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

The result of the discussion was delete. Tim Song (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:NerdyScienceDude/Vandalism space[edit]

This is the same junk as cabals and secret pages. Enough with this MySpace stuff. It was filled with huge images and completely useless stuff not needed to build an encyclopedia. You can do a lot with your userspace (I think Sandboxes are great, however, this is just another timewasting distraction) but not this. moɳo 05:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - also see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NerdyScienceDude/Vandalism space. Airplaneman ✈ 05:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it is not detrimental to the well-being of the encyclopedia. Airplaneman ✈ 05:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It distracts users from building the encyclopedia.--moɳo 05:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Also see my rationale at the first nomination. Airplaneman ✈ 05:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• So does everything with the ((Humor)) template, and everything related to the Department of Fun. Do you want to go through and nominate each of those, as well? Hi878 (talk) 05:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Doesn't harm the encyclopedia in any way. Users choose to go the page, they are not forced to go to it, so the "distracts editors" argument really doesn't work. And really, isn't it better if they are distracted while on Wikipedia rather than somewhere else? At least if they are here, they might also add some constructive edits. Hi878 (talk) 05:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Perfectly reasonable use of userspace. Not at all the same as cabals or silly, same-old games. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Doesn't harm Wikipedia; provides a bit (acceptable amount) of fun, making users want to stay. Same as WP:FUN: makes for a better experience, indirectly improving Wikipedia. Brambleclawx 14:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed my mind again: Neutral: I no longer have any opinion about this. Brambleclawx 15:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Comment If you want to delete this, surely, you would want to delete this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this... I think you get my point: there are lots of these pages out there. I'm pretty sure that even some quite established editors have these pages too. Brambleclawx 14:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Established users keeping pages means little in the scheme of things. Many kept lists of funny vandalism which were all MfD'd before, but kept. —fetch·comms 01:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep - This is mainly a tool to keep vandals out of my user page. This isn't a huge problem since I still make constructive contributions. Afterall, what's wrong with having a little fun every now and then? ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 21:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, this page doesn't conquer other pages or encourage rummaging through my userspace to find hidden pages. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 21:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excuse me, but what exactly might you be referring to by that statement? :) Hi878 (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You.--moɳo 02:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Really? I never would have guessed... Did you notice the ":)" at the end of my comment? Apparently, I'm going to have to say something like "I'm not being serious" at the end of any attempts to be funny from now on. And just out of curiosity, if you think cabals are junk, why did you join this cabal? Hi878 (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmm... Perhaps I did notice it.--mono 23:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmm... Maybe I was being sarcastic too? :) And you seem to have not answered my question. Hi878 (talk) 04:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:MYSPACE. Other inappropriate pages are not a reason to keep this. The objective "mainly a tool to keep vandals out of my user page" is not effective because no vandal would respect such an aim (they probably would not even notice it). There is no disrespect involved in asking that a page be removed as inappropriate, and the page in question is not any kind of advice or humor; its only potential is to spread the idea that having a "vandalism space" is desirable, and is fun for one's friends. Johnuniq (talk) 00:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is why the person who mentioned the other pages neither voted "keep" nor "delete". Airplaneman ✈ 01:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, vandals would notice it since there are notices to vandalize there on my user page, talk page, and on both editnotices. A link to it is also on my navbar. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 02:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It serves to dispel vandalism, not MySpacing. Secret pages are one thing, as they waste time users could be using to better the encyclopedia, but I see no harm, and possibly benefit, if this page stops a vandal from editing a real article. Of course, if everyone starts making these and registered, non-vandal users vandalize them for fun regularly, then there might be a problem. —fetch·comms 01:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that most contributors to page are autoconfirmed.--moɳo 02:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Autoconfirmed ≠ non-vandal and vice versa. Airplaneman ✈ 02:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Fetchcomms said, if non-vandal users vandalize them for fun regularly, then there might be a problem which seems ironic that non-vandal users vandalize them for fun regularly, so there might be a problem. Also, it confuses vandalism patrollers who think that it is vandalism and waste their time. moɳo 03:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, vandal patrollers could take a look at the page title every once in a while, and all will be well :) Airplaneman ✈ 03:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's just crazy... And mono, could you please answer my question above? Hi878 (talk) 04:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal patrollers should be able to open their eyes and see the page they are looking at before reverting... And I don't see anyone repeatedly vandalising that page for no apparent reason. Just sayin. —fetch·comms 01:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per no policy whatsoever. Why does everyone like to institute thie "mm, too much MySpace-osity, can't have it, it's not logical" junk? Might as well delete guestbooks, and the Department of Humor. Heck, why not just drop this whole "User" stuff? It's not as if you need it, as if it helps anyone. Clever usernames and cutesy userspaces are for Facebook, right? It's not constructive, you don't need to log in to edit, so why give the option? I think that you bigshots don't look at the perspective of lower editors, who have a sense of humor and care. Deleting this page, or any like it, is comparable to deleting a guestbook. Enough said. 2D Maestro ^{Immune Diplomat} 13:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I support the deletion of guestbooks.--mono 23:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wanna go ahead and U1 yours? Airplaneman ✈ 02:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mono, maybe you should figure out what your position is on these things, you are a mass of contradictions. You support the deletion of guestbooks, but you have one. You don't like cabals, but you joined this one. I think you should pick a side and stay with it. Hi878 (talk) 04:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which aren't going to be deleted any time soon. A recent proposal to ban guestbooks failed. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 23:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting this page is not comparable to deleting a guestbook. A guestbook promotes a positive atmosphere and allows for a bit more cooperation and friendly interaction to occur between users than there otherwise would. That is always constructive in a place where the community is the driver. A page used by users for no reason other then to randomly scribble crap on, however, does not do any of the above. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Trout slap Nominator for wasting everybody's time. First, for slapping up a notice on his own userpage requesting that editors vandalise it then modifying it and finally deleting it after several comments about it on his own talkpage (e.g. this); for reacting in the extreme after part of his talkpage was deleted by a random editor following some silliness involving several people (including me); and for consantly "retiring" and immediately "unretiring"; and finally for bringing this pointless action to our attention to waste yet more time. I am finding it hard to take Mono (talk · contribs) seriously any more and think my suggestion is actually quite lenient. Cf also User:Voceditenore/A handy guide to fooling Wikipedians about your age --Jubilee♫clipman 00:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's sure civil! mono 00:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, sure is! Airplaneman ✈ 00:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. A trout is on the way... ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 01:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:MYSPACE. I see nothing wrong with things such as guestbooks, joke pages, etc.; these promote cooperation and create a positive atmosphere for both editors and readers alike. A page that serves as a spot solely for vandalizing, however, is the opposite as I see it and should be deleted, for a multitude of reasons. Number one, I believe that vandalism should not occur - no matter where it is. Whether it be on a page not meant for vandalism or one that is, a page that serves as a place that promotes nothing but unconstructive edits is not good on my list. Second, unlike fun pages, vandalism pages aren't really humorous, nor do they, once again, promote a positive atmosphere (which the intent of WP:FUN is). Third, this is an encyclopedia; we should try to look like one. A page meant solely for vandalism offers nothing and gives Wikipedia a counter-encyclopedia look, especially when things such as "YOU ARE ALL EPIC FAILURES!!!!!!" and "YOU ARE ALL LOSERS" can be found on it. It makes it seem more like a place where people can come to randomly scribble random things down, and that's not what we want to be. If you opened up a Webster dictionary at your local library and decided to read it all, then halfway through there were ten blank pages that could be used by readers to scribble randomly on...suddenly, that dictionary looks a lot less professional and makes the fact that the dictionary is a dictionary almost a joke. Fourth, it does distract users from building an encyclopedia. Just today, I was patrolling pages with Huggle and came across another page similar to NSD's. I had to spend a good minute seeing what was going on, along with skimming the page's rules to see whether the vandalism edit was actually vandalism (eh...what?) Well, there's my view. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion, SuperHamster, but you won't find user pages, Huggle, discussions, BOLDism, a Main Page and so forth in a Webster's dictionary or paper encyclopedia. It also doesn't have to be encyclopedic per WP:IAR. User pages already fail the notability and verifiability policies. WP:IAR saves them. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 02:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that:

Thanks, mono 02:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding on Mono's explanation of IAR, user pages, Huggle, discussions, BOLDism, a Main Page and so forth are all saved by WP:IAR because they are helping to build Wikipedia. IAR will not, however, save pages that do not help build an encyclopedia. It is not true that Wikipedia doesn't have to be encyclopedic per IAR. IAR itself indirectly states that Wikipedia has to be encyclopedia by stating that it can only be used to improve Wikipedia, aka an encyclopedia. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete SuperHamster has conclusively demonstrated that this page is harmful to the encyclopedia. The page is a breeding ground for storing homophobic comments, as well as for WP:SOAPBOXING. The page can be found via Google and Yahoo! and is damaging to Wikipedia's reputation. It wastes the time of vandal patrollers (as noted by SuperHamster) who must read the page's rules to see if the vandalism should be reverted. This time could be better spent reverting actual vandalism in Wikipedia articles. The page does not help prevent vandalism because vandals are going to vandalize the mainspace regardless of pages such as this. Vandals/trolls derive more pleasure in vandalizing pages in the mainspace when such actions are forbidden. Permitting this page to remain on Wikipedia fosters the attitude that vandalism is acceptable on Wikipedia. That is unacceptable. Deleting this humorless, time-wasting page would be a net positive for Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 02:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• NerdyScienceDude (talk · contribs) cites WP:IAR above as a reason for keeping this page. I ask him to, after reading my comment about this wasting the time of vandal patrollers, being a storage house for soapboxing / inappropriate comments, damaging the image of Wikipedia, promoting the attitude that vandalism is acceptable, and not preventing vandalism, explain how deleting this page "prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia". Cunard (talk) 02:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Keeping my vandal space would help prevent excessive vandalism done to my user page (IPs actually vandalize it). It is also a place to have some fun, as in it brightens up the Wikipedia experience. And you cite "inappropriate comments" as a reason for deletion, I actually don't allow swearing on it. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 02:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I just NOINDEXED the page to stop it appearing in search engine results. It takes a few days, admittedly, but it does work eventually. You do make good point about homophobic remarks even if made ironically. There are also anti-Muslim remarks on the page and other somewhat objectionable things. My comment above was perhaps made somewhat hastily, therefore and was based on my recent experiences with the nom rather than with the page. They still stand (though they should be elsewhere, perhaps) but I am beginning to think Mono is actually right on this occasion --Jubilee♫clipman 03:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I certainly don't find some of the things that Cunard pointed out to be fun and brightening in the least bit. Swearing is pale in comparison to other things that have appeared on this and other pages, particularly the homophobic comment that is still up there which is highly inappropriate IMO, more so than swearing. I've seen second graders swear; swearing isn't a big deal in comparison. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond that, whether or not the page actually diverts vandalism is up for debate. If a person really wants to vandalize and do harm, they wouldn't do it on a page that invites them to do so. Either way, your userpage is still being vandalized. Have you considered requesting that your userpage page get semi-protected to prevent new and anon. users from editing your userpage? That would probably help a lot. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just deleted that entire section, though, I don;t think it will help much, TBO: some one else could come along and add more, anyway... I also struck my comment above about this action being pointless --Jubilee♫clipman 03:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Good clean fun! Sapporod1965 (talk) 02:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user has interacted with the nominator; it is possible that this vote may be WP:POV. mono 03:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that there's a giant dildo on their userpage. The gap of what the definition of "good clean fun" is seems a bit large here. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: !vote by Sapporod1965 struck out due to them being indefinitely blocked. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

NSD has "retired" the page.--mono 03:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding this comment anyway:
  • Delete - my comments above notwithstanding (though they do belong elsewhere), this page is (a) unhelpful (it doesn't actually divert anything), (b) unhealthy (it encourages stupid, thoughtless and even objectionable comments, (c) distracting (editors edit that page rather than the encylopedia or pages designed to build up the encyclopdia such as talkpages, project pages or debate pages etc), and (d) encourages WikiMySpacing (the edits are mostly people messing about rather than making a point about vandalism). I would also support deleting all similar pages, though that's a wider debate for another day --Jubilee♫clipman 03:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Ok, I have blanked the vandalism space and added ((historical)) to it. I have also had my user page semi-protected. Feel free to close this whenever, as long as it doesn't get deleted. I'm keeping it for historical purposes. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 03:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether this deletion nomination gets withdrawn or not is up to Mono, as they are the initial nominator. If Mono chooses not to withdraw, I would think that the discussion will ensue until closure, as it normally does. Whether or not it gets deleted is up to how the discussion turns out and what the closing admin interprets the consensus as. I personally hold my position of deleting the page, as the history doesn't provide anything useful or pretty. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - While I do not think all the arguments made in favour of deletion add-up, in the end, the strongest case is for deletion. Firstly, the world is not divided between social networking and encyclopedia building; I don't see much MySpace like activity on that page. On the issue of distraction - a vandalism space is trivial in comparison to the many other distractions around e.g. other websites and offline activities; editors are intelligent and can manage there own time, and I don't think many users have spent a huge amount of time on that page. However, the page does not seem to work as vandals are still vandalising other pages in NerdyScienceDude's user-space, and many vandals will not co-operate in the way this page requires. The biggest concern though is what is being left on the page, including offensive comments that are not of benefit to the project. I would normally give leeway and say leave the history, but given what is in it and its limited value, I don't see the benefit of doing so. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The activity of the page doesn't exactly fall under what you may see on MySpace or Facebook as you point out, but it is a user page that serves no obvious benefit for the encyclopedia due to the fact that it serves as a place for users to jot down whatever they want and provides as a place for users to interact with each other in no regards to Wikipedia itself, *almost* like what may happen on social networking sites or forums. As for time wasting, it's not really the individual instances of coming across the page that waste time (which I believe I implied with my original reasoning, so you can call me hypocritical here), but in general, when added up, it really serves as more as a general distraction from Wikipedia itself in the long run. *Someone* has to make sure that it doesn't get out of hand (which doesn't seem to be occurring), and while the time itself is not really wasted as not much of it is spent, as you point out, it does serve as more of a general distraction overall. For example, it causes Mfds like this one ;) ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It is now my second sandbox. Feel free to revdelete the abusive comments if you find them too concerning. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 20:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Nearly all the revisions will have to be deleted, since most contain the very offensive content I pointed out above. Cunard (talk) 22:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The page should be moved back per MfD instructions: "You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move it, or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress." --89.195.196.161 (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Further - Indeed it should never have been blanked: the page should be restored exactly as it was, in other words before that blanking 89.195.196.161 (talk) 01:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and moved the page back per your suggestion, thanks for pointing that out. As for blanking it, I'm going to leave it as is due to the material it held and to respect the user's control over their own userspace. If anyone else feels differently, I would consider placing the content in a collapsible box to keep it hidden upon first glance, but visible to those who wish to see it for this discussion. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. The IP was I, BTW, whilst on a forced Wikibreak. I see the point in leaving it blanked and agree that it should be --Jubilee♫clipman 21:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• For Pete's sake! Just delete the page! Don't redirect it, revdelete (most of) it, etc.--mono 01:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funny, but it seemed to me like there wasn't even a consensus to delete anything. Maybe I'm just crazy? And you still have not addressed what I said earlier, so here it is again: "Mono, maybe you should figure out what your position is on these things, you are a mass of contradictions. You support the deletion of guestbooks, but you have one. You don't like cabals, but you joined this one. I think you should pick a side and stay with it." I'd love to hear your answer. Hi878 (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Regardless of result, delete dodgy revisions. If this is going to be moved to /sandbox 2, as seems likely from the above discussion, it would be better to have the racist and offensive content removed to avoid the chance of an external site picking it up and going: "Is this what Wikipedia's editors are like behind the scenes?" etc. Even if that seems unlikely, what do we gain by keeping a historical archive of potentially offensive vandalism? --Taelus (Talk) 10:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all "vandalism space" subpages, as misuse of the user namespace, an encouragement of vandalism and complete nonsense per WP:MYSPACE and WP:FACEBOOK. --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:57, 30 May 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.