Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of social networking websites (2nd nomination)

message: <Moved from user talk page. -- Satori Son 15:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not really sure; this one is kind of a gray area.  Since the solicitations for comments were made on article talk pages, as opposed to user talk pages, it might be questionable whether WP:CANVASS applies.  Either way, I have left a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of social networking websites (2nd nomination) suggesting that it would probably be best to refrain from doing so. Keeping up appearances and all that. -- Satori Son 19:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly what conclusion are you unhappy that I "jumped" to? I was simply answering a question from another user about whether your conduct constituted votestacking, and my answer was "I'm not sure." As I stated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of social networking websites (2nd nomination), my personal opinion is that AfD discussion should probably be allowed to run their course without outside solicitations for comments, but I never accused you of anything. I'm sorry if you misunderstood. -- Satori Son 14:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was the conclusion that Hu jumped to. Which is why I formatted that with a single indent. I was replying to him/her. Not you. I also don't think there is anything wrong with putting a neutral message on the talk page of an article which may be effected by an AfD, for example if a section is forked off an article and put up for deletion and the result ends in a merge, the people who edit the first article should know that that AfD is taking place because its going to effect them. I was responding to his comment on the AfD to the lines of "Smells like fish".--Crossmr 14:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry - I didn't get the indent thing and shouldn't have messed with it.  Anyways, I hear what you're saying, and I understand that you were doing what you felt was best for the project, as was Hu12. My stance on canvassing for XfD's is a fairly conservative one, so I always try to present it as a "maybe it might be best not to" kind of thing. Hope you understand and didn't take any offense. -- Satori Son 14:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I don't interperate a decision to keep or delete an article i've nominated for deletion as a bad thing or take whatever the outcome personaly. Nomination isn't a win-loose (at least for me), however , Neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, especialy with "List Of..." type articles, as they are Listcrufty, and of interest to a very limited number of people. Consensus needs to be made in order to improve the quality of content for the larger readership, not just those few who have a specific interest in keeping a particular lists. your comment on AFD about WP:AGF was wrong. Assuming good faith is about intentions, not actions. strawman argument your actions all you want, but based on your conduct it appears the intention was to solicit votes and influence participation. I do however understand what you are saying, however its generally accepted among editors that this is discouraged. Most take a conservative stance on this, as do I. Fish is for "fishy".--Hu12 15:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Smells fishy (informal- if a situation or an explanation smells fishy, it causes you to think that someone is being dishonest). Seems (To appear; to be perceived as), fishy ('suspicious; inspiring doubt ) not to be confused with assertion of assumption (The act of taking for granted, or supposing a thing without proof; supposition; unwarrantable claim ).--Hu12 15:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm aware of what smells like fish means, which is why I told you to assume good faith. There was nothing in my message which could even be remotely considered to be an attempt to sway the discussion in any point of view. Consensus is also best form when more editors are involved than a small amount. Since this AfD effected many articles, having editors from all those articles give their opinion is important. AfD isn't a vote, so soliciting votes is inappropriate. I solicited input, in a neutral manner. If you can find anything partisan about the comments I left, as I already said, point it out.--Crossmr 20:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I understand people not wanting editors to goto specific editors pages or email them and request they input in an AfD. I certainly don't and didn't do that. I posted a neutral message on the talk pages of articles which are related to the article being put on AfD and possibly effected by the outcome. That certainly wasn't underhanded and there was precedent, which is as good as consensus for the message being left. It was previously done and I didn't see any objection to it. I don't take offense to someone who wants to behave conservatively, I take offense at someone who assumes bad faith when I've made every effort to be forth-coming and neutral.--Crossmr 20:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:AGF states This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary.. Based on these any editor could have assumed bad faith and would have the right to question or criticize your intentions, without being assaulted with "bad faith" and WP:AGF. Burden of intent is on you.--Hu12 03:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you didn't look at all the evidence. I made the statement that I had made those edits when I made them, as well as indicating that there was precedent for those messages being left. I've already proven my intent by being forth-coming and honest with my edits on the AfD. I made no effort to hide them. The burden is fully on you. You haven't shown a single thing which shows any ill intent on my part, and as someone else already pointed out on the AfD, your comments can't be seen as anything BUT an attack. 1) I made the edits 2) I immediately made the comment on the AfD that those edits were made and why and indicated there was unquestioned precedent for doing so, 3) the notices were worded in a neutral manner inviting only input. You assumed bad faith with no evidence to support it, and now you're trying to cover it up by blindly ignoring the good faith effort I made to be honest and forthcoming. You made a personal attack in the process (perhaps you should read WP:NPA while you're reading policies and guidelines). So as it is, I will leave you to your bad faith but you will have a very hard time finding anyone who would take all the edits I made at that time in context and find anything even remotely close to looking like an effort to sway the vote or go about it in a nefarious manner.--Crossmr 05:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything you did was after you voted keep. Having a stated position isn't neutral.--Hu12 07:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't mean I cannot ask for additional input into a discussion in a neutral manner. You can try and assume all you want, but you've failed to actually show that what I wrote wasn't neutral, and you just continue to assume that I was behaving in a partisan manner. As I said before, I'm done with your assumptions and insults, good luck with your future efforts on wikipedia.--Crossmr 15:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: On another note, you mentioned precedent for those messages being left. Have alook what note was left on the afd about those messages Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_social_networking_websites--Hu12 07:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read through it twice and unless its written in code, I don't see anything on that AfD about the messages CZJ left during the last AfD. I also checked the talk pages of the articles it was left on last time, as well as his talk page, and I saw no objections raised.--Crossmr 15:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  is this votestacking?