Wikipedia talk:Canvassing/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Can the following be considered friendly notices?

Say there is a TFD for Template A and another template, Template B, gets mentioned as a good alternative. Template A is deleted and the closer says Template B has consensus. One month later, Template B is nominated for deletion. Is it acceptable to contact all the editors who participated in the TFD for Template A on their talk pages and inform them that Template B has been nominated for deletion? --Pixelface (talk) 06:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. That's a neutral canvass, on the face of it. The "information" should be neutral. Not "OMG look what they are up to." --Abd (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Opting in using canvassing subpages

Is the main purpose of prohibiting canvassing that (1) it can distort debate outcomes, or (2) like email spam, it distracts and annoys users? If it's the latter, perhaps we could have users opt-in to receiving canvassing notices by creating a canvassing subpage (e.g. User talk:Obuibo Mbstpo/Canvassing) and inviting users to put their canvassing notices there. The user can qualify that invitation however they want (e.g. "Only canvassing notices pertaining to cat- or goat-related articles, please" or "Only one canvassing notice per user per month, please") and watch or not watch that page as they choose. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Mbstpo edited the guideline to reflect his idea of a canvassing permission and subpage, but I think it is premature to have it in the guideline, it should first be discussed here. So I'm reverting it out, which should not be construed as opposition. --Abd (talk)

At Mbstpo's request, I've reverted my reversion. Enjoy.--Abd (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

To the first question, the answer is simply 'yes'. Canvassing is discouraged both because it distorts discussions and because it annoys. I'm restoring Abd's original revert; consult the Village Pump before making such a dramatic change to the guideline. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The Village Pump is generally a more appropriate forum for cases in which the proposed change would affect more than one policy/guideline; otherwise, it can be taken care of on the policy/guideline talk page. Moreover, there is nothing wrong with making an edit before consulting other editors; see the square box directly underneath the "previous consensus" oval in the flowchart located at Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_can_change. Do you have a substantive objection to allowing opt-ins? Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Opt-in or not, it distorts discussions. The guideline is already written in such a way that notifying editors – in neutral terms and on a limited scale – of a discussion in which they are likely to have an interest is permitted. There's no need to modify this guideline to allow that, and there's no good reason to allow or encourage spamming campaigns on a larger scale.

The change that you propose would affect many – perhaps all – Wikipedia processes, from the resolution of article content disputes to RfC to AfD. It would even distort future discussions of policy changes. Believe me, even if there were a ghost of a chance of your proposal being adopted, it would absolutely have to go through the Pumpo or some other public venue first. Honestly, though, I suspect that widely advertising your proposal will just cause someone less lazy than I to delete your pro-canvassing templates. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Is consensual talk page communication any worse than people communicating off-wiki (e.g. on IRC) to coordinate action on AfDs and other decisions? Such channels are already being used for such things. Caucusing is a normal and useful part of most large decision-making groups. See also Wikipedia:PARL#Allowability_of_caucuses. This just provides an avenue to do it in a more transparent way.

"Canvassing" is basically a neutral word, as you'll see below. Depending on the circumstance, it can be bad or good. I think it's a spectrum that runs from friendly notices to caucusing to spamming. If the person gives permission to be contacted about something, it falls more into the category of caucusing than spam. By definition, in the case of caucusing, we are not talking about "spamming campaigns on a larger scale" as you mention above.

• Caucus: "a meeting of people whose goal is political or organizational change"
• Canvass: "solicit votes from potential voters in an electoral campaign"
• Spam: "unsolicited email"

In order to fit in the category of "friendly notice," a communication has to meet the four different attributes of limited posting (rather than mass posting); neutral (rather than biased); nonpartisan (rather than partisan); and open (rather than secret). Some caucusing might not meet all of those attributes but that shouldn't make it unacceptable if the person has opted in to receiving that kind of communication. It is just one way of working for political or organizational change – which we could sure use on Wikipedia – one decision at a time. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 03:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(dedent) The strong reaction Mbstpo received to his "canvassing" subpage suggestion is a little surprising to me given the "Friendly notices" userbox mentioned on the project page; the only difference is that the subpage is used with his idea and the Talk page with the Friendly notice userbox. By the way, I opposed his suggestion because it does not address the noise problem; but it was an alternate idea to what is already legitimate, and if the text involved was wrong, i.e., didn't sufficiently warn against illegitimate canvassing, the text should have been fixed. Certain kinds of "canvassing" are already allowed, apparently, such as posting a notice to a Wikiproject page for users who might be interested in a particular AfD as shown by their interest in the Wikiproject. (or on a subpage of the wikiproject specifically dedicated to related deletion debates.)--Abd (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

BJBot 4

I've reopened approval discussion for BJBot 4 (a notification bot taks). Since we are talking about WP:CANVASS over there, I'm posting a link here. Please follow-up on Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/BJBot_4#Opt-in_instead_of_opt-out. Suggestions/opinions welcome. Thanks. --Ligulem (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Other alternatives to canvassing

I went ahead and added this text:

As an alternative to canvassing, one might establish a user subpage listing Articles for Deletion, for instance, that he wishes to draw other editors' attention to. He can then, over time, form relationships with editors he believes will be sympathetic to his general views, letting the existence of that user subpage spread through word of mouth. Other editors can watchlist it or transclude it to their own userspace (perhaps even their talk page), providing the advantages of canvassing without disruption. Patience is the key to making this work. Of course, opponents can watch that page as well, so the effect is balanced.

This seems in keeping with the spirit of this page, and I believe is sufficiently different from my previous rejected proposal that it is acceptable to be bold and introduce it here. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

In reference to this reversion, does anyone have a substantive (as opposed to procedural) reason the above text should not be on the page? I will wait 24 hours for one to appear before reverting. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

To further illustrate what I'm doing, please see User:Obuibo Mbstpo/Discussions in progress. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

In other words, this is a way to create a flash mob at an AfD or other discussion, as a way to generate a distorted and misleading opinion sample. Notices on WikiProject pages – the exiting approach to this type of notification – offer a more neutral approach and are more likely to attract subject matter experts. This proposal is a way to summon up Obuibo's Mob. Please don't put the text back in; we're not interested in any ways to circumvent this guideline. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Nonetheless, there is nothing prohibited such user subpages, right? Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're asking "Will you be blocked if you persist in doing this", I can't answer that. I can tell you that it's a bad idea, and won't be incorporated into this guideline. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

My mob could beat up your mob. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Quit it, Obuibo. Nobody is going to get beat up.--Abd (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Could this be used for mobbing an AfD? Perhaps. But lots of useful tools can be abused. I've never understood the fear of extra !votes. After all, they don't count, do they? It's arguments that count, right? What this does, and does legitimately, is to invite more eyes to look at a page, eyes that have clearly volunteered to be so informed. It gets a bit dicey if a large number of users are deciding to act together to vote identically, but it also seems pretty useless to even try that. If it's done through a page like this, it will quite likely be mentioned in the AfD. What will happen legitimately, though, is that more and better arguments, and more discovery of sources, will arise. And that cannot but fail to improve the project. It's a brilliant idea, which I'd been the first to think of it.--Abd (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again, it appears your hypothesis has been proven. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite curious. TenOfAllTrades appears to own Wikipedia. He uses "we" when referring to the community's opinion, excluding others present. That is, there is, here, apparently, "us," i.e., TenOfAllTrades or others agreeing with him, and "them," those not included in "we." Such as Obuibo and myself. It is not my desire to make this a personality conflict; rather, we should focus on the proposed text, and how to make it a reasonable proposal, if that is correct, and then how to determine the community's response. It starts here with the participating editors. Has the community spoken through the keyboard of TenOfAllTrades? How would we know?

I'm going to note that off-wiki equivalents of Obuibo's suggestion are already in use. Some have been explicitly approved by Jimbo Wales, and they are used by reputable Wikipedia users and administrators. However, that certainly won't cancel out the community's opinion, if it is different. On the other hand, unenforceable rules can cause more damage than good; enforcing rules against this kind of notification here will simply shift it off-wiki, where it already happens with mailing lists and IRC channels.

Obuibo did credit me for the idea; however, though it fits organizational theory that I've been working on for over twenty years, this immediate idea came from an AN/I report: [1]. This is in reference to User:Kmweber/Some AfDs to fight. Is this allowed? There is no policy against it.

Because it is open -- anyone can easily find these pages if they are being used -- this does far less harm, if it does any at all, than secret communication. I would revert it back in, but I'm waiting for more comment to spontaneously appear, and we may wish, at some point, to solicit further comment. I'd rather wait until the tweaks are made to make it the best proposal, and I have utterly no desire to edit war.--Abd (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

My mob RULES! Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently Obuibo likes my argument. Yes, I came here because of the file he created, he'd notified me of it, as might be expected. In any case, if it's a good argument, it's good that it was solicited, and if it is a bad argument, it's proper that it be disregarded, and there was little or no harm that my presence was invited. This is not a vote. There is no presumption at all that can be drawn from an argument being made by one, two, or twenty editors, as to its cogency, for often people here congregate based on some kind of mutual interest; it's only when there is broader exposure that we start to find out what true consensus is.--Abd (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just wanted to take advantage of that opportunity for a pun. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and transcluded {{User:Kmweber/Some AfDs to fight}} to my userpage. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Question

Does WP:CANVASS have any bearing on talk pages of articles (i.e. not intended to be discussed on said talk page, but rather inform visitors of that specific talk page about some other thing)? ~ UBeR (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Should this page encourage friendly notices?

In the past two years, I've been involved in a few RfCs and other conflict resolution procedures on articles dealing with specialist topics. My general reaction is that there have been very few comments from editors who were not already involved in the conflict. (A different situation obtains in the case of "hot topics" which always draw a large number of partisans).

Conflict resolution should benefit from outside points of view, yet the whole tone of this page is to discourage canvassing as if it were a bad thing. Given the well defined criteria of (Limited) Scale, (Neutral) Message, (Nonpartisan) Audience, and (Open) Transparency that have been developed here, I propose that we redraft the opening paragraph of the section on friendly notices to encourage the posting of friendly notices to all Wikiproject talk pages associated with an article in which there is a conflict.

In order to draw a wide range of informed, but uninvolved, editors into the conflict resolution process, neutrally worded notifications should be posted on the talk pages of all Wikiprojects identified as associated with articles concerning which there is a dispute. Such "friendly notices" may also be sent to a small number of editors if they are intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion (for example if to editors who have substantively edited or discussed the article or to a Wikipedian is known for being an expert in a certain field and has shown interest in participating in related discussions). This is more acceptable if they have made an unsolicited request to be kept informed, but unacceptable if they have asked you to stop. Examples of friendly notices include:

Always keep the message neutral, and leave a note on the discussion itself that you sent out friendly notices. Editors who like to be informed about Wikipedia discussions can add the "Friendly notice" userbox to their user page.

I welcome discussion of this draft. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

After reading my proposed draft, I realized it would have the effect of reducing the bulleted list to one item. I've now revised the entire subsection (above), with additions to my previous draft italicized and deletions struck out. Comments please, either as to the general idea or the details. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This proposal having been up for a week with no objections, I've made the change proposed above (although with some rearrangements in the interest of coherence). --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I semi-reverted the above. The main problem is that this section deals with more than "dispute resolution". There's the XfD process, for just one rather large example. Otherwise, nice job of turning a bulleted list into text. (I'm currently not sure which would have been better/clearer, but that can be determined over time : ) - jc37 21:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I knew this would be controversial, but could you explain why we shouldn't try to encourage involvement in the XfD process? --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify? I am not seeing how you came to that conclusion by what I said above. - jc37 23:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. The point I was raising was that the most favorable language relating to canvassing was that it was acceptable under certain circumstances. I was proposing to positively encourage canvassing, in accordance with the criteria of Limited, Neutral, Nonpartisan, and Open by saying friendly notions "should be posted..." Removing that phrase removes the positive encouragement of involvement in the various discussion processes and returns us back to the generally negative tone of the article. This tone is probably is a remnant of the earlier versions of the article, which had a section heading Canvassing is bad; don't do it.[2][3], until it was deleted [4] to set a more neutral tone. I'm trying to provide balance to the remnants of that old negative tone.

I'm okay if people don't want to move in that direction, just so we're conscious of the general tone of the present version to discourage canvassing. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with a "more positive tone", as long as it remains "neutral".

My concern with your edit was that you were changing what the section meant. It appeared you were limiting it to only notices concerning dispute resolution, when "friendly notices" may concern any sort of discussion. So that's what I was trying to do, stay less specific about the type of discussion, while remaining neutral in its "tone". Does that better clarify? - jc37 21:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

canvassing via dedicated WikiProject is allowed?

The guideline says nothing specific about cases like the following: When a WikiProject dedicated to "[preservation of] "Trivia" and "In popular culture"-type information in Wikipedia" hosts a list of "articles facing deletion", I'd personally argue that this violates at least the spirit of the guideline insofar as it addresses a biased sample audience. Any comments would be appreciated, particularly by people experienced with this guideline. Also note that the reasoning according to which the average WikiProject participant is knowledgeable on the respective subject matter is not valid here since there is another, separate WikiProject specifically dedicated to trivia cleanup. Dorftrottel (harass) 00:36, April 13, 2008

I think canvassing via Wikiproject is fine. It's one of the few ways you can legitimately get larger participation in a discussion. Note that people who are opposed to whatever the Wikiproject is for are also able to watchlist the Wikiproject page and watch for such deletion discussions. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That's true. I even joined the WikiProject. But, depending on the respective deletion discussion, it may require a much larger number of other people to even out the bias introduced by the notice at this WikiProject. This is because AfD is unfortunately handled too much like a vote, both by a certain crop of participants and by many closing admins. Dorftrottel (criticise) 01:42, April 13, 2008

This question seems to have two parts: What to do when you have concerns about a WikiProject, and whether dropping a friendly notice on such a WikiProject's talk page is considered inappropriate canvassing.

If you have concerns about a WikiProject, there's Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, or even WP:MFD, to start a discussion about the concerns.

As for the latter concern, as long as the notice conforms to the guidelines of a "friendly notice", I don't think there would be an issue with the notice in most cases, though if you feel that the WikiProject is questionable, then you probably shouldn't drop the notice. (Potentially erring on the side of caution.) - jc37 03:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm talking about this project and this dedicated section. I believe it institutionalises canvassing. Dorftrottel (bait) 03:20, April 13, 2008

Well, on one hand, if I take the project's goal at face value, it claims to be attempting to work within Wikipedia's framework. But I can understand your concerns. It's definietly a WikiProject worth watching. As for the notices, that's actually rather common. Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Notice board (one of many, many examples). - jc37 03:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Standard practice everywhere to alert a wider audience, rather than just those who might around WP:AFD. The aim is to improve articles, not delete out of hand. If that is canvassing, then the whole trivia cleanup is. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your own rather strong opinions on the matter prevent me from taking this particular comment of yours at face value. The aim of that entire project and especially that section is to prevent removal and deletion even of material and "articles" that are in clear violation of Wikipedia content policies. Dorftrottel (harass) 04:37, April 13, 2008

Opinioniated? moi? Certainly no more than yours. Time to drop this debate as it's going nowhere. in clear violation of Wikipedia content policies is a subjective assumption masking as an objective observation. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You are of course free to leave the debate. Regardless, I would appreciate more opinions by people a tad more interested in encyclopedic standards and a tad less in adolescent amounts of useless trivia and yet more popculture noise. Dorftrottel (harass) 06:30, April 13, 2008

When I respond to articles placed in the "facing deletion" column, it is generally to improve them in whatever way I can -- and then !vote. Efforts along these lines recently prompted a nominator to withdraw his nomination, despite substantial opposition to the article in its pre-edited form (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classical elements in popular culture (second nomination)).

The two other most active participants in the project, NickPenguin and Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, also contribute substantially to article improvement in this way. So I assure you, the project is far more than a canvassing tool (and those who are wary of the project's goals can simply join and/or watchlist it, as you have done yourself). The purpose of the "articles facing deletion" section is to highlight articles which have the most urgent need of improvement.--Father Goose (talk) 11:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I know that some actually do what you describe and that's absolutely great. Recently, I withdrew an AfD nom myself after someone surprisingly came up with sources and added to the article. But others, and I daresay the majority, does not do that. I've seen too many AfD comments along the lines of "Keep. Improve the article yourself, you bad-faith nominator." in articles with no sources at all, and after spending some time looking for sources myself. The people who are interested in actually saving articles should be wary of this kind of abuse, and aware that such project lists can be used in many ways, not all of them laudable or productive. Dorftrottel (bait) 14:45, April 13, 2008

I have been a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia and Popular Culture for the short time that I have been a registered editor here. Not once have I seen anyone say "please help save this article from deletion". Articles are simply posted on the page as "facing deletion". I, for one, will not vote on articles that I cannot justify keeping around. And I'm sure there are plenty of trivial and pop culture articles that escape our attention (we do have real lives as well), so its not like we go around trying to tip the vote in our favor. As far as I know WP:TRIVIA is not a policy, its a guideline. What is considered trivial is a matter of highly subjective debate, and our only goal is to express our side of the debate... not to preserve every last bit of trivia and nonsense. In my view, the easy way out is to simply declare anything to do with pop culture as trivia and delete it, instead of spending the time to improve it, which is what we are trying to do. In essence, we are working to improve Wikipedia, not just to clutter it up with more junk. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"please help save this article from deletion": That's not my concern. People don't need to, and most likely wouldn't, say something like "let's mass-vote to keep" or anything like it. But the fact worries me that some editors keep appearing out of nowhere, just to vote(!) keep against, at times, all our core content policies. Anything that can be done to prevent that should be done. Ideally, closing admins would just discount any policy-defying or -ignoring comment, but they don't, they mostly count heads. So I believe something else must be done; and not encouraging this sort of thing, by declaring it canvassing, is one possible measure. Also: I like pop culture. But on Wikipedia, I like minimum encyclopedic standards even more. Dorftrottel (bait) 20:34, April 13, 2008

What if we had a link on our page to the AfD page itself? Is that canvassing? Am I not allowed to vote simply because of my views? Just because I disagree with some of the guidelines (not policy) means I'm not allowed to vote? I don't understand what you're implying. The fact remains, people will gather in link-minded groups in order to further their agendas. If that is "canvassing" then so be it, I guess we shouldn't have any projects at all because people might declare agendas and further them by taking action. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it ErgoSum88, the guidelines on the front of this page are pretty clear. A neutral friendly notice is absolutely fine - and is used often on AfD to alert various projects if an article which lies in a particular field comes up. There is no problem. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a problem, in my humble opinion. But for some reason you are fighting against acknowledgement of that problem and against implementing solutions, in my humble opinion. Dorftrottel (ask) 22:28, April 13, 2008

this is the same objection as made to all wikiprojects. But it is intrinsically neutral. There is nothing to stop someone who dislikes this sort of articles from watchlisting the project page--or even joining the project--and then they could look for articles in this list to see if perhaps they did in fact merit deletion, and say so aft AfD. I'm a member of some projects whose implications I do not agree with, or which I think have an excessive tendency to promote the writing of dubious articles--I go there, and say what I think. I joined the Malls projects to argue for higher standards for malls articles, and for deleting the ones that didnt reach it. DGG (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Maybe that's actually the best way to look at it. Consider the issue dropped. Dorftrottel (warn) 02:31, April 14, 2008

Would this be canvasing?

Asking for opinions here before I act on this. I have had a regular effort to clean up city categories. Recently this effort has been called into question on my talk page. One of the objections raised was that I had not been consulting the various state WikiProjects before each clean-up. Considering that I have done well over 50 of these clean-ups over the past year, having to do such a consult before each and every one would add a layer of beurocracy to things that would make the whole effort far more trouble than it's worth. I have had another idea, though, and that is to set up a centralized discussion on the whole issue, and because my not consulting with the various state WikiProjects has been specifically raised as a problem, I would like to place breif notices on each of their discussion pages inviting their input on the issue. I would also place notices on a half dozen or so pages relating generally to categorization.

But the admin in me is made a bit nervous by the idea of dropping discussion notices on 50+ pages all at once. OTOH, I don't see much way of making a centralized discussion meet the objections without actually inviting the various project to the discussion.

So here I am, before I move forward with this, looking for opinions on whether I would indeed be crossing the line of this guideline, and, if so, does anyone have any suggestions for alternate ways to go about this. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If there's a practical reason to do it, just do it.--Father Goose (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

There were several places on this page where a sentence was better placed in a different section. So I've merged those.

In addition, I merged the section on Campaigning to Votestacking, and wrote a new section on Campaigning. There seemed to be a confusion between swaying the reader, vs. swaying a discussion's consensus. - jc37 19:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it canvassing if....

Is it considered canvassing to advertise an XfD on one's user page? Thanks.  Moo  Chat  22:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Counter-canvas

According to Wikipedia:CANVASS#Votestacking user may not canvass selectively to influence a decision. But what if a user does that during a poll? While the user may be asked politely to stop this, the damage is done. The vote will be effected as the users contacted will likely respond. Thus, in effect, the user "gets away" with such acts, if this is his/her first time.

To counter this effect, is it permissible to counter-canvass, that is notify users of the opposite "side" of the issue? Or should the input of users who make drive by votes (without even entering into the discussion), as a result of the canvassing, be disregarded as far as consensus is concerned?

Bless sins (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing and Consensus Building Disconnects

Having been recently called out for Blatant Canvassing for making a single user working on a project I am involved in aware of an AFD debate, I became aware of this guideline. As I always do with WP, I read the guideline, the talk page and tried to interpret the guideline in light of what I had done.

Here’ what I wrote: Support needed to preserve (Article). Username: Please weighin on keeping the above article. This is a 2nd proposal to delete.

I retrospect, the request was not neutral, but had I left out the words Support and Keeping, this particular user would still have weighed in to keep the article. That said, I tried to apply the Canvassing guideline to my single post. Scale: One post to a project associate Message: Benign, but not NEUTRAL Audience: Clearly partisan Transparency: Open

So did I violate the guideline and was I justly called out for Disruptive Canvassing? I find that hard to answer. Although I clearly understand the NEUTRAL guideline and agree with it, I do have difficulty with the AUDIENCE aspect as I would be unlikely to canvass anyone who hadn’t been participating on or with a distinct interest in an article (and thus was non-partisan).

Then I began to tackle the notion that Canvassing (whatever the form) is disruptive to consensus building. Here’s the Canvassing Summary: WP:Canvass is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion. Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive.

Here’s the Consensus Summary: WP:Consensus is typically reached as a natural and inherent product of the wiki-editing process; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it. In essence, silence implies consent, if there is adequate exposure to the community. Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, should never over-ride community consensus on a wider scale, unless convincing arguments cause the new process to become widely accepted. In the case of policy and process pages a higher standard of participation and consensus is expected than on other pages.

I bolded the particular sentance that is troubling.

Adequate Exposure In Many Cases Requires Canvassing

There may be some in the WP community that do nothing but monitor and edit in WP. Many of us however have real jobs and our ability to monitor all relevant (to us as individuals) is limited in time and scope. This is especially true of deletion debates which can materialize out of no where and one can find deletion discussions that are so far gone and off-topic that the discussion isn’t about the quality or subject matter of the article, but a ramble of arguments by deletionists and non-deletionists over WP guidelines. Only when editors clearly understanding of the subject matter weigh-in does the article get a fair deletion discussion. Unfortunately those editors may be totally unaware of the deletion debate unless they are notified (some how) of it. If they are silent, consensus is assumed, but in reality, wider, informed consensus was avoided.

Currently the WP:Consensus guideline makes no mention of WP:Canvass and I believe the statement: . In essence, silence implies consent, if there is adequate exposure to the community is somewhat in conflict with the WP:Canvassng guideline. Not only should WP:Canvass be referenced in WP:Consensus, the guidelines should be compatible. Adequate exposure may indeed require extensive canvassing to insure knowledgable editors participate in a debate. Currently, I don’t think the two guidelines are compatible as written. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel your pain, Mike. WP:CANVASS is problematic, to be sure. If AfDs, for example, aren't based on votes or the number of people commenting, why is canvassing considered a problem? Of course, the fact is that numbers do influence results. Wikipedia guidelines do not control, but actual practice is to warn re canvassing and to block if continued after warning. In an AfD, an editor can pretty much call whatever they want to call canvassing, and, unless it isn't civil, it will stand. It is up to the closer whether or not to factor that charge in. However, from the guideline, a single post, by definition, is not canvassing.

The current text: Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion.[1] Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive. This guideline explains how to notify editors without engaging in disruptive canvassing.

The chart below is a bit deranged. Probably should be fixed. The way the chart reads, if any *one* of the following apply, it is canvassing:

• Mass posting
• Message biased
• Partisan audience
• Secret

Your single post was biased, and to a partisan audience. Of one editor. This wasn't canvassing, period. Some participants in AfDs will go to desperate lengths to prevail, to impeach those seen as being in opposition. It's quite a problem. So, on the one hand, if there is canvassing (is "two" editors enough for canvassing? My opinion, no .... but the community might well decide otherwise. There is some value to limiting it to one.), it is proper to notify the AfD and provide evidence. On the other, it really shouldn't make much different. One more vote? Now, if your friend presented a better argument, that is interesting, and is exactly why we might want to be careful about prohibiting canvassing. So, some alternatives that won't get you blocked.

• Notify a relevant wikiproject.
• Notify a deletion-sorting page.
• Notify all editors who have edited a page in the past.
• Notify all editors who have previously voted in an AfD on the article.

These are all generally considered acceptable. One admin left the project when he was blocked for notifying all Wikipedians who had contributed images to a page with photos of Wikipedians. But, as I recall, he was vindicated, the block was considered improper (even though, since, he did not pursue it, there may not have been a formal decision. The charge made against him was that those who had edited the page were necessarily biased. Sketchy, I'd say, though possibly true in some way. The same could be said about anyone who has edited any obscure article, though, and it's considered courteous for an AfD nominator to notify such people.

Key: the notice should be rigorously neutral, and, in my opinion, should be disclosed on the AfD page. That's my practice, and I haven't been warned yet for canvassing. I even sent a notice to an external mailing list in a recent AfD over Asset voting, and the nominator made a big flap over it. Other users also complained a little, but revised their complaints after they read the actual notice. The external list is one read by voting systems experts, and it is a neutral list. Had I not notified the AfD of it, this could have caused a problem as "secret." I don't know if any votes came in as a result of the mailing, though I suspect that one Delete vote may have. And my position was Keep. My purpose -- which counts! -- was that I suspected that those familiar with the field might be able to supply reliable source. I saw Newyorkbrad, in another voting systems AfD, write something like "we need to hear from experts on this topic." Well, that is what I was doing, suggesting that experts comment. Without bias. There is also another mechanism you might use in some cases.

• Add your comments about the AfD to your user page or to your Talk page. If your friends watch your Talk page, for example, there is no way to know how many will read it, and it is not considered canvassing. A few users have set up special pages for announcements, inviting others to watch them. Again, no problem, at least not so far. This has not been considered canvassing, even if it is outrageously biased.

So the chart is far too black-and-white, oversimplified. And we don't want instruction creep. At least I don't want it, nor do many long-time Wikipedians, there seems to be a new generation that want everything spelled out in black and white.--Abd (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Abd - Thanks for the thoughts. Although I am not worried about Canvassing guidelines in general (I didn't know they existed until this AFD debate), I have always been concerned that AFD debates suffer from a real lack of knowledgeable input. I understand how to deal with the canvassing guidelines in the future, but feel there is still a bit of a disconnect between Canvassing and Consensus guidelines.--Mike Cline (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Surveys

I'm not sure this is the right place to ask this question: Are there any rules/bureaucratic hoops/etc for contacting editors for polls or surveys that don't directly affect anything on-Wiki? If, for example, the folks that run the Gallup poll wanted to survey a random selection of Wikipedia editors, is there any sort of paperwork that needs to be done first? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest asking about this at the Wikipedia:Village Pump. (Pick whichever VP sub-page you feel is appropriate to your question.) - jc37 07:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I took this to WP:VP, where the response was that there are no hoops to jump through or permissions to get. Anyone can contact Wikipedia editors through Wikipedia to ask them to participate in surveys. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC) (who is no longer watching this page)

I found the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Pollsters (Feel free to update the link after it archives.)

And that's not exactly what was stated. Personally, I'd suggest keeping User:John Broughton's three (a, b, c) points in mind. As he noted, you may receive sanction if others see this as spamming.

And note that I'm not going to even try to guess if this is appropriate (which is why I suggested the VP in the first place). - jc37 23:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:Policy shopping

This was added as a see also. It's an essay, not a guideline, and I am not the least sure it have general agreement, not yet having had much discussion. I'd like to remove it from the list--what do we usually do about linking to essays?DGG (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I've undone the addition. Whether or not it has general agreement, I don't think it's actually related. WP:CANVAS is about how to properly solicit more editors to add their opinions to a discussion. WP:Policy shopping is a recommendation for how to present an argument. Not close enough to justify inclusion, even in the "See also" section. Cheers,Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I defined "involved editors" in the main text

While notifications of editors who have already demonstrated an interest in a topic of discussion is acceptable (whether these involved parties are members of a relevant WikiProject, recent editors of a page under discussion, previous participants in the forum where the discussion is taking place) it is civil to post a notice in the discussion that such a notification is to be made.

 $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 15:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Instead of the above paragraph, how about we add something like the following sentence to existing text. (The proposed addition is in italics.)

Editors who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion, might also place such neutrally-worded notices on the talk pages of a WikiProject, the Village pump, or perhaps some other related talk page, while still only, or in lieu of, posting a limited number of friendly notices to individual editors. Such editors might be chosen due their demonstrated knowledge or expertise, due their having recently contributed substantial edits to the article or talkpage page under discussion, or due their previous participation in the forum where the discussion is taking place.

Comments?  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 15:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

So you want to add:

"Such editors might be chosen due their demonstrated knowledge or expertise, due their having recently contributed substantial edits to the article or talkpage page under discussion, or due their previous participation in the forum where the discussion is taking place."

That makes a presumption about editors that we really can't make. - jc37 16:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I've struck the presumption (which was based on guidelines elsewhere in Wikipedia about "expert opinion," but your point is taken). Any other objections?  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 16:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Good call, but there's another intrisic problem with the sentence. The section you're appending it to could have quite a few other examples. However they greatly depend on context of a case-by-case basis.

For example, I don't think that anyone would suggest that all the editors of a page which has over 5,000 edits should all be canvassed for a current discussion, especially if their last edit was months or years ago. And the same goes for edits to an article's talk page.

That said, there may be times that it may be appropriate for recent editors to be notified of recent edits.

But it's better if this page was vague on that point, and allow for the case-by-case basis. (It also helps reduce WP:BURO.)

Does this better clarify? - jc37 07:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The example you cited was already addressed by the phrase recently contributed. Several months ago wouldn't have been recently.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 10:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I simplified the chart

via putting wikilinked terms at the top of each column:

	Stealth canvassing		Massive cross-posting		Campaigning		Votestacking
Inappropriate canvassing	Secrecy	OR	Mass scale	OR	Biased message	OR	Partisan audience
	↕		↕		↕		↕
Friendly notices	Transparency	AND	Limited scale	AND	Neutral message	AND	Nonpartisan audience

 $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 15:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. Canvassing is not a negative term. with your edits, you are changing the tone of this guideline.

Per WP:BRD, now is the time for discussion; for you to explain the reasons for your edits, in order that consensus may be determined. - jc37 15:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"Canvassing" has been changed back to "inappropriate canvassing" now in the above, thanks; otherwise what is proposed to be changed from the existing chart via the above arrangement is for its wikilinked terms to be placed along the top of the columns.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 15:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well another problem is that those links which you would like at the top, are the names of sections on the page which indicate inappropriate canvassing. That's why they were on the row they were.

Is there a point to this change other than to insert new words for inappropriate canvassing? - jc37 15:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The proposed arrangement was a minor, stylistic change. No big deal, either way! Nonetheless, Jc37, I fail to understand your objection since the sentence directly above your comment reveals that "Inappropriate canvassing" is presently unchanged. Furthermore, the row that presently contains wikilinked terms "Stealth canvassing," etc. is not labeled "Inappropriate canvassing" as you believe but rather "Terms."... What's more important is the suggested edit in the section above. Could you comment there? Thanks.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 15:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The template was a result of lengthy discussions, and is also a visual aid.

Why are you suggesting its removal/replacement? - jc37 16:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

In your sentence above you suggest I'd proposed a chart be removed when I'd merely suggested it be flipped, which I said was in order to place wikilinked categories along the top of its columns. But should your queries really be simply rhetorical and the main thrust of your belief is that the Wiki in Wikipedia does not mean that folks can suggest possible edits, please just say so and save me a lot of time here, geez.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 16:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

My apologies if that's how my comments have come across. These are genuine questions. - jc37 07:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's no template whatsoever being discussed here -- and with your responses' non sequiturs otherwise (by their objections having already been satisfactorily addressed), I'm left with the impression of you as a Wikisloth who nonetheless haunts a page, reverting anything suggested, shooting first after only glancing at a suggested edit later long enough to come up with a plausible explanation, but ending up with a deletion rationale that's patently inapplicable, more often than not.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 10:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Shortcuts

In my experience these are a bad idea unless large page size is involved.

And having an editor jump to a section of the page, without knowing what else is on the page may leave them with an inaccurate sense of the policies or guidelines being conveyed. - jc37 07:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The WP:STEALTH shortcut was also to a micro-section. My taking the sentiments of this talkpage section at face value, based on principle (not article WP:Ownership), I've deleted the template advertising it as well, although the shortcut will still work, if anyone has already put it in their repertoire.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 16:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: the recent reverted revisions

While I am all in favor of being bold, the recent revisions do not seem to clarify or otherwise advance the purpose of this guideline, so I support their reversion. I will oppose them until further discussion here makes it clear what the purpose of the changes is and confirms that there is a consensus for them.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 09:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)