Wikipedia talk:Canvassing

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Canvassing page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

#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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]