Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Islamophilia

What is going on here? Why are there so many anonymous IP votes for Keep for this page? Why has User:Blackcats marked them? Are they sock puppet votes by Blackcats? Should this be reported to an admin? Axon 08:37, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I went through and marked the clear sockpuppets. It's been overrun. --FCYTravis 08:44, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Somebody keeps deleting "sockpuppet" from "delete" sockpuppet votes (assuming that if the only contribution of the user is this delete vote, it means sockpuppet.)

I have left "Read this first" on the main page, as it is (IMHO) a helpful reminder for people to exercise NPOV in their voting. — Dan Johnson ^T_C 19:06, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

Original Research Argument

Well, just because some people haven't heard of this word before, doesn't make it original research. See this for example. This French article exactly describes what is being talked about here. There are more references. Please wait for the article to get expanded. If you check the history of the article, the vote for deletion was added just a few minutes after the article was initiated. Clearly, the person did not wait to see what it is going to be about.

Comment made by Deeptrivia (talk•contribs)

• Yes, thanks for bringing in a French source on English wikipedia. That is immensely helpful for those of us who don't speak nor ever wish to learn French.Yuber^(talk) 04:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Many people speak French as a second language and adding the article will be of service to this people, thus increasing informational value. I do not understand the point of Yuber. --Germen 11:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dubious argument at best: the google test would still return the same hits if islamophobia were in more in use in the French language. Axon 12:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's a good reference, the language doesn't make any difference, it's a familiar enough European language. But the article was refused by Les Cahiers Rationalistes and eventually published by an extremist publication Liberty Vox in February. This makes it somewhat marginal. I still think it's too much of a neologism, and incredibly POV, to pass muster. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tally

I was of the understanding that VFD's were about Consensus and not a simple majority, and thus that Votes by established users outweigh those from anon IPs who were invited here by a user on an internet forum? --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:12, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

It depends really, administrator's discretion. If it's found that a VfD page is being abused then they will handle it differently... gren 15:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

TO THE ADMINISTRATOR

Many delete votes are sockpuppets. The "DELETE" vote is the only contribution/first contribution of these sockpuppet "users" to wikipedia till date. Irishpunktom keeps deleting the sockpuppet tag from "DELETE" votes. Why should Irishpunktom not be banned from wikipedia? User:141.151.238.172 (signed by AlexR 09:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) - obviously, the IP can shout, but not sign.)

This thast wonderful wikipedia community spirit I've heard so much about? --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:17, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I added [sockpuppet] comment to all unsigned comments. --Germen 11:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet comments

(This section was originally in the middle of the vote list.)

I just checked all these IPs. They belong to different parts of the world, so are definitely different people. You can verify this if you want.

They all popped up right around the same time, so it's probably just one or two people messing around with different servers and stuff. But it's a moot point, because even if what you say were true, then all that would mean is that somebody went on some anti-Muslim blog or newsgroup and asked all their internet-buddies to come and "vote" on this. Blackcats 02:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In fact, here is the page[1]. A deliberate attempt to game Wikipedia if ever there was one. I think this should be reported to the administrators. Axon 09:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Axon about the abuse; I am unsure about the article itself, leaning towards a Weak keep. jglc | t | c 16:32, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Question: Is it wrong to take VfDs to other fora? There's no forum of Wikipedians I know of. There should be some mechanism to make other wikipedians aware of a VfD in progress, rather than relying on votes of only those who happen to accidently drop by on the page, or those who have set Pages on votes for deletion as their homepage, and vote on every page marked for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deeptrivia (talk • contribs) 21:27, 14 Jun 2005

It is fine to publicise VfD within the existing Wikipedia community. There are pages that publicise all new VfDs and interested parties can subscribe to them. However, I believe it is wrong to post links to Wikipedia on external forum with the specific intent of trying to garner additional votes for your side, particularly when a VfD isn' going your way.

As we can see, this has disrupted this page flooding it with a bunch of anonymous and Wikipedia:sockpuppet votes that will be ignored. If you are the person responsible for the message on the Hindenet forum or some other forum I ask you take it down immediately. Axon 10:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note about sockpuppet

Administrator, please do not go by the sockpuppet comments written by some people in front of some votes, because some of them are totally wrong. I was surprised to find sockpuppet against my vote of keep . I have over 100 edits. See my contributions here: [2] It's clear that someone here wants to get this article deleted by hook or crook, just to prove a point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.203.202.156 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

I concur, crooks indeed. This is not atypical of those who wish to defend their cult. Some crook wrote sockpuppet next to mine as well. user:Fresca Scongili Butifara June 20, 2005