< September 22	September 24 >

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). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 23:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Bogdablock
• Template:GT
• Template:MascotGuy
• Template:TMECM
• Template:CapnCrack
• Template:Bonaparte-sock
• Template:Israelbeach
• Template:NicAgent
• Template:WoW-imitator
• Template:WordBomb
• Template:Universe Daily

Obsolete templates that only promote trolling account creations. If think this would fall under WP:DENY, although it's not policy. Subst and Delete. — Moe Epsilon 03:16 September 23 '06

• Keep Keep only templates for active vandals and subst and delete the rest. (pertaining to sockpuppet templates) I find it is necessary to inform blocked users that we suspect them of being WP:LTA sockpuppets, just in case for some off-shoot reason one of them really isn't. Tuxide 03:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So ((sockpuppet|Insert Users' name here)) doesn't work just as well. Theres nothing those templates provide different than other sockpuppet templates, other than they are designed for a specific user. If someone isn't a sockpuppet suspect anymore, you remove the template. And did you notice that all the subpages for WP:LTA's most notorious vandals (i.e WoW, WIC) have been deleted? We shouldn't glorify the vandals. — Moe Epsilon 03:58 September 23 '06

WP:LTA/MG hasn't been deleted, it is the only LTA article I pay attention to because he still vandalizes pages that I contribute to. I don't know if WoW is still active though, so I'll change my vote in response to your comment. Tuxide 04:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think WoW went through MFD. — Moe Epsilon 04:33 September 23 '06

• Keep - as I mentioned at CfD (and as has been mentioned above), these are still useful. Plus, if the templates already exist on a user page, I don't think that it should suddenly "disappear". The bogdonov affair one especially, works well, and is rather descriptive, which makes it inherently useful. If you think that these should be deleted, I suggest relisting them separately, since every one I've clicked so far has seemed useful. - jc37 06:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep useful in tracking vandals, -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, just as Chris said.--Gonzalo84 19:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. —dima/s-ko/ 20:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant with ((indefblockeduser)). The specific reason should be noted in the block summary; that's what it's for. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 03:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete except bogdablock. redundant generic templates work every bit as well, the additional effort in typing a proper summary is not that great. Per WP:DENY this is just another way to stroke the ego's of a small number of idiots. --pgk 08:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ((bogdablock)), as that template differs from the ones listed. Strong keep ((MascotGuy)), as one of those rare sockpuppeters that don't really fall under WP:DENY (he never responds to messages, anyways). Strong delete ((WoW-imitator)), per WP:DENY. No opinion on the other templates; I would suggest relisting them separately to gain a better consensus. —Whomp ^(myedits) 04:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all except ((Bogdablock)) Redundant to ((Sockpuppet)), ((SockpuppetProven)), and ((SockpuppetCheckuser)), except for ((Bogdablock)), which is unique enough that no other template can repace it. Jesse Viviano 16:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would agree with JV above, except that the templates in question add the page to a category (whether useful or not, I'm not commenting on). However, if there was a variation of template:Sockpuppet which would add all pages to a category, I think all but ((bogdablock)) could be deleted as replaced by the new template. Category title suggestion (where <username> is a "|" modifier to the template): Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of <username> Before deleting, obviously all the nomintaed templates would have to be replaced. - jc37 18:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Esssential for sockpuppet tracking. JFW | T@lk 20:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. I fail to see the usefulness in any of those. "Essential for sockpuppet tracking"? Gimme a break. A vandal is a vandal. I guess I would recommend TFDing these separately, as others seem to find individual ones useful. Grandmasterka 21:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have a different reason, and it's not the overrated Deny Recognition. I think having specialized user name templates would waste time of a ((indefblock)) and it would be meaningless. My vote is delete all except the Bogdablock template. VelairWight 04:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please substitute Template:Universe Daily if deleted, thanks. Kevin_b_er 05:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• del after substituting ((Sockpuppet)), with parameterized category is sufficient for individual tracking of socks. `'mikka (t) 20:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, all are necessary, they just need to be dealt with like ((indefblock)) was. Ryūlóng 05:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename all to ((sockpuppet-Vandal)) (replacing vandal with the sockpuppeter) and make the look exactly like ((sockpuppet)). This will make it easy to tag sockpuppets without giving them recognition. 72.139.119.165 18:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, not a glorification of vandals by any means. ((bogdablock)) is informational; this isn't promotion of a vandal,

it's more putting them in the stocks or pillory - believe me, it humiliated a few long-term vandals on my m:MediaWiki installation! But if they get deleted, move them to the test Wikipedia. --82.42.237.173 09:04, 2 October 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 23:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Major League Baseball teams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It is not being used anywhere, and the MLB template is a better template and being used. This template was up for deletion in September of 2004, and the only comment was to keep this one because the name was spelled out. Figgie123 01:52, 23 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedied per all that is decent. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 23:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User 911 good (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hateful, disrespectful and inflammatory userbox that congratulates Osama bin Laden for executing the September 11 attacks. Gdo01 18:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied. One of the most offensive userboxes I've ever seen, and I've seen a few. Antandrus (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as (needlessly) inflammatory (see also: the WP:T1D discussion). - jc37 19:51, 23 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED breaches a dozen policies and creates a new one. If you want to change our policies , then start a debates somewhere and get consensus, in the meantime this must NEVER be used. I'm deleting it as basically an attack page.-Doc 11:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Two (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia doesn't have a "two strikes" policy for vandalism, although users could warn vandals with ((bv)) and ((test4im)) in severe cases. Also, this template is on the verge of insulting vandals. --Ixfd64 21:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Very inflammatory and insulting to vandals. -- FrostytheSnowman ^'sup? 12:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--I know we all feel like doing it sometimes, but calling vandals "idiots" is not going to make them go away; it's going to have the opposite effect. Antandrus (talk) 04:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is no "two strikes policy". Grandmasterka 21:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Two strikes? Two strikes is a bad (and nonexistent) policy to start with and if there WERE such a policy, I could see a lot of editors who simply don't know any better being quite alienated by this template. Needlessly inflammatory. Irongargoyle 23:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh. I created it as a shortcut for the explanation I leave when I have to block someone who's being a vandal several times within the space of two or three minutes. Revert, warn, notice that the same article has been vandalized again, revert again, warn again, note that the person has committed six more vandalisms in the time it took me to load their userpage and leave a second- or third-level warning... if someone is vandalizing many articles and ignoring warnings, they need to be stopped right away. It's my personal "two strikes" policy. Experiments are fine. When it's clear they know what they're doing, it's less fine. I'd rather this not be deleted, and I'm open to having it modified to address the concerns mentioned here, but if it does get deleted, so be it. DS 14:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Comment. This is for after you put up a blatantvandal and test4 template, because the person has blatantly vandalised at least three times in a few minutes, and now some or many admins would agree a block is in order. The language is "two strikes" because they get at least two chances, and then they're blocked. I could agree with changing "idiot" to something else, but I feel this is a common sense template that does not insult nor mollycoddle those who are obviously vandalising many articles in a short period of time. TransUtopian 06:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Breaks WP:CIVIL, I can't believe an admin made this. Unless it was a joke. T REX_speak 18:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, completely inappropriate in tone. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:15, 2 October 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.