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. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tetra quark/myuserbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Inflammatory and divisive userbox violating WP:Userboxes#Content restrictions, no transclusions, creator is indeffed without talk page access. A2soup (talk) 06:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as polemic, and no need to keep such things particularly when they are unused. Scr★pIron^IV 14:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as offensive userbox. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The are still suspected sockpuppets by this user, who behaviour is reflected with this User's page. If deleted, we will be unable to divulge future sockpuppets of this very determined User who wants to edit. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we blank the userbox or does that cause problems for SPI? Legacypac (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand this objection - how does deleting their userbox impede SPI? No socks have ever edited this userbox. A2soup (talk) 07:32, 3 March 2016 (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.