Hans Adler (talk | contribs) →Possible canvassing: disgusting |
|||
Line 539: | Line 539: | ||
:My position is made clear at the linked discussion: the appropriate place to register one's opinion of a candidate is on the RFA itself. Posting a non-neutral message on one's talk page is inappropriate per the second (and quite likely third) scale(s). –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 17:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC) |
:My position is made clear at the linked discussion: the appropriate place to register one's opinion of a candidate is on the RFA itself. Posting a non-neutral message on one's talk page is inappropriate per the second (and quite likely third) scale(s). –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 17:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
::This looks like a transparent attempt to reinterpret a long-standing guideline in a novel way for short-term political gain. Disgusting. [[User:Hans Adler|Hans]] [[User talk:Hans Adler|Adler]] 18:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:07, 5 November 2010
Is it canvasing to post in another weapons list page and ask an opinion?
I was trying to find out why some weapons list were acceptable, while others were not, so I posted on the Star Trek weapons list, and nowhere else. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_weapons_in_Star_Trek&diff=264975194&oldid=264950547 This was reverted by AnmaFinotera who claims I was canvassing. Can someone please look at my message, and tell me if that counts as canvasing or not? It was only made in one area only to ask for an honest opinion. It was a legitimate question, and I think it very relevant to the other page as well, since all wikipedia weapons list pages are affected by these policies. Dream Focus (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I must say, DF, I don't see that as a violation of WP:CANVASS at all, but AnmaFinotera may have some reasoning which escapes me at this moment. I've posted a message on her talk page, and we'll see what she has to say. Like you, I am assuming good faith; I would do this with anyone anyway, but in her case, given that she's an extraordinarily experienced and respected editor, it is a must. Cheers. Unschool 04:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- See his other edits, in particularly the discussion on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Gantz equipment. Nor is his wording neutral at all. He clearly implies that because his unnotable list is going to be deleted, that the Star Trek weapons list is "in danger" of the same fate, despite it clearly being notable, by claiming they are "the same." He's also been forum shopping by attempting to have the AfD overturned by for a similar list under the false claim that there was no consensus for the decision (User talk:MBisanz#Why did you delete/redirect Clow Cards?, and by posting at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#Character Pages, and Equipment Pages trying to get support for his point of view. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- AnmaFinotera keeps accussing me of nonsense. In the Clow Cards AFD discussion, 1 person said delete, 2 said merge/redirect, 1 said merge, and 2 said keep. I asked it be opened for future discussion, instead of just deleted. And me posting in the appropriate policy discussion page to ask if equipment pages were as valid as character pages, was not to gain support, but simply to ask a legitimate question. Dream Focus (talk) 04:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- DF, the consensus was not to delete, but to merge. I looked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clow Cards, and it seems that it was closed quite properly. DF, WP:AfD exists for a reason, and that is because different people have different ideas regarding what material is noteworthy enough for a Wikipedia article. Consensus was clearly not in favor of Clow Cards having its own article. Someday that may change. But in the meantime, you would probably help yourself best by letting that one go and get into the business of editing other articles. If consensus is against you today, it is very frustrating, but you have to go on, and you have to devote your energies elsewhere—hopefully article writing—rather than in fighting those who disagree with you today. I would venture to say that most Wikipedia editors with any intelligence don't learn to get past the frustration of losing a discussion until they have 2000-3000 edits. (I know it took me longer than that.) But stay calm, find something else to edit, and remember this old bit of wisdom (just read the words in boldface). It helps a lot. Unschool 05:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think you misread me. I'm as calm as can be, just curious mostly. I seek out information, and find someone trying to stop me from even asking the question, erasing my comment on a page, without any justifiable reason(twice). After it was erased, I posted here for an opinion, and after you agreed it didn't seem like canvasing, I went and undid her deletion. She deleted it again, I undoing it again. The post there should be considered unrelated to anywhere else, they honestly not connect, I just trying to figure out why things are. She seems to believe everything is a personal attack against her, it all starting here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dream_Focus&redirect=no#Messages Dream Focus (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I apologize for encouraging you to get "calm"; I had no basis for assuming you were not. I do, however, stand by the rest of my advice. You'll just get further in this work and ultimately feel better about things once you learn to let go of lost battles. I'm not saying you're right or wrong in this whole Gintz matter; I've never even heard of the subject. I'm just saying that, when you've lost a battle, don't keep fighting it, no matter how right you think you are.
- I mean, it may happen that later on you can bring it up again. When I had been editing about two months I got involved in a big argument over a policy issue, an argument in many ways appears like this one. I was so totally pissed that these other "goons" could not see what I was saying. It was hard to let go. But I finally did, and I went out and became a productive editor (at least, I think so). More than two years later, the issue presented itself again. I re-entered the discussion, and you know what happened? Well, I'm not going to tell you, because it doesn't matter. All that matters is that I was able to engage the discussion without feeling wronged or misunderstood; I assumed good faith, and others did the same of me. And that makes all the difference in the world. Unschool 06:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think you misread me. I'm as calm as can be, just curious mostly. I seek out information, and find someone trying to stop me from even asking the question, erasing my comment on a page, without any justifiable reason(twice). After it was erased, I posted here for an opinion, and after you agreed it didn't seem like canvasing, I went and undid her deletion. She deleted it again, I undoing it again. The post there should be considered unrelated to anywhere else, they honestly not connect, I just trying to figure out why things are. She seems to believe everything is a personal attack against her, it all starting here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dream_Focus&redirect=no#Messages Dream Focus (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- DF, the consensus was not to delete, but to merge. I looked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clow Cards, and it seems that it was closed quite properly. DF, WP:AfD exists for a reason, and that is because different people have different ideas regarding what material is noteworthy enough for a Wikipedia article. Consensus was clearly not in favor of Clow Cards having its own article. Someday that may change. But in the meantime, you would probably help yourself best by letting that one go and get into the business of editing other articles. If consensus is against you today, it is very frustrating, but you have to go on, and you have to devote your energies elsewhere—hopefully article writing—rather than in fighting those who disagree with you today. I would venture to say that most Wikipedia editors with any intelligence don't learn to get past the frustration of losing a discussion until they have 2000-3000 edits. (I know it took me longer than that.) But stay calm, find something else to edit, and remember this old bit of wisdom (just read the words in boldface). It helps a lot. Unschool 05:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- AnmaFinotera keeps accussing me of nonsense. In the Clow Cards AFD discussion, 1 person said delete, 2 said merge/redirect, 1 said merge, and 2 said keep. I asked it be opened for future discussion, instead of just deleted. And me posting in the appropriate policy discussion page to ask if equipment pages were as valid as character pages, was not to gain support, but simply to ask a legitimate question. Dream Focus (talk) 04:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- See his other edits, in particularly the discussion on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Gantz equipment. Nor is his wording neutral at all. He clearly implies that because his unnotable list is going to be deleted, that the Star Trek weapons list is "in danger" of the same fate, despite it clearly being notable, by claiming they are "the same." He's also been forum shopping by attempting to have the AfD overturned by for a similar list under the false claim that there was no consensus for the decision (User talk:MBisanz#Why did you delete/redirect Clow Cards?, and by posting at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#Character Pages, and Equipment Pages trying to get support for his point of view. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The Wikipedia Article Rescue Squadron, an overtly inclusionist article cleanup Wikiproject, has for a while now used {{rescue}}, a cleanup tag that automatically adds the article to their cleanup categories. There are no criteria for using {{rescue}} other than that a member of the project has to feel that the article shouldn't be deleted. I don't really have a problem with this on its own, since it is a project for article cleanup.
However, they recently created and implemented {{ARS/Tagged}}, a template intended for their user talk page to automatically link any article tagged with {{rescue}}. This has created an automatic scheme where anyone who wants to keep an article from being deleted can automatically add it to the talk pages of a number of self-professed inclusionists. Automatic talk page canvassing, with no entry in the AFD history, no clear entry in the article history, and no entry in the talk page histories, is troubling to me.
Am I alone in being bothered by this? - [[|A Man In Bl♟ck]] (conspire - past ops) 02:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- No, you aren't. Some members of that group have been practicing various forms of canvassing lately which I've been disgusted to see has seemingly gone unnoticed and unchallenged...and this seems like it really crosses the line. That template should be deleted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Then we should delete the templates for AfDs in general or RfAs that appear on userpages as one can argue that these are also used to canvass. As a member of the ARS, I don't feel compelled to rescue every article templated or even comment in every AfD and I doubt the other users do as well. Not much different than someone who say watchlists AfDs or wikiproject AfD lists. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- One is a general posting in a public place, shared by all who pass by. The other is a targeted notice to a group with stated partisan views. Other Wikiproject lists are generally non-partisan, although I'd be less unhappy with a central list that wasn't being transcluded onto the talk page of expressed partisans, or if I hadn't seen evidence of bloc action (coincidental or not), or if the project wasn't expressly partisan. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- The project is no more partisan than AfD is. I haven't seen anything different from say known deletionists block voting with "per noms" rapidly after certain editors' nominations either, so perhaps these things cancel out. A good deal in that group don't argue to keep all the time and even I am not willing or able to defend and try to rescue everything. It's useful in seeing what's worth rescuing, but by and large I also try to work on the articles too. I don't simply see something templated and feel I'll just help in the AfD alone. And nor do all the other members who occasionally help in the article rescue efforts. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Come on. It's an expressly partisan inclusionist project. The work is good work, and I support its work, but the core members include you, Ikip/Inclusionist(!), DGG, Banjeboi, and Peregrine Fisher. The talk page regularly includes discussions about defeating the deletionists.
- Automatically transcluding a subset of AFDs onto the talk page of self-declared partisans is troubling to me, and while you can make up claims that "Oh, the other guys do it too" unless you can point to an example of someone else doing it systemically so I can complain about them, too, I'm no less happy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing any evidence of it being more partisan inclusionist than AfD is partisan deletionist. I am seeing it being used to help rescue articles from deletion and with at least some degree of success. If the end result is content that is somehow used, then it's a good thing. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 03:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sometimes I have to wonder if you're pulling my leg. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing any evidence of it being more partisan inclusionist than AfD is partisan deletionist. I am seeing it being used to help rescue articles from deletion and with at least some degree of success. If the end result is content that is somehow used, then it's a good thing. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 03:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- The project is no more partisan than AfD is. I haven't seen anything different from say known deletionists block voting with "per noms" rapidly after certain editors' nominations either, so perhaps these things cancel out. A good deal in that group don't argue to keep all the time and even I am not willing or able to defend and try to rescue everything. It's useful in seeing what's worth rescuing, but by and large I also try to work on the articles too. I don't simply see something templated and feel I'll just help in the AfD alone. And nor do all the other members who occasionally help in the article rescue efforts. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- One is a general posting in a public place, shared by all who pass by. The other is a targeted notice to a group with stated partisan views. Other Wikiproject lists are generally non-partisan, although I'd be less unhappy with a central list that wasn't being transcluded onto the talk page of expressed partisans, or if I hadn't seen evidence of bloc action (coincidental or not), or if the project wasn't expressly partisan. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Then we should delete the templates for AfDs in general or RfAs that appear on userpages as one can argue that these are also used to canvass. As a member of the ARS, I don't feel compelled to rescue every article templated or even comment in every AfD and I doubt the other users do as well. Not much different than someone who say watchlists AfDs or wikiproject AfD lists. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't take any of the criticism seriously Black, with 167 articles deleted it is pretty obvious your own POV, Collectian not only has 366 AfDs herself, she also was involved in an edit war with me recently over WP:Television episodes, refusing to allow any template tags on the page, so she is not exactly an impartial neutral party either. Ikip (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hence why I'm not exactly getting my feathers ruffled about partisans, my own views are clear and unconcealed. However, I'm not making automated tools to bring other partisans to AFDs. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Power to you Black. I respect your actual contributions to the project. Add a category tag to Template:AfDM, then I will help you make a template too. Ikip (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think an inclusionist version of AFD and a deletionist version of AFD would be very productive. I would rather this not turn into the usual "my views are correct, so anything I do is correct" nonsense this typically turns into. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Here you go Black, your own template, {{AfD/Tagged}} now there are hundreds of articles you can pass judgment on, insisting that other people add references, criticizing that their contributions are simply not good enough:
- I don't think an inclusionist version of AFD and a deletionist version of AFD would be very productive. I would rather this not turn into the usual "my views are correct, so anything I do is correct" nonsense this typically turns into. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Power to you Black. I respect your actual contributions to the project. Add a category tag to Template:AfDM, then I will help you make a template too. Ikip (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Articles tagged for deletion |
---|
- I am glad that you are criticizing ARS, because that means a lot of editors who know how to add references and contribute content are saving articles. Ikip (talk) 04:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Do you have anything to contribute other than sarcasm and villification? This kind of "well, you're my enemy, so I don't have to listen to you and if I'm making you unhappy, good!" attitude is not productive. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Accusing some talk page template as being an instrument of canvassing is kind of a villification, no? I think here, at AfDs, etc., we are all spending far too much time doing stuff other than working together to improve articles. We should all get back to that and help each other to add references and what have you. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it's a template that exists to link articles on AFD on the talk page of expressed inclusionists. If this were done by hand, the appearance of bad faith would be overwhelming. The reason I brought it up here and on the project talk page is because I hoped that this was an unintended consequence. If I had reason to believe actual bad faith, I have a delete button. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Not everyone listed there is an inclusionist, though, and you have edited around there, i.e. non-inclusionists obviously watch that project, so aside from helping to improve articles, I am not seeing any detrimental effect. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 05:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Which is why I had no problem before. Is there anyone who isn't a self-described inclusionist who has this template on their talk page, though? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know who all has it. I didn't put on my page (if someone else did and I'm unaware, I didn't add it...). I just wouldn't assume that because someone's an inclusionist they will always knee-jerk try to keep. I deliberately avoid a good deal of discussions that I am either ambivalent on or am okay if deleted (one more delete from me is not necessary and if I actually did comment in more discussions for stuff that I don't believe meets our inclusion criteria, I would have well over the 50+ current deletion arguments I've made). I think we should be able to get wider participation in AfDs and I strongly support requiring notification of not just article creators, but also anyone with a few contributions, because the usual half dozen odd commentors in five days just doesn't seem a real pulse taking of how the community views the articles in question. There are some discussions I have missed a day late or so that I reckon I might have been able to at least get a merge out of. My hope is that the members will make more efforts at rescuing the articles as I attempt more so than commenting in the AfDs as we need both and there are times where I feel as if I am carrying the weight of reference searching and adding. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 05:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- How is this different from "Here's AFD/x, I thought you might want to comment" on the talk page of everyone you know to be an inclusionist? And how can the appearance of impropriety be avoided in the future? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's kind of like that RfA box some people have on their userpages; just because it's there doesn't mean everyone who has it is going to comment in every RfA listed. If someone specifically goes to peoples' pages saying, be sure to comment in all of the following discussions, then that's one thing, but a template that editors can look at at their discretion is not quite the same thing, because as I said before, I don't feel inclined to try to rescue and arguer to keep everything that's ARS templated and I don't see the members of the group go to defend everything templated either. So, it's like checking the RfAs, okay which ones do I want to comment in and which ones should I avoid? Same thing, let's check the list of items tagged for rescue, okay, well I can find sources for this one, or I think this artice has potential, but it's no guarantee that anyone will comment in support of everything on this list and it's even possible that some will argue to delete as I recall DGG doing in an ARS templated article that I argued to keep. As far as the future, people will assume and interpret things all kinds of ways regardless of what we attempt to do. I suggest having one of those small script "This article has been tagged for rescue" style messages akin to those the wikiprojects use for deletion sorting. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 05:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- But that is every RFA and is not pitched directly to a partisan bloc, whereas this template is currently in use only by expressed inclusionists and belongs to an expressly inclusionist project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- I don't believe everyone listed at Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Members#All_Members would identify as an inclusionist. Some certainly, but not all. Plus, we state clearly at Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron#So_the_ARS_are_wild-eyed_inclusionists.3F that we do not intend a partisan agenda. It's about rescuing what articles can be rescued, not rescuing everything. If it was inclusionist, it would be about trying to rescue as many articles as possible, when I and the others I usually work with approach it as acknowledging that we can't rescue everything so focus on those for which sources can be found and then work from them. Do you suspect some people might misuse things, well, it's kind of like guns don't kill people, people kill people. How do we stop people from misusing AfD? Because some do, should we eliminate AfD altogether? So far, you seem suspicious about one particular discussion, which those same editors could have easily stumbled upon and agrued to keep regardless of that userspace template as that's how I would have expected them to go anyway. Would not having that template have actually casued any of them to argue differently or to not eventually come across the discussion, I'm not so sure. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 06:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Of course not, that's a list of hundreds of people, many of whom don't even edit any more. On the other hand, this template is only on the user/talk pages of self-declared inclusionists, the talk page is constantly bandying about talk of "winning against the deletionists", the project page links just about every inclusionist essay I can think of outside of the whole CRUFTCRUFTCRUFTCRUFTCRUFT hairball, and all of the regular commentors on talk save Protonk and myself are self-declared inclusionists. This is not a problem on its own, but an automatic AFD list pitched to a clearly partisan group is, if only for the appearance of impropriety. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- I can think of some more inclusionist essays not listed...:) Anyway, though, looking at some of the supports for WP:FICT, it's not as if there aren't other pages riddled with remarks about defeating inclusionists. But I don't see how having this list on someone's page is any different than say having the ARS category page watchlisted or looking for AfDs of articles by other means that has the template. I don't have the template, because I can still find all the tagged articles on another page in the ARS space, just as I don't keep the RfA template on my page as I just check the RfA page to see who's been nominated or watch list discussions in which I anticipate a reply. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- WT:FICT isn't a wikiproject, is heterogenous in the extreme, doesn't have an automatically-populated list of borderline AFDs being posted on people's talk pages, and isn't doing anything but generating megabytes of useless internecine infighting. Non sequitor.
- Having a list in the ARS space is emotionally different, for reasons I cannot entirely put my finger on. The goal of the project is at least proximate to the exhortation to focus on improving articles, not swamping AFDs. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- I can think of some more inclusionist essays not listed...:) Anyway, though, looking at some of the supports for WP:FICT, it's not as if there aren't other pages riddled with remarks about defeating inclusionists. But I don't see how having this list on someone's page is any different than say having the ARS category page watchlisted or looking for AfDs of articles by other means that has the template. I don't have the template, because I can still find all the tagged articles on another page in the ARS space, just as I don't keep the RfA template on my page as I just check the RfA page to see who's been nominated or watch list discussions in which I anticipate a reply. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Of course not, that's a list of hundreds of people, many of whom don't even edit any more. On the other hand, this template is only on the user/talk pages of self-declared inclusionists, the talk page is constantly bandying about talk of "winning against the deletionists", the project page links just about every inclusionist essay I can think of outside of the whole CRUFTCRUFTCRUFTCRUFTCRUFT hairball, and all of the regular commentors on talk save Protonk and myself are self-declared inclusionists. This is not a problem on its own, but an automatic AFD list pitched to a clearly partisan group is, if only for the appearance of impropriety. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- I don't believe everyone listed at Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Members#All_Members would identify as an inclusionist. Some certainly, but not all. Plus, we state clearly at Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron#So_the_ARS_are_wild-eyed_inclusionists.3F that we do not intend a partisan agenda. It's about rescuing what articles can be rescued, not rescuing everything. If it was inclusionist, it would be about trying to rescue as many articles as possible, when I and the others I usually work with approach it as acknowledging that we can't rescue everything so focus on those for which sources can be found and then work from them. Do you suspect some people might misuse things, well, it's kind of like guns don't kill people, people kill people. How do we stop people from misusing AfD? Because some do, should we eliminate AfD altogether? So far, you seem suspicious about one particular discussion, which those same editors could have easily stumbled upon and agrued to keep regardless of that userspace template as that's how I would have expected them to go anyway. Would not having that template have actually casued any of them to argue differently or to not eventually come across the discussion, I'm not so sure. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 06:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- But that is every RFA and is not pitched directly to a partisan bloc, whereas this template is currently in use only by expressed inclusionists and belongs to an expressly inclusionist project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's kind of like that RfA box some people have on their userpages; just because it's there doesn't mean everyone who has it is going to comment in every RfA listed. If someone specifically goes to peoples' pages saying, be sure to comment in all of the following discussions, then that's one thing, but a template that editors can look at at their discretion is not quite the same thing, because as I said before, I don't feel inclined to try to rescue and arguer to keep everything that's ARS templated and I don't see the members of the group go to defend everything templated either. So, it's like checking the RfAs, okay which ones do I want to comment in and which ones should I avoid? Same thing, let's check the list of items tagged for rescue, okay, well I can find sources for this one, or I think this artice has potential, but it's no guarantee that anyone will comment in support of everything on this list and it's even possible that some will argue to delete as I recall DGG doing in an ARS templated article that I argued to keep. As far as the future, people will assume and interpret things all kinds of ways regardless of what we attempt to do. I suggest having one of those small script "This article has been tagged for rescue" style messages akin to those the wikiprojects use for deletion sorting. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 05:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- How is this different from "Here's AFD/x, I thought you might want to comment" on the talk page of everyone you know to be an inclusionist? And how can the appearance of impropriety be avoided in the future? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know who all has it. I didn't put on my page (if someone else did and I'm unaware, I didn't add it...). I just wouldn't assume that because someone's an inclusionist they will always knee-jerk try to keep. I deliberately avoid a good deal of discussions that I am either ambivalent on or am okay if deleted (one more delete from me is not necessary and if I actually did comment in more discussions for stuff that I don't believe meets our inclusion criteria, I would have well over the 50+ current deletion arguments I've made). I think we should be able to get wider participation in AfDs and I strongly support requiring notification of not just article creators, but also anyone with a few contributions, because the usual half dozen odd commentors in five days just doesn't seem a real pulse taking of how the community views the articles in question. There are some discussions I have missed a day late or so that I reckon I might have been able to at least get a merge out of. My hope is that the members will make more efforts at rescuing the articles as I attempt more so than commenting in the AfDs as we need both and there are times where I feel as if I am carrying the weight of reference searching and adding. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 05:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Which is why I had no problem before. Is there anyone who isn't a self-described inclusionist who has this template on their talk page, though? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Not everyone listed there is an inclusionist, though, and you have edited around there, i.e. non-inclusionists obviously watch that project, so aside from helping to improve articles, I am not seeing any detrimental effect. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 05:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it's a template that exists to link articles on AFD on the talk page of expressed inclusionists. If this were done by hand, the appearance of bad faith would be overwhelming. The reason I brought it up here and on the project talk page is because I hoped that this was an unintended consequence. If I had reason to believe actual bad faith, I have a delete button. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Accusing some talk page template as being an instrument of canvassing is kind of a villification, no? I think here, at AfDs, etc., we are all spending far too much time doing stuff other than working together to improve articles. We should all get back to that and help each other to add references and what have you. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting...you claim I have 300 deletions, then point to a tool which only says that 100 articles I've AfDed were deleted with 88 others probably merges/redirects. New math? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Arguing with Ikip about who is and isn't an inclusionist or deletionist is fruitless. This sort of Conservapedia factionalize-and-villify nonsense is a distraction. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Here is the reason Black is so mad:
- Three articles Black has attempted to delete, without contributing anything to the article, which the ARS actually added content and references too, making his chances to delete that much harder. Ikip (talk) 05:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Arguing with Ikip about who is and isn't an inclusionist or deletionist is fruitless. This sort of Conservapedia factionalize-and-villify nonsense is a distraction. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Do you have anything to contribute other than sarcasm and villification? This kind of "well, you're my enemy, so I don't have to listen to you and if I'm making you unhappy, good!" attitude is not productive. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- I am glad that you are criticizing ARS, because that means a lot of editors who know how to add references and contribute content are saving articles. Ikip (talk) 04:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Two of those articles predate this tool (and I don't think I wanted to delete either, as I recall). The last post-dates this tool, and has four ARS members (who made no substantial edits to the article, and before any sources at all had been offered) all voting "Keep per [whoever]", after the article was added to this template. Is that appearance of impropriety not worrisome? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- No, as it's just not much different than however else anyone got to the discussion. Does everyone who argued to keep have the specific template under discussion here on their userpages? Not all of them. Is everyone who argued to keep even an article rescue squad member (I don't believe Richard Arthur Norton is). And at least one member (me) did try to find sources and add them and then debate them in the AfD, while still here and there trying to find more. Don't get me wrong, when I template an article, I am hoping that other members can find sources I haven't and will be able to add them to the article. I don't template merely hoping to get some more keep "votes." I look through the various AfDs for ones that I find particularly worthwhile and template those. Then, I spend time looking for sources and compile what I can and return to the article to do what I can hoping that maybe someone else is doing the same. Sometimes I don't even comment in the AfD as well in the hopes that those who do are taking note of article rescue attempts underway. Frequently, I'll only comment in the AfD if I think it's really necessary, because I would much, much rather use what time I have welcoming new users or adding sources and fixing grammar and spacing. I whole-heartedly believe way too much time is spent on this site in AfDs and pages like this that could and should be spent helping each other to actually improve the articles. But, I guess that's the nature of things. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 05:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- No, but nearly everyone who had the specific template on their user page argued to keep per DGG, save of course DGG.
- There is a significant appearance of impropriety, that a tool that is expressly not for AFD cavassing correlated exactly to a bloc of pure "Per [user]" votes. This is worrisome to me. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm honestly just not seeing it. You know I don't really like "per x" "votes" and all and wish more of my fellow ARS members would help in the article improvement too, but we can't really compell volunteers to do that, but if anything is of concern it is that more time has been spent speculating on editors' intentions than trying to improve the article. I think we really got side-tracked. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 05:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not speculating as to their intentions, just seeing a very unfortunate pattern. WP:ARS is in a tenuous position, and as soon as this tool came to be there was an apparent misuse. How did it happen, how can we prevent it, and is this an appropriate tool? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Based on past experiences with those editors in many an AfD, I am reasonably confident that they would have argued that same way regardless and would have commented in that discussion regardless. I don't think the tool actually made any kind of decisive differences. All of those editors are capable of finding AfDs and their arguments are consistent with those they have made before this template was created. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Then why is it necessary? Why have such an easily-abused tool, when it will cast a pall over good-faith comments? This is the damage the appearance of impropriety can do, even when there is no impropriety. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- I am not saying that it is necessary, as again, I don't have it, only that I am not convinced it is being used maliciously, because those editors probably have the ARS pages watchlisted anyway where the templated articles are listed and more likely than not would have commented in that discussion and argued in the manner they did regardless of this particular template. I don't believe it really made a difference. I trust admins to not assume bad faith against the ARS members who commented in the AFD. Is it necessary, well, no more necessary than WP:FANCRUFT is to building an encyclopedia and just as surely as we'd get by just find not having that useless essay, we'd probably get by without this as well. I don't personally care if this particular template is kept or not (with that said then we should get rid of nonsense like the fancruft essay too). My concern here is seeing what I suspect was done in good faith being characterized as if it was some kind of collusion among editors or as if it somehow made a different in the discussion when I doubt it in both cases. Regards, --A NobodyMy talk 06:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Then why is it necessary? Why have such an easily-abused tool, when it will cast a pall over good-faith comments? This is the damage the appearance of impropriety can do, even when there is no impropriety. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Based on past experiences with those editors in many an AfD, I am reasonably confident that they would have argued that same way regardless and would have commented in that discussion regardless. I don't think the tool actually made any kind of decisive differences. All of those editors are capable of finding AfDs and their arguments are consistent with those they have made before this template was created. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not speculating as to their intentions, just seeing a very unfortunate pattern. WP:ARS is in a tenuous position, and as soon as this tool came to be there was an apparent misuse. How did it happen, how can we prevent it, and is this an appropriate tool? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm honestly just not seeing it. You know I don't really like "per x" "votes" and all and wish more of my fellow ARS members would help in the article improvement too, but we can't really compell volunteers to do that, but if anything is of concern it is that more time has been spent speculating on editors' intentions than trying to improve the article. I think we really got side-tracked. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 05:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- No, as it's just not much different than however else anyone got to the discussion. Does everyone who argued to keep have the specific template under discussion here on their userpages? Not all of them. Is everyone who argued to keep even an article rescue squad member (I don't believe Richard Arthur Norton is). And at least one member (me) did try to find sources and add them and then debate them in the AfD, while still here and there trying to find more. Don't get me wrong, when I template an article, I am hoping that other members can find sources I haven't and will be able to add them to the article. I don't template merely hoping to get some more keep "votes." I look through the various AfDs for ones that I find particularly worthwhile and template those. Then, I spend time looking for sources and compile what I can and return to the article to do what I can hoping that maybe someone else is doing the same. Sometimes I don't even comment in the AfD as well in the hopes that those who do are taking note of article rescue attempts underway. Frequently, I'll only comment in the AfD if I think it's really necessary, because I would much, much rather use what time I have welcoming new users or adding sources and fixing grammar and spacing. I whole-heartedly believe way too much time is spent on this site in AfDs and pages like this that could and should be spent helping each other to actually improve the articles. But, I guess that's the nature of things. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 05:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Two of those articles predate this tool (and I don't think I wanted to delete either, as I recall). The last post-dates this tool, and has four ARS members (who made no substantial edits to the article, and before any sources at all had been offered) all voting "Keep per [whoever]", after the article was added to this template. Is that appearance of impropriety not worrisome? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I know and agreed...its rather disappointing to see how badly the factionalization (new word?) is getting in recent times. Where sides used to seem to at least be able to meet in the middle, its becoming like little war camps with the moderates stuck in the middle. And lately, the whole "inclusionist" thing is getting over the top, with people throwing three sources on an article and calling it "fixed" then leaving it no better than it was before yet proudly declaring" we saved it." I don't even get how that makes anyone proud...take that article to GA then claim you did something, or heck even B class. But that rarely happens, and usually not from the "rescue" group.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Not all articles have to be GA or B class to be worthwhile to include on our project. Nominating articles for deletion that can be improved happens all too often and that is far more eggregious than anything else. We should all be working together to improve articles rather than become a collection of discussions. At the same side, I don't see how destroying other editors' work can make anyone proud either. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 05:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- *sigh* That's a disservice to the work the project does, and completely irrelevant to the point I came here to make. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
A nobody is a much better diplomat than me, so I will let him talk. FYI, I attempted to combing the Inclusionists with ARS a few months ago and infuriated a lot of people, including Ben and Prot. So to say that ARS are inclusionist is simply not true. Ikip (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm a little worried about the shift ARS is taking, since they get a pretty big exemption from "canvassing". An exemption that mostly stems from the fact that they work to rescue articles rather than debate about them. In my opinion so long as the focus of the project remains in letter and in practice to rescue articles (and not debate them), they should be fine using whatever means available to them to let members know which articles are up for rescue. But if at some point they become a funnel for discussion at AfD, that perspective will change dramatically. Protonk (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- With respects to User:A Man In Black, I consider trying to improve wiki by rescuing artcles to meet the very core foundations of what wikipedia is all about. If I succeed, great... wiki is improved. If I fail, I move on and wiki might be just a little diminished. Many new editors, dazed and confused by the wiki process, may continue and become terrific contributors with even the smallest amount of encouragement. So rescuing articles and showing fellowship to new eitors improves wiki. I am a fairly recent member of ARS, having joined when invited by Mgm, and I enjoy being able to make positive contributions to the project. However, I do not know who this "They" are to whom you refer, and I have no template automatically notifying me of anything. So, I can only suppose that this "scheme" is not "automatic" to ARS members unless one personally exercises an option to be so informed... and that could be a terrific tool just like so many others we all have available for further improvement of the project. I think it makes good sense to give worrisome articles every possible oportunity to be of value to wiki, but do not see that as being inclusionist or deletist. I think inproving wiki is everybody's main concern. Further, I have cafefully studied the "so-called" canvasing, and though it pushes the edge, it does not seem to violate guideline, as it does not seem pointed at editors either favorable or opposed and seems to be worded in an extremely neutral manner... even though it has apparently ruffled the feathers of some. To those whose feathers are ruffled, I can only ask that they step back and ask themselves.... isn't improving the quality and uesfulness of wiki the goal to which we all aspire? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Again, not opposing the project, just a single tool it uses, one which you don't use.
- I would turn that question around: you manage to help the wiki without an automatic, scarcely-logged filtered list of borderline AFDs appearing on your talk page. Why is this problematic tool necessary, if you're clearly getting by without it? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- And in return, I would have to ask why ANY of the tools made available to editors exist. Simple answer: If a tool helps an editor do a better job of improving the project, then the tool has value to that editor and to the project as a whole... whether it's a single tool used by one editor or a multiple set used by many. To be frank... it has been quite a chore keeping up with so many many many articles at AfD.. and there are only so many hours in a day. And now that you have my curiosity up, I feel compelled to myself take a close look and see if this notification tool can help me improve the project. And please believe me, as I am not trying to be flippant or snide, I want thank you for bringing its existance to my attention. It could defintely be useful if it does all you say it does, as scolling through all the pages of AfD's can be an onerous and painful chore. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Installed in a sandbox linked from my userpage. Seems an interesting little gizmo. Surprised it lists so very few articles... but that nust mean there are only a few currently tagged for rescue... and likely they need the most help the soonest. Perhaps one day rescues will no longer be required, but appreciate that I can provide this service toward the betterment of the project. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- And in return, I would have to ask why ANY of the tools made available to editors exist. Simple answer: If a tool helps an editor do a better job of improving the project, then the tool has value to that editor and to the project as a whole... whether it's a single tool used by one editor or a multiple set used by many. To be frank... it has been quite a chore keeping up with so many many many articles at AfD.. and there are only so many hours in a day. And now that you have my curiosity up, I feel compelled to myself take a close look and see if this notification tool can help me improve the project. And please believe me, as I am not trying to be flippant or snide, I want thank you for bringing its existance to my attention. It could defintely be useful if it does all you say it does, as scolling through all the pages of AfD's can be an onerous and painful chore. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's that big a deal. It's a shortcut for the ARS crew to keep abreast of articles that have been tagged, maybe saves them a click or two from looking at that auto-generated page or whatnot -- but, I think the vim and vigor with which ARS members already check up on ARS-tagged articles' AfD pages is already high enough that this shortcut won't make much of an impact. If the concern is that it makes it more likely the ARSers will swarm to an AfD discussion significantly faster or more often than they already do, then, no, I don't think that's the case. --EEMIV (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. To both A Man In Black and A Nobody - WP:TLDR. In general I see this as one editor being over eager to try various schemes and ideas to help a project which does work seen as inclusionistic. Many ideas don't stick and to their credit they keep plugging away. The template, I think, is not a bad idea but I'm also open to modifying it and frankly there is a lot of maintenance work at ARS and I try to measure out my volunteer hours accordingly. I think if there is community agreement this this particular template is inherently canvassing then it likely shouldn't be used, it's designed for user space and the only reason I have one is it was placed as part of a talk section, and will be archived soon if it hasn't already. I guess another concern could be that similar clean-up projects would do the same but I'm also unsure if that would be inherently canvassing either technically or in spirit. Personally, I'm not terribly bothered either way and everytime these issues are brought up, the ARS folks seem to favor being NPOV and just getting on with the work. -- Banjeboi 03:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
FACs needing feedback view • | |
---|---|
2023 World Snooker Championship | Review it now |
Tornado outbreak of February 12, 1945 | Review it now |
Susanna Hoffs | Review it now |
2023 Union Square riot | Review it now |
- FWIW, I stumbled across this template listing FACs. Not perfectly equivalent but similar aspects of highlighting articles on one's userpage for attention. -- Banjeboi 12:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- There is a huge difference between sending unsolicited messages to editors in bulk, versus notifing editors who specifically signed up to receive notification on a topic. There are no restrictions on who can add the template to their page, and in fact one could add it with the intention of finding articles to delete. This is basically equivalent to a user watching a wikiproject page, except by more efficient means. AfD hero (talk) 08:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Please note that A Man in Black has in the past couple of weeks:
- tediously argued on ANI against editors inviting other editors to join WP:ARS, despite 260 other templates which do the same thing.
- demote WP:PRESERVE, which asks editors to use deletion as a last resort
- has accused editors of canvassing by using the {{rescue}} tag on AfDs
- Raised a stink about a list of articles marked as tagged for rescue Ikip (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Please keep the arguments directed at the subject at hand and not the person who made them. This is the talk board for the canvassing guidelines, not an RfC on AMIB. Themfromspace (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
There does exist at least one example of this template's clear misuse: EagleFan, who has this template on his talk page, recently went down the list, with a series of rapid-fire keeps (all with no rationale or "per [other user]" rationales) all to articles on the list. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] These AFDs are all on the ARS template and have little else in common; they are different topics, are spread over several days, and his comments are all within the space of 20 minutes.
The problem is that I don't know what to do. The potential for misuse is clear, and we have an example. It's also a useful tool for the project's good work. I'm troubled, but I have no particular solution. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- That's a trouble with useful tools... They can be misused as well as they can be used.
- Perhaps the first step might be to determine what the criteria is for inclusion on the template, and further, what the criteria should be. Perhaps that might help minimise misuse? - jc37 08:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- I don't dislike the current criteria. An article can be flagged for {{rescue}} if it's in danger of being deleted for bad writing or a lack of notability. I don't mind broadly written, general criteria because it should include everything that can be improved to be saved, and narrower criteria wouldn't prevent or even significantly impede this sort of misuse anyway. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Mk, then I think I may be joining you at the "at a loss" table, shortly... - jc37 08:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- I don't dislike the current criteria. An article can be flagged for {{rescue}} if it's in danger of being deleted for bad writing or a lack of notability. I don't mind broadly written, general criteria because it should include everything that can be improved to be saved, and narrower criteria wouldn't prevent or even significantly impede this sort of misuse anyway. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Massive canvassing at AfD
RE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongolia during Tang rule. Can the AfD be closed because of canvassing? Ikip (talk) 07:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Generally, the way that's dealt with is that the closing admin takes into account the skewed votecounts, either relying chiefly on arguments or simply discounting the canvassed people. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Votestacking and WP:SOCK
Is the the votestacking can be the signs of sockpuppet? I noticed in certain AfD noms there was a sockpuppet-related votestack. Junk Police (talk) 23:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Advertising discussions
Please see Wikipedia:Advertising discussions, a proposal I've made to formalise guidelines on where and how the largest discussions should be advertised around Wikipedia to ensure sufficient input to major discussions. Improvements to the page and input on the talk page would be appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 10:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Change to the forum shop section
Hi together. I expanded the forumshop section slightly to include behavior that afaik is already frowned upon as admin shopping but was not explicitely covered. As this talk page is quite dead, I decided to go with WP:BRD in this case. Regards SoWhy 13:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Are AfD notifications on the Talk pages of related articles inappropriate canvassing? They don't seem to violate the four listed criteria.
Example: WP:Articles for deletion/Quilem Registre Taser incident, notifications left at four articles.
- The nominated article Quilem Registre Taser incident was lightly edited and probably poorly watched.
- A merger was proposed, the merge target List of people who died after being tasered in Canada was one of the notified articles.
- The notifications were disclosed and briefly justified at the AfD.
- Talk:List of people who died after being tasered in Canada – proposed merge target (diff)
- Talk:Robert Dziekański Taser incident – prominent Canadian incident, most active related article (diff)
- Talk:Taser – main article (diff)
- Talk:Taser safety issues (formerly Taser controversy) – sub-article relevant to deaths (diff)
- Some "Taser incident" articles were excluded, such as UCLA Taser incident and University of Florida Taser incident.
Flatscan (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Expanded, added diffs per Ikip. Flatscan (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Copied specific notifications from AfD. Flatscan (talk) 04:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- I am confused about what you the bullet points mean. Can you rewrite and clarify? thank you. Ikip (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- The bullet points are items specific to the example that I consider relevant and wish to highlight. Flatscan (talk) 03:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I see:
- Quilem Registre Taser incident was lightly edited, and was probably poorly watched.
- There was merge proposals in Quilem Registre Taser incident, in which List of people who died after being tasered in Canada was the proposed merge target.
- The Notifications were disclosed and briefly justified at the Quilem Registre Taser incidentAfD[[9]]
- Some "Taser incident" articles were not notified.
- Got it thank you. Ikip (talk) 04:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I see:
- The bullet points are items specific to the example that I consider relevant and wish to highlight. Flatscan (talk) 03:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- The specific example provided, leaving notice at the proposed merge destination (List of people who died after being tasered in Canada), seems to make abundant sense; you seem to mention that other notices were left, but it's difficult to comment on those without knowing where they were. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've copied the notifications from the AfD. There's a little more justification at the AfD, but it's less important, and I'll probably rehash it when I analyze this example from the outside. Flatscan (talk) 04:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- NO! WP:canvassing is a guideline (suggestion) and NOT a policy (rule). Big difference. TomCat4680 (talk) 08:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- While I agree with this in theory, we should be careful to not suggest that this should be interpreted broadly. A fiction-related AfD (or for that matter, a math-related AfD) could lead to comments all over. - jc37 23:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Spamming all of Special:WhatLinksHere would be clear disruption in most cases. I can't imagine a case where 10 article notifications would be acceptable, but I don't want to set a number. I would support a wording (probably at WP:Articles for deletion#Notifying interested people) recommending "a limited number of closely-related articles". Flatscan (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- There simply doesn't need to be more rules here.
- The suggested text has two words which have no defintion: "limited number" and "closely-related articles".
- This page is created to stop one sided from being notified (i.e. editors on their talk page) since any person can be watching a particular page, then this is not notifying one side. Ikip (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think it may be helpful to provide guidance on this specific topic. The text is meant as a recommendation or suggestion – as you pointed out, it cannot function as a bright-line rule. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Spamming all of Special:WhatLinksHere would be clear disruption in most cases. I can't imagine a case where 10 article notifications would be acceptable, but I don't want to set a number. I would support a wording (probably at WP:Articles for deletion#Notifying interested people) recommending "a limited number of closely-related articles". Flatscan (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- The real problem is understanding the motivation of our rules against canvassing and the editor placing the notices. Posting notices in related places, such as related articles, is in itself innocuous. We have entire deletion sorting noticeboards devoted to this concept. However, if the motivation of the poster is to recruit people to one side of the debate, it becomes canvassing as a result of the intent. If someone is, for example, an ardent and vocal member of the Article Rescue Squadron that has publicly stated that deleting articles is disruptive, it's very hard to look at any notices that person has placed as having been placed because of a pure and innocent motivation to improve discussion. One of the things one gives up when one becomes a vocal advocate of something is the right to be viewed as neutral. I don't place many notices of AFDs that I create for precisely that reason: I'm identified by many as a deletionist bogeyman, so my notices no longer appear neutral. I routinely place them on the deletion sorting lists, and place a notice at WT:Record charts when I nominate a chart for deletion, and refrain from doing more. I strongly suggest that ARS members similarly refrain.—Kww(talk) 14:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'd argue that notices that go to involved parties are generally acceptable. Notifying a project about an article at AfD (or Featured Article noms) is reasonable and good. Informing "partisans" who are likely to come in on your side isn't. As noted, that's what the deletion sorting stuff is about. I watch the "games" AfD list for example. Mostly because I know a lot about games... Hobit (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- What's appropriate when there's no applicable project and no noticeboard? Is what's appropriate for an article that has no project/noticeboard also appropriate for an article which does have one? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's a very good question. I'd say posting on the talk pages of a small number of related pages in an attempt to find people who know the topic is reasonable. Defining "small" and "related" is not obvious. Hobit (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- What's appropriate when there's no applicable project and no noticeboard? Is what's appropriate for an article that has no project/noticeboard also appropriate for an article which does have one? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- I notice that recent comments focus on votestacking, but excessive cross-posting should also be considered. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. We get back to words. Indiscriminate in this case. I think the small number of related article talk pages is reasonable. Defining those terms isn't obvious. My gut says 1-2 is small and 7+ isn't in this context. Related is probably impossible to define other than "a reasonable person would think so". Hobit (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Those numbers are in line with my thoughts. If an editor thinks that some notices look questionable for either reason, I think asking for clarification is fair, either at the AfD's talk page or directly at User talk. Flatscan (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. Hobit (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Those numbers are in line with my thoughts. If an editor thinks that some notices look questionable for either reason, I think asking for clarification is fair, either at the AfD's talk page or directly at User talk. Flatscan (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. We get back to words. Indiscriminate in this case. I think the small number of related article talk pages is reasonable. Defining those terms isn't obvious. My gut says 1-2 is small and 7+ isn't in this context. Related is probably impossible to define other than "a reasonable person would think so". Hobit (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Notifications on the talk pages of related articles seem quite sensible as often articles constitute an interlinked set which would suffer if one element was eliminated. Most AFD debates suffer from a lack of editors who know something about the topic and this seems a good way of attracting informed comment. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Notifications on relevant article talk pages are entirely appropriate and in good faith. It is indeed considerate to seek out the insight of those who worked on the article and thus may have a greater familiarity with sources related to the specific subject under discussion. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Going back to the specific example, I considered doing only the first two, skipping the overall subject articles, but ultimately decided on all four. It was a close decision, but the possibility of getting a wider consensus won out. I believe that RomaC came via the notice at Talk:Robert Dziekański Taser incident (asked for confirmation, but no response yet). I expected participation from Dziekański due to its activity and close relationship (2 Canadian incidents occurring within a week, news articles mentioning them together); the overall inactivity of Taser and Taser controversy should have tipped me off. Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Addition to votestacking
Andrevan made an addition to votestacking that was reverted. It concerns an editor selecting and notifying a discussion which has a consensus (and perhaps a selection of editors) with which the editor agrees. An example would be an editor who wishes for a delete outcome canvassing a similar AfD already closed as delete.
Notifying participants in a particular previous AfD of a new related AfD has been the subject of recent votestacking complaints – but only because one side was omitted. As soon as both sides were notified, the complaints were dropped, which implies that such notifications are generally accepted. I think that canvassing potentially biased discussions may have been overlooked and that this addition merits discussion. Flatscan (talk) 03:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not thrilled with his exact wording, but the concept was valid.—Kww(talk) 03:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think I didn't phrase it completely well, but I don't think the revert was in good faith. But if anyone could take a stab at rephrasing this, it definitely seems like an important thing that was left out. In this case, BVE Trainsim was closed in 2006 as Keep, when people were a lot less hard on reliable sourcing in articles and a lot of things got by only to later get deleted. I'm not completely sure that it will go the other way this time, but Ikip who voted Keep this time clearly was concerned so canvassed the entire discussion, which was 5-2 keep including me the nominator. In my opinion this is a clear application of the prohibition against canvassing to turn the discussion. Andre (talk) 11:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Contacting editors for follow-up RfC
I am planning to start an RfC about date-delinking, which will follow on several previous ones. Would it be appropriate to contact users who commented in previous RfCs to inform them of the new one? --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- WP:Advertising discussions may be more appropriate. Flatscan (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Cross-reference to "Publicising discussions"
I left a notice above (in April) about Wikipedia:Publicising discussions (back then, it was called "Advertising discussions"). Are there any objections to adding a reference from this guideline to that "how-to" guide? I don't want to do so myself, as I wrote the initial draft of that "how-to" guide and have been, well, trying to make people more aware of it. It currently contains a reference to this guideline. If someone uninvolved agrees, could they add a reference somewhere? If anyone disagrees, could they discuss it here? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 06:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- I support adding a link (see my comment immediately above). The See also section is an obvious choice. I'll add it there if no one else does within a few days. Flatscan (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- I added a link there, first alphabetically. Flatscan (talk) 02:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Goodness. I should have kept the name as "Advertising..." to keep it first in alphabetical order in other places! :-) Thanks for adding it. Carcharoth (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- I added a link there, first alphabetically. Flatscan (talk) 02:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Cross-posting to 46 project members and about to do more.
Having read the discussions above, I would appreciate guidance on whether an editor User:Camaron posting to 46 talk pages of Wikiproject Eurovision members about a straw poll in an RfC on sourcing is appropriate. Posts may be seen here [10]. RfC at [11]. tanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I was aware of this guideline, and I will go through this list:
- Scale: Was limited posting, all editors are highly involved in this issue as it is about sourcing for Eurovision articles, and the decision will impact on their editing highly. It is very rare to send out talk page notices for the entire project but I think this issue is critical enough to warrant it, and in the past I have only received complaints for not doing it enough. WikiProject Eurovision is not the first project to do this, WikiProject Films for example does it as well occasionally for important issues such as membership recall so there is precedent. The only other editors I contacted were previously involved in the RfC, no uninvolved editors were contacted, which is what is discouraged by this guideline.
- Neutral: Message was neutral, I did not attempt to sway users in a particular direction.
- Audience: I originally contacted only those listed as active for the project, as I thought they were the ones that would be affected most by a decision made. This is not a partisan group and they disagree on many issues, including sourcing as discovered in a previous RfC (see WP Eurovision talk page archives). I did not select which members to contact, any missed out was accidental, and I think it should noted that I contacted users on the project who I have personally disagreed with on sourcing issues in the past, so I have not got much personally out of this.
- Transparency: I did it on public talk pages and said it clearly that I had done it on the RfC itself, so it was very open. I could have done it by e-mail for most editors but did not for transparency.
I also followed the instructions at Wikipedia:Canvassing#If you intend to canvass:
- Be open, I was per above.
- Be polite, I tried to write the message as open and civil, I specifically said the poll could be modified as I did not want to give the impression that I was project dictator.
- Do not use a bot., I didn't this was done 100% manually, which put a limit on how many I could contact.
This could have gone in the project newsletter, but that was not due out for anther month and I was concerned I may receive complaints from users if they did not find out about it a month after posting. I considered putting it on WP:CENT, but I thought the RfC was too specific only being about a small niche of articles to require wider community notification. As for doing more, I have long finished and any extra I did was only in response to the original complaint on the RfC itself. Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Butting in
I've never been a part of this talk page before, and I'm hardly an "old hat" at WP; but, FWIW - I think this is the most counter-productive "guideline" I've ever seen at WP. We are supposed to be an "open" community that works in a "collaborative" manner, and to say that it's wrong to solicit viewpoints from our fellow editors is simply the exact opposite of the intent of our goals. You folks can have at it here, and I'll not belabor the point - but to try to quiet the request for input is simply wrong. Mark this whole thing as "historic", and lets get to talking to one another, THAT'S how people collaborate. My opinion, full stop. — Ched : ? 06:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ched, you should know that you are not alone in your thinking. Whoever created this guideline seemed to fear that allowing free speech would result in mob rule and a squashing of rational thinking. (My own thinking is, the appropriate response to free speech is more free speech, not less . . . ) Yet there's nothing that we can do about it, methinks, because this policy was carved in stone before I ever heard of it, two years ago. In fact, the way I heard about it was like most editors—I unknowingly violated it. It certainly is counterintuitive, isn't it? Sigh. Unschool 14:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ahh-Haa.... so you're the one that... Just kidding. — Ched : ? 15:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- IRONY Law type! snype? 21:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've not felt this stupid for several months. I have no idea to what you two are alluding, or if even you are referring to the same thing. What is it that you regard as ironic, Law? Unschool 02:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- I was just trying to make a "funny" - that you were the person who had been accused of "Canvassing" - The humor (or so I thought) being that so many folks are accused of it. My guess would be that Law noticed you dropping a message on my talk page - and saw irony in "canvassing" about "canvassing". — Ched : ? 02:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oh I was purely being juvenile. I found the canvassing talk page because the link was 'canvassed' on your talk page. Obviously it wasn't truly canvassing - I just lol'd at the way I got here. Law type! snype? 01:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- I was just trying to make a "funny" - that you were the person who had been accused of "Canvassing" - The humor (or so I thought) being that so many folks are accused of it. My guess would be that Law noticed you dropping a message on my talk page - and saw irony in "canvassing" about "canvassing". — Ched : ? 02:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've not felt this stupid for several months. I have no idea to what you two are alluding, or if even you are referring to the same thing. What is it that you regard as ironic, Law? Unschool 02:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- IRONY Law type! snype? 21:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ahh-Haa.... so you're the one that... Just kidding. — Ched : ? 15:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that depending on where one posts it's rather easy to sway a deletion discussion one way or another. That's why it's encouraged to post at the relevant project pages, but soliciting particular editors or groups of editors can get tricky. I sometimes go to an editor I know is familiar with a subject area so they can elevate and offer insight into a discussion. But clearly there are ways of swaying a closely contested discussion. That's what we're trying to avoid in so far as it's possible.ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps it's my viewpoint that our "decisions" are based on "consensus", and the belief that the more input we have, the better we're able to establish consensus. I've seen many a editor chased from an article when a few folks "set up shop" on a page, and then dictate what should or should not be allowed in an article. If the new editor tries to introduce material that may make an article more NPOV, then tries to get a wider audience, that editor is often accused of "canvassing", and I simply don't see that as a bad thing. I would think that political and religious articles would be an example of this. — Ched : ? 04:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
CoM, you are absolutely right when you say that its easy to sway a deletion discussion by soliciting the input of a few editors, particularly if you already know their point of view. But the solution--prohibition of canvassing--is worse than the problem. From my standpoint, if someone with whom I was disagreeing chose to bring in other editors who agreed with him, my response would be a) to more seriously consider his viewpoint, since it represents the viewpoint of many others, and b) if I still felt the same way, I would go out and see if others agreed with me, or even seek out others who in the past have agreed with me. We'll have a better idea of what actual consensus is if more people, not less, participate. And the idea that it's okay to post on relevant project pages is a non-starter, in my opinion. People who regularly work together often share groupthink, and posting on project pages can actually increase the imbalance of opinion, if the vast majority of participants in a project share the same thinking. I mean, what's wrong with bringing in outside ideas?
The logic against canvassing, if applied elsewhere in life, would clearly be seen as absurd. Let's say I live in a small New Hampshire town and at the next town meeting a dispute will be decided between two merchants, one of whom wants to ban parking in front of stores and move it to a central location blocks from the business district, and another merchant who wants to continue allowing the parking. If WP:CANVASS applied in this situation, the only persons who would be notified about the parking debate at the town meeting would be the two merchants involved, and anyone else who had already gotten involved. We wouldn't bother advertising the meeting in the town paper or send out emails to the citizens, because--gasp---large numbers of people might show up and "sway" the debate. Isn't that a foolish viewpoint? I certainly think so.
I adhere--scrupulously--to WP:CANVASS, because it's the current "law". But it doesn't change the fact that I think it's a fundamentally stupid law, grounded in the opinion that people can't be trusted to do what's right. And that's about as anti-Wikipedian an idea as you can come up with. Unschool 06:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've seen deletion discussions where an editor leaves a note to everyone who voted delete in a pervious discussion. Is that appropriate? Or what about an editor who is on the losing side of a debate and posts notes to friends. These things happen. There are people that can be asked who can be counted on to give fair opinions and there are situations where soliciting input can be done in a way that's disruptive. AfD is an open process and I suggested areas I think are reasonable to post to solicit wider input. But selectively seeking input from a particular set of editors can be very problematic. I would be interested to hear what someone like Michael Q Schmidt has to say on the issue. I don't see as much division and canvassing as I used to. But it only takes a few editors working together to be able to sway deletion discussions. Soliciting wider input can actually help counter that, but there are situations where I think canvassing is a real problem. For example there are certain editors who can be relied on to vote delete on pseudo-science topics. And there are certain editors who vote delete on controversies involving the president. I can't recall many instances of being accused of canvassing. But I try to be careful about who I go and ask. People sometimes have a lot invested in an article or an AfD outcome and it's important the everyone can be confident that the process is fair and isn't prone to being skewed by selective canvassing. I haven't read the guideline, but the concern about the solicitation of votes in order to rig an outcome of an AfD is legitimate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I understand all of that. What you are saying is the rationale for WP:CANVASS. I'm saying something very different. I'm saying take the restrictions off of everyone. Yes, people will solicit those who agree with them. Fine--let the people on the other side do the same! Let anyone and everyone who gives two hoots participate. The solution to editors who will try to dominate the debate on a page is not to restrict their speech, but for their opponents to strengthen theirs. I don't know what country you live in, CoM, but chances are, it's got some form of democratic government. Do you want to take steps to restrict the number of people who participate and vote, just because someone will "Persuade" them?
Here's another thing to think about. Right now, the "good guys" won't canvass, and the "bad guys" will. What's worse, the bad guys don't even have to canvass in the open; they can just send each other emails that we'll never know about. So if everyone is allowed to canvass, then no one will have a disadvantage just because they're following the rules. Unschool 07:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- CoM is right. If there was a way to get the input of everyone who was vaguely interested in a given issue, that would be one thing. But the whole point of canvassing is to "stack" the voting and win the debate. However, you are also right that only morons canvass in the open, and the smart ones do it via e-mail. So that leaves us with a dilemma - what's the right solution? One solution is to have ALL pending votes listed on the banner. That doesn't seem overly practical. But if there were either a central repository or an automated notification to any theoretically interested parties, that might be more practical and more fair, as it would tend to nullify the effects of biased canvassing that CoM is talking about. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't want to spend my time fighting canvassing wars. Just as paying people to go to the polls is problematic, so is canvassing. I've now read the guideline and I support it. The distinctions it makes seem very reasonable to me. Solciting input from the community is good, canvassing is bad. Creating a section in this guideline suggesting appropriate ways to solicit input might be a good idea (maybe using a neutral forum like the article content noticeboard?). But seeing who can rally a bigger gang for their side doesn't seem like a good way to go about AfDs. Sorry to rain on anyone's parade. I'm a big supporter of deleting the wp:dick page if that's any consolation. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- I do want you to understand that I know that the motives of those who support WP:CANVASS are noble. I just also think that they're misguided, because people are almost certainly emailing one another to get around the guideline, which then punishes those who follow the guideline. At the same time, I recognize that allowing the free-for-all that I favor would generate some degree of chaos. But at least it would be more honest.
- An alternative might be something like a permanent page like the Discussion Report that the Signpost has had for the past six months or so. One page where anyone and everyone could post any discussion of any type they wanted to have listed. It would be a mess, but it would be better than the craploads of discussion spam that would likely hit our talk pages if my proposal was adopted.
- I don't actually favor dropping WP:CANVASS, because (ironically) I believe it represents the consensus of the community. All I'm doing is periodically reminding anyone who will read what I write that we shouldn't be fooling ourselves into believing that this guideline does what it purports to do. It does not actually promote fair discussion with equal input from all sides; in point of fact it suppresses discussion and it gives undue advantage to the unscrupulous. Unschool 21:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
The guideline on "canvassing" is yet another of those that I first heard about (besides speedy, conflict of interest, and spam) by seeing it used in ways that are bad for Wikipedia, and of which those who used them should be ashamed. About two years ago, I posted absolutely neutrally worded notices to two WikiProjects informing them that a certain deletion review discussion was taking place. Another user, still today a very active Wikipedian and an administrator, very indignantly objected to my "canvassing", pointing out this guideline and said I must be "desperate" to resort to that standard procedure (of which he had expressed his approval before I did it), which is in fact the usual and responsible thing to do, and had been a customary practice for some time before that. I later found myself accused by various others of having contacted people I knew would support my position. That was dishonest. The aforementioned administrator was systematically dishonest in other ways as well, and I have to suspect him of deliberately urging his friends to accuse me of, among other things, biased canvassing. I'm not sure exactly how that bears on the present discussion, but the fact that good policies can be used in dishonest ways should be borne in mind. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Here's how it bears on the current discussion: Wikipedia is "not censored", we are told, and yet there is one place where that is not true: When we talk about what we should be doing on Wikipedia. The irony is sublime.
- Most people who engage in "disruptive" behaviour on Wikipedia are well aware of what they are doing, whether it is trolling or simple vandalism. But those who get hit by the charge of canvassing are almost universally shocked, because it runs so counter to the principles that they thought guided this project. Unschool 23:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- "Stacking the deck" is a wikipedia principle??? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- No, of course not. The principle of Wikipedia to which I'm referring is that ordinary people can be trusted to come together and collaborate--despite their differing backgrounds, skills, and even viewpoints and create a reliable encyclopedia. Essentially, we build this encyclopedia on the principles found in Madison's essay, Federalist No. 10, in which Madison argues that tyranny is best kept at bay not by attempting to control factions with differing viewpoints, but by trusting that when all the factions come together for debate, that they will control one another and have to compromise in order to achieve the common good. We have essentially enshrined that principle by the very creation of Wikipedia, and we trust it when it comes to writing articles, but we don't trust it when it comes to talk pages. Unschool 00:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Theory vs. reality. That's why we have admins and it's why they can block disruptive editors. And it's why we have rules - and the capability of enforcing them. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. And since we always say that "it's not a vote", we could trust administrators to make judgement calls instead of merely counting votes. I agree with the need for rules and the capability of enforcing them. I just think we should strive to be a bit more consistent and a bit less deluded. Unschool 01:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Per Bugs: "However, you are also right that only morons canvass in the open, and the smart ones do it via e-mail."
- This is yet another guideline which unintentionally benefits established editors and hurts newer editors. Established editors will probably have a network of friends they can e-mail. New editors don't.
- Unschool, what would you suggest doing? Without a bold idea, I guarantee this discussion will eventually die and no action will be taken. Ikip (talk) 01:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- And if they're smart enough to use e-mails, they could also be smart enough to craft elegant support or oppose comments that will fool the admins. Sometimes I'll get a notification that an article I've worked on is up for something: anywhere from good article to deletion. If everyone who worked on a given article was notified, or if there were otherwise a central notification page for pending decisions about articles, that could level the playing field and lessen or nullify the impact of "stacking the deck". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. And since we always say that "it's not a vote", we could trust administrators to make judgement calls instead of merely counting votes. I agree with the need for rules and the capability of enforcing them. I just think we should strive to be a bit more consistent and a bit less deluded. Unschool 01:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Theory vs. reality. That's why we have admins and it's why they can block disruptive editors. And it's why we have rules - and the capability of enforcing them. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- No, of course not. The principle of Wikipedia to which I'm referring is that ordinary people can be trusted to come together and collaborate--despite their differing backgrounds, skills, and even viewpoints and create a reliable encyclopedia. Essentially, we build this encyclopedia on the principles found in Madison's essay, Federalist No. 10, in which Madison argues that tyranny is best kept at bay not by attempting to control factions with differing viewpoints, but by trusting that when all the factions come together for debate, that they will control one another and have to compromise in order to achieve the common good. We have essentially enshrined that principle by the very creation of Wikipedia, and we trust it when it comes to writing articles, but we don't trust it when it comes to talk pages. Unschool 00:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- "Stacking the deck" is a wikipedia principle??? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
"will fool the admins." huh? how so? I don't think it is possible to fool admins in the AFDs themselves. Do you mean quoting unrelated policies? That is the norm, see how WP:IINFO is abused. Writing an elegant support or oppose is not "fooling" the admin, it is "convincing" the admin with the best argument, which is okay and encouraged.
there was a previously created and disabled bot which I have been supporting to recreate, which notifies all creators of an article. Last I checked it was in test mode. The next step, which will be much more complex and difficult, will be to notify all editors who had x amount of edits on the page.
Contacting all editors who edited a page is technically possible, I just personally don't have the tech knowledge, and it has never actually been done before. Ikip (talk) 02:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Final thoughts (for now)
Nothing is going to change here for the forseeable future, so I just want to end my participation with a couple of thoughts.
- I see the problem not as being new vs. experienced editors, but ethical vs. unethical.
- I recognize that abolition of WP:CANVASS, with no other actions taken, would create significant chaos, at least temporarily, if only because it would create a huge sense of uncertainty about the validity of talk page polls
- The current "certainty" at such polls is illusive.
- The future hope for ending this well-intentioned but hopelessly naive guideline will be some sort of notification system.
- As I indicated in an earlier post, I think Baseball Bugs's idea of a common posting area is one acceptable way to do it. The only problem, as I see it, is that such a posting place would likely become a morass, unless someone took on the job of constantly keeping it organized.
- A more active solution, such as Ikip mentions in his/her last post, is also interesting, but not necessarily better. It's actually superior to the general posting page, in that it would not require editors to look at the post page, the notification would come to them, but unfortunately, it leaves out people who might also be interested but have never visited the page. I remember more than one time that I have visted a page for the first time only to discover that I missed by a mere days an intense discussion that lasted for weeks or months that settled an issue differently than I would have liked.
- I think that it is clear that editors on both sides of the WP:CANVASS issue are all acting with the best interests of this project. We simply disagree on how to achieve it. Accordingly, the topic is worth discussing, from time to time, and it is worth exercising patience over, as well. Best wishes to all. Unschool 11:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
No personal advocation, updates to campaigning
I recently made edits reverted because guy said there was no consensus. I shall start a discussion here to generate consensus. You may already see the beginnings of consensus at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Canvassing_violation_by_Cookiecaper_in_order_to_reach_a_false_consensus , where at least three editors have suggested or threatened that posting a message whose headline asks its recipients to go to Sean Hannity's page to support the inclusion of information regarding his unfulfilled promise to be waterboarded is a violation of this here guideline because it is "biased" or "campaigning", though per the definitions on this page it is not, because it is not posted in an attempt to persuade or alter the viewpoint of its recipients, only to implore them to act if they care.
One editor has suggested that anything more than "Please share your opinion on x at y" is inappropriate canvassing. As I have been directly threatened that "[I] will be banned" if I ever post a "canvassing" message that exceeds "Please share your opinion on x at y", I felt that if this is the common interpretation of WP's admins, it ought to be reflected on this page, so that other people like me aren't similarly ostracized. I hope this doesn't offend you lot.
Anyway, I think that my edits were worded carefully and appropriately. I suggest that you all reach a "consensus" on this issue promptly so that I may prevent other innocent editors from encountering a similar fate. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 19:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Cookiecaper, "imploring people to act" in a way you have suggested to them actually is "an attempt to persuade or alter the viewpoints of its recipients." The problem is that you seem to be resistant to the only obvious interpretation of the words. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict; reply is to cookiecaper) You clearly violated WP:CANVAS with your off-wiki post that did not merely ask people to participate; it obviously and explicitly stated your opinion and practically begged people to go support your own opinion ("I implore all Wikipedians to fight the good fight and keep on Hannity's page mention of his promise to get waterboarded.") Trying to insinuate that WP:CANVASS somehow isn't clear, and that your ANI thread should somehow be used as a reference to other poor souls who can't figure out what a relatively simple behavioral guideline means, is disingenuous. I suggest you drop this agenda/crusade; you have no support and it's quite obvious you were in the wrong. Tan | 39 20:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- See, I know it obviously and explicitly stated my opinion; that's the point of these edits. I meant to obvious and explicitly state my opinion. As this page was written when I was made aware of it [after I posted the thing to reddit], there is no indication that one may not state their opinion, either obviously or explicitly. That was part of the edits I was writing in, because you seem to think it's not fair, or that it constitutes an uncouth and illegitimate swaying of the discourse. I don't think it does; if someone runs across my reddit post and doesn't believe that the inclusion of the referenced information is notable, they're not going to magically change their mind because someone else said that it is. My post did not contain language intended to persuade non-believers; it contained a message intended to persuade believers to deliberately act, and, though the message was not directed to skeptics, for their input as well.
- (edit conflict; reply is to cookiecaper) You clearly violated WP:CANVAS with your off-wiki post that did not merely ask people to participate; it obviously and explicitly stated your opinion and practically begged people to go support your own opinion ("I implore all Wikipedians to fight the good fight and keep on Hannity's page mention of his promise to get waterboarded.") Trying to insinuate that WP:CANVASS somehow isn't clear, and that your ANI thread should somehow be used as a reference to other poor souls who can't figure out what a relatively simple behavioral guideline means, is disingenuous. I suggest you drop this agenda/crusade; you have no support and it's quite obvious you were in the wrong. Tan | 39 20:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- As I feel that my interpretation is reasonable, I would like to include it on the actual guideline page, so that WP's admins will be justified in their interpretation and so that other editors won't be disciplined for a normal, non-extremist interpretation wherein one can speak more than "Please give opinion on x at y".
- Your admins have stated that I could _not_ give a message that amounts to more than "Please give opinion on x at y". If this is actually true, this page should reflect that. There's a difference between campaigning and stating a preference or revealing some degree of bias; one is performed with the explicit intention to persuade persons who would otherwise not be interested or supportive to change their minds, while the other is a blatant and straightforward statement of fact, which is truly favorable before the face of man of God. Intent should not be disguised, and policies that encourage such are useful only as fodder for corruption. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 23:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Shrug. If you are unable to understand the basic principles set forth in WP:CANVASS, for whatever reason - inability, unwillingness - I cannot help you further. The bottom line is - do it again, and you will be blocked. What you did is unacceptable to the vast majority of the Wikipedia community. I would say that you can disagree with the guideline, but since you seem to not even understand the guideline, I would suggest moving on. Given your level of disillusionment noted on your userpage and below, perhaps Wikipedia is not for you. Tan | 39 23:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Your admins have stated that I could _not_ give a message that amounts to more than "Please give opinion on x at y". If this is actually true, this page should reflect that. There's a difference between campaigning and stating a preference or revealing some degree of bias; one is performed with the explicit intention to persuade persons who would otherwise not be interested or supportive to change their minds, while the other is a blatant and straightforward statement of fact, which is truly favorable before the face of man of God. Intent should not be disguised, and policies that encourage such are useful only as fodder for corruption. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 23:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Frankly, to me the second part of your addition sounded a bit like kicking over the chess board upon getting checkmated. DVdm (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- The page DOES say that.... The recommended way to invite others to the discussion is the {{please see}} template. This template leaves the following text on the user's talk page You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:MyArticle. /My signature/ Couldn't be clearer really. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- It could be clearer, as I've read this page three or four times now and still haven't noticed it. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 16:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- The page DOES say that.... The recommended way to invite others to the discussion is the {{please see}} template. This template leaves the following text on the user's talk page You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:MyArticle. /My signature/ Couldn't be clearer really. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- The language in the second part is intended to make clear to visitors that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that only pendants, sleuths, and obsessors can successfully edit. In 2005, I was quite active because I believed in WP's mission and the process was not egregiously corrupted or hard to tolerate. I left because it was becoming so. It is now much worse than it ever was; one cannot add a notable event without being reported to the Administrator's Noticeboard on vastly overblown charges and by a statute grossly overapplied.
- It was a simple attempt to make clear WP's descension to both veteran admins and prospective editors. Wikipedia is very sick, but its governors ignore all... because they enjoy the pedantry. The point is, there are very few people who are willing to put up with this kind of crap. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 23:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- If this wiki has become so sick and you feel so unhappy about it, then perhaps it's time to move on... and start your own Wikicookia? DVdm (talk) 08:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- I am intent on doing so sometime soon, actually. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 16:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- If this wiki has become so sick and you feel so unhappy about it, then perhaps it's time to move on... and start your own Wikicookia? DVdm (talk) 08:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- You misunderstand. You think, that just because this event had news coverage, that it is notable. We have all linked you many times, have you even bothered to follow the links? WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. The fact of the matter is that coverage of this promise has dropped off the radar, and hasn't been covered since. If it was such a notable event as you claim it to be, then there would still be active coverage of it. But there isn't, therefore, it isn't. Another issue here is WP:WEIGHT. You are giving way too much weight to this single event. The article is about his life, not some promise he made back in the day. As has been stated many, many times, something like this is better suited for the article about the show, not his life. I don't watch the show, but I am sure that Hannity has made many promises throughout his life, on his show, many news-worthy promises that he hasn't kept, where news-coverage of said promise has dropped off the radar.
- By trying to include this single event in an article, about his life, you are violating policies, policies like WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. How many times am I going to have to link you to get you to read them, and understand why this excerpt is not the single most important thing in an article about his entire life?— Dædαlus Contribs 02:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think there are more important standards than the recency of news coverage of Hannity's claims. If your criterion is recency of news coverage, I hope that you cut out general biographical information, because that doesn't get news coverage very often, either.
- This is still a big deal in the circles I run. In fact, I got involved in this edit war after a thread about how Hannity still hasn't fulfilled his promise. It's an important biographical insight -- torture is a big deal, it's one of Hannity's constant shticks that torture is not torture. He made this promise to prove to his guest that this is a minor encounter which does not constitute torture or inappropriate punishment or interrogation. He has since continuously chickened out, even in the face of Olbermann's offer of $1000 per second.
- It's notable because it lends itself majorly to the understanding of Hannity's ideology. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 16:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, both of you, This is not the place to discuss the content of any article. It is for discussing changes to the canvassing guideline. Cookiecaper, if there's nothing left to discuss about the guideline, then this discussion should be closed. If there is something left to discuss, you should bring it up so the discussion doesn't get closed. Capisce? — Gavia immer (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Gavia's statment. take it elsewhere if necessary. Ikip (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, both of you, This is not the place to discuss the content of any article. It is for discussing changes to the canvassing guideline. Cookiecaper, if there's nothing left to discuss about the guideline, then this discussion should be closed. If there is something left to discuss, you should bring it up so the discussion doesn't get closed. Capisce? — Gavia immer (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- It was a simple attempt to make clear WP's descension to both veteran admins and prospective editors. Wikipedia is very sick, but its governors ignore all... because they enjoy the pedantry. The point is, there are very few people who are willing to put up with this kind of crap. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 23:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Who ever decided that this should be a guideline?
I have examined the history for this article and its talk page, and cannot find any consensus for marking it as a guideline. The "guideline" template was first inserted in this edit, which is only the 15th edit that the page ever received. In fact, only two users (Quarl and Trialsanderrors) had even edited the page up to that point. How can two users form enough consensus for a guideline? Everyone seems to have simply taken it for granted, without looking into the background at all. I am challenging the guideline status and marking it as an essay until and unless someone can show consensus now. *** Crotalus *** 18:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for bringing this here. While I agree with your historical analysis, I think this guideline/essay has not only gained traction as a pseudo-policy, it has gained de facto consensus. Demoting it to "essay" would result in canvassing RfAs, AfDs, etc much, much harder to regulate. Tan | 39 18:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think there needs to be an official decision that something becomes a guideline, if you add the tag and nobody objects then it has been accepted. The fact that it has been a guideline for 3 years, and that it has been actively used as part of our best practices shows a level of acceptance from the community. Regardless there is no harm in reconfirming the consensus.
- The prohibition on canvassing is not a matter of opinion, but something that is regularly enforced through warnings and blocking. Being a guideline is far more representative of its status than calling it an essay. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 18:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Crotalus horridus, the history of most pages are just as you describe, using a Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. I don't agree with it one bit, but that is the way things work here. I studied the dubious history of some of these pages here User:Ikip/Sausage. Ikip (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not challenging the legitamacy of this guideline, but Crotalus has brought up a really good point. Guidelines should have more consensus before being approved. It is a terrible precident to allow just about anything to become a guideline without much public debate. I'm not all that keen on "DeFacto" consensus, since many minor edits can be slipped through and forgotten very easily.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Crotalus horridus, the history of most pages are just as you describe, using a Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. I don't agree with it one bit, but that is the way things work here. I studied the dubious history of some of these pages here User:Ikip/Sausage. Ikip (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- The prohibition on canvassing is not a matter of opinion, but something that is regularly enforced through warnings and blocking. Being a guideline is far more representative of its status than calling it an essay. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 18:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Dispute resolution on canvassing
Question: what would be the best dispute resolution place to ask for input on whether certain specific actions were inappropriate canvassing? I've referred a user to WP:CANVAS and they reckon what they did was fine. Rd232 talk 23:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Is Canvass dead....
Is Canvass dead as a guideline? After looking through the proposed WP:CDA process and questioning the wording of Canvassing section the responses are that the community finds that its acceptable to canvass for ....the participation of outside parties to present information, evidence, context, or even third-party opinion. If this has become acceptable for a process like the current WP:CDA proposal that it needs to write in specific exemption so as to enable canvassing then surely its only fair to enable it for other discussion especially WP:RFA. Given this conflict of positions for the same, though opposite action sysop processes it may be time to consider the possibility of removing Canvass as guideline and replacing it with process/policy specific criteria. Gnangarra 14:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Single noticeboard
An editor posted (one) note about a dispute at the External links noticeboard. The dispute is squarely within the remit of the noticeboard. The editor has now been accused of violating WP:CANVAS (by an editor that disagrees with most of the responses that begin "I am responding to the request at ELN...", naturally).
Is it even possible for a single message to the obviously most appropriate noticeboard to violate WP:CANVAS? Surely we want editors to use these noticeboards for their primary purpose, even if they can't think of a way to explain the dispute that satisfies all parties. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- In the absence of responses, and the presence of a section in need of basic copyediting, I've WP:BOLDly changed the page to (1) mention noticeboards and (2) put all the information about choosing an audience in the same place, rather than having it intermingled with sentences about the need for neutrally worded notices. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Is this canvassing?
User:Jojhutton said that I canvassed when I asked one user to tell him that a portal was meant to cover an entire county and to ask him to stop removing the portal from certain pages. The discussion is here: User_talk:Jojhutton#Carlsbad - And my message to the author of the portal (the person who intended to set the scope of the portal) is here. I had pointed out to this user that several entries in the portal discuss other cities in San Diego County, but the user continued to remove instances of the portal in other San Diego County cities, so I messaged him, asking him to stop, and I told him that I would tell the portal's creator that this was happening, that I knew that he intended to set the scope to cover the whole county, and to ask him to tell Jojhutton to stop. jojhutton is saying this is canvassing, even though I only contacted one user and that this wasn't about a formal "should this be adopted?" or "what is the scope?" discussion. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Canvassing is attempting to sway voters
The text in WP:CANVASS defines "canvassing" in a peculiar manner, with a meaning not found in mainstream sources:
- "Canvassing is sending messages to Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion." (top of page)
Instead, in the world at large, the term "canvassing" is most often defined in mainstream sources as "electioneering: persuasion of voters in a political campaign" (Princeton-edu). A typical type of canvassing activity is going door-to-door and handing out flyers that attempt to persuade voters to favor a particular candidate or a proposition (referendum) to change regulations. Contacting general voters is called "polling" or "announcing" rather than "canvassing". By using highly original definitions of terms, the guideline WP:CANVASS has violated WP:NOR ("No Original Research"), and it should not be used to direct Wikipedia activities. There are numerous other problems as well. WP:CANVASS warns people not to announce new articles, but articles are not a "community discussion", hence the guideline starts with an unusual, original-research definition of "canvassing" and then strays from that definition to condemn other types of announcements used in collaboration work. The guideline is too nebulous, and contradictory, to be considered compatible with typical collaboration activities. Because the guideline violates the policy of WP:NOR, it thus violates WP:CONSENSUS, which requires decisions to conform to other policies; plus the later text, about not announcing new articles, strays from the concern about informing people about a "community discussion" and enters the realm of forbidding actions based on technicalities, rather than the needs of collaboration work. Furthermore, WP:CANVASS discusses AfD discussions under "Votestacking"; however, since before 2009, AfD discussions are no longer based on votes (now termed "non-votes" or !votes), and the term "votestacking" does not apply to AfD pages. For those reasons, I consider WP:CANVASS to be an invalid guideline which violates WP:NOR and WP:CONSENSUS and thwarts collaboration, and I oppose its status as a guideline. It should be demoted to an essay, noting that it contains some original-research views which are contrary to current Wikipedia policies. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- WP:NOR only applies to articles, not to Wikipedia-space. Many essays and guidelines contain material that would be considered original research if they were articles, but they're not, so it's not a problem. In this case, I agree that the word 'canvassing' isn't perhaps the best one to use, but it's become widely adopted; if you have a better name for this page, please suggest it. As for 'votestacking' - this is an issue that's come up many times before. AfD discussions are not votes, but they are efforts to fairly determine community consensus, and sending messages to large numbers of like-minded users in order to persuade them to comment (particularly when done secretly), perverts those efforts. Decisions at AfD are not made strictly by counting votes, but if one group of commenters at an AfD is brought there by messages from a sympathetic user, it makes it harder for the consensus result to be determined. Robofish (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Canvassing can also refer to get out the vote operations, which is precisely what "canvassing" is taken to mean here. While discussions here are never meant to be head counts, if a group of like-minded editors are all informed of a given debate and sent to participate in it then it can give the impression that a given position has stronger community support than it really has. And of course you disagree with WP:CANVASS, Wikid77: you've been told that if you engage in any further actions which can be taken to be canvassing then you'll probably be indefinitely blocked. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ad homs aside, I think the original observation is correct - the initial definition immediately seemed wrong to me. "Canvassing" (in a real-world AND a Wikipedia context) is not understood as including all sending of informational messages, only the sending of such messages in a biased way. In other words, there is no such thing as "appropriate" canvassing on WP - here (though not of course in politics) "canvassing" is always understood as meaning something bad, as Chris's words seem to confirm. --Kotniski (talk) 07:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've attempted to repair the definition.--Kotniski (talk) 07:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ad homs aside, I think the original observation is correct - the initial definition immediately seemed wrong to me. "Canvassing" (in a real-world AND a Wikipedia context) is not understood as including all sending of informational messages, only the sending of such messages in a biased way. In other words, there is no such thing as "appropriate" canvassing on WP - here (though not of course in politics) "canvassing" is always understood as meaning something bad, as Chris's words seem to confirm. --Kotniski (talk) 07:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
friendly vs. neutral
Does wikispeak equate "friendly" (as in friendly fire) to "nonpartisan" ? It looks like the table does. Methinks that "friendly" is, on the contrary, stronlgly partisan. The desired "nonpartisan" communication should also include "hostile" and "throwaway" messages, should it not? East of Borschov 07:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Good point; there's no reason why an inappropriate canvassing note can't be "friendly". We shouldn't be using "friendly notice" as the opposite of "(inappropriate) canvassing".--Kotniski (talk) 07:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- There is another point to consider. Communication with hostile parties is discouraged by the rules (don't feed the trolls, don't beat the dead horse etc.) and goes against common sense - unless there's a genuine will to end the conflict, or some very serious issue at stake. A routine AFD, normally, is not significant enough to bang on the best enemy's door. East of Borschov 16:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure I entirely understand that last point, but I've changed the wording to remove the misleading "friendly notice" terminology.--Kotniski (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- The guideline as it stood a few days ago recommended broadcasting the message in a "nonpartisan" way. In areas of conflict there's a solid probability that the "less than friendly" part of the audience will be actually hostile, with a long track of conflict with the nominator. The guideline obliges the "canvassing party" to call their bitter opponents, but good sense and other guidelines suggest otherwise. P.S. the new formatting is shorter but appears too cluttered together to be comprehensible. The old pinkie table added some visual relief. East of Borschov 18:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure I entirely understand that last point, but I've changed the wording to remove the misleading "friendly notice" terminology.--Kotniski (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- There is another point to consider. Communication with hostile parties is discouraged by the rules (don't feed the trolls, don't beat the dead horse etc.) and goes against common sense - unless there's a genuine will to end the conflict, or some very serious issue at stake. A routine AFD, normally, is not significant enough to bang on the best enemy's door. East of Borschov 16:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Forum shopping
Is forum shopping canvassing? (I would think not.) Is admin shopping a case of forum shopping? (again, I'd have thought not - an admin isn't a forum).--Kotniski (talk) 10:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well, in the absence of any replies, I'm going to try to sort this out in a more logical way.--Kotniski (talk) 11:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Namely, I've moved the section to WP:Consensus#Forum shopping and related behaviors.--Kotniski (talk) 13:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Was this a "neutral" message?
I sent this [12] to everyone practicable who had participated in the first AfD in an article (now at number 5 in under a year <g>). I felt this was neutral, and avoided any possible cavil that people were "selected" for the message. I relied on "If necessary, neutrally worded notices on the talk pages of individual users who have participated in previous discussions on the same or closely related topics, who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed. The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions – for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then similar notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. Do not send notices to too many users, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them." and also "Such notices should ideally be brief " and "In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an AFD or CFD), it is similarly inappropriate to send an undue number of notifications to those who expressed a particular viewpoint on the previous debate. For example, it would be votestacking to selectively notify a disproportionate number of "Keep" voters or a disproportionate number of "Delete" voters." I was accused of CANVASSI=ing - and I would like to know - are the sections I cite still part of this page? Was the message neutral? Was sending to those who opined at a single AfD "excessive" or in any way selecting on the basis of their opinions? Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- If you sent the message to people on both sides of the debate equally, then I don't think anyone should have any objection.--Kotniski (talk) 11:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- I sent to everyone <g> without even noting mentally what their positions were! See the complainant's user page at User:Cereal_Surreal and look at the last part where he describes himself essentially as a stealth sock <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- I must say (and I'm not an admin, just speaking for myself) that I think you did right here. If people have contributed to a discussion, they have a right to know if the same issue is being raised again (essentially, if they are not told, then they are being disenfranchised, by having their previously expressed views ignored). If you're going to inform some, you have to inform all, so if it turns out to be a few dozen (quite a large number), that's just slightly unfortunate. The disruption (if any) comes from the people who continually re-raise the same issue when the previous result went against them.--Kotniski (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- The case at hand is number 5 AfD on the same article in 11 months <g>. The complainant is a person with multiple accounts <g> who appears to have some sort of animus against me in any case. m Again - thanks - and thanks to anyone else opining here. Collect (talk) 14:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- I must say (and I'm not an admin, just speaking for myself) that I think you did right here. If people have contributed to a discussion, they have a right to know if the same issue is being raised again (essentially, if they are not told, then they are being disenfranchised, by having their previously expressed views ignored). If you're going to inform some, you have to inform all, so if it turns out to be a few dozen (quite a large number), that's just slightly unfortunate. The disruption (if any) comes from the people who continually re-raise the same issue when the previous result went against them.--Kotniski (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- I sent to everyone <g> without even noting mentally what their positions were! See the complainant's user page at User:Cereal_Surreal and look at the last part where he describes himself essentially as a stealth sock <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Should an RFA be announced on a candidate's wikiproject talkpages?
AFAIK, there is no explicit guidance on this matter. Editors within a project generally have increased awareness of each other's work. They are accordingly more likely to be knowledgable commentators on a request for adminship for another editor from that project. Is it problematic to post a neutral announcement of the RFA at the talkpages for project of which an candidate editor is subscribed? If so, why? If not, are there specific caveats? Either way, should WP:CANVASS not address this? LeadSongDog come howl! 16:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- CANVASS generally deals with unsolicited posts to others - posting on one's own userpages is likely not in that category. Posting on a project or article page is, however, likely to breech that wall. Collect (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think this should be a problem. I've been thinking about the concerns over the RFA drought, and I think that working through the larger WikiProjects to nominate candidates might be effective. It would be silly to use the WikiProjects to organize such an effort, and then tell them that they were inappropriately spamming themselves by talking about it, or updating themselves on it.
- Furthermore, I think that WikiProjects are good sources of information about an editor's qualifications; they are more likely than the average RFA follower to know if a given editor is a source of problems, or of solutions. I doubt that we'll get many "I'm a member, he's a member, therefore I mindlessly support!" responses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- I can see that caution is needed, but when an article is being considered for deletion, renaming, or merging, I've always accepted it is sensible (as well as courteous) to notify any relevant WikiProjects since their members are most likely to be knowledgeable on the issues. I know it's not a precise analogy, but the logic is similar, as pointed out above. At the very least, it may attract more participants to RfA. I assume that anyone trying to game the system by joining a dozen WikiProjects just before their RfA in order to gain publicity would soon be spotted. --RexxS (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Is this canvassing? (2)
Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large.
- The prevailing opinion is that wikipedia should respect Agatha Christie last will about the Mousetrap ; you're on the minority side on that matter and you know it ; anyway, I'm not English native since my mother-tongue is French and therefore I'll not dare talking legalist matter with you ; being French native I had even never heard before about the word canvass or canvassing ; furthermore, it seems (it happened to me on Simple this year) that I could be blocked while not following your injonctions the context of which I don't master ; my next step will be to copy and neutralize some overspoiled entries from wikipedia to another wiki to stay on the main wiki as quiet as I was before this Spoilergate --ONaNcle (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- I am not English native as well (Italian), yet if you want to know what "canvassing" means, just 1)consult a dictionary 2)read the policy linked above. That said, we're not here to respect author's wacky last wills. They are non binding to us. Our service is to provide information: if this service goes against a dead person's will and her supporters, too bad for them. --Cyclopiatalk 20:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have edited the above quote to look more like a quote; directly copy-pasting another editor's reply without making sure it appears as a quote is wrong, as it can be seen as impersonation(even though it isn't in this case). Sarek didn't post here, so I have 'quoted' the quote, with a direct diff reference to the place and time where the quote originally took place.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- The prevailing opinion is that wikipedia should respect Agatha Christie last will about the Mousetrap ; you're on the minority side on that matter and you know it ; anyway, I'm not English native since my mother-tongue is French and therefore I'll not dare talking legalist matter with you ; being French native I had even never heard before about the word canvass or canvassing ; furthermore, it seems (it happened to me on Simple this year) that I could be blocked while not following your injonctions the context of which I don't master ; my next step will be to copy and neutralize some overspoiled entries from wikipedia to another wiki to stay on the main wiki as quiet as I was before this Spoilergate --ONaNcle (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Excessive cross-posting – "individual"
There has been some reverting over the insertion of "individual" into
Posting messages to an excessively large number of individual users, or to users who have asked not to receive such messages
which describes Excessive cross-posting. That item is clearly not meant to cover WP:Centralized discussion, WP:Noticeboards, WP:Village pump, WikiProjects, or anything else recommended by Appropriate notification. Notifying a WikiProject is fine (subject to other measures), but contacting all its members directly is inappropriate.
It has been interpreted to cover only User talk pages, but may cover article talk pages also (#AfD notifications at related articles). Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Requesting Comment: Does posting the following to the talkpages of active and past editors of an article constitute canvassing?
The actively interested editors of the pages on Autogynephilia, homosexual transsexual, and BBL theory have been discussing a merger. You are an editor that was deeply interested and involved in the past. straw Poll on the merger proposals. I am notifying you of this poll as a courtesy.
I sent it to past editors that I have been on opposite sides of mediations and other dispute resolutions from on these articles. People who may not side with me by any means. The merger we were discussing began with the person proposing it sending notice to a list of concerned editors. I notified largely the same list, save for one or two names I did not know, who's talk pages said they were retired. --Hfarmer (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- You selectively chose a 14 people, with a couple people who are token opposition, and made the announcements in stealth. Shortly after initiating an OR dispute which you selectively recruited another editor to comment on -- also in stealth. This after trying to out me today. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Inappropriate canvassing?
A user has alleged that I've violated this guideline by indulging in inappropriate canvassing. I'm requesting comments to determine if this is indeed the case.
A discussion was in progress on the talk page of FA India since September 11, 2010 to include content about the deaths of 37 million Indians from starvation caused by the famines during British rule of India. The proposed phrasing at the time User:BritishWatcher accused me of canvassing looked like this[13]:
“ | Between the 11th century and the 18the century, famines in India were few and local and they affected comparatively a small number of people. Eighteen famines were recorded during this period in India. Under British rule, a total of 31 famines were recorded for the 100 years between 1800-1900 with a death toll of about 37 million, primarily due to starvation. India continued to suffer from famines under the British Crown, right up to independence in 1947 after which they vanished with the establishment of representative democracy and a free press. | ” |
No poll/vote was ever called for on the India talk page. I invited editors from Indian, Irish, Northern Irish and Irish Republicanism projects to participate in the discussion in a neutral way.[14] The contentious invitation is the Irish Republicanism (anti-British) one but, IMO, this was balanced by inviting the Northern Irish.
I invited users from the Irish projects because India and Ireland had both suffered famines with huge death tolls during the same period under the same regime, that of the British. Another point made was that I should have invited people from the British Empire project. I did not do so because I was and am not aware of other countries under British rule at that time in history of having faced similar famines. In short, I thought that inviting people meeting five common factors would help improve the quality of the debate. These factors were:
- The country should have been under British occupation
- People should have been resisting British rule
- There should have been a famine or multiple famines between 1800-1900.
- Policies of the British regime should have caused starvation deaths
- Death tolls should have been in millions.
Scale | Message | Audience | Transparency | ||||
Appropriate | Limited posting | AND | Neutral | AND | Nonpartisan | AND | Open |
↕ | ↕ | ↕ | ↕ | ||||
Inappropriate | Mass posting | OR | Biased | OR | Partisan | OR | Secret |
Term | Excessive cross-posting ("spamming") | Campaigning | Votestacking | Stealth canvassing | |||
Violation? | No -- There was no mass posting. ONLY 3 posts to relevant projects were made. | No -- Message was neutral as shown in this diff. [15] | No -- Both sides Irish and Northern Irish were notified. | No -- No e-mail or other social media involved. |
Related links: Talk:India#Famines_in_India, Talk:India#Famine.2C_starvation_deaths_during_British_era, ANI [16]
Have I been doing inappropriate canvassing? Zuggernaut (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- With the above table, you seem to be asking editors to agree with your opinion, rather than let them evaluate your edits for themselves. If I were you, I would get rid of the {{no}} templates, and just link the applicable diffs, instead of outright denying it. I for one do not see your message as neutral.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Z has still not answered what is really the only relevant question in this instance: why was an Irish board contacted about an Indian matter, when other boards much more closely related (i.e. British Empire) were not? I believe the answer to that is that Z was looking for like-minded editors, and felt it was more likely to find them at the Irish board than at the British Empire board. This posting here is not a bona fide attempt at soliciting information in a neutral manner, but simply another Wikilawyering ploy by Z to avoid accepting responsibility for their misdeed.
At this point, AGF on this matter has run out for me, and if Z is not willing to state their understanding of what the canvassing policy means, after they've been informed so by numerous editors, and thier acceptance of responsibility for breaking it, apparently with deliberate intent, then a short educational block would be in order. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Z also failed to link to the ANI thread about his behavior, which is here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken - Any elementary student of the Indian independence movement knows the Indian-Irish connection, one of the links between the two countries can be found by reading up on Annie Beasant. Regarding the ANI accusation, I forgive you and assume good faith rather than accuse you of WP:Competence. It is clear that you've been voicing loud opinions on this matter without even fully reading the discussions. ANI is clearly mentioned and a link provided.
- I was really hoping a neutral group, one which is not associated with the ANI would opine here. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, my competence is so very much at issue here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- One editor brought the report to ANI, the rest were neutral with respect to you, at least until your own Wikilawyering behavior and refusal to accept responsibility entered into it. You came here not for neutrality, but in the hope that you would get a different answer, hence your inquiry, which was not a neutral question, but a defense attorney's summation. Please get over it, you were wrong, you acted against policy, that policy is clear, and you need to accept it publicly and move on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Not incidentally, you still have yet to answer the pertinent question, which is not "Why the Irish board" but instead "Why the Irish board and not the British Empire board?" It is that selectivity on your part that makes it canvassing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Look below for your answer Beyond My Ken. Zuggernaut believes that people should be allowed to post to boards that back their own POV. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Z also failed to link to the ANI thread about his behavior, which is here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Z has still not answered what is really the only relevant question in this instance: why was an Irish board contacted about an Indian matter, when other boards much more closely related (i.e. British Empire) were not? I believe the answer to that is that Z was looking for like-minded editors, and felt it was more likely to find them at the Irish board than at the British Empire board. This posting here is not a bona fide attempt at soliciting information in a neutral manner, but simply another Wikilawyering ploy by Z to avoid accepting responsibility for their misdeed.
This entire thread actually violates something else in it's on existence; WP:FORUMSHOPPING.— Dædαlus Contribs 02:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Change required to votestacking?
The current definition of votestacking appears to be restrictive in that it limits the opening up discussions/debates to wider audiences. Each party involved in a discussion would ideally like to invite the entire pool of users who are likely to support their position. The present guideline disallows this by stating that the invited audience should not be partisan. If one party invites an audience that supports their position then isn't it the responsibility of the opposing party to invite people supporting their position? The guideline should focus on ensuring the all parties have the same abilities in widening the audience by having access to the same tools, disallowing bots, scripts, stealth e-mailing, etc. Most of these are already addressed in Scale, Message and Transparency.
Does the votestaking part of the guideline need re-defining or elaboration? Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think "votestaking" does: but I'm just one editor with an opinion. WP:LAWYER may need a "brush-up", as that's an essay (unlike the WP:CANVASS guideline). "Baby steps" are how we all learn to walk, right?... Doc9871 (talk) 08:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
" Materially "
Our attorney friends use the term of art "materially" to distinguish things that really affect outcomes. Nucleophilic (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Proposed cleanup, inclusion of external canvassing, and possible promotion as policy
Following considerable discussion at Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry, the community has tentatively shown some support for retiring the term "meatpuppetry" due to multiple known issues it leads to. The question arose of a better replacement term which after some thought led to an updated proposal as follows:
WP:CANVASS covers and comments on various types of inappropriate internal canvassing. Meat-puppetry is basically inappropriate external canvassing and only has a very short section. If the handling of external canvassing was moved to this page it would bring a number of good advantages:
- The question of a better less problematic term for meatpuppetry is resolved, since "external canvassing" would now be a very natural and accurate term (some people preferred it anyway).
- Better explanation could be given on handling than can fit in sock policy, and much of the handling of external canvassed visitors might apply to internal ones (AGF etc).
- CANVASS would then handle all forms of canvassing, internal and external, and be the community's main and sole reference point on all types of canvassing. Possible suitable policy?
- Provides a good opportunity to clean up CANVASS and review whether it can be improved at the same time. (The draft includes copyedits)
- Draft: User:FT2/Canvassing
- Discussion: here (to keep continuity of discussion on meatpuppetry)
FT2 (Talk | email) 17:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: This is a bit of an inaccurate assessment. Per the summary by FT2 (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia_talk:SOCK#Summary_so_far_and_updated_proposal, "29 support, 21 oppose" - this means there was not an overall consensus to "retire" the term meatpuppetry. -- Cirt (talk) 20:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- ... hence accurately described as "some consensus" not "clear consensus", with numbers stated for transparency. There is more support than not to look at a better term if one exists, and warrants further discussion to see if a clear consensus would exist given a few specific terms suggested in the previous discussion. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Not really familiar with anywhere on Wikipedia where a 58% outcome is considered "consensus" to change something significant like these sorts of WP:Guideline pages. -- Cirt (talk) 09:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- ... hence accurately described as "some consensus" not "clear consensus", with numbers stated for transparency. There is more support than not to look at a better term if one exists, and warrants further discussion to see if a clear consensus would exist given a few specific terms suggested in the previous discussion. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Possible canvassing
Over at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard it has been suggested that this board could provide useful feedback on the question if a single message, posted by a user to his own talk page and expressing an opinion to an ongoing RfA, should be considered improper canvassing or not. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- I would tend to say "yes", if it's a talkpage that enough people are watching, and there's a history of the editor using it to influence WP editing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- My position is made clear at the linked discussion: the appropriate place to register one's opinion of a candidate is on the RFA itself. Posting a non-neutral message on one's talk page is inappropriate per the second (and quite likely third) scale(s). –xenotalk 17:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- This looks like a transparent attempt to reinterpret a long-standing guideline in a novel way for short-term political gain. Disgusting. Hans Adler 18:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)