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

 __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:  keep. ✗ plicit  23:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/KurdîmHeval

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

This LTA page seems to be not necessary for this particular sockmaster. By all accounts, this LTA report seems to go against the WP:LTA instructions. "Names should only be added for the most egregious and well attested cases". This sockmaster seems to be a relatively small nuisance, there are many sockmasters that have a lot more socks and have caused a lot more disruption that do not have LTA pages. v/r - Seawolf35 T--C 13:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that this is a small nuisance. If that is based on the small amount of examples found in this report, that should not really give the impression that the disruption was limited. I can easily bloat the report by countless diffs by the LTA. The LTA has been socking continuously for 3 years, has edit-warred, removed content, misused copyrighted content, added pieces of information either unsourced or with sources that do not support the change aimed at misleading other editors. Lately, the sockmaster has been using IPs to evade the block, which the SPI report or the LTA report does not cover, although I could have added those to this report. It is often possible to find socks or IPs used by the sock (evident from behavioral cues) lingering here and there as they circumvent detection. The track record is pretty long to fully elaborate. This is not at all a small nuisance. Aintabli (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - Do the instructions for long-term abuse pages need to have advice for when these pages should be deleted? My opinion is that these pages, once created rightly or wrongly, should not be nominated for deletion without a reason, and that maybe nominating them for deletion should be restricted to SPI clerks.  The reasoning behind nominating LTA pages for deletion may be Deny Recognition or Do Not Feed the Troll, but nominating the page for deletion gives the sockmaster (whether or not a troll) more recognition.  These pages should only be created in egregious cases, and, once created, should be left alone unless there is a reason to expand them.  Maybe we need instructions.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - as there are 8 confirmed socks, and 8 suspected per Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of KurdîmHeval. I wouldn't call this a "relatively small nuisance", - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Bound to increase. Soon... Aintabli (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep, as per the arguments above. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2024 (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.