Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 10

I commented on talk

Hi. Can you fill us in on the talk page? Valid comments are being "crossed out" and out-of-range requests for the closing admin to "ignore" them are being made. Only sockpuppets that are abusive within that cfd/afd should be ignored: like two sockpuppets "voting" or commenting. TDL31 03:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I moved this from my talk page to unify discussion) - Your note causes me to wonder who "us" is, first of all, second of all, constant reversion (which I think put you at least once in violation of the WP:3RR policy) is not the way to bring forth a concern. - jc37 20:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of comments

As noted by User:Hornplease on one of these cfds, crossing out these comments by User:And beyond is not sound. Crossing out comments by his/her sockpuppets on the same CFD is and should be done. However, if only one "sockpuppet" voted, one cannot "remove" their contributions TDL31 03:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Runcorn was absolutely justified.Bakaman _Bakatalk 16:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Boscovic and User:...And Beyond! were blocked [1] and then 7 hours later, your account User:TDL31 was created at [2]. You, as User:TDL31 immediately go to work removing the sockpuppet notices for User:Boscovic and User:...And Beyond!. That is good enough evidence for me to strongly suspect that you are a sock.

WP:Sock defines abusive use of socks to include casting multiple votes on a single issue. You did so, for example at Category:Christian mathematicians here and here --BostonMA 17:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against crossing out the sockpuppets statements, at least I'm against blocking out non-vote statements. That said I also think Runcorn's statement noting that User:Boscovic and User:...And Beyond! are sockpuppets should be maintained. In fact I see no reason to delete those as in other delete votes such statements are kept. Mine is a compromise position and as such it's possibly inconsistent, but it's one that I think makes sense regardless.--T. Anthony 23:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately admins do treat this as a vote, so votestacking should be stopped and sock votes should all be crossed out.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]