Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rocordman

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

The result of the discussion was:  delete. Salting an editor's main user page or their sandbox would be an unusual step. The possibility of a block or other sanctions against the editor should be taken to a venue for discussion of behavioral issues. RL0919 (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Rocordman

 * – (View MfD)

This is basically a rehash of Roc Ordman, which was deleted as WP:FRINGE and failing WP:PROF. Also nominating:

as more of the same. Both of these are basically misuse of user space for self-promotion and WP:FRINGE theories. I found these via a DRV that I speedy closed, so rather than just delete them myself, bringing it to MfD so a wider audience can evaluate them. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I recently edited and posted the information on my user page. I thought the user page was to explain who I am and what I am doing. Isn't a user page to explain who the user is? I would be glad to discuss editing with anyone. It is true that I am trying to promote my scientifically based supplements recently developed to reduce the risk for Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, cancer and heart disease, and the scientific basis for how the nutrients work. I thought wikipedia was an effort to inform people about legitimate published science, among other things. I simply wish to contribute to that. My user page explains that, I hope. Rocordman (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to broadly keep this, but it needs pruning. I think it's reasonable to state personal interests, but WP:OR is no more permissible on a user page than in mainspace. OR doesn't mean that we disagree with a conclusion, just that we don't cover original research, we wait until there's WP:SECONDARY coverage. Also WP:FRINGE would apply, if the page goes beyond "I work in this field, I've published this" and it goes into "I discovered that has ", stated as a claim of fact. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Deferring a statement to see other editors' views. I see the arguments for and against.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete both, as they have self-promotion and WP:FRINGE written all over them. For example: "vitamin C cure for cancer", irrelevant talk of consciousness, neutraceuticals, and soliciting for online study participants in the sandbox. The user even admits above: It is true that I am trying to promote my scientifically based supplements... Looking through the user's contribs, there seem to be major self-promo and fringe issues throughout. A case for WP:NOTHERE could perhaps be made. -Crossroads- (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, SALT, Block - as per Crossroads, this passes a different duck test than usual, because it quacks of quackery. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I also support a block, because this user is likely to sneak in fringe medical content somewhere where others don't notice, and that is an unacceptable risk. I also support salting. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:34, 2 October 2019 (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.