The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was No consensus. The following summary applies to all discussions about secret pages. The arguments for their deletion are that they violate some policies and guidelines (including WP:UP#GAMES, WP:NOTWEBHOST, and WP:NOTMYSPACE), that they are inappropriate for Wikipedia and that they distract users from the encyclopedia building. The counter arguments are that "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" meaning that wikipedians need to relax, that violations of policies, even if they exist, are minor and inconsequential—the pages are not harmful. Another counterargument is that policies have never been intended to be strict like real life laws, but merely to codify the exiting consensus, and enforcing a policy for the sake of enforcing it is wrong. Finally secret pages are not much different from guest books, which are generally allowed. I generally consider these arguments and counter arguments of an equal weight, therefore I think there is no consensus. Ruslik_Zero 19:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hi878/Secret Page List[edit]

Delete per WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:UP#Games. Secret pages do not contribute to building the encyclopedia. Cunard (talk) 04:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This MfD discussion includes the following pages:

• User:Hi878/Secret Hidden Page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Hi878/Somewhat Hidden Page/Actual Secret Page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Hi878/Right Secret Page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Hi878/Hidden Secret Page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Hi878/Somewhat Hidden Page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Hi878/Wrong Secret Page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Cunard (talk) 04:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Well, here is my reasoning for why a secret page is a good thing for me. I'm not sure if this would apply to others, but here it is. I don't have much time to do any real editing, as In seriously changing the article, but I do have time for things like the Typo Team and whatnot, because those don't take up very much time. Having the secret page there makes me go check it every day, to see who to give the barnstar to. Then, once I do that, I think, "You know, I could go fix a few typos, I think I'll go look for misspellings of xx." I really don't have any incentive to come on here, and I will usually forget, unless there is something that reminds Me to log on, such As a secret page. So really, having a secret page gets me to make more edits to the encyclopedia, not less, as many of you would think. I don't know how valid this argument actually is, but I'm throwing it out there anyway. Oh, and if this is kept, someone would need to undelete the other pages, because apparently someone decided to delete them before this was resolved. Hi878 (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst secret pages may lead you to fix typos in the mainspace, they detract from the time that others could spend on constructive article building. The several "false" secret pages I included in the deletion nomination add to the time people waste on trying to find your secret page. Hersfold (talk · contribs) says it best:

“

[W]e are here, above all else, to build an encyclopedia. That is what we all volunteered to do when we created an account here. Those who are here to play games have found the wrong website. We should be rewarding each other for outstanding contributions to the project, not for "who can find a link to some random page fastest" contests. It is an inappropriate use of this site, and pulls those users who have shown themselves to be excellent contributors (as DCFan101 clearly is, especially in Disney articles) away from the common purpose we are all here to work toward. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

”

Cunard (talk) 05:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo put it even better:

“

You keep asking how they [signature books] help build an encyclopedia. But you also link to Wikipedia:Esperanza. I think that is your answer, no? Anything that builds a spirit of friendliness and co-operation and helps people get to know each other as human beings seems to me a good thing. Unlike divisive userboxes, the autograph books seem to just be about saying hello and being friendly.

”

Kayau Voting IS evil 13:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard, wouldn't that be their own fault if they are going to focus on secret pages rather than editing? It should not be deleted just because other people choose to pay attention to it; if they are going to work on editing, then they will. If they are going to focus on secret pages, then they'll go look for others. Plus, it is good to relax a little bit and do something that doesn't involve as much thought as article-writing Secret pages can be good for people that edit a lot, and want to just do something else before they go back to editing. Hi878 (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting secret pages removes the incentive for editors to use Wikipedia as a social-networking site. If editors wish to "relax a little bit and do something that doesn't involve as much thought as article-writing", they can use MySpace and Facebook to satisfy their desires. Cunard (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but then there is the fact that people may not want to use those, because they know that people just become obsessed with them, so if they started to use one of them, they might become obsessed, and forget about editing on Wikipedia. I don't use them for the same reason, I don't want to become obsessed, and 99.9% of the things on MySpace/Facebook aren't related to secret pages. So really, if you want the secret page kind of thing, those wouldn't work very well for that purpose. However, Wikipedia works perfectly for that kind of thing, and it really does no harm as long as people are mostly editing articles, not exclusively doing secret pages. Hi878 (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that valuable time that could be spent editing articles and patrolling the recent changes are spent searching for secret pages. Wikipedia is not a substitute for games that don't exist on other websites; it is an encyclopedia. Cunard (talk) 06:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard, first of all, you didn't really address what I said. Second, it is a choice to look for secret pages, people are not forced to look for them. It's like McDonald's. People complain about how it has made them fat, some sue them, but in reality, they choose to eat there, they weren't forced to. Third, if someone is going to spend x amount of time doing other stuff to get away from article editing, if they can't do it on Wikipedia, they'll go somewhree else, but they will still do it. And really, secret pages are less addicting than games, so they wind up editing more if all they do is secret page hunts. Hi878 (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Can someone please undelete these pages at least for the purpose of this discussion? They were improperly deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all: "Secret" pages are inappropriate for an encyclopedia. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- these are harmless. Quoting policies against them is to interpret the policies in an improperly legalistic way. The point of policies is to advance the project and prevent harm to it, I think making a fuss against things like this is more harmful than the things themselves. --SJK (talk) 07:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - user active and page active; however user spent almost 30% on userspace. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 30% of one's edits in the userspace indicates that the user needs to spend less time on non-encyclopedic related activities. Cunard (talk) 06:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Request Could someone undelete the different secret pages? Whoever deleted them should not have, since this discussion hasn't been resolved yet. Hi878 (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The point of Wikipedia is to make information EASIER TO FIND. "Secret pages" are counter to that whole idea. DS (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that would apply here. I think that would only apply to actual article, some random person going to Wikipedia to look up something wouldn't just go and look at user pages, many might not even know that they exist, they go to look at articles. Secret pages don't have information on them, they are just something to do for a few minutes when you want a break from editing, but you don't want to do something as involved as MySpace or Facebook. So really, that doesn't apply at all here. Hi878 (talk) 03:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If there are admins deleting secret pages, then how come this chess game was speedy keeped? I still think it is a blatant violation of WP:UP#GAMES. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 02:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They explained why it was kept at the MfD. That chess game obviously wasn't making him edit any less, the game was just a side thing that obviously wasn't his focus. He was still there to build an encyclopedia, not in any way trying to use it as a place just to play games. And do you mean that the chess thing is a violation, or both secret pages and the chess thing? Hi878 (talk) 03:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part, I haven't seen that the existence of a secret page causes a user to edit less productively. I have one. ALI ^{nom nom} 17:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is that chess page 'secret'? DS (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't... He never said it was. I think that he meant if secret pages (games, in his opinion) are deleted, why not chess (also a game). Hi878 (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're not being deleted because they're games (although that doesn't help). They're being deleted because pages being 'secret' goes against Wikipedia's core principle of 'making information easier to find'. DS (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, what? That's a ridiculous twisting of our mission! Secret pages have nothing to do with the information in the encyclopedia itself, they're a background community element. "Making information easier to find" doesn't apply here. ALI ^{nom nom} 18:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't why at all. They are deleted because some people think that all they do is make people not edit the encyclopedia, even though that isn't really true. They have nothing to do with the information in the encyclopedia, user pages aren't where people go to look for information, they aren't part of the actual encyclopedia. Oh, and Ali, I've gotten in two edit conflicts with you trying to add this. :P Hi878 (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Gah, sorry. ALI ^{nom nom} 22:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, it was more funny than annoying. :) Hi878 (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Request again Could someone undelete the pages please? This discussion isn't over yet. Hi878 (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep- it's not like this stuff is on the mainspace, so I don't really see the harm in it. Also it seems to be a good way for editors who normally wouldn't have anything to do with each other to meet. A bit of mingling and socializing never hurts. Reyk _YO! 03:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not myspace. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep' (and restore, deleting such pages while an MfD is in progress is unhelpful, and these do not fit any of the WP:CSD). A limited amount of social interaction can actually foster building the project, and User:Hi878 has plausibly explained, supported by a Jimbo quote no less, why this is true in this user's case. Game playing and social networking are not the purpose of wikipedia, and should be deleted if excessive, but these don't seem excessive to me, and the nom seems rather hostile in tone. DES ^(talk) 13:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have closed the related DRV discussion as "speedy restore" and restore all the pages above, pending the outcome of this discussion. DES ^(talk) 14:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. And I'm glad someone thinks my argument makes sense. :) Hi878 (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's one thing to have a chess game or other amusement as a small part of one's talk page, but making more secret pages is contrary to building the encyclopedia. The first ten people who made a secret page (years ago) were experimenting, but those doing it now are inadvertently promoting the idea that Wikipedia user pages (and then articles?) be converted to MYSPACE. Johnuniq (talk) 02:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you seriously saying that a chess game is justified, but a secret page isn't? Could you elaborate on that, please? And wouldn't guestbooks fall under social networking? They don't seem to add to the encyclopedia any more than a secret page would. Hi878 (talk) 04:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • My claim is that a certain amount of diversion is fine, and if an established editor who does lots of useful work wants to have a small amount of fun, that can be regarded as recreation (not encouraged, but accepted). However, the hidden pages joke has worn thin and while I would not object to a grandfather clause to retain some hidden pages created before 2007 (when it was a novelty), the chains of non-encyclopedic userspace pages that have sprouted since are unhelpful because they are the start of an anything-goes concept that we need to avoid. Johnuniq (talk) 08:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • First of all, secret pages actually distract the one who made them less, because other people look for it, not the creator. I'll use a chess game as an example, such as the one here,which was kept when someone tried to delete it. Something like a chess game distracts from editing more than a secret page would. And plus, secret pages take less involvement from anyone than a chess game; you just look for a link, sign your name, and thats it. Chess games take a lot of focus, and you would spend more time on them. Second, secret pages are meant to be just a quick distraction, not something that is the only reason people use WIkipedia. I would say get rid of ones where people never make constructive edits, but don't get rid of all of them for the same reason, because for many people, they are just a quick distraction, in fact, a much quicker distraction than most other things like it, such as a chess game. I think the best way to do this wouldbe get rid of the ones where the user barely makes constructive edits, and tag the rest with something like this, as Kayau suggested in other discussions. Hi878 (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong Delete Wikipedia isn't Myspace. It's an encyclopedia. Secret pages have no place here. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 03:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - hey, I found 'em! Anyway, I agree with Johnuniq. These secret pages are a bit of a stretch. Try a guestbook. Airplaneman ✈ 04:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi878 has a guestbook. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 15:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Airplaneman ✈ 19:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - perhaps some 10-year olds find entertainment value here, but the alternative is that if barnstars are to be abused and devalued to this extent, then the barnstars will need to be deleted. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, lemme get this straight: you're opposing the existence of secret pages because 1.) you think they are childish and 2.) some people make barnstars for them? ALI ^{nom nom} 11:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That reasoning does seem to be a bit messed up. Obviously, more than 10-year olds enjoy these, because many people have them that sound like they're over 10 (Unless almost every user with a secret page is a child prodigy), so that point is out the window. Second, I don't see the problem with having a barnstar for them, at least not with that reason, because they don't lessen the value of barnstars. They are in a category of their own, and everyone knows that barnstars mean something, even though there are ones for secret pages. And really, having them for secret pages isn't a bad thing anyways. Hi878 (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per MZMcBride. Jclemens (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete them all per Snowolf and MZMcBride. Kaldari (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep all of them per Wikipedia:Why do you care?. Looking at Hi878's contributions, his/her edits are okay. He/she doesn't vandalize pages. Instead, he/she reverts vandalism, corrects typos, and improves articles in other ways. Because Hi878 makes good contributions, all of the pages should be kept. This is my first time discussing an MFD, by the way, and my second time discussing in a deletion discussion thing at all. --Hadger 20:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, I've never seen that essay before. That definitely helps the case for secret pages, at least ones made by users who contribute to the encyclopedia. Thanks for finding that. Hi878 (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't find that. My friend DragonofFire found it. --Hadger 15:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have no interest in creating or finding secret pages, but if an otherwise contributing user wants to spend some time doing it without being disruptive, I see no problem. The notion that the time spent takes away from productive editing is a non-starter; editors aren't employees on the clock. The "cost" of the space used rounds to zero. --SPhilbrickT 21:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from Cunard (talk · contribs), the nominator, specifically about Hi878 (talk · contribs)'s secret pages on 09:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC):[reply]

  Secret pages do not belong on Wikipedia for several reasons. They violate multiple policies and guidelines and are contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia.

  Secret pages violate the policy WP:NOT, which encompasses WP:NOTMYSPACE. The "Personal web pages" section of WP:NOTMYSPACE states: "The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration." Secret pages are games that would appear on social-networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook. The only way these pages could be permissible under policy is if they are a "foundation for effective collaboration". As A Stop at Willoughby (talk · contribs) once said: At this point, I think the burden of evidence is on those voting to keep these pages to explain how, exactly, they provide Hi878 with a "foundation for effective collaboration". The ball's in your court.

  In other words, has Hi878's interactions with other users through secret pages allowed him/her to collaborate with them on an article or on a project that benefits the encyclopedia? No such evidence has provided in this MfD discussion.

  Hi878 (talk · contribs)'s secret pages violate WP:UP#GAMES, specifically: games, roleplaying sessions, secret pages, and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia" are inappropriate use of userspace. Seven secret pages of Hi878 (talk · contribs) are nominated for deletion. Why are there so many? Most are fake. This leads to my next point: Hi878's secret page games are designed to waste other's time. The false secret pages say:

  Wonderful job! You managed to find my hidden page! Sign your name below, and I'll give you a surprise on your talk page. Make sure you also list your name here. If you don't, I'll delete your name from this page. (Note: the surprise is this.)

  
  1. When users find one of Hi878's fake secret pages, Hi878 leaves them this message (see the template at User:Hi878/Wrong Secret Page).
  2. The user tries again and is subsequently left with the same "wrong secret page" message.
  3. The user tries a third time; the same "wrong secret page" message is left on the user's talk page.
  4. After further searching the user finds the "real" secret page and is rewarded a barnstar. Evidently, this time-wasting has not occurred to just one user, it has occurred to multiple ones. This blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a hide-and-seek game does indeed violate the spirit and letter of WP:UP#GAMES. This leads me to my next point.

  Barnstars are devalued when they are awarded for the "hard work" of finding secret pages. Instead of being given barnstars for commendable work on articles or vandal patrol, users are rewarded for playing games on Wikipedia.

  Some argue that an editor's history of productive edits allows him/her to have secret pages. I believe this is wrong. Neither WP:UP#GAMES nor WP:NOTMYSPACE condones Wikipedians with serious edits who use Wikipedia as a web host or as a game. Why should established editors who violate policy be treated differently from less serious editors who violate policy? Shouldn't established editors who have many constructive edits serve as examples to those who have less constructive edits? I believe that all editors are equal and should be treated equally when they violate policy.

  In response to Wikipedia:Why do you care?: editors do matter; however, rewarding editors for social-networking is unacceptable for an encyclopedia, especially when editors are presented with misinformation, i.e. false secret pages, and are given a template message such as this on their talk pages.

  Some may consider WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE to be reasons for keeping Hi878's secret pages; however, when userspace is misused to this extent (as documented above), they cannot be used to justify retaining these pages.

  In sum, Hi878's secret pages violate the policy WP:NOTMYSPACE and the content guideline WP:UP#GAMES, and I have yet to see a policy or guideline that permits them. Cunard (talk) 09:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • So basically the biggest problem is the fake hidden page? We can just talk to Hi878 about that and ask if that can stop if that's the biggest problem. --Hadger 15:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi878 has already said below that s/he does not "think even that would be necessary" so that will not be a resolution to the problem.

      Fake secret pages are not the only reason that these pages should be deleted. A second reason is that handing out barnstars for playing games is contrary to building an encyclopedia in that the barnstars are devalued; instead of being awarded for commendable article work or vandal patrolling, barnstars are misused to promote MySpace behavior. Cunard (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I really don't think even that would be necessary. It doesn't exactly take very long for each link, it takes people all of thirty seconds for each one, and it takes the same amount of time for each sign. People see it, find out they're wrong once or twice, and then that's it. Each time they look, I think that anyone would agree it takes no time to find them, and it doesn't really keep them from doing anything else. Please, ask the people who found it and see what they think, if they wasted tons of time, or if they found it and went right back to editing. Plus, as I said before, people are not forced to look for secret pages. They choose to, and if they want to, they will, somehow. So really, wouldn't it be better to have them stay on Wikipedia, so that they probably go right back to editing? Hi878 (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • They choose to, and if they want to, they will, somehow. – once deleted, they will not "somehow" continue being given barnstars for playing games.

        Users who engage in social-networking misuse the encyclopedia by searching for secret pages such as yours. They should dissuaded by the removal of these temptations.

        Users who have constructive edits should not be allowed to violate a policy and a guideline. Because all editors are equal, your secret pages should, despite your being a constructive contributor, be deleted for violating policy. Cunard (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      • Also, Cunard, if you didn't already, you should read the comment above yours, I think it makes a lot of sense. Hi878 (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I addressed the comment above mine in my third-to-last paragraph of this comment. I ask you to re-read what I wrote above as I posed several questions which you have not answered. One question is: "has Hi878's interactions with other users through secret pages allowed him/her to collaborate with them on an article or on a project that benefits the encyclopedia? No such evidence has provided in this MfD discussion." A second question revolves around the policy and the guideline that this page violates and whether or not a policy or guideline exists to permit your secret pages. (In my penultimate paragraph, I explained that WP:IAR does not apply. Secret pages "do not improve or maintain Wikipedia".) Cunard (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • First of all, I meant the one RIGHT above yours, by SPhilbrick, which you did not address. Second, bringing up barnstars doesn't actually have to do with what I said, please don't change the subject. I was meaning that people will go somewhere else for some sort of game to take their mind off of editing. If they went somewhere else to do that, they might forget to come back. If they find secret pages on here, they are already here, and it's more likely that they will go right back to editing. Third, you didn't address what I said, either. How about you re-read my comment? The whole part about secret pages taking almost no time to find. Or does your ignoring it mean you actually agree with me? Fourth, barnstars are not devalued. They are still given out for article work, and they still mean something to the people. That argument really doesn't make sense to me, having the barnstar doesn't make others any less special. Fifth, no, it hasn't allowed me to collaborate on articles. HOWEVER, only ELEVEN people have found it, so how exactly do you know that won't happen later? Do you really think that a reason to delete secret pages is because I haven't collaborated with one of the eleven random people who happened to find my secret page? They all might not be interested in an article I want to help with, which isn't surprising since only ELEVEN people have found it. Plus, by your argument, people who make/find secret pages don't focus on the encyclopedia, so they really wouldn't be interested at all in improving an article, would they? Or was that not true? Point six. WP:NOTMYSPACE says these shouldn't be allowed: File storage. Secret pages obviously aren't that. Dating services. Obviously not. Memorial. Obviously not. Personal web page. Depending on your view, you could make the argument that secret pages go under social networking. I don't believe that, but the argument could be made. However, guestbooks are allowed, and I'm sure most people don't go and ask each person that signs their guestbook if they want to work on an article. Secret pages aren't any worse in that way the guestbooks, except they take 30 seconds more to find. 30 seconds longer to find it definitely isn't an argument that would make secret pages deleted, but not guestboooks. And that goes with your WP:IAR point, too. Guestbooks don't help improve or maintain the article any more than secret pages. And with WP:UP#GAMES, I do believe the first word of the section header is EXCESSIVE, not absolutely none. Hi878 (talk) 01:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Cunard, I'd be happier if you stopped using policy as an argument and started thinking about what would be good for the community. Or let me direct a question to the user in question: Hi, how would the deletion of your secret page affect your level of involvement on Wikipedia? ALI ^{nom nom} 02:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, having the secret page there reminds me to come on Wikipedia, because I want to see if anyone new has found it. If it wasn't there, I wouldn't have that reminder to come on, and I'd probably end up editing quite a bit less. I usually need some kind of thing like this so that it jumps in to my head and I remember to log on. So really, having the secret page has me edit more. Hi878 (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • There you are, Cunard. You can't justify the deletion of an otherwise harmless page if it discourages an active contributor from editing. ALI ^{nom nom} 02:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I looked at your comment, Cunard, and actually, I find secret pages, and look at my edits. A lot of them improve Wikipedia. In fact, only a few of them involve secret page finding. A lot of editors who find secret pages also help improve the encyclopedia (look at [[Special:Contributions/Hi878|Hi878's contributions; I'm sure there are many more editors who search for secret pages and improve Wikipedia). I think it is very untrue that people who search for secret pages don't improve Wikipedia. I am not saying your comment is bad (in fact, it must have taken a lot of hard work to type). I am just saying that most editors who look for secret pages also improve Wikipedia. --Hadger 04:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC) Never mind. I realized that Hi put that. Sorry for the inconvenience to both of you (Hi and Cunard). --Hadger 05:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • However, it is true that most people that look for secret pages also contribute to Wikipedia. (That includes me, ALI, NerdyScienceDude, and Hi878; by the way, those are contribution links). --Hadger 18:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Yes, but Cunard is using the WP:EQUALITY argument, so that doesn't matter, in his eyes. Hi878 (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I know, but I am just saying that you are right about the fact that many people who participate in secret page things also contribute to Wikipedia articles. --Hadger 18:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:CARE. ~NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 12:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still can't believe that I never saw that. Hi878 (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • User was canvassed. I still have yet to see a policy or guideline that allows secret pages to remain. Having read the responses by Hi878 and the others who support retaining these pages, I have no further arguments to make at this MfD right now as I have said all I have wanted to say. Cunard (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was assuming that he would comment anyways, since he had seen the page; I was just reminding him. Canvassing wasn't really what I was thinking. Anyhoo, I don't have anything else to say either, I think it's time for an admin to close this one. Hi878 (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • "If you could help at the MfD, that would be great." violates Wikipedia:CANVASS#Campaigning in that the message was not conveyed in a neutral tone. Cunard (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I suppose that's true. I apologize for that. Hi878 (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per everything I've already said- the page does no harm, and arbitrary deletion would be counterproductive to the good of the community and by extent the encyclopedia. ALI ^{nom nom} 13:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Now that we have built the largest reference work of all time, the easy part is over. To maintain it, we must maintain a stable, functional community, one that's entirely online, and made of the sort of people whose idea of fun is picking nits off an encyclopedia. If this doesn't scare you, it should. Wikipedia had a sort of beginner's bonus in its frontier days, but the cooperative spirit fostered by tangible progress and the shared excitement at this mad endeavor must inevitably diminish as the nature of editing changes and there are ever more things to disagree on.
  
  Though I have no interest in secret pages myself, I'm unconvinced that they count as social networking, games or any other thing forbidden by The Rules. In fact, WP:UP specifically says that users are allowed small amounts of "unrelated material." I also find the pages valuable as one of the few ways editors can connect positively, and where they can be reminded that one does not always have to worry about rules and conflicts while editing Wikipedia. You know that that's all too valuable.
  
  If you find this effect insignificant, there is another: it is very much significant that we do not become a community where even such small deviations from The Complex And Proper Order Of Things are set upon and crushed. --Kizor 01:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note this bit. Midway down the MfD, Cunard cites WP:UP's list of inappropriate things in userspace as containing "secret pages." This addition was made after this MfD was begun (by NerdyScienceDude... who's for keeping. Huh.), with no discussion, no explanation, and no community backing - the previous times large amounts of noise were made on secret pages were a MfD on them as a whole, which gave no consensus, and an arbitration case on their attempted-and-reversed destruction, which found (13 to 1) that there is no community consensus, they do not clearly fall under speedy deletion criteria, and reasonable arguments can be made for both sides of the issue.
  
  This is completely inappropriate behavior on a page that we expect our users to follow, so I reverted the change. I reverted it while under the impression that the change had not been mentioned in secret page MfDs, and was in no way trying to influence the debate. --Kizor 01:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a tad confusing, isn't it? Maybe what he meant was that you shouldn't have excessive secret pages, but in this case, they aren't excessive, so he voted keep. That does seem a bit odd, though. Hi878 (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stranger things have happened. Not often, though. No matter. --Kizor 02:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A thought So, if all things not related to the encyclopedia, or at least all things that distract people from editing, are bad and should be removed, why is anything in the following template allowed? It most certainly doesn't help the encyclopedia. And, for that matter, why are any humorous pages kept at all? Indeed, why don't we just have a mass MfD for anything humor related? Can someone please explain why all of this is allowed, but secret pages can't be? Hi878 (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That's what I was wondering. Why aren't secret pages allowed, yet humorous Wikipedia pages are? They are both meant for fun, and they are both unrelated to the encyclopedia. Also, the Wikipediholism test is way more distracting than secret pages, because taking the Wikipediholism test can take more than 45 minutes to an hour and thirty minutes (even if you are a fast reader and/or using the automated version), while finding a secret page takes a much shorter time than that. It's very confusing. --Hadger 03:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh well. People have weird logic. :) Hi878 (talk) 03:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – the absurd nonsense and wasted energy above is precisely why these pages should be deleted. None of this has anything to do with building an encyclopaedia. There are plenty of social networking sites that cater to tastes like these, and that is where such games belong. Handing out barnstars to people who waste Wikipedia resources playing these fatuous games demeans the value of barnstars. -- Scrooge Epipelagic (talk) 09:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Waste Wikipedia resources? If you mean that the way I think you do, that argument was smashed to bits somewhere here, I'm pretty sure. I'll let you find it, if you so desire, because I don't have the time to read through that whole thing again. :) Hi878 (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - For those who consider these wasted time: Who wants to go through this list and tag ALL of them for deletion? (Go ahead, I'll wait.) Come to think of it, by the same token, practically everything done in userspace is a waste of time. Taking 5 minutes to give someone a barnstar is out. Let's delete everything in ((Barnstarpages)) while we are at it. :) ^Avicenna_sis @ 09:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you really can't keep one thing not related to the encyclopedia, and choose to keep some others, when supposedly anything unrelated is bad for the encyclopedia. I suppose people just want to delete the funny/fun things that they don't like, but keep the others. Hi878 (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• A comment Just for the record, Cunard didn't answer any of the arguments that I wrote here, he just said that he was done arguing. Does that mean that he agreed with what I said? Hi878 (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I have discontinued extensive argument in this debate because I have begun working on The Shawshank Redemption. Cunard (talk) 06:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, you still haven't given any answers for those, regardless of the reason. Hi878 (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Some of the comments here say that barnstars being given out when a secret page is found is a bad thing. If that's why you want it deleted, we can just stop giving out barnstars for finding secret pages and use something like a user box instead (I know how to make userboxes). If that's still a problem, we can just not give out an award at all, although I don't think it would be so bad to give someone a userbox for finding a secret page. --Hadger 23:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There isn't really a reason for getting rid of the barnstars, either. I think it all should be kept, there isn't really a good reason for getting rid of the barnstars. Hi878 (talk) 23:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think there's a clear distinction between awards made by users and "official" barnstars given for great editing. That's not really an issue. Barnstars aren't in danger of being made less valuable. ALI ^{nom nom} 00:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly! There isn't really any point in getting rid of these, especially if everyone thinks the guestbook barnstars should be kept. Hi878 (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was thinking that, too. It's not like someone will get the Amazing Award for finding a secret page. They might get the Special Barnstar (which is used when there's no specific barnstar to give the user for whatever they did), however, it would most likely be explained on the barnstar that the user found someone's secret page, which lets people know that the user found a secret page rather than doing something something extremely special. People almost always create there own barnstars to give people when they find someone's secret page (in fact, I have never seen someone give out an "official" barnstar to someone for finding their secret page). Since this is not Hi878's case (he/she isn't giving out "official" barnstars to people that find his secret page), we shouldn't delete the barnstars. The barnstar clearly states that it was given out for someone finding Hi878's secret page. Like ALI said, giving out barnstars for finding secret pages will not harm barnstars. They won't make barnstars less valuable. --Hadger 03:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Awarding barnstars for secret pages, regardless of whether the barnstars are "official" or not, is a misuse of Wikipedia. This promotes a social-networking atmosphere instead of an encyclopedia building one. Cunard (talk) 06:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • First: Why do you care? Second: They don't really make it in to a social-networking atmosphere, they just promote connecting with people, so that there can be a friendly antmosphere on Wikipedia, instead of a strict one where no fun at all. Hi878 (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I've seen "Why do you care?" thrown around a lot, and it seems rather apt because that's exactly what I'm thinking about when I see those fighting so hard to keep these pages. To them I'd ask, What's the big deal if it gets deleted? Why do you care so much? It's a bunch of useless pages, so what? It's not going to harm Wikipedia.. unless you really believe it's going to cause editors to leave the project because of sudden boredom and depression. I even have some "fun" subpages in my userspace myself, and if someone wants them deleted I couldn't care less.. those pages have nothing to do with improving Wikipedia.. I'd probably delete them myself and spare you the trouble of a pointless MfD debate. I !voted delete on these because I find them annoying and immature, I know that's not a good reason to delete but it really doesn't matter to me because I just don't take this whole MfD seriously enough, It wouldn't matter at all to me if these pages of yours get deleted or kept because it has no impact on mainspace content whatsoever, and that's all that really matters. The community is healthy, cohesive and mature, it will survive with or without secret pages. -- œ^™ 14:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Despite much expenditure of text above, this is just another secret page game, dozens of which have been deleted per WP:UP#GAMES in the past. It adds no more to the encyclopedia than any of the others. --RL0919 (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My argument wasn't that it adds to the encyclopedia. Read the above stuff, that wasn't the argument at all. You can look for it, I don't want to type it again. :) Hi878 (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Jimbo's userspace... nah just kidding, delete ;P -- œ^™ 05:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not an administrator, so don't get the idea that I'm an administrator, but please put a reason for deleting the page (per WP:JUSTAVOTE). --Hadger 23:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Normally I don't care about these hidden pages and other fun stuff like this, but this particular series pages is just going overboard. I find it more annoying and even slightly disruptive rather than a fun diversion. And I'm confused, what does you being an administrator or not have to do with anything? -- œ^™ 04:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  It's because I don't want people to be under the impression that the reason I'm telling them about the comment's problem is because I'm an administrator (which I am not). --Hadger 23:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  He seems to be under the impression that we know what we're talking about. Poor guy.
  Being annoying isn't a good argument for deletion, though. Believe me, if it was, I'd have resigned my position due to carpal tunnel. Even if it was, asking the owner of the pages to cut down would be a better approach than categorically forbidding him from having any secret pages, which would be the result of a "delete" decision here. What's your take on this? --Kizor 04:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi878 has already said below that s/he does not "think even that would be necessary" so that will not be a resolution to the problem. While "annoying" may not be a good argument for deletion, WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:NOT#WEBHOST forbid Hi878's secret pages, many of which are fallacious, from existing here. I have yet to see a policy/guideline that permits secret pages. Cunard (talk) 05:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I've yet to see policy/guideline that forbids secret pages. Looking at WP:NOTMYSPACE, I am not sure how secret pages fit. They are no more "Personal web pages" then some of other more relevant content in userspace. They are not used for "File storage areas". I certainly have not seen them used as "Dating services" or "Memorials". Reviewing WP:NOT#WEBHOST: "not a personal homepage," (Secret pages don't seem to fit this as I understand it.) "nor is it a blog." (Nope, no blogging is really done on secret pages that I have seen.) "More importantly, your user page is not yours. It is a part of Wikipedia, and exists to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, not for self-promotion" (Again, building rapport and meeting other editors in a friendly manner versus the somewhat standard, "I reverted your edit because you are wrong" that I tend to see.} :) ^Avicenna_sis @ 06:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NOTMYSPACE, which states "Wikipedia is not a social network...", is clearly applicable because Hi878's numerous fake secret pages, which involve games of hide-and-seek, promote an atmosphere of social-networking / game playing.

  WP:NOTWEBHOST is clearly applicable because Hi878's numerous fake secret pages do not "[exist] to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier"; it is exists for users to play games and give each other barnstars. See Hi878's comment here for a recent devaluing of barnstars; instead of being given barnstars for working on articles or patrolling vandalism, users are given barnstars for being able to "list [their] name on the right [secret page]".

  Hi878 has yet to prove that interactions with other users through secret pages has allowed him/her to collaborate with them on an article or on a project that benefits the encyclopedia. In fact, the secret pages seem to foster MySpace behavior. Of the 10 threads currently on Hi878's talk page, few are related to building the encyclopedia. The first and the second are from two users thanking Hi878 for handing out secret page barnstars. A third thread is a discussion about the correct way of signing guestbooks (the thread was originated by a user who thanked Hi878 for handing out a secret page barnstar). A fourth thread is a talkback from a user who gave permission Hi878 permission to use his navbar on Hi878's userpage or talk page. The remaining sections range from "The Wet Trout Award" to "Hadger's friend" to "Re: About my user page". The only section out of these 10 sections that could remotely be considered encyclopedia building is the "Alleged vandalism" thread which was initiated by a disgruntled IP.

  Because Hi878's fake secret pages violate the policies WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:NOTWEBHOST, because they promote social-networking behavior, and because Hi878's fake secret pages provide false information for the encyclopedia, Hi878's secret pages should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 08:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Cunard, first of all, what you wrote isn't on my talk page, or the link you gave, I think you put the wrong one. Second, you said that I haven't yet proved that these help collaboration. HAve you noticed the number of people who found it? I'm sure that out of the 12,131,938-ish registered users, it shouldn't be hard to believe that the fourteen of them that signed my secret page are people that would want to help the same articles that I would. And Kizor, do three extra secret pages really require "cutting down"? It takes all of thirty seconds to find each one, how exactly does that require removing them? And about the barnstars, everyone still takes the main ones seriously, they haven't been devalued. People know it is a user-created one, they won't think that all barnstars are worthless now that there are ones for secret pages. And OE, in regards to what you said above this part, I probably wouldn't leave as a result of this, but there are many people that would think, "Wow! Those people at Wikipedia are so uptight! Why don't they let people have a little fun?" Also, see my original argument, they help me edit more, because I remember to come on to Wikipedia. Also, if anything that doesn't help the encyclopedia is bad, then why are any of the humor pages kept? Hi878 (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The quote, "list [their] name on the right [secret page]", is from the diff I posted above.

  I have noticed that you and many users have been using User:Hi878/Secret Page List and its related pages as a hide-and-seek game.

  I count 6 extra secret pages, not 3.

  "I probably wouldn't leave as a result of this" – I would certainly hope not. That would indicate that you are not here to build the encyclopedia and are here for social-networking.

  The general image of barnstars is devalued when "user-created" barnstars are given out for playing games.

  Other stuff exists in reply to why the humor pages are kept. Some consider humor pages to be inappropriate; some don't. The fact of the matter is that the existence of humor pages has little relevance to whether or not secret pages should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, Cunard, about the "Hadger's Friend" section on my talk page, you can hardly blame me for that, I didn't invite him to say hi to me. I said "Hi" back, and that's it, unless he has something to say that has some relevance to something. I'm not going to use WIkiepdia just to chat with him, you can hardly object to me saying "Hi" back to him.Hi878 (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I mentioned the "Hadger's Friend" section to be complete in my description of the most recent 10 threads on your talk page, almost all of which are related to your secret pages, userpages, and guestbooks. Cunard (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as long as the user ends useing it as myspace. Let the people who find the page reward themselves. Now on the other hand I want to Delete this one per the countless other pages that are identical to this one and were deleted. So I guess I'll !vote Neutral.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 23:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.