Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kmweber/Welcome template


 * 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  Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Kmweber/Welcome template
Inappropriate welcome template, misrepresents most of our rules by saying "you should be aware that most of these [so called "policies"] totally non-binding. Generally, they are simply descriptions of what has typically happened in the past, that at most are suggestions that we are not obligated to abide by." Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  Majorly  talk  01:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Misrepresenting Wikipedia rules to new users is actively harmful. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 02:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. In general, I would oppose deletion of material from Kmweber's userspace, which would come off as an unnecessary piling-on in the wake of his departure. But well before Kurt left, I had expressed my grave concerns about this template. Misusing new-user welcomes to confront brand-new editors with "wikipolitical" issues is severely deprecated (see, Requests for arbitration/Karmafist), and this template should not remain available for use. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The overwhelming responsibility of an editor is to improve the encyclopedia, and that is what this message boils down to. If we wish to delete anything similar to this, then we should start with IAR and a few dozen other pages first.  Collect (talk) 12:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How is this "similar" to IAR? This template basically says "Ignore the rules all the time, notability is a crock of *!#@". Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 14:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually this template says ceetain rules are there for legal reasons. Nor does it say "notability is a crock" of anything.  It specifically says to try improving WP -- which, I trust, is a non-censorable opinion. I fear reading too much into something may be a bad thing.  Collect (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * While it does say that certain rules are present for legal reasons, it also says that the rest are "descriptions of what has typically happened in the past" and "suggestions that we are not obligated to abide by". Treating 3RR or NPOV (for instance) as "suggestions" is terrible advice. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 20:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - while I agree with the section about 'using critical thinking and rationality', the rest of the template implies that you should ignore nearly all the rules all the time, whereas IAR says 'ignore the rules if they prevent you from doing something to benefit WP'. This template would simply cause confusion in new users.  RichardΩ612  Ɣ ɸ 16:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete welcome templates should not mislead new users. Hut 8.5 18:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Too WP:BITE y welcome template. —macyes: bot 20:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Can we not wait a while for the grave-trampling to commence?  Yeesh.   Hi DrNick ! 16:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How is this grave trampling? Kmweber's vanishing has nothing to do with this discussion; I would have nominated this anyway. Also, you don't think a template that's basically telling users to ALWAYS ignore the rules is a problem? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Kmweber recently left wikipedia.
 * {| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed"

!align=left|Two days ago Ten pound hammer put up six of Kmweber's user subpages up for deletion:
 * 1) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kmweber/In Progress/Karl Kae Knecht notes No policy mentioned, admits page is harmless.
 * 2) Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Kmweber/3RR_loophole_update_notice No policy reasoned mentioned for deletion, nominator states they have nothing against Kmweber
 * 3) Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Kmweber/In_Progress No policy reasoned mentioned for deletion.
 * 4) Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Kmweber/Some AfDs to fight WP:POINT mentioned, I don't understand how this user space page disrupts wikipedia.
 * 5) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kmweber/Servantship Reform No policy reasoned mentioned for deletion. States that he is not targeting Kmweber
 * 6) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kmweber/Welcome template No policy reasoned mentioned for deletion.
 * 1) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kmweber/Servantship Reform No policy reasoned mentioned for deletion. States that he is not targeting Kmweber
 * 2) 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:
 * User:TenPoundHammer/Awp-gray, User:TenPoundHammer/Stuff I like, User:TenPoundHammer/Country, User:TenPoundHammer/Put a little effort into it, User:TenPoundHammer/Writing better music articles


 * }
 * All of knweber's user subpages meet 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 (Except on this page) 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) 11:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a user template, and if the editor is in fact gone, he will no longer be using it. The editor is welcome to his opinion, editors are not going to go crazy because they have this template on their user page. travb (talk) 10:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm going to have to disagree with Newyorkbrad here - I think this is actually one of the few of Kmweber's pages which has some merit to it. Granted, the welcome message is somewhat 'political', but I don't think it says anything that's actually incorrect or incompatible with Wiki-policy; I would not have a problem with users being welcomed with this template. Terraxos (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I think it is kind of pointless to keep this if the newbie will be directed to a "this user has left Wikipedia" when he tries to contact Kmweber.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 07:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. While the template might not actually break any rules, using it unneccesarily confuses new editors which is harmful to Wikipedia. Just because it's allowed, doesn't mean it's a good idea. -- Mgm|(talk) 13:52, 7 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.