Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikiversuite pages

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. Star Mississippi 14:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversuite pages

User:Carol45azel/WikemPG (including subpages)

User:Hazel45onnie/User Page Builder (including subpages)

User:Tonymax469/Wikiversal/WikemPG (including subpages)

User:Tonymax469/Wikiversal/Wikiversal Getting Started (including subpages)

These pages were all created by in 2012 to document and promote a piece of software written by User:Planotse intended to generate wiki content. All of these users appear to be sockpuppets created with the express intent of hosting one of these mini-sites and, in some cases, promoting it to new users - I'm not quite sure what Planotse was up to here, but it seems more than a little "sus".

This software is no longer available, so these pages no longer serve any purpose. I'm nominating them for deletion as part of a cross-wiki cleanup; some of them are linked to from pages created by Planotse on other Wikimedia projects (cf. b:Wikibooks:Requests for deletion#Wikiversal generated pages).

Omphalographer (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose using mfd to background clerk SPI. Do not delete unless the request is agreed to by a SPI clerk or a checkuser. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear: this activity all occurred in 2012, and, as far as I'm aware, all of the users involved have been dormant since then. It's beyond stale; there's no chance whatsoever that CU will intervene here, and I don't expect them to do so. Omphalographer (talk) 02:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have 237 edits. You arrived to go straight into XfD stuff. Now you’re clerking very old userpages of blocked users, and you’re telling me you known the behaviours of CUs. I suspect you to be violating WP:SOCK by editing projectspace not using your main account. What prior accounts have you used, and how do you come to concerned about these very old pages, which have no pageviews or incoming links? SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, this is part of a cross-project cleanup. Please refer to my global account list if you're concerned about my low edit count on this project. Additionally: some of these subpages are actually linked from other projects using direct URLs, e.g. on b:User Page Builder/Topic List. Omphalographer (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:SmokeyJoe - Please assume good faith on the part of User:Omphalographer. They are primarily a Commons account with 33,000 edits. If you look at the pages that have been nominated, and the contributions of the former editors who created those pages, you will see that the editors who created those pages came to Wikipedia user space twelve years ago, not to contribute to the encyclopedia, but to peddle software. The fact that they used four accounts is not the reason why their stuff is being nominated or why it should be deleted. This was U5, misuse of Wikipedia as a web host, apparently to promote the sale of software. The fact that they used four accounts is incidental. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. It might be helpful to put a soft redirect from User:Omphalographer to your main userpage.

Delete per nom. There are reasons to delete without considering that the author is blocked. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All:
- - A review of the contribution histories of the contributing authors shows that none of them made any contribution to Wikipedia other than these edits to peddle software, so that these pages all qualify as U5, web hosting.
  - The contributing authors could also have all been indeffed as not here to contribute to the encyclopedia, because they were only here to peddle software.
  - As the nominator points out in passing, Tonymax469 was trying to promote their software to new users. That would have been a reason to block them. This is a deletion request, and the reason for deletion is that this is a misuse of user space.
  - The fact that the three contributors were probably sockpuppets is only an observation and not the reason for requesting deletion.
  - Maybe the authors and Planotse should have been reported to SPI twelve years ago. That is not important.
  - It doesn't matter whether there were three humans behind the accounts, or one human with three accounts, or if one human did all of this with one account. It is spam.

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No historical value. Good to go.—Alalch E. 17:07, 24 September 2024 (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.