Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bobby fletcher


 * 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 debate was  Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Bobby fletcher
Delete, violation of WP:UP, "non-encyclopedic related material" and "Advertising or promotion" of weblog. User seems to be a single-purpose account. Veritas (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Veritas, I disagree with your on all accounts. The only reason I mentioned my blog is because it contains the sourced citations in my edits. It is not for commercial purpose at all.
 * All newbies starts out with one interest, so what? Chinese politics is a broad subject. Is interest in US history "single-purpose"?
 * Your accusation against me does not stand up to reason.
 * Bobby fletcher (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputing Veritas' "single-purpose account" accusation
Here, I have in the past made edit that is not Falun Gong related:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi_Mak

I believe I have proven Veritas' "single-purpose account" accusation to be invalid. There are other examples of my edit that are not Falun Gong related, but I only need one to prove you wrong Veritas. Bobby fletcher (talk) 04:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputing Veritas' "non-encyclopedic related material" accusation
Veritas, I read WP:UP, and I believe you are mistaken:

1) my weblogs are related to my Wikipedia activity

2) it does not contain "Extensive discussion" unrelated to Wikipedia. Matter of fact it contains no discussion at all.

3) there's no "Excessive personal information". a) define "excessive"; b) it has no reference to anything personal eg. name, address, phone #, sexual orientation, etc.

4) I have not expressed "Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia". a) define "extensive"; b) if there's any personal opinions, they are related to my edits in Chinese politics, current events, Falun Gong's impact on Asian-American communities.

5) it does not contain any "Advertising or promotion of a business", "purely commercial sites or referral links"

6) All material are encyclopedic related; they point to my research and the sources for my contribution on Chinese politics and current events.

7) it contains no polemical statements

8) it contains no attack on other editors

9) it contains no games or roleplaying session

10) it contains no Communications with anyone

11) it contains no images

12) it contains no Categories or templates

Therefor, I must insist you are wrong. If you do not respond with sufficient factual citations to back up your harrasement, or refuse to retract your nomination, I will file a complaint against you. Bobby fletcher (talk) 05:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Bobby, I was reading what you had to say right up until you threatened to file a complaint, then you lost me. That's not WP:AGF at all and does not help your defense of the page and you can't demand a retraction of an MfD.  Until that point your vehemence was at least tempered by reason.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 06:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you saying I can't complaint about bad faith nom? How should I handle this appearant bad faith nom?


 * Doug, I read WP:AGF and it says "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." Well, go look at the edit history in my user page, and you'll see why I have reason to believe this nom is made in bad faith.


 * BTW, it seems AfD can be retracted:
 * http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=wikipedia+retract+%28MfD+OR+AfD+OR+VfD%29


 * Bobby fletcher (talk) 06:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Doug. Anyway, there is enough evidence to support my assertion that this particular userpage violates WP:UP.  I removed the information initially, but the user in question disputed it so, as the next proper course of action, I submitted it for MfD.  Since you dispute my judgment on this issue, the next stage is for the community to discuss the issue here and decide by consensus if the page does violate the policy.  This is the purpose of MfD and the nomination will not be rescinded by threats. --Veritas (talk) 07:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Doug, do you blame a relatively new editor for not understanding our processes and wanting to "file a complaint" when faced with a wholly unnecessary nomination such as this? WaltonOne 08:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:BITE and Editors matter. I have no idea what the nominator thinks he's doing. Editing solely in the area of Chinese politics does not make someone a disruptive SPA; nor is the userpage in question excessive in any way. Lots of Wikipedians have a link to their blog on their userpage. Bobby fletcher is entirely correct on every point above; there is no aspect of WP:USER which this page violates. Deleting the page will do no good other than driving the user away. To the nominator, please start thinking when nominating pages for MfD in future. WaltonOne 08:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Additional note. I think I was possibly too harsh to the nominator in my comments above. I recognise that Veritas is acting in good faith, and I hope he will learn from this experience. It isn't really Veritas' fault at all, in fact; the problem is that our rules (particularly WP:NOT) are so vague that editors often over-interpret them. IMO this is yet another sign that we need clearer rules relating to userspace deletions - I would rather have "bureaucracy" and "instruction creep" than vague and unclear policy. WaltonOne 17:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Dispute Veritas, can you show us what is this "evidence" you speak of? I still have no idea what it is. You 'blanked' my user page without leaving any comment in Talk. When I invited you to state your reason in Talk, you ignored me. Bobby fletcher (talk) 09:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as having a single link to a blog is perfectly fine. It's using the userpage as a blog, or excessive promotion of one that is not allowed. The user has also editing a number of different articles, and it doesn't matter if they are all in the same broad subject. Veritas was also out of line to blank the page rather than discuss it here or on the user's talk page. I'd suggest speedy close unless legitimate complaints can be brought up, or current ones given more evidence. - Koweja (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Two sentences does not qualify as excessive anything, so non-WP material and/or advertising in this manner has rarely been allowed to qualify as "excessive"; therefore, I cannot support the claim it violates UP#NOT. -- 12 N oo n 2¢ 15:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, suggest speedy close. There's nothing wrong with the user page, and User:Bobby fletcher is a good-faith editor who doesn't come close to qualifying as an SPA.  Per WP:UP, a user page is designed to give other editors an idea of who they're dealing with; seems to me this one qualifies. -- jonny - m  t  16:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Suspect Bad Faith Nom Veritas has thus far refused to either 1) back up his nom with factual evidence, or 2) retract the nom. Please look at my User page history, as I believe the fact no discussion preceeding the 'blanking' and MfD inconsistent with WP:UP "avoid substantially editing another's user page", and previous incident of vandalism, might be related. Bobby fletcher (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Sources and citations for articles should be in those articles; nowhere else. "Advertisement" is a broad term, and by no means limited to commercial purposes. This page, as it stands, is an advertisement for Fletcher, his blog and his opinions, and serves no encyclopedic purpose, except to disclose part of his ideological stance(s). -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  18:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The page stands as an advertisement for the user's opinions? Is not that what a userpage essentially is? He does not have 300 userboxes; he has a link. No offense, but you disclose your ideological stances on your userpage via userboxes, and it takes up much more excessive space than this userpage does. -- 12 N oo n 2¢ 19:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * comment - Okay, I follow your reasoning here; but there seems to be nothing to the userpage but an advertisement for a blog and an off-Wiki article; and I felt that the preponderance of advertisement was the violative issue in judging whether it failed WP:UP . -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  20:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I never viewed it in that light. So I guess the interpretation therein lies in whether it is excessive in total or in comparison. I accept that argument, but for my own !vote, I would say 2 sentences and a link is fine. :) Thanks for the clarification. -- 12 N oo n 2¢ 20:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Orange Mike, you have three E-links on your user page.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep What? A two sentence user page where he mentions that he has a blog on a topic related to his Wikipedia edits?  The key part of WP:UP is "substantial".  One cannot reasonably interpret two sentences as substantial. --JayHenry (t) 20:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Abstain - The discussion suggests Veritas acted out of line and the page should stay but refusal by Bobby fletcher to acknowledge that a nominator could be a complete jackass and still act in good faith is unacceptable. Civility should remain even when you feel you are the subject of direct attack, let alone a likely misunderstanding.  Besides, I am confident that the rest of the folks here will take care of this in an appropriate way.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 20:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And since this isn't a vote anyway, I haven't really abstained at all.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 20:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment Okay Doug, your point on not biting back is taken. I guess I have trust issue, after my user page was vandalized, and then myteriousely 'blanked' and MfD'd; I have no idea how/why am I UP#NOT.Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per WP:USER and all "keep" comments above. A four-sentence userpage containing two external links is not something that needs to be taken to MFD, particularly when the editor is an active, legitimate editor. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record there seems to be a dispute over the meaning of the word "substantial" in the WP:UP policy which I interpreted to mean the portion of the particular user page in question that is made up of non-encyclopedic or promotional material. It seems, however, that the consensus weighs toward "substantial" meaning some vague and undefined variant of "a lot." If that is the consensus then, of course, I accept that. Anyway this user seems unusually hostile since he percieves this MfD to be an attack.  Thusly, I am choosing to disengage and will not attempt to argue the point.  Simply, it's not worth quibbling over. --Veritas (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment For the record I disagree with Veritas' "non-encyclopedic" claim. My blog contains the sources I used in my edits (GO/NGO position paper, media report, etc.) I also disagree with Veritas' "promotional" claim, as per WP:UP, "Advertising or promotion of a business", "purely commercial sites or referral links"


 * There's nothing commercial in my user page. As to the hostility claim, I absolutely reject. Veritas the hostility is entirely from you; there's nothing to quibble over, you ignored WP:UP when you blanked my user page without any comment, and MfD, again, without any discussion that could have resolved simple mis-understanding on your part.


 * I hope for your own sake you have learned something from this experience. I know I have. Bobby fletcher (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Half the user pages on WP should go if this one should. What's the beef here? The user was never even blocked, so I don't even see why people would be mad enough to try and delete his userpage. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 20:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is how people are expected to link to external sites of personal interest.  Mango juice talk 21:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep bad faith nom. Nom seems assumes bad faith (User seems to be a single-purpose account.) then wonders why the user in question is hostile. (Anyway this user seems unusually hostile since he percieves this MfD to be an attack.) -- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please Help It seems the editor who vandalized my user page has done it again: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ABobby_fletcher&diff=186377368&oldid=186359980 What should I do? BTW I'm so not a Chinese spy 8-) Bobby fletcher (talk) 14:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I see nothing wrong with this.  Also, I will warn the user that appears to keep want to readd that information to Fletcher's userpage, so hopefully they will stop...  The userpage shows no real signs of the advocacy noted by the nominator... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  14:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This is strictly on the userpage, not the user's behavior. Please calm down, Bobby. It bothers me a bit when a one sentence deletion reason leads to a 12 point rebuttal. Someone asking that your page be deleted is not an attack on you. It just means that the user thinks that the PAGE shouldn't be in its current form, not that what you are doing is bad in some way. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 12:12, 27 January 2008 (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.