Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hatmatbbat10/secret pages

 __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:Hatmatbbat10/secret pages
Delete per the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Smithcool/Secret Pages and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Uchiha23/Awards.

Delete also per WP:NOTMYSPACE. User subpages devoted wholly to showcasing one's barnstars earned through social networking and playing games are unacceptable and foster an inappropriate ethos. Because a request for comment at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not concluded that secret pages violate policy, it would be unwise to keep pages that promote the belief that secret pages are acceptable. Cunard (talk) 05:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have moved 's awards to User:Hatmatbbat10/awards so that s/he may keep a record of this. Cunard (talk) 05:07, 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   ₪  20:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep- There is no harm in pages like this one, and I would question why the nominator feels the need to snoop around looking for stuff like this to delete. Per this discussion there is considerable support for the idea that people should be given a lot of leeway in their user space, and I agree with that. Wikipedia is a volunteer effort that relies on attracting and retaining volunteer contributors. It's an unfortunate reality that sometimes people feel unwelcome and turned away because their contributions to article space are not the sort of thing that an encyclopedia should present, but there is absolutely no call for stamping around like the fun police objecting loudly to a bit of harmless frivolity. If people want to be silly on their user space just for a lark we should let them, and only squash user pages if they actively harm the encyclopedia's mission. Attack pages and phony articles are harmful, but daft sekrit pages? No. Just let it go. Reyk  YO!  07:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Because I substituted this page to User:Hatmatbbat10/awards, this page no longer has a purpose and thus there is no need to keep this page, which violates WP:NOTMYSPACE, in that it solely hosts a barnstar earned through playing games. Cunard (talk) 04:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I see. Turn up uninvited, mess around with other peoples' user space without permission as though it's your property, arrange stuff so that you can paint the content you dislike as redundant and get it deleted. That is extremely dodgy. The mainspace equivalent would be to come to an article you hate, gut it of most of its sources and content, and then nominate it at AfD as a useless stub. Furthermore, I think you're being a bit selective in the discussions you're linking to. You've got one discussion that says sekrit pages should be frowned upon, but you've conveniently forgotten to link to the one that established that, when it comes down to it, there's nothing close to a consensus to actually delete the things. Reyk  YO!  06:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That appears to be an extremely... poor summary of events, but that's between you two. Can you explain how these nonsense pages contribute to building an encyclopedia, and in what way the activities contained therein are unlike activities on social networking sites? → ROUX   ₪  06:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, yeah. Letting constructive editors pissfart around a little bit in their user page makes it more likely that they will stick around; thus the encyclopedia benefits by retaining an editor who might otherwise be lost. And the activities are unlike social networking sites because the editors involved are Wikipedians. Let me explain what I mean by that. If these pages were being used as messageboards or a webhost for people who were using Wikipedia just as a free webhost for a messageboard and had no intention of actually contributing to the encyclopedia, then that would be a misuse and if such a page was nominated I would vote to delete it. But there is no evidence that allowing constructive editors small indulgences like this does any harm. My opinion is that things should only be banned or deleted if they are actually causing harm to the encyclopedia, and I have seen no evidence of that. My advice is to just let it go and stop obsessing. Reyk  YO!  07:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * By the same token, shouldn't you let it go? → ROUX   ₪  07:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ask me again if I ever wage a three month long crusade in defence of these things. :) Reyk  YO!  07:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete 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 03:57, 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.