Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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  It seems clear that the consensus here is not do to a mass nomination, as the creator of the MFD agreed for an WP:RFC on these secret pages, it's fairly easy to close this MFD as moot (former-admin close) Secret account 01:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Secret pages 2
Previous MfD: Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages

Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2 and User pages/Secret pages to be deleted list the pages nominated for deletion

On 5 April 2008, Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages was closed as nominate secret pages on a case by case basis. No consensus could be derived from that discussion because there was no consensus as to whether or not secret pages violate any policies or guidelines. Since then, consensus has been reached:


 * In an April 2010 discussion at Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 7, consensus was that secret pages should be discouraged by the User pages guideline.
 * In an July/August requests for comment held at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 34, consensus was that secret pages violate the policy What Wikipedia is not, specifically WP:NOTMYSPACE.

The secret pages under consideration for deletion are on two pages, with some overlap.
 * Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2 – I have vetted http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=383882596 and removed the false positives.
 * User pages/Secret pages to be deleted – this page was compiled from User:MiszaBot/PSP. The false positives are crossed out.

The arguments for deleting secret pages are summarized in the essay Why secret pages should be deleted. Secret pages should be deleted per WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:UP:


 * WP:UP 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." (mine emphasized)


 * WP:NOTMYSPACE says, "The focus of user pages should not be social networking or amusement, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration."

The following is an argument from for deleting secret pages: WP:MYSPACE, as you know, is a longstanding part of a core Wikipedia policy, WP:NOT. It states: "Wikipedia is not a social network like MySpace or Facebook. You may not host your own website, blog, or wiki at Wikipedia. [U]ser pages...may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. ... The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration."

Some secret pages are in the userspaces of active editors who did not register a Wikipedia account for the purpose of social networking. However, this policy is clearly applicable to all Wikipedia users, not just users who have registered accounts solely for the purpose of social networking. Therefore, all users must avoid creating material in or adding content to their userspace that is used solely for social networking, instead utilizing their userspace to provide "a foundation for effective collaboration." Some userspace content that is borderline social networking is protected by this "foundation for collaboration" clause:
 * a) Userboxes Although userboxes are often not related to the construction of the encyclopedia, they allow editors to get to know other editors better. By learning about other editors' interests, hobbies, views and biases, etc., a "foundation for collaboration" is built.
 * b) Barnstars Barnstars are usually related, directly or tangentially, to the construction of the encyclopedia. They also allow editors to commend other editors for their work. Although some barnstars are irrelevant to the construction of the encyclopedia, most are sufficiently relevant to building a "foundation for collaboration."
 * c) Signature pages Although I personally dislike signature pages, they do allow editors to expand their contacts in the Wikipedia community by meeting other editors, thus assisting in building a "foundation for collaboration."

However, secret pages and other games are not only completely irrelevant to the encyclopedia – they also do not and cannot serve any purpose with regards to "providing a foundation for effective collaboration." They might be acceptable on a site designed for such social networking, such as Facebook or MySpace, but not on Wikipedia. While it is true that, in general, these pages are not described by their creators as "social networking" or "games," I argue that de facto that's what they are. In the long run, it will be helpful to draw a line in the sand here, so WP:MYSPACE will be taken more seriously in the future.

Are secret pages directly harmful? No, they are fairly innocuous. However, we have to keep in mind that most users who have secret pages are not very productive editors in the mainspace or in project maintenance/administration. Let's not lose sight of the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, first and foremost, and therefore we have no obligation to allow those who are not contributing much to use Wikipedia as a playground for social networking. Wikipedia is a community, but it's not a community in the traditional sense where members spend nearly all of their time. If someone wants to social network, they can do so on numerous websites – just not on Wikipedia. That's the essence of WP:MYSPACE.

To the creators of a secret pages: The deletion of these pages is not a reflection on you; instead, it is a reflection of the changing community consensus that secret pages set an inappropriate ethos at Wikipedia.

Cunard (talk) 06:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I have notified all the participants of Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 7, Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 34, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hi878/Secret Page List, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Some Person/The Real Secret Page and Secret Barnstar about this MfD. Cunard (talk) 07:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment why haven't you templated the nominated pages? DuncanHill (talk) 10:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll interject here and say that, because of the large amount of miscellaneous pages up for templating, the amount of time and the number of userspace edits wasted to perform such a task, as well as the nature of the previous MfD, I think I would be inclined to give good faith to the nominator for not templating the secret pages. :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  11:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Precisely per TeleComNasSprVen's reasoning. I planned to template the pages after 24 hours of discussion if consensus was in favor of mass deletion. If consensus was not in favor of mass deletion, templating those pages would not be advisable because the templates would have to be removed from over 100 pages at the end of the discussion. Cunard (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, nominating things for deletion without letting watchlisters know is poor form, especially when the nominated pages are scattered over two different pages, interspersed with redlinks and struck-through entries, making it hard for anyone apart from the nominator to be clear about what actually is nominated. The first page I looked at actually told viewers to go off and write an article instead, which suggests a less-than-thorough nomination process anyway. DuncanHill (talk) 11:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct about User:NE2/secretpage, in that it is not a secret page that should be deleted. It was struck out when I first nominated the pages, but removed the and tags, writing "definitely a standard secret page". I disagree with him (my commentary was "this secret page has wise words"), so have reverted him. I agree with the proposal by Sphilbrick below. A Proposed Deletion (misc) seems to be the best way to deal with secret pages. Cunard (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is why you need to remove the redlinks and struck items before nominating en masse. DuncanHill (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Utterly opposed to a blanket policy, and feel that proposals for routine deletion of "secret" pages shew a profound lack of understanding of how humans interact and build the positive, effective, relationships necessary for collaborative working. People get to know each other best not through looking at userboxes and lists of articles or interests (though these do help), but through what can be best described as play. Jokes, little challenges to each other, the occasional silly game, these are how human beings learn about each other's strengths and weaknesses. There is something horribly Gradgrindish about these perennial proposals to make Wikipedia as unenjoyable my spellchecker suggested "unendurable" as possible. DuncanHill (talk) 07:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Jokes are acceptable. Humor pages are acceptable. Secret pages such as User:Evaunit666/Secret page are not. There are many ways to enjoy Wikipedia without using it as a game server. You say that people get to know each other through secret page games. No, they do not. After receiving a secret page barnstar from one user, they are off on another secret page hunt. Users get to know each other through building the encyclopedia through content work and vandalism patrol. Those who get to know each other through secret pages do not go on to build content together. They either social network together or disappear from each other's views. Cunard (talk) 08:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Cunard, why do you feel the need to waste so much time looking for "secret" pages? You are doing nothing to promote collaborative working by doing so, or by raising XfDs like this one. Unlike you, the only time I spend on them is when this perennial, miserable, puritanical proposal crops up. DuncanHill (talk) 08:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not look for secret pages. and  do. Improving and maintaining the encyclopedia by removing inappropriate pages is the purpose of this MfD. Cunard (talk) 08:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not agree that your proposal would improve the encuclopaedia. Rather, it would damage it, by creating a miserable, no-fun-allowed, atmosphere. You seem to think that people must only enjoy themselves in ways approved by you. The world isn't like that - you cannot legislate for fun. And there'd be bugger all encyclopaedia if people didn't enjoy being here. You make me less likely to contribute content when you make proposals like this, because it makes me miserable to think that I should be enabling such anti-social behaviour. DuncanHill (talk) 08:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Wikipedia must not become a place where such tiny, innocuous distractions are regulated and removed. That is not the way to run a cooperative community. Now that the easy part of building the largest reference work in history is done, our survival depends on the creation and maintenance of a stable, functioning community, exclusively online, and out of the sort of people who consider picking nits off an encyclopedia to be fun. If that doesn't scare you, it should. That is not accomplished by intruding into secret pages, which are a way to spend all of a couple of minutes to catch a break and make Wikipedia a bit more fun. God knows we need that, with our arguments and morass of The Rules.  This may seem like an oddly strong reaction to a small matter. There's not a lot of secret pages. Overlegislation is not a small matter, though, and neither is the prospect of treating our contributors, volunteers all, with such an utter lack of respect that we forbid them this tiny bit of userspace content out of fear that they'd abuse it. --Kiz o  r  07:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You are misquoting me. The quote is from who has a slightly different perspective than I on this matter. I am providing his quote to explain the difference between secret pages and guestbooks and why I will not nominate guestbooks for deletion. In my opinion, secret pages are harmful because they promote an atmosphere of social networking where barnstars are 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. Cunard (talk) 08:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is true. I removed the mention from "There's not a lot of secret pages and even the nominator admits that they're "fairly innocuous."" Sorry. --Kiz o r  08:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict] – Opposed for many of the same reasons as Duncan Hill's. Better that editors learn about each other through harmless, positive interaction than by trading grudges and plotting together against third party editors, no matter how irksome the latter may be. And, so long as the principal purpose of an editor's being on Wikipedia is to improve the project in some way, what's wrong with a little fun? Let me give credit here to Cunard for notifying me of this discussion when s/he probably knew that my views would be opposed to his or hers. One could add Edward Murdstone with his sister Jane and Ebenezer Scrooge before his conversion to the analogies. ¶ By the way, I don't buy without a further demonstration that editors with secret pages are significantly less productive than average ones, nor that they would be more productive if their secret pages were deleted or banned. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Deleting secret pages may or may not make editors more productive. The core reasons for deletion are the devaluing of barnstars and the abuse of Wikipedia as a webhost. Wikipedia is not a game server for people to host their games. There are plenty of ways to have "harmless, positive interaction than by trading grudges and plotting together against third party editors". One example is the WikiCup where prizes are awarded to participants for building the encyclopedia. Cunard (talk) 08:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Different people have different learning styles and we should respect that and be prepared to embrace a bit more diversity. Just because my customary learning style didn't lead me to experiment with wiki markup by making sekrit pages doesn't mean that I can't tolerate it in others, sometimes I wish we could persuade more newbies to do their early edits in userspace. I agree with longstanding policy against us hosting stuff for people who don't edit - but this attempt to drive away a group of editors strikes me as at best intolerant and counter-productive. It also goes directly against Wikimedia strategy, Especially the bits about introducing "features similar to social networking sites" such as in Attracting and retaining participants  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  08:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not an "attempt to drive away a group of editors". It is an attempt to remove inappropriate pages from the encyclopedia. The WikiCup is the perfect place for fun and improving the encyclopedia. Contests such as the WikiCup should be encouraged and fit well with Wikimedia strategy. Secret pages do not because they tend not to "attract and retain participants". They tend to attract participants but not retain them. Cunard (talk) 08:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting theory, I would have thought the opposite conclusion was more likely - deleting such pages does not seem to me a great way to try and retain such editors. Can you point me to the research that indicates that "They tend to attract participants but not retain them"?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  10:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict] — Comment: The Wikicup is not my cup of tea, but I agree that barnstars shouldn't be devalued (nor should they be actively sought; they're just a welcome but usually unexpected sign of appreciation). If a secret page creator needs to offer some equivalent of a pot of gold, I'd much prefer that cookies or some other token be used (although finding the page should really be its own "reward"), and no such reward was offered at the only secret page I visited mainly out of curiosity (after it stopped being secret). —— Shakescene (talk) 08:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, who cares? I don't do what I do here for barnstars (if I did, I'd do something besides gnoming and occasionally tackling the CSD queue, the second of which will get you a lot of abuse but very few barnstars), but if someone else likes to give or get the occasional one, who cares? These pages aren't particularly disruptive. If someone gets disruptive with them (putting them into non-user namespaces, etc.), we can deal with that, but I know of no such case actually occurring. Honestly, this crusade is much more disruptive than the problem it purports to address. Let people have fun and blow off a little steam if they're not disrupting the project by doing so. That's part of having a working community, especially one built entirely of volunteers. No one wants to volunteer for Mr. Gradgrind. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose blanket deletion of these pages. It's probably appropriate to handle this on an editor by editor basis (deleting the pages if they reach excessive numbers or the editor is causing disruption), but as this is basically harmless and is a means of encouraging people to register accounts I don't see a need for mass deletion - if only a small proportion of the people who start on Wikipedia to mess about with secret pages move into serious article editing then the benefits outweigh the problems. Nick-D (talk) 08:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose; as I've said in the past, I think dealing with secret pages is a waste of our time. Also very much opposed to any MFD that targets a category of pages without a specified list of what those pages are. If you want to have a certain type of pages, as opposed to a specific list of pages, deleted, get consensus for a change to WP:CSD. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * From my nomination statement: "The secret pages under consideration for deletion are on two pages, with some overlap." Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2 and User pages/Secret pages to be deleted. Cunard (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * All right, guess I missed that. I still think it's an unwieldy list and am not in support of this process, though my first point is the main one, anyway. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose a blanket ban. A lot of leeway is given to editors in their own user space, and that is as it should be. Reyk  YO!  08:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose This witchhunt is improper per WP:BEANS, WP:NOT and WP:DENY.  Hostile activity of this sort seems quite futile as it creates an arms race, as editors endeavour to make their pages more secret (you'll never find my secret page!)  To make strenuous efforts to find such pages is to participate in the game.  It is more sensible to ignore them.  Colonel Warden (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTMYSPACE supports the deletion of these pages. Cunard (talk) 09:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT contains many sections which oppose this including WP:BATTLE, WP:BURO and WP:BADIDEA. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose for many of the reasons given above. I agree that this is not an "attempt to drive away a group of editors", but it could nevertheless do exactly that. I particularly have sympathy for the statement "our survival depends on the creation and maintenance of a stable, functioning community, exclusively online" by Kiz. I do not think that secret pages are a great way of doing that, but it is something we should be giving the greatest attention to and this proposal is contrary to that. -- Bduke    (Discussion)  08:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose As much as I understand Cunard's intentions and respect him as an editor, I think, in this case, he is simply mistaken. As WereSpielChequers points out above, Wikipedia's community is not a homogeneous group where everyone values the same editing style, the same sense of what a community should be or agrees how to achieve an environment that serves the project's short- and long-term goals best. But if we can agree that diversity exists and is actually one of the reasons Wikipedia became a success, then we need to limit any community-regulating policies and guidelines as much as possible. Yes, rules are needed for any community to work but those should be rules that are needed for it to work. Rules such as civility or no personal attacks for example are certainly needed. On the other hand, new rules need to fit in with those goals. The proposed deletion does not. Let me explain:
 * "devaluing of barnstars" (cited by Cunard above): This "reason" for the requested change in consensus about such pages is incorrect for several reasons. First of all, not all secret pages include barnstars. But more importantly: Barnstars have no objective value. They simply don't. Just read Barnstars which says that they are given to show your appreciation of the user. That does not mean that others agree with your assessment, in fact, often barnstars are given while a large number of people would disagree with doing so. But it's not forbidden because they are not a sign of community appreciation. But if they have no objective value, they cannot be devalued. Every user is able to assess whether a barnstar is really a sign of "hard work and due diligence" or simply a personal opinion by a single editor.
 * "the abuse of Wikipedia as a webhost" (cited by Cunard above): First off, I agree that Wikipedia should not be used as a replacement for your webhost. There are plenty of webhosts you can use instead. But that argument is based on an incorrect assessment about what those users are doing. Yes, there might be some who use Wikipedia only for personal use and nothing else. But we are not talking about them here. Users who create secret page games are in almost every case also editors who help work on the encyclopedia. They don't abuse Wikipedia by using it instead of a webhost, they simply use it to have some fun while donating their time and energy.
 * "They tend to attract participants but not retain them" (cited by Cunard above): This is simply not proven. Many currently active editors (including admins) had such pages in the past, still have them or participated in them. On the contrary, based on the simple principle of "in dubio pro reo", we have to assume that they might retain editors that otherwise might have left the project and/or that they helped attract editors that might otherwise not have become active.
 * "who get to know each other through secret pages do not go on to build content together" (Cunard, above): Statement that is not proven. As with the statement above, we have to assume that at least some people do. And even if it were true, it would be a fallous argumentum e contrario to assume that those people would work on the project if they were not allowed to have such pages. The more realistic assumption would be that they will leave the project completely because they felt unappreciated and consider it a cold and humorless place. Which brings me to...
 * Is there really a problem?: Let's face it, most of us who are not actively looking for it, will never see those pages. We will never encounter any of it and we won't care. "Live and let live" is the principle that should guide us when considering what to do with such pages, not "Live and tell others how to live". "Abuse" should be stopped, of course, but not every secret page "abuses" Wikipedia. The abuse only happens when the users in question focus on such pages and do not work on the project at all - as such WP:NOTMYSPACE clearly says that "The focus of user pages should not be [on such pages]" (emphasis added), not that such pages should not exist at all.
 * If even a single editor is attracted and retained because they participated in such a secret page game, then they are a net positive.
 * But even if no editors are attracted or retained by such games, you would have to prove that those pages are actively hindering people to contribute. Because only then, they are a problem that has to be regulated by policy and guidelines. I think it's safe to say that no one is forced to participate in such games. If they want to take a break from donating their free time and energy to Wikipedia by playing such a game, let them. The assumption by Cunard and others advocating such a deletion, i.e. that the deletion will make people work on the project in that time, is simply not based on any facts.
 * WP:TLDR: In conclusion and sorry for the rant: The proposing editor has not shown, how the proposed deletion would serve to "improv[e] and maintain the encyclopedia". Unless there is proof that the proposed deletion will be a net positive to the project (objectively speaking), we should simply allow such pages to exist. Any proposal such as this one that is based on assumptions and a certain point of view on which pages are useful and which not should be rejected. Regards  So Why  09:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. We discourage secret pages, and as such it is appropriate to point that out to someone. However, I would be uncomfortable with actively deleting such pages. Such deletions would likely cause conflict, be disruptive, would distract from building both the encyclopaedia and the collaborative spirit needed to build the encyclopaedia, and may drive people away. We ask that people sign their posts on talkpages, but we don't delete posts that are unsigned.  SilkTork  *YES! 09:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see why everyone's so keen to defend these pages: they clearly fall outside policy. We should not want to encourage the contingent who treat Wikipedia as an extension of their internet playgrounds. Fences  &amp;  Windows  11:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose blanket deletion at this time. Remember that deletion does not save any server space, nor will it in any way force editors to be more productive. It will only drive some editors away, even though that is not Cunard's intent. Supporters of the ban may argue that many or most people with secret pages are unproductive anyway, but no real evidence has been put forth to support this. How can any of us know whether this will improve WP or not; in my opinion, all these MfDs and time spent searching for the secret pages to nominate and comment on them are wasting more time than anyone who uses them. I thank Cunard for inviting me here but even though I think secret pages are stupid and I never would use them, it would seem best to just leave them. Some of the most egregiously elaborate ones can be deleted on a case-by-case basis per whatever the consensus is now opposing them.  EdEColbert  Let me know 12:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, despite the numerous opposes. These pages clearly violate WP:MYSPACE and WP:UP, and they distract from building an encyclopedia. Rather than "secretly" deleting them, we should notify editors about them first. ~  Nerdy Science  Dude  13:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you care explaining why they do? Judging from those numerous opposes, it should be clear that it's not as "clearly violat[ing]" as you seem to believe. Also, remember that if you want to claim that they "distract from building an encyclopedia", you need to prove that this is really the case. Regards  So Why  13:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If everyone spent all day doing secret page hunts, then the encyclopedia would fall apart and get loaded with vandalism. As for why they violate NOTMYSPACE and UP#GAMES, they are "games" set up in the user space that encourages "hunting" through the user's space to find a page, then receive a barnstar for it. I also believe they devalue barnstars. These pages have nothing to do with building an encyclopedia, and they have nothing to do with collaborating. During the time someone could be hunting for these secret pages, they could be writing articles or fighting vandalism instead. ~  Nerdy Science  Dude  13:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your argument is based on the assumption that people who play such games would otherwise contribute to the encyclopedia in that time, which is not based on any facts. I would argue (in dubio pro reo) that they would do something else unrelated to Wikipedia instead if those games didn't exist but they would more likely not come back here to do any work. Remember, as I said above, we are talking about unpaid contributors who edit in their free time. Your argument makes sense in a workplace environment but not in a unpaid collaboration one. As for NOTMYSPACE and UP#GAMES, if you read them, you will notice that they do not forbid such pages. They just say that you should not focus solely on them. Your argument treats someone who spends 99% of their time on such pages the same as someone who spends 99% of their time on improving the encyclopedia and just uses them to relax once in a while. As for barnstars, see my comment above. You cannot devalue something that has only a subjective value in the first place. Regards  So Why  14:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Notify users, then delete after 10 days those of all users with >40% userspace edits. Under that should be done a couple of users at a time.&mdash; Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 13:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

First and foremost, I would like to say that I respect every editor commenting here, whether they support secret pages or not. Second, I don't see the problem with secret pages, because, as has been mentioned above, you get to meet new editors, even if for only an edit or two. And possibly, the person that found the barnstar would be roaming Wikipedia's WikiProjects, and see that their favorite secret page hunt creator is a part of the WikiProject. Then they'd join and communicate with the creator that way. I used to have a secret page, but I deleted it for the following reasons:


 * 1) Although it's certainly not "a waste of time" like other editors here are claiming, it is somewhat irrelevant to the project. However, I must also point out that humor pages are somewhat irrelevant to the project, also, but they are kept
 * 2) I was getting tired of people cheating. This probably doesn't have to do much with this discussion, but I thought I'd throw it in there.
 * 3) Frankly, I was getting tired of managing it.
 * 4) I was not making as many friends as I had hoped to.

Despite the fact that I had my secret page deleted, my final vote is oppose. Utah raptor My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions 13:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose the use of a mass nomination. I want to be clear that I do generally support the deletion of "secret page" games, and I support the guideline against them, so this is not a "keep" in the traditional sense. But a large mass nomination makes it difficult to even verify that all the nominated pages violate the guideline, much less whether any exceptional circumstances apply. The pages should continue to be nominated individually or in small clusters of pages with similar situations, not by the hundreds. --RL0919 (talk) 14:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I've yet to see real evidence that secret pages are harmful to the project.

A big reason for support of deletion seems to be so editors will not waste time on these secret pages. Let me point out the following: huge MFD discussion, a discussion at ANI, and a RFC on Secrect pages. Not to mention the tons of other MFD discussions that the community has voted on.. I would bet that at least as much time has been wasted discussing secret pages as on actually finding them. To date for me personally, I think I've spent maybe 30 minutes total looking for secret pages. I've spent hours and hours in debates. This goes back at least two years, and consensus has never been reached one way or the other. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. A case-by-case basis needed, based on the editors intentions. Think of it as work place: The guy who comes in on time everyday and does a great job (and might goof off a little, but always gets his work done on time) will continue to have a job versus the guy who comes in and doesn't do any work and goofs off all the time. (Bad example, perhaps, but the best I can come up with at the moment.) If a user is a positive contributor to the project, who cares if they occasionally goof off? If an editor is here for no other reason than secret pages, then yes, they need to leave. Avic ennasis  @ 14:34, 4 Tishrei 5771 / 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I strongly oppose the mass deletion of these pages for several reasons, including many of the reasons others have outline above: (1) questionable value of what looks like a pointless witchhunt; (2) no real harm described; (3) possible value in a past-time that encourages good faith contributors blowing off some steam, so they can go back to contributing in article space. In addition I am very concerned over how poorly defined this nomination is. I looked at it, and was puzzled, because neither the nominator, or anyone supporting the nomination, actually spelled out what a "secret page" was.  I had to visit over half a dozen other pages to figure out what the nomination might mean by "secret page".  I think I now basically understand what the nominator and his or her supporters mean by "secret page".  But I think it quite likely there is considerable variance between the informal definition of the nominator, and his or her supporters.  Setting aside all the other reasons to oppose this mass nomination there is no way I would support a mass nomination for deletion where the target of the deletion was not clearly defined.  Nor would I support a mass nomination where the individual users did not receive a heads-up on their talk page of the nomination.  Geo Swan (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Section break 1

 * Comment - why not "Proposed Deletion (misc)"? I come to this discussion conflicted. The last few times I've !voted delete of a secret page, I've wondered: "Why we need to go through all the process—hasn't this been settled? Why not delete this on sight?" However, I mistagged a page very recently, so that gives me pause. I don't like the bureaucracy involved in the MfD process, but I'm having second thoughts about mass deletion, even though it appears some has done a decent job of vetting the list. I know PROD is designed for articles, but why not a PROD approach for MfD? It doesn't have to be just secret pages, although these are the obvious candidates. This would provide notice to the creator, a option to prevent deletion in cases of a mistake, and force an MfD in case the PROD is removed. We already have a test case, as Proposed deletion (books) is an extension of PROD to reduce MfD workload. I haven't been active in that area, but a cursory review suggests it worked.-- SPhilbrick  T  15:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * point of order IMO the existing prod procedures do not provide enough notice to the creator. Leaving a heads-up on creator's page is recommended, but optional.  And there are a significant fraction of the wikipedia's quality control volunteers who routinely ignore the recommendations -- and do not inform uploaders/creators that material they contributed is being considered for deletion.  No, watchlists are not sufficient notice.  Watchlists do not provide a permanent record.  Watchlists are not a reliable way to give notice to intermittent contributors, or contributrs who are so new they don't know how to use them.  At the other extreme our current implementation of watchlists are too crude to remain useful for our most prolific contributors.  If we implement a new mechanism for deletion I would strongly urge not making the mistake of leaving advising the uploader/creator to the discretion of the nominator.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Geo Swan's point. I'm not quite sure where we stand, but it appears the proposal to mass delete these pages is failing to reach consensus, and we are moving toward an RfC to discuss the PROD extension. I will support a PROD extension that includes a step requiring notification of the creator. I think that strikes a good balance between the non-notification in the case of mass deletion, and the full notification, and community discussion that is required for MfD.-- SPhilbrick  T  23:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The guideline against secret pages already exists and is already worded strongly enough to discourage any further secret page creation. I don't see the benefit in mass deleting the existing secret pages, especially without even notifying their owners. That will just piss people off and cause users to leave the project. Any existing secret pages should be nominated individually. -- &oelig; &trade; 15:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep For the record, I'm fine with the mass nomination and would prefer it over a one-by-one scheme and encouraged the nom to do so. But don't believe these pages, on the whole, cause any kind of problems and might help with the building of community. If there are pages that have cause provable problems I'm okay with going after them but I think such will be extremely rare if existent at all. Also, I hit TL;DR part way into this, but do all the nominated pages now have a deletion template? Hobit (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The nominated pages have not been templated. DuncanHill (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I planned to template the pages after 24 hours of discussion if consensus was in favor of mass deletion. If consensus was not in favor of mass deletion, templating those pages would not be advisable because the templates would have to be removed from over 100 pages at the end of the discussion. Cunard (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm sorry but you do not get to delay notification until after you have got a delete "consensus". That is playing the system, and highly unethical. As it is, you've taken the time to notify people involved in previous failed attempts to have a mass deletion, but not bothered to notify the page creators. It looks very dodgy to me. DuncanHill (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Why do you care? I'm very against this blanket nomination. While in general, I'd support the deletion of secret pages, there is nothing wrong with them. They should in general fun under the same category as Signature pages.-- White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 16:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Snowball Keep all secret pages per the above oppose and keep votes, especially SoWhy. Allowing editors to have fun is in line with the Foundation's  strategic goals to increase the diversity of our editing base by enhancing our social  environment.  If some want to make like cyber monks improving articles from their virtual cells with minimal social interaction thats fine, but we ought not to enforce that mode of working on those it doesnt suit.  FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * PROD I like Sphilbrick's idea about PRODing them. A discussion like this will no doubt never reach a consensus, and MfDing every single secret page takes up a lot of space. If we could make PROD work with these, and then only MfD them if the PROD is removed, that would be quite a bit simpler, and take up quite a bit less time.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 18:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Proposed Deletion (miscellany) is a good idea I agree with the proposal by SPhilbrick. Prodding secret pages would be the gentlest way of removing them. Cunard (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not go edit articles instead? DuncanHill (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete all - These sorts of pages are deleted all the time, there's nothing wrong with getting rid of this idiocy in one fell swoop. Tarc (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * the success of this will depend upon the number of active users who really care. I think a decision to delete from user space without giving opportunity for an individual objection would be very open to challenge at deletion review. There is no gentle way of removing them from those who still cares about their page. A Prod (in a separate procedure, please, to avoid cluttering the ordinary PROD, which would make things very difficult for the prod patrollers), starting with the inactive people whop will not object because they will not see it, and then the smallest pages, would be one way of doing at it. But we will eventually face the issue head-on of how to deal with the hopefully very few active users who actually care, for every one of them will in practice want to reverse the consensus. A decision to attain peace by, in essence, letting them keep their pages if they accept the consensus generally, does have some attractions.  DGG ( talk ) 20:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * PROD. Using a gentle hand is best :) Kaldari (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This RfMfC is a larger waste of resources than secret pages.  ℳ ono   23:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep for the same reasons I've given in the past. Community building - even when it has nothing to do with production of content - promotes connections between contributors that are useful later. I can think of many tasks I've done for Wikipedia as personal favors to other editors who are friends of mine. The cost is miniscule compared to the potential benefits. Dcoetzee 00:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Request closure
I hereby request that this nomination is closed as malformed and unacceptable.

The nominator has failed to provide an accurate list of the pages he wants deleted.

The nominator has said that he has deliberately not notified the page creators, and that it was his intention not to do so until he had obtained a consensus for deletion - thereby deliberately preventing them from arguing against deletion.

I believe the nomination as it stands cannot succeed, and that its continuance would create far more disruption than it could possible prevent. DuncanHill (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If I wished to game the system, I would not have notified you and the others who oppose deleting secret pages about the MfD. Because these pages will not be deleted per Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2, I do not see the point in placing MfD templates on those pages, only to have them removed a short while later. The MfD debate has now turned to discussion about implementing a miscellany prod so I would be against terminating this discussion. Cunard (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The point of templating is to let editors with the pages on their watchlists participate in the debate. Saying that you will only template once you have consensus for deletion shews either a profound ignorance of how things work here, or bad faith. This is still an MfD, not a RfC, so as long as it stays open you, as nominator, should do the decent thing and template the pages. You should also do us the courtesy of editing your lists to remove the pages which either don't exist or which you have already decided you don't want deleted. DuncanHill (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Because the MfD debate has now turned to discussion about implementing a miscellany prod, this should no longer be a deletion debate, but an RfC about implementing a miscellany prod. Cunard (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Then it needs to be delisted from MfD and you need to get it listed as an RfC. DuncanHill (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've asked at WP:AN if an admin can help you delist the MfC and list it as an RfC. DuncanHill (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Cunard (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2010 (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.