Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/IphisOfCrete's multiple sandboxes

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: keep. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IphisOfCrete's multiple sandboxes[edit]

All of these sandboxes were created by IphisofCrete who abused multiple accounts and all of his accounts have since blocked infidelity for sockpuppetry since May 1 of 2020. This user and his alternate accounts have come under concerns of paid editing. Subject matter includes companies like Chvker Jewelry, Mountainside Fitness, and Qwerkz. A quick search on Google would show there are not notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. The first sandbox listed is of a band called Halflives which already exists as an article since August 2019 and the sandbox has existed since December of the same year. Clearly, there is no encyclopedic value to these sandboxes and they are not going to reworked or cleaned up since the user and all of his accounts are blocked for good. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I still say WP:G5 should apply to pages created by illegitimate sock puppets, regardless of when the sock master was caught. Now that I look for it, do we really not have an element of the deletion policy which covers drafts by undisclosed paid editors when those drafts aren't themselves overtly promotional? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated them for G5, but it was reverted because they weren't created while the user was trying to evade his ban. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, unless a request for deletion comes from an SPI clerk or better qualified. If there is no other reason to delete, which there appears not to be, then pages are not deleted because the user was subsequently blocked. Note discussions in the archives of WT:Deletion policy, a page being the product of undeclared paid editing is not a reason for deletion. These nominations therefore amount to some kind of shadow SPI clerking and gravedancing. Any editor may pick up on these drafts and continue. The user may achieve unblocking. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe, that's not going to happen. All the accounts were blocked on the same day. I don't see where you would get the idea of a shadow SPI clerking. I've nominated them for speedy delete, that didn't work. I don't want to have to keep nominating them when a simple deletion would work for everyone. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have presented no valid reasons for deletion, and G5 does not apply. SmokeyJoe (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have presented valid reasons. There is a sandbox where a page on the same topic already exists. All the other pages are of non-noteworthy subjects. I know G5 doesn't apply. If speedy delete should apply then what category, G8? G11? I'd say a few of them fall under G11 because of promotion.--WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Every reason you gave is not valid for deletion for a user sandbox. Using MfD to clean others’ userspace is not productive. If there are reasons for deletion relating to the reasons for blocking, that requires input from an SPI clerk. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's the very thing I have been saying regarding the one user and his abuse of multiple accounts. Sockpuppetry is the reason all these accounts are blocked indefinitely. While they were not created while the user was evading his ban for sockpuppetry, hence why my G5 tags were removed according to the admin who removed them. Four of the accounts on their respective talk pages have notices about his conflict of interest and/or the impression of having a close paid investment in many of the now-deleted articles he initially created. If a user has been banned for doing this, which he did many times, then this does qualify for deletion. Wikipedia is not for advertising or promotional purposes. I'm not trying to use MfD to clean another userspace. I'm doing this MfD to uphold the standards of Wikipedia. Pages like these shouldn't be kept especially when this user has an extreme conflict of interest. These sandboxes violate the standards we are meant to follow. The user is not coming back and certainly won't appeal his permanent block. There is no reason to leave things as they are. We can go to an SPI clerk or maybe the admin who enforced the blocks. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to use sockpuppetry as a rationale, then it is crossed into SPI territory. It is not normal to scrub the prior contributions of a later blocked editor.

If the issue is WP:COI or even WP:UPE, check the archives of WT:Deletion policy and see that there is opposition and no consensus for these things being deletion reasons, even in mainspace, let alone userspace. In short, if a speedy deletion criterion does not apply, eg not G5 or G11, then leave it alone.

The negative to the community of editors policing others userspace is a bigger negative than leaving these things alone. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also consider that deleting the contribution history of blocked sock violators makes it harder to detect their return. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All you can redirect the duplicate and blank the others if you must, but otherwise no PAG based reason for deletion has been supplied, and SmokeyJoe has already answered other outstanding concerns well enough that I see no need to expand on it. Really mfd is only for userspace drafts that are problematic even if blanked (see WP:STALEDRAFT). In general systematically patrolling userspace drafts is a waste of time, there are 10s if not 100s of thousands of these the vast majority of lower quality than the ones listed here (see also WP:RAGPICKING). We are safely ignoring those and there's no reason these can't be safely ignored as well. If you see one you think is problem just blank and move on; there's rarely a good reason to waste community time with an mfd. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2021 (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.