Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 26

message: Following the template standardisation competition a new  template has been created.  This uses the new standard talk page scheme and shows an old VFD in much the same way as we have old PR and old FAC nominations listed.  I think we should start using this for a nice and consistent way of showing the progression of an article. violet/riga (t) 09:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  oldvfd template 

message: It seems like all of these articles still have the vfd tag even though their discussion has been closed. Is there more to the process, or does someone just need to get around to it? --Dmcdevit 00:45, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Austrian postal codes 

message: Is this one sufficiently old that the vfd notice can be taken off the page? 24.54.208.177 03:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a pretty clear keep, so I closed it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:17, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Barefoot and pregnant]]

message: Thryduulf requested (on WP:AN/I) a check into GRider and Tallyman's correlating behaviour. They have similarities, but there wasn't enough for me to be reasonably confident they were the same person. There does appear to be sockpuppet theatre going on here, though. A combination of reviewing edits, IP checks and a check with Tim Starling for further technical info lets me state with reasonable confidence that GRider, HERMiT cRAB, Tallyman, ..-. ..- -.-. -.- ..- and almost certainly Jonahhh are the same person. Furthermore, they have also set up accounts G Rider, HERMiT CRAB, HERMiT cRAB and TallyMan (note subtle variation). I've blocked the lot as sockpuppets. There's another bunch on associated IPs I'm still checking further.
I'd always thought GRider behaved oddly differently from a regular single-account editor, and this would explain it a bit - the sockpuppeteer, whoever it is, was treating it as a role account for particular types of edit and not bothering to humanise it much.
I eagerly await the no doubt perfectly innocent explanation in my email.
This particularly pisses me off because I actually completely agree with their view on school articles - I see no reason we shouldn't have an article on every high school in the world ever, if we have verifiable sources. But the way they've gone about it is completely unacceptable. With friends like these ... - David Gerard 12:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you allowed to ban things for being sock puppets? Kappa 12:17, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Sock puppet. When it's for purposes of deceptive voting on strawpolls (e.g. VFD), damn right. When it's for purposes of policy violation, damn right. When it's for purposes of evading arb com sanctions, really damn right - David Gerard 12:30, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't noticed Tallyman voting but I see it happened at least once :( I hope there's an innocent explanation. Kappa 13:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

text: However, David, on the high school articles, most of them are a few lines long and they include the same things as from the website. If the demand gets big enough, I would support the creation of WikiSchools. However, in the mean time, try to give WikiCities a shot for putting high schools in. Zscout370 (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: At present I'm concerned with the blatant abuse of sockpuppetry rather than the reason for them :-) I have some pretty damn strong suspicions of the real user, but those are only suspicions at present. Investigating - David Gerard 14:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: GRider sockpuppet theatre