Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rktect/Doug Weller


 * 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 Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 10:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Rktect/Doug Weller
Wrong. Just... wrong. Rktect is a long-term serial offender in inserting WP:OR, behaviour for which, after a debate at WP:ANII have now blocked him indefinitely; Doug Weller, by contrast, seems like an inoffensive chap whose only "crime" is inserting material which is... er... factually correct and referenced. This page really cannot go anywhere at all and appears to exist only because Rktect is rebuffed by just about everybody so can find no venue for his odd ideas other than his user space. Wikipedia is not a free webhost, and personalising things in this way is really not on. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, per nom. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Rktect appears to have been blocked indefinitely a couple of days ago, in case that becomes relevant. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair point, and it was me what done it, so I have noted that above. This page was mentioned in the same debate that led to the block. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * From Rktect's talk page Doug Weller is an administrator who has gone to other editors talk page, started a new section called Rktect, and then complained about me. As this has been going on several months I have begun to collect some of the comments on my user page. I am now blocked and unable to continue to respond or to ask for help but I would like to keep that information for use in arguing my case. Rktect (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC) placed here by dougweller (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Serves no purpose whatsoever, as far as I can see, other than as basically a list of quotations regarding him and Doug. Administrators can view deleted pages, and I'm sure it would factor into consideration for any block appeal regarding Rktect.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 23:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Under a week old. And appears to be a scratch page for a potential AN complaint against doug. No attack in it, which rather suggests this usage is correct.  Collect (talk) 11:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to be missing the point: Rktect was accused by Dougweller of WP:OR. This judgement was supported by everybody else who reviewed the case.  Rkect has done very little since arriving here other than promote his novel syntheses, often in direct contradiction to reliable sources.  Rktect has been blocked several times for this and is currently blocked indefinitely for it.  To treat the two complaints as equivalent is simply false. Guy (Help!) 17:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And the WP policy for userspace specifies allowing material which may be used in a dispute resolution process. It does not say "only if you are the one who is right" last I checked. Collect (talk) 11:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Rktect has created four subpages like this, none of them has ever led to any form of dispute resolution. There is a long history of dispute resolution in respect of Rktect; I think it's fair to say that in every case the complaint has been (or has immediately turned) against Rktect and has found against him. None of this is actionable, it uses a real name not a Wikipedia username and is Googlable.  Rktect's past history includes a lot of abandoned user space pages saying how he was right all along, in every case the result of process and consensus having shown the precise opposite. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or Rename the page. I think Dougweller is right and Rktect is wrong, and support the indef ban; the page seems to be a poor excuse for evidence against the ban, but it seems unduly punitive to trash the evidence storage in userspace.  There doesn't seem to be any attacks as of yet.  If the name of the page is somehow offensive, or a violation of WP:POINT, then rename it to User:Rktect/Quotes or something like that to solve that problem.  (Disclosure: I've created a page called User:THF/Wikidea when I thought I might need to open an RFC on a user who was having a conflict with me before helpful admins interceded and mooted the issue. I hope that hasn't violated any policy; if it has, let me know, and I'll rename it.) THF (talk) 21:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're safe there, that is much more specific, focuses on fixable and otherwise addressable issues, and is clearly intended as part of dispute resolution, not POV-pushing. There is sufficient independent support for sanctions against Wikidea that you could readily move that to RfC and have it certified. Guy (Help!) 22:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have now discovered this user's RWI. This article is basically an off-wiki WP:BATTLE brought to Wikipedia.  This page should now really be deleted under WP:CSD; user:Dougweller can fill you in by email if need be. This is one of a number of current and deleted attack pages created by Rktect, none of them is ever brought to a conclusion, they simply remain forever as "laundry lists of grudges".  Guy (Help!) 22:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And how is his RWI supposed to affect how we view the rationale for deletion? Collect (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the essence of WP:BATTLE is: don't bring your battles to Wikipedia. Which is what Rktect has done.  Admittedly it's a minor part of what he does, for the most part he brings novel synthesis. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 15 February 2009 (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.