Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Mexican media image vandal

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The result of the discussion was: nomination withdrawn. Not sure there's much point keeping this open, as it's clear what the outcome will be given the comments so far. I will leave the management of LTA casepages to the SPI/CheckUser team. (non-admin closure) firefly ( t · c ) 07:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Mexican media image vandal

I am in general unconvinced of the utility of LTA casepages, but putting that aside as I realise that is probably a minority opinion, this specific page doesn't appear particularly useful.

Casepages make some sense when the actions are complex, hard to detect, or otherwise require preserving institutional memory. Disruptively adding images to specific articles meets none of those criteria, and surely can be handled like any other vandalism. firefly ( t · c ) 10:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose clerking of LTA or SPI subpages, unless requested or supported by an SPI clerk or better. MfD regulars are not qualified for this. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

For reference, see Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archives/Archive23#Suggesting SPI subsume LTA, and an SPI CSD criterion. I believe that SPI should take ownership of LTA (and close it if they wish), and manage it including deletions without reference to mfd. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep, these pages are helpful for admins (once I reported a "LTA" IP range, and an admin suggested me to create a page for them). Although "surely can be handled like any other vandalism", it is not handled like any other vandalism. Recent parrollers see this and they don't think "Hey, that's vandalism". This user has been explained several times about Wikipedia and the layout, even in Spanish, where they come from, and the user still doing it, even globally. That's the purpose of that page, to inform other about these actions and not to assume good faith on someone that is trolling around. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 22:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Keep. There's some issues with how LTA works now (many of which are noted in the above cited WT:SPI thread), but basically, LTA is a tool of SPI, and as SmokeyJoe noted above, it really doesn't make sense for LTA pages to be managed by people who aren't involved in SPI. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Roy, I'm confused. If you believe that LTA pages should only be managed by SPI folk, then why do you want to keep an LTA page that isn't?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I didn't look to see who created it. My logic is simply that SPI folk should own LTA pages, so using MfD to decide what to do with one doesn't make any sense to me. Perhaps "out of process" would be a better way to say this, rather than "keep", but the gist is the same: "Don't use MfD to delete this". -- RoySmith (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep. I'd be inclined to keep this page at this time. I'd prefer if it was userfied, and don't think it belongs in the 'main' LTA list, but can see some reason for it to exist. I also think SmokeyJoe is mostly right. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:47, 13 October 2021 (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.