Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages

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 debate was: This one is one of the most complex MFDs that I've seen or closed in my almost three years in this project. I did a full evauation of each of the comments made in both here and the AN/I comment. I just couldn't read consensus for most of this debate. Alot of moot votes in both sides of the debate, many WP:ILIKEIT, and the comments to comparing this to myspace and calling it "useless rubbish" is plain WP:IDONTLIKEIT so they cancel each other out. WP:NOT#MYSPACE was created for editors not to abuse the website by chatting and avoiding any types of mainspace contributions. Here with some of the secret pages, it doesn't seem to be the case. Those secret pages aren't chat rooms, just promoting a little fun with a barnstar. In my opinion it's plain silly, but policies trump personal opinions, and there is no clear policy that prohibits this thing. Many of the users here are long standing users with many namespace edits looking to build community interaction. Other comments that were valid included a selective delete of the worst of the violations, but that is what mass MFDs of many pages aren't for. I'm deleting the fake secret pages, as consenus was formed here, and the rest of those pages should be on a case on case basis. Note this is not a keep result. Secret ^account 21:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"Secret" pages

PLEASE NOTE: Only actual "secret" pages are under discussion. The list of secret pages was automatically generated and may be inaccurate.
Pages that don't actually fit the description of "secret pages" are not in danger of being deleted. ALSO NOTE: This is not an April Fool's Day joke. This is a real nomination that will result in very real deletions, if that is the consensus.

Per the conversation at ANI, since it seems all "secret" userspace pages have been nominated for deletion there, I feel that as a deletion discussion it should take place here. If possible I'd also like to notify all the users whose pages would be affected, but the list is so large that I'm not sure how that would be possible.

Many users feel that so-called "secret" user pages are a waste of resources and editing time. Furthermore, WP:NOT#MYSPACE seems to prohibit such pages. They should therefore be deleted.

The list of pages up for deletion is here. Other pages may be deleted as well, if more such "secret" pages are found. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:07, 1 Apr 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: I've attempted to tag all pages that would be affected by the outcome of this discussion. There are over 160 such pages though, and the list I'm working off of was automatically generated based on a title search. I was therefore working very quickly and may have tagged pages that were in the list erroneously, or conversely I may have left out pages that the generated list didn't catch. My apologies in either case. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:51, 1 Apr 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Does nothing to help build WP:ENC and tends to encourage cabal/myspace activities. MBisanz ^talk 05:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Repeating my vite from ANI, the drain on resources is a minor point to me, my reason for agreeing is this is one of those things that leads people to not take the project seriously. Redrocket (talk) 06:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep – However a vast majority of users who contribute to these pages are people who think this place is something of a social network ... {{fact}}. The most important issue here is that while we're not myspace, the reality is that de facto we're actually a hybrid of an encyclopedia and MySpace, and it's one of the primary reasons why we've achieved so much success. Unlike MySpace, Facebook, Britannica, and basically every Wiki out there not run by wm, we have our content totally open for people to steal and start their own site. However, it's obvious that that's not enough— especially given the various competing sites that pay experts to edit them, they still lack the success we enjoy.

That's because we have a community. We've got silly stuff like "Secret Pages" (which aren't at all secret due to Special:PrefixIndex), we've got pointless userboxes, categories, templates, essays, and all sorts of really extraneous stuff. Why? Because people like it, and because pointless barnstars are gateway drugs to actual barnstars. Personally, I learned how to find secret pages by wondering "how do you find secret pages" and then discovering Special:PrefixIndex.

If something needs to be deleted because it's abusive, inflammatory, disharmonious to editing, or is overly resource consumptive, then mfd it. Otherwise, I'm of the belief that we should simply leave people to their own devices, instead of saying that we simply "don't like it because it's silly, so delete it." Of course, I could just be crazy, so feel free to ignore me :P --slakr^\ talk / 06:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep because deleting this and the annoyance it would cause is just not worth it. I've never seen any evidence at all that this encourages cabalism, and in fact find that to be a fairly ridiculous assertion. Waste of resources also doesn't seem like a credible claim to me. As long as these pages are kept in user space they're at worst a harmless diversion, but at best a reasonably okay form of community building. Blanket prohibition of these pages don't help the encyclopedia; and keeping these pages seems to provide some productive editors with a small measure of enjoyment. That's reason enough to keep. --JayHenry (talk) 06:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - per my comments at ANI. --Chetblong (talk) 06:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: These pages rarely do anything for building an encyclopedia and are rather meant to be things one sees on Gaia or MySpace or Facebook (I haven't seen such things on the latter two, but anyway). If these users spend the time that they put into coding these secret pages into writing or improving articles, we'd have a hell of a lot more articles of better quality. I once found a user with several dozen secret pages as part of some secret pages game she had set up. That effort could have been spent elsewhere.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • If these users spend the time that they put into coding these secret pages into writing or improving articles, we'd have a hell of a lot more articles of better quality. - True. But deleting these pages will not make those users spend more time writing or improving articles. Editing is not a zero-sum game. People make as many or as few edits as they want to; thus, deleting the fun stuff will not cause people to make serious edits instead. Walton^One 18:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

break 1

• Keep - For similar reasons to Slakr and Jay. It seems rather excessive to worry about what is at worst harmless, and assuming that those who make secret pages would have expended the same amount of effort elsewhere on wikipedia had they been unable to do so is flawed. 169.229.82.126 (talk) 06:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete I'm all for having fun, but this whole thing is a slippery slope: one day I'll log in and it'll look more like Facebook than Wikipedia. I have definitely noticed an increase (not scientifically measured but just through my wanderings) in users who tend to spend most of their time and edits chatting on each other's talk pages about working on their cabals, etc. Eventualism can work both ways. --- Taroaldo (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong comment I've noticed the same thing. There's definitely been an increasing tolerance for "fun stuff" in userspace recently. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:06, 1 Apr 2008 (UTC)
• Keep unless the list for deletion is prepared with more care, on a case-by-case basis. For example, User:Kizzle/secret/vote suppression/thoughts is material assembled by the user for possible use in encyclopedia articles. This user is, alas, currently inactive, but has referred to an intention to return. There may be other such pages in the list. I've looked at only a few of them. I could support deleting the "You found my secret page" crapola but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Besides, won't this deletion just lead to User:Username/Easter_egg pages or the like? JamesMLane t c 07:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think the list is steadfast; pages that don't actually fit the description of "secret page" will, I'm assuming, not be deleted. Don't let the inaccuracy of the linked list sway your vote one way or the other. It's only actual "secret page"s that are in danger of being deleted (again this is my assumption). Equazcion •✗/C • 07:23, 1 Apr 2008 (UTC)
  • Correct, only pages that fall under the "This is my secret page you found, you win a prize" sort of thing are up for deletion. MBisanz ^talk 07:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, that's my fault. I did a quick page title regex with some really light filtering not realizing that my results were going to be heavily viewed. ; - ) Of course, pages that simply have the word "secret" in the page title aren't going to be deleted. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - really, purging this place of stupid but sometimes amusing stuff today, of all days? Why don't you just fire somebody on Christmas, or dump somebody on Valentine's Day. I've certainly never looked for anybody's secret page, but some people who have are valuable contributors. People who want to pretend that this is Myspace are going to keep doing so once you take away one of their avenues for doing so, and deleting will just create a lot of ill-will all around. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete the lot of them; my comments are here. east.718 at 07:39, April 1, 2008
• Delete We are here to build an encyclopedia people. Let's remember that. Also, remember that there are many, many contributors out there who have given the Foundation money to help build a free encyclopedia, how bout we stop wasting their money? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 08:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep There's no harm in a bit of fun. --₪Ryan Taylor₪^talk 08:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. There is a fine line between community building and MySpacery. These are the wrong side of that line; they do nothing to support the building of the encyclopaedia and they reinforce the idea that Wikipedia is a social network, free webhost and playground. Guy (Help!) 09:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

break 2

• Ahem While we're all screwing with formatting... [1] Thanks. ~ Riana ⁂ 09:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Comment - I tend to agree most with Guy, MBisanz and Taroaldo above. However, I have been swayed by some users who maintain clearly harmless ones. My concern more related to those users who spend all of or a significant chunk of their time in userspace. I would favour removing those of any editor with greater than 50% of their contributions in user/user talk space, though, for want of a better measure. I do see merit in FT2's comments below mine. Orderinchaos 09:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Edit-conflicted Keep per Wikipedia:Editors matter. Editors act in violation of WP:NOT#MYSPACE, not pages, and a certain amount of leeway is allowed in userspace for good contributors. It seems to me that a mass deletion would only result in one of two things: good editors are hurt or leave the project because their little trinket got smote, or users who are just here to muck around in userspace either keep recreating them or go on to equally unproductive activities (okay, three things: some editors will just not care/notice). Deletion is only treating the symptoms of WP:NOT#MYSPACE, not the cause. --jonny-mt 09:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I've deleted and endorsed deletion of my fair share of non-project user space subpages, and feel it's right. However a mass onslaught on them would I feel rob us of a wide range of participatory goodwill of which many may become good editors over time (as several on this page probably evidence). Mixed feelings. If we have users who do social networking and little else, then that's different. If the page is ancilliary to activities including editing, then we can ask nicely "can you kill that page" if it's a problem. But the feeling of mass onslaught would possibly come over as "old wiki-dodderers killing the fun of the site for no good reason", and some of those we'd disillusion/discourage might well be good and capable editors in a year or two's time, who have "grown up within Wikipedia". In such circumstances tactful words and gentle requests may be worth the extra effort...? Then again, we don't want to encourage wikimyspace too much, where the project is secondary or a game, either. Question of fact -- are these all pages of users who do little more of a project-building nature? If so I'd be much more likely to support a purge. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not Bebo. Certain pages could be exempted. Elfits FOR GREAT JUSTICE (klat) 10:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete this useless rubbish. We aren't meant to be messing around playing games here, people can head off to social networking sites if that's what they want to be doing. J Milburn (talk) 11:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - I agree with J Milburn that "useless rubbish" would be the most accurate description. Yes, editors matter, but by editor I mean those who are willing to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. Also when do such pages stop being fun and turn into self-reproducing attractive nuisances? The recent proliferation of these pages (see the ANI threads WP:ANI#"Secret" pages and WP:ANI#Excessive cabals, not to mention a fairly recent namespace ban) suggests we've already reached the tipping point. MER-C 11:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Not MySpace, Facebook, Bebo, Hotmail and all the rest. D.M.N. (talk) 12:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete - there are lots of places to play this kind of silly game; this should not be one of them. We indulge ourselves with userboxen and the like; this is just over the line. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Looking through the list provided, i would say some of MfD is completely misplaced. Some of the pages listed do not seem to be about hidden areas but about ther places e.g. User:Martini833/MySpace Secret Shows, User:Political Mind/secretary, User:Propaniac/bsc/Jessi and the Awful Secret, User:Snapdragonfly/Secret du Roi draft and others. This needs to be thoroughly looked at properly and just remember that not all pages which contain "secret" in are secret pages. Simply south (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed - Note that in the original discussion (this actually came across from an/i) there was a general understanding that the list needed to be refined so it only addressed actual "secret pages". There's quite a lot of pages in the list that have nothing to do with the topic under discussion and as a delete voter I support those pages' retention. Orderinchaos 14:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep --Climax Void ☭. —Preceding comment was added at 13:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

break 3

• Strongest possible delete I was about to put them up for MfD as well, seems you beaten me. Our policies prohibit such misuse of server resources and Wikipedia space. While I do agree that this is not a completely serious project and I have no problem in in, I see no point in such useless pages. The userspace is not of any user, but of this project as whole. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 14:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. They serve no purpose other than being a Facebook/MySpace thing. I don't object to things like this there. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia. I agree with the discussion up a little about identifying only the right "Secret" subpages. Royalbroil 15:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep per Jtrainor , JamesMLane, Slakr, 169.229.82.126, Climax Void, Philippe. The secret pages are not Facebook/MySpace any more than than regular user pages and these pages do support a sense of community and Wikipedia is a community with a purpose rather than a site for "cruising" and chatting about sex, drugs and sex. Please remember Editors do count and Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. God Bless Wikipedia and it's wonderful editors! What's next userboxes & userpages? (Why are so many editors/users worried about how other editors/users waste their time?) Master Redyva ♠ 16:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, Orderinchaos voiced his support for deletion. MBisanz ^talk 17:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Can you please avoid putting ugly unnecessary formatting in votes, especially using deprecated tags? Ugly sigs are bad enough. User pages can serve a use - they allow people to know if a user is active, for example. Userboxes /may/ help as they can allow people to find people with relevant interests (although personally I'm opposed to them). These pages don't help the encyclopedia at all. -Halo (talk) 04:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per WP: EM The pages are completely harmless —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caissa's DeathAngel (talk • contribs) 17:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Question Wasnt there a time when we did not yet have prefixindex, and it might have actually been a challenge of sorts--requiring such arcane knowledge of how to use a usercontribution page, and similar? DGG (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Were here to build an encyclopedia, not play hide-and-go-seek. Twenty Years 17:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Not helpful to the encyclopedia. Plus they're bornoying. That's boring and annoying. Plus they are not helpful to the encyclopedia. And they're not helpful to building an encyclopedia. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - It's also part of the big, and recurring, problem raised at ANI. However, some productive editors have pages listed there too and not all of them are "secret pages", as remarked above, so we should be careful in deleting them, make case per case. Cenarium^Talk 17:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment A comment was made earlier that some editors may leave if these pages are deleted. Well, as long as it's the editors who spend most of their time chatting, forming cabals, etc. then it is no great loss. If Wikipedia is allowed to continue to slide further into the social networking realm many productive and committed editors will leave, and I will probably be one of them. --- Taroaldo (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete They take up precious bandwith, and one day that will be a problem... Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 18:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

break 4

• Keep per the reasoning outlined in Wikipedia:Editors matter, and for the following specific reasons.
  • Firstly, it makes no sense to assert that users "waste time and effort on these pages". Editing is not a zero-sum game. If editors are forcibly prevented from having fun, this will not cause them to spend more time editing articles or making productive contributions. A lot of those who've commented above (especially Ryulong) seem to have misunderstood the nature of Wikipedia as a voluntary project. If we were paying people to edit for a certain number of hours each day, then yes, creating these pages would be a waste of their time. But people choose how much to contribute, and what to contribute to. So deleting these pages will not mean that editors spend more time creating or improving articles.
  • Secondly, the existence of these pages does no harm to the quality of the encyclopedia. Since we don't need to worry about server space, and deleted material stays in the archives anyway, no technical benefit to the encyclopedia will arise from deleting them.
  • Thirdly, deletion of someone's userspace pages is always a risk; it risks upsetting the user and driving them away. As already outlined, there is no automatic benefit from deleting unnecessary pages; thus we should only delete userspace pages where they are actively harmful to the encyclopedia.
• Thus, we can conclude that deleting these pages will achieve nothing. There will be no net benefit to the encyclopedia. Some people above are asking the wrong question; they are asking "are these pages useful to the encyclopedia?", rather than asking "are these pages so harmful to the encyclopedia that we need to get rid of them?" The common Delete arguments here are, in short, based on a fundamental misconception of human behaviour and of the nature of Wikipedia as a collaborative entity. Walton^One 18:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Those are all excellent points, Walton. I haven't yet seen a single good reason for deleting in any one of these comments. It's not reasonable to assume that time not spent on secret pages will be time spent editing productively. It is certainly not reasonable to think that 200 pages (rounding up) is any kind of drain on a datacenter, in terms of bandwidth, space, or processing time, etc. Even 2,000 pages wouldn't be any kind of significant drain. And oh yeah, we're not supposed to be worrying about that anyway. There's also no reason to think these pages take up all that much time. If they were complex games that involved finding multiple pages, then I'd say that's something to get concerned over -- Wikipedia isn't your personal webspace. But having one "secret" page people can try to find does no harm in any conceivable way, as far as the comments I've read here thus far. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:41, 1 Apr 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Yes, Editors matter. I'm not disputing that. I am, however, disputing that essay - it's not saying "editors matter" at all! It's saying "avoid annoying people lest you offend people who might leave". That's "editors matter more than the encyclopedia" in my eyes, which is fundamentally a bad idea. The problem is if you try and object to an essay entitled "Editors matter" it makes you sound evil, but that's just because of how the essay has been framed to paint those who disagree with its principles as people who think "editors don't matter" - it's clever rhetoric, but that doesn't make it right.

• We need to put limits on things that are appropriate and inappropriate. We have done this since the beginning. WP:MYSPACE is policy, afterall. We have notability standards. These things should and do extend to user space. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If people aren't willing to obey by the rules and understand what Wikipedia fundamentally is and isn't, they don't belong here.
• But someone might leave because their secret page is deleted. Equally, should we not delete someone's pet article lest we offend someone? Should we let people use Wikipedia's web servers as a web host because, hey, it's only a tiny fraction of Wikipedia's bandwidth, and besides, they might not contribute otherwise? Hey, why not let people add friends lists? That'll help people co-operate! What about blogs? Or even chat? Why not let people create games? Hell, if people spend more time on the site, they're bound to contribute. But then we have MySpace and loads of bandwidth and space wasted on the site. It's one hell of a slippery slope, and completely ignored by "Editors matter".
• The existence of these pages fundamentally dilutes the encyclopedia. Every time you allow a page like this, you move Wikipedia away from its goals and towards the jokey nonsense served by MySpace and its ilk. Wikipedia should minimise the useless crap that exists to ensure the project stays on track towards its goals. -Halo (talk) 04:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - While I personally find secret pages to be an enormous waste of time and energy, my solution has simply been to not engage in them. I think it's a mistake to remove personality from the Wikipedia without strong evidence to prove that it's detrimental to the encyclopedia. I don't believe that secret pages are exclusionary, or any more wasted effort than any other user subpage. - Philippe 19:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Every time I see someone make a comment about social activities wasting people's time from now on I'm going to make an essentially useless user subpage and spend at least twenty minutes formatting it.-- Naerii 19:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Harmless fun. Sometimes, valuable editors, admins even, have secret pages. So friggin what. If these do get deleted, the one you have on "the list" of mine User:Keeper76/secret, is a fake. The real one wasn't nominated. Mwahahahahaha! Secret pages, guestbooks, and their ilk, are harmless bits of good fun. We are not stuffy old Brittanica here. We are volunteers. We have cabals (no we don't!, we have a humor tag, we have WP:BJAODN we have fake RfAs and some people have secret pages. So friggin what. If Wikipedia weren't fun, I surmise that Wikipedia would have a lot fewer volunteers. And just like bad stuff on TV, if you don't like what you're seeing, you can either turn the channel, or throw your shoes through the set. Both accomplish the same thing, the former is much less destructive. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

break 5

• Strongly oppose any mass/bot deletion. But endorse speedy deletion of the most egregious cases. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 19:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Regardless or not according to Wikipedia's Policy every user is able to create their own subpage so long as it stays within the rules. My secret page was within the rules although yes some user's may want secret pages deleted, but what's the point. It's within the user's own userpage not on an actual article. I've just got half of my subpages deleted by my request because of the Miscellany for deletion tag was placed on my secretpage by one of the user's. Terra 20:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep of all secret pages. It may be a waste of time socializing with other users like this, but then with the deleters' justifications all our user and humor pages should be deleted too. Although Wikipedia isn't a socializing site, I think secret pages fit the rules. STYROFOAM1994^talkReview me! 20:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I think it really needs to depend on the content of the page. For example one of the pages nominated is a page i created as an experiment User:Amxitsa/The Queen on the Application of “J” v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2006) Esentially i wanted to work on a page for various pieces of caselaw but wasnt sure where to put this as there is no real structure for this kind of case. It is essentially an experiment which i am still considering putting on the main space. I think it is important to keep somewhere that allows people to experiment on pages that they want to work on without opening it up immediately to the whole community. If these pages are all deleted i will work on anything like this in a notepad but where i have been working on for example User:Amxitsa/He-Man episode tests it is useful for me to be able to preview and save my formatting so i can check it is all working.--Amxitsa (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I voted keep here, but bear in mind this is a proposal to delete all secret pages, not all user subpages.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Entirely different, depending on the situation I'd say that the deciding factor has more to do with the editor than the page itself. If Editor X (400 edits) has a secret page, which comprises about 80% of their entire Wikipedia edits (320), that's a problem. If Editor Y has 20k edits and has a secret page which comprises about 2% of their edits (400), I'd say that's okay, because it's obvious that their sole contributions to the project aren't unencyclopedic. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• What if they are advertised instead of secret? Then, technically....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Then technically it would still fall fowl under WP:NOT#WEBSPACE -Halo (talk) 04:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - I was originally more neutral, but I have come to the conclusion that I see no real benefit in mass deletion of these pages. While I don't have a secret page myself, and don't plan to have one, I don't see a bit of harmless fun in the user space that terrible. Wikipedia editors are human, unless that is changed that means that never will everything on Wikipedia be 100% contributing to the encyclopaedia - especially on days like today. While I recognise WP:NOT#MYSPACE - the indirect benefits to the encyclopaedia of these pages must be considered, such as learning new editing methods and even making people more comfortable with Wikipedia to help them contribute. I have to agree with EVula that the editor themselves should be considred as well as the page - if someone is only here to socialise, then there is a problem, if someone is here to contribute but does make a secret page once or twice, then there is not a significant problem as far as I am concerned. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. In userspace and harmless. Mike R (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Is this a joke? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  So it is not a joke. All right, then. The problem with the ideology behind this nomination is that it assumes that it can legislate the way Wikipedians behave; this is pretty much a clear-cut case of my third law, so it is rather futile. Also, reading the long thread below, it seems like it intends to create a community which is focused 100% on article-writing, which ignores the necessities of process and social communication required by a community of our size. Additionally, having such a distraction-less community would increase editor stress and attrition, decreasing Wikipedians' productivity in the long run. So, for all of those reasons, keep. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Is this an April fools' joke discussion or is it serious? STYROFOAM1994^talkReview me! 20:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This is a real discussion. It will continue for the requisite period of time and will be closed as any other MfD. MBisanz ^talk 20:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - No harm in keeping, potential for harm in deleting. LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

break 6

• Keep Nothing wrong with them... helps foster some social cohesion as well. Jmlk17 21:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Come on. Let productive editors have a little fun. If it helps productive editors keep their enthusiasm, by all means, let them do it. However, if an editor isn't making many edits outside of his/her userspace, that's different. нмŵוτнτ 21:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete useless, and has no value towards building an encyclopedia. Resolute 21:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Some of the user subpages are fantastic. They're clever and are done by hardworking editors who contribute productively the (Main) namespace. However, these "secret" pages fall far outside that category. People can claim, and they'd be right, that the server space and resources are negligible. However, the principle should stand. People donate to the Wikimedia Foundation because they feel that our goal of creating a free online encyclopedia is a noble one. If these editors were spending an equal amount of time contributing the article namespace as they were creating barnstars and signatures for themselves and one another, I'd have no issue. But that's not the reality.

  The web is a very big place with literally thousands of venues for this kind of thing. A sense of community is great, and should be encouraged. On the other hand, there are entire sites devoted to social networking. Have some fun? Sure, absolutely. Waste time, energy, and resources for crap like this? No way. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Waste time, energy and resources for crap like this? - Have you read my comments above? It makes no sense to talk about editors "wasting" time or energy on these pages, because editing is not a zero-sum game. If these pages are deleted, it will not cause editors to spend more time editing the main namespace. We are a voluntary project; users edit what they want to edit. Deleting "fun" pages does not cause the time and energy invested in them to be transferred to productive work. If anything, it's more likely to cause users to leave. Walton^One 16:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all pages that are actually secret pages...it appears there is concern above that a few pages were improperly tagged, in which case they obviously wouldn't be within the bounds of this MfD. Other than that, I agree these secret pages are pretty much a waste of time and don't help the encyclopedia. VegaDark (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - I see no harm here. iMatthew 2008 00:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete within reason, they are a timesink keeping people from doing productive work. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: It is the fact that you refer to editing as Productive Work that makes me less inclined to do anything productive - obviously some degree of seriousness is to be maintained but comments like that are about as much inspiration as I need to run away and never come back. Is no small quantity of fun permitted here?Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Fun is wonderful if you're a constructive contributor. However, secret pages made by those who do things like that and nothing else are not constructive at all. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Per Walton One, probably much to his surprise. The amount of work required for these pages has not been shown to uniformly be such that they do constitute a serious impediment to the real goals of the project. While some may individually be pages of editors who are far less than productive, and I wouldn't have any objections whatsoever to relisting them separately, I do believe that at least some of the editors who have created these pages are productive enough that they can have a little fun. John Carter (talk) 00:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - My goodness, the old-auntiness boggles the mind! Heaven forbid that people should have a little fun while they build an encyclopedia. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, and really people, WTF? -- Ned Scott 01:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep - Per Walton also, who sums up why these pages should not be deleted perfectly. The fact that someone would compare these pages to "myspacey" activity is absurd. This isn't Encyclopædia Britannica, people. Evaunit♥666♥ 01:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment It appears that they even had a cabal at User:Nothing444/Secreteaters Cabal. I found it mentioned at Wikipedia:ANI#Excessive_cabals --Enric Naval (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - So what exactly is the description of "secret pages"? Is it any user subpage with "secret" in the name? We should be clear on what an "actual" secret page is. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 20:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• A secret page is a user subpage, like "User:Example/Secret page". A user creates a page like that and challenges others to find it. He of course doesn't give them the title. The secret page usually has a message like "Yay you found my secret page", and often has a barnstar and/or a signature list, where users who find the page can reward themselves for finding the page, and sign the list. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:49, 2 Apr 2008 (UTC)

break 7

• Delete. Walton's summary overlooks the value of focus. Hesperian 01:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Would you mind explaining that further please? Equazcion •✗/C • 01:55, 2 Apr 2008 (UTC)

• Simplify the equation. Imagine we only had 100 editors, 99 with a single-minded focus on writing an encyclopedia, and one who wanted to spend three quarters of his time making secret pages, creating cabals, doing quizzes, writing humorous essays, and generally dicking around doing nothing much. Imagine that this user was very popular and everyone was very happy to be distracted by his time-wasting efforts. Or, if you prefer, imagine that everyone else considered him to be a pain in the butt, and his edits to be nothing more than RC noise. Either way, the goal of writing an encyclopedia would be best served by erasing this user and his edits, leaving a single-minded goal-driven community of 99. Focus is important.
• So delete the secret pages; delete the cabals; delete the quizzes even. The people who will leave over these deletions are the people who weren't here to build the encyclopedia in the first place, and are so little interested in doing so that they can't abide staying here without other stuff to keep them entertained. And what remains afterwards?: a community of single-minded encyclopedia-builders. A super outcome. Hesperian 02:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, but what evidence is there that everyone who creates secret pages is doing that for 75% of their time editing? Are you saying you've never done anything that wasn't "encyclopedic"? Ever read a humorous essay? Couldn't that time have been spent contributing to articles? And why shouldn't anyone accuse you the way you have others, of that being your primary concern on Wikipedia? Why shouldn't they make a sweeping generalization of hundreds of users who include you, saying that all of you engage in an activity most of their time just because they see you do it part of the time? Equazcion •✗/C • 02:42, 2 Apr 2008 (UTC)

• By all means, go ahead and accuse me of having various time-wasting pursuits as my primary concern here. The proof will be in the pudding. Once we've deleted all this crap, will I stay or will I go? Hesperian 03:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• To put this another way, if you're here to build the encyclopedia, and you spend most of your time doing so, and you also have a secret page, and it gets deleted, you're going to say "Hey! You bastards deleted my secret page" and then you're going to get back to building the encyclopedia. The editor who is here to build the encyclopedia, but will quit over the deletion of a secret page, is a myth. Hesperian 03:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry to burst your bubble, but if my secret page was deleted, I would leave. The mere thought that someone would be allowed to delete a page in my userspace simply because they want me to spend my time on something that they, not I, deem to be more appropriate is enough for me to not want to be involved in this project anymore. aliasd·U·T 14:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• I don't see what people's reactions after the deletion have anything to do with whether or not the pages will be deleted. I'm sure even if you deleted people's entire userspace, the productive editors who have "the right motivation" in mind will still stay. Does that mean we should do it? Equazcion •✗/C • 03:18, 2 Apr 2008 (UTC)

• It sounds like we agree that there is no merit to the argument that we shouldn't delete secret pages lest we scare off good contributors. Hesperian 03:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Not necessarily. That's just not my argument. I'm just saying there's no good reason to delete the pages. The consequences of such a deletion is not my concern. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:27, 2 Apr 2008 (UTC)
• I'm not necessarily saying nothing bad would happen as a result, but for the sake of argument, if we assume any consequence of this action wouldn't be negative, that's still no reason to do it. Just because something wouldn't have a bad effect doesn't mean we should do it. If you want to delete something you need a good positive reason to do it. So far I don't see a reason. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:33, 2 Apr 2008 (UTC)

• I think what Hesperian means is that the secret pages serve as a distraction that takes away from the core goal of the encyclopedia, reducing attention and ultimately causing harm to the project, but this misses the point as has already been said that editing is not a zero sum game, and that denying a harmless source of amusement is not going to necessarily increase productivity among editors, especially those who feel aggrieved at the deletion of their user sub pages.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 02:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• That's not what I meant, Caissa. Please be so kind as to let me speak for myself, rather than building yourself a straw man on the back of my comment. Hesperian 02:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• I can imagine what he means, but he doesn't actually make any argument. Walton's rationale already countered the "focus" argument. So I was looking for a bit more elaboration than the seven words he thought was an answer to everything Walton said. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:32, 2 Apr 2008 (UTC)

• Walton has argued that deleting the secret pages of users X, Y and Z will not make users X, Y and Z more productive. I agree with that. I argue that the secret pages of X, Y or Z will make the rest of the community (after X, Y and Z have quit or reoriented themselves towards the encyclopedia) more focussed, and therefore more productive. Hesperian 02:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree. I've been on Wikipedia for 15 months and have never once tried to find someone's secret page, despite having seen them advertised many times. People who want to participate in that kind of thing will do so, and it won't matter if secret pages are outlawed or not. They'll find some other thing to do that's silly. Those who don't see any value in that will have no problem avoiding it. I've certainly never had a problem there. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:50, 2 Apr 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, people who want to participate in that kind of thing will do so regardless, I agree. But without an abiding interest in building an encyclopedia, they will have no particular attachment to this site, so if their efforts are deleted here, they will go elsewhere to do all the silly things they do. That's a win for Wikipedia.
• There are plenty of good Wikipedians who maintain blogs. But they don't maintain them here, do they? When they want to build the encyclopedia, they come here. When they want to blog, they go to Blogger or whatnot. We should be applying the same rule to secret pages and autograph books and all the other social networking silliness that goes on. If you want to build the encyclopedia today, you go to Wikipedia; if you feel like social networking today, you go to MySpace, Facebook, whatever. The only people who would quit Wikipedia over such an eminently sensible policy, are people who weren't here to build the encyclopedia in the first place. Hesperian 03:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• You're basically saying that we should proceed with this deletion to get rid of editors you think don't possess the right motivation for being here. Of course I disagree. Among the many problem with that way of thinking, the primary one is that it doesn't necessarily follow that anyone who leaves following such a deletion wasn't here to be productive. They could just be pissed off that Wikipedia didn't appreciate their efforts enough to allow them this little bit of freedom. Also, this isn't a discussion to decide on the deletion of all non-encyclopedic userspace content, such as blogs etc. We're just talking about "secret pages" here, so that's all I'm defending. You're basically arguing against the editors matter concept in general, and that's really a larger issue than this. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:22, 2 Apr 2008 (UTC)

• No, that's not basically what I'm saying. I'm saying that we should proceed with this deletion as part of a process towards refocussing this community towards building the encyclopedia. The result of this refocussing would be the departure of those who are not here to build the encyclopedia. That is an outcome but not the goal. Hesperian 03:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• I know, you've used that "focus" word before, but that's an abstract concept. You seemed to specify what it meant to you by saying "non-productive" people would leave, but now you're saying that's not the goal. What is the goal exactly, then? Equazcion •✗/C • 03:31, 2 Apr 2008 (UTC)

• It's not complicated. The goal is to build an encyclopedia. Always has been. Hesperian 03:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, I had no idea. Now, what's the goal in advocating this deletion? How does it help build an encyclopedia? Equazcion •✗/C • 03:43, 2 Apr 2008 (UTC)

• You know I've already answered that question, and expanded liberally when you asked for an explanation. The problem here is not that I haven't addressed these points, but that you disagree with me, so let's not start again from the beginning, okay? Hesperian 03:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• I said "what do you mean by focus" and you went on to depict a situation where non-productive editors would leave. Then I said we probably shouldn't be using deletion as a tool to get rid of editors we don't see as being productive, to which you replied that's not the goal at all. So you really haven't said what the actual goal is, aside from "focus". I agree there should be a general focus on article work, but I fail to see how a tiny percentage of the user body each having a single "secret" page takes away from that focus. Again, anyone who would participate in it will find other silly things to participate in, and there's no reason to assume that silliness is all they're doing just because they have a secret page. I think you're making an unfair generalization. You seem to be saying that anyone who has a secret page is either a) not productive and would leave if their page were deleted, or b) is productive and would get angry at having their page deleted, but would stay nonetheless. I say there's no reason to make the B group angry -- just because they would stay doesn't mean pissing them off is okay. I'd also assert that there's a c) group too, who are productive and would leave if their pages were deleted, because such a deletion shows a lack of appreciation for their productive work. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:09, 2 Apr 2008 (UTC)

• To address Hesperian's argument: I understand what you're saying, but I think you are stereotyping editors to an unrealistic degree. You talk as if there are two groups of editors: the productive and the unproductive, and that we might as well be rid of the unproductive editors. In reality, it is not black and white; as Equazcion has pointed out above, there are shades of grey. Most editors spend some of their time on "fun" stuff and some of their time on productive encyclopedic work; the percentage of each varies from editor to editor and from day to day. Even those who start out largely unproductive can often be persuaded to contribute in a more helpful way. Stereotyping people as either "productive" or "unproductive", and pursuing a course of action which risks driving many users away, is a monumental waste of our most important resource - contributors. Walton^One 16:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

  I don't think unproductive users are an important resource; in fact I don't think they are a resource at all. And like I said, editors who are here to build the encyclopedia aren't going to leave because their secret page got deleted. It ain't gonna happen. The only editors who would leave over the deletion of a secret page are the ones who weren't interested in building the encyclopedia in the first place.

  There seems to be an undercurrent that it is mean and nasty to doing anything that scares users away, even users that don't share our goals. That is not the case.

  Coming to Wikipedia to social network is like joining a book club to play the bongo drums. You want to play the bongo drums, that's fine; we wouldn't dream of denying you your musical expression. We don't have a problem with you or your drums. But this is a book club, and your bongo drumming doesn't belong here. Go play outside.

  Hesperian 00:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia isn't a book club. It's also not a paper encyclopedia. It's a website that provides userspace, has humor pages and april fools day pranks. You're making an argument about this fantasy site you've imagined, but it isn't Wikipedia. Our focus is articles, but we have fun too. That's just the reality of the situation. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:52, 3 Apr 2008 (UTC)
  • I think your notion that Wikipedia may be defined as "a website that provides userspace" may be at the root of our disagreement here. Hesperian 02:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• I didn't say that's how it could be defined. I said it's a site that provides userspace, and it is. I also said the focus is articles. If you've sunk to nitpicking your opponents' language then I think we're done here. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:17, 3 Apr 2008 (UTC)

• CHECK IT OUT: Book clubs are social clubs. Have secret pages really keep you from editing? If an editor only adds one article or contributes to one article they are a valuable resource. Keeping the pages to keep editors or to chase them away is non-issue. A wiki is a social setting, look at the userpages, the user talk pages, autograph books, etc. . . This is not that serious and the secret pages are a nice break from editing. If and when the secret pages are deleted, how do you delete them when they have different names like User:REDYVA/FactPage or User:REDYVA/WorkPage or User:REDYVA/La En My Verse Ram Nej or even User:REDYVA/Sandbox2? Will some one have to play Gestapo and check every editors' userpages for secret pages. This is silly. The Godwin's Law defense is weak. Most of the editors signatures are "non-encyclopedic too. Master Redyva ♠ 22:04, April 2, 2008 (UTC)
  • Godwin's Law. Hesperian 05:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Hesperian, with respect, you seem to have paid little attention to what I actually said. There seems to be an undercurrent that it is mean and nasty to doing anything that scares users away, even users that don't share our goals - This is a straw man, and is not what I was arguing. Rather, I was arguing that you are wrong to classify all editors as "productive" or "unproductive". Most do not fit neatly into one of these two groups. Someone who makes 10% useful edits and 90% pointless edits is not an "unproductive" editor. Indeed, it may well be possible to gently encourage them to be more productive.
    • Those of us who argue that editors matter are not claiming that it's "mean and nasty" to drive editors away. Rather, it is a strictly utilitarian calculation. Try reading the essay. Ultimately, contributors are our most important resource. We do not pay people to write for us. We rely on volunteers. And therefore, in the interests of the encyclopedia, we need to make an effort not to drive people away needlessly. If they are making 5 useful edits a month, that's still 5 useful edits that otherwise wouldn't have been made.
    • People do not fit neatly into these two groups of "productive" and "unproductive". It's a very simplistic way of looking at things. Walton^One 10:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I was talking about the whole page, rather than your last comment. There is a great deal in what you've said that I agree with. This is where we disagree: 10% useful edits and 90% pointless edits is certainly a net gain if we only take their contributions into account. But these users are not operating in a vacuum. Their edits come up on RC and watchlists; they distract other editors; they bring more 10%ers through the door; and most importantly they dilute the passion that this place runs on. I contend that 10% useful edits and 90% pointless edits add up to a powerful net loss for the overall community. Hesperian 10:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Not to mention what our funders and donaters would think if wikipedia consisted of 90% pointless stuff, given that they are paying to maintain the servers running the stuff --Enric Naval (talk) 12:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
          • ...which we're not supposed to be worrying about as a matter of guideline. And exactly who said 90% of the stuff on Wikipedia is pointless? I'd love to see some evidence of that. Or even that 90% of its users only do useless things. OR, even, that a user who contributes 90% of the time uselessly, say in his own userspace, makes for a "powerful loss" to the community. Taking the server performance issue out of the equation, as we should be doing, I see no effect all. I'd really love to see some evidence that these aren't just crude generalizations manufactured to make a point and get rid of something some people just think is stupid. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:48, 3 Apr 2008 (UTC)
            • Or, for that matter, any evidence at all that any benefit accrues to the encyclopaedia from the decision to allow this stuff. I'm afraid both sides of this debate are working from beliefs and opinion rather than data. Hesperian 23:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
              • Yup. And since the burden of proof lies with the deleters, these should then be kept. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:41, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)
                • Bollocks; these are neither encyclopedia articles, nor do they support the creation and maintenance of the encyclopedia. They are prima facie not relevant to the goals of this site. The burden of proof lies with those who would keep them. Hesperian 05:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
                  • We've just established that there's no evidence they hurt the encyclopedia. You would need that in order to delete them. Of course the burden of proof falls on the deleter; We don't delete all userspace pages that have nothing to do with the encyclopedia. I understand you perhaps feel we should, but the fact is we currently don't. So right now, yes, a particular reason would be needed to delete these in particular, so again, yes, burden of proof lies with the deleters. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:07, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)

break 8

• Keep They don't seem to be doing any harm and are a way for editors to have some fun every now any then. Captain panda 02:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - not to save server space or to purge useless userpages, but instead to reinforce the principle that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is neither primarily a social networking site or a replacement for the World Wide Web. To quote MZMcBride:

"The web is a very big place with literally thousands of venues for this kind of thing. A sense of community is great, and should be encouraged. On the other hand, there are entire sites devoted to social networking. Have some fun? Sure, absolutely. Waste time, energy, and resources for crap like this? No way."

There's also the fact that the whole point of "secret" pages is nullified by Special:Prefixindex... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Even so, people have fun. That's just like saying that radio call-in games are pointless because people can Google (or Yahoo, or Ask, etc. you get my point) the information and win prizes. So what? It doesn't matter. The radio games not there for the prizes, but for just having fun. That said, this is an encyclopedia. Even though this is an encyclopedia, user spaces were meant to have a little personal space on Wikipedia. Having secret pages, as it were, is not abusing the encyclopedia, because it really isn't a social networking thing. Go to MySpace, Facebook, or any other social networking site, and I guarantee you that you won't find a secret page. One of the reasons why I think it is so attractive (not as in pretty; the other one) here to many people is because it is user friendly. You can make your own page, and you can have somebody sign it without having to pay for extra stuff and whatnot. As someone said below me, it may seem a bit silly, but some people actually do use this encyclopedia as a knowledge database, and to reprimand those for something as trivial as this is ridiculous. –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 08:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep - What separates these "secret pages" from other pages? They are just like any other page in the userspace, only these are titled "Secret page" instead of something else. These pages are designed to relieve some tension when the going gets tough on Wikipedia. To delete them is an absolutely foolish idea, because they are doing no harm and it isn't as if this is illegal. Users like having stress relievers on Wikipedia. If you want to be a party pooper or just want to have no fun whatsoever, or think that this stuff is juvenile, childish and immature, then don't participate in it. It's simple as that. When you start coercing people to give this up, it's like taking rights away from other people, which is, IMHO, unconstitutional. –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 07:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• The difference is they are absolutely useless at creating an encyclopedia. If you're making a point about policy, working on a draft, or even have a userbox (as much as I loathe them) that could potentially be useful to create an encyclopedia. What use is a secret page? If someone thinking Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia and not a place for "fun" is a party pooper, well then I'm a party pooper since I don't believe this to be a "party". -Halo (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Are they really absolutely useless? I would argue they're not. They are things that let people have fun. It's not necessarily like MySpace, because MySpace doesn't have this. So, in a nutshell, are all you people saying that Wikipedia is a place where no fun should take place and people should just edit pages, and all other stuff not necessarily constructive to the encyclopedia should be banned or deleted? Sounds a bit tyrannical to me. –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 17:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete selectively depending on the contents. Personally I think they're pretty silly, but I have to admit that some really good people here do use them. DGG (talk) 08:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete any page that has 'Secret' in the title deserves to be deleted for being such a bad attempt at making a secret page. Any that don't have secret in the title or are otherwise much harder to find Keep. You won't be able find them anyway.--Otterathome (talk) 11:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Utter junk, and most people with secret pages do very little main or wiki space work. And the barnstar award for finding a secret page encourages wasting time doing trivial things. · AndonicO ^Hail! 13:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment What? I am sorry but I see users who do amazing amounts of main and wiki space work and they have secret pages. The fact that a person has a secret page does not make them bad editors and does not affect their ability to edit and make articles. Those who do barely any or no main or wiki space works are those who are unable to either because they do not know what to do or they are to busy messing up the main or wiki space. Rgoodermote  17:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• I agree this is a very unfair generalization. I've seen some very serious editors who also have secret pages. Just because you have low opinion of the activity, or because the people you happen to have seen with secret pages were not productive, does not mean that everyone with secret pages in unproductive. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:12, 2 Apr 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Selectively Secret Pages are usually done in good humor. Some though are done by people using Wikipedia as a social network. Users in good standing here some on this very discussion have Secret Pages. I see no reason why every page should be deleted. Only those that blatantly violate policy. Rgoodermote  18:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Changed to Strong Keep I put some more thought into it. A secret page is just for humor and humor is allowed on Userpages. But you know it has to do with. If you take this right away. What is to stop you from just taking away all of the userspace. Hell why not just you know, delete everyones userspace because it has irrelevant information on it. This is an utter waste of time and resources going about something that clearly does not violate policy and even if it did. It is still an utter waste of time bitching about pages you don't even see unless you are trying to find them. Most of them if not all of them have nothing but a couple words and a sign function ensure that you really found the page. What is so bad about that. It is not on the main or wiki space and again like I said. You need to be looking for them. So what is the worry about people getting the wrong idea. By opening up this discussion however gives people the wrong idea. This could ruin a lot of people and bring down morale. Leave it as it is and if this becomes a violation of policy a lot of people are going to be blocked and again...you need to be looking for the page to be able to block the person. I was also going to say something a long the ways of the user below..but he technically beat me. Rgoodermote  01:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Massive violations of WP:AGF by the nom. No evidence provided that these pages are producing any kind of excessive drain on the server. No evidence provided that any user witn unlinked userpages is primarily here to socially network. Scope of deletion is far too large, with no description of 'secret' pages provided other than a link to a list of user sub-pages with the word "secret" in them. Jtrainor (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• I've read and re-read, but don't see how the nominator broke WP:AGF - what part didn't he "assume good faith"? Particularly as something bad can be created with good faith in mind (not wishing to break Godwin's Law here). Evidence that something isn't an "excessive drain on the server" doesn't mean they should exist. It fundamentally breaks WP:NOT#WEBSPACE, which is policy and what people mean by a social network (i.e. doesn't help the encyclopedia). Although the list itself may be poor, I believe the principle of wishing to delete secret pages is quite obvious to all so I personally don't see that as an issue. -Halo (talk) 03:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - these pages are harmless fun, and do not get in the way of the project. If we keep banning stuff like this, then we will drain the fun out of the project, and this could demoralise contributors. Also, where do we draw the line? All unlinked userpage? How about unlinked userspace test pages? Useful content could be lost. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Unless I've missed a meeting, the general idea is that this is an encyclopedia ...OK, large swathes of it struggle to fit into that definition, but that's no reason why we should be turning it into Myspace as well. Black Kite 22:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Myspace doesn't have secret pages :P Equazcion •✗/C • 00:57, 3 Apr 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Google and loads of other serious websites have "easter eggs" just for fun. Can't Wikipedia have some? There's not harm in fun. STYROFOAM1994^talkReview me! 01:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as I see no harm. Further, the list looks really broken. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Captain_Crawdad/secretlair isn't a "secret page" from what I can tell. There seem to be a fair number of others... Hobit (talk) 01:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• I was bold and I removed the MfD template from that subpage. It was clearly not a secret page. Rgoodermote  02:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• I found another 5 or so by clicking ~10 links. My point is that the method used to generate the list is so poor as to be useless. We are !voting on userspace articles that have nothing to do with what is described. Hobit (talk) 02:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• In general i vote neutral. Simply south (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment There are many 'it does no harm' arguments in this MfD. That's one of my favorite arguments to avoid. With pages like this it's easy to make that statement and difficult to refute it without looking like you're against fun, so some consideration needs to be given to the element of precedent. If WP:NOT is to be given such loose interpretation, there will come a point when the door can no longer be closed. --- Taroaldo (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • There are also many "it does harm" arguments. "It does no harm, and here's why" is just the retort to that. Not exactly avoidable in a discussion such as this one, unless we're to keep one side of the argument from saying anything at all. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:51, 3 Apr 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with your statement. However, the point of my comment was farther down. --- Taroaldo (talk) 03:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• K then. WP:NOT is just a policy. Generally, quoting policies isn't the best way to argue, except when things are exceptionally clearcut and non-controversial. In a highly divided issue like this, everyone is forced to argue based on deeper reasoning, like how exactly the pages affect Wikipedia fundamentally. Wikipedia frowns on making big decisions based solely on the wording of a policy. They're not laws. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:09, 3 Apr 2008 (UTC)

• I thought I was using slightly deeper reasoning. Rather than quoting that policy I was suggesting something else: it's hard to argue against something that everyone agrees is fun, so we need to consider what effect precedent might have. The "secret page" is an idea that some editors argue is "acceptable" fun in Wikipedia (yes, I've found a few secret pages too), but it won't be long before another idea emerges, and another, and so on. Where will the social network end and Wikipedia begin? There's enough interesting stuff to do in Wikipedia without weakening its focus. If I want to do other stuff, or interact in a completely social manner, then I have Myspace, Facebook, MSN, gmail, and a million other options. I come to Wikipedia to contribute to Wikipedia, and I go on Myspace or MSN to socialize with other Internet users. Wikipedia is a community with a scope. If you ignore the scope too much, you damage the community. --- Taroaldo (talk) 03:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• We could say the same thing about humor pages. But there's no evidence that they have or will cause "the myspace ideal" to "spread" into other areas. Similarly, let's not crystal ball this. You could take an alarmist attitude towards anything not purely encyclopedic. How bout custom signatures? Seems sort of myspace-ish to me, what with the level of unnecessary customizational fun it affords the user. Where oh where will it end? Well, we don't know, and we shouldn't pretend we can predict. There's always risk involved in allowing anything that isn't purely to do with articles. But we'll just have to wait and see, as with anything else. We can't get rid of something out of fear it might cause "trouble". Equazcion •✗/C • 03:50, 3 Apr 2008 (UTC)

• I didn't mention the crystal ball because, as you said, simply quoting policies isn't the best way to argue this. In a "highly divided issue like this" it should not be considered unreasonable to think about the potential for future consequences, as part of our "deeper reasoning". I don't think anybody is suggesting that the pages be deleted out of fear that it might cause trouble. But failing to "think ahead" on an issue isn't always the best notion. --- Taroaldo (talk) 04:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Mmmm okay, so not out of fear it might cause trouble. Then what, out of concern? Semantics. The point still stands. We're all thinking about the future, but there are some things that can't be predicted. Again, the same concern could be expressed over any of the less-serious aspects of the site. That doesn't mean we get rid of them just for the mere possibility. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:10, 3 Apr 2008 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) If we accept that we won't "get rid of" this issue, then which one will we decide to deal with? (It is certain there will be more.) Specific details of the future can't be predicted, but that does not mean that we shouldn't discuss reasonable possible outcomes. The question remains, "what do we want Wikipedia to be?" That can't be answered by only dealing with the 'here and now'. --- Taroaldo (talk) 04:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Evidently, whatever the future of Wikipedia is to be, it is to include non-serious elements. If you're suggestion that should change, then that's a larger issue outside the scope of this discussion. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:46, 3 Apr 2008 (UTC)

• Regardless of the final outcome for secret pages, this user thinks Equazcion is a valuable resource to Wikipedia and prays the user known as Equazcion is never deleted. I also subscribe to "Limited accommodation of popularity." Master Redyva ♠ 19:25, April 5, 2008 (UTC)

break 9

• Keep This kind of get rid of everything not related to encyclopedia-writing strikes me as going through everyone's cubicles and throwing out anything not related to work. If it doesn't cause problems with the encyclopedia-writing end of things, leave it alone. Being nosy like this and trying to dictate what everybody should and shouldn't be doing on Wikipedia (when it doesn't interfere with actual work) just makes this a crappy place to work -- that's good for the encyclopedia?--Father Goose (talk) 04:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. This attitude towards people's secret pages is nosy, coercive, and totally uncalled for. If you don't like someone's secret page, then tell them on their talk page. If you hate secret pages in general, then just don't encounter them. Simple as that. –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 04:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• That's a harsh simplification of the debate. --- Taroaldo (talk) 05:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It's harsh all right, but it's hardly a simplification. The pretexts under which these are supposedly deterimental to the project are transparently ridiculous. People waste time here on all sorts of things, including starting MfD pages like this, and participating in "projects", but it's only these harmless "secret pages" which are being labelled as disruptive. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 05:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad some people understand where I'm coming from. I am sorry if I'm coming off too harsh, but I am generally a blunt person who will speak his mind. If I offend some people in the process, I apologize. –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 05:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• keep - anything really abusive should go, but otherwise large lattitude for user space. I think it's a waste of time, but the whole project is a way for me to waste time, so there you are'. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Bwah! You're not supposed to say that out loud. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:31, 3 Apr 2008 (UTC)
  • Seriously! We're not supposed to admit that openly, ever... Dorftrottel (canvass) 20:02, April 3, 2008
• Comment I find it funny how there are the people who are advertising everybody that has a secret page (I bet I'm next!), and then there are the people who are just sorta caught in the crossfire. Then, there are those like me who will fight to the end. –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 07:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Obento... you have voted at least twice. Keep your comments as just that... comments. And refrain from repeatedly adding "Keep". I dont know if someone wants to go back and strike-through the superfelous votes... Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 11:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Obento has voted once, that I can see. Adding comments that start with a bold "Comment" is not a vote. People can add as many of those as they like. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:51, 3 Apr 2008 (UTC)

• He has voted twice... scroll up. He voted above this comment, and in break 8, third down. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 16:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• He didn't vote above this comment. The only people who voted above in this section are Father Goose and Rocksanddirt. Obento only responded to them. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:40, 3 Apr 2008 (UTC)

I was about to fix that when you edit conflicted me. My bad, apologies. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 16:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Mm-hmm.... –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 17:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

lol, he voted in the section below and I stroked it [2] --Enric Naval (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, about a different topic, but that was my mistake, I guess. Just know that I'm in favor of keeping them; think of those strong keeps as one strong keep in two areas. If you can't, then you can merge them together or something. –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 18:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Hidden stuff is standard and a sign of a good, healthy, modern firm. Microsoft Office programs like Word and Excel have hidden video games. :-) There's even a wikipedia article about them: Easter eggs in Microsoft products. Similarly, Google has lots of secret pages (here's one of them Google in pig latin. --Firefly322 (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

  Funny piglatin link, I've never seen that. Curious though that "google" is the only word not piglatinized, to OogleGay...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

  LOL @ OogleGay... *snicker* Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 02:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Secret pages are a waste of time. Looking for secret pages is a waste of time. Deleting secret pages is a waste of time. Arguing about deleting secret pages is a waste of time. Looking for secret pages that do not exist because they have been deleted is a waste of time. Writing this is a waste of time. Reading this is a waste of time. It would be nice if people were more constructive and did not waste their time so much. It is difficult to prevent people from wasting their time. Wikipedia is entirely voluntary and you are free to waste your time. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 15:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - Fundamentally pointless and stupid, and I feel this falls under WP:MYSPACE, and Wikipedia is not a playground. This does not help Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. -Halo (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - To all those who are saying that it's like MySpace, how is it like that? To my knowledge, MySpace doesn't have any of these. –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 18:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that they would become a huge hit if they were ever incorporated to MySpace, and that their server would crash on a short time because of having to handle so many secret pages --Enric Naval (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:MYSPACE? Wikipedia is not for "fun" social networking activities (i.e. "You found my secret page! Sign my guestbook! YAY"), and is not a web host for things completely irrelevant to the encyclopedia -Halo (talk)

So what if we wikified it in some way? Then it would be relevant to the encyclopedia, and it wouldn't fall under that category. –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 17:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete everything that has even remotely to do with secret page games, including barnstars. Not because it's particularly harmful to the encyclopedia, but because they deserve it. Dorftrottel (harass) 19:41, April 3, 2008
  • I'd add a retort here if I thought anyone would actually take this comment seriously. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:45, 3 Apr 2008 (UTC)
  • Same as previous contribution by Equazcion, but shorter. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    • The most important thing is that you two commented here. Dorftrottel (troll) 14:43, April 4, 2008
• Comment Not a vote, I really wanted to point out that this MfD is starting to get a little redundant and starting to become a waste of time and thought. Rgoodermote  20:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• By the way went through and removed MfD templates from pages that were clearly not secret pages. It would be nice if the bot that went through and found these warned the users. Rgoodermote  20:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Secret Keep per WaltonOne's comments. Without discussion, these pages will simply become edit wars across the board. Discussions need not be centered on articles exclusively. User pages and their associated talk pages are a necessity for the current Wikipedia working model. Subpages have been deemed an acceptable form of user page. These pages need to fall under "user pages". If they violate user page policies (physical threats, slander, etc), delete them. If you find them funny or amusing, they do not need to be deleted. If they are not amusing or funny to you, they need not be deleted. They exist and space is not a concern in this context. They aren't harming anything. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - These arguments are the kind of crap that makes people want to leave Wikipedia. It makes it seem like their contributions are not valuable because, apparently, all these users do is create secret pages, right? –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 08:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment My "secret" page encourages people to read my user page, which is wiki relevant, and also gives me an interesting perspective on what users read my user page, making it useful. I have a couple of points to make:

• I was not notified that a page in my userspace was taged MfD. BAD FORM.
• I really really really do not mean this as a threat, but if this page in my userspace is deleted, that would clinch it for me as far as working on this project is concerned. I am a volunteer and I feel that for the most part, how I interact with other volunteers is my business, as long as it is is not hurting anyone with slander/harassment etc.
• To the people that really honestly believe that this page should be deleted because it is distracting my time from the project, you do NOT own/manage my time, I do.
• Wikilove, hugs, smile. I think WP:CARE kinda says it very well here.

-aliasd·U·T 13:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: User: contribs form just under 12% of my total contributions, and have mostly been directly encyclopedia/project related. aliasd·U·T 14:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

break 10

• Keep. Just in case Godwin's Law has not yet been fulfilled with respect to this nomination.... first they came for the secret pages; I didn't speak up because I don't have any. Eventually they came for the Fat Man's frivolous array of subpages, including his seldom-viewed Catbook and Dogbook!--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Lies! Cats are safe on wikipedia. The cabal didn't dare killing the rollback lolcat because of obvious popularity among users, notice that all participants on that conversation are now admins, and they won't dare touch any lolcat. It's a widely know secret that any admin proposing a lolcat for deletion riskes desysoping and getting called an unfunny person :D Consensus is currently in favour of lolcats and not going to change soon. Secret pages, however, have gone somewhat out of fashion and are at a low point on the consensus thing... --Enric Naval (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That logic is faulty, but I like lolcats too, so... –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 16:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding UT's comment above. I think that every page, where the user was not notified SPECIFICALLY ON THIER TALK PAGE about this should be ineligable for deletion under this discussion, though as there is no policy reason and plenty of dissent deletion is unlikely. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. If you want some harmless fun, go to myspace or facebook. --Kbdank71 17:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Whilst we know that we're not MySpace, deleting such pages that promote a bit of friendliness and Wikifun between users seems like tyranny to me. Where do you draw the line? Deletion of userboxes that arn't about Wikipedia? The original nominator says; "with valuable editing hours lost to going on easter egg hunts..." - frankly, I think it's our choice how we spend our time. Tell you what, while we're at it, let's delete all pages that have the humor template at the top, shall we? ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• KEEP Secret pages are good ways for Wikipedians to get Barnstars and let of a little stress. Fake secret pages could be deleted but real ones are fine. Barnstars, as I said, can make Wikipedians happy and could encourage them to stick around Wikipedia. Secret pages are great ways to lighten up the spirits of Wikipedians. And I know Barnstars.Swirlex^{The Barnstar Giver}
• Keep. First, a declaration of conflict of interest= I have a secret page, and it's nominated for deletion, too. Moreover, as you can see, I haven't edited it since October, spend virtually no time caring about it, and in fact had forgotten about its existence before this MfD. And I won't be particularly upset if it's deleted, as it's not an important part of my life. But I can't see that it's doing any harm, and policing a policy that secret pages are not permitted would be a rather pointless exercise in time-wasting for admins who could be doing more useful work. People who are spending their time playing games instead of contributing can still be blocked from editing under the existing rules; I don't think we particularly need a new 'no secret pages' rule. I don't think secret pages are generally useful, but I don't think they do any harm, either. At worst, they waste the time of people who probably weren't going to be that useful anyway, and at best, they are mildly amusing for users who are useful and deserve a little mild amusement. Feel free to disagree with me and delete them all anyway; it isn't all that important either way. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well said! -- Ned Scott 23:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

break 11

• Delete - if people spent the energy they did on these pages writing articles, we could have a lot of nice FAs soon. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This would mean more coming from someone who wasn't a member of the Bathrobe Cabal. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:47, 5 Apr 2008 (UTC)
    • What is that supposed to mean? --Chetblong^Talk/_Sign 05:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
      • It means that if you're going to complain about people wasting time on unencyclopedic stupidity then you probably shouldn't participate in unencyclopedic stupidity yourself. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:51, 5 Apr 2008 (UTC)
      • I should also add that the original nominator of secret pages is Riana, who is also a member of said club, in fact one of its founders. Her nominatory criteria included "drain on resources", including "server space" and "donor funds". The Bathrobe Cabal uses 9MB in uploaded bathrobe photos, which if I had to guess equals at least ten times the combined size of all secret pages in existence. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:55, 5 Apr 2008 (UTC)
        • Here's an idea Equazcion: instead of complaining and attacking established users, feel free to do something about it... or are you just complaining? Jmlk17 05:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
          • I'm not complaining. They are. I'm pointing out reasons why they have no right to. In my opinion, both the cabal and secret pages should stay. But if you're going to complain about one, you probably shouldn't participate in the other. See hypocrisy. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:03, 5 Apr 2008 (UTC)
            • FYI, User:Hmwith opposed the deletion of these pages, and she's a member of the BRC. So... I don't see any point in what you're saying. --Chetblong^Talk/_Sign 06:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
              • I'm not addressing Hmwith. I'm addressing those members of BRC who voted to delete secret pages, especially those whose rationale relate to them being an unencyclopedic waste of time and/or resources. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:15, 5 Apr 2008 (UTC)
  • A sure sign that someone holds a weak position in an argument is when they attack their opponent rather than focusing on the matter at hand. Cabal pages and secret pages are not the same. Members of the BRC or any other group have just as much right to voice their opinion as everyone else. The utterly ridiculous number of edits you've made to this page indicate you may possibly need to take a breather from this page and let people voice their opinion without you dropping in to repeat your position relentlessly. You're in no position to be dictating who has a right to vote one way or another in this discussion. Lara❤Love 06:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Have you even read anything I've said? I'm not saying you can't vote just because you're a member of BRC. But if you're a member of something as frivolous as BRC, it is hypocritical to say that these pages are unencyclopedic or a waste of time or resources and should therefore be deleted. The number of people from BRC that've responded to me is a probable sign that they don't have much to say and are simply offended that I disparaged a member of their little clubhouse. Take a break yourself. I'll discuss this as much as I want, thanks much. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:33, 5 Apr 2008 (UTC)
      • You have 91 edits to this page. This makes 2 for me. I don't need a break. Your condescending attitude further weakens your position. Without distracting from the discussion at hand to point out how completely backwards your argument here is, I'll simply point out that your claim that these editors "don't have much to say" is off. They said all they needed to, and you are inappropriately badgering anyone with a view opposite of yours. You need to calm down. With 91 edits, I don't think there is anyone in this discussion that doesn't know your position. And God forbid a need for everyone to make 91 edits for you to grasp theirs. Lara❤Love 06:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm perfectly calm. I've stated my argument but you've thus far provided no counter-argument, choosing instead to point out my number of edits to this page (3 times :D). If you wish to discuss my demeanor rather than the issue at hand, kindly use my talk page. Thanks, again. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:50, 5 Apr 2008 (UTC)
          • Focus. Cabal pages and secret pages are not the same. That was my counter-argument. Short and simple. You know why? Because this isn't a debate. This isn't about cabals. It's about secret pages. It's a discussion for people to drop their opinion. You're being a nuisance, pestering those who vote to delete. I don't have to defend my cabal against you. The cabal discussion is elsewhere. Been there, done that. I'm here to tell you to chill with the badgering of delete voters, and to drop a little FYI on the fact that this is the MFD on secret pages that anyone can edit! So let people voice their opinion, and rather than invoke WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, go edit something in the mainspace maybe, and let the voters vote and the closing admin determine consensus, kthxbai. Lara❤Love 07:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
            • Mmmm. Are you sure you don't need a break? Anyhoo: "Cabal pages and secret pages are not the same" -- That's not really much of an argument. "This isn't a debate"? That's why they're not the same? That doesn't really follow. Besides which, I didn't say they were the same. I said they're both unencyclopedic, and if one is a waste of space and time, then the other surely is (one a much bigger waste of space, especially, as I pointed out above). Now I understand this club is something you hold very dear, but rather than getting offended at the idea that someone equates it with something you feel is (somehow) less useful, why not just discuss the matter? I mean, you say this isn't a debate, but it really is. This page is meant to be a discussion, not a simple cast-your-vote-and-leave deal. Discussions involve responses, so I respond when I have something to say, and shall continue to do so. In this case, the person voting delete used rationale that could also apply to something else -- but not just something else that exists, but something else that the voter himself participates in. So the point I was trying to make was, "You obviously don't have a problem with unencyclopedic wastes, so why are you in favor of deleting in this case for that very reason?" I'm sure you can see my point, even if you don't agree with it, but it would be more constructive if you would explain your side rather than attempting to shut me up. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:25, 5 Apr 2008 (UTC)
  • Like I said, I don't have to defend my cabal. I've already done that. I've already pointed out how the BRC differs from other amusing subpages. How it serves as a means of collaboration, how it is a support system for those who are a member and those who chose to associate with us. This has been discussed in length, in fact. If you haven't read it, perhaps it's because you didn't participate in the discussion where such a defense was necessary (MFD/Cabals). The BRC is not in question here. The point I'm pounding is that everyone has a right to their opinion. Your now 95+ edits to this page show that you need to take a step back and let people voice their opinion in peace. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. The matter at hand is secret pages. That should be your focus. And, for the record, I haven't voiced an opinion on secret pages or given them an estimated value. Lara❤Love 07:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Like I said, I'm not saying your cabal needs to be deleted, so there's no need to defend it. You're absolutely right, I didn't read the discussion on cabals, and I'm not sure why you would assume I had. Your touchy attitude makes a little more sense now that I know you've already spent effort defending your cabal, as does the fact that you've lumped me in with your opponents there. Try to understand, I'm not trying to fight with you, so please stop fighting with me. I understand now that you've had to deal with people who may have wanted to delete it, but rest assured I'm not one of them.
    • I've already explained that this isn't a matter of other stuff merely existing. You still haven't provided any actual counter argument (meaning here, on this page, in response to me), but I don't expect you to at this point. I'll have to take your word for it that I'm at 95+ edits, but that number will likely grow. If you'd like to discontinue our little back-and-forth, I'd be happy to, but kindly don't tell me to "step back" from this page entirely. It's not up to you to decide how many edits I'm allowed to make here. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:03, 5 Apr 2008 (UTC)
      • Actually, right now you are up to 104 edits, or 29'05% of the 358 total edits here. On your defence, some most of them are to introduce breaks and indent and clear the comments or for corrections. You signed a total of 41 actual comments --Enric Naval (talk) 13:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't think you're getting the point. You invoked WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS by saying that a !vote from someone who belongs to the BRC doesn't count in this MFD because the BRC is just as "frivolous" as secret pages are. LaraLove is saying, that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument against someone's vote here. What if he had !voted keep? You wouldn't have said a word. So just because he voted against your POV, you decided to bring up something that is completely irrelevant to this MFD. You also said, "I'm not saying you can't vote just because you're a member of BRC", which is a complete contradiction of this, "I'm pointing out reasons why they have no right to", where you are basically stating that we have no right to vote delete in this MFD. Why don't we have a right to? Cabals and secret pages are completely different which is what LaraLove was saying. I don't see anywhere that she said that she felt you were asking them to be deleted, so why did you say that? Also, Sceptre's vote was not about "unencyclopedic wastes" as you said, his vote states "if people spent the energy they did on these pages writing articles, we could have a lot of nice FAs soon.", I don't see anywhere that he mentions secret pages taking up resources so why did you say this, "So the point I was trying to make was, 'You obviously don't have a problem with unencyclopedic wastes, so why are you in favor of deleting in this case for that very reason?' "? The question we're asking is, why did you bring up the BRC to state a persons !vote doesn't count? Is there some policy that states this? NO. So don't act like you're holding a valid argument here, cause you're not. --Chetblong^Talk/_Sign 08:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Chet pretty well summed it up. I didn't expect you to have read the cabal discussion, in fact, I was pretty sure you hadn't. My point was that my cabal is not in question here and this is not the appropriate discussion to be debating how much server space cabals take up. So to say I'm getting touchy over it and misunderstanding you shows that you're completely missing my point. I'm not defending my cabal, which I've stated like four times now. I'm pointing out that it's not the same as a secret page and that you telling members of the BRC that they have no right to vote delete in this discussion is inappropriate. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument, but it's the one you've chosen to use. You've made your position clear, stop harassing others over their votes and attacking their on-wiki leisure activities. NUTSHELL: I'm not here to defend the BRC, I'm here to get you to stop harassing people with the opinion opposite yours. Lara❤Love 16:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

  (deindent) I'm not saying the pages are unencyclopedic or a waste of time, I'm saying they're a waste of energy. Secret pages aren't up to the level of notpr0n, but creating them would require a lot of thought and planning, the type we really need in mainspace. The BRC, I've edited that page and the talk a handful of times - I'm more active on the BRC IRC channel or forums, to the level of my activity in #wikipedia-en. Also, I think User:Sceptre#Significant contributions is better as an argument than the fact I took a picture of myself with a cheesy grin. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

  • • OTHERSTUFFEXISTS means: "Deleting this is stupid because other stuff exists that's similar to this. If we still have that, it's not fair to delete this." That's not my argument. My argument is that you're a hypocrite if you participate in something unencyclopedic and then complain about another unencyclopedic thing. I'm not arguing that something should be kept or deleted. I'm not arguing that someone doesn't have a right to comment here at all. I'm pointing out hypocrisy. Take an example: If a user voted to delete all humor essays, and then I found that he had a joke userpage, I'd point that out in a similar way -- and so would any of you. Also, there is the space/donor funds argument, which is directly against the nominator rather than Sceptre or any of you fine BRC folks. She said these pages should be deleted for wasting space and therefore donor funds, when the unarguably useless (to the encyclopedia) photos of people in bathrobes take up at least ten times the space of all secret pages combined. It means the person is a hypocrite, and it's something else any of you would point out when speaking to someone who votes delete for something you'd like kept. As for how much thought and planning secret pages require, I don't believe they require all that much thought and planning at all. It's just a page with no incoming links. And Lara, give it up, I'm not harassing anyone or attacking their leisurely activities; I've already said more times than I can count that I don't have anything against BRC. In fact, I love BRC. I hope to one day join BRC. I wish BRC were all anyone does here. BRC is the best thing since sliced bread. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:56, 5 Apr 2008 (UTC)

• Can I respond to this (and keep in mind, I think the secret pages should be kept, as I !voted above). The basic difference, Equazcion, is that some user space "contributions" help build an encyclopedia. Some dont'. BRC helps build an encyclopedia. Some secret pages are good fun. Some secret pages are the only contribs from certain users, making en-wik a social playground instead of a a respite from article building. That's the basic difference, as L-Love stated above. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think Lara stated that above at all, but thank you for that constructive response, Keeper. I realize some secret pages (and other frivolities) are the only contribs by some users, but of course, some secret pages aren't up for deletion. The very concept of secret pages is basically up for banning. If BRC happens to be something that looks silly but is made by people dedicated to the encyclopedia, and uploading photos of themselves in bathrobes is their way of unwinding, I can accept that. But then, those people should also be able to accept that other dedicated people will have their way of unwinding, with something else that's silly. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:22, 5 Apr 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. I agree with FisherQueen. --EinsteiNewton ^{any way the wind blows...} 04:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: I never understood how long-standing contributors got to not follow WP:NOT#MYSPACE in some way. I'm also thinking this is a weird case where the people who want to keep the pages must argue for them to be kept rather than those who want them to be removed. But these still don't help the encyclopedia in any way. Arguably, these contribute to users who do nothing but look for secret pages and the like. Wikipedia isn't a game, full-stop. x42bn6 Talk Mess 18:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstars/fake pages/mistaken taggings

• Not sure if this is the place to put it, but User:Sceptre/secret seems to be a legitimate temp page (meant to be an article at some point) that is just coincidentally called "secret". --Rividian (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstars

• Comment I bring your attention upon the barnstars here User:Dabomb87/HiddenBarnstarsPage including "Hidden Page Barnstar", "The Super Hidden Barnstar", "The Apprentice Award in Minor Discovering Locations of Pages", "The Extra-Especially Hidden Page Award!!!", "The Hidden Link Barnstar", "Super Hidden Link Barnstar", the extra-teasing-you-to-lose-time-looking-for-hidden-crap "Can you?" and from the stuff-you-cant-possibly-make-up dept "The Super Hidden Barnstar". Also "Destructo 087's Hidden Page" from User:Efansay/Hidden_Awards, found looking at "file links" section of one of the images of those barnstars.

See one guestbook barnstar already deleted for rewarding behaviour not constructive towards making an encyclopedia, mainly WP:MYSPACE Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_March_19#Template:The_Guestbook_Barnstar and another on the way Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Wwesocks/guestbook/barnstar. I guess the secret pages are being nominated under a very, very, very similar reason

See as well any award using Image:Barnstar_barnstar_2.png (look at file links section). Notice that the image I mention was already being used as a guestbook barnstar by Vintei on User_talk:Runewiki777#Barnstar on November 2007. That's Vintei of "Vintei's shop" fame, see Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Vintei/shop, which was also deleted under WP:MYSPACE and stuff (the dots are connecting! it's all a conspiracy to make wikipedia into myspace! Run for your life! Ruuuuunnnnnnnnn!!!) --Enric Naval (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Strong keep, again (note: striken by other editor, see below) From personal experience, I worked really hard on my barnstar, making it the best it could be. If you guys do decide to delete everybody's barnstars, then please at least let everybody take a screen clipping or something of the barnstars, because I feel I can speak for a lot of people when I say that we worked hard for our barnstars (unless they used the general milk carton barnstar). By the way, I think that a lot of people may feel violated or hurt when you single them out. I know I would. Maybe in the future, just leave it at the basic general information. –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 07:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Your comment is formatted like a vote. However you already voted on this debate, as queerbubbles indicated. If you wish to keep the other vote instead, then please make necessary unstriking and modifications. Also consider placing all arguments for your vote on the same place, for the closing admin to read --Enric Naval (talk) 12:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If there are MfDs under way for barnstars, please comment at the relevant discussions. This discussion is just about hidden pages. Let's not confuse the matter by voting on whether or not to keep barnstars -- cause for one thing, it wont have any effect here. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:37, 2 Apr 2008 (UTC)

I apologize, I thought that this person started a new discussion regarding barnstars. –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 07:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The implication is that if secret pages are deleted there will be no need for barnstars awarded as a result of secret page discovery, I think that's where the confusion has arisen. But while the barnstars will become obsolete, that does not automatically extend to their mandatory deletion thus it is not a part of this debate.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Again... I don't think that anybody appreciates being singled out. Don't recommend that, or else you may have a really pissed off person knocking at your door (figuratively). –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 17:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Fake pages

What about all these fake secret pages? Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4 .... Cenarium^Talk 16:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Worse than the real secret page. Ugh... Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 16:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, those should be deleted. Those are ridiculous, and they have no content. нмŵוτнτ 16:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that should be deleted. That even goes for my fake one... I don't even remember why I made that in the first place. –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 17:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Look at this bureaucracy, deciding what's important for who and what's not. Sure nothing really is that important outside the article namespace but what ever happened to Laissez-faire? -- penubag  (talk) 01:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so there is a policy regarding this. My sentiments exactly, penubag, fellow secret page owner. –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 02:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

An essay isn't policy. What happened to that particularly essay is that it seems plenty of people disagree with it. I don't "do" laissez-faire politics either, for the record. -Halo (talk) 03:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'm not always for laissez-faire either, but you can't butt in other people's business. It's not really an invasion of privacy, but it's just a let it be situation. Let the user be, and if you don't like it, avoid that user or avoid secret pages. –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 09:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd argue that nothing on Wikipedia is solely another person's sole business, especially considering the nature of Wikipedia, a completely community-ran and funded consensus-driven site that encourages collaboration and contribution. Wikipedia has /never/ worked that way that something is solely one person's business. I firmly believe that anything on Wikipedia that isn't in some way useful or valuable to the other people within the goals of the project should be banished from whence it came. For example, can you imagine the potential abuse if we just "let it be" everytime someone wants to abuse Wikipedia for their own interests? -Halo (talk) 09:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Then why have userpages? They are a place for a user to talk about themselves or it's a personal space for the user, right? So, then with that argument, we should delete all of the userpages on Wikipedia. How about barnstars and userboxes? Those aren't part of the Wikipedia either, so those should get deleted too, then. You see how faulty that argument gets? And I'm surprised you used the word "abuse". How exactly do secret pages abuse Wikipedia? And... I'm saying that laissez-faire works in this case; not necessarily in all cases. –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 17:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe userpages exist to tell other users about yourself and your interests, which allows these other users to find out how they can collaborate with them. For example, if a user has written 50 FAs, it is likely they would be able to help another user write one too. If a user has a userbox saying they know about Christianity, perhaps another user might ask them to help with an article related to it. And so on. I think they were meant for users to express implicitly how they would be able to help the project. x42bn6 Talk Mess 19:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Mistaken tagging

Why has my user page been nominated for deletion? Georgereev118118 (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I clicky clicked on your main userpage there... and there is no MfD notice on it or in the history. So i'd say its not. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 16:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC) Oops... I see it now. It gets lost in all of those userboxes. I have no clue. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 16:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Upon further inspection... you and one other person are the only ones who have edited that page recently. Using the logical deduction... I'd have to say that you put it there? Unless there is something I am completely missing, and in which case feel free to flame me. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 16:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

After some serious digging, I found out that the template you are using "User:GeneralIroh / Userboxes / Secret" (<-- obviously spaced out so that we dont get a giant MfD notice) is what is being up for deletion... not your page. If you want it removed, remove that userbox template. Cheers! Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 16:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the mfd notice of User:GeneralIroh/Userboxes/Secret since it's not a secret page, and it's transcluded in 55 userpages. Cenarium^Talk 17:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought, but maybe when nominating pages that are transcluded, we should enclose the MfD template in <noinclude> tags. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 17:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If applied generally i would say no as if the noinclude tags were used on templates such as MfD, much less of the community would be informed on these discussions. Simply south (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2008 (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.