL notaccept

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was userfy. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another unused personal template in project space (CL is short for User:Catholic Laitinen) which does the same thing as {{Smallrejected}}. Gonnym (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2019 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:CL accept

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was userfy. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another unused personal template in project space (CL is short for User:Catholic Laitinen) which does the same thing as {{Accepted}}. Gonnym (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2019 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:CL Holiday Season

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was userfy. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A template for a specific user (User:Catholic Laitinen) should not be kept in the project space. Either delete as it is unused and hardcoded to 2017 or move to userspace. Gonnym (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2019 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Australian Senate results, 1998

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused election template since a different table is used at Results of the 1998 Australian federal election (Senate). Gonnym (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2019 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Viking Invasion of England

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 May 21. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2019 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:SaskatoonCoach

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NHL does not create navboxes for coaches, players, championship teams, etc. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:49, 17 April 2019 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Module:Adjacent stations/Brightline

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brightline was renamed to Virgin Trains USA, so this is now a duplicate of Module:Adjacent stations/Virgin Trains USA. Daybeers (talk) 03:33, 17 April 2019 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_April_17&oldid=898058521"