Wikipedia talk:Canvassing/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Canvassing in self defense

I was recently accused of canvassing when I notified an editor on his talk page that his reaction was needed to an accusation that I had edit warred with him. Based on this, I was also accused of probably canvassing by email, too, to get reactions from people that were involved in the situations where I was being accused of bad behavior. I was also accused of canvassing when I left a note on my talk page for any talk-page stalkers that might see it (which, yes, I hoped would influence the outcome of the discussion). So, my question is this: What are the rules of defense when accusations are being discussed at WP:AN/I? How can one summon witnesses for the defense in light of the current wording of the canvassing provisions? Dicklyon (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Here is my opinion about it, and it's only my opinion. And I'm deliberately not looking to see what any of the underlying events were; I'm just commenting based on what you said here. Notifying the other editor that there was a discussion about edit warring that involved him is definitely not canvassing, unless the notification was written in a non-neutral way. (Indeed, it would be improper to hold the discussion about someone without their knowledge.) Any accusation that canvassing had occurred off-site, such as through email, needs to be backed up with evidence, and unsubstantiated speculation about it might even be a personal attack. Putting a note on one's own talk page, inviting or suggesting that talk page watchers in general should look in on an ANI case about you is kind of borderline, because the message is directed at a potentially broad group of people who might not all really be appropriately involved, and because there is some expectation that the population will be skewed towards people who are friendly to you. On the other hand, it's something that is done pretty often, and isn't all that problematic. There's an easy way to make that talk post safe from being considered canvassing: post at ANI disclosing that you made the post on your talk page. Then it's not a secret. Further, you could also ask that anyone going from your talk page to ANI should say at ANI that this is how they became aware of it. That would be completely different from canvassing, although it would also be kind of gilding the lily. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

My note on the editor's talk page was not particularly neutral. I wrote "I am being retrospectively accused of edit warring with you when I reverted your revert ..., and I'm also being accused of ... in an attempt to indef block me. I don't understand why, but a bunch of editors have piled on, while I can't get them to tell me which ... were controversial. Your perspective might be useful since they accuse me of edit warring with you." And this is an editor who sometimes takes my side and sometimes argues against me, but in this case I thought the accusation of "edit warring" was overblown and the other accusation baseless, and that he'd probably say so; which he did.

In any case, it might be useful to have a section on what kinds of "self defense" actions would be acceptable. The way it is now, the AN/I drama mongers think they can get you in extra trouble for canvassing if you try to defend yourself. Dicklyon (talk) 23:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The key applicable phrases from this guidance page, in my opinion, are The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions and Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief. Notifying one of the parties under discussion is a normal, expected thing to do, but it ought to be done neutrally. isaacl (talk) 03:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Right, that's what it says. Basically, it says you that if you're being accused of something ridiculous you can't encourage those who know what's really going on to come and defend you, unless you word it to look neutral enough. That seems silly to me, though I did more or less try to respect it. Dicklyon (talk) 03:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I apologize; when you said it might be useful to have a section on what kinds of "self defense" actions would be acceptable I didn't realize you were suggesting to change the guidance such that it would be permissible to issue a non-neutral notification to seek others to defend your position. I do appreciate the desire to do this; when I think my actions are being entirely misinterpreted, it would be nice for me to be able to ask someone I trust to provide feedback, but this could be interpreted as inappropriate notification. For better or worse, I don't get the sense that the English Wikipedia community is willing to change this aspect of the guidance. English Wikipedia's decision-making traditions are vulnerable to vote stacking, and problematic notifications can make things worse. isaacl (talk) 04:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the relevant distinction might be between "defend your position" and "defend you". When one is being attacked by the vicious ANI regulars, and then being attacked more for trying to get people who know what's going on to come and say so, one gets the feeling that no defense is allowed. I'm not talking about content disputes. Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure, by "position" I didn't mean to imply only positions in a content dispute, and when I spoke of actions being misinterpreted, I was thinking about disagreements in whether or not specific behaviour complies with English Wikipedia policies and guidance. With content disputes, there are at least relevant WikiProjects that can be notified (which of course might be of limited use, depending on how active they are), but there isn't really any venues beyond the actual dispute-resolution page itself to look for additional experienced voices to weigh in on your behaviour. So I appreciate the desire to notify specific persons for their viewpoints. I just don't know how to provide guidance on this that wouldn't be susceptible to making it easier to encourage vote stacking. isaacl (talk) 04:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to do this either. But the current scheme at AN/I seems unfair if one can't call "witnesses for the defense". Fortunately, I did get enough people showing up to overcome the initial pack of AN/I regulars, but it made it clear to me how awful AN/I is to people being unfairly abused there. Dicklyon (talk) 04:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Disclosing your notifications prevents others from accusing you of doing so on the sly, but inappropriate notification is still inappropriate, even if disclosed. It won't change the audience of the notification, if it was selected for specific opinions, or a non-neutral notice that selectively encourages editors with a specific viewpoint to respond. isaacl (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

So the main question remains: when is soliciting a defense statement "inappropriate"? What is an appropriate way to solicit help when being accused of things that the accusers don't know enough about? Has anyone here ever experienced what I'm talking about? Maybe in my own defense statement I should name and ping all the people who were semi-involved that might be able to provide the relevant context? Dicklyon (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

If anyone cares to look into the specific situation, you can see that they had me buried with votes to block me before I found out about it, which is why I needed to find people who could defend me by saying something about what actually happened. And here is the speculation about email canvassing. Dicklyon (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

If there were other people legitimately involved who can offer greater insight into the incident in question, then I do think it is valid to notify them of the conversation.

Regarding getting more people to look at the details and weigh in: my suggestion is a variant of Tryptofish's: before notifying anyone, state you're soliciting the opinions of some experienced editors you trust, and invite anyone else to do the same. Then when you ask the others for their opinions, do so in a neutral manner (you could consider asking someone else to word the request for you). It can still be considered notification with the intent of influencing the discussion in your favour, but if sufficiently reputable editors are being solicited, their opinions will have credence.

I was involved in a somewhat similar situation (though with much lower stakes), where no one commenting seemed to have actually looked at the details of the actions in question, nor seemed interested in my viewpoint (no one asked and so I just tried to make amends without offering an explanation, as to an aggrieved editor, it will often just sound like excuses). In that case, my goals were to preserve the other party's dignity and keep them involved in the initiative we had been working on, and so I wanted to tamp down emotions and bring the episode to a rapid close. I appreciate how trying to get a broader sampling of opinion is desirable in many other situations. Unfortunately I can't think of any good approaches right now to try to resolve this systematically, without introducing some kind of administrative hierarchy. (For better or worse, amongst those who like to participate in these types of discussions, there's no consensus to have a hierarchy.) isaacl (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

There's kind of weird hierarchy at AN/I, with those who choose to hang around and act of judges and prosecutors, and those who stay away because it's basically a swamp. Dicklyon (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, ANI most certainly is dysfunctional in a lot of ways. But about seeking a witness for the defense, I think the preferable way would be to say it in as neutral a manner as possible, such as: "There is a discussion going on at ANI#thread, and I think that perhaps you could offer some useful comments there." If the editor is really someone who will have insight into the dispute, they will be able to figure out on their own who the good guys and bad guys are, without you coaching them. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

ANI is a kangaroo court and there don't seem to be any significant rules of evidence or due process. If things were done properly, you'd have a system such as jury selection to ensure fair play. Anyway, if you want to call a witness then you should couch it in those terms and I, for one, would support you. Andrew D. (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC for addition to appropriate notifications section

At Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal: Appropriate notifications I'm talking about doing a proposal to add a bit at the beginning of the appropriate notifications section to say some notifications are best practice, i.e. an editor should normally do them not just "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion". Dmcq (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

The proposal is fairly well defined now and I'll try putting it here. There is a lot of discussion before it with some objections I think are a bit obscure - you're wecome to contribute and give your ideas either way. Dmcq (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

It is now an RfC as it needs wider input. WP:VPR#RfC: Appropriate notifications WP:CANVASS should list some notifications as best practice to send, as well as its current 'An editor who may wish to draw a wider audience...' for the appropriate notifications it lists. The main reasoning is based on WP:Consensus#Pitfalls and errors. Dmcq (talk) 02:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Facebook (or Instant Messenger) Canvassing

Supposed users form a hidden group on Facebook or Whatsapp, how can we deal with the canvassing if they orientate and vote biasedly in some discussions? Alphama (talk) 03:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Reply at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Facebook_(or_Instant_Messengers)_Wikipedia:Canvassing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Questions regarding appropriate notification

​(1) An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:

Does this mean "at any one (but not more than one) of the following", or "at any one or more of the following"? Could the sentence be revised to make this more clear?

(2) The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. Do not send notices to too many users, [...]

I sense a conflict here and again request clarification. Before reading this, I compiled a list of previous editors of the page concerned, there being a few more than a hundred. I didn't include some of the editors, not because of the content of their edits but because their edit was very minor, or came from an IP address with no contributions link, or had "bot" in the name of the editor. The list should thus serve from the viewpoint of neutrality. I could go back and include even the minor one-timers and the bots, though this seems unadvisable since the given example is of editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article. There seems to be a possible conflict between selection and quantity, however. If I don't notify all the past editors of the page to avoid writing to too many (however many that is – this too could perhaps be made more clear), then I have to make a selection, and selecting seems problematic. If I select using some random method (none of which I have in mind), what's to say it's really random? And if I select an equal number of editors expressing a certain disposition and those expressing another, then what's to say I didn't include the ones I like and exclude the ones I didn't, even if I included the same number from both categories? Would it be best to simply notify all the prior editors, including the minor one-timers and the bots, or should I use my present list in which these aren't included (which would be in accordance with the example). Thanks for any information and/or advice, and I hope the uncertainty in the two points mentioned can eventually be clarified in the WP:APPNOTE text. If one or more persons have asked about these things before, that would seem even more appropriate. –Roy McCoy (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to Hydronium Hydroxide for teaching me how to spell canvass. But could someone please address the above questions? It still looks to me like the text could and should be more clear on the points mentioned. Thanks. –Roy McCoy (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposed wording on canvassing via pings

... for discussion, here (words copied from an arbcase where five of the seven needed arbs had supported before the case was closed) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

"Ping" system (proposal)

Contacting a broad range of editors, such as through RfC, is an important step in dispute resolution. In addition, the Help:Notifications or "ping" system is important to allow editors to know where they are being discussed. However, biased canvassing, including inappropriate use of the ping system, distorts the consensus process and is disruptive. Signs of biased canvassing include only contacting one side of a dispute or selectively contacting individuals who had previously supported the editor. If the content of a "ping"ed post would not be appropriate on a user talk page comment, the "ping" would be inappropriate canvassing achieved via a different technology than a talk page post. Editors should take care not to overuse pings when they would otherwise not notify these editors; canvassing rules apply equally to pings like they do to any other form of message.

Discussion

A case dismissed because the editor being piled on with accusations about this died. Absolutely not the time for this. The fact is it did not pass and it would have been rulemaking by fiat for ArbCom. Pinging had been discussed by the community previously and there was no consensus to add it. [1] You know this from the case. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

A reminder, please, to focus on content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The table at Wikipedia:Canvassing § Inappropriate notification describes a spectrum for appropriate versus inappropriate notification. The form of the notification isn't a factor, so the echo notification system is already covered. Rather than a new subsection, perhaps the "Votestacking" subsection can be modified slightly to underscore that "selectively notifying editors" includes any form of notification. isaacl (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

That (Votestacking) does seem to be the better place for the mention of pinging, but I thought the most effective wording of the finding was the reminder to consider when pinging whether one would write the same thing on user talk pages. The wording was a good way to remind editors what to account for when attaching dozens of pings to very long posts they would never write on dozens of user talk pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the focus should remain on why and not how notifications are made. No matter what mechanisms is invented in future, or if some one uses a project page in a novel way, or whatever anyone can come up with, the guidance covers it. (Sometimes we don't have to create rules for each specific case.) isaacl (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• I don't feel that this requires its own section - one or two added words at key points is sufficient. In fact, I think the existing wording already covers pings, but if there's any confusion, just modify one or both of the following lines with the bolded additions: Posting an excessive number of messages or pings to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand. And Posting messages or pings to users selected based on their known opinions. The section on Votestacking is already sufficiently broadly-worded Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion), since a ping is a form of notification for that purpose, but it could be clarified there as well if there are editors insisting that pings are not a form of notification. To a certain extent I'm leery of clarifying things too specifically because editors might then use that to say "well, we specified pings here but not there, therefore it's not covered." But if there seems to be confusion then it's important to hammer it out eventually. --Aquillion (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Naming FTN as an example

I wonder if it would be a good idea to name the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard in this page, as an example of appropriate notifications. We get occasional complaints about people posting at FTN about conspiracy theories and pseudoscience, and people might worry less if they knew that this really was an okay thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it's sufficiently covered by the first bullet point in the "Appropriate notification" section: The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion. isaacl (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

GSoW group

There is an interesting thread on the GSoW group, it's already archived though. See : Continued discussion about GSoW. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

User talk page notifications

• On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include:
  • Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article
  • Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
  • Editors known for expertise in the field
  • Editors who have asked to be kept informed

Under current wording, it seems like quite a few user talk page notifications are allowed. Four bullets are given, and this covers a wide variety of folks. Does this reflect current consensus though? Would it be better to tighten this to suggest that user talk notifications should be kept to a minimum, in favor of other more neutral notifications such as WikiProjects and noticeboards? Here is my suggested change. Replace the above with:

• On the user talk pages of a small number of key stakeholders, such as page creators.

I chose page creators to mention specifically as I believe this to reflect current practice (e.g. when notifying of AFDs) and is uncontroversial. Thoughts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Cross-wiki notifications

Is a post on another language wiki to opine in an English Wikipedia RFC considered canvassing? –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Notifying top contributors

I'd like to suggest that if a top contributor wants to notify other top contributors (especially when all top contributors are likely to be on the same side of the debate as the notifier), the best practice is for them to ping from the discussion rather than post to talk pages. It feels more transparent to me. I'm not interested in making a rule. Just noting a best practice. Proposed change: From

Note: It is good practice to leave a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made, particularly if made to individual users.

to

Best Practices: leave a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made, particularly if made to individual users, and particularly if those users are likely to be in agreement with you. Or, ping from the discussion with an explanation, "Notifying top contributors". valereee (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to weakly support the gist of this change mainly because I think this transparency would avoid misplaced accusations of canvassing (I find this guideline to be both under- and over-applied) while at the same time ensuring others can audit what notifications have been made. I certainly don't want the opinions of people who receive an appropriate notification to be viewed any differently by the closer, but I presume that wouldn't be an issue for most closers. A couple pings because it looks like a somewhat similar edit was made a week ago by BilledMammal and reverted by Shibbolethink. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I would say the biggest difference between this edit and BilledMammal's is that this edit does not make it mandatory. It calls it a best practice. I would agree: it is a best practice. I do not think it should be a "must" wording. I would agree, however, that this should be encouraged/recommended in the strongest available terms. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it should be a "must", because I cannot think of any circumstances where transparency would not be beneficial, and editors who are stepping over the line into canvassing will take advantage of the option to hide the notifications they have issued in the hope that other editors will not notice them. BilledMammal (talk) 04:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

From my perspective one of the problems with "must" is that it changes this from advice to a rule. That will inevitably bring kneejerk "too many rules already" response. There's a large number of editors who think there is nothing important enough to make another rule about and who will oppose it on that basis with no other rationale needed.

I'm up for increasing the strength of the statement to:

Best Practices: Editors are strongly encouraged at minimum to leave a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made, particularly if made to individual users, and particularly if those users are likely to be in agreement with you. Or, ping from the discussion with an explanation, such as "Notifying top contributors" or other legitimate reason for notifications. valereee (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

APPNOTE vs INAPPNOTE

APPNOTE has sometimes been interpreted to overrule INAPPNOTE; if a notification is allowed by APPNOTE, then whether it violates INAPPNOTE is not relevant. I believe this is a misinterpretation, and we should clarify APPNOTE to state this, by changing Do not send notices to too many users, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them. to Do not send notices that violate WP:INAPPNOTE, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them. BilledMammal (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

If nothing else, I think it is much better to make the proposed change, because to too many users is such vague and subjective language that it really is not useful. I note that the edit was made here: [2], then later reverted while apparently unaware of this talk section: [3], and I have reinstated it: [4]. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

There was never a consensus to make this change. Rlendog (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, now it's been changed to another wording: [5]. I'd like to better understand what your objections to it are, since not every guideline edit requires prior consensus and this does not seem particularly substantive, unless I'm missing something. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

It has been almost a year; it is now the status quo and a consensus is required to revert it. BilledMammal (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah, so the deletionists can make changes without consensus, and then when others want to revert it, they have to get consensus for the change! Makes (no) sense. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Tryptofish, the issue is that because of that change, several users (mainly me) were being accused and attacked for "canvassing" for clearly acceptable notifications such as for WikiProjects. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

OK, the possibility that the change might have resulted in some misuse of the guideline is a valid reason for reconsidering the change, depending on the facts. On the other hand, simply saying that there should have been more discussion a year ago is a poor reason. I'm unfamiliar with the dispute in question, and it's completely unclear to me what the problem with the guideline language was. I'd like someone to explain, specifically, what the problem was, how it resulted from the change in language, and why the previous language was better from that perspective. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly how to put this - I guess that the changed version with the link to the section below seems less clear, and almost circular. In my mind, it makes more sense to describe how a notification that would otherwise be appropriate might not be, as the prior version did, rather than linking to the section below and sort of letting users guess. Hatman31 (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. As I see it, however, the to too many users language in the original version suffers from a very similar problem, in that it fails to define "too many". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Here are the three versions, side-by-side, for comparison:

Original language ([6]) Do not send notices to too many users, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them.

Disputed change ([7]) Do not send notices that violate WP:INAPPNOTE, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them.

Current version ([8]) Do not send inappropriate notices (see the corresponding section), and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them.

Is there a way we can reconcile the concerns about these various options? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding my edit: it was just to avoid using a shortcut as jargon within the prose, which seemed doubly inappropriate given that it just pointed to a later section on the same page.

Regarding the original proposed change: sending too many notices is one of the categories described in the section on inappropriate notification. Thus I think the original instruction of not sending too many notices is still covered. But even if the sentence was simply changed to "Do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them," nothing would change overall regarding the guidance. The following section, "Inappropriate notification" would still be applicable. Perhaps it's best to just shorten the sentence in this manner. isaacl (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I like the idea of shortening the sentence. If we do that, I think we should also move that sentence to the end of the next paragraph (for logical flow). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I think the current paragraph where the sentence is located is about selecting the audience, and the next paragraph is about writing and sending the notice. Thus I suggest keeping the sentence in its current paragraph. isaacl (talk) 01:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

It would still be applicable, but it isn't always seen that way which is why I originally made this change. For example, Editors who have asked to be kept informed has been interpreted as allowing canvassing of editors who have asked to be canvassed - "Please notify me of all contentious formal discussions related to a broad topic area". BilledMammal (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

That specific example is an interesting grey area of intersection, as it's common practice for editors to request to be notified about certain discussions. Typically this is for targeted discussions, such as the notification list the arbitration committee set up for discussions on changing the discretionary sanctions system. Perhaps there should be a section on how to respond to such requests: ask the requestor to use one of the page-watching methods described in the "Appropriate notification" section (plus watching the article alerts page for relevant WikiProjects), or in some special cases such as discussions with a specific focus and timeframe, set up a mass mailing recipient list on which anyone can register themselves. isaacl (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I think we should have a general review of canvass at WP:VPI and WP:VPR; it will allow us to determine when the community considers it appropriate to notify a partisan audience as well as consider other changes, such as adding a requirement to inform the discussion of any notifications made. BilledMammal (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

It occurs to me that this may be a case of a double negative not always equaling a positive. Here is what I mean. The actual language in the guideline is: "do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them." Some editors may misinterpret that to mean that it's always good to send messages to users who have asked for them, but the language that we are discussing here actually does not say that. The language does not tell users to send messages, but rather, tells them not to send messages of a specific type. As far as that goes, I don't see a problem with it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand why that clause is even in this guidance. When has unsolicited individual notification ever been a problem, and how would it not be solved immediately through various other behavioral guidelines? JoelleJay (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Although I do not remember details, I do believe there have been cases where editors insisted on notifying uninterested editors, thus annoying them. I think it's reasonable to include as guidance describing appropriate notifications that if someone says they aren't interested in a topic, editors should respect this preference and not, as a general rule, override it with their own personal judgement. isaacl (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

But it's not like appnote is legislating that individuals meeting the criteria must be contacted, so if someone asks not to be notified why would anyone a) continue doing so due to b) the guideline not explicitly telling them to stop? JoelleJay (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The thing is that English Wikipedia guidance isn't written like laws, with specific lines drawn, but as guidance covering intent. This is out of practicality to avoid inordinately long guidance pages (just look at actual laws to see how much fine detail they have to get into), and because so many varied situations crop up that it's not possible to cover all of them. Guidance is generally written assuming most editors are aligned in following a common set of goals, and thus tries to avoid being onerous for these editors. When working collaboratively in a team, it's not unusual for one member to ask another to let them know when certain topics of interest are discussed, and this isn't a problem when everyone is in agreement on objectives. The way to reduce the impact of people showing up who are unwilling to weigh the relative value of the arguments in a discussion is to change the decision-making process such that strength of of an argument isn't determined by the number of people supporting it (or at least not entirely by this). Do that, and notifications of editors with pre-determined positions will be irrelevant. isaacl (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the original expressed concern and current discussions on appropriate notification: it's often a matter of judgement regarding what to do when there is an intersection between the two sections on appropriate and inappropriate notification. I do feel, though, that in the specific case of topic-area related WikiProjects, there is consensus agreement that a neutral notification of the appropriate WikiProjects is appropriate, given that the editors most interested in a topic ought to be involved in discussions on that topic. I appreciate there may be disagreement on whether or not a message at WikiProject talk pages on top of the article alert system is appropriate. (Personally, I think the article alert system is good enough.) Nonetheless, it's relatively common for editors to post notices at WikiProject talk pages, so I don't feel there is consensus against this. isaacl (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I just remembered this discussion, and realized that a lot of time has gone by with no further comment. So I made this edit: [9], which I think is a minimal solution that does not preclude anything more ambitious. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I've undone that edit; I believe the clarification that INAPPNOTE applies to APPNOTE is required. BilledMammal (talk) 02:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I've come up with an entirely different approach that I think is more suitable. I'd like to invite editors to check the recent changes I made and give me their thougts on it. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 06:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I also think we should move the sentence Do not use a bot to send messages to multiple pages. to the correct section as well... Huggums537 (talk) 06:53, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I've undone the change; the issue is that some people interpret INAPPNOTE as not applying to APPNOTE, so we need working in APPNOTE that INAPPNOTE applies. Lets discuss this and get a consensus for any change before editing the page. BilledMammal (talk) 10:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

That's OK with me, but consensus is not simply letting discussion go silent and then reverting as soon as someone makes an edit that reflects (I think) what was discussed last. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

On that topic, I stand by my earlier suggestion which received no response: I think we should have a general review of canvass at WP:VPI and WP:VPR; it will allow us to determine when the community considers it appropriate to notify a partisan audience as well as consider other changes, such as adding a requirement to inform the discussion of any notifications made. BilledMammal (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Do please leave a note here if you start such a review. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I was hoping that other editors would provide some input on scope and initial topics first. BilledMammal (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see, that's reasonable. Sorry, I don't have any good ideas, because it hasn't really been a problem that I've experienced. (My concern is mainly that saying "too many", in a version that is no longer current, was too vague to be useful.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I won't start it immediately - I've currently got two threads going at VPI/VPR and don't want to add a third yet - so hopefully someone else will see this discussion and add their thoughts. BilledMammal (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I did respond indirectly. I don't think notification is the heart of the issue. I think we'd be better off figuring out better ways to evaluate the expressed viewpoints, so raw numbers are not used as a proxy for strength of argument. isaacl (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree, but that is a much harder problem to solve, and until we do we need to handle the notification issue. BilledMammal (talk) 07:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• comment: Is there any particular reason why there is such an intense focus on mixing these two sections together that we have to have two links to the same section in the same sentence? What's with all the overkill?!? Odd. Very odd. Huggums537 (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm using the wording introduced in this edit. I don't have a preference between this wording and the former wording. BilledMammal (talk) 07:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that the double-linking was a problem, so I made this edit: [10]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:VPI

As discussed, I've opened a discussion at VPI about possible modifications to CANVASS. BilledMammal (talk) 07:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Minor point of order

Above, I see a discussion about whether WP:APPNOTE should explicitly bar activities discussed in WP:INAPPNOTE. Prior to this discussion, there was no such explicit bar. In other words, the status quo was that APPNOTE should not mention INAPPNOTE. Then, a discussion was started at WP:VPI, and the post there included the question, "Should the examples listed at WP:APPNOTE be exceptions to WP:INAPPNOTE, or just examples of notifications that are usually acceptable?".

I don't see a clear consensus—either on this page or on the VPI page. Shouldn't this guideline maintain the status quo until such a consensus is established?--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The current version is that status quo; it has been in place for a year. It shouldn't change without a consensus to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Status quo in lead section

Back in January, there was an undiscussed bold edit added to the lead. I recently found out about it, and reverted it with substantial reason for disagreement. This should have been enough to keep controversial material out of guidance until it has been further discussed, but my removal of the objectionable edit was reverted with an explanation that, [in spite of any objections to it], the edit is still useful and "right" considering the immediate context. I reverted the bold edit again with a counter argument that the context also strongly suggests otherwise, and a reminder that bold edits to guidance should be taken to discussion if they are controversial before they are added. I have a strong opinion that "special use" for words on Wikipedia that would otherwise have a normal meaning is an abuse of language becoming like a spreading cancer. It seems we are just making WP:CREEPy stuff up just to justify other CREEPy stuff. Huggums537 (talk) 06:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that we each explained our reasoning in our respective edit summaries. Here is a link to the Wiktionary definition of the term: [11]. The way that we use the term on Wikipedia is pretty obviously different than that. The closest is the definition that comes last (as the least frequently used), and is presented as a political use of the word. As such, it seems reasonable to me to explain what we mean by it. If your objection is to the use of "special words", that would be addressed by renaming the guideline page, not by removing all explanation of how the use is distinctive to Wikipedia, as a term of art. And we use such terms, in WP: space, for a lot of other things beside canvassing, so I think that your objection may be a matter of personal opinion, rather than community consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it is the addition itself that is the matter of controversy regarding personal opinion rather than community consensus since there has been no policy or guideline offered that supports such a consensus, but only personal opinions related to personal interpretations of Wiktionary definitions that really make no sense whatsoever since even if we say the least frequently used most lowly definition on Wiktionary is equivalent to any use on Wikipedia, then we would be wrong for saying Wikipedia use compared to Wiktionary use are "obviously different", and there would be plenty of room for debate, or differing opinions without any actual guidance or policy with a real true consensus to look to. For another thing, if I can make the removal by using definitions just as easily as you can argue that the addition should be there with your interpretations of Wiktionary, then it is obviously evident the addition is based on opinions rather than policy no matter which side of the fence you land on so it isn't fit for guidance. This is the crux of my objection, that the addition was added without any support or backing from policy or guidance, and then no discussion from community for consensus. My opinion about "special use" words was just an added footnote, but I'm glad you tried to latch onto it anyway. Huggums537 (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Besides, the addition is just plain wrong anyway. It states that the Wiktionary meaning does not have any negative connotations, and that is simply not true at all as I tried to explain in my edit summary from the original removal. Looking closely at the Wiktionary definition we can use the political term that you wanted to use which is #4 where they use the word "solicitation", and if you check the Wiktionary definition on that you see that #2 has some very negative connotations, but going back to the definition of canvass if you check #3 (which BTW could also just as easily apply to Wikipedia as #4) you will see that to seek or solicit opinions or support from people contains that word again with negative connotations you can check on Wiktionary #3. Huggums537 (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I guess to be more concise, we should leave out any additions that might be false, misleading, or contain technical errors of any kind. To suggest that the real world use of the word "canvass" doesn't ever have any negative connotations whatsoever is really just absurd when you think about it. Huggums537 (talk) 04:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)