Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Amulet Heart/secret page

 __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) 00:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Amulet Heart/secret page


These pages are listed here. 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 creators: 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) 05:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Truthfully whilst it was interesting, i have no opinion either way. Simply south (talk) 09:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - all such pages should be deleted per WP:NOTMYSPACE, WP:UP. This goes double for 'established' editors, who should know better. → ROUX   ₪  20:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep the ones for Dvyjones and Simply South, as they are active and productive editors, and substantial leeway is given to editors in their own user space. The others seem to have left the project so I guess it doesn't matter one way or the other. Reyk  YO!  20:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Pages that treat Wikipedia as a game server violate the policy WP:NOTMYSPACE and the guideline WP:UP. That two of the users are active is not a valid reason for keeping pages that violate Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I agree that leeway should be given to editors in their userspace when the userpages involve building the encyclopedia (such as a userspace draft for a deleted article which the user is working on). However, just as Wikipedia policy prohibits hosting blogs in the userspace (What Wikipedia is not), Wikipedia policy also prohibits hosting games. Cunard (talk) 04:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Established editors should have less leeway than newbies, not more. Newbies don't know the rules and make mistakes; these are what I call teachable moments. Established editors know better. → ROUX   ₪  04:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Many established editors also disagree with you. Reyk  YO!  06:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In much the same way that foxes say they should be allowed in the henhouse, yes. → ROUX   ₪  06:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your analogy breaks down immediately. Foxes in a henhouse are harmful. Secret pages are not. Reyk  YO!  06:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you don't understand analogies. Let me try again: people want to be allowed to do whatever they want. Newbies have no power, so they get held to a stricter interpretation of permitted behaviour. → ROUX   ₪  06:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh no! Not that! Can't have people doing stuff they want to do!!! Seriously though, the only areas where we should be mega rigid in applying the rules is in the content the encyclopedia presents, and in maintaining cordial and respectful relations between the editors. Reyk  YO!  07:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You have failed, entirely, to grasp my point. → ROUX   ₪  07:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I was mistaken in the assumption that you had one. Reyk  YO!  07:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sigh. → ROUX   ₪  07:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete all so we can forget about this silly issue. I was against deleting those pages of established editors several months ago, but I think now that it's not worth bothering. Established users should know better, but I don't see why we need a double standard. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  02:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all except those shown to be of encyclopedic relevance (if any). FT2 (Talk 03:56, 12 October 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.