Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Access Denied/vandalbox

 __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 Delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Access Denied/vandalbox
Six contributions of Access Denied on 21 September 2010.

Pages that encourage and condone vandalism should be deleted per WP:NOTWEBHOST and User pages (permanent link).

The following page is also nominated for deletion:



The arguments for deleting secret pages are summarized in the essay Why secret pages should be deleted. WP:UP states that examples of unrelated content to writing an encyclopedia are "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. Facetious games of no educational value relevant to the project are routinely deleted at MfD." WP:NOTMYSPACE states that "[t]he focus of user pages should not be social networking or amusement, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration." To the creator: in a July/August 2010 policy discussion (at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 34), community consensus was that the policy What Wikipedia is not does prohibit secret pages. The deletion of this page 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. In that policy discussion, I wrote here about why all secret pages should be treated equally; whether a user social networks or does not social network on Wikipedia has no bearing on the fact that all secret pages should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete secret page, retain vandalbox The vandalbox is something I've seen before from many users, I think it's a mostly harmless way to say "here's a sandbox you can play with". I don't think it's encouraging vandalism really.  Secret page can go, as you rightly pointed out, we've deleted plenty of those in the past. Gigs (talk) 23:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete both Secret page and vandalism page. Not much else to say.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 00:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep His secret userbox is a secret user page made (probably) just for fun. In fact, I was even the first one to discover it and sign the page. Also, regarding the vandalbox, notice how AD has his edit notice for his main user page, so I believe it was likely well-intentioned. I think that he has the absolute right(s) to create those pages.  Hey  Mid  (contributions) 08:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The vandalbox wastes the time of vandal patrollers who must read the page's rules to see if the vandalism should be reverted. This time could be better spent reverting actual vandalism in Wikipedia articles. The page does not help prevent vandalism because vandals are going to vandalize the mainspace or the user's userpage regardless of pages such as this. Vandals/trolls derive more pleasure in vandalizing pages in the mainspace when such actions are forbidden. Permitting this page to remain on Wikipedia fosters the attitude that vandalism is acceptable on Wikipedia. That is unacceptable. Deleting this humorless, time-wasting page would be a net positive for Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 08:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete per WP:MYSPACE. I see nothing wrong with things such as guestbooks, joke pages, etc.; these promote cooperation and create a positive atmosphere for both editors and readers alike. A page that serves as a spot solely for vandalizing, however, is the opposite as I see it and should be deleted, for a multitude of reasons. Number one, I believe that vandalism should not occur - no matter where it is. Whether it be on a page not meant for vandalism or one that is, a page that serves as a place that promotes nothing but unconstructive edits is not good on my list. Second, unlike fun pages, vandalism pages aren't really humorous, nor do they, once again, promote a positive atmosphere (which the intent of WP:FUN is). Third, this is an encyclopedia; we should try to look like one. A page meant solely for vandalism offers nothing and gives Wikipedia a counter-encyclopedia look, especially when things such as "YOU ARE ALL EPIC FAILURES!!!!!!" and "YOU ARE ALL LOSERS" can be found on it. It makes it seem more like a place where people can come to randomly scribble random things down, and that's not what we want to be. If you opened up a Webster dictionary at your local library and decided to read it all, then halfway through there were ten blank pages that could be used by readers to scribble randomly on...suddenly, that dictionary looks a lot less professional and makes the fact that the dictionary is a dictionary almost a joke. Fourth, it does distract users from building an encyclopedia. Just today, I was patrolling pages with Huggle and came across another page similar to NSD's. I had to spend a good minute seeing what was going on, along with skimming the page's rules to see whether the vandalism edit was actually vandalism (eh...what?) Well, there's my view. ~Super Hamster  Talk Contribs 02:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Cunard (talk) 08:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Argument from for deleting vandalspaces (from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NerdyScienceDude/Vandalism space (2nd nomination)):

Keep secret page, and delete vandal page. While there is certainly no policy specifically stating that vandal pages are wrong, it's certainly not something we should be encouraging. I used to have a vandal page of my own, but I deleted it because I was getting tired of managing it, and almost nobody was using it. I brought the issue of my vandal page up with User:OlEnglish a while back, and he said:

"'...if someone puts such a page up for MfD I would probably argue for deletion, because I don't think these pages would really make much of a difference in preventing vandalism...'"

So that's why I think the vandal page should be deleted. On the other hand, I don't think Access Denied's secret page should be deleted. I discussed this at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2 recently, and I said:

"First...I don't see the problem with secret pages, because...you get to meet new editors..."

In addition, I thought I'd adapt my response to this MfD. I don't agree with the editors that say secret pages go against WP:MYSPACE. After all, we have humor pages yes, even in a user's userspace that would, in the same perspective, go against WP:MYSPACE. Secret pages are a way for editors to release some steam, as editing articles can become stressful at times. So there's really no harm to the encyclopedia if secret pages such as Access Denied's are kept. The  Utahraptor My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions 12:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep both:

*Vandalbox- since I do some vandal fighting I have to keep my talk unprotected so that if I make a bad revert of an IP they can let me know. This does lead to occasional personal attacks, but having "vandalise here instead" in my editnotice might divert vandals from my main userpage and talkpage, which is what's really important.
 * Secret page- the main points used by those against secret pages are red herring pages, silly pointless "barnstars," and creating and alt to hold the secret page. I have done none of those; mine is only a secret guest book. Access Denied  [FATAL ERROR]  14:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Access Denied, I'm going to quote User:OlEnglish again:

"'A malicious userpage vandal is motivated by hurting the user not the page itself. They're very much aware that it's just a subpage and it's meant to distract them away from the actual userpage...'"
 * In case you're interested, the full discussion can be viewed here


 * In addition I believe vandal pages are a violation of WP:BEANS. By creating vandal pages, users are almost asking encouraging vandals to continue to vandalize, even if it is in just one contained space. The   Utahraptor My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions 21:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"If you have the urge to vandalise or attack me, please use the vandalbox instead. You may be reported to an administrator if you vandalise this page ... Vandalism will absolutely not be tolerated under any circumstances." I'm not sure how that could be construed as encouraging vandalism. Gigs (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that the editnotice that links to his vandalbox says the following:
 * User:Access Denied/vandalbox itself states: "Vandalise here. I'd rather have vandalism here than in the rest of my userspace." I am against pages that encourage vandalism anywhere on Wikipedia. The page damages Wikipedia's reputation; from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:King of Hearts/Notepad/Vandalism on Wheels!: "an IP, while removing vandalism [on User:King of Hearts/Notepad/Vandalism on Wheels!], wrote in an edit summary, "Removed NPOV spam, obsessively promoting TROLL as vandalism as opposed to spam, comedy, etc. Are you a wikipedia administrator?" The potential for BLP violations on such a page is great. In Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Blood reaper/Vandalism page, the page had homophobic slurs and copyrighted content that had remained there for months if not years. There is no need to let pages that allow gratuitously offensive content to remain on Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete both i have no idea why a secret page created for the purpose of playing a game should be here. i would consider such pages vandalism of WP. in fact, the contest SHOULD be to find secret pages, delete them, and notify the creator not to do so or risk being banned to some degree. regarding a vandal page: of course no one cares if someone types nonsense on such a page, but that doesnt mean that any content placed on such a page can be allowed to stand. someone could create a fairly convincing article at that page, which could include extreme violations of BLP-say, listing an ex girlfriend as a notable person, but including derogatory comments and listing her home address and phone number, and her work number. vandalism patrollers should not have to decide what content on such pages crosses the line. same goes for sandboxes. my sandbox is NOT for others to edit, period, but it IS appropriate for it to be patrolled for inappropriate content. The rule should be: NO PAGE must be allowed to be targeted for the addition of unencyclopedic content. I am willing to offer up for sacrifice my "rant" page (its on my user site, not hidden) if consensus says its not appropriate.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: How is a secret page, as you say, vandalism? From WP:VAND:


 * "'Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia...Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism.'"


 * First of all, the creator of a secret page is not deliberately attempting to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia; they're just having some fun. And we have humor pages, so what's wrong with having a variant of that? By that I don't mean secret pages are humor pages, I'm just saying there's a slight connection between the two Second of all, even if you do consider vandal pages as harmful, if the secret page is not created in bad faith, it is not vandalism by Wikipedia's standards. The   Utahraptor My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions 00:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Though this page is not vandalism, it violates Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. WP:OTHERSTUFF exists for your connection to humor pages. Whereas humor pages do not treat Wikipedia as a game server, secret pages do. WP:NOTWEBHOST explicitly permits humorous pages: "Humorous pages that refer to Wikipedia in some way may be created in an appropriate namespace, however." Cunard (talk) 05:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Do you really care? Must you purge the project of anything lighthearted or immature? Get over it. THENEW M O NO   03:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you really care? – Yes. Why do I care? Pages that treat Wikipedia as a game host and pages that encourage vandalism should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 05:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Since there is clearly not consensus to delete all secret pages, you found the need to MfD one at a time with the same flawed reasoning. The problem has gotten out of hand, but your method of dealing with it is time-consuming, tedious, and unneeded. The only efficient way to do this is to establish a better situation. Perhaps a new sticky PROD, or something entirely different. My question is when we will have to MfD all the MfDs you've created. THENEW M O NO   02:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Pages that violate Wikipedia policy by treating Wikipedia as a game server ought to be deleted (Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 34). Several editors in the MfD encouraged renominating secret pages individually so that it would be easier to verify whether the pages were secret pages. Your argument that this is "time-consuming, tedious, and unneeded" is not a valid reason for keeping pages that violate Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cunard (talk) 06:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the deletion bæsed on principle, however, I ask that you reconsider your methods. I believe a sticky PROD process (similar to the UBLP one) should be temporarily implemented for a period of time (all secret pages created before September 1, 2010) and all pages claiming to be secret pages created after that date would qualify for a new kind of CSD: U4. By holding a discussion for each one, which tends to be about the issue itself rather than the particular page, the process has been slowed considerably. First, find consensus for some sort of solution, then implement it. A deletion discussion is not needed here, imho.  ʄ lame  (report mistake) (a authorized alternative account of ) 00:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt that consensus can be gained for a sticky prod for secret pages because it would be like the failed mass MfD. Though a Prod (Miscellany) may be more suitable for secret pages, I will not initiate one per my comment on my talk page. Cunard (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete both Misguided, pointless, not beneficial to the project, WP:NOTMYSPACE.  Chzz  ► 19:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * IMPORTANT COMMENT Now that there is an RFC on vandalspaces, none should be deleted during the duration of the RFC. Thanks, Access Denied  [FATAL ERROR] 02:09, 29 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.