Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Midnight Comet/Sandbox




 * 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. I will admit that this MfD did not have a clear cut delete swing to it, like 2 other cases that Roux brought up for discussion. However, after weighing the !votes and the arguments, I believe that the consensus was for deleting the page. --Killiondude (talk) 07:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Midnight Comet/Sandbox
Yet another hidden page thing. Wikipedia is not a social networking site. → ROUX  ₪  00:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright roux you are never gona end this are you? this does not violate MYSPACE for the hundreth time!! And yet you wont stop, your making alot of enemies i hope you know. Please reconsider your desision.-- Coldplay   Expert  02:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does violate that. And I really couldn't give two figs about making 'enemies,' particularly ones who think that they can use Wikipedia as some sort of webhost/social networking site. → ROUX   ₪  02:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

*Delete You and me are on the same pole here, you know? But like I said earlier, this applies to hundreds of users, so issues like these should be taken care of somewhere else (not individually).  Zoo Fari  02:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I give up my vote. I don't think this is the proper venue to resolve this issue.  Zoo Fari  02:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment I might understand why some secret pages are up for deletion when it comes to users who do not make many contributions to wikipedia but Midnight Commet? come on he is one of the best editors on the entire encyclopedia.-- Coldplay   Expert  10:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. In this instance the user appears to be a prolific and valued contributor to the encyclopedia, but unfortunately the page itself is still inappropriate in its current use. (If it is turned into a proper sandbox for working on articles, that would be another matter entirely.) --RL0919 (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Or don't per who cares? Wasn't their an arbitration request over this? (--Tznkai (talk) 04:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The arbitration request was over MZM's unilateral mass-deletion of such pages, often with offensive edit summaries. Please see WP:UP. → ROUX   ₪  15:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, obviously. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a toy. Wikipedia is not a webhost, and those who want to use it as one would be better off finding a free webhost. Recently there has been an increase in this kind of thing, with a large number of editors here only to play with Wikipedia, and a concerted effort is needed against it. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment.Coldplay Expert does not help his cause by making ad hominem comments such as the above, in a manner which comes strikingly close to looking like a threat. As for his claim that "this does not violate Wikipedia:MYSPACE", I should be fascinated to read his arguments as to why. Certainly on the face of it "Personal web pages. Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia" seems to cover it pretty well. As for Tznkai's comment, is it meant to encourage us to think this should be kept, or to persuade us that those who say "keep" are not to be taken seriously? Finally, ZooFari says "issues like these should be taken care of somewhere else (not individually)". I agree: at the moment loads of individual deletion discussions are the best we have, but we need to produce something better. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. If, as he looks to me, he is a serious and productive wikipedian, this play thing, which has educational and collaboration-building value, is well within reasonable leeway.  If users are not obviously here only to abuse wikipedia as a free webhost, then these playthings should not be deleted, there is no WP:PERFORMANCE issue, wikipedian should be tolerant of each other.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I have never been completely happy with the widespread view that "as long as it's only in userspace it doesn't matter whether it is against policies and guidelines, especially from a useful contributor", but I tolerated this sort of thing when it was just a mild diversion among serious wikipedians. However, the situation has changed: there is now a body of people who come to Wikipedia mainly or entirely for this kind of game. In the long run allowing a lot of people to develop the idea that Wikipedia is available to do whatever they like will cause serious problems. A few days ago I saw a case where a vandal retaliated to warnings with words to the effect "this is a public website, where anyone is allowed to edit however they like, so I can vandalise articles if I want to, and you have no right to stop me". It seemed to me that this was a sincere misunderstanding: some people genuinely do not grasp the distinction between "anyone may edit Wikipedia" and "anyone may do what they like on Wikipedia". Allowing Wikipedia to be used by people who, as I say, come here entirely or mainly to play games, encourages this misunderstanding, and in the long run nurturing a new breed of Wikipedians with this attitude is likely to do serious damage. The single case I mentioned will not be a major problem, because presumably that vandal was blocked, but the more the attitude "you can do what you like on Wikipedia" is accepted the more we will find we have problem editors. The ones who go only moderately over the line so that we tolerate them for a long while are, in the long run, more of a danger than the extreme cases, whom we ban at an early stage. The trouble with the attitude that "we should stop people doing this if they do little else but allow it if they also make useful contributions" is that it sends the wrong message to the abusers. They see some editors being allowed to use Wikipedia as a personal web host for game playing, and can see no reason why others should not be allowed to. Please note that this is not hypothetical: in deletion discussions in cases involving people who come only to play the argument has been brought up that editors with many edits behind them are allowed to do it, so we are just "bullying" and "ganging up on" newcomers. This activity is unambiguously against Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It was tolerated (which does not mean "accepted as perfectly OK") while it was a small scale diversion among serious editors, but the situation has changed: it has become a major focus for a still small but rapidly growing group of users, and tolerating it at all is likely to cause problems in the long run. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)'
 * You sound reasonable, but frustrated. Consider having a cup of tea when you get worked up.  Of course, "Allowing Wikipedia to be used by people who, as I say, come here entirely or mainly to play games" is not what we do, but we don't want to overreact.  Tolerance for a few playthings is good.  Calm correction of non(yet)contributing newcomers is what we should do.  Persistent abusers will be blocked, with all pages deleted, in due course.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely if you have read my comment above you will understand at least one reason, whether you agree with it or not. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:UP "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal website. 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...games, roleplaying sessions, and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia", particularly if they involve people who are not active participants in the project." (cannot be included) Deserted Cities (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I hate this WP:NOTMYSPACE thing, if the editor in question wanted to use Wikipedia as a social networking site then they would have, however, I see Midnight Comet has over 6,000 contributions to the site, tell me how much encyclopedic value this page has and nominate it for deletion seeing as how we're being serious about the the whole WP:NOTMYSPACE thing. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 14:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - In addition to the above statement I'd like to point out that if the editor had little or no valuable contributions to Wikipedia, I would have voted for deletion. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 14:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have never understood why we think that some people are more equal than others when it comes to unambiguous policy violation. Shouldn't users who have been here longer and contributed more have more familiarity with policy and thus following it? → ROUX   ₪  14:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you Roux they should, however it's not like Midnight Comet has set up a 20 page hidden page challenge, being a serious contributor having one page out of place shouldn't make a huge difference, it's not harming the project and as stated above "wikipedians should be tolerant of each other". Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 15:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If it were an isolated case, then I agree that a single non-relevant page would not be a big deal. But there's a more widespread issue involved, and personally I'm not comfortable saying to keep this page while simultaneously !voting to delete several others. --RL0919 (talk) 18:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you consider this not isolated? Is there a connection to users who are abusing wikipedia, and not contributing?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment It's been a while since I've seen discussion flare up on this, but so far both sides (those who wish to keep and those who wish to delete) have made plenty of reasonable arguments regarding secret pages. So far, nothing explicitly forbids the practice, though both sides seem to think policy is on thier side. I started summarizing the debate at User:Bahamut0013/Secret pages some time ago, and I think I shall update some of it. Please take a read if you aren't familiar with the history of the debate.  bahamut0013  words deeds 15:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong. WP:UP. I've already updated your essay. → ROUX   ₪  15:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect on both accounts. You need to look up the word explicit it seems... there is nothing that says "secret pages are absolutely not allowed," which would be explicit. You refer to to a guideline that says "you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia" [emphasis added] and lists games as an example. In no way is that explicitly forbidding.  bahamut0013  words deeds 15:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * When one ignores the stupid weasel-wording that besets projectspace pages because it's the only way to get people to agree, the meaning is quite clear. And here's something for you to try: don't insult me in edit summaries. I am very careful to use exactly the words that I mean, and I do not use words without knowing what they mean. I trust that is crystal clear, so consider this your only warning against such personal attacks. → ROUX   ₪  16:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are going to start ignoring the policies and guidlines, why cite them at all? Why even have a discussion on the matter? Your argument that the guidline is badly worded due to consensus carries no weight because consensus is what Wikipedia is all about. And do you care to demonstrate what was an insult? I made no personal attacks against you. In any case, if you knew what "explicit" meant, then you surely did not use the word properly, because nothing in that guideline explicitly mentioned hidden pages. If you are unhappy with that, that's fine, but its not a personal attack against you.  bahamut0013  words deeds 16:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I belive that WP:SECRET PAGES should becom a rule. And as stated above there is nothing that prohibits the use of said pages. And furthermore after reading WP:MYSPACE I have found nothing that prohibits or makes illegal the use of secret pages. I for one support WP:SECRET PAGES to become a real rule.-- Coldplay   Expert  17:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Are Secret pages a game? Do they help build the encyclopedia?  The answers are yes and no.  Therefore, WP:UP is applicable.  Deserted Cities (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

First off sorry for the red links anyway if that is the case then shouldnt half of the Department of Fun be deleted? After all it does not contribute to the value of wikipedia articles.-- Coldplay   Expert  17:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS Deserted Cities (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah yeah I remember that from the unreleased coldplay songs, well you know what. WP:IGNORE-- Coldplay   Expert  17:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete, it's simply a game that has no place in building an encyclopedia. –blurpeace (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Nonsense that wastes editors' time.  Triplestop  x3  23:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "wastes editors' time" is a weak criticism given that the editors are all volunteers. It's their time to waste.  To "waste" it (your opinion) is their decision to make.  If they are, on balance, productive, why do you feel the need to interfere with their decision making?  Have you considered that you are imposing your own philosophy on others?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You know what Deserted Cities? your WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is your only excuse for my comment. I want a real answer. not the message OTHERCRAPEXISTS. That is avoiding my question because quite frankly you probaly dont have an answer.-- Coldplay   Expert  23:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's a few for you. First, are you on some sort of crusade to protect all these pages from deletion; for someone who doesn't have any such page up for discussion, you seem quite interested in it  (and in notifying a user whom you were blocked for being a sock of ).  Second, do you read pages you cite, or just look at the title as the top of WP:FUN says the page is is dedicated to providing Wikipedians with things to make them stay at Wikipedia, indirectly improving the encyclopedia.  And if you read on, you'd see |contests aimed at article editing Deserted Cities (talk) 04:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You can stop bringing the sock pupet thing up because im not a sock of anyone, I already proved it. and second Im "intrested" in it because I belive you'll go after guestbook pages next. Yes I am on a "Crusade to protect these pages".-- Coldplay   Expert  11:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing to do with encyclopaedia etc. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:USER Wikipedia is not a social networking site and examples such as the page under consideration are (inadvertently) sending the wrong message to users. Wikipedia is not Wikia. Johnuniq (talk) 01:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment it is kinda wierd that MC him/her self has not said anything yet.-- Coldplay   Expert  02:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:UP. Secret pages do not contribute to building the encyclopedia. Cunard (talk) 05:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To deleters - I strongly agree with the comment above by ZooFari in the sense that future MfD discussions for secret pages should not be held individually but as a whole or even in a completely different place, having one user singled out over their page of all the other hundreds floating about just seems more like a personal issue regarding the user themself as opposed to a problem with their secret page. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 13:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would tread lightly there. Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride began because he mistakenly assumed that Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages gave him free license to delete these pages. There is some discussion at Village pump (proposals), but I wouldn't hold your breath for a clear consensus to do anything, as the previous centralized discussions have been pretty controversial. The merit to a case-by-case deletion discussion was that some pages are worse than others; such as the mass of red herring pages or use of sockpuppets to play the game. But I do see your point about WP:BITE, where one new user is singled out for MfD while there are so many more who escape notice. Should there ever be consensus to delete these pages on sight, User:Bahamut0013/Secret pages would assist admins in finding them.  bahamut0013  words deeds 14:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I know that this is my 30 edit or something like that but I have agreed to change my vote. After hearing asurances that the sig. pages will not be touched I have decided to vote Delete per everything stated above. Now I hope that I did not hurt anyone's feelings and If I did, I owe you a big apology.-- Coldplay   Expert  23:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per SmokeyJoe --UltraMagnus (talk) 07:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:UP and WP:NOTMYSPACE. ArcAngel (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep there is a difference between an active Wikipedian, such as this very   effectIve and accurate  RC patroller,   and  someone who makes essentially no contributions to Wikipedia and just comes here to play games. If   good editors wants to amuse themselves harmlessly even with what I personally consider rather foolish games, it shouldn't  bother us. We need the  work they do. (I certainly couldn't say this for all of the pages brought here, or even most of them, but this is a case where more thought should have been taken before nominating.)   DGG (talk) 05:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I flatly reject the notion that experienced users should be allowed more latitude to violate policy, reasonable behaviour, and acceptable userspace use than newbies. If anything, it should be the other way around. → ROUX   ₪  07:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not see it as violating policy--I see it as not a violation at all when it's a reasonably proportioned activity.  DGG (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't for games. It's an encyclopedia, and games aren't an acceptable use of userspace. You know that. If he wants to play games, there are a brazilian other websites for doing so. It is simply not fair to n00bs to say "Well yeah, this person who's been here a while can play games as much as they like, but not you! You better get your nose to the grindstone." Established users should--must!--be held to at least the same standards of behaviour we require of new editors. → ROUX   ₪  18:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * While I agree with you whole-heartedly on the point of fairness (experienced users shouldn't get special treatment), I do have to make a point about practicality. Is it worth offending established editors? What builds the encyclopedia better: harsh enforcement of a strict constructionist interpretation of rules, or allowing a productive editor leeway to continue being a productive editor? Which has more value to you?  bahamut0013  words deeds 11:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course it's worth offending established editors when the 'offence' consists of "Hey, you've been here more than long enough to know the rules, you need to behave at least to the standard we expect of n00bs." → ROUX   ₪  15:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Has no foreseeable encyclopedic use.  Triplestop  x3  01:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. In my opinion, this falls into the same category as guestbooks and the like. And remember what Jimbo said: "Anything that builds a spirit of friendliness and co-operation and helps people get to know each other as human beings seems to me a good thing. Unlike divisive userboxes, the autograph books seem to just be about saying hello and being friendly." What is the harm in a page that is essentially a "hidden" guestbook?  Ks0stm  (T•C•G) 14:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The difference between a guestbook and a hidden page is that the latter encourages people to play. When I first came across hidden pages I didn't think they did a lot of harm, but things have changed. We have recently acquired a whole community of people who are here mainly or entirely to play games and/or build up social networks. Some of these people have been building up large and intricate networks of secret pages. In at least one case that I know of a user created a hidden page in the user space of another user who apparently was not involved and did not know it was happening, presumably to make it harder to find. The more this thing is allowed to grow the more it will get out of hand. We do not need to encourage people to join Wikipedia in order to use it for playing games. I know full well that Midnight Comet is not one of the abusive users I have been referring to, but allowing this sort of thing sends the message to newcomers that using Wikipedia purely for playing is alright. I used to be not very happy about pages such as this one, but thought they did little harm. However, because of the recent developments I have described, I now think they need to be removed. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to discuss this further at WT:UP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I support SmokeyJoe but I already changed my vote to delete and I dont want to look like im jumping the fence again...-- Coldplay   Expert  22:45, 1 October 2009 (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.