Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Duke53 (2nd nomination)

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 07:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Duke53 (2nd nomination)
MfDs for this page: 

Duke53 retains failures and/or shortcomings of other Wikipedians on his user page, [edit] generally failing WP:AGF / WP:DBAD clearly violating WP:UPNO. He has been invited  to reform his user page but has ignored these invitations. ...comments? ~B F izz 19:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Pretty much the whole page violates WP:UPNO, especially WP:UPNO. Duke53 has recently voted for deletion of another user's userspace essay on grounds of soapboxing and attacking other editors; I don't see why the same principles wouldn't apply to his own user page. alanyst /talk/ 20:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I will wait until the rest of the gang arrives to answer most of this stuff but wanted to address one thing now: " Duke53 has recently voted for deletion of another user's userspace essay on grounds of soapboxing and attacking other editors; I don't see why the same principles wouldn't apply to his own user page." The reason that I voted against that was because it linked to another website that 'outed' Wikipedia editors (including myself), including names, addresses and other personal info. Unbelievably, the editor who linked this stuff is still active on Wikipedia. 'Same principles' ? Hah ... not likely.
 * I didn't vote against that page for 'soapboxing'. My page simply points out biases displayed by certain WP editors. My basic belief is that all Wikipedia rules should be enforced <I>equally</I></B> against <B><I>all</I></B> WP editors <B><I>all</I></B> of the time .... they aren't at this time. Cheers.  Duke53  | Talk 12:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure the link you are referring to was to FAIR wiki, and it did not disclose (real) names, addresses, and other personal info. Or if it did, you certainly didn't mention that in the mfd, and no one else did either. You called for the page to be deleted because it linked to an 'attack page', but your user page has the attacks right on it. This is a very provocative and counterproductive way to convey your ideals. <small title="Click the F">...comments? ~B F izz 15:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "<I>and it did not disclose (real) names, addresses, and other personal info."</I> Yes, yes it did, even down to discussing online 'personas' and real life 'personas'; I can't search histories of pages over there (perhaps you can). I reported it at the time to the appropriate people at Wikipedia ... apparently nobody told you because they figured it was none of your business; don't pretend to know all of my business here. Just recently there was an article in a SLC newspaper about Wikipedia; one of the people who commented on the article took 'credit' for supplying info to the f.a.i.r. wiki. If nobody bothered to inform you of that then perhaps they figured that that was also none of your business.
 * My 'attacks' (your term, not mine) consist of a history of how events have occurred here ... kind of like this stuff ... so far, three tbms have shown up to comment here; I'm surprised that the rest of your gang hasn't decided to pile on yet .... did somebody forget to get the word out ?


 * p.s. I even had items sent to me (at the wrong address) through the USPS, with vile comments about I was 'hated by all mormons' for my WP activity, and wishing I would die; I turned it over to the Postal Inspectors, who now monitor my mail.


 * Strong Delete- User page is enticing trouble, contains personal attacks on editors beliefs and various subjects alike. WP:SOAP being violated here. Nominated my page for the same grounds, I simply endorsed its deletion. Therefore the same thing should happen here. Duke53's user page seems to be seeking only to stir up trouble amongst LDS editors and score points over them. It is no way at all a Good faith user page. Personally, I would invite Duke53 simply to blank his userpage rather than see it deleted, but I doubt he will be interested in doing such. Routerone (talk) 13:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I do not see the harm that this user page does. If someone can direct me to the outbreaks of drama that have been directly caused by Duke's user page, I would be obliged. Until then I say we leave Duke and his user page alone. Lovetinkle (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Requests for comment/Duke53 2 was about his user page. I helped Duke53 and Hoopsphanatic come to a compromise using NOINDEX, but it was the same old story: Duke53 comes out of a conflict with another editor and puts up material on his user page intended to show how awful or idiotic that editor was, prolonging the conflict. Also, the history of the user page shows that it has been subject to misguided attempts by various individuals to remove material they find offensive or inaccurate.  That's not an excuse for such behavior, but when a user page is being used deliberately to provoke, annoy, or gloat at one's perceived enemies, it's analogous to an attractive nuisance (not "attractive" in the aesthetic sense, mind) and pretty clearly violating WP:UPNO.  Lovetinkle, do you feel that WP:UPNO isn't applicable, or that it is but there are mitigating factors? alanyst /talk/ 19:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral per WP:TIMECUBE o_O. -- N  Y  Kevin  @984, i.e. 22:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * comment - In the 5 years or so our paths have crossed, I have observed one, and only one, pattern of Duke53's edits. 1- make some snarky edit that will be sure to get in the face of any editor who disagrees with his POV and doesn't know to just ignore him. 2 - boast when he succeeds in getting under the skin of someone. 3- endlessly whine to the civility police when that person responds or retaliates. 4- Mount the "trophies" on his userpage. While I have no love for the wikidramaqueens, I fail to see how deleting this userpage will change that behavior; it will  just burn the trophy rack and force him to find a new place to hang them. If someone can convince me otherwise, I'd like to hear it.Dave (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * He is more than welcome to "find a new place" for his "trophy rack", off wiki. The purpose of this mfd is not to change Duke's behavior; that is another matter entirely and largely up to him. But keeping these things on his user page is disruptive in and of itself; this practice is clearly decried at WP:UPNO: Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner. - as Duke has said himself: the page has barely changed in over 3 years, so he clearly isn't using these for purposes of dispute resolution "in a timely manner". <small title="Click the F">...comments? ~B F izz 20:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - While even at the time of the MfD nomination there was very little problematic material, the statements regarding unc-ch fan, Dook53, "poster who has had multiple interventions against him", and Noah have to at least be redacted. The rest generally is all perfectly fine and insightful (well, the Mormon items are iffy). Unless Duke53 agrees to remove the problematic material (or at least put black stripes over the offensive things), the baby's gotta be thrown out with the bath water and Duke53 would need approval of DRV to recreate the non offensive items per WP:G4. Either way, the MfD should be allowed to run its course so that a consesus may be reached that allows an adming to delete Duke53's user page per the close of this MFD should the page contain any statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons, including the recording of perceived flaws and negative information related to others. -- Uzma Gamal talk) 08:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, IMO if anything must go, it's the "barnstar" that refers a Wikipedia editor in good standing as "ilk" Dave (talk) 08:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I missed that one. The ilk statement needs to at least be redacted as well. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC). Duke53 has been with Wikipedia a long time and generally is a positive contributor. However, this user page issue has been around too long (see below) and some process needs to be put in place to avoid continued drawn out discussions on the same issue:
 * 4 October 2006 Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-04 Dubc0724
 * 16 October 2006 Administrators' noticeboard/Archive59
 * 1 July 2007 Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Duke53
 * 13 October 2007 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Duke53
 * 16 March 2009 Requests for comment/Duke53 2 and Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Duke53 2
 * 29 March 2010 Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts/Archive 2
 * -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Definition of ilk: like: a kind of person; "We'll not see his like again"; "I can't tolerate people of his ilk"
 * wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


 * What that person was referring to was the true believing mormons who dominate all these actions against me. I think it is past time to go WP wide with this, simply because the tbms have their agenda, which in this case is to annoy me and drive me away so they can edit all lds related articles to their liking. I have been attacked (often with lies being told about me) here and in meatspace, often with swarming or tag team efforts. Cheers. Duke53  | Talk 17:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * p.s. I don't think that consensus among a few tbms is actually a consensus, but this issue is only important to them. Duke53  | Talk 17:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "it is past time to go WP wide with this" - not sure exactly what "this" is, but the typical way to go "WP wide" would be a WQA for mild situations, ANI for admin intervention, and RFC for more something more serious than WQA, but not clearly defined in current WP policy. <small title="Click the F">...comments? ~B F izz 19:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The gang that is playing judge & jury here should be able to come up with a way to do it. <I>I trust that after we're done with me that we're going to go through the user pages of all the accusers to 'redact' items which are offensive to some of the rest of us</I> ? Cheers. Duke53  | Talk 19:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to start with me if you like. What do you think should be redacted from my user page according to WP:UPNO? alanyst /talk/ 19:53, 12 February 2011 (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.