Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Oluwa2Chainz

 __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. ✗ plicit  00:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Oluwa2Chainz

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

This page was originally created as a draft and then moved by the creator,, to Oluwa2Chainz Sockpuppetry and Undisclosed paid editing, where they tagged it as an essay; moved it to the Long Term Abuse prefix (which I believe leads to its automatically appearing in the user page sock template and on the SPI case page) and subsequently removed some of the more hyperbolic phrasing in these 2 edits. (Disclosure: I became aware of the page when Usernamekiran noted it and their edits to it at the recent AN/I discussion on Celestina007, and subsequently quoted removed text from it in that discussion.) If Oluwa2Chainz presents an ongoing threat to the encyclopedia so as to warrant an LTA case page, it should be overwritten in unemotional language with specific information, in parallel with other LTA case pages. However, the last discussion in the SPI archive is from November 2019; I find no indication this user qualifies as an ongoing LTA threat, and have consulted an admin in case there are relevant deleted edits and understand that there are none. Therefore I advocate deletion, if only under the principle of not troll-feeding, but more importantly as an attack page without useful purpose. I would suggest userfication, but I believe the same principles apply to having such a page in user space. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per Yngvadottir. Serves no useful purpose, and if it isn't an attack page, it is a close approximation of one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Yeah basically an attack page, I don't see much useful information for identifying future socks. Galobtter (pingó mió) 00:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Userfy or move to a less prominent namespace. Not withstanding that its creator is now probably out of the picture, I fully understand and appreciate 's arguments but I did not read it as an attack page per se. IMO it documents some historical and very disturbing facts which may be useful for future UPE/SPI investigators who may not have the right to view deleted material. Having once upon a time been an ardent NPPer and pursuer of socks and SPI,  if I were still an admin and a fully active user, I would not be able to put this story completely out of my mind. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * delete I had multiple concerns with it as soon as I saw it, and discussed it with it Cabayi special:permalink/1088593032. That discussion is very short, but meaningful. That page was originally meant as an essay in WP space, with super-duper inappropriate tone for WP essay. The most troubling for me was this "O2C factor". I believe nobody knows this term, and Celestina invented the term by themselves, and decided to present it as well known, and community accepted term. This "essay" is not suitable for LTA page either. That editor is just an average sockmaster, at tops, just a little above average. I wanted to take this to MfD as soon as I saw it, but I decided to wait till the ANI thread was over, didnt want to gang-up on Celestina. In case, some information needs to be documented like Kudpung suggested above, it should be done with WP:TNT, and it would require only two small paragraphs to include all the information/MO of this user. No need for such puffery/praise/odd language. Delete per Cabayi's, and my own statements on Caybayi's talkpage (permalink provided in in this comment above). —usernamekiran (talk) 04:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say he was just an 'average' sock, . Issues like these might not be as rare as they seem. Some of us have long institutional memories and haven't forgotten Pastor Theo. I too had multiple concerns when I read it; sure, the tone was  super-duper inappropriate, but what gave me pause might not have  been the same as yours and Cabayi's worries. I think the essential content should be kept if someone were indeed prepared to tone it down. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete (along with all its shortcuts) - the page contains nothing which helps identify O2C socks. I'm not a huge fan of WP:DENY, but this essay does nothing but eulogise a long departed sock with no on-going benefit. Cabayi (talk) 07:55, 23 May 2022 (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.