Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Thing That Should Not Be/vandalbox

 __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 per CSD criterion U1.  — Soap  —  19:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

User:The Thing That Should Not Be/vandalbox
A total waste of time, similar to this. Wikipedia is not MySpace!. This is the same junk as cabals and secret pages. Enough with this MySpace stuff. It was filled with huge images and completely useless stuff not needed to build an encyclopedia. You can do a lot with your userspace; I think sandboxes are great, however, this is just another timewasting distraction... Also, this page contains more objectionable content then the NSD version... m o n o  02:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:MYSPACE. Pages like this send the wrong message about vandalism, when the correct approach is WP:DENY. The header including "follow the rules" is not appropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 07:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep – if crap like what is on this page helps keep vandalism off all the other namespaces, then I think it's doing what it's supposed to do. –MuZemike 07:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no evidence that it does. The project already has scratch space; it doesn't need "vandal space", especially not in obscure user pages. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per not doing any harm and per not actually being myspacey. This neither encourages established users to spend time looking for secret pages, or joining useless, cabals. Letting some anons vandalize safely isn't bad, and there is no evidence that it encourages vandalism.  — fetch ·  comms   23:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So, for instance, were it to be pointed out that and  have both vandalised articles since coming to the page, would that be a counterargument? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, and pretty strongly at that. Vandalism pages give Wikipedia a very bad view as I see it. Looking at several vandalism pages, I've come across homophobic attacks, racial slang terms, anti-Islam remarks, sexual references/descriptions, and more similar remarks that fall in the same line. These highly-offensive and hurtful comments are something no one wants to see and I'm sure that there are people out there who may be hurt by them, if they haven't been already; but of all places, where are these remarks and careless insults appearing? Wikipedia. Is that what we want Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, to be viewed as? "I was on Wikipedia the other day, and by golly, you won't believe what I found on the page of an editor..." I don't want to sound harsh nor do I want to insult anyone, but in my eyes, keeping these pages is supporting the presence of these attacks on Wikipedia, plain and simple. In addition, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we are here to build one. In absolutely no way do I see these pages doing such. One could argue, "How about userpages, or guestbooks, or other pages in the likes?" In essense, these pages do help build an encyclopedia, as it encourages cooperation among editors (which is what Wikipedia thrives on) and creates a good atmosphere. ~Super Hamster  Talk Contribs 01:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I use this page specifically to keep vandalism off of my main userpage, which is what a lot of people look at when they click my username, nothing more. I'd rather have the vandalism in the vandalbox than on my main userpage or my talk page. I was planning to clear all of it out when I noticed the MFD template. The Thing That Should Not Be (talk) 05:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, why have you not notified any of the authors of the pages that you have nominated? If I hadn't gone to my vandalbox, I might have never known that it was nominated until I saw a nice redlink on my userpage. The Thing That Should Not Be (talk) 05:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe Mono has gone through and notified all the users now. Anyway, is there any particular reason that you haven't gotten your userpage protected? I noticed the message at the top of your userpage requesting that it not be protecting unless you request it. That would certainly be the most effective way to prevent vandalism from occurring on your userspace by far; the effectiveness of your vandalism page in redirect vandalism is debatable, as 1) there's still plenty more vandalism appearing on your userpage than on the vandalism page and 2) Some of the vandals on your vandalism page have vandalized the vandal page in addition to vandalizing an article. ~Super Hamster  Talk Contribs 10:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: I have requested deletion of my page per CSD-U1. The Thing That Should Not Be (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete primarily as a matter of principle, and secondarily per the arguments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NerdyScienceDude/Vandalism space (2nd nomination). Unlike an article, this page can be effortlessly re-created if we decide that we are going to tolerate userspace "vandal box" pages.  But for now, the consensus at the AfD for NerdyScienceDude's page is clear, and so it should be applied fairly and evenly to everyone, and not just to NerdyScienceDude.  I note that The Thing had no part in the MfD for NerdyScienceDude's page and thus I don't blame him if this MfD ends up in a Keep result, which I would consider to be unfair.  I would like to see a mass MfD along the lines of Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages or even an RfC so we can settle the issue decisively and not have to come back to it time and time again.   —  Soap  —  11:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral comment: Why does anybody at all care whether or not it exists? If you never saw it, you wouldn't care about it, and it wouldn't worry you.  2D Maestro  Immune Diplomat 12:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If only other editors had left arguments explaining why it's harmful in the space above. Sheesh. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per my vandalism space getting deleted. ~ Nerdy Science Dude  (✉ • ✐) 13:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep It is much better for the vandalism to go here then on The Thing That should not be's userpage or in the Article space. Immunize (talk)


 * DELETED PER WP:CSD; SOMEONE OUGHT TO CLOSE THIS MFD  m o n o   18:44, 1 June 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.