Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Diligent Terrier/Vandalism

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. JohnCD (talk) 11:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Diligent Terrier/Vandalism[edit]

A total waste of time, similar to this. Wikipedia is not MySpace!. This is the same junk as cabals and secret pages. Enough with this MySpace stuff. It is filled with 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... mono 02:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MYSPACE. Pages like this send the wrong message about vandalism, when the correct approach is WP:DENY. Johnuniq (talk) 05:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per not doing any harm and per not actually being myspacey. This neither encourages established users to spend time looking for secret pages, or joining useless, cabals. Letting some anons vandalize safely isn't bad, and there is no evidence that it encourages vandalism. —fetch ·comms 23:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and pretty strongly at that. Vandalism pages give Wikipedia a very bad view as I see it. Looking at several vandalism pages, I've come across homophobic attacks, racial slang terms, anti-Islam remarks, sexual references/descriptions, and more similar remarks that fall in the same line. These highly-offensive and hurtful comments are something no one wants to see and I'm sure that there are people out there who may be hurt by them, if they haven't been already; but of all places, where are these remarks and careless insults appearing? Wikipedia. Is that what we want Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, to be viewed as? "I was on Wikipedia the other day, and by golly, you won't believe what I found on the page of an editor..." I don't want to sound harsh nor do I want to insult anyone, but in my eyes, keeping these pages is supporting the presence of these attacks on Wikipedia, plain and simple. In addition, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we are here to build one. In absolutely no way do I see these pages doing such. One could argue, "How about userpages, or guestbooks, or other pages in the likes?" In essense, these pages do help build an encyclopedia, as it encourages cooperation among editors (which is what Wikipedia thrives on) and creates a good atmosphere. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete first as a matter of fair application of principle, and only secondarily per SuperHamster and the other delete !votes on NerdyScienceDude's page's MfD. I wish this could have been a mass MfD along the lines of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages since it seems that all of these pages are exactly the same in a way that articles are not. —Soap— 12:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the deletion of my vandalism space. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 22:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It likely keeps vandalism away from the article space, and off users userpages. Immunize (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, I feel we should develop a policy that states that if a user/IP add vandalism to one of these pages, it will be reverted if it contains libelous, offensive, or sexual material. Immunize (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that rule is to come into effect, users will have to patrol and maintain vandal spaces for inappropriate content - to have users maintaining pages that have no constructive contribution to add to Wikipedia is a total waste of time, especially when that time could be spent maintaining articles and pages that actually matter. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I believe that vandal spaces have very little effect when it comes to diverting vandalism. When an editor vandalizes a vandalism page, it doesn't necessarily mean that they were planning to vandalism something else - I myself have edited a vandal space in the past, but does that mean that if that vandal space wasn't there that I would have vandalized an article? Of course not. If someone wanted to truly vandalize, I would think that they wouldn't do it on a page devoted to vandalizing, either. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Johnuniq and SuperHamster. Encouraging people to think that Wikipedia is a playground where it is OK to do all sorts of stuff unrelated to building an encyclopedia reduces the likelihood that they will take the rest of Wikipedia as a serious enterprise. I have actually known vandals to object to reverting and warning, giving reasons which amount to "Wikipedia is just supposed to be somewhere where you can have fun editing, not somewhere where it matters what you do." In answer to Fetchcomms saying it is "not actually being myspacey", yes it is: it is using Wikipedia as a free host for material unrelated to building an encyclopedia. In answer to Immunize saying "It likely keeps vandalism away from the article space, and off users userpages", what is the evidence for this? Is it not at least as likely that encouraging people to indulge in vandalism will make it more likely they will do so elsewhere? JamesBWatson (talk) 12:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not Myspace. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that it's not causing any harm, but I more strongly agree with James B Watson's comments above. Orderinchaos 00:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMYSPACE FinalRapture - † ☪ 15:58, 5 June 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.