Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Duke of Waltham

 __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  Weak keep - The complaint it runs afoul of FAKEARTICLE has a lot of merit - readers who are not editors very well could mistake the page for an article. This is, however, pretty far from the usual cases of fake articles (hosting articles to generate publicity for non-notable people/companies, or to host articles that advance a POV), so I have to give a comparatively high weight to the headcount. Active editors are often given a lot of latitude in how to run their userpage, and without a clear policy breach (and this is slightly murky) or a strong argument supported by the bulk of the community, there's nothing to do. Wily D 07:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

User:The Duke of Waltham


A large number of unrelated editors have tried very hard to have the user make even minor changes to this userpage in order to make it less like a fake article, or at least clearly mark it as humour. Unfortunately, although consensus has been that the change should be done, the editor steadfastly has decline to do so - even after discussions here and elsewhere. The page was Speedied once, but consensus on WT:CSD is that it's MFD'able, not CSD. As the editor refuses to make a simple change, I find it necessary to submit for deletion discussion. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * can you link to the discussion where consensus was reached? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe he's referring to User talk:The Duke of Waltham, though in my (admittedly involved) opinion, Bwilkins' consensus does not exist. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 14:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I now think he's referring to User talk:AGK, which is more of a mixed bag. Regardless, MfD is the superior forum. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I linked to that talkpage originally. Note: I don't want the page deleted - I want it marked appropriately so that it does not fool a certain percentage of the Wikipedia population.  For those of you following at home, at least one blocked editor and his many many abusive socks also want it deleted (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Obviously not an article, and is only done in humour. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep nobody is going to mistake this for article content. Hut 8.5 13:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. An obvious, if a tad sophomoric, joke. Favonian (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a testament to my extraordinary maturity, then, that I wrote this as a freshman. Waltham, The Duke of 21:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep but require The Duke to keep either a humor or a user page tag at the top of the page.  — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  13:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC) humor/user page condition struck per Waltham's response and Floquenbeam's points below. 17:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have both, although I realise that many people may not notice them due to size (in the former case) or placement (in the latter). Waltham, The Duke of 15:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Only likely to be mistaken for an article by the illiterate or deeply irony-challenged. Black Kite (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep A very funny and obviously funny aside; a draught of fresh air. Could not be mistaken for a real article. It's refreshing that snippets of sanity and humanity still exist on Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep - userpage which is obviously not intended to deceive readers. The page was incorrectly speedied and the consensus claimed does not appear to exist. There is no need for an intrusive template at the top to tell people what is already quite clear. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Quoting my comments on His Grace's talk page, "I discovered this user page a few years ago when I was still doing things with WP:SBS on a regular basis. In my own view, it is plainly a user page, not an article. Additionally, it serves a useful purpose - providing a lighthearted picture of the wiki in a time when it is increasingly forgetting that instruction creep is something to be avoided." – Philosopher Let us reason together. 14:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Since everyone's talking about humor tags, I'll join Floquenbeam's statement that they are not necessary. In fact, I'd like to see the one already on the page go.  It's not actually helping anyone since it's not a confusing page! – Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Now there is an enlightened proposition; I may well do so, considering that people either want a large template or don't see the need for a template at all. Besides, I have a WikiGryphon icon which also signifies that the page is in userspace. Waltham, The Duke of 18:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, per WP:RELAXITSAJOKE, and don't require humor or user tags, as that would ruin the aesthetic. This will not be mistaken for a real article by anyone who reads the page for more than 15 seconds; for people who read it for less than 15 seconds, there is no harm because they won't absorb any false information. This is a harmless user page that's been around for years, for a user who (while not very active now), has been a solid volunteer in the past.  Can we please stop pestering such people?  Can we please stop trying to kill every non-robotic thing around here? Pretty please with sugar on top? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A very good point. Though don't be surprised if one of the adminbots blocks you for your last point there. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  17:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep – I actually have made minor changes: on BWilkins's request, I have removed a hatnote which made reference to "this article", I have edited the citations so that they would not be misleading (though he might prefer them gone entirely), and I have placed the Small Humour Disclaimer at the top of the page (though he claims that no-one will notice a small icon in the corner, and he may have a point there); I have also added an image with an absurd and Wikimedia-specific caption, since many readers only look at the images and ignore the text. I therefore believe that the page is even more harmless than before, in terms of misleading people into thinking it is an article, and that it will continue to be so even without the dead give-away of a MfD template that now graces it. Waltham, The Duke of 15:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose I could make it clearer that I have never expected the page to be deleted, and that what I want is not to be forced to explain the joke—which is an inelegant thing to do under any circumstance—due to some exaggerated danger of misleading readers. The so-called hoax is extremely transparent, and there is no guideline actually saying that I need to shout "Humour!" at the top. Waltham, The Duke of 02:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. We have these things in userspace, and they do no harm. See especially the somewhat POV bio of an (again, as of 2012) living person: Catherine Bonkbuster. Don't worry about the disfiguring MfD template, Your Grace; it looks like it'll be gone soon. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC).
 * Such news is most welcome in these trying times; long may Her Ladyship re-live. Waltham, The Duke of 18:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep but require humor or some type of tag stating that this is a userpage not a Wikipedia article, even if manually created like the one AGK proposed . The fact that concerns have been brought about does mean that The Duke of Waltham should be making real efforts to address those concerns.  Adding the note suggested by AGK is the least intrusive of all and if people are concerned that it would ruin the aesthetic, I'm sorry, but we really don't care about the aesthetic.  Just as a side note, I'm much more likely to read someone's humorous userpage if they have a tag telling me it's humorous, otherwise I see a wall of text and jump over to the talk page. Ryan Vesey 17:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SNOW. This userpage is not doing any harm and probably would not be mistaken for article content. In any case, the humor template seems to fit the page. TBrandley (what's up) 17:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per my Ukase-22. Hullaballoo, Baron Wolfowitz, Primate of Frostbite Falls (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep but only if this box is added at the top: This is a userpage. The humor tag in my opinion is not sufficient. Also, the consensus above may be fine, but one should remember that this consensus is highly biased. It is biased because of the fact that only experienced Wikipedians are voting here. As I had previously mentioned on AGK's talk page, you would be surprised at the percentage of lay persons who would stumble upon the page and leave with the impression that there is a real Duke of Waltham. Also, how this issue is handled now is very important because it is going to set a vital precedence to all user pages in the future. For example, like I had said before, I would be quite inclined to create a User:Queen_of_America and argue it is done in humor because everyone knows America has no Queens. I do not know how things work these days here, but an alternative suggestion would be to ask the staff to settle this and set the right precedent. I believe the issue is controversial enough to get their attention. Maybe they could implement the even more ideal solution of preventing search engines from listing the user pages in the search results in the first place. Clarytone (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC) — Clarytone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * There isn't really a staff here, in any day-to-day sense - they certainly won't intervene in a matter like this unless the page becomes the subject of legal action, or contains threats of or admissions to felonies. As for search engines, well, there's a very simple way to make it so that individual userpages don't show up in search results (you add the __NOINDEX__ magic word)... I believe that there are ways to make it so that entire namespaces don't show up in search results, but that could be rather inconvenient for any number of reasons; for instance, our search feature kinda sucks, so if you don't remember a precise username, Google's often the best way to go. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  18:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I see what you are saying, however my take was from a slightly different angle. What I meant was this: if there is a universal policy of not indexing user pages outside of Wikipedia, we could all have more liberty with what we can put on our user pages. I am sure you would not disagree that Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopedia of knowledge and not a social network, so the difficulty in finding a user should not matter more than making sure no one reading the website is mislead. Of course that solution is ideal, and may not be practical right now. What is concerning right now is that the page shows up on the first page of Google for the search term "waltham wiki". Without a clear banner at the top indicating this is a user page, one cannot deny that the page has the potential to mislead naive readers, as well as those without English as their first language (who by the way are certainly not an insignificant population). The criteria should not be "more likely than not", and rather should be "is it at all likely?" Clarytone (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC) — Clarytone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep, but add to the top. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 20:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is an obvious hoax, but if we ensure readers know the article is not about a real Duke then all the harm is mitigated. Keep and require or  to be displayed prominently at the top of the page.  AGK  [•] 22:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've made it a habit to try to root out adverts and fake articles disguised as User pages, and I've been pretty good at it. So I look at this MFD, and I think, "What the hell is this?" Obvious keep for an obviously (slyly) humorous user page. --Calton | Talk 23:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, as is. As WP:User pages says, we traditionally allow editors in good standing some leeway in designing their userpage, and I believe this falls well within the latitude generally offered to editors. 28bytes (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, but per AGK. I don't find the joke particularly funny, but it clearly means something to Waltham, a Wikipedian in good standing. Making it somewhat more easily identifiable as a hoax article doesn't seem onerous, and could easily be accomplished in some tasteful fashion. Archaeo (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Isn't WP:FAKEARTICLE referring to material which is potentially destined for main namespace (subject to meeting notability requirements)? The nominated page seems to me to be simply a bit of harmless fun. -- Trevj (talk) 08:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I ought to have addressed this point directly from the beginning, but I missed the link (and yet it seemed odd to me that Mr Wilkins would forget about the guideline on user pages, which was one of the main points of his argument). No matter; your impression is perfectly correct, and perhaps it dates to before the current iteration of the said guideline, which has regrettably caused so much confusion. As my analysis here plainly demonstrates, the provision in question is irrelevant. Then again, we are not supposed to be wikilawyering, so I guess we are just arguing from first principles here. Waltham, The Duke of 09:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep as is I commend the intentions of those objecting to the WP:FAKEARTICLE nature of the user page, as I have spent a significant time trying to assist in having such pages removed. Ignoring the problem of blatant spam which should be quickly removed, my main concern about dubious user pages is that they encourage new editors to join the community in order to create such pages—eventually, such users might dominate some aspects of the community here, leading to a very undesirable distraction from our purpose of building an encyclopedia. The comment by Waltham immediately above (at 09:52, 10 February 2013) is not correct: dubious users often arrive at Wikipedia and create a user page about their band, or themselves, or their favorite product. They do not intend the page to become an article as they are smart enough to realize that will not happen—they just want to promote something. However, the case in question is very different. Hundreds have tried to make funny pages, but it is rare to find one that succeeds, and this page is of high quality and is an exception. I do not think we should apply bureaucracy to all fake articles—there is very little likelihood that any harm would come from someone finding this page and naively imagining it to be real. Moreover, just as WP:ENGVAR plays an important educational role in informing the naive that the world is larger than they imagine, an occasional piece of humor is useful to let people know they should not shut down critical thinking, particularly when reading stuff on the Internet. Johnuniq (talk) 11:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Wording tweaked. Johnuniq (talk) 11:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with the one post here that made sense: one by Clarytone. The user page does look very much like an article and branding people who do not see that as illiterate is unbecoming of an admin. And I am voting delete since the editor Waltham is clearly obstinate and does not want to change it. I am only calling it a vote in the most liberal sense as these discussions are not supposed to be a vote (VOTE) as much as a discussion to choose the best argument, which to me are AGK's and Clarytone's. 192.80.150.12 (talk) 10:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC) — 192.80.150.12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep as is, it's not a FAKEARTICLE, and it's not in mainspace, so it's fine. Duncan the Ducal Duke would probably agree with me here. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Translation of angry quacking: "You would think so, wouldn't you, wretched misspeller of names!" Duncan the Ducal Duck, per pro. H. Cartwright 21:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. A user can't make a mistake since the "article" carries the prefix "User:"; if he (or she) does, he/she must be more careful and not "swallow" any information just because it has been found on the Net (even in Wikipedia). For the rest, I agree with Johnuniq's points. Have we lost our sense of humour? --Ttzavaras (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Obvious delete. Mr. Waltham has made it clear on AGK's talk page that he does not want to make any changes to his page. The same has been summarized by Mr. Wilkins above in the opening post. So, I vote for delete as well since I do not think the user page is harmless enough to decide otherwise. I believe deliberate misinformation is harm. Wikipedia, the encyclopedia should live up to its name. As someone mentioned already: WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. If we allow this, where do we stop? Where do we draw the line? Nickaang (talk) 09:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see the harm, per WP:UPYES (such as reasonable Wikipedia humor).
 * It's within noindexed pages, so isn't going to shouldn't appear in search engine results (although it does)
 * There doesn't seem to be any evidence that editors will disruptively link to this from mainspace
 * Editors familiar with the project will probably understand the page quickly enough (whether that's "love it" or "hate it")
 * New editors and casual readers stumbling across a link from talk or project space will get the joke eventually
 * -- Trevj (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think that is true at all. See here. It shows up at the very top of the search results pile. Anyway, if the editor in question has refused to add, then I propose delete too. It is funny how many responses above are "keep, but require". Guys, we are past that stage now. As people have observed, the editor has already made his stand that he is not going to add the tag. There is no point in negotiating here. 173.255.142.206 (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC) — 173.255.142.206 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Way to read the discussion. As pointed out above, both of the suggested tags are currently on the page, including the user page template. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that (a) the page doesn't appear in any search engine I've tried, including Google and Bing (even by typing in "User:The Duke Of Waltham" - although ironically that search brings up this MfD!!) and (b) why would anyone actually be searching for someone that doesn't exist anyway? Black Kite (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Edit: I've managed to get it to appear in a Bing search by searching for '"User:The Duke of Waltham" wikipedia' (8 results). I think we can safely say that's not a search anyone's likely to be doing soon.  Or ever. Black Kite (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you tried a much simpler "duke waltham"? If you are still not able to see it, it could be because of your location. Try a location neutral search instead at bvsg.org. The results on the left are from Bing. And regarding the template, I did see that it was in the page. But the issue, as I read in this discussion, is that it has been deliberately placed inconspicuously at the bottom of the page. Combined with the user page looking deceptively like an article, this had become a problem. And because of the editor's intransigence, it had become an issue of deletion with which I agreed. 173.255.142.206 (talk) 04:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC) — 173.255.142.206 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I've corrected the above, as I've seen now its results myself. But it could be argued that users should reasonably expect their pages not to appear. Is there a technical means of remedying this? -- Trevj (talk) 05:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * @173.255.142.206: It is very misguided to refer to "the editor's intransigence" in an MfD where there are around three "deletes" and over twenty "keeps" (each with policy-based reasoning). Johnuniq (talk) 06:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The "intransigence" was only a reference to BWilkins' MfD description (and the concerned editor's reply on 10th February 2013 here). However, since you have brought it up, let us examine some of the keeps:
 * 1. Darkness Shines, Hut 8.5, Epipelagic, Philosopher, Calton, 28bytes, SarekOfVulcan and Ttzavaras think it is not an article, which is a subjective response because as mentioned by someone before, a layman might see it as one.
 * 2. Favonian thinks it is okay because it is an obvious joke to him. Would it really be an obvious joke to someone from a third world country who could just about read and write the language?
 * 3. Black Kite - A tad prejudicious (a view shared by another editor above), and without sufficient proof to corroborate the claims.
 * 4. Nikkimaria - It may not be intended to deceive readers, agreed. But can anyone guarantee that it won't deceive none?
 * 5. Floquenbeam says having the tags on top would ruin the aesthetic. I did not realize that was what we were shooting for here - aesthetic.
 * 6. Bishonen and Wolfowitz don't provide any solid '"policy-based reasoning".
 * 7. TBrandley says it probably won't be mistaken for an article. That follows then that it can probably be mistaken for one as well.
 * 8. You (Johnuniq) say it is good to have humorous articles to let people know they should not shut down critical thinking. Maybe we should try that idea on all articles by having, say 10% blatant misinformation and see if people "spot it"?


 * The rest are keep but require which should be interpreted as delete since the editor in question has repeatedly declined to make the required changes - both on AGK's talk page and in this discussion here.


 * Also, as was pointed out before, this discussion is not a vote. This essay illustrates that by saying 10 votes in one way may not hold weight to one vote in another with a sound reasoning. It is clear to me which one that is. 173.255.142.206 (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC) — 173.255.142.206 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I don't think there's a policy on user pages. All we seem to have is the guideline at WP:UP. Please correct me if I'm wrong. -- Trevj (talk) 09:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There is, actually. The following excerpt is from WP:NOTABLOG:
 * Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they should be used primarily to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. Limited biographical information is allowed, but user pages should not function as personal webpages or be repositories for large amounts of material that is irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog or to post your résumé, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet or any hosting included with your Internet account. The focus of user pages should not be social networking, or amusement, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration. Humorous pages that refer to Wikipedia in some way may be created in an appropriate namespace, however.
 * The appropriate namespace, I believe, is Humor, but it appears that the editor does not want it moved hence this discussion. Considering less than 20% of the user page is about the editor's work in Wikipedia, I'm sure it does "function as personal webpages or be repositories for large amounts of material that is irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia", as above. 173.255.142.206 (talk) 13:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC) — 173.255.142.206 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I don't think it's a fair interpretation of the content to claim that the page function[s] as ... [a] repositor[y] for large amounts of material that is irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia. -- Trevj (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And I also think that this "intransigence" of mine has been much exaggerated. Following my small edits to the page, which were perceived as insufficient, I accepted that the page would go to MfD and decided not to do anything else until then; in the meantime I engaged in calm and polite discourse and used intelligible (and arguably reasonable) arguments to support my position—arguments which I felt were not adequately addressed at the time. Besides, I think it has been obvious from the beginning of this discussion that the page would not actually be deleted; the point of the present MfD is to discover whether the community finds it necessary that I should prominently mark my user page as such (through conditional "keep"s). I will, of course, comply if it does, but so far most people here have supported me either implicitly ("keep") or explicitly ("keep as is"). Waltham, The Duke of 11:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I am sorry if I did not somehow realize that. Especially since BWilkins had posted that he is submitting it for a deletion discussion because you had refused to make a change as required. Maybe if it was clearly mentioned, the initial comments would have all been either keep but require or keep as is instead of a vague keep. Even on your post on 10th February (which was after a few people had posted keep but require), you had said that you would rather not add any tags. But at the same time, I see no convincing argument from you why you want to have a user page that looks deceptively like an article and at the same time not have a tag at the top informing readers that it is only written in humor and not intended to be taken as a serious article which clearly a few people feel is necessary (the only argument I see from you is that there is no guideline saying you should have a humor tag at the top of the page). 173.255.142.206 (talk) 13:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC) — 173.255.142.206 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I have spent much time discussing this subject, so I did not remember exactly how clearly I had expressed my intentions at any given time; I see I've said on my talk page that I'd be prepared to defend my page at MfD, so perhaps I thought this was enough. But yes, I would rather not add any tags (other than those already in place). The joke is that the page is a spoof article, a satire: it has the trappings of an article but its actual content, the text, undermines that impression throughout, and this it does in so thorough and complete a manner that a reading cursory and inattentive enough not to notice the absurdity of it all will also retain no misinformation. This is my argument. I don't see how anyone, from any country, could read two paragraphs of that page (or even just the captions) and leave with an impression that it is a serious encyclopaedic article and they have learnt useful information. (At the very worst, they might conclude that it is a heavily vandalised article, in which case they'd either leave or investigate, so again, no harm done.) An outsider may find the joke unfunny—it is an inside joke, after all, and Wikipedians are the ones most likely to be amused—but they will not fail to see it as a joke nonetheless. Explaining the joke before the joke itself pretty much ruins it, because the whole point is that one starts reading an article-like page (even if in userspace) and promptly discovers that it is something else entirely.
 * This is why I don't want the tags, and I like my user page enough to want to keep it as it is. But in contrast to five years ago, I don't care enough about it nowadays to want to go through this nuisance just to defend the joke. I actually considered just complying with the wishes of AGK and BWilkins and be done with it. In the end I opted to take it to MfD because for me this matter is also one of principle: I simply do not want to be foisted with something I consider both unnecessary and not required by our guidelines just because some people feel uncomfortable about it. I'll go by the MfD's decision even if I don't like it, but I find that much more palatable than by yielding to two administrators who just disagree with me, even it is clear from discussion that their view by no means reflects consensus. Waltham, The Duke of 16:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Duke, there is significant groundswell that suggests that simply adding the correct humour tag would make this entire MFD irrelevent. Why go through these machinations when that was all that has ever been asked for?  (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no such "groundswell". --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Groundswell n. a buildup of opinion or feeling in a large section of the population. So, there is. Clarytone (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC) — Clarytone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Not amongst people who edit other topics, there isn't. Speaking of which, I think this page is overdue for some spa tags. 28bytes (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting (although not surprising) that instead of making solid arguments to further your case, as an admin you resorted to belittling those who decided to speak against. This was the reason I left in the first place, and is the reason I am probably going to leave again. If you had actually read my posts elsewhere, you would have known who I was. Anyway, I will check for the resolution of this case a week or two from now. Hopefully a clear policy would have been derived and a proper precedence set because I certainly wouldn't say no to a Queen of America Wikipedia article userpage about myself. Clarytone (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You are being "belittled", as you put it, because you have made no edits whatsoever with the User:Clarytone account that haven't involved demanding that User:The Duke of Waltham change his userpage to your liking. AGK and BWilkins are mistaken (in my opinion) about whether a larger "humor" template is needed on the page, but they've got more than enough productive edits elsewhere in the project to mitigate that. But with you, literally all you've done with this account is... this. No writing articles, no helping out at the help desk, no vandal-battling... nothing. Just this. If you don't want it pointed out that you spend all your time on Wikipedia campaigning against this userpage, don't spend all your time on Wikipedia campaigning against this userpage. 28bytes (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You are seeing only what you want to see. If you had seen my first post here or my post here, you would have known I came here looking for Waltham and got caught up with the debate. And for your information, I was not "campaigning against the user page". I was merely supporting AGK because I felt what he did was not wrong, and people going to lengths to harass him for doing that and sticking to his decision was more than I could bear seeing. It was just not right. Anyway, what were your intentions with adding the spa tag anyway? Are the points I made in support of AGK going to instantly decimate because you added a tag? I would have been able to respect you, and this place as a whole, if you had instead made points countering mine instead of resorting to something like this. You may have had the technical right to do it based on the contributions, but certainly not an ethical one because 1). you do not know the full story, and 2). you are not assuming good faith. Anyway, I would not argue about your decision anymore since after all it is your decision and says more about you than it does about me, and I do have other things to do. Clarytone (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * He did come looking for me; we have exchanged e-mails. I suppose the transparency of the MediaWiki software, with detailed page and contribution histories everywhere, has had the side-effect of making people, myself included, suspicious of new or unregistered users with no such history to compare against. It is is unfortunate, and I regret it. Please let's just give it a rest; we are probably all just tired. Waltham, The Duke of 20:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Let us clear up this linguistic mess, then: there is a build-up of opinion that I ought to mark my user page as such more prominently, but then there is also a comparable build-up of opinion that I do not need to do so, and that my page may stay on as it is. I made some adjustments at the beginning of the discussion on my talk page, but what was asked of me I thought was more than what was justified by the circumstances, and the discussion was going nowhere, so what's wrong with continuing it in a more structured format here? Had I capitulated, I suspect that fewer people would have taken notice of this issue, and obviously the MfD would have been butterflied away, as they say in the alternative-history community. But so what? We obviously feel strongly enough about the issue to keep coming back, so I'd rather not hear any more comments about wasted time, please. From either side. Waltham, The Duke of 20:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * What is clear, Mr time-wasting IP, is that you are not here to write an encyclopaedia. Like the other sprinkle of people here who support this thread, you seem obsessed with destroying this rare remaining ray of humour and humanity on Wikipedia. It appears from your contributions that you have contributed no content of any value to Wikipedia. If you have, then it must have been as a sock puppet. Stop wasting our time. Go away, or if you have the ability then go and add something of value to Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that we are now wasting time, but I just noticed a new MfD based on FAKEARTICLE. It might be informative to see a standard application of that term, and the fake article is here. Johnuniq (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's a fake article, though. It's a (presumably) real article that an editor created in a sandbox, presumably to try to move it into mainspace, although it hasn't been updated for a long time.  It should be deleted, but per WP:STALEDRAFT rather than WP:FAKEARTICLE. Black Kite (talk) 11:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I have been making minor edits on the encyclopedia to the extent that I could for over two years now. Granted I didn't see the point in making my own virtual identity on the website and collecting points for the edits, but that is no reason to unnecessarily demean someone. It is this sort of prejudice around here that worries me. Anyway, I am out, so there's no need to worry about me anymore. 173.255.142.206 (talk) 12:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC) — 173.255.142.206 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete for me as well. Anyway, my reason why it should be deleted is because the editor clearly does not want it to be disfigured with a banner on top. There is no point discussing this with him further. It seems he would either have the page as is or not have it at all. And since a user page that looks deceptively like an article should have no place in wikipedia, I feel it should be deleted. In fact CSD would have been more appropriate for this rather than all of us going through a lengthy discussion. Madmoron (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, a CSD would not have been appropriate, and no one is making "all of you" (whoever that is) participate in this discussion. However, if you do decide to participate in such a discussion, you will avoid such references as the "his fellow Greek editors" (which I've redacted) or you will be blocked for violating our policy against commenting on the contributors rather than the content. Don't do that again. 28bytes (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The accusation is not only inappropriate but baseless: I don't hang out with Greek editors or edit Greek articles, and my grand total edit count in the Greek Wikipedia is somewhere around five. If anything, I might be considered something of a traitor, and someone was intemperate enough once to suggest to me that I edit more Greek articles before regretting it and removing the message. No, you ought to be more suspicious if you suddenly saw Europe's titled nobility ride to my rescue. Waltham, The Duke of 20:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow. I have been to a different country and back, and this discussion is still going on! I can't imagine who is going to have the time and patience to go through this entire thread. I certainly don't. So, God speed, closing admin! Clarytone (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC) — Clarytone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I've gone through it all and certainly agree that any points/arguments that can be made probably have been by now. While I know what I wouldn't decide, I don't think an outside admin would have too much trouble analyzing the discussion. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The accounts calling for deletion, Clarytone, Madmoron) and 173.255.142.206, are all very recent accounts. Apart from Madmoron, they are SPAs with a similarity of tone, and may be connected accounts. This debacle originated with this thread, and was followed by a series of IP attacks on BWilkins's talk page, originating from Bangalore. Again, there is similarity of tone, and Clarytone has just stated above that he has "been to a different country". --Epipelagic (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you may be confusing me with someone else. I never called for deletion. Clarytone (talk) 05:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. So apart from the nom, this is mainly some personal feud. Johnuniq (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry to drag this out, but I think the question of when FAKEARTICLE applies warrants a little more. My comment "the fake article is here" gave what I think is an example. I agree that if that page were a draft for a possible article, it would not be FAKE. My view is based on the MfD nomination which indicates that there was an article which was deleted, and that the user sandbox is a copy of that deleted content. Johnuniq (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. The WP definition of fake articles is: "Pages that look like articles". To the general reader this will certainly look like a fake article — obvious or not, humorous or not — so I think it should go. WP is an encyclopedia, not a host for humour pages.  Klein zach  06:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You are using in the most literal sense a guideline which targets pages created as a substitute for articles that could not meet Wikipedia's guidelines on notability or verifiability (to try to incorporate Johnuniq's notes on the subject). My page is fiction, and I am not trying to promote anything in it. But then your final sentence indicates a general dislike towards humorous pages in Wikipedia, so it might well be that anything with a humour tag is contrary to your ideal of a perfect Wikipedia. Personally, I am against spending too much time on the networking aspects of the community over contributing content, necessary as some of them are (dispute resolution etc.), but I don't see the harm in having a little page out of the way that might bring a smile to someone whose sense of humour isn't too much unlike mine. We have so much ugliness in the community, driving people away, and an attitude that embraces humour can help counter that. Waltham, The Duke of 09:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. You are using the userpage to write fiction. Fair enough, but what has this to do with WP? Where do we say that writing fiction is one of the uses of a user page?  Klein zach  04:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a spoof Wikipedia article, so Wikipedia is the natural environment for it: in close proximity to the real articles it satirises and to the people working on them, who are the ones most likely to appreciate the joke in the first place. Plus, it actually does function as a user page at one level, because it defines the humorous persona that I use in my on-line dealings with others (it's a running gag, you see). With all the talk of hoaxes, people seem to forget that I am (supposedly) that ridiculous person. I can't be alone amongst editors in assigning myself an alter ego; had my user page not resembled an article, I doubt people would have paid much attention or claimed that it is against policy. Waltham, The Duke of 09:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. 1) This is quite obviously a user page, not an article; 2) The humor is also quickly apparently to anyone who bothers to read. older ≠ wiser 13:16, 15 February 2013 (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.