Wikipedia:Deletion review/Science3456

==== Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/Chess, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Funny, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Billion pool, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Trillion pool (and Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (13th nomination)) ==== These debeates were closed as keep by sockpuppets of User:Science3456 (the author of two of these pages). —Ruud 00:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. While these MfDs did end in a keep, I think that Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Billion pool and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Trillion pool (both created by a sockpuppet of User:Science3456) should be reconsidered in the light of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Quadrillion pool. —Ruud 01:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse closure of the GNAA one per the obvious reasons, even if the closer voted multiple times (according to the suspected cat). The Chess one seems fine, one delete vote and many keeps from regulars (hasn't this one been discussed before?).  /Funny is mostly the same.  Relist Trillion and Billion Kotepho 01:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This isn't meant to endorse the actual actions of the closer, just that they had the correct result. If someone wants to strike out the closures and replace them with their own that is fine by me, but I do not see a reason to revisit them (besides the poll ones). Kotepho 16:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If the sockpuppetry can be confirmed, a ban is in order. If not, these discussion should never have been closed by users of such inexperience.  Speedy-reopen the debates and allow a seasoned administrator to make the call.  If the answer comes out the same, fine.  But closing deletion discussion is not an appropriate role for a user on his/her first day of logged-in edits.  Rossami (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Rossami is, of course, correct. Especially because this user has been implicated in sockpuppetry, he is no position to close debates even if they are obvious keeps (and overwhelming keeps are able to be closed by any user in good faith).  However, I'd suggest that the outcome in the case of "Funny" and "Chess" is unassailably correct, and any administrator could ratify these closures easily.  The close of GNAA, mandated by a de facto ruling of the administrators here and on WP:AN, is appropriate.  Billion and Trillion should be Relisted (not reopened, as the debates are now aged, and suspect for puppetry anyway) for new consideration. Xoloz 15:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)