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

User:Tezero/Secret Page

• User:Tezero/Map 1
• User:Tezero/Map 2
• User:Tezero/Map 3
• User:Tezero/Map 4

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#GAMES. 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#NOT. Specs112 (Talk!) 00:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia isn't Myspace. Décémbér21st2012Fréak  |  ^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). -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:57, 20 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#NOT 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). -- PhantomSteve (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#NOT. 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. 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#GAMES), 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#WP:UP.23NOT.2F11_aka_WP:UP.23GAMES._.22particularly.22. --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#GAMES 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 -- PhantomSteve (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)

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)

• 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#Games. 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)