Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Venus de Milo (replica, Slovenian National Gallery).jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Venus de Milo (replica, Slovenian National Gallery).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2017 at 07:55:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Venus de Milo (replica, Slovenian National Gallery)
Colin - My count: I've voted for 27 FPC since 2016, 7 votes of those were for photos which are somehow associated with Slovenia because this is the topic I'm mostly interested in. There's nothing fishy going on from my side, I just enjoy seeing Slovene-related photos among FPC and Mile is currently one of the most active contributors in this field. M★Zaplotnik (edits) 12:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your contributions indicate a high bias. There are many days where your only FP vote is a support for Mile (8th Jan 2017, 18 Dec 2016, 4 Dec, 27 Nov, 16 Nov, 13 April, 13 Sep 2015 x2). There are a few days where you vote for some other nominations, but nearly only when there's a Mile nomination to support also (e.g. 4th November, 3rd November, 5th May). There's clearly some Slovenian FP canvassing going on otherwise how would you know to turn up? And even if you aren't biased towards Mile, turning up to support Slovenian images isn't neutral either (and Mile's wristwatch isn't Slovenian AFAIK). -- Colin (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm getting this right: me voting for Slovenian images is not OK but voting fot images other than Slovene-related isn't good either? I don't get it. Ratio 7 out of 27 in one year isn't high enough for canvassing accusation; you have to find other argument to prove your point. How did I turn up? Pages I edit are on my watch list, this is my preferred wiki-account option, so I get email notification. M★Zaplotnik (edits) 13:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's put it another way. Of the 13 days you decided to vote at FPC in 2016/17, 8 were to make a single support vote for Mile; 2 were to support Mile's images and then a few others; 1 was to support a few images and then Mile's image; and only on 2 days did you not vote support for Mile. That's 11/13 days you turn up at FP to support Mile, and 8/13 exclusively so. -- Colin (talk) 13:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This template is used when the raison is clear to cancel the nomination. IMHO this is a good example (not docummented) when A nomination is clearly invalid. {{FPX}} apply in this case because "only oppose votes" mean in potential technical vote is planned during the voting and it's not the case because this nomination is canceled not because technical raisons. --The Photographer 13:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is not clear, and more importantly, putting up such a template will only escalate the 'conflict' and not help resolve it. If you want to help someone taking the right decision after making a mistake, try to make it easier for then to correct the mistake, not harder. Think win-win instead of loose-loose.-- Slaunger (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I underestand your point of view, however, in this case we are not talking about some technical problem where the author could learn about how improve his/her image. We're talking about a well-know bad practice in wiki nominations and a situation where there is a conchupancia --The Photographer 13:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment (ec) Regarding the canvassing, I do not want to blame the Slovenian WP users coming here to vote. I am sure they mean their vote, although it would be best if they took the time to review not only Slovenian nominations but also more broadly. I do not particularly mind either that other users are notified about something, which might have their interest, even though I would not do so myself, as it is very likely to backfire - as we see here, but if so, the notification has to be kept in absolutely neutral language. And from what I read above, that has noway been the case. Instead the image has been described very positively, which could pre-bias voters to have an opinion before even looking at the nomination. And i agree, the most notable outcome at this stage would be for PetarM to voluntarily withdraw his nomination to avoid any doubt that the voting is rigged. -- Slaunger (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Slaunger, I think you are being too kind on the Slovenian WP users (if that's what they all are). The stats on these four accounts indicate a bias that I don't think is acceptable. I think they should be warned that turning up and supporting Mile/Slovenia is not at all what FPC is about. IMO, if this continues, all the accounts listed here, including Mile's, should be banned from FP for a period. There's really no need to play games at FP, especially when one has the talent to achieve this by honest and fair means. -- Colin (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • [Edit conflict]: Slaunger, it sure looks like Colin has Mile dead to rights on canvassing, and I no more assume that people with seemingly nationalistic biases are casting genuine votes based on an effort at an honest appraisal than has been the case in Olympic judging of sports like ice skating that are most easily susceptible to manipulation. Without going onto tangents, it's a big problem in political systems when manipulated votes don't get overturned but only get litigated after the fact. If the vote count isn't stopped here and Mile doesn't voluntarily withdraw the nomination, what do you suggest we do? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ikan Kekek: I had hoped for a significantly wiser response from Mile. Regrettably he completely denies there is any problem with this. For the nomination here the three support votes are below the noise level, and will most likely not affect the end result. It will most likely fail and it is likely to backfire even more. But, the way to handle it is just to discuss on the FPC talk page and come to consensus. In this case, it is also relevant to discuss sanctions - regrettably. -- Slaunger (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry, I don't think the lightnng is good enough. With one eye in almost complete shadow I get reminded of an eyepatch. -- Slaunger (talk) 13:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose my Slovenian friends are welcome here as others. --Mile (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just lost all respect for you right there Mile with your failure to acknowledge that canvassing in the pre-biased way you have done is of course not OK. Slovenian users are more than welcome if they come here with a 'fresh' mind to evaluate a broad range of nominations. Especially considering you contempt for doping, this seem like double standards. -- Slaunger (talk) 14:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The previous several FP nominations I looked at at Slovenian WP all had links and requests to come here to vote. The result is we are seeing at least four voters at Commons FPC who exclusively or nearly exclusively support vote for Mile and otherwise do not take an interest at FPC. -- Colin (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is my right to choose which FPC I take part in and which I don't. And such dramas about nothing or just personal resentments between two users are a good reason why not to. --Sporti (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think your argument is worth engaging, but I'll just say this: You and the other Slovenes who vote here only when Mile has a nomination aren't the main issue here. It's his canvassing that's the issue. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously this is becoming private sector of few man. I dont think voting was fair here, especialy "per-per" part. Are people afraid of my shots ?! Should this become first into a book before renomination like Praga ? --Mile (talk) 14:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it were, you'd be one of the "few men", as you're a regular here, but you don't seem to have felt this photo was going to get enough votes without asking your fellow Slovenes to vote for it out of national solidarity. If this were already in a book, are you suggesting that wouldn't be fair to mention, but on the same level as canvassing a particular nationality for votes? In any event, you've doubtless been here when several new users got featured photos. I personally recall nominating photos of Spain and Ukraine by nationals of those countries who had had no FPs to that point and whose photos were promoted on pretty overwhelming votes. There is definitely a general board taste, but photos that the regulars here consider to be of high quality win, regardless of who took them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mile You could go too far and you could end up as what you want for me. Your arguments are so alien to what is being discussed here that makes me think that you try to divert attention from the subject. --The Photographer 22:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Photographer: Where you see the canvassing pattern, I see fellow Wikipedians giving fair votes to the images they think are the best. What about this PetarM's photo from Round 1 of POTY2015: Commons:Picture of the Year/2015/R1/v/Love padlocks on the Butchers' Bridge (Ljubljana).jpg. 3 out of 185 votes belong to Slovene Wikipedians! Is this also a pattern?
And this one: Commons:Picture of the Year/2015/R1/v/Radovljica Linhartov trg drei Blechblasinstrumente 19032015 0925.jpg Here I count 5 Slovene voters! But wait a minute: author of this photo is Johan Jaritz, not PetarM. Is this another conspiracy? Or is it just a proof this vote count proves nothing... M★Zaplotnik (edits) 15:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not get distracted with POTY, where I think it would be hard to recruit 200 friends. That POTY is a great photo. This one is not. Let's all not make allegations without evidence. PetarM/Mile has made lots of bad-faith allegations, and continues to do so, but offers no evidence. Here the evidence of canvassing and of nearly exclusive Mile-support voting by several accounts is quite clear. -- Colin (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 10 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 08:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Venus_de_Milo_(replica,_Slovenian_National_Gallery).jpg&oldid=229464959"