[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Some Person/The Real Secret Page and Secret Barnstar

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 per WP:UP#GAMES and WP:NOTMYSPACE, as well as WP:NOT. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Some Person/The Real Secret Page and User:Some Person/Secret Barnstar[edit]

Useless "secret pages" that serves no purpose on this encyclopedia (per WP:UP#GAMES). Also this user has only 1023 contributions (yes I counted all of them). :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 23:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Any editors that use a very strict interpretation of the WP:UP#GAMES guideline (and please note that it's not policy, just a guideline) would probably say it's "not closely related" to Wikipedia goals. However, I argue that if users are otherwise "... active participants in the project", this harmless diversion helps keep unpaid volunteers interested enough to contribute in the bread and butter areas. Both quotes from WP:UP#GAMES. This user has contributed enough elsewhere to indicate that he/she is not just here for fun and games. If it was only enough to get autoconfirmed, I would vote delete. In other words, this kind of fun indirectly contributes to Wikipedia by helping morale, as long as the users don't go overboard. Even corporations have come around to the need to provide socializing and play time as a productivity booster overall. I even got neck massages paid for by my company during working hours. I don't remember which one, but one of the famous dot.com companies even had pinball and other game machines installed on company premises for needed relaxation. BTW, I also support keeping humorous userboxen; same reason. (Disclosure: I won a barnstar finding a secret page). — Becksguy (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You note that you won a barnstar for finding a secret page. That demonstrates how barnstars are being devalued; instead of being given to users for reverting vandalism, creating content, or helping new users, barnstars are being given to encourage users to play games. I am strongly against that. Cunard (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very good argument, Cunard. Your right, that barnstar doesn't mean much, since it wasn't based on hard work. And I agree that barnstars are generally devalued by issuing inconsequential ones, so maybe the prize should be something other than a barnstar. — Becksguy (talk) 09:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A prize would still mean that this page violates WP:UP#GAMES. You argued above that an editor's history of productive edits allows him/her to have secret pages. I believe this is wrong. Neither WP:UP#GAMES nor WP:NOTMYSPACE condones Wikipedians with serious edits who use Wikipedia as a web host or as a game. Why should established editors who violate policy be treated differently from less serious editors who violate policy? Shouldn't established editors who have many constructive edits serve as examples to those who have less constructive edits? I believe that all editors are equal and should be treated equally when they violate policy. Cunard (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep i have seen simliar such things no harm no foul. The ole saying goes that discussions like this end up requiring more memory on the server than the page itself contains Weaponbb7 (talk)
No i think its just a more of a waste time to argue about it. we give great leeway in userspace. I think this is should be no exception. plus apparently man have signed it with no issues. Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have not provided a policy-based reason for keeping this page. Cunard (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo thinks its ok, I don't need to state a policy, I dont think there is any policy violated. This is not unique to this user. Frankly i don't see any reason to delete it. Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)user[reply]
User:Jack has even created a subpage which i have shamelessly ripped off and created a list in my user space for convenience of this discussion. Its Juvenile yes. but no harm no foul Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you agree that this page violates WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:UP#GAMES? Please explain why if you disagree.

In my opinion, these pages are harmful because they promote an atmosphere of social-networking where barnstars are devalued. I copy what I said above to Becksguy: "instead of being given to users for reverting vandalism, creating content, or helping new users, barnstars are being given to encourage users to play games." Cunard (talk) 06:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:UP#GAMES which states that examples of unrelated content to writing an encyclopedia are "[g]ames, roleplaying sessions, secret pages and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia". Such activities are generally frowned upon by the community, and where the games involve people who are not active participants in the project such pages are routinely deleted at MfD." Cunard (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The page and Delete the barnstar. For the barnstar, I do think that they are a waste, and they, along with guestbook barnstars, are quite a bit myspacey. As for the actual page, I would like to direct whoever reads this to everything that I have said (other than the barnstar stuff; I changed my mind about those) at this MfD. I really don't want to go through another argument like that, unless there is an MfD for secret pages in general. I think that people should hold off on these secret page MfDs until someone decides that it is worth it to create Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2. These just waste space, when we could just have a discussion that would hopefully end this for good. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 20:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:UP is just that: a guideline. WP:NOTMYSPACE lists these: Personal webpage, and it says that pages should provide a foundation for collaboration, which this does just as much as guestbooks. It says not to use it as a file storage area, which it is not. Not for a memorial, which it is definitely is not. And last, not a dating service, which I definitely hope it never becomes. I am done with this argument, and I will not argue about secret pages with anyone at all until WP:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2 is started. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 22:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discounting the guideline WP:UP#GAMES solely because it is a guideline is your choice, but the consensus at WP:UP is that secret pages are games and should be discouraged. The opening paragraph of WP:NOTMYSPACE says, "Wikipedia is not a social network like MySpace or Facebook. You may not host your own website, blog, or wiki at Wikipedia." By playing games on Wikipedia, users are treating Wikipedia like MySpace, where social-networking occurs, and Facebook, where games (albeit not of this nature) abound. By treating Wikipedia as their game servers, such users are violating WP:NOTWEBHOST #1 Personal web pages.

    This page is not being used as a foundation for collaboration—it is being used as a foundation for social-networking, as evinced by the comments on the page:
    1. Easy, and totally useless. -- 22:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    2. Are you serious? That was waaaaaaaay too easy. -- 03:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
    3. HA! Admittedly, not TOO challenging with the Prefix Index. -- 13:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

    Comment #3 acknowledges that secret pages can be found with Special:PrefixIndex, which defeats the purpose of this game. This is a "useless" page, as noted by comment #1 on 23 September 2007, and should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 04:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree; starting another discussion like that will be a waste of time, as we can already predict the outcome based on the previous MfD. For this reason, I looked through the user's contributions, and if they have 1000 or less edits, and that those edits are mainly to their userpage, the secret page they create will have an easier time being deleted at an MfD. That is the basis for the creation of this MfD as well as the one about User:The Obento Musubi. Currently, User:Some Person has had 1023 edits in four years, which seems to be about three edits per week. That's not a very substantial number of edits; I wouldn't have created this MfD, if say they contributed 2000 edits to mainspace instead. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 23:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both Secret pages and fake barnstars send the wrong message to would-be editors: we are not here to repeat tired jokes, or to engage in social networking. In moderation, creative fun in userspace is fine, but secret pages are not helpful to the encyclopedia, and do not provide appropriate inspiration to others. Johnuniq (talk) 08:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:NOTMYSPACE does not mention secret pages or games. It clearly does not apply in this case, and arguments that attempt to use WP:NOTMYSPACE in this case for policy based deletion have no legs. However, WP:UP#GAMES does apply here. But it's only a guideline, not a policy like WP:BLP that absolutely requires neutral and heavily sources content on living people, as an example. WP:UP#GAMES does not forbid this content, it just discourages them for non-productive users by referring to "Excessive unrelated content" as a section header. Which clearly means the unrelated content that is not excessive is not discouraged. Also, the guideline says: "... where the games involve people who are not active participants in the project such pages are routinely deleted at MfD." Again, the intent is to discourage those that are otherwise non-productive. Productive users, per that guideline, are permitted a reasonable amount of fun. I think it is obvious that the secret page in this case clears the bar set by WP:UP#GAMES, and is therefor permitted usage. Clearly no one here thinks that users should be able to do nothing but create secret pages. Cunard said "Are secret pages directly harmful? No, they are fairly innocuous." If the main proponent for deletion admits that secret pages are innocuous and not harmful, and if the relevant guideline clearly does not forbid them, and actually permits them, then why are we here? I don't see any rationale for deletion; policy, guideline, or consensus based. — Becksguy (talk) 11:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTMYSPACE / WP:NOTWEBHOST says, "[y]ou may not host your own website, blog, or wiki at Wikipedia." Some Person (talk · contribs) is a hosting a game on Wikipedia's servers and is thus violating this policy.

    You are misquoting me; I explained why this secret page is harmful.diff The quote is from A Stop at Willoughby (talk · contribs) who has a slightly different perspective than I on this matter.

    WP:UP#GAMES says:

    Games, roleplaying sessions, secret pages and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia". Such activities are generally frowned upon by the community, and where the games involve people who are not active participants in the project such pages are routinely deleted at MfD.

    Nowhere does it note or imply that productive users are allowed to violate policies and guidelines to host secret pages. There are no vested contributors. I strongly agree with A Stop at Willoughby (talk · contribs)'s comments about this:

    [W]e block admins for edit-warring just as we block regular editors for the same; we don't maintain a double standard. I believe that we should avoid a double standard regarding secret pages as well. We should not be telling newer users who ask, "Why are you deleting my secret pages and letting admin X keep his?" that "Admin X is a better user than you, that's why." That's unacceptable; we should only pass judgement on an editor's merits if he solicits such judgement (i.e. at WP:RfA, WP:RfB, WP:RfBAG, WP:ER, etc.) or if his conduct is so problematic as to demand such judgement (i.e. at WP:RFC/U, WP:WQA, WP:ANI, etc.).

    Cunard (talk) 05:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That discussion was for the very limited and sole purpose of including the phrase "secret pages" in WP:User pages and it succeeded. Everyone agrees that WP:UP#GAMES applies here. However, the guideline was not changed to forbid secret pages, rather it permits secret pages for otherwise productive editors. And "global" is big stretch. As such, that discussion is irrelevant in this MfD. — Becksguy (talk) 08:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:UP and Jclemens. ----moreno oso (talk) 05:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete User pages are not your webhost. We allow some lenience to introduce yourself and to use your space for communications and tools to improve the work. But the intent of thing like NOTMYSPACE is that the allowance of user pages is not for your amusement. Precedent has deleted pages like these before, no reason to change now. --MASEM (t) 06:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not your web host, not a social network. —chaos5023 (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. NOTMYSPACE does not preclude any kind of social interaction on Wikipedia - obviously we permit a limited amount of social interaction for the purpose of community building, such as friendly greetings, barnstars, birthday wishes, and so on. Relationships between editors are extremely valuable to the project for getting real work done. The question here is not whether these pages are socializing (they obviously are) but whether their cost in time and resources exceeds their potential benefits. I'd argue that since User:Some Person is an active editor and not using Wikipedia exclusively or excessively for social purposes, there is not a problem. Dcoetzee 02:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTMYSPACE says, "The focus of user pages should not be social networking or amusement, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration." In other words, has Some Person's interactions with other users through secret pages allowed him/her to collaborate with them on an article or on a project that benefits the encyclopedia? No such evidence has provided in this MfD discussion. The burden of evidence is on those supporting retention to explain how User:Some Person/The Real Secret Page provides Some Person with a "foundation for effective collaboration". Otherwise, the policy WP:NOTMYSPACE should not be ignored and this page should be deleted.

    With only five edits in 2010—four of which consist of moves— I do not consider Some Person (talk · contribs) to be active. Cunard (talk) 04:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually WP:NOTMYSPACE does not say that. The phrase "or amusement" was added without consensus, and I removed it. The policy change will be discussed separately from this MfD. — Becksguy (talk) 13:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The RfC lasts for 30 days, so what ever consensus trend one thinks may be, or may not be, developing there can't be used in this MfD, as the MfD will be closed in about two days, long before consensus in the RfC is determined by an uninvolved admin. The RfC and this MfD have been decoupled. WP:NOTMYSPACE officially does not include the phrase "or amusement" (or link) at this point. It may at some point. Or not. — Becksguy (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (1) Even if WP:NOTMYSPACE applied here (and I don't believe it does), the quotation from there is: "The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration." In that quote, "should" does not mean "must". "Should" denotes a somewhat flexible requirement, and "must" denotes an absolute requirement. Contrast the term "should" as used from WP:NOTMYSPACE with the terms "must" and "absolutely never acceptable" as used in these quotes from two policy pages: From WP:BLP: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." and from WP:NPA: "... some types of comments are absolutely never acceptable". (2) Also, from WP:NOT, in the top box, it says: "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow." It doesn't say it absolutely must be followed, and it also refers to "common sense" and "normally" (also not restrictive). Bolded terms in the quotes are mine. (3) In addition, if secret pages are a form of social networking, then so are all userboxes, birthday greetings, cookies, all YouTube links, any personal info (age, sex, city, religion, etc), all photos not used in mainspace, all chit chat in talk or Wikipedia space not absolutely directly related to article content or Wikipedia governance, and finally, all user pages. (4) We have always held that a small amount of social relating content, outside of mainspace and if done by otherwise productive editors, that help facilitate the collaborative nature of Wikipedia is acceptable. Excessive social networking, or social networking for it's own sake only, is obviously not helpful in building an encyclopedia. (5) This secret page falls within the acceptable area that aids in establishing a collaborative environment. Games that include outsiders would not. (6) Note that I just !voted to delete in two MfDs on secret pages [1] [2] (comprising some 11 pages) due to lack of constructive Wikipedia content, which I believe illustrates the difference between game playing for it's own sake and as part of a productive Wikipedia context. (7) That's the common sense point (per WP:NOT) I'm trying to get across. — Becksguy (talk) 04:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. You are arguing semantics now. Nonetheless, the entry for should from dictionary.com says that "must" and "ought" are the definitions of "should". That WP:NPA uses stronger language than WP:NOTMYSPACE is no reason to ignore WP:NOTMYSPACE.
    2. That you are now arguing that the policy WP:NOT should be ignored per WP:IAR demonstrates the weakness of your position. WP:IAR says, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."

    "[I]mproving" links to WP:IMPROVE, which does not condone social networking and hosting games on Wikipedia. Neither does "maintaining", which links to Wikipedia:Maintenance. In fact, deleting this page would help improve and maintain Wikipedia by removing outdated games that are being hosted on the servers of an encyclopedia.
    3. WP:OTHERSTUFF applies to this. I note that I have already provided an explanation has been provided for why userboxes, etc. fall under a "foundation for collaboration". See the quote I posted from A Stop at Willoughby on 19:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC).
    4. You argue that "social networking for it's own sake only, is obviously not helpful in building an encyclopedia". I argue that de facto this secret page and its associated barnstar are social networking for the sake of social networking only.
    5. You have yet to explain how this page is a "foundation for effective collaboration". I repeat again: has Some Person's interactions with other users through secret pages allowed him/her to collaborate with them on an article or on a project that benefits the encyclopedia? No such evidence has provided in this MfD discussion. The burden of evidence is on those supporting retention to explain how User:Some Person/The Real Secret Page provides Some Person with a "foundation for effective collaboration". Otherwise, the policy WP:NOTMYSPACE should not be ignored and this page should be deleted.
    6.
    a. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mingushead000/Error/Ssssssecret page – this MfD was on the pages of an indefinitely-blocked user. It would have been extremely lacking common sense if you supported retention of those pages.
    b. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Fiddlekid's secret pages – You supported deleting those pages because the editor was less productive than the one whose page we are currently discussing. In effect, you supported deleting Fiddlekid's pages because Fiddlekid didn't have the arbitrary number of mainspace edits or content contributions that makes an editor be considered productive. You argued that an editor's history of productive edits allows him/her to have secret pages. I believe this is wrong. Neither WP:UP#GAMES nor WP:NOTMYSPACE condones Wikipedians with serious edits who use Wikipedia as a web host or as a game. Why should established editors who violate policy be treated differently from less serious editors who violate policy? Shouldn't established editors who have many constructive edits serve as examples to those who have less constructive edits? I believe that all editors are equal and should be treated equally when they violate policy.

    This brings me back to an example I provided earlier. I will provide a more personalized one. Let's say that Fiddlekid returns to Wikipedia after a lengthy hiatus. He notices the "new messages" banner, clicks on it, and is surprised to discovers that his secret pages have been deleted. Fiddlekid clicks on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Fiddlekid's secret pages and discovers links to WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:UP#GAMES which explain why the page has been deleted.

    Then, Fiddleclick starts contributing to articles more and less to Myspacing. One day, he finds a secret page from a "productive editor" that has not been deleted. Believing that all editors are treated equally when they violate policy, Fiddleclick nominates the secret page for deletion whereupon users flood the MfD page saying "Keep. This editor is productive and is here to build the encyclopedia so the page should be kept."

    How would Fiddleclick react to that? Perhaps he would think: people support keeping this user's page because he is better and more popular than I. Why else would people delete my page and not his?" Would Fiddleclick wish to contribute to this project anymore? I think not.

    Is this the message we want to be giving new users? That tenure, content contributions, and a high number of edits to the mainspace "buys" them the right to host secret pages on Wikipedia's servers. I hope not, which is why I am strongly against deleting secret pages for some editors and then keeping them for a "clique" of "productive editors". All editors should be treated fairly and equally—this secret page should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 06:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not going to do a point by point response. We both have stated our !votes and our arguments and counter arguments at great length. The tensions related to the philosophies of "all editors are equal", "productive editors get more leeway", "experienced editors should be role models", and so on, as well as the meaning of various terms will not be resolved here. Thank you for a discussion that remained civil. We can continue this elsewhere. I feel sorry for the admin that gets to close this almost 38K byte discussion. I'm done. — Becksguy (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry, but there's no encyclopedic reason to have a secret page or any page based thereupon. Wikipedia is not a webhost, so we shouldn't keep anything and everything; and there's a long history of deleting secret pages. Nyttend (talk) 11:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is neither a free web host nor a game website. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:32, 4 August 2010 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Some_Person/The_Real_Secret_Page_and_Secret_Barnstar&oldid=1136087391"