Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta/archive1

Possible canvassing commentary

 * Comment I am here because the nominator has canvassed me by excessive cross-posting. I had no clue about this before reading my talk page.  On the other hand, I'll look at the article and see if this was an attempt to votestack this FAC.  O2  (息 • 吹) 21:04, 01 November 2007 (GMT)
 * comment I'm tired of people talking about votestack and "Canvassing". It is precisely the reason I asked a variety of people including you Mr Two Parts Oxygen to get a wider turn out and to avoid reviwers from a concentrated area. Asking a variety of people to review it was to try to get a neutral wider participation rather than trying to vote stack. If I'd wanted to votestack I'd have asked everybody at WikiProject India to support it only wouldn't I, when I barely asked anybody from India to review it  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 22:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter who you do it to. You can't hide; you've mass cross-posted to user talk pages, and it is unacceptable.  O2  (息 • 吹) 00:14, 02 November 2007 (GMT)
 * Requesting opinions is not vote stacking. He did not request a certain opinion, what he requested was a review. Please do not confuse the two. The simple fact that you didn't automatically agree to "support" this article--even though he never asked for a "support" vote--just shows that he wasn't "canvassing" for friends.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter. See WP:CANVASS.  O2  (息 • 吹) 00:59, 02 November 2007 (GMT)
 * It's only spam if you consider it spam, and apparently only two of you considered it spam. Blofeld, make note please, do not bother User:O or User:Croctotheface with requests for their valued opinion...as they don't care to share it. That being said, let's focus on the topic at hand, as neither one of you should have come here picking a fight about Blofeld's "canvassing"--something that should have been reserved for his own talk page.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, this kind of stuff is considered disruptive, and ArbCom endorses it. It doesn't look like you've bothered to read the page at all.  O2  (息 • 吹) 01:09, 02 November 2007 (GMT)
 * (EC)Exactly how disruptive do you think you are being by diverting attention away from the article being reviewed to hold a petty tiff over receiving what you believe was a "spam" message on your talk page? Honestly. It isn't even something that needed to be moved here, because it doesn't deal with this article, it deals with the editor in question. So, how about you tell Blofeld not to message you again--if you already haven't--and request that he seek a less "disruptive" way of requesting feedback on an FAC. That's all that needs to be said. Have a nice evening. :)   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think and actually sure that there is NOTHING wrong in asking appreciated editors to REVIEW an article. Please see the meesage he's sent to you. Let's analize it:


 * "Hi there. The Preity Zinta article has recently achieved A-class status. Due to the wealth of support I have decided to now nominate for an FA class article which I believe and judging by the comments of others is pretty much up to. In my view it is better than some existing FA actor articles. I would therefore be very grateful if you could give it a final review in your own time and leave your comments and views at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta. Thankyou, your comments are always valuable."


 * Again, even if mister Blofeld had asked you and other editors to "support it" (which he hadn't done), it wouldn't have been bad because, as appreciated and established editors, each and everyone of them, is intelligent enough to have his own opinion. But the fact is that Blofeld asked you guys to review the article and give your personal view, whether it's support, Object or comment. The best proof to it is you mister O - you opposed. So what's the matter? I personally think that your oppose is the main reason to this discussion, as you don't want it to be promoted, but anyway this discussion is useless in my opinion.


 * So overall, Blofeld had sent you a message to, again, review it. You gave your oppose later, so it's actually the best proof to the fact that there is no bias here, because you were asked and opposed to promote the article eventually. Other editors did find it as a FA worthy, so what's the problem? They are established, professional and have full right to add their comments. So now, let me ask you, what are you intending to get with this discussion? To remove their comments? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  01:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, none of the editors who supported its promotion, has written "Support - Blofeld asked" LOL... Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  01:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * And one more thing, somehow I always forget something: There are editors and even administrators who haven't been asked to review it, and still supported. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  02:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a gray area, and given lack of any obvious evidence otherwise, I think it poor judgment to assume any bad faith on the part of Blofeld. However, I would caution that it is probably poor form to solicit comments through so many talk page requests - the more acceptable method is to give public notice in the appropriate forums and only individually notify editors with significant prior involvement with the page. That's my take on this, anyway. Girolamo Savonarola 02:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict] I was never suggesting any bias or assuming bad faith; I was only mentioning that this FAC notice was cross-posted to lots of user talk pages. The reason why the users supported without any mention is because they took it as a friendly request without knowing the other half of the situation.  The fact that I found an FAC notice for an article I had no involvement with strikes me and possibly some other users suspicious.  Even more, I have carefully checked all of the user talk pages of the commenters, and all of them had something related to this FAC.  On another note, I am not trying to invalidate any comments of any sort; my opposition was purely because the article does not meet the FA criteria yet.  O2  (息 • 吹) 02:43, 02 November 2007 (GMT)


 * Let me quote you: "The reason why the users supported without any mention is because they took it as a friendly request without knowing the other half of the situation." - How do you know that they did not read it? You read it. You opposed. Do you think that you are THE ONLY one who reads articles before supporting/objecting to their promotion? So let me tell you something --- YOU ARE NOT. And if you really think so, you're indirectly accusing all these users of being biased. And you have no authority to say that, because you can't prove it, and each and everyone of them can strongly claim otherwise. Think of a better idea to ruin this FAC. Sorry for the rude words, but I gave my life to this article and, again, you're indirectly underrating my work as if it is not worthy of any kind of appreciation.


 * Regarding the "Doesn't meet the criteria" case:
 * A) So far, you're the only one who thinks so, other users do agree with its promotion to a featured status.
 * B) Most of your comments have been adressed. And most of them are actually minor concerns. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  02:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please chill. The other half meant the cross-posting, not the actual comments or any ways of reviewing articles.  As for that last comment, my concerns are not addressed, and I can certainly find more if I had some more time.  Finally, about giving your life to this article, see this.  O2  (息 • 吹) 03:05, 02 November 2007 (GMT)


 * Oh god!!! I didn't say that the article must pass the FAC because of this I said that you're underrating my work and it could be appreciated more, even if you oppose --- there is a speaking manner which I suggest you to take into account. So please don't speculate. Apart from saying and saying you couldn't prove that these Supports are biased or whatever, so you have to think of a better idea to invalidate them. Nevertheless, I find this discussion USELESS. Your only one oppose WILL be adressed, and sorry to say that, I have no appreciation to it. Other users support it and that's what matters, and I don't think you could ever prove that the editors haven't read the article. Bye!  Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  03:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * When people see canvassing messages on their talk pages, they usually support the other person's request (whether it be FAC, AfD, etc). To be honest, I find most support without even giving any decent feedback to the reviewers. Blofeld went a bit overboard with the canvassing, but I think human nature is the main issue here. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Final reply
When people see canvassing messages on their talk pages, they usually support the other person's request -

A) Sorry but your claim is not approved in a factual way. I'm not here to discuss human nature nor are you here to do that.

B) You were also asked, but you didn't support - another good example of the fact that there is nothing wrong in asking appreciated and established editors to REVIEW an article.

C) Someone agrees, someone doesn't, someone objects and someone ignores the message to keep neutraliry. Again people are intelligent enough to have their own opinion. You had your own opinion and thus did not support. I can't see why other editors are less than you. They also have.

D) Many of the editors have added comments and suggestions to improve the article further.

E) None of them wrote "Support - per Blofeld's request", everyone gave it a comment which easily and directly stated his opinion on the article.

F) Many of them came and copy-edited and you can see that on the history page of Preity Zinta.

G) By saying "editors usually support the other person's request" you're indirectly underrating them. In other words, you're saying:


 * (1) "They are biased, they don't care, they just support. They have no personal view. They are doing things just to do it without any basis, just to satisfy someone."
 * (2) "They are not intelligent enough to go through the article and read it."
 * (3) "They cannot read. They see that someone wrote 'Please review and leave comments' and decide to write support."

H) Please see Blofeld's original request and tell me what's wrong with it. In fact, even if he'd asked editors to support the article, it'd have been accepatable for the simple fact that editors on Wikipedia have their own personal view.

I) Again, When people see canvassing messages on their talk pages, they usually support the other person's request - How can you prove that? Who determined that? Where is it written?

J) Please tell me, what is the main reason to this discussion? What are your expectations to get from this? Do you want to invalidate all the supports? What are you trying to get guys?

K) Best regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  04:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Moving on
The thing is that regardless of whether this is a canvassing instance, it generally will not have a significant impact on FAC - it isn't a vote, so all Oppose votes which are reasonable will be expected to be addressed, regardless of the number of Support votes. As little as one well-opined Oppose can sink an FAC if it is ignored. I believe that Raul himself also reads through the articles prior to deciding the outcome, just as a final check for any egregious problems. In brief, it's not an easily gamed process to begin with. Now we've addressed the concerns, and I believe that Blofeld is mature enough to be more conscientious to avoid actions that might raise such concerns in future FACs, but what's done is done; let's wrap this discussion up here and get back to the FAC itself. Girolamo Savonarola 05:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Yet I think that there is nothing wrong in doing that. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  07:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)