Wikipedia talk:Canvassing

Notifying editors for follow-up AfDs

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)

Remove "Appropriate notification: On the user talk pages of concerned editors"?

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)

I support this; notifications should be transparent, and when talk page notifications are used too widely they can become spam, as we have seen in a few recent cases. Exceptions will exist for things like ARBCOM elections, but I don't think such notices are covered by this policy anyway. BilledMammal (talk) 05:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Numbering them, as far as I can tell 1 and 3 would seem to fall under inappropriate canvassing, while 2 and 4 would not. - jc37 08:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The notification system formerly known as Echo is opt-out, and thus community consensus so far is that individual notifications should be done on user talk pages. If the issue is letting others in the discussion know about notifications that were made, then the community should reach a consensus on guidance for this aspect. isaacl (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Another issue with pings is that they don't necessarily work all the time, as when there isn't a signature in the same edit as the ping. I don't think we should change anything to say that pings are preferable to talk page messages.

About simply deleting the material, I think that the fourth bullet point, "Editors who have asked to be kept informed", has a unique status as being the one thing where editors agree that it is appropriate, and is not canvassing. So instead of a complete deletion, I'd suggest trimming it to one line, without the subsequent bullet points:

"On the user talk pages of editors who have asked to be kept informed."

Deleting the rest doesn't change those things from appropriate to inappropriate, but just leaves them out, and it's true that there are constant disputes about them, that we could better do without. But by implying that user talk messages to editors who haven't actually asked to be informed is not always appropriate, I think this would better align the language with current practice. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

#2 is also fairly common practice. You see it most on things like XfD or RM, when notifying those who commented in a previous discussion, or on a noticeboard post about a similar topic under discussion. - jc37 20:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is, but I've also seen numerous disputes about whether it's appropriate. That's why I said "Deleting the rest doesn't change those things from appropriate to inappropriate". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

YMMV, of course, but the only disputes over it that I recall seeing are when they didn't ping everyone, or in some other way (intentionally or unintentionally) cherry-picked pinging some but not all. (which, of course, would fall under vote-stacking section.) - jc37 20:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

As it happens, from my watchlist today: [1]. (Not that I want to canvass anyone to go to that discussion! ) This is where an editor apparently did contact everyone, but two other experienced editors had concerns about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Wow. I can't begin to list the number of issues I see in that thread.

But to me, that's all the more reason that it should be laid out here clearly. - jc37 21:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Ha! Maybe that's something that fits better with a right-versus-wrong way presentation, for laying it out clearly, instead of just listing it as "appropriate". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe. But my concern is that there are lots of applications of this, and we'd just be opening the doors to more wikilawyering... - jc37 22:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

A related WP:GAMING proposal

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

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)

More strict guidelines for what an editor should do when the subject of canvassing

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:

• You are strongly encouraged to report it; but as long as you don't act on it, you aren't required to.
• However, if you do participate in the discussion you were canvassed for (even if you believe you would have participated anyway), you are required to disclose that you were canvassed. Failure to do so may lead to sanctions.

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)

Thanks for thinking of this, and I support such a change. One revision to your proposal: on the first bullet point, I would change "; but as long as you don't act on it, you aren't required to" to ", regardless of whether or not you act on it". Although I agree with the concept you describe, that we shouldn't require it to the extent of making non-reporting sanctionable, the language seems to me to go too far in implying "don't worry about it". As long as we say "strongly encouraged", that makes it clear that we aren't saying "required". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I think there's a gap between the two bullets that needs filling, even signposted with the use of "however" in that second bullet. I agree that if you respond to direct canvassing by taking part in the discussion to which you were summoned, you should disclose that. But it also seems that if a good-faith editor receives an invitation that they recognize as inappropriate canvassing, whether they choose to report it or not, the optimal response is not to participate in the discussion, and we should put that in writing, too. I recall the case of a fairly prolific editor who was in an ANI discussion clearly leaning toward his ban, who reached out to a couple of other editors to come defend him. I was quite impressed that one of the canvassed editors responded that they had been inclined to do so, and had been preparing comments, but that the receipt of the canvassing invitation made their participation no longer appropriate (and even scolded him for putting them in that position). We can't force that sort of response, but it's something we should encourage. In discussions that are significantly less oriented toward any sort of voting, canvassed editors who choose to participate can still effect a significant impact on the tone and course of the discussion, shaping it in a different direction to a very different outcome. Grandpallama (talk) 23:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to go beyond the disclosure requirement because ultimately editors can't control whether someone attempts to canvass them or not; I think there's limits to how much we can suggest they do in response (especially given that even suggestions in policy are often taken to have enough force to lead to sanctions if ignored.) Barring an editor from an entire discussion - possibly a very important one, which they would inevitably have participated in anyway - purely because of something someone else did is too much for me even as a suggestion; the disclosure is IMHO enough in that anyone who eventually assesses consensus will know to take that into account. --Aquillion (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I would support this, and actually made a bold edit to that extent two years ago, but unfortunately it was reverted. BilledMammal (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:INAPPNOTE and centralized vs. targeted notifications

Huge swaths of APPNOTE focus on the fact that appropriate notifications are often in central locations. INAPPNOTE, however, not only doesn't mention that at all, it is written in a way that implicitly almost seems to presume that targeted notifications are better (the first point is "Limited posting" vs. "Mass posting.") I feel that INAPPNOTE should put more emphasis on the fact that, most of the time, centralized notifications that go out to many people are ideal - yes, there are exceptions to that spelled out in APPNOTE, where targeted notifications are allowed; but I have always read that as limited exceptions to the general rule. The "ideal" notification is still a post on a centralized noticeboard or the like, reaching as many people as possible rather than a narrow curated list; whenever someone curates their own list of people to notify, they are going out on a limb and relying on the fact that everyone else will agree that they are not selecting people based on opinion. That fact should be made more clear - right now, INAPPNOTE reads as if sending targeted notifications to a curated list is ideal. The "Soliciting support other than by posting direct messages..." part also seems extremely weirdly-worded; while there are narrow situations where direct messages are allowed, that makes it sound like direct messages are the only sorts of notifications that are allowed, which doesn't make sense and is the opposite of what we want to encourage. --Aquillion (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Aquillion Bit late, but I fully agree with this. I'm always much more suspicious of a list of names than of a clearly defined central notification, to the point where I really wish there was an automated way to ping everyone who posted in a certain section (like a previous RFC).

(I'm also pinging you since it's been several months and I'm unsure if you're still watching this page.) Loki (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I was going to make a WP:BOLD attempt to rewrite Soliciting support other than by posting direct messages, such as using a custom signature with a message promoting a specific position on any issue being discussed but I couldn't come up with anything. What is that rule actually supposed to be prohibiting? Clearly direct messages are not preferred over posts on relevant noticeboards. I'd remove it entirely, but the second half does seem like something that is forbidden and which we ought to mention is forbidden - but why is it forbidden? What larger category does it fall into? Clearly it's not just forbidden for "not being a direct message." I made the most minimal edit I could think of to get the "other than posting direct messages" part out, since I think that is very definitely wrong and doesn't reflect policy or practice (or anything anyone would want to be either of those things), but I'm unsure what really ought to replace it. EDIT: It occurred to me right after I posted that "other than direct messages" was probably originally intended to mean something other than the modern concept of DMs, ie. "soliciting support indirectly", so I tweaked it to say that, which hopefully reflects the original intent anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Section on what is not canvassing

In a recent arbitration it emerged that a particular website or websites had been criticizing Wikipedia content. This was seized upon by some participants as "canvassing," with an editor supposedly editing by virtue of that "canvassing," and to the best of my knowledge there was no proof introduced showing that canvassing as defined by this section had taken place.

While I personally believe that this guideline is as clear as glass, I do believe that it would benefit from a "What is not canvassing" section. I believe that such a section should specifically state that editing in response to content or recommendations on the Internet is not prohibited activity under this guideline unless the editor is specifically involved with that website, and if the website requests specific edits. We can't have people accused of canvassing simply because somebody is babbling on the Internet, and I think such a section would clarify that point. Coretheapple (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

In principle, I agree with this, although I think we have to be very careful about not introducing new and unintended problems. Also, there's a difference between canvassing, and allowing oneself to be canvassed, and the scenario above is the latter. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:17, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I think allowing oneself to be canvassed and not declaring that it has occurred is probably as problematic as canvassing itself. An editor can't help what they come across or who pings them, but they should make it clear that they perform and edit or weigh into a discussion because of being led there. TarnishedPath^talk 10:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that editors have an obligation to disclose when they are editing on Wikipedia after merely seeing something offline? I just weighed in on an AfD after I saw it mentioned on Wikipediocracy. At the time I saw it, it just indicated that the AfD was commenced. Should I have disclosed that?

In the arbcom case that led to this discussion, a blog criticizing certain articles, and pointing out alleged deficiencies in articles, was interpreted as making "requests to edit" and subject to sanction, even though it did not make any requests, and based purely on edits taking place after the blog pointed out those alleged deficiencies. Coretheapple (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

A neutral comment in a public forum that a discussion is taking place is not considered canvassing, and I wouldn't expect an editor to disclose that. On the other hand, if a blog post, Wikipediocracy thread, or whatnot is criticizing some aspect of an article or otherwise expressing an opinion that something should be changed, and an editor is following up on that, I think it's reasonable to consider them as having been canvassed, and I would expect at minimum a disclosure of how they came to be involved.

I think the whole issue is indicative of tensions between our policy on canvassing, the way consensus is supposed to be weighed and the way consensus is often actually weighed, but I'm not sure there are any great solutions for that. I think an element of: "Okay, but was the editor being helpful or disruptive?" will always factor into whether people are punished for canvassing violations. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. TarnishedPath^talk 00:52, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's a great idea to start expecting editors to describe the path by which they became aware of a discussion. It'll become yet another thing to argue about for disputing parties to attempt to remove others from the discussion. It also provides incentive for editors (using another identity) to canvass those who disagree with them in order to hamper their participation. I appreciate the challenge that number of supporters is typically a significant factor in weighing strength of argument. The best way to eliminate incentive for canvassing, though, is for English Wikipedia's decision-making process to put less emphasis on raw numbers. I realize that so far, many of the users who like to discuss these matters are unhappy with the disadvantages of the alternatives. isaacl (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

The latest thread about Wikipediocracy canvassing, I believe, occurred on 2024-04-01 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive360#Are people allowed to just open Wikipediocracy threads for backup in onwiki arguments?. An administrator tried to block a Wikipediocracy user for canvassing, but the block was overturned, and then a bunch of other drama occurred. As a data point, that incident appears to say that the community is OK with editors posting links to consensus-building discussions on Wikipediocracy. Which is weird because it's my impression that this is not allowed for email lists (WP:EEML) or Discord (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones), so why is Wikipediocracy an exception? –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Tryptofish raises good points, and I agree. One question. I am not aware of other guidelines or policies that cover being canvassed, and would appreciate knowing if there are any, or if this is all we have.

I did not know about the Wikipediocracy thread. Appreciate that being pointed out. While I am probably not the biggest Wikipediocracy enthusiast on the planet, for reasons going back far into history, I am firmly opposed to criticism of content there being interpreted as "canvassing." We have to acknowledge that Wikipedia spurs much criticism, as it has for years, and editors will read the criticism (and praise) and it will influence their editing, consciously and otherwise. Wikipediocracy frequently highlights certain articles it views as deficient. Editing in response to such claims is absolutely not canvassing.

On Tryptofish's point: I agree on the importance of not introducing new problems. Some editors were subjected to penalties in the arbitration I mentioned due to genuine canvassing. That is unacceptable. A channel on a chat website was created for the express purpose of coordinating editing. That is canvassing under this guideline and it should be. Websites, blogs, message boards, articles and so on that simply complain and criticize are a different kettle of fish and I believe that distinction needs to be stated with clarity. Coretheapple (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the other place that deals with being canvassed is WP:MEAT: allowing oneself to act on a canvassing request is to act as a meatpuppet.

In addition to past discussions about making edits after seeing criticism at WPO, the recent ArbCom case that Core and I are both thinking of involved a blog where someone criticized Wikipedia's coverage of a topic area, where the blogger pointed out something the blogger regarded as a problem, and an editor here read that blog, decided that he agreed with what the blogger said, and made an edit accordingly. The Arbs started to talk about that as having acted on a canvassing request, and I'm frankly not sure whether they really came to a consensus about whether or not that was the case, but I and other editors had at least some impact by arguing that simply having seen a criticism of content, and making an independent decision that one agrees with that criticism, does not amount to meatpuppetry. In my opinion, that's where we might consider making some clarification here.

I'm tentatively beginning to think that we could draw an (imperfect) distinction between an offsite post that says something like "let's get together and change what Wikipedia says" and a post that says something like "the Wikipedia page on xyz is wrong when it says such-and-such". The former is genuine canvassing, whereas I would argue that the latter is criticism. (In real life, there will be gray areas in between, and that's where we will need to be careful.) In my opinion, reading external criticism of Wikipedia, and deciding on a selective basis that one agrees with the criticism, and making an edit to make an edit for which one takes responsibility oneself, is not meatpuppetry. In addition to a distinction between genuine canvassing, and criticism, there is also the factor of being selective, as opposed to doing everything the external site calls for. Perhaps there is also a question, as to what degree of disclosure we should expect: should the editor disclose that they read the external site, and would it be a problem if they don't? (I'll add that some editors argued on case pages that there's a hazard in making too much of this a violation: those wishing to influence Wikipedia could preemptively post stuff offsite, saying the opposite of what they really want, sort of a false flag, so that anyone who makes such an edit gets blocked. Obviously, we don't want that.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I think we have to be careful about blogs saying "let's get together and change what Wikipedia says" should be considered canvassing.

First of all, how do we know that someone edited in reaction to what the blog asked?

My concern is that a blog will say "let's change X" and then someone changes X and it is presumed that they changed it due to the blog saying that. I believe that is what happened in the arbcom case.

You are correct that arbcom did not reach a consensus on that matter, which makes further clarification here all the more important. Especially so since yes, someone can come along and start a false-flag blog. Coretheapple (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I actually think that it's kind of weird to say that we're an encyclopedia anyone can edit but if you disagree with us you should not go tell people to edit us. That definitely seems backwards to me.

The situations that feel most like WP:CANVASSING to me are the ones where an editor who feels like they're losing pulls out an arbitrary-seeming list of names to ping, which naturally is a situation that can only occur on-wiki. Off-wiki canvassing of course is a thing but I don't think that asking people to edit Wikipedia from off-wiki is enough to call something canvassing.

Honestly, I feel like this guideline may be trying to do too much. The community has ways of handling a bunch of new WP:SPAs trying to edit an article because Twitter told them to. It also has ways of handling someone with a rolodex of other editors to ping any time they're losing an argument, but those are very different things that need to be dealt with in different ways. I don't think lumping them both into the same category of violation makes sense. Loki (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

• Editors who respond to off-wiki edit requests do so at their own risk. I don't think there should be a blanket ban on answering them. But when doing so, you have to use your common sense and your Wikipedia sense. As Coretheapple obliquely refers to, this is about AndreJustAndre, who made the edits requested by an off-wiki blog. The original draft of the PD of PIA5 called him out for this. Our concern was that the edits reflected Andre's general battleground approach to the topic. Sometimes, answering outside edit requests is good, and it can improve Wikipedia. But uncritically implementing requests by someone with a clear anti-Wiki agenda should certainly be able to get you in trouble. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  Can you please provide links to the "off-wiki edit requests" that you say were made by the blog in question? Because I looked through that blog and couldn't find what I would consider to be "edit requests." I don't want to relitigate the arb case but I do want to know what you found to be worthy of a sanction. Knowing that will help us shape what if anything to do about this canvassing rule. Coretheapple (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  Only one editor made an accusation of canvasssing-related misconduct by Andre in the Evidence phase.[2]

  The first two items of the supposed canvassing "evidence":

  The blogger complains about a deprecated source being used and the article being in the “Propaganda” category. After this post, Andre removes both. link, archive, diff

  Zionism:

  The blogger complains about the entire article, calling it biased and antisemitic. It gets vandalised immediately. After a couple of days and reverts by some editors countering the vandals, the content is still the same as the version before the post. Andre then makes his first edit on the page. On his second edit, he removes a word the blogger highlighted as biased. link, archive, diff 1, diff 2

  It goes on like that, and no those are not "edit requests" in any way, shape or form. I think this guideline needs to make it perfectly clear that website complaints concerning Wikipedia content are not to be considered "canvassing." Coretheapple (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  I mean, they are textbook canvassing, so that's a dead argument - obviously nobody is going to support an argument of "it's not canvassing if it's done off-wiki", since off-wiki canvassing is a well-established problem that has only grown more serious over time. Likewise, the fact that a group of people sent here by an external source to change something on the wiki are to be treated as WP:MEATPUPPETS of each other is well-established. I think that a more constructive way for you to approach this would be for you to articulate what you do think is off-wiki canvassing or WP:MEATPUPPETRY, and when it would be inappropriate. To me, the key point is that when people are clearly acting systematically to implement the desires of someone else (for the purpose of discussion, let's say a blog), then 1. they become collectively considered meatpuppets of that blog, meaning that they're treated as one editor for most purposes, and 2. they become responsible for the intent and goals stated on that blog. To address your concerns about "does this mean I can't fix an obvious error" - there's nothing wrong with implementing one or two fixes; and there's not even anything wrong with acting as a meatpuppet for someone off-wiki whose intentions are compatible with our policy. But (and I think this is what CaptainEek is getting at) you want to be cautious when acting on behalf of someone else for an extended period of time, because when you do so you become a proxy for them and can therefore be held responsible for their stated intent. If someone says eg. "GO TO WIKIPEDIA, MY MINIONS! Flood it with our perspective, and slaughter our enemies on its battlefields!", someone who is shown to be acting as a proxy for that editor can reasonably have that used to demonstrate WP:BATTLEFIELD conduct. If a bunch of people clearly acting as a proxy for that blog weigh in on an RFC, this can be used to ignore their numbers; and if they get into an edit war, they can be sanctioned for edit-warring as if they'd made a 3RR violation even if they only make one edit each, because they're all proxies of the same person. --Aquillion (talk) 13:42, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

  If the website was doing what you say it was doing, why wasn't that pointed out to the committee in the Evidence phase by the editor who raised the issue?[3] Coretheapple (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

• I think there's a distinction to be made between "It's stupid that the Wikipedia article about X says...", and "It's stupid that the Wikipedia article about X says ________, everyone should go change it to _________!". We couldn't stop criticism like the former, and I wouldn't want to even if I could; maybe it really is stupid that the article says that. I would, though, encourage someone acting on even the former type of thing, let alone the latter, to consider carefully before they do. First and foremost, why isn't the author of the criticism doing it themself? Is it that they're banned from the project? If so, there's very likely a good reason for that. Is it that they think doing so would get them banned or sanctioned? Well, then let them catch the heat; don't do it for them. I certainly think that we can take notice if a highly visible blog, tweet, etc., said such a thing, and all of a sudden editors show up doing what it encouraged doing. AGF doesn't require that we stick our heads in the sand. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Much of the discourse offsite would indeed get one banned from the project. I thought that was well-established. I've had myself referred to in very unpleasant ways in the context of my former interest in fighting paid editing. If you drill down there is often a point there, even for me. Yes, I did spend too much time on paid editing. It was a waste of time. The best course of action I think is not to obsess over what offsite critics say and not to "criminalize" those who act on the basis of criticism. Coretheapple (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

• But I think it's plausible that an editor might encounter criticism in the wild, look at the article, and determine for themselves that the criticism is correct and should be addressed. Schazjmd (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  Absolutely, and that's why such criticism can be a good thing! But one would still expect those editors to make policy-based arguments in favor of their position, and give a great deal less weight to the number of editors advocating it, in such a situation. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  Like Schazjmd (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  In my opinion, we shouldn't get too caught up with the ArbCom issues about Andre, because this isn't the place to relitigate that, and because what we do here should be broader-based. On the merits, I agree with Schazjmd that there is nothing wrong with an editor becoming aware of some content criticism, and deciding on that basis that the content should be corrected. And in that regard, I disagree with, and am troubled by, Eek's assertion that this should happen "at their own risk". In a sense, every edit that anyone makes is at their own risk, in the sense that we are each responsible for the edits that we make. And I don't have a problem with saying that editors should exercise a reasonable amount of skepticism when reading external criticism, and not assume that the criticism is correct or good-faith. But to say that an editor incurs an extra degree of "risk" when making an edit, just because there exists some external site that expressed an opinion in favor of such an edit – good heavens, down that road lies the Wikipedia equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition.

  Going back to what I said earlier, I think the subsequent discussion makes it more likely that it is desirable to encourage editors who were influenced by something seen offsite to be transparent, to disclose that they saw something offsite that led them to make that edit. But I still see a useful distinction to be made, between external sites that actually canvass, versus those that criticize. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  I think Seraphim has made my point better than I did :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

• And in that regard, I disagree with, and am troubled by, Eek's assertion that this should happen "at their own risk". In a sense, every edit that anyone makes is at their own risk, in the sense that we are each responsible for the edits that we make. But one of the principles of that has long been that when you make edits on another person's behalf, you become responsible for them. For individual error-fixes this is not an issue; but if you edit on behalf of another person for an extended period of time, to the point where you can reasonably be described as "acting as their hands" on-wiki, then you likewise become responsible for their goals, since you are implementing those goals. I think that's what people mean by being careful. If you follow a blog that says eg. "flood wikipedia's systems and turn it into a battleground!" and regularly implement things suggested there, I think that it's reasonable for people who discover this connection to use this as evidence that you may share that goal, and at least make you explain this. It'd be a major piece of evidence against you if ArbCom was examining your edits to see if they fell afoul of WP:BATTLE, since it does highly suggest that you may share that goal. And if a bunch of people who are plainly following directions from this blog are overwhelming RFCs or engaging in edit-warring, it would be a valid reason to treat them as a single user. --Aquillion (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

• There's a difference between "editor happens to come across criticism of a genuine error that they would have fixed if they discovered anyway in the wild and decides to implement it" and "editor follows a blog overtly pushing editors to treat Wikipedia like a WP:BATTLEGROUND and to engage in WP:CIVILPOV / WP:TEND / WP:MEAT behavior, and aggressively goes down the line following its instructions repeatedly." --Aquillion (talk) 13:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

  !00% TarnishedPath^talk 13:47, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

• First of all, I want to take issue with the misrepresentation of the website in question and why it was an issue. It was not simply a website that criticizing Wikipedia content. It was bluntly and unambiguously encouraging what we would call violations of WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:CIVILPOV, WP:TEND, and WP:MEAT, calling for a "flood of editors" to treat Wikipedia like a battleground where they could advance their views. Those aren't innocently pointing out errors; they are calls to flat violations of policy. My opinion is that editors who act systematically on behalf of such external exhortations become responsible for what the source says - that is to say that if a source says "do these things to FIGHT THE ENEMY; we must OVERWHELM THEM WITH OUR NUMBERS", or otherwise gives instructions that would clearly violate Wikipedia policy if posted on-Wiki, and it is found that an editor is acting systematically on behalf of those instructions for an extended period of time (not just making a one-off correction, but acting in a way that can reasonably be described as "acting as the hands" of the blog's creator in alignment with its intent), then such editors can be 1. treated as one editor for the purpose of moderation, including when it comes to eg. 3RR violations, and 2. held responsible for goals expressed on the blog as if they had posted them on-wiki, since they are working to advance them on-wiki. This is the real principle of WP:MEAT - if you act on behalf of someone else, you become responsible for what they're doing. Doing so for a single small fix is fine regardless of who it is; and doing so repeatedly for a bunch of fixes is fine if the "intent" they're implementing doesn't violate our policies. But doing so for someone whose intent is clearly to violate our policies makes that your intent and is sanctionable. I don't agree with the implication that we're required to just sit here helplessly while someone calls for an army of editors to flood Wikipedia with POV-pushing; we can allow innocent corrections while correctly identifying and sanctioning editors who are unambiguously and deliberately acting as the hands for someone else in violation of our policies. What I would suggest, if any change is needed, is something stating that when you make edits on behalf of another person, you become responsible for those edits; and that if you do so repeatedly in a systematic way, then you may become responsible for that person's overall design, since you're working as their hands to implement that design. --Aquillion (talk) 13:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

  I couldn't disagree more with your description of the website in question. This [4] is the evidence pertaining to that blog in the Evidence phase. It totally contradicts what you're saying, but for the purposes of this discussion I'm not sure it matters.

  Let's say there is a website that screamed out the way you say it did. Let's say another website simply criticized Wikipedia articles and edits were made in reaction to it. Those are two examples of the kind of websites that may be out there. Coretheapple (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

  How to deal with this isn't clear to me, but I suspect we may be focusing on the wrong thing. Clarifying policy would help sensible rational actors who are here to build an encyclopedia. The problem, in practice, as far as I can tell in PIA anyway, is the kind of people who respond to the more ridiculous off-site stuff and come here on a righteous mission to fight the cabal of antisemitic pro-Hamas terrorist sympathizers or the cabal of genocidal Zionists. We probably need better tools to deal with credulous easily manipulated people who are transparently WP:NOTHERE, people who have been tricked into fighting someone else's battle. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

  I think you are referring to WP:MEAT. I've posted a note there concerning this discussion, as it is related to meatpuppetry. Coretheapple (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

• Per the nutshell, canvassing is "notifying other editors of discussions". Editing an article in response to a request is something else altogether and so is not canvassing. The relevant policies for that include WP:EDITREQ, WP:PROXYING and WP:TAGTEAM. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:13, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

  I think WP:MEAT is more apropos, and in retrospect I probably should have begun this discussion there. Coretheapple (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

• Some editors have talked about systematically and repeatedly carrying out edits that are suggested at an external site. I think it's easy to agree that this is allowing oneself to be canvassed. But that's something different from making a single edit, when one happens to have gotten the idea from another site, even while ignoring multiple other things said at that site because one does not agree with those. A big part of the concept of meatpuppetry is that the puppet is mindlessly following the instructions of someone else. So I'm fine with continuing to discourage that. But we should distinguish that from selectively making a single edit or a few edits, because one has thought it over and decided that one agrees that those particular edits would be an improvement, and being willing to take personal responsibility for that. These are two different things, and it would be good to make that distinction clear on this page.

I'm seeing differing views about how much we should require disclosure about having read something elsewhere. This is something that strikes me as having a range of possibilities, from good to bad. Some amount of voluntary transparency is good, and is a kind of disinfectant against deceptive meatpuppetry. On the other hand, it can get unreasonable to demand too much disclosure, too much of the time, because it might not really accomplish much in some cases, and we shouldn't penalize good-faith conduct on a technicality. It would be helpful to brainstorm how to articulate this on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Brainstorming

Working off of the table at WP:INAPPNOTE, I've created this rough draft of a table, that I hope sort-of summarizes some of the ideas above, as a way of maybe moving towards an actionable improvement to this guideline page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

	External website		Edits made		Transparency
Appropriate	Analysis and criticism	AND	Selective, for valid reasons	AND	Disclosed
	↕		↕		↕
Inappropriate	Canvassing, organizing	OR	Indiscriminate	OR	Misleading

Not bad. I disclosed at the AfD I mentioned above. It didn't kill me. Coretheapple (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with coretheapple. Looks pretty good. My only suggestion would be that 'Canvassing, organizing' -> 'Canvassing, proxying and organising' (or something similiar). TarnishedPath^talk 01:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)