This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
A rule clarification that is (apparently) needed
Hi all. :) I'm proposing adding the following sentence to the "Vote stacking" section. (My addition is in bold):
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. (Note that "notifying" an editor includes, but is not limited to, leaving a message on their talk page, pinging them, or contacting them outside of Wikipedia.)
This is in response to a particular user (user:Flyer22 Reborn) arguing, in an ongoing move discussion on the Genderqueer talk page, that pinging someone by mentioning them on a talk page does not count as "notifying" them. While Flyer22's stance obviously goes against the plain language of the guideline*, if they are confused about what "notifying" someone means perhaps other people are too. More clarification wouldn't hurt.
I BOLDly already made the change. Predictably, Flyer22 reverted it (in an edit incorrectly marked minor). In their edit summary they said Editor trying to use this page to influence a discussion
. This isn't true, I haven't cited my guideline change in the ongoing dispute and had no intention of doing so. Instead, I'm trying to prevent people from misunderstanding (or trying to Wikilawyer their way around) the guideline in the future.
Note that this rule change would not completely prohibit talk page pings during contentious discussions. The intention here is just clarify that a talk page ping is essentially the same thing as a user page ping which essentially is the same thing as an email, etc. Sometimes, as the guideline notes, it is acceptable to notify certain users during a discussion and this clarification would not change that.
*See: the Wiktionary definition of notify: To give (someone) notice of (something).
See also Wikipedia:Notifications, which does not distinguish between user page messages and talk page pings, and lists them both as a form of notification/pinging.
WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 01:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding this, as seen here (followup note here), I reverted the following addition by WanderingWanda: "Note that 'notifying' an editor includes, but is not limited to, leaving a message on their talk page, pinging them, or contacting them outside of Wikipedia."
- As I've made clear to WanderingWanda, what counts as canvassing when pinging and whether or not pinging should count as canvassing is debated among editors. This is seen, for example, with the Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Dane discussion. It's been discussed at this talk page before, and in other venues, like WP:ANI. The community has not been able to find a consensus on this. This is because of the intent aspect that comes along with canvassing and because of complicated cases like the Dane one. Like I mentioned before, "I see such pinging all the time at WP:ANI, for example, and the pings are usually used by editors (administrators and non-administrators) for support on whatever they are arguing." And regarding notifying editors off Wikipedia, I noted to WanderingWanda that, as seen in the #Proposal: social media discussion above, even what constitutes canvassing when alerting a Wikipedia editor off Wikipedia has recently been debated. And yet WanderingWanda made the "contacting them outside of Wikipedia" addition.
- I was clear to WanderingWanda that pinging editors who were involved in a previous discussion, who watch the talk page where that previous discussion was had, and who asked to be kept informed is not canvassing. Notice the use of "and" instead of "or" in that previous sentence. Not only was that the case, I was mentioning two editors who researched a matter. I was not going to mention them and not ping them. Even after I pointed WanderingWanda to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification, which notes the exemptions to the canvassing guideline, including "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," and "Editors who have asked to be kept informed," WanderingWanda still chose to view the matter as a canvassing violation (as is clear by their "Flyer is confused" nonsense above). Like I told WanderingWanda, "If one or two editors asked to be kept informed, I do not need to then notify every editor who participated in the discussion but argued in the opposite direction." Predictably, WanderingWanda came to this guideline to add "pinging" to it, despite the Dane example I pointed to. Despite all of the past discussions on pinging and editors being cautious about adding anything on it to this guideline for a number of reasons, including those gone over by Collect, WanderingWanda, a newbie who isn't really a newbie, somehow knows better than the significantly experienced Wikipedians. I'm apparently confused despite pinging editors the way I did being quite clearly allowed under the "Appropriate notification" section. Apparently, we need clarification on the a rule that WanderingWanda understands better than us. WanderingWanda speaks of wanting to stop editors from gaming the system... Well, adding "pinging them" without context is ripe for Wikilawyering. And, indeed, "notification" being interpreted as including pinging was discussed after it was added to the introuction. This type of interpretation by WanderingWanda is what I was concerned about. As for WanderingWanda not trying to influence the Genderqueer discussion, I disagree. There was no reason to even mention that article here in this section, for example. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Whether you were justified in pinging the specific editors you did in that specific discussion is beside the point. It seemed like canvassing to me, but, whatever, that's not what I'm here to talk about.
- We're both agreed that there are exceptions where it is appropriate to notify editors of a discussion. Here's where we seem to disagree: you've said (in that other ongoing discussion) that
WP:Canvassing [does] not address WP:Pinging
and (just now)whether or not pinging should count as canvassing is debated among editors.
To me, that position doesn't even make sense. It's literally incomprehensible to me. How is notifying someone on a talk page different from notifying someone on a user page? How is one a notification and one not a notification? They're obviously both notifications! - I fully admit I'm not a very experienced editor (although, hey, I did just get my apprentice badge. :) so maybe there's something obvious here I'm missing, but I'm completely baffled by your position. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 02:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- How are you "completely baffled by [my] position" when looking at cases like the Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Dane case? Why do you think, in that discussion, Sir Joseph stated that "pinging is not canvassing."? Why do you think editors were arguing over pinging in relation to canvassing in that discussion? How many more similar discussions should I point you to for you to get the point that it's the case that WP:Canvassing clearly does not specifically address WP:Pinging and that whether or not pinging should count as canvassing is debated among editors? Should I ping everyone involved in that Dane discussion? I think I should. We obviously need a big discussion on this. And by "a big discussion," I mean a discussion at WP:Village pump (policy) about it. It's long overdue. I personally can see pinging as canvassing in a particular case, but adding "pinging" to the guideline needs much discussion per past arguments on the matter. You interpreting my having pinged those editors as canvassing is a prime example of that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you guys are talking about, but in general, for a discussion, as you can see at WP:AN, you can't ping an editor, you need to notify them on the talk page. People don't necessarily read pings. In order to be properly notified, it must be on the user's talk page. That is my opinion. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- --
- So let's back up and ask a few basic questions.
- 1. What is a ping? The page WP:Notifications seems to indicate that a ping is anything you do on Wikipedia that causes another user to receive a notification pop-up, including sending them a Wiki email or leaving a message on their user talk page. However, in this discussion I think we're using the term more narrowly to mean: when you link to a user's page on a talk page (which automatically sends a notification to that user). For clarity, from now on I'm going to call that specific form of ping a talk page ping.
- 2. Does the guideline Wikipedia:Canvassing cover talk page pings? It does not mention talk page pings specifically, but what it does cover is notifying in general.
- 3. Does a talk page ping count as notifying? Well, it sends a notification to a user, so yes. How could it not? By any reasonable definition of the word notify, to ping someone on a talk page is to notify another user. Note that WP:Notifications treats pinging and notifying as synonymous:
Notifications ...commonly called pinging
. Therefore, any time the canvassing guideline talks bout notifying other users, the word notifying encompasses talk page pings. - 4. So what, in the end, is the current guideline for talk page pings? Simple, any time you see a word like notify replace it with something like talk page ping, and you'll have your answer. Let's try it:
- How are you "completely baffled by [my] position" when looking at cases like the Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Dane case? Why do you think, in that discussion, Sir Joseph stated that "pinging is not canvassing."? Why do you think editors were arguing over pinging in relation to canvassing in that discussion? How many more similar discussions should I point you to for you to get the point that it's the case that WP:Canvassing clearly does not specifically address WP:Pinging and that whether or not pinging should count as canvassing is debated among editors? Should I ping everyone involved in that Dane discussion? I think I should. We obviously need a big discussion on this. And by "a big discussion," I mean a discussion at WP:Village pump (policy) about it. It's long overdue. I personally can see pinging as canvassing in a particular case, but adding "pinging" to the guideline needs much discussion per past arguments on the matter. You interpreting my having pinged those editors as canvassing is a prime example of that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
When talk-page-pinging other editors of discussions, keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions. Be open!
...In general, it is perfectly acceptable to talk-page-ping other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.
Canvassing is talk-page-pinging done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior...
Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively talk-page-pinging 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.- In conclusion, I disagree with the notion that the guideline doesn't currently cover talk page pings, it does cover them, just not explicitly. In the discussion you linked, the person who seemed to have the most reasonable point of view was Swarm:
It's a matter of common sense as to whether pinging constitutes canvassing—it depends on the intent, obviously, and can only be judged on a case by case basis. If one opposes an RfA, and unnecessarily pings another editor who was in a dispute with the nominee and will likely oppose as well, I don't understand how you can say it's objectively not canvassing. Per AGF, the default assumption should be that canvassing was not the intent, but surely you could see why one might view such a move as suspect.
- In the case of that other contentious discussion we're both engaged in currently... if you pinged those editors because your intent was to get additional voters that would vote in line with your own POV, it was canvassing, if you had another intent, it wasn't. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 04:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- The reason that the guideline does not yet explicitly cover pinging is because of the issues I mentioned. And regardless of whether or not an editor is going to agree with the person doing the pinging, and the one doing the pinging knows that the editor will agree, it's still the case that pinging an editor who asked to be kept informed is an exemption. Nowhere does the guideline state that an editor should only keep another editor informed if the editor who asked to be kept informed will disagree with them. Nowhere does the guideline state that an editor should only keep another editor informed if, after pinging the editor who asked to be kept informed, that editor pings all others who were involved in the previous discussion. Nowhere does the guideline state that pinging an editor who is already watching the talk page is canvassing.
- Speaking of pinging, I'm pinging the following editors who took part in that Dane pinging discussion: TParis, Beeblebrox, Ivanvector, Primefac, RileyBugz, Juliancolton, Lepricavark, Swarm, Ritchie333, clpo13, and Yintan. Also pinging SMcCandlish because he's contributed to many of our policies and guidelines and is good at proposing matters at WP:Village pump (policy) if they need to be presented there. He often has good ideas about crafting policies and guidelines. I didn't ping Coffee because he's currently indefinitely blocked.
- If we are going to add pinging to the guideline, let's get it right. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- There seems some disagreement on the necessity of a) whether individuals in prior discussions had to have stated their desire to be informed to be pinged in future similar discussions and b) whether a minority of individuals desiring to be informed, could be pinged without needing to ping all individuals. I would say a is clearly "if they sounded interested, you can ping them, if you're even-handed" and b is "yes, you can first ping the "enthusiastic" group, without needing to ping all. So long as this is not part of a shared tactic to enable canvassing". Nosebagbear (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Poll
- I support the proposed addition as a useful clarification and an anti-WP:GAMING effort, even if I deplore the tone of this proposal's presentation and the major response to it. Just the amount of WP:WIKILAWYERING going on in the discussion following the proposal is strong evidence why this is needed. I would say that I've noticed that attempts to skirt the edge of WP:CANVASS have gotten much worse and more frequent over the last couple of years, and that the community enforcement against it has weakened, in part due to lack of specificity in the guideline wording. Some meta-commentary on this thread: Hint 1) If your only rationale for doing something is that the formally written policies and guidelines don't quite prohibit it in exact wording, you have no argument; WP does not work that way, and you know it. Hint 2) if you're proposing a change, stick to the proposal and don't inject extraneous arguments that go way beyond it and start treading on practices that most editors firmly believe are not a problem.) In closing, please consider that the neutrality, concision, and other advice at WP:RFC is applicable to anything serving the function of an RfC, including proposals that don't have an
{{RfC}}
tag on them (they pre-date the existence of that template, for one thing; and see also GAMING, WIKILAWYER, WP:POLICY, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:COMMONSENSE, etc., about trying to escape a general principle on a technicality, a tactic exhibited by both of the more vocal sides in this debate). Please also consider that editor A unnecessarily personalizing a matter to seem be all about editor B doesn't require editor B to do the same, tit-for-tat; it's more constructive to rise above this (even just declaring that the personalization is distasteful and will not be addressed in any detail is often sufficient to deflate it). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for weighing in, SMcCandlish. You support this exact wording? Or would you propose different wording? And what of the gray issues/context aspect that both Collect and Swarm have mentioned? And what of the "editors who have asked to be informed and/or are already watching the talk page" aspect that I mentioned above? There are many cases where a dispute is going on at the talk page of an article and editors ping other watchers of that talk page. I'll go ahead and notify WP:Village pump (policy) to this discussion. Masem and BullRangifer, who are also good at crafting guidelines and policies, might also propose something. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- I don't have any issues with the original wording change proposed; it's still all subordinate to the main point, "selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion" (i.e., vote-stacking). As I say in many matters like this, if there's some minor issue with the wording it can be tweaked, and most WP:P&G language gets adjusted over time; this is not carved in stone. Thus, I'm also not opposed to any particular tweaks to the wording if they make sense; nor to reforumlating this as a proper RfC. I'm supporting the general principle being included. I don't think any grey areas can or should be addressed in this; it's the very nature of grey areas, and WP is full of grey areas. WP:P&G and WP:CONSENSUS and related pages already take this into account, and WP:IAR exists for a reason. Next, when editors directly ask to be notified, community consensus already entirely accepts pinging them; there is no issue to resolve there. Same goes for notifying en masse all editors from a prior round of discussion about a new round. None of this relates to vote-stacking or is questionable. The proposed addition doesn't undermine these in any way; it does nothing but clarify that "selectively notifying editors [with] a predetermined point of view" isn't magically permissible if you do it via method B or method C instead of method A. It's simple, clear, and is actually already the operational community consensus that we simply haven't bothered writing down yet. It's just unfortunate that the proposal wasn't left at that, without the paragraphs of venting. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Just wanted to say I agree I haven't handled this proposal, or my disagreements with Flyer22, as well as I could have. Will try and be more mindful in future. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 17:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - I'm not okay with the premise of this proposal to begin with. This is clearly inappropriate spillover from a content dispute, and it feels like a dirty move. One thing we don't do is change policy wording just so that we can write our content dispute opponents outside of policy compliance, and that appears to be exactly what is going on here. The proposed wording change itself is just a statement of common sense. It does not need to be spelled out that "pinging" is a method of "notification". It's asinine to suggest that Flyer is incapable of comprehending this, and to suggest a wording change of the policy itself in response to such a ridiculous premise is entirely inappropriate. There's nothing inherently wrong with notifying. There's nothing inherently wrong with pinging. That's not what this policy is about, with or without the proposed change. There's obviously this blatant underlying implication that Flyer engaged in canvassing via the ping function, which is sending selective notifications, with the intent to fabricate a biased result. When one suspects this is happening, one is supposed to substantiate their accusation with evidence and report the issue to administrators at WP:AN/I. Not jump straight into the policy page and try to reword it so that it seems like your opponent is more in the wrong. If Flyer canvassed, then that complaint should stand on its own merits. We should not be here, discussing changes in policy wording. Looking at the canvassing accusation itself, Flyer immediately refuted this complaint, saying
"[the] editors I pinged, although they agree with me, were either involved in the previous discussions and/or asked to be kept informed. I'm not going to note who asked to be kept informed. And two of the editors -- Legitimus and Mathglot -- were central to research on the matter"
. In other words, these are editors who are already involved, which is a reasonable justification to notify them. That's not canvassing. If there is some evidence missing that would prove that the notifications were biased, surely Wanda would have seized on it. Yet, Wanda instead degenerated into this bizarre argument that Flyer was arguing that pinging could not be canvassing because it's not mentioned by this page. That's clearly a disingenuous straw man argument, and to take it so far as to attempt to change the policy itself is ridiculous. I refuse to take this seriously. ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC) - Oppose Pointy. Policies are not part of an extended war game. Any words along the lines of "contacting them outside of Wikipedia" encourages self appointed social media police, using fear of being outed as a weapon, damaging and potentially distressing Wikipedians interested in working collegiately and openly. This is becoming a spooks charter, making it possible to hound open contributors by asking who their friends are, which facebook account they use, which twitter account, which email groups they are part of. This already happens and those doing it should be hammered for attempted outing and harassment, rather than making policies that will be used to protect them from sanctions because they vaguely suspected someone of off-wiki canvassing. --Fæ (talk) 08:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Without expressing an opinion here on whether the instance that prompted this was canvassing, it seems obvious that if you take any situation that we do agree meets the threshold of canvassing, via talk pages or e-mail, etc, and replace the method with notifications sent via WP:Notifications, it's still (erm) notification, and canvassing. An addition like the one proposed would be a helpful anti-GAMING clarification, as SMcCandlish says, so I support it.
Pace Swarm, while I know it's rough for a user to see a change be proposed in response to something they did, I think it's reasonable to expect proposals to arise in response to situations where guidelines are wikilawyered over: when users propose changes to merely 'head off' problems that haven't yet arisen, other users (including me!) routinely question whether change is needed / whether the problem actually happens, and shoot them down—having evidence that a proposal is in response to an actually-occurring issue makes it more worthy of consideration, IMO. -sche (talk) 08:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- "Pace"? Like, as in the Latin sense? Really? That is almost as insulting as this proposal itself. The key words here are "actually-occurring issue". There is no "actual issue". The purpoted "issue" is that Flyer pinged some users who ended up supporting them in a content dispute. Wanda is attempting to portray that as "canvassing", in an apparent attempt to game the content dispute. When Flyer pointed out that they actually had a perfectly legitimate reason to notify the users in question, Wanda misrepresented their argument as "pinging can't be canvassing", which is not actually Flyer's argument. That is the basis of this proposal, in lieu of actual canvassing prompted by subpar wording. This is a joke. By supporting a policy wording change on this basis, you're legitimizing a fabricated argument to win a content dispute. ~Swarm~ {sting} 08:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Wanda misrepresented their argument as "pinging can't be canvassing", which is not actually Flyer's argument.
It wasn't their only argument, but the idea that talk page pinging in general might not be covered under WP:CANVASSING was one of Flyer's arguments, unless I am drastically misunderstanding what they were saying. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 17:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)- You seem to be held up on the fact that they said
WP:Canvassing [does] not address WP:Pinging
, at the expense of every other statement they made explaining that their notifications were appropriate and justifiable. You're apparently interpreting that as an argument that "pinging can't be canvassing". But based on Flyer's subsequent explanations, their argument is more along the lines of "pinging can't be automatically labelled as canvassing, because it's a nuanced issue, just like any other form of notification". Perhaps they didn't initially word it the best possible way, but they've certainly clarified their position by now, and you don't seem to be looking at anything other than cherrypicked statements that look bad. Maybe you're not intending to, but that's just how it looks to me. ~Swarm~ {sting} 19:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)- Thank you, Swarm. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- You seem to be held up on the fact that they said
- Oppose as not solving a well-defined problem. Truth be told, IRC, email and "other channels" would really have to be covered for the CANVASS rules to have any teeth at all. Collect (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose – partly, per my colleagues' comments above, because it's always a bad idea for editors to try and change PAGs while they're in the middle of disputes. Moreso, however, because if we were to make a change to this guideline, I would !vote that it be deleted altogether. On a collaborative project such as this, editors should be encouraged, not discouraged, from reaching out to each other and soliciting input. Concerns about votestacking, cabaling, and other such inappropriate canvassing ignore several key points, such as 1) anyone who wants to cabal only needs to follow their friends' contribs or watchlist their friends' talk pages, no actual communication is required to collude on Wikipedia, and 2) off-wiki communication make colluding trivially easy for anyone who wants to do it. As such, prohibiting on-wiki communications will only drive the "bad actors" to use off-wiki means, even assuming they need to communicate at all. TLDR: WP:CANVASS is pointless and counterproductive. Leviv ich 16:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with that. The guideline is, effectively, "don't canvass openly where everybody can see it." We can't legislate morality and cheaters are gonna find a way to cheat. But I don't think we're going to reach consensus to delete the guideline in this discussion, which is not about that. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- No, I don't think so either, but until then, I'd oppose any expansion of it. Leviv ich 17:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Even though we can't stop canvassing completely, the guideline has been helpful in a number of cases, including contentious topics such as the Gamergate controversy. It's never a good thing for an editor to go to Reddit, for example, and bring in a bunch of WP:Meatpuppets. We shouldn't think of the "we can't stop canvassing completely" matter as "Oh, well, since we can't stop it completely, we should just allow it or ignore it." I would never support abolishing this guideline. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oh I don't suggest just allowing it or ignoring it, but we could replace many very complicated PAGs with a single, very simple one: Don't be sneaky. That would be equally effective, or equally ineffective. We belabor precise definitions to the nth degree, as if we're programmable robots, and then criticize people for being tangled up in them, which we call wikilawyering. Every clarification creates another ambiguity which requires clarification, without end until we just give up in frustration and say we can't do any better. The entire approach is wrong, and dysfunctional. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Even though we can't stop canvassing completely, the guideline has been helpful in a number of cases, including contentious topics such as the Gamergate controversy. It's never a good thing for an editor to go to Reddit, for example, and bring in a bunch of WP:Meatpuppets. We shouldn't think of the "we can't stop canvassing completely" matter as "Oh, well, since we can't stop it completely, we should just allow it or ignore it." I would never support abolishing this guideline. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- No, I don't think so either, but until then, I'd oppose any expansion of it. Leviv ich 17:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with that. The guideline is, effectively, "don't canvass openly where everybody can see it." We can't legislate morality and cheaters are gonna find a way to cheat. But I don't think we're going to reach consensus to delete the guideline in this discussion, which is not about that. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support per SMcCandlish. The proposed change is logical and clear, regardless of the dispute that generated it. —烏Γ (kaw) │ 20:57, 04 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support - the nutshell definition is
When notifying other editors of discussions, keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions.
"Notifying" is any act designed to attract someone's attention to the discussion; pinging is clearly such an action. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 01:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC) - Oppose While using pings to deliberately canvas is of course wrong, if there is any grey area about the notifications an editor intends to make, the method that should be encouraged is pings on the page containing the discussion. The visibility of the ping promotes transparency, and allows any questions of canvasing to be addressed at the time, rather than when someone notices a message located elsewhere later in the discussion. Specifically calling out the use of pings I think would discourage their use in this type of grey area situation. Since the language already covers bad faith canvasing of all types, I think a specific call-out of pings would do more harm than good. Monty845 02:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose The statements by Monty, Swarm, Collect, and Levivich already cover the reasons I have for opposing, so no need to repeat them. Schazjmd (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support. I can't see how anyone can argue pinging isn't a way of notifying an editor of an ongoing discussion. Calidum 04:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support. The only reason I might hesitate is because it should be blindingly obvious that it doesn't matter how someone is communicating these message(s). The issue is intent or knowing disregard for disruptive results. Stacking !votes with sockspuppets, or meatpuppets, or biased participation, or a mob of clueless-junk-votes, or turning a discussion into a clusterfk, or anything else that threatens an improper outcome or threatened a confusion-based-no-consensus or threatens to impair our other work is disruptive. There are times and ways that it is appropriate to notify an individual or advertize for general participation, and that is generally addressed by Appropriate Notification. However inappropriate notification is inappropriate no matter how it's done. As an example, if there is an AFD and an editor posts about it off-wiki while the AFD is in progress and knowing that it is likely attract biased or disruptive activity in that AFD, then they are at risk of receiving a warning or sanction for the on-wiki disruption they caused. Unless canvasing is exceptionally egregious, a first instance generally results in a warning and education about the issue. But I definitely support preventative-blocks against repeat offenders, needing a clear statement that they understand the problem and will not repeat it before being unblocked. I note that these instances seem to most often occur in topics covered by discretionary sanctions. Any individual engaging in initial canvassing behavior in such a topic area should be given the relevant discretionary sanction notice, and repeated instances should receive discretionary sanction blocks. Alsee (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. This confuses canvassing with letting interested, or previously involved, parties know about something. The guideline ought not to be interpreted to mean that people who care about something aren't allowed to be told about it. SarahSV (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support but I would not include pinging any editor currently active in a discussion, or all editors who were involved in a previous discussion on the same or similar issue -----Snowded TALK 04:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:COMMONSENSE, WP:CREEP, and Swarm. I agree with the supporters that this is a clarification of existing policy, but Swarm is right to point out that the proposed language is painfully obvious. The addition doesn't seem like it will make a meaningful difference except in the content dispute which motivated it. I'd still likely be opposed if this were a more carefully proposed change not tied to an ongoing content dispute, but I'd at least be more receptive to the support arguments. If such a proposal does come about, please ping me. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 06:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Recent changes
I reverted these recent changes by Gwillhickers. We went over the meaning of canvassing last year: Wikipedia talk:Canvassing/Archive 6#Issue with lead wording, and possible improvements. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- The prior discussion linked to above evidently did not resolve much of anything, given the contrary and confusing language in the opening statements that still exists on the Canvasing page.
- re: This statement: Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate.
- The statement clearly indicates that canvassing is done for only one reason, and that there is only one general opinion out there regarding it. This statement is also contrary to statements in the Appropriate notification section, a section that exists under the general page title of Canvasing. The statement is also contrary to the
The language needs to be made clear and balanced, and not completely one–sided. The language should reflect why other possible reasons canvasing may be conducted. There is also no clear distinction between notifying several users and canvasing. At what point does notification become canvasing?
- Existing language :
In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.
Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior.
- Proposed changes:
In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.
Canvassing is notification done with the intention of bringing other opinion(s) into the discussion, but it can be considered inappropriate if not conducted properly, as it may compromise the normal consensus decision-making process. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- The previous discussion closed with, "Consensus is that canvassing has a special, solely negative meaning here." In the guideline, appropriate notification is distinguished from canvassing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Should not the page here make the distinction between canvassing and notification in the opening statements? I have seen numerous cases where when editors are notified with a neutral statement, it is referred to as "canvassing". As it is, the page starts off with the title Canvasing, and then goes into what notification is, following with a very narrow opinion about what Canvasing is. Does not the process of canvassing involve notification? How does one Canvas without notifying people? There is no clear opening statement that says canvasing involves inappropriate notification. I found the language in the opening statement contrary and unclear on that distinction, certainly others will/have also. Would someone please make the language more clear in the opening statement? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- You stated, "I have seen numerous cases where when editors are notified with a neutral statement, it is referred to as 'canvassing'." You and me both. Pinging the editors seen in the previous discussion I pointed to: Snuge purveyor, Sphilbrick, Knowledgekid87, isaacl, Godsy, Swarm, Noyster (now editing as Bhunacat10), Pincrete, Patar knight, and Mandruss. I didn't ping Jytdog because he currently no longer edits. I don't know if Sphilbrick was querying something different. And as for pinging, see the most recent discussion on that above on the talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Should not the page here make the distinction between canvassing and notification in the opening statements? I have seen numerous cases where when editors are notified with a neutral statement, it is referred to as "canvassing". As it is, the page starts off with the title Canvasing, and then goes into what notification is, following with a very narrow opinion about what Canvasing is. Does not the process of canvassing involve notification? How does one Canvas without notifying people? There is no clear opening statement that says canvasing involves inappropriate notification. I found the language in the opening statement contrary and unclear on that distinction, certainly others will/have also. Would someone please make the language more clear in the opening statement? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Gwillhickers: "Canvassing" is not "notification", but "bad faith notification with the intent to fabricate a consensus". That's what this page is talking about. If you find the wording confusing, we can work on that, but that means better articulating this concept, not redefining the notion fundamentally. ~Swarm~ {sting} 01:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for your prompt reply. Yes, the page is not exactly clear on the distinction in the opening language. No one is trying to 'redefine' matters, but only to bring clarity in the opening language. As I said, the statement about canvasing is a bit narrow. Who is to say that canvassing is not done with the intention of getting as many neutral opinions as is possible/practical? If anything, the statement on Canvasing should also say, Canvasing involves inappropriate notification. As it is, this sentence makes one general claim that Canvasing involves only one single objective. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Unlike some issues where there are fundamental disagreements, my impression is that all of the participants in this discussion generally agree on the substance but disagree that the wording properly reflects that substance.
There's a nice graphic (in the Inappropriate notificationon section) that illustrates four key attributes of the notification:
- scale
- message
- audience
- transparency
The graphic summarizes how they should be handled in an appropriate notification and suggest ways in which they can be abused.
I don't see any disagreements about the substance of that graphic (although perhaps I shouldn't bring it up as I'll invite challenges :).
The problem arises when we try to bring in the word "canvass".
At one extreme, we could use the term to be a synonym for notification and go on to say that some forms of canvassing are acceptable and some forms are not acceptable. At the other extreme, we could say the canvassing is a subset of notifications and exactly correspondence to those instances that are inappropriate. To put it in set theoretic terms, at one extreme set of notifications matches the set of canvassing, and as the other extreme, canvassing is a proper subset of notifications covering only those in exactly those that are inappropriate.
I don't find either extreme acceptable.
According to the graphic, a single message to a single recipient done in a transparent way but worded in a biased manner is inappropriate. I agree but I don't think people typically use the term "canvass" to refer to such a one-off situation. I think most people associate the term with multiple contacts. Nobody says "let's canvass our readers" and means a single question to a single reader. At the other extreme, I don't think we should restrict the word to only meaning inappropriate contact. Picking up on the last example, if someone enters a discussion and says "hey let's canvass our readers", we don't want the response to be that we can't do that because the canvassing is by definition bad.
Having said all this, my concern is that the current language:
Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate.
is, at best, awkward English.
Does the phrase "in a particular way" modify the word "influencing", "intention", or "notification done"? Does the closing phrase "is considered inappropriate" mean that all canvassing is inappropriate or only a subset of canvassing that meets certain criteria?
IMO @Gwillhickers: was attempting to clean up the language, but I also agree with @Flyer22 Reborn: that this deserves more discussion. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- My biggest problem with the language in that sentence has always been the intent requirement. If you intend to provide neutral notification, but fail, you are still canvassing. GMGtalk 13:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- I think that part of the issue here is that this page is about the concept of "canvassing" in the Wikipedia sense of the word, as opposed to the dictionary definition of the word. This is very much like the way that Wikipedia uses the word "notability" to mean something that is specific for our purposes. And I think that there is nothing wrong with that. But I think that improving/clarifying the wording would be fine. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- That's where the confusion seems to lie, i.e.that Wikipedia has assigned its own specific idea to the term. Dictionary definitions, however, are more inclusive and are not limited to a single opinion. e.g.Webster's dictionary defines the verb thusly: 1. "detailed examination or discussion"; 2. "a scrutiny, esp of votes"; 3. "a survey to ascertain a probable vote". Webster doesn't even hint at the idea that canvassing is done to manipulate an outcome. Our definition of canvasing should be neutral and general and mention that it can be done appropriately or inappropriately. The idea of canvassing is currently presented here at WP in the opening statement as an endeavor that's automatically wrong. Below is a proposal that's neutral and general, where a chart on appropriate and inappropriate notification would immediately follow. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Proposal
- Canvassing is notification conducted with the intention of bringing other opinions into a discussion, but it can be considered inappropriate if not done properly, as it may compromise the normal consensus decision-making process..
- Absolutely not, this is yet another perennial attempt to fundamentally redefine the word "canvassing" so that it matches a neutral dictionary definition, which defeats the purpose of the whole damn page. On Wikipedia, "canvassing" is the word we use to a specific, bad-faith behavior. It does not mean "notification". It is an endeavor that's automatically wrong, it's literally an extremely disruptive, bad faith action. If you're confused because you don't understand the context of it's unique meaning on Wikipedia, reading this page should clear it up for you. If you think it's too ambiguous, specify what text could be written to be more clear. But you're attempting to completely eliminate the Wikipedia definition simply because the dictionary definition does not have the same meaning and you don't like that because it confuses you. That's fair, and the article should make the difference clear. But at the same time, users are supposed to have the competence to be able to read this policy and understand the simple concept it's describing. Demanding we redefine the entire guideline just because you think it's confusing and can't figure it out is not reasonable. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Canvassing is notification conducted with the intention of bringing other opinions into a discussion, but it can be considered inappropriate if not done properly, as it may compromise the normal consensus decision-making process..
- Insert : If it's "yet another perennial attempt" it's only because other editors have made the same criticism, that the term canvassing as its used is completely one sided. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- The essential point is that those editors have been consistently outnumbered by editors who disagree. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- "Inappropriate canvassing"? - Ryk72 talk 14:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Not sure what you're getting at? "Inappropriate canvassing"=any canvassing. "Appropriate canvassing"=no such thing. "Inappropriate notification"=canvassing. "Appropriate notification"=notification. Questions? ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- I should have been clearer that my previous comment was directly in response to
specify what text could be written to be more clear
. I mean "canvass" in the plain English sense, not the Wikipedia "term of art" sense. That is: "to solicit votes, opinions, or the like". Don't use a word to mean other than its normal sense, use a compound noun with a plain English meaning that matches the Wikipedia meaning. Alternatively, "inappropriate notification". - Ryk72 talk 07:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- I should have been clearer that my previous comment was directly in response to
- Not sure what you're getting at? "Inappropriate canvassing"=any canvassing. "Appropriate canvassing"=no such thing. "Inappropriate notification"=canvassing. "Appropriate notification"=notification. Questions? ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- "Inappropriate canvassing"? - Ryk72 talk 14:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- The essential point is that those editors have been consistently outnumbered by editors who disagree. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Recent changes, continued
Swarm, you are clearly over-reacting. No on is attempting to "redefine the entire guideline". Did someone propose that we remove the chart on inappropriate notification?? The proposal above clearly qualifies the the idea of canvassing with "...but it can be considered inappropriate if not done properly". As it is, certain individuals here at WP have redefined the word canvassing. It instead should be neutral, with the chart on appropriate and inappropriate notification following it. WP should not be reinventing the English language. Too many times I've seen various editors sling the term "canvassing" around in cases of appropriate notification. If the statement on canvassing was general and neutral, as it is in the real world, not narrow and opinionated, this wouldn't happen near as much. WP articles are supposed to be neutral. It would seem that our polices and guidelines should be written as such also, esp in the opening language. That's all. Please take it down a notch and lighten up. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- As I said earlier, we do the same with "notable". I see no problem with doing it with "canvassing", although I'm quite receptive to clarification. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Just because we can do a thing, doesn't mean we should... "Notability" is a shortcut for something like "meeting Wikipedia's standards of having an article, without considering if the subject is deemed suitable as encyclopedic content for Wikipedia", so there is a clear advantage in having a wikipedia-specific term. The only advantage to using "canvassing" solely in a negative sense is to save using the adjective "inappropriate", which isn't a big savings, so it doesn't seem worthwhile breaking away from the main meaning (as per its Wikipedia article). However, as I said last time this topic was discussed, I suspect changing the language here won't make much difference to how the term is used generally by editors in discussions. isaacl (talk) 04:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- We already have WP specific terms: i.e.Appropriate notification and inappropriate notification. Yet we have another term that's only been assigned to the latter -- Canvassing. Again, Wikipedia should not be trying to reinvent the wheel where common terms are concerned, and should employ the English language as its used in the real world. When the occasion arises, a given editor should not be accused of "canvassing", but inappropriate notification. Accusing someone of "canvassing" is like accusing someone of running. Running can be appropriate, or inappropriate, depending on where and how it's practiced. As it is, we have two ways of expressing the idea of inappropriate notification: i.e.inappropriate notification and canvassing, yet there is only one way to express the idea of appropriate notification. The opening language needs to be neutral and more clear. The above proposal is clear and neutral, and does not lend itself to a one–sided idea, i.e.inappropriate notification. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- This is getting unhinged. "Appropriate notification" and "inappropriate notification" are not "WP specific terms", that's just plain English. No one actually goes around using those terms. The only "WP specific term" involved here is "canvassing", which is defined as "inappropriate notification", which is a specific banned practice on Wikipedia, the banning of which is literally the entire point of this guideline. This argument that Wikipedia adopting its own terminology for certain things is ridiculous, we have our own terminology for everything, we have our own culture, and part of WP:CIR is being able to participate and comprehend all of this. This concept has been stable the entire time you and I have been editing here, it's never actually posed any sort of a problem, so it's a bit ridiculous that you want to die on this hill. ~Swarm~ {sting} 04:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- We already have WP specific terms: i.e.Appropriate notification and inappropriate notification. Yet we have another term that's only been assigned to the latter -- Canvassing. Again, Wikipedia should not be trying to reinvent the wheel where common terms are concerned, and should employ the English language as its used in the real world. When the occasion arises, a given editor should not be accused of "canvassing", but inappropriate notification. Accusing someone of "canvassing" is like accusing someone of running. Running can be appropriate, or inappropriate, depending on where and how it's practiced. As it is, we have two ways of expressing the idea of inappropriate notification: i.e.inappropriate notification and canvassing, yet there is only one way to express the idea of appropriate notification. The opening language needs to be neutral and more clear. The above proposal is clear and neutral, and does not lend itself to a one–sided idea, i.e.inappropriate notification. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Just because we can do a thing, doesn't mean we should... "Notability" is a shortcut for something like "meeting Wikipedia's standards of having an article, without considering if the subject is deemed suitable as encyclopedic content for Wikipedia", so there is a clear advantage in having a wikipedia-specific term. The only advantage to using "canvassing" solely in a negative sense is to save using the adjective "inappropriate", which isn't a big savings, so it doesn't seem worthwhile breaking away from the main meaning (as per its Wikipedia article). However, as I said last time this topic was discussed, I suspect changing the language here won't make much difference to how the term is used generally by editors in discussions. isaacl (talk) 04:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
You're belaboring the idea of what is and isn't WP specific terms. "Appropriate notification" and "inappropriate notification" are used only on Wikipedia. Have you ever been taken to task about 'inappropriate notification' in the real world? Otoh, WP is not a 'cult' – the "WP culture" has articles about the real world, written by real people, with real backgrounds, using the same language and terminology used in the real world. Once again, many editors mis-use the term when referring to cases of appropriate notification. Your claim that "the entire point of this guideline" is banning inappropriate notification, is only half right. The page also explains appropriate notification, and has an entire chart outlining the examples. This all comes under the general title of the page, Canvassing. WP:CIR?? No solid reason has been offered to support the idea that the opening language shouldn't be neutral. WP is constantly changing for the better. All you've really given us is this assertion about WP culture, WP specific terms and a reluctance to make improvements in the opening language. There's no viable reason why we shouldn't define the general statement of Canvassing in neutral terms in the opening language. The above proposal is perfectly neutral and is clear on all points, with charts on Appropriate Notification and Inappropriate Notification that would follow. Why isn't there a "WP specific" term for Appropriate notification? The term Canvassing needs to be a neutral idea, as it involves notification, good and bad, and esp since it's the title of the page in question. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you’re being boneheaded and pedantic. “Appropriate/inappropriate notification” is not wikispeak, nor some esoteric concept. It’s plain English. “Canvassing” is not used in the plain English sense, but is esoteric wikispeak which is amply explained by this page. I’m not giving you my subjective interpretation, I’m literally explaining the objective meanings of these terms, as has already been affirmed by consensus. If you’re still not understanding, it’s a CIR issue, if you’re understanding but wish to change this interpretation, then you are indeed engaging in a perennial proposal that is not supported by the community. ~Swarm~ {sting} 15:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- That you have to resort to personal attacks only emphasis the lack of gravity in your argument. Neutrality is the central theme throughout Wikipedia. The way our policies are written should also be effected this way. Easy math. You have yet to explain why using neutral and clear language, as opposed to your "esoteric wikispeak", is not desirable. Just recently a few editors expressed the idea that this "deserves more discussion" and "that improving/clarifying the wording would be fine" and "Don't use a word to mean other than its normal sense, use a compound noun with a plain English meaning". Obviously this issue needs to be surveyed again. Wikipedia is always changing for the better. Please lighten up and don't make this a personal issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not "resorting to personal attacks", I'm observing that you seem impossible to reason with. ~Swarm~ {sting} 01:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- That you have to resort to personal attacks only emphasis the lack of gravity in your argument. Neutrality is the central theme throughout Wikipedia. The way our policies are written should also be effected this way. Easy math. You have yet to explain why using neutral and clear language, as opposed to your "esoteric wikispeak", is not desirable. Just recently a few editors expressed the idea that this "deserves more discussion" and "that improving/clarifying the wording would be fine" and "Don't use a word to mean other than its normal sense, use a compound noun with a plain English meaning". Obviously this issue needs to be surveyed again. Wikipedia is always changing for the better. Please lighten up and don't make this a personal issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)