Should accounts that have posted spam and don't appear to have contributed any non-spam content to the site always be deleted?
My understanding--from limited observation and this may be wrong!--is that we at least delete these accounts when:
- they are repeat offenders--that is, when they have posted more than one spam post on Ask Ubuntu, or
- they've posted one spam post on Ask Ubuntu but at least one other on another Stack Exchange site, or
- they are most likely connected to other recognized spam accounts, for example by a similar name, very similar posts, or have used the other account's name to post spam elsewhere, or*
- possibly, if they post spam that is especially harmful, for example by linking to a site that tries to install malware that causes data loss on visitors' computers.
But I'm not sure we delete them just for posting a single, ordinary spam question/answer.
In spite of having articulated that list, I'm not advocating for creating formal rules about when to delete spammers' accounts. Rather, I'm asking--should all spam accounts be deleted, or just under aggravated circumstances like those given above?
If I see a spam post that's been automatically deleted by spam flags (for those to whom that may be confusing: 10k users can see deleted posts) such that no moderator was involved, and I cannot find any other posts by the spammer (no legitimate content, but no other spam either), should I recommend to a moderator that the account be deleted (for example, by flagging)? Or should I only do this once the spammer has spammed again?