Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism

See also: Talk:Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism

Chameleon seems to misunderstand the reasons for the spinoff
Chameleon claims the spinoff was because this subject was controversial and wikipedia discourages that. More likely is that the defenders of the original page wanted to keep the page as pure uncritical POV. An analogy would be the communism page where the "purists" did not want the baggage of the communist state in their article. That the communist state was deplorable is not even controversial, it had to be spun off because the communist purists did not wanted to be painted with the practical consequences of their ideology.--Silverback 00:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not familliar with any of the above, and likely neither are many other editors, too. I encourage you to remain topical and stick to subject at hand. El_C 00:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It is argument by analogy, sometimes it is the original article, not the spinoff that is controversial. If you are not familiar with the above you should either familiarize yourself with it or refrain from commenting, until you do become familiar with the topic at hand. --Silverback 00:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It isn't the topic/article at hand, actually, and I have neither the time to read endless discussions without links to pertinent content disputes, nor the inclination to accept your interpertation of which. I, again, urge you to remain topical with your analogies, allegories, metaphors, juxtapositions, etc. El_C 00:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Apologies, apparently you missed the comment, I'll do better than a link, I will actually quote Chameleon "Our policy discourages the creation of spin-offs consisting of the controversial bits of other articles.". It is from the first paragraph of this project page.  It is strange that you are spending time here without reading it.--Silverback 00:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I am, of course, more than pleased to accept your apologies, Silverback, but I do refute the conclusion you arrived at above on the basis of (your own) 'appearences,' and I encourage you, instead, to refrain from overlooking my vote or comment (one of which directed towards your comment, specifically, for that matter). Lastly, I find it rather "strange" that immediately following your apology, you would go on to infer what I have or have not read. I encourage you to seek clarifications in that sense prior to so swiftly jumping from appearences to (would-be) definitive conclusions. El_C 01:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No. This fork was spun off not because it is controversial, but because it was bloated. One criticism is being blown out of proportion, and given a section the size of all other criticisms combined. The reality is, the economic and human rights criticisms are much larger and much more important issues and need to be accorded space that is proportional to their importance. You, and several others, refuse to allow an NPOV summary of the section, and so you decided to spin it off hoping to avoid NPOV if you took it to another page. This issue is addressed in the globalization article itself, and does not need its own article.--    Revolutionary Left   |  Che y Marijuana 03:03, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * If it was too big for the article, then indeed it should be spun off, with a NPOV summary and link provided. That is what is commonly done for all large Wikipedia articles. Jayjg (talk)  03:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It was too big for the facts. The facts are, it isn't a big enough issue to justify that big a section, and certainlynot big enough to justify a whole article. It's a smear section, nothing more. The summary is more than enough.--    Revolutionary Left   |  Che y Marijuana 03:39, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * In essence, correct. El_C 03:42, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * But this is simply asserted, El C. It has not been shown. If it were as marginal as people here are claiming, it wouldn't have been so easy to find the references. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:53, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * How do you define the difference between something that is "big enough to justify a whole article" and something that is "a smear section, nothing more"? Jayjg (talk) 03:50, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I can tell it's a smear, because the main arguments against the anti-globalization movement, combined, were left with a section smaller than this one. Those who created this article had actively sought to pad and inflate that section beyond the main criticisms, which needed expanding much more than this one. Now that they were told they had made a mistake, and that the section was to be cut down to a size proportional to its importance as a criticism, they went and spun off a whole article for it. Something the main criticisms don't have. If anything, those sections should get an article far before this one. But then again, this whole thing was created in a politically motivated manner. Hence, smear section.--    Revolutionary Left   |  Che y Marijuana 03:58, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * How do you distinguish "main arguments against the anti-globalization movement" from other movements? Your statement that the "main" arguments were left in a smaller section than this may logically indicate any number of things, including the possibility that the section providing arguments against the movement is too short.  A perusal of the article would indicate as much; fully half of the Criticisms section is itself devoted to "counter-Criticisms" defending the movement.  Furthermore, a review of the edit history and certain related Talk: comments indicates that the excision of this material was done "in a politically motivated manner" after it had existed there for over a month, and after an apparent consensus to leave it in by the very editor who decided weeks later to excise it. Jayjg (talk)  04:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The article needs alot of work, one of the ways to improve it, was the summarization of that particular crticism. There was a section developed with an expanded coverage of the main arugments, but it never made it into the article because of the issue over this section. Regardless, the work over the article, which I see as one of the weakest political articles on wikipedia, is not helped by the irrational manner in which this section was and is being treated. The whole article needs to be redone, and criticisms expanded upon, but the way to do this is not by spinning off a section we all know is POV and unworthy of its own article.--    Revolutionary Left   |  Che y Marijuana 04:22, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * And, as I said, we shouldn't reward poor editing with an (very own) article. El_C 04:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * While the section may have been poor and POV before, it appears to be vastly improved now. We shouldn't reject good editing because the original version was poor; in fact, that is how many articles up for VfD are saved, when someone improves the content. And we shouldn't "reward" consensus breakers. Jayjg (talk)  04:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * [Indentation madness!] Well, then back to the article it should go, not to the forking, which I find to be consensus-breaking. As I said, it's too marginal a phenomenon within the movement as a whole. El_C 04:44, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Legitimate or not
(Copied from voting page)
 * Note: the article has been tidied and references have been added. The allegations are certainly notable: for example, there's an article about the issue on a website run by Yale University. SlimVirgin (talk)  20:14, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

If I could briefly respond to that note: This isn't about notability, it's about it being a pov fork in that the phenomenon is too marginal to be written on outside the main article (and when it does, pov is the result). It should be made clear this is what many on the delete camp are arguing, better referencing and npov language notwithstanding. El_C 02:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It's clear from Anti-globalization that there was an attempt by several editors to delete all mention of anti-Semitism from the article, or drastically reduce it, which is worrying. Therefore, that section was moved to its own space and has been extended and referenced, and if it stays, will be extended further, so it is no longer appropriate to move it back. This is a legitimate topic, much discussed in Europe by academics and journalists, and is part of the drift of the far Left to the right, focused in particular on the anti-globalization and anti-war movements. I've yet to see an argument, as opposed to an assertion, from anyone that this topic or the title is either non-notable or is inherently POV, which is what would have to be shown for it to be legitimately deleted. Here is a paper  (pdf) on "The British Left and the Jews" by Ben Cohen, a journalist and broadcaster who has served with the United Nations Protection Force. He argues that "the delegitimisation offensive against Israel presently pursued by sections of the anti-globalisation movement, the far Left and certain periodicals of the moderate Left ? many of whose themes are shared by Islamists and parts of the far right ? can reasonably be said to have begun in the aftermath of the 1967 war. It was then that the difference between the anti-Zionism of the ancien Left and that espoused by its new incarnation was established. As Robert Wistrich has argued, in becoming a ?code word for the forces of reaction in general,? Zionism assumed a global importance for the contemporary Left that not even Marx and Lenin could have foreseen. Consequently, ?[t]he extreme Left in western societies not only denigrates Israel and Zionism in a systematic manner, but its irrational hostility frequently spills over into contempt or antipathy towards Jews and Judaism as such." Perhaps if we want to continue this, we should go to the talk page so as not to take up more space. I'll copy this to there. SlimVirgin (talk)  04:51, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

(copied from the voting page) Within the movement it is a marginal phenomenon. Of course, I remain open to persuasion. El_C 04:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * But how can you know that it is a marginal phenomenon with the movement? And in any event what matters is not how marginal it is within the movement, but how much it is debated by reputable, mainstream sources, and it does seem to be the subject of significant debate. We must, as always, go with the references. We should continue this on the talk page. I'll copy this to there. SlimVirgin (talk)  05:02, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * This is the talk page, we are continuing it! On the basis of social-scientific evidence, I better. No, it could all be linked. I am unconvinced by the extent of debate in relation to the movement as a whole and its respective coverage on other fronts. El_C 05:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The reading of the article has given me the impression that there is an extremely tiny minority of "Anti-globalization" people who are indeed borderline to antisemitism (as in the overall population), and that this is used, deliberately or by clumsiness (unnuanced comments), to taint the whole movement. This can work quite well in the the USA, since it is usually pro-Palestinian and anti-Israelian; in Europe, where a critical view of Israelian policies is a common public opinion, this sort of story has very scarcely been reported, if ever. Also (I do not mean to imply that I am an authority in the subject, but) having patroled the "Anti-globalization" camp during the WEF of Davos (on official duty for the government, not as a militant), I have seen nthing of the sort. What I did see were very naive people who are a very easy target if somebody wants to deform their statements. I thank you for the improvements made on the article; I even considered changing my vote. Yet, the article summarises very well into "Some people, particularly on the Right-wing, accuse the movement of having a tendency to anti-semitism (insert refs here). The Anti-globalization militants and other institutions (insert refs here) point to the fact that in these studies, opposition to the Israelian governement is often assimilated to anti-semitism". And that's it. The numerous quotations show a nice documentation work, but face it, they are mainly ranting and counter-ranting a add very little to the whole point. Rama 05:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Very well said! El_C 05:41, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Rama, bear in mind that all that was done with the article was a copy edit and adding some references. It hasn't been expanded yet, and discussion is continuing at Talk:Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism regarding how best to do that. I wouldn't agree that this issue is not discussed in Europe: it's discussed quite a bit as I recall, particularly in the UK and in Holland. It's just a question now of tracking down the references, and providing an analysis (so long as one has been published) as to when this started, why, and how widespread it appears to be; and also how "anti-Semitism" is being defined by the various authors, and what the concrete examples of alleged anti-Semitism are. My worry about this VfD, and the attempts not to allow this material to be included in Anti-globalization (though admittedly it was not properly referenced), is that it looked as though some editors were trying to defend the movement rather than describe what people say about it. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:00, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * You cannot really take the United Kingdom as very representative of the European public opinion. Holland is better... But if you look at countries like France, where antisemitism is a very "sensitive" point (for historical reasons, and also because there has been a tendency of anti-semitic acts to rise, which is turn were exploited and bloated very much by the Israelian government and Jewish far-right-wing organisations), I have not seen a widespread concern about this in particular; you can be absolutely certain that if someone gave the press the slightest pretext to do a fuss about it, it would start in a minute.
 * And again, I was following what happened in Switzerland very closely, and I though there were indeed lots of problems, and lots of things which illustrated the the "dark" side of anti-globalisation (or the "not-so-bright" side thereof, in all meanings of the word :) ), this particular one was not reported.
 * I fear that this is mainly some sort of misunderstanding. Perhaps most people who criticise Israel in the United States of America are flirting with antisemitism, but it is not necessarely true for all countries. In fact, applying the political spectrum of one country on another often leads to abherrant results.
 * This is why I think that the overall thing does not deserve more than a (rather anecdotic) part of the article on Anti-globalisation (unless, of course, I am struck with an enormous display for antisemitism, but for now this has not been the case). And of course, this relevant part needs to be as good as possible, and there should be no question about censoring it. Rama 09:03, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually there was quite a fuss in France. It's been some time ago, but I found this ref from the news magazine Le Point:
 * http://www.aidh.org/dial_rel/tr_bhl.htm
 * The author is the respected philosopher Bernard Henri-Lévy, and the person accused of anti-semitism is an imam from Geneva, Tariq Ramadan, who became entangled with antiglobalists. As I remember it, the antiglobalisation movement later on cut its links with T Ramadan, but for some time the whole thing was very controversial.Luis rib 09:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Ramadan stinks very much indeed, but his views are those of a modernised and westernised Isamist fundamentalist, not those of a typical left-wing anti-globalist. Also, Bernard Henri-Lévy is mainly known for being a noisy wannabe celebrity who would make a fuss of nearly anything to have five minutes in front of cameras. These two combined will be as noisy as a real problem, but they won't make one (apart from the the discussion on the nature of the press and information, but that's another story) Rama 09:41, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually it's not another story, but it's THE story. I don't believe that the anti-globalisation movement is antisemitic, but there was a media fuss that it was. This article should look into that media fuss, see what was correct and what was not, how the different actors reacted, etc. I don't think it should be deleted since many less relevant subjects have their own page (e.g. different Pokemon characters, for Heaven's sake!!!). Luis rib 10:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, yes and no. You have a very good point, but this is drifting from "anti-semitism" to "study of the way that anti-semitism is insinuated in the media". If this story was the only one which refered to the problem, for instance, the discussion clearly would not belong here, but on the Bernard Henri-Lévy or Tariq Ramadan. There are legitimate concerns about anti-semitic tendencies in the anti-globalisation movement, we would need to identify the "canonical", most revelant criticism, and discuss their validity. This particular one seems to me as borderline to the topic. Rama 11:54, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Rama, if I am to understand you here, you are saying that this is a legitimate topic, if not a well written article. If this topic is legitimate, why the yes vote on the deletion? Surely there have been articles written more poorly than this (if that is indeed your contention) that were salvaged. TDC 03:01, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * It is indeed close to my idea of the subject for now. I think that it is a legitimate topic, but I do not think that it is "big" enough to deserve its own full scale article. For now, I feel that the subject could be appropriately covered by one or two paragraphs in Anti-globalization.
 * It goes without saying (but I will say it anyway :P ) that I reserve the right to change my mind if I ran across new elements. Rama 08:00, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The main issues
Well, wouldn't the page be the perfect spot for identifying "canonical" criticsims? Personally, I don't know much about the subject; I only remember the Ramadan case and the José Bové case. But it seems that there were also other criticisms (e.g. Chomsky). Since it is indeed a marginal subject, putting it back into antiglobalisation would be stupid, but since it did generate some controversy, I think this page should be kept and NPOVed and cleant up. Luis rib 12:06, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It seems to me that the relevant questions are:


 * (a) Is the title inherently POV? (if so, change it);
 * (b) Does the content necessarily reflect a tiny-minority view? (if so, delete);
 * (c) Can decent references be found? (if not, delete);
 * (d) Is the content irredeemably POV? (if so, delete);
 * (e) Have credible voices been raised about the issue of anti-Semitism with the anti-globalization movement? (if not, delete).

My answers:
 * (a) I have no problem with the title being changed if others want that;
 * (b) It may be a minority view, but the references show that it is not a tiny-minority one;
 * (c) Decent references can be found easily, and hopefully better ones will be found after a more thorough search;
 * (d) The current content is not up to scratch but there's no reason to believe it's irredeemably POV, because references are available arguing for and against the thesis and they'll be presented in full;
 * (e) The references even in the current version show that the sources are credible and aren't all partisan i.e. people who would oppose the movement anyway.

Also, I don't see this as an issue that's confined to the U.S.; in fact, it's less of a problem in the U.S. than in Europe. The focal points seem to be the UK, Holland, and of course Germany. Rama, you said elsewhere that the UK isn't representative of the views of Europe, but it's part of Europe and a large sector of the anti-globalization/anti-war movement comes from the UK, so it can't just be excluded. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:17, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, by saying this, I meant that there are very deep traits in the British Weltanschauung which are distinct from the other European countries. I didn't mean to exclude the United Kingdom (not any country, for that matter), only to emphasise that the way that people see the world is an important factor to keep in mind when reading a newspaper.
 * I hope I will not annoy you too much with an example, but for instance, in France, a recent declaration by Le Pen caused a wide outrage; he had said that the German occupation of France had not been particularly cruel, compared to the one of Poland. This statement is factually true; yet, there are some things which are regarded are exceptionaly tasteless to say, and he will in fact face trial under the hate speech laws for this. On the other side of the Atlantic, there are countries, where there are overtly Nazi parties, or where sites like http://www.godhatesfags.com/ are legal.
 * A naive citizen of the USA might think that France is a dictatorial country where there is no liberty of speech; similarly, a naive Frenchman might focus on the openness and tolerance of far-right sites to infer that such opinions are common and well-accepted in the society of the USA. In fact, for what I have seen, there are an awfull lot of naive people everywhere, and I often run across such inferences, bases on facts taken out of context and read through the lens of another nation's particularisms.
 * Now, to come back to this article, it leaves me with the impression that proeminent intellectuals and Jewish personalities dimiss most of the accusation as a confusion between anti-semitism and criticism of the State of Israel. Some of the examples, and the photograph, are taken from the Swiss summit of Davos; but Switzerland is a country where Pro-Palestinian opinions are extremely common and widely accepted, especially in the Left (and even more in the far-Left --- every Saturday, you have little stands of Pro-Palestinian militants selling Arafat-looking scarfs, and such).
 * So my point is that unless we can distinguish a significant, and genuinely anti-semitic tendancy, in the movement, most of the arguements on this page sort of cancel each other, and can be reduced to one or two paragraphs which would fit better in the Anti-globalization article. Another arguement in the direction is that, in addition to the fundamental defiance against spin-off articles, this one would one of the innumerous "anti-this in that" series, which I feel share a tendency to take things out of context, and whose informations would generally fit better in the original articles.
 * I must add another nuance, which is that nothing that I have said (including the part on spin-offs) is a dogma; I reserve the right to change my mind on particular points according to the informations which I will read, and to take case-by-case decisions if I feel that it is needed. Rama 08:00, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Rama. Your views are, as always, insightful and helpful, and I do take your point that, if not enough material can be found, it would fit better in the original article. I also agree with your point that forks take material out of context: that's a very important point actually. Thank you for raising it. The problem with Anti-globalization, as I see it (and I was not involved in editing it), is that one or two editors, primary Chamaeleon, appeared to have taken control of it, and wouldn't allow more than a cursory reference to the anti-Semitic charges. There's very little discussion on the talk page, but around 20 reverts in 2-3 days of the anti-Semitic references. With that kind of attitude, it becomes almost impossible to add intelligent material in a nuanced and context-respecting manner. If there were no independent references to support the material, then I'd support reverting and nominating any POV fork for deletion. But there are references, and they seem to be credible. So the question becomes: how representative are these sources? And we won't know how to answer that until we've done the research, but we can't reasonably be expected to do that research while the VfD is going on, in case it's a waste of time. So once again, the same editor (Chamaeleon) is distorting the editing process by having nominated this article for deletion so quickly (and said on the talk page he thought it a good idea that the material become a fork, so that he could have the material deleted entirely from Wikipedia). It would have been good if reasonable editors could have gotten together, done the research without feeling rushed, and then come to a reasonable NPOV conclusion: either yes, there's enough here for a separate article, or no, there isn't, let's write an intelligent, well-referenced section about it for Anti-globalization instead. So I feel there's a lesson to be learned here about the importance of giving people time to put a case together (so long as there are references; I'm not including material here that has no third-party support and is original research) without having serial reverters bearing down on them. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:52, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, in reality it has been 2 editors refusing a summarized version, and probably 6 editors insisting on the shorter one. If this is to be addressed in a seperate article, then it must be in an article on racism in general in the anti-globalization movement, addressing such phenomena as third positionism, Fascists that attempt to adopt the left-wing slogans and imagery of the movement to give their racism an air of legitimacy. It must also make clear how unwelcome they are. It should address different kinds of racism, that includes neo-nazis covering themselves in red, that includes the islamists, that includes the tin-foil hat brigade (conspiracy theorists, and it should address how the anti-globalization movement responds, with examples such as ARA, ANTIFA, RASH, etc... and how those groups tend to use the "bat to the face" method.--    Revolutionary Left   |  Che y Marijuana 18:36, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * So until all those other phenomena are (in your view) covered properly, this can't be covered properly? Jayjg (talk) 18:42, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not completely in agreement with Che y Marijuana in the sens that I do not that think that there is one way to do it. What we are now trying to do is to represent the phenomenon of anti-semitism among anti-globalisation; this phenomenon is inscribed in several contexts, and what we have to do is to find a resonably good way to represent the matter. A corrolary of this is that it is important to read the materials which we could have at our disposal and derive a description from it, rather than come with a pre-concieved idea and try to back it with selected material.
 * I will also emphasise something quite close of what SlimVirgin said: the extreme polarisation of the debate around this matter seems to have induced, among other pernicious effects, the notion that the matter must be settled in emergency, conflictually if necessary; I have had the impression of witnessing this when I tried to defend SlimVirgin's version (a one-paragraph summary of this article, and a link to it) as a temporary solution, and was taken in what seemed to me like some sort of cross-fire. It would really be positive if everybody (I would hate to say "both sides") could be convinced that it will not be the end of the world if the article stays in an imperfect state for a few days while we craft a better version on talk pages.
 * Also, though most of us are here to write the encyclopedia, and thus to offer our knowledge, let us not forget that there are often things we can learn even about familiar subjects. Sharing is not only giving, it is also accepting in return (and sorry to sound pedantic). Rama 19:02, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * All I am saying is that if this is to be its own article, it needs to be moved to an article on racism in the movement in general, and we should develop those things into it, I'm not saying it would have to start in a perfect state right away. I'm just saying that this is the only way to address this issue and the reasons behind it properly. That would allow us to address the whole phenomenon of nationalism and racism and what spurs it in the anti-globalization movement.--    Revolutionary Left   |  Che y Marijuana 19:26, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * This proposal has the merit of addressing the whole problem, while taking an approach which can not be immediately suspected of merely relaying Israeli far-right-wing propaganda, for instance, and thus address some of the concerns raised by Che y Marijuana and User:Christiaan, if I have understood their point correctly . It is an interesting one, and I look forward to see the discussion on this. Rama 19:42, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Che, first, if you look at the paragraph Chamaeleon et al were prepared to allow, it is very short, and it stated or implied that only Conservative critics have made the anti-Semitism charges, which is not the case: the claims, in fact, come from a number of directions. Second, in your post above, you also seem to imply that the alleged anti-Semitism comes only from the right, from nationalists and neo-Nazis, but as I see it also comes from the left, usually represented as anti-Zionism. This is not to say that all anti-Zionism is necessarily anti-Semitism, but the relationship between the two is complex, and when people say they are anti-Zionists, it's not clear that they're even sure what they mean. This subject alone is therefore complex enough: if we were to include racism, nationalism, neo-Nazism, Islamism, and fascism within the anti-globalization movement, political analysis would become impossible. I very much agree with Rama: that the extreme polarization and being rushed into the decisions because of the VfD has led to bad editing that does neither "side" any good. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:47, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Just as an aside, I also suspect that most of the good sources in this area are not online, and we may have to do some real research (going to libraries, sending off for books and academic papers: all that almost-forgotten stuff ;-) ), which again speaks to the issue of time, because we clearly can't do that in time for the VfD. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:51, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Number of articles edited - relevant?
I can't understand why people with few article edits to their name should have less of a say than those who have several, or many - unless this is a case of voter fraud, in which individuals create new accounts for themselves just for the purpose of voting. --Leifern 21:44, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
 * That is exactly why we make note of such possibly fraudulent voters.  :) &mdash; Helpful Dave 22:17, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Because of a number of reasons. They may be examples of voter fraud.  If not, then in any event it is not likely that they are familiar with the Wikipedia policies governing deletion, and so may well be voting for reasons which are not relevant to Wikipedia.  And finally, votes are supposed to represent a consensus of the Wikipedia community; new ids created for the purpose of voting are not part of the Wikipedia community. Jayjg (talk)  06:58, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Now we're seeing a new phenomenon: sockpuppets created for the purpose of saying that legitimate users are sockpuppets (see User:CarloGiuliani's edit).  :) &mdash; Helpful Dave 10:44, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, getting your girlfriend to join Wikipedia and vote your way isn't exactly sockpuppetry, but it's not amazingly far off either. Jayjg (talk) 00:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Erin does whatever she likes.  :) &mdash; Helpful Dave 01:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * to be fair, the koala username was not used in hd's RfA catastrophe.CarloGiuliani 01:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being fair, but can't you be fair using your real user name, instead of this sockpuppet? :) &mdash; Helpful Dave 09:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Not to mention people who operate under different aliases in Wikipedia. --Leifern 22:52, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
 * No, that is sockpuppetry, not a new phenomenon.   :) &mdash; Helpful Dave 23:33, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * So Jayjg, I suppose you've never asked someone on Wikipedia to look at something, or help you with something on Wikipedia? I am a legitimate user on Wikipedia and will make my own decisions. Please to not insult me by calling me a sockpuppet or insinuating that I do what HD tells me.--Chammy Koala 11:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure I have Erin, but I don't think that's quite the case here. You were away from Wikipedia for over a year (after making very few edits beforehand).  You showed up again to defend your boyfriend, who was getting quite a lot of criticism after he put the article up for VfD and made some contentious statements in defence of the VfD.  Then you made a few edits to other articles, and then voted to delete this one.  It's hard to imagine that you would claim your re-appearence here had nothing to do with Dave's VfD. Jayjg (talk)  15:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * jayjg didn't call you a sockpuppet, i called you a probable voting sockpuppet. you probably do share the same ip and everything. whilst its very sweet to see usernames back each other up, remember that this is the internet, and nothing is ever as it seems...CarloGiuliani 11:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Honestly, it was a bit sad that you thought you had to a: hinde under your girlfriends skirt, b: beg contributors to come and pile on this VFD in your favor. Face it, you lost, not shame in that, but stop compounding your failure. As I told you before, I will make it my life mission on Wiki to keep this infromation here. TDC 14:28, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, for Heisenberg's sake, you all stop it ! Or at least, cancel each other out in a blow of pure energy and let grown-up use the resources of Wikipedia Rama 14:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)