Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tezero/Secret Page




 * 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Tezero/Secret Page

 * User:Tezero/Map 1
 * User:Tezero/Map 2
 * User:Tezero/Map 3
 * User:Tezero/Map 4
 * User:Tezero/monobook Added 23:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Not Myspace, and it's a game with nothing to do with the mainspace. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Nothing to do with our project's goals. We are not a web hosting company, we are an encyclopedia. There are plenty of free wikis out there with a more open scope, the only thing they lack is the high volume of Wikipedia. Chillum  21:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: I have contacted the user explaining the situation and asking if he/she consents to the deletion of the pages. This often prevents the need for a deletion discussion. If the user consents then I will delete the pages under the user request CSD criteria and speedy close this debate, otherwise the debate will continue. Chillum  21:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete These pages violate WP:MYSPACE and WP:UP. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete we went through this two months ago...-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk 23:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Clear violation of WP:UP. Specs112 (Talk!) 00:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia isn't Myspace. Décémbér21st2012Fréak   &#124;  Talk 00:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Katerenka (talk) 04:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 *  Keep  If this was an editor who did nothing else but play about with their own user pages, I'd be inclined to say 'delete'. However, Soxred93's Tools Edit Counter shows that User:Tezero has 6,920 edits, of which 6692 are still live, has been editing for 19 months, with just over 70% of their edits in article space (or article talk space), and about 15% of their edits in either user or user talk space. I am inclined to say to leave these pages - the last MfD was 'no concensus', Tezero has made a total of 7 edits to these pages - of which 5 were their creation! I think this clearly falls within the leeway we can give to active editors - it is not distracting Tezero from editing (although the user's edits have fallen off in the last 4 months, they still average 4 a day over that time period - probably because of academic/work or family commitments). --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 08:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC) (Changing !vote... see below) --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me ,  My Contribs ) 21:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I normally would !vote 'delete' on such a page, personally I think they are a waste of time, and most (but not all) of the ones I've seen are by editors who never contribute to the encyclopedia. WP:UP says Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia (emphasis mine) - it does not forbid it. Further on, it says [Unrelated content include] 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 (again, emphasis mine). I just thought I'd explain why I am !voting 'keep' against the current concensus - it is not a random thing, but something which I have considered carefully, as I do with all my !votes on xfD (not to imply that others don't! I am aware of the fact that most editors who !vote at xfD carefully consider the case before typing). --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 09:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per the rational above. The user is an active participant in the project, and is given leeway according to WP:UP.  Deserted Cities (talk) 14:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Contributions don't buy you a license to do nonsense that wouldn't otherwise be allowed. Gigs (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 *  Keep (struck due mostly per Triplestop. This particular game lacks novelty or educational value).  Consistent contributions buy you moderate leeway in userspace, even if many people don't see the point.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this something that policy reflects, or is it simply a point of view? (not trying to be a smartass, policies change so often I don't know) Chillum  01:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's my opinion. This is a fine but contentious grey-zone in policy.  In previous years, the leeway idea was quite generous, but there is nothing documented on old policy that I can find.  Recently (in the last year), many editors have become upset by an alleged large number of non-contributors playing games and doing myspacey things, and this has lead to sporadic purges against unrelated things and nonsense in userspace.
 * The relevant policy (WP:UP), a section which is relatively new, is slowly gelling into form. It is unclear where consensus lies, between Gig's statement and mine.  Unfortunately, very few people are willing to engage in the debate at WT:UP, specifically Wikipedia_talk:User_page.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I am going to stick with WP:NOT on this matter which enjoys consensus. Chillum  02:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My interest is in finding the line that divides "social networking" from "providing a foundation for effective collaboration". I don't find that WP:NOT, in WP:MYSPACE or any other section, speaks directly to this sort of page.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can explain to me how these pages provide a foundation for effective collaboration then I may reconsider my position. If I thought they did that I would not have supported deletion, however they seem completely unrelated to the goals of the foundation. Chillum  03:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I think the pages are ineffective at providing a foundation for effective collaboration. But they are even worse at helping the user with his social networking, and so I don't see any "abuse".  These pages are just silly distractions, and I advocate a tolerant "each to their own" approach.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry, SmokeyJoe, but I strongly disagree. Wikipedia policies and guidelines apply to everyone, from newer users to veteran editors, admins, and bureaucrats. WP:MYSPACE and WP:UP apply to Tezero just as much as they apply to someone who registered yesterday. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, ASaW, that they apply to all users, from someone who registered today up to and including Jimbo Wales!. However, I would like to remind my fellow editors that WP:USER is a guideline, as as such It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Also, for those who haven't read it, there is an essay about secret pages here, which may make interesting reading --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 09:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but WP:NOT is policy and is also very clear about this sort of thing. Many essays and guidelines reflect this, but the root is in what we are not. Chillum  15:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If WP:NOT is very clear about this sort of thing, can you tell me which words apply to these pages, and why? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delayed response, I have been traveling. This part: "Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog or to post your resume, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet or any hosting included with your Internet account." I think how it applies is obvious. Chillum  21:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Chillum may not have responded yet, but I'm going to jump in here, as this is a debate that I think is worth having.
 * The question is whether WP:NOT, a policy, takes a clear position on pages like secret pages in userspace. The relevant part of the policy is WP:MYSPACE, which states:
 * "Wikipedia is not a social network like MySpace or Facebook. You may not host your own website, blog, or wiki at Wikipedia. [U]ser pages...may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. ... The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration."
 * I note that Tezero is an active editor who did not register a Wikipedia account for the purpose of social networking. However, this policy is clearly applicable to all Wikipedia users, not just users who have registered accounts solely for the purpose of social networking. Therefore, all users must avoid creating material in or adding content to their userspace that is used solely for social networking, instead utilizing their userspace to provide "a foundation for effective collaboration." Some userspace content that is borderline social networking is protected by this "foundation for collaboration" clause:
 * a) Userboxes Although userboxes are often not related to the construction of the encyclopedia, they allow editors to get to know other editors better. By learning about other editors' interests, hobbies, views, etc., a "foundation for collaboration" is built.
 * b) Barnstars Barnstars are usually related, directly or tangentially, to the construction of the encyclopedia. They also allow editors to commend other editors for their work. Although some barnstars are irrelevant to the construction of the encyclopedia, most are sufficiently relevant to building a "foundation for collaboration."
 * c) Signature pages Although I personally dislike signature pages, they do allow editors to expand their contacts in the Wikipedia community by meeting other editors, thus assisting in building a "foundation for collaboration."
 * However, secret pages and other games are not only completely irrelevant to the encyclopedia; they furthermore do not and cannot serve any purpose with regards to "providing a foundation for effective collaboration." They might be acceptable on a site designed for such social networking, such as Facebook or MySpace, but not on Wikipedia. At this point, I think the burden of evidence is on those voting to keep these pages to explain how, exactly, they provide Tezero with a "foundation for effective collaboration." The ball's in your court. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a problem with suggestion that pages like this have purpose of social networking. I am quite sure that these pages are not for the purpose of social networking.  I see no relevance of mentioning “social networking”.  They should not be deleted for that reason.
 * I see these pages as worthless, but otherwise inoffensive. I see little harm in keeping them, and I see harm in a community where individuals police others’ workspace over harmless trivialities.
 * “may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia” does seem to say that games of negligible educational value (related to the project) are not OK. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * While it is true that they are not described by their creators as "social networking" or "games," I argue that de facto that's what they are. Moreover, I am struggling a bit with your assertion that you are "quite sure that these pages are not for the purpose of social networking." Personally, I am quite sure that's their sole purpose. What other purpose do you think they serve?
 * I concede the point that they do no harm. Since these pages are in userspace, that is a valid argument, although I believe an innocuous violation of Wikipedia policy is still a violation of Wikipedia policy.
 * I disagree with your argument that there is harm in "a community where individuals police others' workspace over harmless trivialities." Wikipedia is a community, but it's not a community in the traditional sense where members spend nearly all of their time. If someone wants to social network, they can do so on numerous websites – just not on Wikipedia. That's the essence of WP:MYSPACE.
 * Finally, do you interpet WP:MYSPACE as allowing secret page games like this? Are they, in your mind, a foundation for effective collaboration? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "quite sure that these pages are not for the purpose of social networking." Well, maybe it's my lack of imagination, but these pages wouldn't complement any social network I am familiar with.  I think these pages serve virtually no purpose whatsoever.  I think (hope) that the intention was educational, with regard to the functions of the wiki.  If you think these pages are here to supplement his social networking, then that is a very good reason to delete.
 * No, WP:MYSPACE does not "allow" such pages. A list of NOTs is a very poor way to formulate guidance, and interpreting meaning from the absence of a particular NOT is too screwy.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. This pages have nothing to do with Wikipedia. Nsk92 (talk) 13:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * comment the user should have been asked about these before it was brought here, as a courtesy to an active user.   DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Should not have been nominated again so soon after the previous request. -Nard 20:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:UP. Secret pages do not contribute to building the encyclopedia. Cunard (talk) 05:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep After careful weighing of the precedents here, and the nature of the editor, I suggest that the benefit of any doubt be decided in his favor. Where the result scarely two months ago was "no consensus" I would suggest the same result is apropos this time. Collect (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Page with not encyclopedic value whatsoever. Having contributions does not give one leeway to violate policies such as WP:NOT, and even if it does this nonsense clearly crosses the line.  Triplestop  x3  01:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Even if it does", can you take a stab at defining the nonsense line? Does this page cross the line?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 15kb of "Find the blue link (i.e. the one that doesn't redlink.)" repeated over and over again is nonsense. On the page you mentioned, there is at least some meaning to the text, however vapid.  Triplestop  x3  22:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can agree with that. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The actual secret page is here:User:Tezero/monobook. Adding to the above list as it's totally dependent on the other pages.  Please revert me if you think I'm wrong, but please also explain your revert.  Note:Page says "...don't go around telling everyone how to get here. If [you do], I shall have to move this somewhere...." (but you may want to see in context and he may not have considered MfD as a possibility).  -- Thin  boy  00  @029, i.e. 23:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as harmless. It takes vastly more effort to have this deletion discussion than what the pages waste. Also per PhantomSteve's arguments above. • Anakin 01:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. The effort is wasted because some people oppose something so obvious. — AlexSm 14:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete change of my !vote following the discussion here. Does this mean that we can now expect to have a few dozen of these pages up for deletion within the next few days? --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 21:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, they seem to come in spurts. This is the fifth or sixth one that I've !voted in. Gwen Novak  talk to my master 21:59, 25 November 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.