Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of shock sites (fourth nomination)

Vote stacking
I'm somewhat concerned to find that the person who nominated this article for deletion on this occasion attempted to vote stack by talk page spamming, contacting the following users and asking them to support his attempt to delete. He made no attempt to contact editors who had on previous occasions expressed views against deletion.


 * Krash
 * Blackeye
 * *drew
 * Aaron Brenneman
 * Starblind
 * RJHall
 * Crunch
 * LukasPietsch
 * RexNL
 * 68.148.192.33
 * Ziggurat
 * Dyslexic agnostic
 * -Barry
 * TBH
 * Hawkstone
 * Perfecto
 * Killerchihuahua
 * Geogre
 * MCB

Of those who voted to delete, I estimate that at least nine did so after receiving the nominator's vote-stacking message. --Tony Sidaway 00:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is good that you bring this up. I know that what happens on other wikis is only anecdotal, but, as I referenced in my comment, I saw at least one contact by someone of someone on another wiki (BrickWiki : ). I do not know who contacted Tim or how Tim voted before, etc. But clearly that was a vote request by someone, and perhaps there is stacking going on elsewhere. Hope that is helpful. It would be good if the closing admin were aware of this, I think. + +Lar: t/c 01:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * er, missed that it closed already in the shocking state of "no consensus" + +Lar: t/c 01:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

There was plenty of that on the other side as well. Don't know if it evened things out, but it doesn't really matter now. WarpstarRider 01:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see that one User:Skinmeister also spammed, in his case soliciting a keep vote. This has been a very dirty affair. --Tony Sidaway 02:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The difference is Conrad was actually asking them to vote delete, whilst I was just informing them that there was a vote going on. Skinmeister 06:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Vote stacking
I did not know that there was a rule against informing other users on their talk pages of a deletion nomination, and expected opposing voters to do the same. I viewed it as basically the same as when a politician airs commercials on TV about an upcoming election and asks viewers to vote for him. If there is a rule against this, I apologise for breaking it and will avoid doing so in the future. Please also note, however, that I was not the only one to do so. - Conrad Devonshire 01:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure there's a rule, it is in my view more of a practice or tradition that it's pretty frowned on and if it is found out, brought to the attention of the closing admin. Again, in my view, people want true consensus, that is, from people who weren't "recruited" to come and "vote" but rather from the people interested enough to comment, because this is not a vote and recruiting a big majority isn't the right thing to do, the right thing to do is to present reasoned arguments for why the article should be kept or deleted in congruence with our policies (WP:V, WP:N, WP:WEB, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:NOT, etc.) That's my view anyway. I think if you've internalised this and still want to participate, that's a great thing. Personally I'd rather have thoughtful imperfect people who can admit fault, correct it, and move on and do good things than people who are almost always right but when they are wrong won't admit or correct it. + +Lar: t/c 03:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)