User talk:Baseball Bugs/somethingelse

This page was nominated for deletion on March 18, 2009. The result of the discussion was Keep per WP:SNOW.

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 Keep, non-admin closure. No delete !votes, nominator was blocked indefinitely Enigma^msg 20:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Baseball Bugs/hidden

Wikipedia is not a social networking site, WP:NOTMYSPACE -- Mrbzns (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)— Mrbzns (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep First, MY SPACE is not hidden. So the analogy doesn't quite work. Second, Bugs uses the place to spread some fun and goodwill. Don't see the harm in that. Dr.K. logos 02:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM --Mrbzns (talk) 03:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:NOHARM section refers mostly to mainspace articles and wp:rs and not to userpage rules, which leave a lot more leeway to the user. Dr.K. logos 03:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

¶ To quote the last paragraph of WP:NOHARM in full:

“Note that in miscellany for deletion debates, whether or not something is harmful is often a relevant issue, since the rules provide that inherently disruptive pages, for instance, may be deleted. The argument "it's not hurting anything" is less persuasive, however, when WP:NOT clearly prohibits the content in question (e.g. a full-fledged blog in userspace) from being hosted here.”

¶ In this userpage, I see neither a blog nor disruption (save perhaps to those tiny few who might be moved to initiate a positive, active search for fitna). And remember that WP:NOHARM is part of a WP:essay and not a governing policy in itself (like the WP:Five Pillars); it's a collection of possible individual arguments—whose validity must rest on other grounds—that an editor might make. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my thoughts. I was even ready to use the same quote. Dr.K. logos 13:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rename Very low-traffic sub-page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to Mr Bzns, it may no longer have very low traffic! [(Sshhh!) may be a hare-brained publicity/martyrdom scheme by the User to attract more visitors.] —— Shakescene (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Traffic is no longer low. It's more like medium-to-moderate. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wiki pages are not secret or hidden until they are deleted. Hopefully this one will also reach its intended state of being soon enough. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet another triumph by the humor-challenged. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That remains to be seen. Dr.K. logos 13:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I made some changes to try to accommodate the letter of the nominator's complaint. And the nominator is indef-blocked. So everyone's happy. Almost. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (changed to Speedy Keep, see below.) Perhaps WP:NOHARM doesn't apply, but English no harm (and no foul) does. Little traffic, little space. Is WP:EDITORREALLYBORED a sound deletion reason? PhGustaf (talk) 05:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Part of its stated purpose is as a sandbox to work on format. And an unadvertised, secondary user page that no one will trip over by accident, rather than a general one, is usually the best place to work on that sort of thing. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've taken away the "find the hidden page" blurb now, to address the "social networking" complaint, and the only way someone will be able to find it in the future is by "stalking". Speaking of which, the nominating user was created on the 8th, and after a weak of inactivity and then some minor tinkering with his user page today, 11 minutes later he went straight for that page to nominate it for deletion. [1] What an amazingly fortuitous find on his part. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hard to know for sure, but I would guess the complaining user is semi-impersonating User:MBisanz. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment: the account Mrbzns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which made this nomination should be blocked indefinitely for disruption. R. Baley (talk) 06:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've posted it at WP:AIV, to see if they'll take some action. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which they did. The nominator is now indef-blocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The disruptive provenance of this MfD seems itself sufficient to make a Speedy Keep in order. Nothing more to see here. PhGustaf (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - So has that put Mr Bzns out of bzns? —— Shakescene (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Sadly, yes. He might as well have called himself MrCrctCty. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Enigma^msg 07:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I had forgotten that I had participated. I should not have closed. If anyone wishes to undo my close, feel free. Enigma^msg 20:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep--Epeefleche (talk) 09:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subpage of a productive contributor. Such pages have collaborative and learning benefits. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hidden subpages exist to foster goodwill and friendly interactions between users which are beneficial to the project. Without any sort of social networking we wouldn't be able to properly work on Wikipedia because we need to collaborate on articles to avoid endless edit wars. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Let alone exchange a few ideas without the social pressure to perform. (Which, indirectly, benefits the project by making the editors happier and more relaxed). Dr.K. logos 13:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are exceptions. I can recall a user or two who kept such a page as an "enemies list", and then when they got called on it, they accused us of "stalking". And I admit that turning them in did not improve our chances of getting our names off that list. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is there really any productive point in deleting it (WP:COMMONSENSE)? Soxwon (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Tack on speedy and snow to that as well: per WP:UP and User Talk Pages as well. First part of page is informative on monobook / css - the rest is simply User Talk page material. Absolutely no reason to give any undue weight to a Single Purpose Sock over a long term editor. Close this and let's get back to building an encyclopedia. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 16:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Strong Keep if BB was a spammer or other type of shithead like the many SPA social workers we get, I'd care about this - but I don't. Virtual Communities needs certain types of activities to provide some "glue" and this is simply one of those. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Once this is officially over and done with (note that the complainant itself is already officially "over and done with"), I might expand on Gustaf's recommendation and rename it "the page formerly known as the hidden page". Then I'll wait for the next sockster to come along. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid use of userspace. No harm does apply to such use. The issue appears to be the name -- which is not one a person with a genuine hidden page would use. Someone turned at Albuquerque on this one, for sure. Not even a semi-close call. Collect (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2009 (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.