- Template:Bbblock (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)
The original TFD alone does not appear to show a community consensus, as the only participant was the nominator. Upon asking for a reversal, the closing admin declined. This template was designed to be subst:'d, so will not show many incoming links, but based on the inbound links to it's image, there are estimated to be >1000 instances of this template being utilized. (I am not opposed to this being deleted if the community shows consensus for it, but if so would prefer to userfy the template as I find it useful. (Did not go straight to userfication as I did not want to violate the recreated material prohibitions of TFD.) — xaosflux Talk 04:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I am the TFD nominator. My main issue with this template is that it is non-standard in format and doesn't give details such as how to request an unblock or how long the block is for. I would not oppose userfication if individual admins wish to use, it but as far as a standard template I feel it is inappropriate. Also, it was one for the standard 7 days and all notifications were followed, so I don't see how there was a procedural fault. MBisanz talk 07:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse. I'm not certain why the creator did not address these issues at TfD, but since no one dropped by to express a desire to keep the template, I'd surmise the closing administrator closed discussion correctly. MrPrada (talk) 08:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't disagree that the nomination was originally uncontested, but argue that there was not sufficient consensus to bar this from recreation (which was done temporarily at first, but then redeleted as recreation). As to why I didn't raise this at TFD, I wasn't aware that this was at tfd, though being a prior editor of the template I wasn't notified (not that I'd be required to be), and as this is designed to be subst'd there was no automatic mass-notice or it's existing uses; it wasn't until I went to use it and saw it missing that I knew it was gone (yes I had it watchlisted--but have >1000 pages there so it's easy to miss one) — xaosflux Talk 10:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- My main argument for this either be reversed or re-listed is "new evidence" (my keep !vote) that had it been in earlier would have likely ended this in at least a no consensus closure. The confirmation I'm looking for here is less determinign if there was a deletion judgement error during the original TFD, but in enforcing the deletion against future recreation. — xaosflux Talk 10:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- In no way am I opposed to permitting recreation, but when it comes to whether Nabla made the correct call, I believe he did and would have done the same in his position. How could we ask to him act unilaterally to keep? We'd likely see a DRV from the opposite perspective. I am reviewing the process used, not the material deleted. When I first saw this at DRV I figured it was closed before the seven day minimum, but it was not. I agree its not a perfect process, but as its currently stipulated, I still feel he made correct call. MrPrada (talk) 00:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Permit re-creation. My use of this template lies just in its non-standard idiosyncrasy. I use subst'd versions, modified somewhat to address various circumstances (anon IPs, etc.) if necessary. I agree it should (if kept) be further expanded to explain how to request an unblock and how long the block it describes is for, and will expand the versions I use accordingly. I don't see a problem the original TfD, which functioned as (even if it wasn't) a prod deletion. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 13:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Second permitting recreation. It was different ... I used it mainly for short first-time blocks. If it had the information MBisanz said it should have, and was modified to stretch across the screen regardless of width, I'd certainly use it more. Daniel Case (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Restore an example of what happens for lack of required notification. In the absence of a firm policy for removing non-standard templates of this sort, the discussions should not have been closed without some input. DGG (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Mmmm, I wonder if it is just general TFD policy not to relist debates? If it were an AFD (where I work more), I would've expected something like this to be relisted instead of closed. MBisanz talk 19:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Statement by closing admin. The closing could not be more clear. The process on TfD is clearly stated, on the top of the page, «Templates that have been listed for more than seven days are eligible for deletion when a rough consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to its deletion have been raised». The discussion was over 10 days long, no objection was raised, the template was properly tagged by the nominator, his reasoning (that it is a substantial duplicate of another template) was accurate, and I agreed with it. Given that the deletion was a completely obvious one. Yet, as I stated in the above mentioned talk, I have no problem with recreating it as a redirect. I see no use in having multiple templates for the same use, but not being used to blocking vandals I may be missing something and as such am neutral on that issue. A couple of side notes: First. I regret that when User:Xaosflux undeleted the template (and warned me, which is fine) also added two TfD notices to it's talk page, one stating that the closing was a "contested delete", which was not true. Second, the TfD notification process may need some adjustment as in cases like this it may slip unnoticed when substing the template - Nabla (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- My main reason for this DRV is to seek relief from the restriction against recreation that was enforced (legitimatley via the letter of the policy) for this page. Of course to maintain GFDL of an active page this would best be accomplished via an undelete. — xaosflux Talk 12:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- overturn when the entire XfD is one user, and a second user challenges this, then you do not have a consensus to delete, regardless if the challenge came up during the XfD time frame or not. -- Ned Scott 07:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, or recreate as a redirect to {{uw-vblock}} to which it is redundant and inferior. Stifle (talk) 10:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Question? if there are substituted versions of the template that appear of current pages aren't we obligated to keep the history of the template showing its development under the terms of the GFDL license? Guest9999 (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- The existence of it in deleted contribs would satisfy the GFDL requirements for pages it is subst'd to. MBisanz talk 20:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- It would not, as we are to never assume that we can undelete a page. Deleted contribs could be purged at any time and without warning. -- Ned Scott 05:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ned, the developers I've spoken with have said that deleted contribs will never be removed from the database, its not a GFDL significant template, there are no rules at TFD prohibiting the deletion of subst'd templates, and if we want to be really particular, I'll list the 4 largest contributors to it in a deletion summary and on the TFD page as there were only four significant contributors. MBisanz talk 06:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- There are diminishing returns for debating the GFDL requirements of meta-templates here, (or most any template for that matter) requiring a much larger audience before making a decision primarily on that basis. — xaosflux Talk 12:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not actually concerned about a GFDL argument here, but I was simply pointing out that we never assume that we can always just undelete pages. -- Ned Scott 22:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- If somebody's taking the trouble to bring this to DRV, it's time to stop claiming nobody objected to deletion. May as well relist or recreate, no harm in more discussion here. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
|
