Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:MC10/Chess




 * 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. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:MC10/Chess

 * Also User talk:MC10/Chess/Game 1 and User:MC10 Chess and User talk:MC10/Chess/Discussion.

This is inappropriate use of userspace. It's not designed to play chess. This is an encyclopedia. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  CANUKUS  ─╢ 20:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:Editors matter. –xenotalk 20:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete The Foundation and its donors pay for an encyclopedia, not a game server. Crum375 (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yet they don't pay for editors, who write the encyclopedia. –xenotalk 20:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To be fair, that'd be like the Red Cross using charitably-raised funds to buy a fleet of Rolls Royces, and saying, "Well, you don't pay for the volunteers who work in our shops and stuff." ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  secretariat  ─╢ 20:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it would be more like the Red Cross using office funds to pay for a volunteer's taxi ride home late at night after they stayed late helping victims of a fire or something. Imperfect analogy, I know, but orders of magnitude better than "a fleet of Rolls Royces".  It's 69 edits! --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't even think it's as bad as paying for a taxi. It's basically the Red Cross letting their volunteers play some StarCraft on the PCs when the office closes down. –xenotalk 21:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What amount of technical and editorial resources are we spending on this discussion? In proportion to what kind of problem?--Father Goose (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Xeno, per User:Walton One's WP:Editors matter. MC10 Chess has 69 edits to these pages, MC10 has over 9700.  This isn't a myspacer wasting time, it's an editor taking an occasional break. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per all the above, and noting that many other editors, including some very well known and prolific editors have similar.-- Jac 16888 Talk 20:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Could this be a classic case of WP:OTHERCRAP? ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  secretariat  ─╢ 20:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, I think this could be a case of that page is only an essay, the chessboard is not an article, MC10 is not hurting anything, and there's better things you could be doing with your time-- Jac 16888 Talk 20:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There are almost certainly better things he could be doing with his time too. Also better things he could be doing with Wikimedia bandwidth... ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  assemblyman  ─╢ 20:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about performance. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 20:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)Tag, this isn't hurting anything ok? MC10 edits plenty, its not like hes only playing it, as has been pointed out elsewhere, he does have nearly 10,000 edits. As for bandwidth, the idea that this could affect it is Laughable. Stop looking for drama where there is none-- Jac 16888 Talk 20:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That was completely un-necessary, Jac. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  sheriff  ─╢ 21:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per J.delanoy's chessboard and xeno. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 20:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:Editors matter. Also might get other editors interested in editing chess articles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Substantial contributor. Not violative of policies.  Deleting such would, IMHO, actually damage WP by driving off editors.  Collect (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep On the one hand, I feel strongly that WP:NOT, WP:UP, and other policies and guidelines do apply to both prolific veteran editors and new users. Indeed, we all know that vested contributors are not supposed to violate basic policies simply because they've been here a while. On the other hand, editors matter. We should not be driving valuable contributors away over small issues like this. A strong argument could be made that this violates WP:UP, and yeah, Wikipedia is not a game server or free webhost, but users like MC10 are not using Wikipedia as a free webhost. They are here to build an encyclopedia. So, I ask the three questions posed at WP:EM: Does the content make an editor happy, or strengthen Wikipedia's sense of community and shared enjoyment? It sure seems that way. Will deleting the page actually do Wikipedia any good? Not really. Is it harmless? Yes. However, that doesn't mean we should start voting to keep secret pages in userspace. Secret pages are more pervasive, and unlike these chess/checkers games, they are commonly created by editors who are abusing Wikipedia as MySpace, not by editors who are here to build an encyclopedia like MC10, J.delanoy, and TTTSNB. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There is nothing wrong with a constructive contributor occasionally using his user pages this way.  Peacock (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nominator is right that this page does violate the spirit of WP:NOT. However, contributor is well-established and courtesy and good faith still count for a lot. I need evidence of malice before I'll delete something from a regular contributor's userspace. Firsfron of Ronchester  02:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Deleting these kinds of pages strikes me as roaming through people's cubicles and trying to throw out their collections of troll dolls, Dilbert cartoons, what have you, on the basis that they're "not used for work".  I'd agree with the deletion of pages like this if they were used by people who are using Wikipedia solely to socialize, but if little diversions like this help keep regular contributors' wikistress low and interest in the project high, then they are a Good Thing, and we'd be nuts to delete them.--Father Goose (talk) 08:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Xeno and Father Goose. Also remember the bit about what sort of stuff should be deleted particularly if they involve people who are not active participants in the project - these sorts of games by contrast are for any other Wikipedian to play a move against the editor. I've never played one of these myself but I see them as a totally inoffensive way of fostering a collaborative environment here. As for justifying it to donors, I don't see donors complaining about the "rewards" we volunteers get for our contributions to this project.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep no one should care. @harej 23:13, 13 January 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.