Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination)

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 - large chunks of content are problematic, but large chunks are not, and thus the appeals to WP:NOT fail as a reason to delete the entire page. WilyD 08:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Timeshift9

User:Timeshift9 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

MfDs for this user page:

• Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9
• Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination)
• Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (3rd nomination)

DRVs for this user page:

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 5#User:Timeshift9

This user page was recently discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User page breaching wikipedia policies. The disputed content was removed by Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) but restored by Timeshift9, who wrote:

some level is ok on a userpage. 13,000 characters were removed. i readded 3,000 characters. less than a page and very trim, more trim than the last time i was asked to scale back - i reiterate - some is allowed, notblog does not apply to userpages.

Because there is disagreement about whether the user page violates Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, the next logical step is to discuss the page at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.

In its current version, User:Timeshift9 violates Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social network, or memorial site. WP:NOTBLOG, a shortcut to this section in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, states:

Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. 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.

1. Personal web pages. 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's irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia.

Please note that the policy text explicitly includes user pages in its prohibition of using Wikipedia as a blog or webspace provider.

The page also violates Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. WP:NOTSOAPBOX, a shortcut to this section in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, states:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:

1. Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.

Please note that the policy text explicitly includes user pages in its prohibition of soapboxing.

A medium should be achieved between disclosing personal biases and using userspace as a blog. I recommended at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 in May 2011 that Timeshift9 (talk · contribs) use one of the sites at Wikipedia:Alternative outlets#Directory of alternatives to share his political commentary and then link to that site from his user page. In October 2011, Orangemike (talk · contribs) wrote at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive714#User talk:Timeshift9#Your userpage 2:

Once again, Timeshift is using his userpage as a blog. This is not encyclopedic content, it is only a microscopic fragment of Timeshift's ideological stance and thus give us little insight into any prejudices or biases he may have as an editor; it is a weak substitute for starting a real blog, and is in pretty blatant violation of the community consensus about his prior pseudo-blog. Like the previous version, my concern is not BLP but rather WP:NOT#WEBHOST. If you want to opinionate about politics in Oz, do so in a real blog, not on our servers. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Although Orangemike's commentary referred to an old version of the user page, it is applicable to the current version as well, and I fully endorse it.

There is a disagreement at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beyond_My_Ken&oldid=511491369#Timeshift9.27s_talk_page regarding whether the page violates WP:BLP; therefore, I do not base my MfD nomination on BLP, but on WP:NOTSOAP, WP:NOTBLOG, and WP:UP#POLEMIC. WP:UP#POLEMIC prohibits:

Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing: Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive).

With commentary like:

"Disgusting... every single last word"

"Yes ladies and gentlemen, this is how the Liberal Party are when they're in power. But as far as backflips go, I guess Abbott has had the most practice..."

"The opposition and media go to the extraordinary lengths of claiming the government has killed people and houses have burnt down as a result of the stimulus, when infact the pink batts program actually drove the statistics down. Where's the articles now? Are the batts really burning? No, but the right-wing media are."

the page clearly violates WP:UP#POLEMIC.

In summary, delete per WP:NOTBLOG, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, and WP:UP#POLEMIC. Cunard (talk) 05:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - A point of clarification: after considerable discussion at AN/I (see above for link) the objectionable material on this page was initially deleted by User:Dennis Brown in this edit. It was partially restored by Timeshift9 in these edits. I restore Dennis Brown's version in this edit. Timeshift then reverted page to his version with this edit. I felt that one part was specifically a BLP violation, and deleted it, and Timeshift9 reverted my deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for the clarification. Cunard (talk) 06:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Long nomination, and a lot to read, but the long and the short of it is, there's no clear grounds to remove the page in its present form. There were issues with it which were highlighted to Timeshift9 yesterday and he appears to have addressed them. Orderinchaos 06:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Sigh, the sock mess of User:Welshboyau11 continues. Per multiple admins comments at Beyond My Ken user talk such as "If I wasn't involved, I would have just blocked you for this. Timeshift and myself have asked that you explain the material which you think is problematic, and Timeshift has also offered to remove such material himself. Please take up this offer rather than remove stuff from his talk page because you happen to think its a BLP violation (which other editors have said that they don't agree with)" and "I agreed with the need for Timeshift9 to revise his page, he appears to have done so, and individual concerns can be directed to him as appropriate, in a civil and good faith manner" Timeshift (talk) 06:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Indeed, Timeshift, one admin did indeed say that "If I wasn't involved, I would have just blocked you for this." "This" being my attempt to remove a WP:BLP violation from your user page. That admin was wrong in his understanding of BLP policy, which appplies everywhere on Wikipedia, including user pages, and which requires the immediate removal of "contentious" material immediately and without waiting for discussion. Given that, he's actually lucky that he considered himself "involved" (and, incidentally, if he's "involved", then he's on my talk page as a regular editor, not an admin, so why is he trying to coerce me by telling me he would have blocked me?) and that didn't block me, because BLP policy is taken pretty seriously, and the block would almost certainly have been overturned on appeal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
    • There was no BLP violation; the material you removed (when you settled down on removing a single section rather than the lot) is all over the Australian media. You violated the user page policy by repeatedly removing stuff from Timeshift's talk page for no good reason (including some clearly inoffensive material on your first attempt), and without even attempting to discuss it with him first, or as part of your removals. Nick-D (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Nick, you can keep saying it, but it doesn't make it true. I tried discussing this with you on my talk page, but your were more interested in coercing me to into becoming uninvolved. Guess what: it didn't work, and each time you repeat these palpable untruths, my respect for you as an admin goes down another notch. Way to go, champ. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: I have notified the participants at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 5#User:Timeshift9, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive714#User talk:Timeshift9#Your userpage 2, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User page breaching wikipedia policies of this deletion discussion. Cunard (talk) 06:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: A healthy mix of opinions, styles and personalities is good for the project. Essential to include eyes from all sides. But the hatred and hostility displayed by Timeshift is unhealthy. Regardless of where it is, and where directed. I don't think Wikipedia should have to host such material, but nor do I think TS9 should give up a reasonable expression of his soul. --Pete (talk) 06:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

But i'm allowed to on my userpage. And I don't agree with your assertions "hatred and hostile". Timeshift (talk) 06:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with reasonable expression. I find it useful and entertaining to visit userpages to "see where editors live". Some display witty and caring personalities, and I love their well-crafted pages. Some are carefully tended every day. I just cobble together any old stuff and ignore it for years at a time. And you do what you do. But you've managed to make waves several times over, upsetting other editors, and that's not good, whether in an article, a talk page or a user page. The way i see it is that you can purposely tone down your user-page opinions, perhaps taking the more inflammatory material offsite, so as to forestall travelling the same path, or you can work on whatever part of your inner self that is unhappy enough to warrant such expression. --Pete (talk) 06:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I've already said 'Sigh, the sock mess of User:Welshboyau11 continues.' Your last part of your post is downright uncivil. Timeshift (talk) 06:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

If you are trying to provoke me, let me say that five years as a night cabbie made me far less perturbable than I once was. You aren't a drunk and obnoxious passenger, so I don't have to humour you, but I would like you to be happy here. For everyone's sake especially your own. --Pete (talk) 06:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - to be honest, what appears there does betray Timeshift's POV, but at least he is honest about this unlike a lot of others who dare to enter into the fray. However in saying that, what is on the page is a clear violation of policy, everybody agrees to that, including those who say "But we typically ignore policy when it comes to userpages". If this is actually the case - edit the policy and get buy in from the Community so that policy doesn't have to be ignored when it comes to userpages. Until there, really it's a clear cut case of violation. Shot info (talk) 06:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit warriors and the admins that enable them? What an edit summary Shot info. Timeshift (talk) 06:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Timeshift has a userbox on his pages that says "This user believes that only articles need reflect a NPOV, and that displaying political, religious, or other beliefs on user and talk pages should be encouraged. Bias is better declared." I agree with him completely, but that doesn't change the fact that Wikipedia is neither a blog nor a soapbox. I have never seen anything good result from an editor using his talk page to chest-thump about their political positions. Trusilver 06:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Keep: Before getting into my rationale, I take exception to the BLP allegation. What Timeshift wrote cites a source and uses the important qualifier "allegedly". Moving on. The policy at issue is routinely bent and interpreted in favour of inclusion. If nothing else, the fact that this provides an outlet for what otherwise might find its way into editing disputes seems to me enough of a reason to, if nothing else, invoke the ignore all rules doctrine so long as Timeshift endearvours to keep the page from reaching the state it was in yesterday. It isn't hurting anyone and let's editors who take the time to view the page know where his biases lie. -Rrius (talk) 06:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. This again? For heaven's sake. First of all, there is nothing that violates BLP on the current version of the page. We are spending time on a few hundred words on a highly experienced editor's userpage, and we are here because of a sock (the same one that triggered the last MfD). I think Timeshift could probably save himself a lot of trouble by hosting this stuff somewhere else, but you know what, it's not my userpage, and it's well within the bounds of discretion. I feel confident there are much better uses of everyone's time than enabling socks with vendettas, like, I don't know, improving the encyclopaedia or something. Frickeg (talk) 07:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Keep This is a vexatious attack. Many user pages have all sorts of biased and bigoted crap on them. They're really easy to find. For most of them, deletion is never sought, generally because it does no harm, and I for one find it useful when it helps me see where a strangely behaving editor is coming from. Timeshift rightly took on a badly behaving "new" editor and is now a victim himself. He has already toned down his content a lot. Anyone still pushing this barrow is demonstrating far more a dislike of a particular editor and his beliefs than a real concern for Wikipedia policies. True application of the latter would see a massive clean-up of thousands of User pages. HiLo48 (talk) 07:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• The type of content that's allowed on user pages is listed at WP:UPYES. This violates, but, we do need to look at the whole picture here. Firstly, if Timeshift9's userpage is affected by this, then as Timeshift9 points out, we will (yet again) be annoying/distracting a productive, long-term editor at the behest of a blocked sock. I don't think I can condone that. Secondly, I see that Timeshift9 has a history of modifying the contents of his userpage on request. He may not have gone quite as far with that as some users might wish, but talking to him is effective so it's not yet necessary to invoke administrative tools. Thirdly, I think it's right that long-standing contributors with many edits over a long period should have wide latitude about what appears in their userspace. We can spare Timeshift9 a few bytes without calling the userspace police. This doesn't mean I approve of everything on Timeshift9's page, and I'd be a little happier if he would voluntarily tone it down a bit more. What it means is that I don't think it's desirable to use administrative tools at this stage.—S Marshall T/C 07:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Keep- A few points: firstly, S Marshall is correct in pointing out that Timeshift9 is pretty responsive to requests. Secondly, I note that there is much on Timeshift9's user page that cannot be called a polemic- I see user boxes, a bunch of templates that presumably help Timeshift9 navigate, and some informative links. All this stuff is useful and inoffensive. When you have a page that's got some acceptable content and some dubious content, you remove the problematic stuff instead of deleting the whole thing. Which Timeshift9 seems to have been doing. There is no call for administrative action at this stage. Reyk _YO! 07:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• KeepHow long are we going to keep arguing over sock puppet Welshboy11's vitriolic attacks? I actually argued for leniency towards Welshpuppet for a while, but most of what he did was arguing that one section or another of Wikipedia should be deleted in some way. Our focus should be to build the encyclopaedia not cut it down piece by piece. Timeshift9 on the other hand is a productive editor with much more blue than red in his long history and he states that his user page gives an insight into his perspective on the world. While I have had debates with Timeshift9 in the past, those discussions have been acceptably resolved without needing intervention, and I have no problem with him showing his ideology on his user page. All the posts there seem reasonable to me, and have links and citations as appropriate. Cunard includes the post "Disgusting... every single last word" as an example of bias - is it not disgusting to describe someone else's desire to marry as 'more unhealthy than cigarette smoking'? I think calling that assertion disgusting is quite accurate. Likewise I would call Hitler's philosophy disgusting. Would you call that bias on my part as well? Djapa Owen 08:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs)
  • You need to separate the actions of a sock from the attributes of the page, which is what's under discussion here. The sock's actions are annoying and disruptive (as the actions of sockpuppets very often are), but that has little or nothing to do with whether the page itself is within policy or not. I suggest you take a look at the AN/I discussion, in which the consensus of editors involved, most of them well-established, and not socks of anybody, agreed that Timeshift's user page was in egregious violation of Wikipedia's policies about what is allowed in a user page. Ironically, Timeshift himself agrees, as he cut back his page significantly, explaining that he understand that it was OK to go so far, but no farther. Where he has got it wrong, of couse, is that it is not he who decides how far he may go, but the community, in discussions such as this one and in the one on AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I have looked at the AN/I, and the vast majority of those opposed the old version, which isn't at issue. You really should watch your tenses. Also, Timeshift isn't argument isn't ipse dixit. His position is that what he has up now is basically the same as what was allowed by the previous MfD. -Rrius (talk) 08:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Keep per User:S Marshall, User:Reyk, User:Djapa84 and several others. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - FFS! Why are we discussing a userpage ALREADY deleted for the SAME REASONS as are being discussed now? WP:SOAP (Look for the bit on opinion pieces, the bit on scandal mongering may also apply) and, WP:NOTBLOG (Need I explain this one?) all say that this userpage should not exist. Unless there is a policy that says the userpage should stay which overrules these 2 MANDATORY policies (As in cannot be ingored by WP:IAR) then this page should not stay! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 08:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • It's substantially different from the version discussed previously Nick-D (talk) 08:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
    • So? They are still saying the same things that got their userpage deleted last time! The same crap in a different wrapper is still the same crap! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 09:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Keep As noted by several editors above, Timeshift9 is a highly experienced editor who's responsive to feedback, so there was no need to nominate this for deletion. Moreover, it's unclear to me what the exact problems with the material are. The first paragraph is clearly fine, the middle sections are middle-of-the-road Australian political commentary which aren't likely to be offensive to anyone (it would be helpful if the editors screaming "BLP violation!" could actually explain what these violations actually are - none are apparent to me; these are mild comments about well-known public figures' political positions), and the final section is totally fine. Nick-D (talk) 08:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• "Screaming "BLP violation". You sure have some bedside manner, Nick-D. If I were an admin, I'd have blocked you for incivility. The fact that you can't see the BLP violation in the section about a politician hitting (or not hitting) a woman is pretty sad, really. Alright, let me lay it out for you, in really simple terms:

• A politician is accused of some misdeed
• It's written up in the media
• Someone wants to add it to the article about the politician
• Can it go in? Depends on whether the proper context is provided, whether it's well-sourced, whether it qualifies under WP:WEIGHT. A complicated scenario, which editors discuss and reach a consensus on (eventually). Probably not a WP:BLP problem, if handled correctly -- but, it could also be decided that it's not appropriate; c0uld go either way
• That's an article. Now, someone wants to put the incident on their user page
• Uh-oh: No context, no source (until just recently) and, worst of all, it's accompanied by a comment from the editor: (paraphrasing) "What do you expect from this person."
• BOOOM! CONGRATULATIONS, YOU'VE JUST GIVEN BIRTH TO A BLP VIOLATION because there's no context, no consideration of weight, and a negative comment from the editor involved (who clearly hates the politician).

Is that simple and clear enough for you, Nick-D? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for finally explaining your concern - it's a shame that you didn't do so when you kept deleting this. I don't think that it's a BLP violation; Timesshift9's comment is (and there's no need to paraphrase given that it's very short) "from David Marr's published book. Whether or not it's true, one problem is that it surprises nobody... this is Tony Abbott we're talking about." That seems an unremarkable comment to me, particularly given Abbott's reputation for aggressive political tactics and macho physical activities (especially in his youth). However, if you think that this is unacceptable, it would have been best to have first raised this with Timesshift9 before removing it from his talk page, or at the very least to have posted an explanation of why you removed it after the event. Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Nick-D, no one is particularly interested in your personal opinion of "Abbott's reputation", except insofar as it's biased you in regard to the question of whether this is a BLP violation or not. Clearly, you hold a strong opinion about Abbott (as does Timeshift9) which means you shouldn't be sticking your nose in and flashing your admin badge when questions about him come up. Your behavior in this incident is looking more and more suspect, and unbecoming of an admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Ever heard the saying "so right that [one is] wrong"? Regardless of the merits of your position (which, as you know, I also disagree with, but that's not the reason for this comment as it is part of a spectrum of views held by Wikipedians), your extreme and combative tactics in prosecuting it make it less, rather than more, likely that a successful and lasting outcome will be reached. Orderinchaos 10:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm combatitive? Who showed up on whose talk page with guns drawn and tasers pointed, throwing around putative blocks and erroneously accusing me of masquerading as an admin? What did you expect me to do, cower and kiss your rings? Phhht, look in the mirror, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

First, it's not a BLP violation; Abbott is a public figure and the allegation is sourced. The user page is not an article, so most of your long contribution above is just drivel. Second, Even if your excessively broad interpretation were correct, it still wouldn't be a reason to delete the page, so your argument simply doesn't belong here. Get back on topic or stop responding—either will do. -Rrius (talk) 11:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't delete the page, I deleted the item, and BLP applies to public figures, it's a Wikipedia policy and not the same as the legal defintions of libel or defamation. The standard is "contentious" and "unsourced" (and the item was unsourced when I deleted it). Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Delete: 90% of the text on that page is a strong polemic, in violation of several of our policies. "But he's being responsive" is not an answer-- you delete the page now, then let him recreate it without the inappropriate content. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 08:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Really? You don't think "raise the matter with the user and see if they'd mind removing it" (or even "explain BLP concerns to the user and seek consensus") is better than "unilaterally delete material from an established user's page several times, then launch an MfD"? Frickeg (talk) 12:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Have any of the keep !voters provided a policy for keeping the userpage? Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 09:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Weak keep on condition it does not ever again grow into the distracting and non-policy-compliant monster it had become when I deleted it yesterday. Honestly, there are better places than here to blog about one's political convictions, and we have better things to do with our time than argue about stuff like this. Please don't let it get any bigger than it is just now. --John (talk) 09:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Timeshift9 has not limited bias to their user page. But clearly have violated Neutrality policy here and then proceeded to ignore it when reminded. DDB (talk) 09:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)DDB (talk) 09:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Keep as is, as long as Timeshift9 agrees not to grow it out again to blog-like proportions. The current version[1] is fine. FurrySings (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Delete User pages aren't the place to hold polemic political rants. The editor also acknowledges that the content is a rant: [2]. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Strong delete - When reviewing user pages at MfD, the two main factors from WP:UP#NOT are 1. related to Wikipedia and 2. better participate in the community. This user page expresses views on a variety of different matters not related to Wikipedia and the WP:BLP, WP:NOTBLOG, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, and WP:UP#POLEMIC content is not designed to allow Timeshift9 to better participate in the community such as by facilitating interaction and sharing between users. I've commented on numerous user pages here at MfD and I found this one especially shocking, both in content and the user's experience behind the page. When long term editors misuse the user page assigned to their user name, it makes it that much harder to enforce the project content guideline Wikipedia:User pages. Strong delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Keep the full version or any subsequent version of this page. The content expresses opinions, sure, but it also expresses widespread opinions and provides useful links to follow. If you disagree with it, make sure the relevant articles are updated with any contradicting information. Or post your own links. There are worse things to have on Wikipedia than highlighted sources. I think the "not a blog" thing was originally meant to rule out very extensive empires of day-to-day content, like you might find on Blogspot or Myspace or something - not to be a gag order to prevent any political opinion from being expressed even in a severely stripped down version of the page. But since people seem to believe that we must have alles oder nichts on this issue, I suggest we repeal the blog policy outright. Wnt (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not going to pipe in with a vote, as I had already gone in and boldly took a chainsaw to his user page via the ANI discussion (in the hopes to avoid this discussion) and offered him some advice that he seems to be taking on board. This isn't such a cut and dry case, imo, as I believe that users should have great freedom in how they use their user page as long as it is primarily related to their activities at Wikipedia. Rants or pure opinion on non-WP processes, however, are not within the guidelines. He has both been responsive and has shown the ability to ride the fine line between acceptable and not acceptable when it comes to the polemic issue. I think he could avoid much of this controversy with a little more effort and creativity. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Page falls under its own merits. It violates multiple policies and does not contribute to the project. --Nouniquenames (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. There is no reason to keep the userpage - it would not - in any way - build the encyclopedia. --Mysterytrey 16:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Remove Delete - Clear violations of WP:BLP, WP:NOTBLOG, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, and WP:UP#POLEMIC. "Keep" !votes have cited absolutely no policy-based rationale, they all seem based on WP:ILIKEIT. There should be no question here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • After reading Robofish's !vote below, I find that I am in agreement with him, any inapprorpiate material should be deleted, most particularly including the Tony Abbot remarks, and political remarks. Innocuous material can stay. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree with both Beyond My Ken and Robofish. The soapbox material should be removed, while the userboxes, templates, and Wikipedia-related links like:

      Why do I choose to contribute to wikipedia? - Is wikipedia reliable? - 1000 APH references can't be wrong!

      are policy-compliant and can remain.

      As a general comment, I find WP:NOTCENSORED not applicable in this situation. WP:NOTCENSORED states (my bolding):

      Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies ... will also be removed [in spite of the policy that Wikipedia is not censored].

      Cunard (talk) 06:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Remove the soapboxing content. Simply put, this is not what userpages are for, and it's not appropriate to use them for political polemics. The very first line, about Tony Abbott, is particularly inappropriate - it means the first thing other users see when visiting Timeshift9's userpage is an attack on a living person (albeit a reliably sourced one). Even if nothing else changes, that must be removed. The userboxes, templates and non-political links can stay. Robofish (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Keep (or more accurately, this) - the story in question is playing out in Australian media with respected persons from both "sides" injecting their commentary. Timeshift, in my opinion, has every right to express his opinion about those events and doing so actually allows other editors to develop a good understanding of the potential bias of the user in question. That said, Timeshift and I have had our differences in the past (being from notionally different sides of the political spectrum) but almost all have related to editing styles, technical issues and open declarations of opinion on talk pages. I'm yet to see evidence of his bias creeping into his technical editing (where his contribution has been substantial). Would I rather see the commentary gone? Sure, because I have a different opinion. Do I think he should delete it? Sure, it would certainly make life easier for him. Do I think others should censor him and delete it for him? No. I might also say that most of the anti-Timeshift vitriol has its genesis in his relationship with a single editor who has been banned (several times - Stravin / Watchover / Enidblyton / Welshboyau and a host of other socks). We have Timeshift to thank for continually and consistently outing this same user for breaching WP guidelines again and again and again. It has taken considerable time and effort to do so, for the betterment of the WP community. For the record, the banned user in question shares a political view more closely aligned with mine than with Timeshift's but I would much rather have Timeshift here than the other user. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - The last deletion was controversial and neither the MfD or DRV had consensus. Timeshift9 is a longtime editor with a good contribution record and userpage does not have the "excessive unrelated content" described in the policies quoted by the proposer. This MfD feeds a troll, since it was a sockpuppet that started the ANI. I might just say that the hypocrisy of some of those voting "delete" is breathtaking - particularly the editor that is soapboxing free speech issues on his userpage, and then voting "delete" here! --Surturz (talk) 03:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• It's not about the blocked troll, nor other editors. It's about soapbox content and content that doesn't conform well to blp policies. Even the best editors are bound by the requirements of the site. The userboxes are within what the community often exhibits, but the rest of the page falls short. --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• In fact the last MFD was closed a delete and the DRV weakly endorsed that, no neither of your statements about the previous discussion are factually correct. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• The initial MfD vote was 10 Delete, 7 Keep. That does not qualify as consensus, which requires more than a simple majority. The closing admin in that case claimed there was a "general consensus"[3] which was contested by myself and an admin here, prompting the closing admin to start the DRV. So the original MfD close was controversial. The DRV vote was 12 Endorse, 10 Overturn. The closing admin (you) claimed a "slight majority" but did not claim consensus on the DRV. So I re-assert the following points:

• The original deletion was controversial
• Neither the original MfD, nor the subsequent DRV had consensus

as factually correct. --Surturz (talk) 04:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. We don't count votes to reach a consensus and last I checked the closes of the MFD and the DRV were as they were closed which means that they have not been successfully challenged. YOU may disgaree with the outcome, you may even be correct that the closes are controversial, but until you get a consensus to overturn the two closes they remain valid. Who are you to decide what consensus is or should be? That's a completely specious argument. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Uh, it's not that simple. I re-added it with the blessing of admins. Timeshift (talk) 21:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you please source the admin approval you mentioned? I did a quick review of the change logs and am not able to find any, but I could just be missing it. --50.113.65.228 (talk) 07:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

See the archived discussion on my talkpage. There was no consensus last time, and there is certainly no consensus, let alone a simple majority, this time. I've had comment on my userpage for the past 6 or so years while i've been on wikipedia, and I will continue to do so. No amount of socks are going to enjoy success. I suggest we all start looking for better things to do. Timeshift (talk) 07:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any admin 'blessing' on the page. I've read back through the many reports regarding the page in question and it seems that the problem has been lack of enforcement, both after the initial MfD, the endorsed DRV, and as the page was slowly built to the state it was in very recently. There's not much more I can say to this issue, but there's a large amount of prior history to this issue. It would take some time to link them all so I won't, but if the closing admin would like them sourced please request here. --50.113.65.228 (talk) 08:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The page has obvious NOTBLOG and SOAP problems, but since I don't want to look into the the apparent personal conflict around the nomination, I won't !vote on deletion. I instead inserted a {{noindex}} template into the page, to keep it out of external search engines and make it a bit less of a soapbox. I'd urge that the template stay there if the page is kept. 67.119.15.30 (talk) 06:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Keep if TS9 is willing to remove all the political screed, all of which violates the NOTBLOG and SOAP problems noted above. If TS9 is unwilling to remove this, I support Delete as the less desirable alternative. Being right about one socking troll does not give TS9 a free pass to break WP policy on user pages. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - I first read this MfD page before checking Timeshift9's user page. When I did go to the user page to read it, I braced myself for a long political screed that I would have to slog through. To my surprise I found a short user page with a handful of comments. There is an unwritten understanding that we give a latitude to editors who are productive. When someone creates an account and starts writing their own personal info or opinions on a user page, and then doesn't contribute to Wikipedia, we often take a strict interpretation of WP:NOT because we don't want Wikipedia to be treated as a social networking or blog site. But when a person is a productive editor, and they are here to genuinely contribute, we give them some wiggle room. I've seen much worse user pages given a pass under those conditions. -- Atama頭 16:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: if you look at the page history, you'll see that earlier versions were much longer and more blog-like. The current version is still shaky IMHO, but less excessive than what was there before. 67.119.15.30 (talk) 19:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I did look at the page history. Between the creation of this MfD and the current version, there was only one change to the text of the user page, which was this change that only removed one sentence. So all of these arguments for deletion on this page are essentially talking about the current version, which doesn't seem at all excessive. I'll admit that I don't like the user page, not because I disagree with the opinions stated (as an American I really don't care much about Australian politics) but because I prefer user pages to be relevant to Wikipedia. But going by precedent, we allow far worse than what's on this user page. -- Atama頭 23:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You say the blog isn't too long right now after it was trimmed by admins to be an issue; it was deleted last year for being a blog; but he recreated it and made the blog again violating the exact same policy. Do you think the blog isn't going to get longer? IRWolfie- (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't have psychic powers, and I doubt that you do either. So neither of us know what will happen with it. Only Timeshift9 knows, and since most people arguing "keep" only do so because of its brevity, I think he'd be wise to keep it small. If he doesn't, it's likely that it will be deleted. Keep in mind that user pages can be and are deleted all the time without need for a discussion, such as G10 or G11 speedy deletions. I've done plenty of user page speedy deletions myself. -- Atama頭 15:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - Definitely starting to skirt the borderline between appropriate commentary and blog, but we shouldn't reward the bad faith ANI case of a blocked sock. Timeshift: you'd be advised to reduce the personal commentary, even if you keep the links. Carrite (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That would seem a lot like Cutting off the nose to spite the face. If there is an issue here then it should be dealt with. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Quite interesting compared some get away with a lot more. How much is too much? Is one sentence too much? Is a single sentence quote and nothing else too much? You can see how this sort of thing at this small scale is not enforceable. Timeshift (talk) 07:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It is very easy to see when something is a blog or not. For example, my userpage is not a political blog while yours is. I think it's pretty poor style that you recreated the blog considering your userpage was deleted last year for the exact same reason. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

And one quote from a diff here does not make a blog or soapbox. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 11:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

[4]. [5]: "And which loon was the only independent MP that backed an Abbott government? This one. Where to start... LOL! This will do. Regardless of the content, the poor responding is stunning. I've never seen anyone ignore interviewers in the way he did. How anyone in Kennedy can bring themselves to vote for this loon repeatedly is beyond me." How is that not a BLP violation and a soapbox? IRWolfie- (talk) 11:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Plea: Forget the rules and regulations. The fact is some like it and others are annoyed by it because it's polemical. Regardless of how close it is to the line, many in the community want it gone. The net result is hundreds of thousands of keystrokes landing on back pages, and dozens of reading hours over this. That's a drain on the project. I know you care about the project, so why not voluntarily just remove it? There are lots of other places for this, like cocktail parties, social networking sites, elevators. Why not a Wikipedia user page? Because it ends up wasting tons of energy best spent on the project. That's a form of damage, mitigating the time you spend improving the project. So please, for me, the sake of Wikipedia, for the children, for eskimos, pygmies, and taxi drivers everywhere, just remove it voluntarily, and all this can be done. Then watch The Hollowmen because it's hilarious. Respectfully yours, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Like Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Um, actually that is what I did, boldly and deeply, with the goal of avoiding this conversation here. The editor seems to have understood, and I thought was pretty much respectful and compliant, adding back only small sections that I thought was an acceptable compromise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Equally one could ask why people who don't like it couldn't just ignore it, netting the same result for keystrokes and hours spent reading this. People only start bitching about this after a troublemaking, ban-avoiding sockmaster points it. He's done it twice now, and people have responded the same way each time. Simply ignoring socky's attacks would cut down on the time suck very nicely. -Rrius (talk) 23:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

One could also ask why such material was put there in the first place, and why it took a sock to get to this point. I've never read in a policy here that anything is prohibited unless a sock is the one to find it, then it's perfectly fine. The policies don't have those loopholes because it doesn't matter who finds the problem. It doesn't matter who draws attention to the problem. The problem is what matters. If I had noticed it before the sock did, (and it's only by chance that I didn't,) it would have been my responsibility as an editor to try to fix the problem (or get it fixed). People responded the way they did for a reason, because it is a problem. Forget, for a moment, that there was a sock involved. How would your response differ if this were brought forward first by an editor in good standing? After all, this MfD was not started by the sock. --Nouniquenames 03:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Uhh, why it took a sock to get to this point? Only socks have got me on to MfD eventually, despite be being all around wikipedia for years and nobody genuine starting a process that got it to MfD. The problem is the socks who provide the oxygen for those types who spend their time on AN/I looking for kicks and thrills. Oops, did I say that? Timeshift (talk) 08:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

But what about the plea? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I decline the plea - it's interesting how those Australian conservatives who normally oppose me, support me here. The difference is startling. Timeshift (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Why decline? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Because it's not a problem for Australian content contributors who often come across me on the streets of wikiland. I've already stated what the problem is IMHO. Timeshift (talk) 09:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a problem. Because it's disruptive. --Pete (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not. No one else cared, until a sock came along and needed something to harass Timeshift with. And observe the sock's success. Frickeg (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear, oh dear. It is "de facto disruptive" (also a good name for a comic book villain). It makes no difference whether polemical user pages become disruptive because of socks, legwarmers, or slippers. It's like saying that troll-feeding is not harmful because the resultant troll-poo is from trolls. Both trolls and socks exist, so we do not give them anything to work with. If we do, the result can be disruption, which is undeniably evident here, to the tune of 50,000 characters.

Anyway, it's not the end of the world. Toned-down is acceptable, gone is best. I've said my piece. Any more, and I'll go over budget like the cops in THX 1138. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. We really shouldn't be having this discussion again, and the fact that we are is what's compelling me to participate where I did not last time. The policy pillar regarding what Wikipedia is not is quite clear: "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's irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia." This policy exists for good reason: userpages that violate it needlessly impede good-faith co-operation between editors, and they give new editors unhelpful and incorrect ideas about what this project is and why we contribute. The latter is particularly relevant in this case, given that Timeshift is frequently the first person with whom anonymous or new editors in the Australian Politics area interact.
  Timeshift has been asked or told on a number of occasions - going back years - to mind the abrasive way in which he uses his userpage. I don't believe it would be helpful to provide a complete or parital list, but it is simply not the case that those raising concerns have been prodominantly disruptive editors. Indeed, a year or so ago this page was deleted per an MfD (subsequently endorsed at DRV) for substantially the same reasons we are now here.
  I sympathise with those above who have voted to keep in light of the recent edits to the userpage that address their concerns. My response is that Timeshift has shown over years that while he eventually does the minimum to abet others' concerns about specific content on the page, he seems unable or unwilling to determine for himself what is and is not appropriate. That is the main reason we have to keep having these discussions, either in this forum, on his talkpage or through the edit summaries on the userpage itself: because Timeshift is unable or unwilling to excercise the judgement required to head them off in the first place. Given all that, it seems to me the only solution is to delete.  -- Lear's Fool 02:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I respect where you're coming from but I don't think that particular extract comprehensively makes a case against the page in question to the point where we, "shouldn't be having this discussion again". My reading of that same extract would be as follows:

• "they should be used primarily to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia." - given he mainly works on Australian political articles, I would suggest Australian political commentary, references, news items, etc are relevant to his working on the encyclopedia. They might not be to you, but isn't that kind of the point of a userpage?
• "Limited biographical information is allowed, but user pages should not function as personal webpages" - I don't think his does. As I said above, the information he has provided gives a useful indication of his potential bias. Again, it contains information directly relevant to the broad topic areas in which he edits. He hasn't posted vanity pictures (like so many others) or mindless drivel about where he grew up (like so many others) or a quasi-resume (like so many others). My own expresses a personal like for soccer and lego. How is that at all relevant to editing WP? His is certainly more relevant to WP editing than mine. Should I self-reference an MfD?
• "or be repositories for large amounts of material that's irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia." - again, I would suggest it is directly relevant to his collaborating on Wikipedia.

Timeshift isn't posting pictures of his dog attacking a Tony Abbot manikin, or posting statements like "Tony Abbott is a *****phile". He's not going on long-winded op-ed-style rants about a likely (ha ha - sorry, but it is) Abbott Government. He is posting links to a number of news articles (reliable sources I might add) relating to current events in Australian politics (and not the most disparaging articles related to those topics) and giving short personal opinions about each issue. I don't think there is any way they could be interpreted as anything other than his own personal opinions - I don't think anyone is going to mistake his opinions for "factual" encyclopaedic content.

Like I said before, I don't necessarily like his personal stance on those issues, I think he is factually incorrect and I think he should get used to the idea of serving as a citizen under an Abbott Government. But I don't think it is "disruptive" . Nor do I think it "needlessly impede[s] good-faith co-operation between editors", given his comments haven't needlessly impeded our co-operation and I can't see any evidence it has "impede[d] co-operation" with anyone other than troll-socks about whom we should not care. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 03:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC).

Get used to the idea? This is not a forum for that sort of discussion, and besides, Abbott won't last until the next election :) Timeshift (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right it's not... You're wrong about the other bit though... LOL. Just couldn't bring myself to defend you without having a little dig while I was at it. Ha ha ha. Stalwart111 (talk) 12:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, as Timeshift9 has such a clear position on things it calls his independence into question with his edits everywhere. Further, his anonymity may mask an unethical position, and possibly an illegal one. Were it the case that Timeshift9 were really David Penberthy, the journalist, then a case could be made for corruption at the most senior levels of Australian journalism commensurate with what ended News of the World. DDB (talk) 04:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't work out whether you're being sarcastic or serious... but if Timeshift and David Penberthy are one-in-the-same then I will eat my hat. Whatever else Timeshift might be hiding with his anonymity (which we all enjoy too), I think he has made it very clear he is a raving leftie; something Penberthy is... well... not. Being a declared partisan and then editing neutrally is not unethical at all. In fact I would venture to suggest that is the very personification of WP:NPOV. Declaring yourself politically neutral and then editing with partisan bias is unethical. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I think my 6.5 years, my 40,000 contributions, my awards, and my triple crown are proof positive of my NPOV when it comes to editing articles. Timeshift (talk) 07:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm in agreement here (and I did get a laugh at the suggestion). Everyone comes into a topic like politics with their own views and ideals, and if we banned everyone who has an opinion, the articles would slowly rot and stagnate into irrelevance, as nobody would be able to edit them at all. It also applies to other areas - articles on sport, religion and literature are rarely edited by those without strong fandom instincts, and most articles about cities and towns are written by their residents. The honesty and openness inherent in Timeshift9's approach actually makes it really easy to catch him if he were to do something inappropriate, and I think it's a measure of him as an editor that some of his political opponents are numbered amongst the "keep" votes on this MfD. Orderinchaos 08:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

This user believes that only articles need reflect a NPOV, and that displaying political, religious, or other beliefs on user and talk pages should be encouraged. Bias is better declared. And I take accusations of being someone noteworthy as a massive compliment :) Timeshift (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

That's such a straw man. Declarations of bias aren't what's at issue here.  -- Lear's Fool 08:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree it's not the issue here. It's part of a wider discussion of which I simply responded to rather than initiated. Timeshift (talk) 08:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Why is bias better declared? So you can easily check another editor and decide if they are on your team or the enemy? Wikipedia is not the forum for this nonsense. This is why the aforementioned guidelines exist, and why no guideline exists that gives exceptions to these standards to an editor based on history, seniority, etc. --50.113.65.228 (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

May I ask why that appears to be your first contribution to wikipedia? Timeshift (talk) 08:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Not relevant to the discussion. WP:ADHOM --50.113.65.228 (talk) 09:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

How convenient. Timeshift (talk) 11:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Totally relevant if you happen to be yet another Enid sock puppet.... Djapa Owen 11:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs)

Actually, declaration of bias is useful. For example, my first interaction with Timeshift was when he reverted or edited one of my edits to say something more conservative (I can't remember the details) and I was rather indignant being new to the community. I quarrelled with him for a bit and then looked up his user page. Seeing Timeshift's viewpoint spelled out there made me realise that his edit had not been because he wanted to put a more rightwing line, but because he wanted to maintain NPOV and because my edit was uncited opinion. Of course I beleive my edit was accurate, but the situation taught me about process and helped make me a better editor I hope. Djapa Owen 12:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs)

• Keep It's his opinion, his user page, not a BLP violation. If you don't like it, don't read it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - See the archived discussion on my talkpage. There was no consensus last time, and there is certainly no consensus, let alone a simple majority, this time. Timeshift (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually a discussion on your talkpage doesn't trump a wider community consensus at MFD and DRV. If you wanted 'approval' then the correct place to obtain that is to raise another DRV or open a discussion at a widely trafficked noticeboard. Personally I would have gone for AN or ANI as truthfully DRV and MFD are not ideal venues for dealing with this issue. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

That statement alone is a fallacy - as I said... there was no consensus last time, and there is certainly no consensus, let alone a simple majority, this time. Timeshift (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - This ANI is also relevant. Interestingly, it was raised by the proposer of this MfD. --Surturz (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't see what the relevance is of who opened that ANI. It looks like an attempt to tar Cunard with some kind of insinuation about his motives. That's a piss poor discussion tactic and you should be ashamed of yourself. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

HAHA! I didn't even make that connection, thanks Surturz. Spartaz, to say it is not relevant is a laugh. And i'm not looking for some sort of technical approval, I don't need it. Timeshift (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Surely you aren't suggesting that you're the victim of some "dirt unit" aimed at smearing you? If you see it this way, then does that make the criticism invalid? The way I see it is that you are causing disruption - as evidenced here and in previous cases - by maintaining some sort of political commentary blog on your user page. I don't think that the opinions you express matter so much as the way they are presented. Other editors have a link to an external blog and disclose their opinions by a series of userboxes and while there has always been grumbling about userboxes from purists, they are widely accepted. Without some change on your part, I fear that we are going to see the same criticism, discussion and disruption recurring, simply because whoever is affronted by the behaviour that sparked this current discussion is going to raise it again and again. I think that we all have better things to do. Apart from yourself, apparently, and I'd like to appeal to the sense of community you must surly have gained over many years of productive work to find some way to address the extensive criticism directed at your behaviour here. I recognise only a few of the names of editors contributing, and while some may have an axe to grind, my guess is that most of them are disinterested commentators. --Pete (talk) 06:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

No, i'm not suggesting that at all. And i'm not going to let socks prevail. Timeshift (talk) 08:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Timeshift9. Just drop the bloody sock thing! Seriously. It's a patchwork defense at best and you've basically ruined it by repeatedly demonstrating WP:IDHT behavour. Regardless of who pointed it out and however questionable their actions or intentions may be, this discussion came from YOUR violation of userpage policy! And like it or not; everybody except you knows it! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 11:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Everyone except me knows it? Have you even read this discussion...? Timeshift (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Eh? Broad consensus at this discussion seems to be keep, so I guess it's NOT a violation of userspace policy. Reyk _YO! 22:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Put this page on my watchlist a while ago, as not sure what to do about it. Wordpress, Blogger etc hand out blogs for free, and it doesn't belong here. I'm also concerned about the 'cut some slack' its a valued/experienced contributor line of argument. There is no privilege by rank on Wikipedia, only responsibility. Alex Sims (talk) 05:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

What does this have to do with rank? I see it as nobody's business but Timeshift9's what goes on the user page, provided it's not a copyright or BLP violation. What am I missing? Apart from you not liking it, what's your problem? The only disruption I have seen related to the user page has been generated by people opposing the page's right to exist. That's not disruption on Timeshift9's part, that's Timeshift9 being oppressed. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

And to reiterate yet another point - when the MfD was raised which the catalyst yet again had been from a sock, I admitted it had become overgrown and bushy, so I took a chainsaw to it, removing 80%. I still remain open to any good faith communication on my talkpage re my userpage. I've displayed unbounding compromise, those voting delete are in the minority and are not compromising at all. Timeshift (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

It is misleading to claim compromise after bullying a position. The 'edit wars' you have engaged in, ideologically driven, won through anonymity and smearing those who weren't. Not good behaviour elsewhere, nor on your user page. Personally I think it might be time to revisit those edits and see what can be done to improve them by correctly casting them, not by taking a chainsaw to 80% of ideological driven rubbish. DDB (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to, multiple admins have not seen any issue with my behaviour in the last month of socks. Timeshift (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. I haven't !voted until now, as I had hoped that a compromise could be found and a genuine understanding reached. Timeshift, you see this as a battleground, you don't want to give a victory to a vanquished foe, you don't give a serious response to the many editors here who have raised serious objections, citing policy. If you cannot understand why other editors feel this way and you continue to show aggression and contempt for those bold enough to post a contrary opinion to your own, then you are going to keep on antagonising others. Personally, I don't give your userpage much thought. If I find myself there, I glance at the first few lines, accept that you are singing a team song, and move on. I don't sing in anyone's choir, myself, but I can respect those who follow a god, a sports team, a political view, whatever. But please accept that people have a diversity of allegiances and if you go out of your way to upset others, then they are going to get upset. It's not that you've removed a lot of objectionable material that is significant to me, it's the fact that this same issue has been raised again and again and you don't seem willing to accept other's views. I think policy should be enforced, and if you want to write a personal blog on political events, do what everybody else does. Go to WordPress or Blogger. Build an audience in the real world. --Pete (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I can even recommend a good way to get started with your own blog as well. Google "000 Webhost". They not only provide 1.5GB of web hosting with 100 GB of bandwidth per month and FTP access at no cost, they also provide a free WordPress installer script so you can be up and blogging in no time! They also do weekly offsite backups of the sites (both paid and free) that they host. I myself run a blog there and it's certainly better for blogging than going to wordpress or other free blog hosting services (And no, they do not limit the content you can post! Plus they do not put ads on your website like other free providers, if you want ads you have to put them in yourself!). Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I've said previously - i'm not interested. Thankyou. Timeshift (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

But you obviously are interested, because what you have been doing with your user page is keeping a political blog. Like this one but without the graphics. There's a bunch of them at various levels of sophistication, all singing the same song, often in the same words you use. Why do you feel that Wikipedia needs more polemic? --Pete (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't consider it a blog, therein lies the difference. User:Nick-D suggested Twitter or a blog, I said I don't do either. He said fair enough. That, really, sums it up. Moving on...? Timeshift (talk) 00:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What you consider a blog is irrelevant. What wikipedia policy considers a blog is what we use to spot blogs. And as far as wikipedia policy goes: Your userpage has "LOOK AT ME! I AM A BLOG! I AM HERE IN SPITE OF POLICY! I AM A BLOG! LOOK AT ME!" written all over it. Everyone, regardless of edit count or other experience on and off wiki MUST abide by the very wikipedia policies that say your userpage is prohibited. Please READ the policies people have pointed out to you such as WP:NOTBLOG, WP:SOAP and others. Please pay close attention to the bit in WP:NOTBLOG that states the following: "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's 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." (Emphasis added). And before you ask, flouting a political bias is NOT considered to be relevant to contributing to the encyclopedia as you are supposed to be following WP:NPOV which clearly states "Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." (Emphasis added). - post by Barts1a.

I don't consider the revised changes and subsequent content on my userpage a "large amount" and other editors including multiple admins have agreed, as have the majority who have said keep. Timeshift (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the Wikipedia article, a blog "consists of discrete entries ("posts") typically displayed in reverse chronological order (the most recent post appears first)", and looking at Timeshift's user page from about six months back, stepping through it diff by diff, I see a series of discrete entries, usually displayed latest first. "I like it how often I get comments around wiki about my userpage," Timeshift says, which looks like a social media function, typical of blogs. We can look at the talk page and see some of these comments. If we apply the duck test, it's a blog. Wikipedia is not a blog. --Pete (talk) 01:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Also: Stuff like this where you go on a suspiciously blog-like rant puts into doubt that you do not consider your userpage as a blog because you are clearly using it as one! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 01:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a userpage, not a blog, and covers a range of things. Some latitude is allowed on userpages which has been stated by several admins, and i've compromised with an 80% reduction in text. I think we should see that the non-compromise delete option isn't even getting a simple majority, let alone a consensus. Timeshift (talk) 02:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:MAJORITY. Specifically the part that says "AfD is a discussion in which all participants are encouraged to give their own independent opinion. It is the ideas of individuals, not the propaganda of others, that is supposed to help determine the outcome. One who bases one's statement on that crowd as a whole is not making any useful contribution to the discussion, but instead blocking the progress of new opinions.". Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 02:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

See also WP:CCC. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 02:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I said I don't see delete with a simple majority let alone consensus. I didn't just say majority. Timeshift (talk) 02:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• Move to close It looks like no consensus to me, but either way, this has been going on for more than a week, and it is time to move on with our lives. -Rrius (talk) 07:39, 17 September 2012 (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.