This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Canvassing page. |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
APPNOTE has sometimes been interpreted to overrule INAPPNOTE; if a notification is allowed by APPNOTE, then whether it violates INAPPNOTE is not relevant. I believe this is a misinterpretation, and we should clarify APPNOTE to state this, by changing Do not send notices to too many users, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them.
to Do not send notices that violate
WP:INAPPNOTE, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them.
BilledMammal (
talk) 15:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
to too many usersis such vague and subjective language that it really is not useful. I note that the edit was made here: [1], then later reverted while apparently unaware of this talk section: [2], and I have reinstated it: [3]. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 16:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
to too many userslanguage in the original version suffers from a very similar problem, in that it fails to define "too many". -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Here are the three versions, side-by-side, for comparison:
|
|
|
Is there a way we can reconcile the concerns about these various options? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Editors who have asked to be kept informedhas been interpreted as allowing canvassing of editors who have asked to be canvassed - "Please notify me of all contentious formal discussions related to a broad topic area". BilledMammal ( talk) 10:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
I just remembered this discussion, and realized that a lot of time has gone by with no further comment. So I made this edit: [8], which I think is a minimal solution that does not preclude anything more ambitious. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Do not use a bot to send messages to multiple pages.to the correct section as well... Huggums537 ( talk) 06:53, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
I think we should have a general review of canvass at WP:VPI and WP:VPR; it will allow us to determine when the community considers it appropriate to notify a partisan audience as well as consider other changes, such as adding a requirement to inform the discussion of any notifications made.BilledMammal ( talk) 20:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
As discussed, I've opened a discussion at VPI about possible modifications to CANVASS. BilledMammal ( talk) 07:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Above, I see a discussion about whether WP:APPNOTE should explicitly bar activities discussed in WP:INAPPNOTE. Prior to this discussion, there was no such explicit bar. In other words, the status quo was that APPNOTE should not mention INAPPNOTE. Then, a discussion was started at WP:VPI, and the post there included the question, "Should the examples listed at WP:APPNOTE be exceptions to WP:INAPPNOTE, or just examples of notifications that are usually acceptable?".
I don't see a clear consensus—either on this page or on the VPI page. Shouldn't this guideline maintain the status quo until such a consensus is established?-- Jerome Frank Disciple ( talk) 18:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Back in January, there was an undiscussed bold edit added to the lead. I recently found out about it, and reverted it with substantial reason for disagreement. This should have been enough to keep controversial material out of guidance until it has been further discussed, but my removal of the objectionable edit was reverted with an explanation that, [in spite of any objections to it], the edit is still useful and "right" considering the immediate context. I reverted the bold edit again with a counter argument that the context also strongly suggests otherwise, and a reminder that bold edits to guidance should be taken to discussion if they are controversial before they are added. I have a strong opinion that "special use" for words on Wikipedia that would otherwise have a normal meaning is an abuse of language becoming like a spreading cancer. It seems we are just making WP:CREEPy stuff up just to justify other CREEPy stuff. Huggums537 ( talk) 06:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
I was wondering if it is okay or even encouraged to notify editors who were involved in the 3 previous AfDs (
#1;
#2;
#3) about a
follow-up AfD. They helped making the decisions in the previous AfDs, and perhaps should be notified of a new nomination that is a direct follow-up of those previous AfDs.
WP:APPNOTE says Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
may be notified on their user talk pages (so not the AfD page itself), and
WP:VOTESTACKING similarly states: Posting an appropriate notice on users' talk pages in order to inform editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be appropriate under certain circumstances.
However, I am wary that this could still potentially violate WP:VOTESTACKING. After all, I know how they voted and commented in the past 3 AfDs (all voted either Delete or Merge), so I can guess how they are going to vote and comment in a follow-up AfD, thus perhaps unduly influencing the outcome of the discussion. If the voting had been more mixed, I would definitely have notified everyone regardless of their votes. But in practice, notifying them now seems like votestacking, even if it would technically be allowed on their user talk pages. I don't want to unduly influence the result, and think the nomination should be judged on its on merits, even if those are partially dependent on the precedent set by the previous deletion of the other 3 articles. So, shouldn't I notify them? I'm inclined to think it would be inappropriate in this case. I've just never done this before in AfDs, so I better ask first. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 13:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
I think it is rarely appropriate to summon a specific editor to a content dispute via user talk. The only exception I can think of is if a page is being nominated for deletion, then a user talk notification notifying the original author of the page is appropriate. Instead of using user talk to summon specific people, the ping system can be used to summon a group of people, such as every participant in a previous RFC or ever editor to a page. Pings are more transparent and are more likely to be used to summon a group rather than cherry-picking folks with a POV.
Perhaps it is best to significantly trim down or completely remove "Appropriate notification: On the user talk pages of concerned editors" and its sub-bullets, with the goal of not encouraging or legitimizing this behavior. Thoughts on removing this? – Novem Linguae ( talk) 05:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Followers of this page may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Gaming the system#Proposal for an additional point. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Most of WP:CANVASS deals with discouraging users from canvassing (understandably.) It briefly mentions how to respond to canvassing, but (implicitly) from the perspective of a bystander who sees it happen, not someone who is the subject of it. This recent ArbCom motion makes it clear why that's not sufficient - banned editors are canvassing users via email; guidelines that only target the canvasser are obviously going to be ineffective in that situation. And, as discussion there makes clear, stealth / email canvassing has been occurring with increasing frequency. I think that the initial reaction of ArbCom in that case reflects the general community consensus and actual practice; however, this page doesn't actually lay it out that I can see. So I suggest adding a "what to do if you are canvassed directly" section or something along those lines, perhaps in WP:STEALTH, stating that:
The first point is, I think, necessary because if an editor doesn't act on the canvassing, they themselves haven't done anything wrong; we'd prefer they report it but we can't realistically require that. The second point is necessary in order to discourage stealth canvassing by making it more difficult. The parenthetical is necessary because I believe the editors who are most likely to report being stealth-canvassed are highly experienced and extremely active ones, who are the very ones who have the strongest claim to saying "ah, I'd have seen the discussion on RFC/All or AFD anyway, so I wasn't really canvassed"; it's important to make the requirement to report being stealth-canvassed as clear-cut as possible. If an editor believes they would have participated anyway, that's fine, they can say so when indicating they were canvassed; but they still need to make it clear so anyone closing the discussion or evaluating its consensus can make their own call on that and in order to ensure that stealth canvassing remains difficult. -- Aquillion ( talk) 07:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Canvassing page. |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
APPNOTE has sometimes been interpreted to overrule INAPPNOTE; if a notification is allowed by APPNOTE, then whether it violates INAPPNOTE is not relevant. I believe this is a misinterpretation, and we should clarify APPNOTE to state this, by changing Do not send notices to too many users, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them.
to Do not send notices that violate
WP:INAPPNOTE, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them.
BilledMammal (
talk) 15:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
to too many usersis such vague and subjective language that it really is not useful. I note that the edit was made here: [1], then later reverted while apparently unaware of this talk section: [2], and I have reinstated it: [3]. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 16:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
to too many userslanguage in the original version suffers from a very similar problem, in that it fails to define "too many". -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Here are the three versions, side-by-side, for comparison:
|
|
|
Is there a way we can reconcile the concerns about these various options? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Editors who have asked to be kept informedhas been interpreted as allowing canvassing of editors who have asked to be canvassed - "Please notify me of all contentious formal discussions related to a broad topic area". BilledMammal ( talk) 10:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
I just remembered this discussion, and realized that a lot of time has gone by with no further comment. So I made this edit: [8], which I think is a minimal solution that does not preclude anything more ambitious. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Do not use a bot to send messages to multiple pages.to the correct section as well... Huggums537 ( talk) 06:53, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
I think we should have a general review of canvass at WP:VPI and WP:VPR; it will allow us to determine when the community considers it appropriate to notify a partisan audience as well as consider other changes, such as adding a requirement to inform the discussion of any notifications made.BilledMammal ( talk) 20:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
As discussed, I've opened a discussion at VPI about possible modifications to CANVASS. BilledMammal ( talk) 07:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Above, I see a discussion about whether WP:APPNOTE should explicitly bar activities discussed in WP:INAPPNOTE. Prior to this discussion, there was no such explicit bar. In other words, the status quo was that APPNOTE should not mention INAPPNOTE. Then, a discussion was started at WP:VPI, and the post there included the question, "Should the examples listed at WP:APPNOTE be exceptions to WP:INAPPNOTE, or just examples of notifications that are usually acceptable?".
I don't see a clear consensus—either on this page or on the VPI page. Shouldn't this guideline maintain the status quo until such a consensus is established?-- Jerome Frank Disciple ( talk) 18:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Back in January, there was an undiscussed bold edit added to the lead. I recently found out about it, and reverted it with substantial reason for disagreement. This should have been enough to keep controversial material out of guidance until it has been further discussed, but my removal of the objectionable edit was reverted with an explanation that, [in spite of any objections to it], the edit is still useful and "right" considering the immediate context. I reverted the bold edit again with a counter argument that the context also strongly suggests otherwise, and a reminder that bold edits to guidance should be taken to discussion if they are controversial before they are added. I have a strong opinion that "special use" for words on Wikipedia that would otherwise have a normal meaning is an abuse of language becoming like a spreading cancer. It seems we are just making WP:CREEPy stuff up just to justify other CREEPy stuff. Huggums537 ( talk) 06:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
I was wondering if it is okay or even encouraged to notify editors who were involved in the 3 previous AfDs (
#1;
#2;
#3) about a
follow-up AfD. They helped making the decisions in the previous AfDs, and perhaps should be notified of a new nomination that is a direct follow-up of those previous AfDs.
WP:APPNOTE says Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
may be notified on their user talk pages (so not the AfD page itself), and
WP:VOTESTACKING similarly states: Posting an appropriate notice on users' talk pages in order to inform editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be appropriate under certain circumstances.
However, I am wary that this could still potentially violate WP:VOTESTACKING. After all, I know how they voted and commented in the past 3 AfDs (all voted either Delete or Merge), so I can guess how they are going to vote and comment in a follow-up AfD, thus perhaps unduly influencing the outcome of the discussion. If the voting had been more mixed, I would definitely have notified everyone regardless of their votes. But in practice, notifying them now seems like votestacking, even if it would technically be allowed on their user talk pages. I don't want to unduly influence the result, and think the nomination should be judged on its on merits, even if those are partially dependent on the precedent set by the previous deletion of the other 3 articles. So, shouldn't I notify them? I'm inclined to think it would be inappropriate in this case. I've just never done this before in AfDs, so I better ask first. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 13:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
I think it is rarely appropriate to summon a specific editor to a content dispute via user talk. The only exception I can think of is if a page is being nominated for deletion, then a user talk notification notifying the original author of the page is appropriate. Instead of using user talk to summon specific people, the ping system can be used to summon a group of people, such as every participant in a previous RFC or ever editor to a page. Pings are more transparent and are more likely to be used to summon a group rather than cherry-picking folks with a POV.
Perhaps it is best to significantly trim down or completely remove "Appropriate notification: On the user talk pages of concerned editors" and its sub-bullets, with the goal of not encouraging or legitimizing this behavior. Thoughts on removing this? – Novem Linguae ( talk) 05:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Followers of this page may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Gaming the system#Proposal for an additional point. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Most of WP:CANVASS deals with discouraging users from canvassing (understandably.) It briefly mentions how to respond to canvassing, but (implicitly) from the perspective of a bystander who sees it happen, not someone who is the subject of it. This recent ArbCom motion makes it clear why that's not sufficient - banned editors are canvassing users via email; guidelines that only target the canvasser are obviously going to be ineffective in that situation. And, as discussion there makes clear, stealth / email canvassing has been occurring with increasing frequency. I think that the initial reaction of ArbCom in that case reflects the general community consensus and actual practice; however, this page doesn't actually lay it out that I can see. So I suggest adding a "what to do if you are canvassed directly" section or something along those lines, perhaps in WP:STEALTH, stating that:
The first point is, I think, necessary because if an editor doesn't act on the canvassing, they themselves haven't done anything wrong; we'd prefer they report it but we can't realistically require that. The second point is necessary in order to discourage stealth canvassing by making it more difficult. The parenthetical is necessary because I believe the editors who are most likely to report being stealth-canvassed are highly experienced and extremely active ones, who are the very ones who have the strongest claim to saying "ah, I'd have seen the discussion on RFC/All or AFD anyway, so I wasn't really canvassed"; it's important to make the requirement to report being stealth-canvassed as clear-cut as possible. If an editor believes they would have participated anyway, that's fine, they can say so when indicating they were canvassed; but they still need to make it clear so anyone closing the discussion or evaluating its consensus can make their own call on that and in order to ensure that stealth canvassing remains difficult. -- Aquillion ( talk) 07:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)