Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lolepic028091


 * 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. Nominator convinced Deletion not necessary non-admin closure)--gordonrox24 (talk) 11:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Lolepic028091
User page of a user suspected of being a sockpuppet of a banned editor. If the original account is delete, what is the use of this page? gordonrox24 (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per my nom.--gordonrox24 (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There are hundreds of userpages of blocked or banned accounts that look just like this. Although we should try to deny recognition to such persons, it is also important to identify banned users returning as socks to vandalize. This user has not yet been blocked either, although there one edit would seem to indicate a disgruntled user returning to vandalize. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Even just this information, about the suspicion of being a sock, makes this page worth preserving. There is nothing on this page that degrades the encyclopedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep 1) Accounts are only blocked, not deleted. 2) The page helps other editors to identify sockpuppets. If they return under another name, we need the history of such people to identify them. 3) This user doesn't yet appear to have been confirmed, so the template is needed as a marker. - Mgm|(talk) 09:02, 27 April 2009 (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.