The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. The general consensus here is that the page fails WP:SOAP and WP:NOTBLOG. T. Canens (talk) 04:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Timeshift9[edit]

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

A userpage full of divisive political commentary. If you look at the page history, you'll see BLP violations scattered throughout. The whole page is in violation of WP:NOTADVOCATE and WP:NOTBLOG. I brought this up with the user here, and although xe removed the more egregious BLP issues from the current revision, xe is unwilling to delete. My concerns lie both in the current revision and in past revisions; I think the whole thing would be better off deleted and then Timeshift can feel free to recreate a more appropriate userpage. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 20:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the bar here? Simple majority, or consensus? I would say it's already failed WP:CONS. --Surturz (talk) 08:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An uninvolved admin will close the discussion according to what they see as the consensus once it has run for 7 days.  -- Lear's Fool 09:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Four days into a seven-day discussion is too early to determine if there is consensus one way or another. The discussion should be allowed to run its course. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 13:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well here we are 7 days later and the votes are in: Keep 6 Delete 10. While it is a simple majority, I think that fails WP:CONS. --Surturz (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an election; there are no "votes" here. This is supposed to be a discussion about whether content belongs here; the closing administrator is supposed to judge the quality (not the quantity) of the arguments for and against, not mindlessly tally "votes" which are not votes. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is not an election, but neither do the quality of the arguments for and against matter. As per WP:MFD: "Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus (determined using the discussion as a guideline)". There needs to be WP:CONS to delete, it is not simply a case of convincing a particular admin. For the page under discussion, there clearly is no WP:CONS. We should (and do) have a very high bar for deleting user pages, and that bar has not been met in this case. --Surturz (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After participating in a few AfD/MfD deletion discussions, it becomes apparent that references to WP:CONS are not applicable. In the case of a user page, the only question concerns whether WP:UP supports retention of the page. In this case, the user page clearly falls outside the guideline, and it should be deleted in order to help the community focus on our primary purpose (the encyclopedia). Occasional expressions of personal interests and bursts of recreation are fine. However, a user page used as a blog is not appropriate, and there is no reason why other editors should spend time monitoring pages like this in order to request the deletion of particular items (according to User talk:Timeshift9#Your userpage, that has happened). Johnuniq (talk) 07:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep My 2c... I enjoy reading his user page, but I think Shifty should be strongly encouraged to move the commentary to an off-WP blog site (are there any blog sites that use wikimedia markup?). If not, he should at least have a disclaimer at the top of his page saying that they are his views, and are not part of the project. BLP vios and personal attacks on other WP users should be disallowed from his page. Banning self expression on user pages is contrary to the aims of the project. Many editors are motivated to contribute to the project by the benefits to their online reputation and the esteem in which they are held. --Surturz (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove the political commentary - Wikipedia is not a blog or a soapbox. The userboxes can stay, but the rest doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Robofish (talk) 00:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As mentioned on Timeshift9's talk page, "NPOV is for articles, bias is better declared". It appears that the page is useful to its creator and no one is obligated to agree or disagree with these views. Vetting each piece of commentary on a userpage is a waste of time. I'm not even convinced of the utility of going around and policing userpages and threatening MfD nominations. GorillaWarfare's demands weren't made in bad faith and there's a limit to what may be allowed on userpages, but Timeshift9's page doesn't cross that line. Tact and opinion are variable, it's not unreasonable to extend a good faith tolerance to what fellow contributors have to say. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTBLOG. WWGB (talk) 06:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have already addressed the BLP vios and have made it clear that i'm happy to address other BLP vios if brought up. I do not believe my userpage is something to be voted upon and potentially its contents removed from me. Ive been putting my views and thoughts there for years, people don't have to read my userpage if they don't want to. It's not an article. To quote an admin on my talk page: "It's worth noting that editors are allowed, within reason, to use their user page to express their personal views as long as it's not judged to be offensive to an identifiable person/people or being explicitly used to recruit others. I've seen ultra right wing and borderline Nazi user pages survive MfDs in the past, for instance (though views on this kind of thing seem to be - rightly in my view - hardening). Editors are generally given a lot of latitude with what they use their user page for, though they do need to be aware that its content will guide other editors' views of them." Timeshift (talk) 07:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Editors are given considerable latitude with what they do with their user page, and while I wouldn't highlight Timeshift's user page as being good practice, it's not particularly bad either. It's his or her views and there's no attempt to sell anything, promote a viewpoint a reasonable person would find objectionable or bother other editors in general. Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Wikipedia is not a blog. Userpages of established editors are generally given great latitude. I agree that self-expression should be permitted on userpages. However, this page has crossed the line due to the excessive length of political commentary. The content here is best suited for a blog, and I direct Timeshift9 to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets#Directory of alternatives. A sample of the content in this userpage:
  
  1.

  "Bahahahahaha! But I still think Mr Downer said it best... both major parties took their plans to the election, and Labor won the election, so Labor should be able to govern with what they have received a mandate to do - so move out of the way and let the damn government get on with the job of governing! I realise this is a foreign idea to the SA Libs who have an annually rotating leadership especially when in government, but they really do need to stop concentrating on themselves and finally start concentrating on South Australia. Fight against the SA Libs trademark crippling conservatism and allow progress!!"

  2.

  It's rather disappointing that Liberals continue to propagate lies. Are they that desperate in their attempts to win government that the truth flies out the back door? Well, I then take it as a compliment :)

  3. A BLP violation that remains on the page:

  Let's just point out the hypocrisy for posterity. If any other major party leader stood in front of a reporter shaking in white-hot anger, speechless despite being repeatedly prompted for a reply to a tricky question, for TWENTY-TWO SECONDS, their career would be over. And it only came about because [redacted name] lacks the political and diplomatic nouse to realise that you don't swear generally, let alone in the above scenario, if you don't want to make a headline out of yourself. Gaffe-a-second [redacted name] is an embarrassment to the Liberal Party and politics generally, Menzies would be rolling in his grave. Sure [redacted name] can inflict damage on anything and everything around him regardless of the circumstances, but the level of intellectual dumbing and dishonesty and disservice [redacted name] does to the polity and democracy as a whole is not by any means desirable. How can any self-respecting Liberal support him...?

  The extensive political commentary falls afoul of WP:UP#POLEMIC, which prohibits: "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive)."

  Because the userpage's history has a wealth of BLP violations, because the page continues to have BLP violations, because Wikipedia is neither a soapbox nor a blog, and because the page violates WP:UP#POLEMIC, this page should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 09:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am becoming increasingly concerned that BLP has become a euphemism for political censorship. If there are specific policy violations on the page (policies which may merit reexamination themselves), then tell the editor what they are and get him to fix them. Common sense should tell us that it's better to talk to an editor about Wikipedia policy regarding a user page than about an article, after all. But deletion is not the appropriate way to deal with a content dispute. Wnt (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless the user quickly cuts the bloggy, soapboxie material himself. Warn him that if he refuses, other obstinants have has such pages deleted and their accounts blocked. See Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. Am less concerned about BLP issues, there is a big difference between current politicians and private people. BLP is not the boundary issue here, soapboxing is. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Remove the bloggy commentary - per WP:NOTBLOG Shot info (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is basically using the encyclopedia for the expression of personal views; when it is this extensive, it could be better done by starting a blog--which the user could then link to on their user page. DGG ( talk ) 07:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Misuse of Wikipedia (WP:SOAP—not a blog or soapbox, or for advocacy). A couple of paras with general views on a user page is fine, but this violates WP:UP as it is not helpful for the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 08:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTBLOG & WP:UP 76.102.140.205 (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Too many important contributers have been driven out of Wikipedia by debates like this already.--Grahame (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - really? Name one! --Orange Mike | Talk 20:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:YellowMonkey.--Grahame (talk) 00:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you know anything about that case? I ask because your assertion is not correct. Johnuniq (talk) 03:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per DGG and other notorious deletionists; this is simply not what a userpage is for, and is violative of WP:NOT#BLOG and WP:SOAP. Most of these are fragments, each of which would constitute an NPOV violation if inserted anywhere into an article, and seeming retained for Shift's amusement. He should start a LiveJournal or something. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the Blog. It is about as close to a blog as you can get here. I consistently vote Keep when people express their personal views in a userbox, because that's what userboxes are for. This is far too lengthy and blog-like and does not comply with userpage policy. That said, any of those things could be put standard-sized userboxes. I do not find them divisive or unacceptable statements. EdEColbert^{Let me know} 05:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep really, outside of quite extreme stuff, we should allow editors considerable freedom to arrange their userspace as they see fit. I cannot see how this userpage is disruptive to the project. Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 03:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.