From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I just noticed the following string of edits from the nominator of this article:11:02, 8 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Bali ultimate (→Chronology of Star Wars: new section) (top) rollback 11:01, 8 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Robofish (→Chronology of Star Wars: new section) (top) rollback 11:01, 8 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Dlabtot (→Chronology of Star Wars: new section) 11:00, 8 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Hiding (→Chronology of Star Wars: new section) (top) rollback 11:00, 8 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:EEMIV (→Chronology of Star Wars: new section) (top) rollback 10:59, 8 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Stifle (→Chronology of Star Wars: new section) (top) rollback 10:59, 8 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Orangemike (→Chronology of Star Wars: new section) (top) rollback 10:59, 8 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:OlYeller21 (→Chronology of Star Wars: new section) (top) rollback 10:58, 8 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:BryanG (→Chronology of Star Wars: new section) (top) rollback 10:58, 8 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Doctorfluffy (→Chronology of Star Wars: new section) (top) rollback 10:57, 8 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Gtstricky (→Chronology of Star Wars: new section) (top) rollback 10:57, 8 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Cameron Scott (→Chronology of Star Wars: new section) (top) rollback 10:57, 8 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Sceptre (→Chronology of Star Wars: new section) (top) rollback 10:56, 8 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Pd THOR (→Chronology of Star Wars: new section) (top) rollback Looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of Star Wars , the above editors with the talk page messages were all those who said to "Delete" in that previous discussion. The nominator as of the time that I am typing this post has apparently not contacted User:Sf46 , User:Jwray , User:Hobit , User:HJ Mitchell , User:DHowell , User:Cumbrowski , User:Dlohcierekim, User:Dream Focus , User:Peregrine Fisher , User:Colonel Warden , User:jc37 , User:Cube lurker , User:SoWhy , User:DGG , User:Firestorm , and User:JJL , i.e. the sixteen editors who said to "keep" in the previous discussion. My understanding per WP:CANVASS is that we must notify ALL participants of a previous discussion if we are going to do so and not just those who argued that way we agreed with last time. Sincerely, --A Nobody My talk 16:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC) [ reply ] I have notified everyone from the previous discussion that had not already gotten notice from either another editor or a bot about this discussion. I'm not convinced inviting everyone from a previous discussion that failed to achieve consensus will make us any better off, but the circumstances left me little choice.--chaser (talk ) 17:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC) [ reply ] Indeed. This kind of canvassing is severely discouraged. I only found out about this through the note on my talk page, and probably wouldn't have noticed it otherwise; to avoid stacking the vote, those who argued to keep previously must be notified as well. Robofish (talk ) 21:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC) [ reply ] Regarding this !vote , please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Everyme . With a discussion this large, I don't think a single !vote will make any difference, but it is something of which the closing administrator should be aware.--chaser (talk ) 21:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC) [ reply ]
It shouldn't need to make a difference, what with almost all of the keeps being either policy-free rhetoric or boilerplate from editors who reject WP:N . The socking, SPAs and canvassing will probably lead to a no consensus close anyway, sadly. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC) [ reply ] Why don't we try to start a fight, then? Because surely that will make the situation better.--chaser (talk ) 21:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not trying to "start a fight". FWIW I think your contribution to the AfD is one of the few comments for keeping worth listening to. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC) [ reply ]