Wikipedia talk:Canvassing: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:44, 12 March 2008

is this for real?

Is this article for real? Is there really a big enough concern about people being influenced in their voting or discussions to warrant a long article analyzing the problem? Do we really have that little faith in people to spot when they are being influenced? Personally I appreciate it when an issue is brought to my attention via my talk page or some other method. It's pretty obvious when they are trying to influence one way or the other. Give contributors a little more credit.--Rtphokie (talk) 04:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that it happens, especially with newer editors. It's not that people can't tell when they're being influenced- it's that a discussion/vote will be unduly biased in favor of one side just because someone went to the trouble to send out a net for anyone who would agree with them. Epthorn (talk) 12:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While discussions and votes are open to all we shouldn't delude ourselves that they are democratic. Participation is still largely by admins and those who care most about a topic. I welcome other points of view. This notion that the other side is bussing in voters sounds like sour grapes to me. Nothing preventing the other side of the argument from gathering similar support, if it's out there that is. The only real danger I see in canvassing is noise but that's not the argument being made here. Bias seems to be the primary argument here. --Rtphokie (talk) 13:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YES to every question -and with good reason. Please note the "friendly notices" section.--Keerllston 02:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Canvassing

I just removed the following paragraph as I think it needs discussion before it can be included:

Responding to disruptive canvassing: The most effective response to quite recent, clearly disruptive canvassing is to block the user(s) responsible for the canvassing, to prevent them from posting further notices. The use of rollback to remove notices from user talk pages is not recommended, as the recipients will read the notices anyway, and will post a large number of complaints on your talk page. Canvassing notices can be expunged from user talk pages by deleting the affected talk pages, then restoring all revisions except those containing the notices, and those that were already deleted. It is recommended that caution be exercised before deploying this technique, since talk pages containing an extremely large number of revisions may be difficult to restore, and since the deletion of pages with large numbers of inbound links can cause server slowdowns. Future modifications to the MediaWiki software may permit the deletion of specific revisions of a page directly; such a feature, if implemented, would be a highly effective tool for cleaning up user talk page canvassing.

First of all, responses to canvassing should be targeted at preserving the integrity of the discussion rather than punishing the perpetrator. So a canvasser who used biased language or canvassed only editors of a certain bent can be asked to notify all prior participants and use neutral language. WP:CANVASS is not exactly a well-known guideline and it goes counter to the norms on many online forums, where soliciting is common and often encouraged. Only if the canvasser is unapologetic and threatens to continue a block is warranted. Decisions on blocks are also technically outside the scope of this guideline, as they're usually agreed upon at WP:ANI or similar forums. The discussions and decisions here should focus on how a debate can be salvaged after canvassing has occurred. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph in question doesn't recommend immediately blocking any users responsible for disruptive canvassing -- it merely states that blocking is the "most effective response" for the prevention of further canvassing. This claim is quite accurate -- an immediate block will stop canvassing far more quickly than asking nicely if the user(s) responsible might consider stopping. This does not imply, of course, that an immediate block without warning is justified in all cases -- whether it is depends on particular circumstances, such as whether the user engaging in the canvassing has a prior history of canvassing, and is left to the discretion of the administrator responding to the situation, guided by the blocking policy and associated practices. Therefore, I suggest that the first sentence be expanded for clarification: "The most effective response to quite recent, clearly disruptive canvassing is to block the user(s) responsible for the canvassing, to prevent them from posting further notices. However, it is recommended that users with no prior history of canvassing be asked nicely to stop canvassing, and blocked only if they continue." It may or may not be possible to remedy the effects of canvassing with neutrally targeted and worded notices in any given case -- for instance, there may be no list of all prior participants to notify. I would not object, however, to the inclusion of language suggesting that users who have engaged in disruptive canvassing be encouraged to implement such a remedy where feasible. In any event, it appears that only the first sentence of the "responding to disruptive canvassing" paragraph is actually in dispute, since the remainder does not discuss blocking at all. If there are no further objections, I will restore the portion of the paragraph that is not disputed. John254 16:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a general section on responses, merging your paragraph with the one about "If you have canvassed". Most remedies work no matter if the canvasser or someone else implements them. Obviously blocking is a sometimes necessary response, so a side note to that effect is warranted ("Canvassing, if deemed disruptive, can result in blocks, so if you canvassed accidentally helping to turn the solicitations into friendly notices is the best way to avoid a block"). ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure how to effectively merge the paragraphs, or what the title of the aggregate paragraph should be, though you're welcome to merge them. I will, however, add a modified sentence concerning blocking to the "responding to disruptive canvassing" paragraph, which suggests that blocking be used only as a last resort or on repeat offenders, and avoids encouraging administrators to block first and ask questions later. John254 16:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea to say something about how to respond to a canvassing situation. I would prefer to delete the last three sentences, since I do not want invisible deletion of messages from user talk pages to become standard practice. It would be open to abuse, and the more often it's normally used, the more likely abuse might be. Even if used according to some guideline, I would be uncomfortable about messages disappearing mysteriously from my talk page without even showing up in the edit history. Given the large number of complaints mentioned in the earlier part of the paragraph, apparently a lot of other users have similar feelings about messages disappearing. Also, this is not really the place for speculation about future software modifications; and "highly effective tool" makes it sound desirable to have that feature in the software, when there is not a consensus that it's desirable (for example, I would oppose it). Other possibilities for helpful software might be limits on how many user talk pages one can edit in a given period of time, or (preferably) tools for alerting people to the situation when someone is posting a lot of user talk page messages.

I think it's probably better to write as if the majority of readers are non-admins (though keeping the admin reader in mind as well).

Asking the canvasser to notify all previous participants (or something) seems like a good idea to me to be mentioned here as a suggestion; the best action in each individual situation would have to be worked out among those involved. "using neutral language agreed upon by both parties" might be useful words to insert. I.e. after one asks the canvasser to notify those on the other side too and to use neutral language, the canvasser might begin doing that but using language that seems neutral to the canvasser, in which case the language is likely not to seem neutral to the person complaining about the canvassing. It's important not to be too hasty in that situation. --Coppertwig (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While it is possible to conduct "invisible deletion of messages from user talk pages", only developers have the tools to effectuate such deletions. Even the oversight tool couldn't be used to remove messages from user talk pages without first reverting them, since the current version of a page cannot be oversighted. Current policy prohibits the use of either developer or oversight tools in responding to disruptive canvassing. So, what we are considering is the use of ordinary administrative deletions and restorations in removing canvassing messages from user talk pages. This would hardly constitute "invisible deletion of messages from user talk pages", since such deletions and restorations would be shown in publicly accessible logs, just like any other administrative action. Additionally, the deleted notices could be viewed by any administrator, which would deter misuse of such deletions. The virtue of deleting canvassing notices is not in actual "invisible deletion of messages", but merely that the recipients of the notices would not see them, either in the current versions of their talk pages or the page histories. It is also my (unconfirmed) belief that if the only revision of a user talk page that would trigger a "you have new messages" notice is deleted, such a notice would not appear. Of course, administrators who received canvassing notices would be able to view them, even if the notices had been deleted from the page history. Functionally, there is little difference between blocking users to prevent them from posting more canvassing notices, and deleting such notices from user talk pages to which they have already been posted. John254 14:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A draft version:

Responding to canvassing: Canvassing that is deemed outside the confines of friendly notices can compromise community debates, so it should be neutralized as soon as it is discovered. In most cases removing the messages from talk pages is ineffective, so it often makes more sense to remove only biased language and to notify all parties to a debate rather than only a subgroup. In any case a notifier should be added to the discussion that canvassing has occurred and what measures have been taken to remedy it. If an editor canvassed other Wikipedians in ignorance of this guideline they should take measures to make their efforts compatible with the friendly notice guidelines. Obstructing efforts to remedy canvassing is generally considered disruptive and have lead to blocks. Disruptive canvassing should be reported at WP:ANI.; If canvassing is discovered after a debate has been closed and it seems like the canvassing has influence the debate, it can be reviewed, for instance at WP:DRV.

Feedback welcome. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed draft is problematic. First, there may be no list of "all parties to a debate" to notify. Consider, for example, the canvassing that occurred with regard to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Images of Wikipedians (2nd nomination). Ta bu shi da yu (talk · contribs) attempted to provide notice of the MFD discussion to the hundreds of users whose pictures appeared in the project page, most of whom would reasonably be expected to (and in fact did) support retention of the page. However, it would likely be difficult, if not altogether impossible, to develop an equivalently large list of users who would be expected to support deletion of the page. Even if such a list could have been developed, the posting of hundreds of additional notices might have been viewed as disruptive in and of itself, merely because of the annoyance generated by posting messages to large numbers of user talk pages. The frequent posting of notices concerning XfD and other discussions to large numbers of user talk pages, even if neutrally worded and targeted, would have the effect of filling user talk pages with mass-posted notices, and would make individualized messages more difficult to find. Finally, the proposed draft provides no discussion of any effective means by which to remove disruptive canvassing notices from user talk pages. While such removals would obviously not be justified in the case of canvassing which is considered to be disruptive only by virtue of sending possibly unwanted messages to large numbers of users, the removal of canvassing notices may be the only effective response to attempted votestacking for an XfD or other discussion. Perhaps a script could be developed to effectuate the deletion and restoration of user talk pages necessary to expunge canvassing notices, allowing easy, one-click removals. John254 03:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overly prescriptive

This guideline seems to be incredibly prescriptive, perhaps excessively so. Does any of it have actual support in practice? --Tony Sidaway 00:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At a guess I'd say that this guideline is utterly irrelevant to actual practice. Jimbo Wales himself has said canvassing is a natural outgrowth of any discussion by wikipedians. [1]

I can state with absolute certainty that the cyberstalking list was and is absolutely used to discuss proposals for change to Wikipedia in order to deal with the very difficult issue of cyberstalking. This includes people discussing things like possible policy changes, and other people saying that those policy changes are unworkable, or unwise. In short, like every discussion I have ever seen of Wikipedians in any place, for example, private meetups, public mailing lists, public irc channels, private irc channels, coffeeshops, wiki workshops, etc., the list absolutely was used to canvass support for issues under discussion in Wikipedia. I can't imagine that anyone could imagine that any discussion could be otherwise.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So yeah, basically this guidline has absolutely no support in actual practice, and canvassing appears to be a normal activity. V (talk) 04:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go that far. Jimbo's statement does square with my expectations and experience. There are times when legitimate discussions are hijacked by a "rent-a-crowd" mentality, however. I think we take a much harder line on attempts to swamp debate than we did a couple of years ago when (to my dismay) it was not unknown for some editors to round up a posse of a score or so supporters, and this wasn't considered abusive. So between that laxity and the quite strong (and probably unworkable) text of this document, there's a point at which we now do take action. --Tony Sidaway 05:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, well I would have been most active back when (circa 2002 and from my rather vague memories) it was considered pretty normal for users round up faction supporters by posting on user talk pages. From memory it worked pretty well since if one "side" noticed the other side doing it they'd just go off and round up their own faction members as well. All in all it just dragged in more eyeballs. Discouraging on-wiki canvassing just seems like a way to force canvassing into secrecy since it's inevitable and normal. That and you'll end up with factional interests in the "in-group" canvassing at will while this guideline gets used as a bludgeon against other less favored groups. Don't mind me though, I may just be suffering from culture shock at just how much discussion has moved off-wiki. I'd honestly suggest trying to encourage canvassing to move back on wiki where it's out in the open. It honestly did work pretty well back then and I'm getting the strong impression that canvassing is a normal and inevitable activity that if disapproved of will only go underground and result in denials and obfuscation. Given how difficult it is to prove that off-wiki canvassing is occurring all all this guideline does IMHO is encourage people to canvass off-wiki and lie about it. It's like prohibition, people are going to do it anyway so making rules against it just drives it underground. V (talk) 06:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I get about 1600 links to this guideline, or roughly 5 links per day since it was branched out from WP:SPAM. I'm not sure where the idea that this guideline is not supported by daily practice comes from. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Examples and direct language

This guideline has a detailed theoretical analysis of canvassing, but I'm afraid it might be inaccessible to new users. It manages to explain everything without giving any examples of non-permitted behavior and without every referring to the main areas in which canvassing is a concern: deletion discussions and requests for adminship. I think that the theoretical analysis should be deemphasized and examples of permitted and non-permitted canvassing added. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can the following be considered friendly notices?

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

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

Opting in using canvassing subpages

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

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

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

BJBot 4

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

@@ Line 65: / Line 65: @@
 :Mbstpo edited the guideline to reflect his idea of a canvassing permission and subpage, but I think it is premature to have it in the guideline, it should first be discussed here. So I'm reverting it out, which should not be construed as opposition. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]])
 :At Mbstpo's request, I've reverted my reversion. Enjoy.--[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 00:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
+== BJBot 4 ==
+I've reopened approval discussion for [[User:BJBot|BJBot 4]] (a notification bot taks). Since we are talking about [[WP:CANVASS]] over there, I'm posting a link here. Please follow-up on [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/BJBot_4#Opt-in_instead_of_opt-out]]. Suggestions/opinions welcome. Thanks. --[[User:Ligulem|Ligulem]] ([[User talk:Ligulem|talk]]) 13:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)