Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Microchip08/Extremely obvious




 * 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 Keep. Ruslik_ Zero 18:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Microchip08/Extremely obvious
Delete per WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:UP. Secret pages do not contribute to building the encyclopedia. There has been a longstanding consensus to delete secret pages. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tezero/Secret Page and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vinsfan368/^^ for two examples. Cunard (talk) 06:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following pages for deletion:

Cunard (talk) 06:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep This user seems to have a decent amount of good edits, (1350), which would make me lean toward All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy, but 329 (29.85%) of this users edits are in Userspace... .User seems active. Also, keep in mind consensus can change. Avic enna sis @ 22:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT, a policy on Wikipedia, applies to all users, whether they are seasoned or are new. Editors with a "decent amount of good edits" are not given the license to violate policy. I strongly agree with 's comments at another MfD, particularly this one. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy, so the user can "play" on MySpace or Facebook instead of using Wikipedia as a game. Cunard (talk) 05:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. Similarly, just because something is not forbidden in a written document, that doesn't mean it's a good idea. The principle of the rules is more important than the letter.Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? It is. It's a friendlier restatement of Ignore All Rules." Avic enna sis @ 20:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if we ignore the applicable violations of policy, using common sense indicates that people are spending too much time on searching for secret pages. Here is one example that is a common occurrence: 1. User:Sushiflinger/Secret – "Did you really think it was going to be this easy, oh come on, you can do better. It's out there somewhere" 2. User:Sushiflinger/index/Secret – "Did you really think it was going to be this easy, oh come on, you can do better. It's out there somewhere" 3. User:Sushiflinger/index/Secret Page – "Did you really think it was going to be this easy, oh come on, you can do better. It's out there somewhere" 4. User:Sushiflinger/index/secret page – "Did you really think it was going to be this easy, oh come on, you can do better. It's out there somewhere" 5. User:Sushiflinger/secret page – "Did you really think it was going to be this easy, oh come on, you can do better. It's out there somewhere" 6. User:Sushiflinger/hiddenpagebarnstar "This user has found Sushiflinger's secret page." Common sense tells us that this misuse of Wikipedia as a hide-and-seek playground undermines Wikipedia's purpose as an encyclopedia, thereby hurting Wikipedia's image. Common sense tells us that barnstars awarded for finding secret pages hurts the reputation of barnstars; barnstars should be given for content and productive betterment of the encyclopedia, not social networking. Cunard (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is subjective to the person looking for the pages, not the pages themselves. I have looked for secret pages and never spent more than 5 minutes looking for one. Also, this has helped people like myself learn how to navigate around Wikipedia. I fail to see how this hurts Wikipedia's image - the average reader will likely never see or hear about these pages, and a know a lot of editors either understand the occasional sillyness they provide, overlook it entirely, or delete them. Rules followed too strictly are just as bad as rules not followed at all sometimes. Speaking again from my own experience, there are a few Wikipedia-IRC channels I fequent that serve specific purpose, however there is the occasional goofing off there which helps to release stress and build rapport between editors. When people take it too far, the channel ops step in, but otherwise a little play seems harmless. Anything taken to excess is bad, but that's where my opinion lays: If an editor spends 85% of their time editing and building Wikipedia, and 15% of the time playing games, the overall is a net gain to the project, provided the games do not disrupt normal operations, which (it seems to me) secret pages do not. Avic enna sis @ 22:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Though you have never spent more than 5 minutes looking for secret pages, the combined time wasted on creating secret pages and false secret pages and finding them is time that could be spent doing collaborative work on an article. Secret pages are harmful because they detract from the time spent on constructive collaboration that betters the encyclopedia. While secret pages may have helped you learn to navigate around Wikipedia, there are more constructive methods of learning to do that. Browsing through the articles, clicking from one blue link to another, allows editors to experience and appreciate the work that has already been done on Wikipedia. This also allows editors to catch flaws in the articles they visit or notice a short article that interests them, thereby leading them to correct the errors and expand the articles. I'm afraid that I don't hold double standards when it comes to inappropriate use of the userspace. Experienced editors and novice ones should be held accountable to the same standards. All editors are equal. WP:UP states: "Your user page is about you as a Wikipedian, and pages in your user space should be used as part of your efforts to contribute to the project." Lastly, do you believe that WP:MYSPACE allows secret page games? Cunard (talk) 06:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * By the same token, there are times when I have been working on articles and followed a link to a different article and spent a half hour just reading it before returning to the article that I was actually working on. If a page that distracts a user from contributing and building Wikipedia, I would be happy to start PRODing interesting and informative articles if I don't actually contribute to them. (Not really, because I believe in Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, but you get the idea I am driving at.) Also, I created my own secret page, at User:Avicennasis/sekretpage!!!. It took me less than a minute. Really not time wasted in the grand scale of Wikipedia. (I asked for the page to be deleted under db-userreq, so it may be gone when you read this.) The basis for my thoughts are this: Having known many volunteer firefighters, there are often times that they are pulled over for speeding when responding to a call. They are never ticketed. There is not a law that allows this in some states, however sometimes smaller rules/laws are broken for the greater good. Some may see it as a double-standard; I don't personally. Again, I look at net gain for the project. As for WP:UP, specifically "part of your efforts to contribute to the project", again, I defer to building rapport with other editors. If I spend 5 minutes and find a secret page, post a note for that user, and strike up a conversation that leads toward collaboration on a project, then I see no harm. This may not happen often, but I sure sometimes it does. Looking at WP:NOTMYSPACE, I am not sure how secret pages fit. They are no more "Personal web pages" then some of other more relevant content in userspace. They are not used for "File storage areas". I certainly have not seen them used as "Dating services" or "Memorials". Can you help to clarify this here? I do not see the link myself, but would like to see how our understandings differ. You seem more concerned with editor behavior in regards to finding/making secret pages more than the pages themselves, which is not a bad thing. If you want to propose a policy change to add secret pages to WP:UP, I will support it. Avic enna sis @ 18:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If I am correct in that there is more concern over the time wasted on secret pages than on the pages themselves, I would also propose creating secret page header with the contents of User:Avicennasis/tempsandbox. Feel free to tweak links/layout if you chose to, or ignore it entirely. Just trying to propose some possible alternatives here. Avic enna sis @ 10:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I should also note, if concern stems from time wasted doing fun things instead of working on the 'pedia, then everything in Wikipediholicism should also be removed. The Wikipediholism test has been nom'd before, and was not deleted. (This took me like an hour when I did it - not "productive" use of my time.) The questions posed at WP:EM (Not policy, but seems a good guideline to me): Plus the following, from Why do you care? (Again, not policy, but also seems a good guideline to me): "Some editors may focus on removing non-encyclopedic userspace pages, rather than on building articles. Don't be a busybody. Consider: If a user is contributing well to articles, why do you care how good or bad their userspace pages look? As long as that user makes good contributions to the article space, and their interactions with other users are polite, why do you care what else they do on Wikipedia, or why they're here?" Avic enna sis @ 18:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Does the content make an editor happy, or strengthen Wikipedia's sense of community and shared enjoyment?
 * Will deleting the page actually do Wikipedia any good?
 * Is it harmless?


 * Delete all: "Secret" pages are inappropriate for an encyclopedia. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Has any encyclopedia before us ever had the ability to have such things? I suspect not. How, then, can our predecessors teach us about a practice that they have never tried? Certainly not well enough to be grounds for stopping one. The entire wiki was built on trying out radical new concepts, and seeing how they fit its exceptional nature. And if this is more about our dignity... well. If being beneath our dignity is grounds for deletion on a website with this many editors and this many different opinions on what our dignity is and where it lies, we should save everyone some time by blowing up the encyclopedia and going home. --Kiz o r  01:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep -- these are harmless. Quoting policies against them is to interpret the policies in an improperly legalistic way. The point of policies is to advance the project and prevent harm to it, I think making a fuss against things like this is more harmful than the things themselves, in particular harmful to community spirit. If people are seriously contributing, then occasional diversions in user space are harmless, and even positive; but deleting them just makes the place more legalistic and unwelcoming. --SJK (talk) 07:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - user active, userspace edits almost 30%  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 13:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Secret pages conflict with WP:USERPAGE and inadvertently promote a MYSPACE attitude that is not helpful for the encyclopedia. Such pages should be removed because they promote an anything-goes outlook to users. Johnuniq (talk) 08:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Now that we have built the largest reference work of all time, the easy part is over. To maintain it, we must maintain a stable, functional community, one that's entirely online, and made of the sort of people whose idea of fun is picking nits off an encyclopedia. If this doesn't scare you, it should. Wikipedia had a sort of beginner's bonus in its frontier days, but the cooperative spirit fostered by tangible progress and the shared excitement at this mad endeavor must inevitably diminish as the nature of editing changes and there are ever more things to disagree on. Though I have no interest in secret pages myself, I'm unconvinced that they count as social networking, games or any other thing forbidden by The Rules. The longstanding consensus to delete secret pages is neither longstanding nor a consensus. The previous times large amounts of noise were made on secret pages were a MfD on them as a whole, which gave no consensus, and an arbitration case on their improper mass deletion attempt, which found that there is no policy or precedent, and there are reasonable arguments for both sides. I find the pages valuable as one of the few ways editors can connect exclusively positively, and where they can be reminded that one does not always have to worry about rules and conflicts while editing Wikipedia. You know that that's all too valuable.  If you find this effect insignificant, there is another: it is very much significant that we do not become a community where even such small deviations from The Complex And Proper Order Of Things are set upon and crushed. --Kiz o  r  01:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - For those who consider these wasted time: Who wants to go through this list and tag ALL of them for deletion? (Go ahead, I'll wait.) Come to think of it, by the same token, practically everything done in userspace is a waste of time. Taking 5 minutes to give someone a barnstar is out. Let's delete everything in Barnstarpages while we are at it. :) Avic enna sis @ 10:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Can't tell you why.. it's a secret! shh! -- &oelig; &trade; 06:02, 15 April 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.