- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was keep-- Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 17:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Kmweber/Servantship Reform
Somewhat snarky, rambling user page about "servantship" (evidently a euphemism for adminship). Given that the user has left I see no hope of this orphaned proposal ever coming to fruition, and even if the user had stayed I don't see it happening either. Again, I'm not targeting Kurt in any way, I just don't see any purpose in keeping around the contents of his userspace. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Majorly talk 01:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, nominator said it all. — macy es: bot 04:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep User has not even been gone a month and page is well under a year old. Amazingly enough, many editors have left for several months and returned. As for opinion on the likelihood of adoption of any proposal, that has no relevance to the ability to hold opinions at all, nor on the right of a user to express those opinions in essay form. Were we to only allow opinionw which everyone else has, then what would that imply? Nay -- keep this short essay. No harm. Related to WP. And proper use of userspace. Collect ( talk) 12:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- It may be related to WP, but it seems rather … vicious. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 14:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- No specific person is attacked, as far as I can figure out. We are left with an opinion that it would not be adopted and that is is vaguely vicious -- neither of which, as far as I can tell, is a particular reason for deletion. We can not require than only proposals which will be adopted be in user space (kind of obvious) and as long as no particular person is attacked, I find no reason why "viciousness" (which I did not personally find in the article) is a particularly strong reason for deletion. YMMV. Collect ( talk) 17:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Can we not wait a while for the grave-trampling to commence? Yeesh. HiDrNick! 16:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- How is this grave trampling? Kmweber's vanishing is immaterial to this discussion. I would have nominated it just the same had Kurt not left. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Strong keep Kmweber recently left wikipedia.
Two days ago Ten pound hammer put up six of Kmweber's user subpages up for deletion: - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kmweber/In Progress/Karl Kae Knecht notes No policy mentioned, admits page is harmless.
- Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Kmweber/3RR_loophole_update_notice No policy reasoned mentioned for deletion, nominator states they have nothing against Kmweber
- Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Kmweber/In_Progress No policy reasoned mentioned for deletion.
- Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Kmweber/Some AfDs to fight WP:POINT mentioned, I don't understand how this user space page disrupts wikipedia.
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kmweber/Servantship Reform No policy reasoned mentioned for deletion. States that he is not targeting Kmweber
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kmweber/Welcome template No policy reasoned mentioned for deletion.
These pages are no more worthy of deletion than some of the nominator's own user subpages:
- All of knweber's user subpages meet Wikipedia:Subpage guidelines, even more than some of the nominator's own user pages (they are more directly related to wikipedia).
- User:Majorly and User:Macy made sure to be the first and second editors to vote delete in all of these user pages.
- Ten pound hammer supported the community ban of Kmweber: Kmweber community ban proposal (3rd), and also opposed his Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Kmweber
-
travb (
talk) 11:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Do you really think Majorly, Macy and I have some sort of hidden agenda? Yes, I supported community ban of Kmweber and voted against him in Arbcom, but I'm far from the only editor to have done so. I have nothing against Kurt, I just don't see any purpose in this page or any of the others I nominated. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - acceptable as a policy proposal, even if an inactive one. Should be marked as historical rather than deleted. Terraxos ( talk) 22:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- 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 page'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 miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was keep-- Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 17:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Kmweber/Servantship Reform
Somewhat snarky, rambling user page about "servantship" (evidently a euphemism for adminship). Given that the user has left I see no hope of this orphaned proposal ever coming to fruition, and even if the user had stayed I don't see it happening either. Again, I'm not targeting Kurt in any way, I just don't see any purpose in keeping around the contents of his userspace. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Majorly talk 01:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, nominator said it all. — macy es: bot 04:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep User has not even been gone a month and page is well under a year old. Amazingly enough, many editors have left for several months and returned. As for opinion on the likelihood of adoption of any proposal, that has no relevance to the ability to hold opinions at all, nor on the right of a user to express those opinions in essay form. Were we to only allow opinionw which everyone else has, then what would that imply? Nay -- keep this short essay. No harm. Related to WP. And proper use of userspace. Collect ( talk) 12:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- It may be related to WP, but it seems rather … vicious. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 14:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- No specific person is attacked, as far as I can figure out. We are left with an opinion that it would not be adopted and that is is vaguely vicious -- neither of which, as far as I can tell, is a particular reason for deletion. We can not require than only proposals which will be adopted be in user space (kind of obvious) and as long as no particular person is attacked, I find no reason why "viciousness" (which I did not personally find in the article) is a particularly strong reason for deletion. YMMV. Collect ( talk) 17:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Can we not wait a while for the grave-trampling to commence? Yeesh. HiDrNick! 16:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- How is this grave trampling? Kmweber's vanishing is immaterial to this discussion. I would have nominated it just the same had Kurt not left. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Strong keep Kmweber recently left wikipedia.
Two days ago Ten pound hammer put up six of Kmweber's user subpages up for deletion: - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kmweber/In Progress/Karl Kae Knecht notes No policy mentioned, admits page is harmless.
- Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Kmweber/3RR_loophole_update_notice No policy reasoned mentioned for deletion, nominator states they have nothing against Kmweber
- Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Kmweber/In_Progress No policy reasoned mentioned for deletion.
- Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Kmweber/Some AfDs to fight WP:POINT mentioned, I don't understand how this user space page disrupts wikipedia.
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kmweber/Servantship Reform No policy reasoned mentioned for deletion. States that he is not targeting Kmweber
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kmweber/Welcome template No policy reasoned mentioned for deletion.
These pages are no more worthy of deletion than some of the nominator's own user subpages:
- All of knweber's user subpages meet Wikipedia:Subpage guidelines, even more than some of the nominator's own user pages (they are more directly related to wikipedia).
- User:Majorly and User:Macy made sure to be the first and second editors to vote delete in all of these user pages.
- Ten pound hammer supported the community ban of Kmweber: Kmweber community ban proposal (3rd), and also opposed his Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Kmweber
-
travb (
talk) 11:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Do you really think Majorly, Macy and I have some sort of hidden agenda? Yes, I supported community ban of Kmweber and voted against him in Arbcom, but I'm far from the only editor to have done so. I have nothing against Kurt, I just don't see any purpose in this page or any of the others I nominated. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - acceptable as a policy proposal, even if an inactive one. Should be marked as historical rather than deleted. Terraxos ( talk) 22:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.