Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Sakda Kulnaphang

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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Sakda Kulnaphang

I think creating an xfd for this is such a waste of time and resources but what can you do when sometimes common sense is not there. I added CSD tags to similar pages before, which had no meaningful history other than pure spam and didn't have problems like this, I saw many similar spamming cleanups in recent changes as well. But this time bumped to these csd rejections while I was cleaning up spam of a cross-wiki spammer. The user page has no meaningful history other than spam, and like I already said in edit summary it could also be problematic because of the things like personal info or even call it copyvio because of the copy pasting. Either way no reason to host the spam and its history here. Also including this spam page from same cross-wiki spammer in this nomination: [1], csd declined with "author is not blocked" reason, too bureaucratic imo (I mean, you're an admin and it's obvious, block it then?). Anyway, I see no reason to host both spam pages of the cross-wiki spammer, both could be speedly deleted. Tehonk (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is eligible for speedy deletion as G5, although it isn't exactly the usual G5. The originating account has been globally locked by stewards as a sockpuppet of a globally locked user. The master account was already globally locked at the time of creation of this page. A global lock is a blocking mechanism; it just doesn't look the same as a regular block. Since we are here at MFD, we can go ahead and delete this page via MFD rather than explaining why this is a non-standard G5. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. G5 would have applied, but a participant has recommended continuing this deletion discussion which means that speedy deletion is controversial, which means that speedy deletion is not applicable any more. No other speedy deletion criteria appear to apply very strongly, except for G11, but after a declined U5 is feels like G11 is exhausted too, because they so often go together / are often interchangeable in userspace, and so, after one decline and an MfD nomination, even G11 seems unlikely to be actioned. There's at least a 50% chance that an administrator would recommend continuing ths MfD duscussion. Speedy deletion is in practical terms exhausted for this process, so a reason to delete in the form of a speedy deletion criterion applying does not exist any more. A talk page with exclusively non-talk spam content should be deleted, but if it is blanked instead of deleted, that sufficiently addresses the issue and multiple people do not need to revisit this issue over the course of seven days. Speedy deletion would have been fine as it is quick but a full discussion to revisit a blanked page is too onerous. Therefore, my recommendation is to keep it based on no deletion reason seriously existing for a blanked page such as this, and based on an objection to using MfD to revisit blanked spam pages (they would have to contain something extraordinarily bad).—Alalch E. 11:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A talk page with exclusively non-talk spam content should be deleted, yes exactly, that was the reason for tagging it. I did it before for pages exactly like this one while cleaning up some cross-wiki spam and they were not rejected, I have seen other users tag similar spam talk pages with "exclusively non-talk spam content" as well and they were actioned. So there's no blanket rule of "talk pages cannot removed", they can be removed if it's only spam and there's no meaningful history like message of others. Blanking does not sufficiently address copyvio issue or things like personal info contained in history. In the end, there's no reason to keep hosting gibberish and spam page created by globally locked cross-wiki spammer. Tehonk (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tehonk: Blanking sufficiently addresses "innocent" spam. But speedy deletion is also an option, especially if the talk page is recreated with a record of the user showing signs of a predisposition toward creating inappropriate pages. I personally prefer speedy deletion of a talk page which is subject to speedy deletion under a literalist reading of CSD. Non-talk-content talk pages are sometimes created as pure spam where the spammer probably did not know or care about the specific role of talk pages on the project; in my CSD log you will see multiple talk pages which I tagged and which were then indeed deleted; sometimes they are blue links because the admin might have posted a post-deletion notice/warning, recreating the talk page (see the twice-deleted User talk:Apostle Valor C Magwegwe#February 2023 for what I believe to be a nice and positive example). But blanking works. By blanking, Justiyaya created a good revision. Because any 0 byte revision of any talk page is a good revision of that page (because a created talk page that is blank is still a functional talk page). If a page has a good revision it should not be speedily deleted. It's one or the other. Not blanking then tagging. Especially not restoring spam and tagging. That's all wrong. —Alalch E. 23:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re speedy deletion is not applicable any more - speedy deletion criteria can still be cited as a reason for deletion at MFD, though; as Wikipedia:Deletion policy § Deletion discussion states that deletion discussions can be used to debate contested speedy or proposed deletions. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 17:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, we do not usually delete user pages except in exceptional circumstances; block evasion really isn't one. A trout to the nominator for restoring blanked content for what appears to be justification for the tags (i.e. they could have just left things be at that point). Primefac (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if Tehonk could please indicate the source of the content, otherwise we cannot call it copyvio because of the copy pasting. Primefac (talk) 12:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen "only spam" user pages like this one deleted many times, I tagged similar pages and I have seen others tagged them too. U5 or G11 generally applies for "only spam" pages like this one that has no meaningful history other than the spammer like a message of another user.

for the copyvio question: it's a copy paste from the spammer's other internet profiles or blogspot blogs etc. there's no need to post a spam link here really. Tehonk (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is, because if I can't find the text then I don't know if it actually is a copyvio or not. Currently the copyvio tool shows no matches. So yes, please do post a link to the content so it can be RD'd if necessary. Primefac (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: Taking U5 as an example, U5 content can be "kzaaaazza is best rapper" or it can be "bbobby b. bowser +7777 444959 919, [full address], excavation technician i love god and my wife mary jane". This can happen on any newly created page. Sometimes this page will be the user's talk page. Should any random recent changes patroller be advised to treat talk pages differently and to never tag them for speedy deletion, but to blank? In my opinion, a random (averagely capable and discerning) recent changes patroller should be instructed to follow the letter of CSD and simply tag, and an administrator should decide what to do. With the latter example, which is hardly an exceptional circumstance, I believe the responding administrator should delete the talk page and recreate it with a warning. The question then is: How hard should an administrator think about whether particular circumstances justify deleting a talk page, i.e. how much mental energy should they spend on giving special consideration to a talk page as a special type of page, to be able to make the optimal call. I think that it's better that they delete the former example too then to be paralyzed thinking "nah, talk page, deleting those is unpopular, pass". From this I conclude that talk pages should be treated the same as user pages. —Alalch E. 23:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I did say "rarely" not "never". Primefac (talk) 07:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ simply as G5, as Robert McClenon, Alalch and ‍a smart kitten explained it applies here. Too many words for a pure spam. I accept the trout for restoring while tagging though. Tehonk (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Striking duplicate vote, as this is the nominator. Primefac (talk) 07:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac I don't think that was a duplicate vote, not only I saw many cases of nominators "officially" voting after discussion, I was also told by an admin counting nom a delete vote could be "reading into the comments" and "guess how they might vote if they chose to (but they didn't chooose to)" Tehonk (talk) 07:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have misunderstood what Liz was telling you, though without knowing which AFD she is referring to I cannot explain it further. Primefac (talk) 07:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that wasn't what she said, then what I said (that there was 3 delete votes) was true because there were literally 2 delete votes in the comments and I said 3 by counting the nominator. But anyway this is off-topic for here. Tehonk (talk) 07:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as U5, G11 (spamuser), or just normal MfD close, as there is no talk page content on that page. If this exact content and history had been at User:Sakda Kulnaphang it would have been uncontroversially speedily deleted (which it has been deleted as but I can't see the contents). If, insted, a talk page has any talk-y content, then blanking the offending content would be current but I believe U5 should be interpreted as applying here (which I know is seen as an expansion ~~from how~~ by some editors ~~read it~~). Skynxnex (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC) 01:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on principle. A blank user talk page is not worth repeatedly editing and creating a whole new page where community time is taken to determine what to do with it. Blank it and move on. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Robert McClenon. The thinking behind G5, U5, and G11 applies, making a reasonable argument for deletion. Declining the speedy nominations was appropriate, since the situation was more complex and so warranted a discussion, as has happened here. That said, I'm not sure this was worth the fuss; blanking as a purely editorial action, as an alternative to deletion, would have been adequate too. Martinp (talk) 08:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the original speedy deletion tag was correct and it's silly to need an MFD here, but at least it provides an opportunity to re-establish and reiterate our precedents and values. We have no obligation to indefinitely host every random spam page people create here. We have an active obligation to find and remove spam in all namespaces. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:58, 7 March 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.