Wikipedia talk:Canvassing

Archives

---

1. Dec 2006 – Aug 2007
2. Aug 2007 - Dec 2007
3. Jan 2008 - Dec 2008

Is it canvasing to post in another weapons list page and ask an opinion?

I was trying to find out why some weapons list were acceptable, while others were not, so I posted on the Star Trek weapons list, and nowhere else. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_weapons_in_Star_Trek&diff=264975194&oldid=264950547 This was reverted by Collectonian who claims I was canvassing. Can someone please look at my message, and tell me if that counts as canvasing or not? It was only made in one area only to ask for an honest opinion. It was a legitimate question, and I think it very relevant to the other page as well, since all wikipedia weapons list pages are affected by these policies. Dream Focus (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I must say, DF, I don't see that as a violation of WP:CANVASS at all, but Collectonian may have some reasoning which escapes me at this moment. I've posted a message on her talk page, and we'll see what she has to say. Like you, I am assuming good faith; I would do this with anyone anyway, but in her case, given that she's an extraordinarily experienced and respected editor, it is a must. Cheers. Unschool 04:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

See his other edits, in particularly the discussion on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Gantz equipment. Nor is his wording neutral at all. He clearly implies that because his unnotable list is going to be deleted, that the Star Trek weapons list is "in danger" of the same fate, despite it clearly being notable, by claiming they are "the same." He's also been forum shopping by attempting to have the AfD overturned by for a similar list under the false claim that there was no consensus for the decision (User talk:MBisanz#Why did you delete/redirect Clow Cards?, and by posting at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#Character Pages, and Equipment Pages trying to get support for his point of view. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Collectonian keeps accussing me of nonsense. In the Clow Cards AFD discussion, 1 person said delete, 2 said merge/redirect, 1 said merge, and 2 said keep. I asked it be opened for future discussion, instead of just deleted. And me posting in the appropriate policy discussion page to ask if equipment pages were as valid as character pages, was not to gain support, but simply to ask a legitimate question. Dream Focus (talk) 04:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

DF, the consensus was not to delete, but to merge. I looked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clow Cards, and it seems that it was closed quite properly. DF, WP:AfD exists for a reason, and that is because different people have different ideas regarding what material is noteworthy enough for a Wikipedia article. Consensus was clearly not in favor of Clow Cards having its own article. Someday that may change. But in the meantime, you would probably help yourself best by letting that one go and get into the business of editing other articles. If consensus is against you today, it is very frustrating, but you have to go on, and you have to devote your energies elsewhere—hopefully article writing—rather than in fighting those who disagree with you today. I would venture to say that most Wikipedia editors with any intelligence don't learn to get past the frustration of losing a discussion until they have 2000-3000 edits. (I know it took me longer than that.) But stay calm, find something else to edit, and remember this old bit of wisdom (just read the words in boldface). It helps a lot. Unschool 05:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you misread me. I'm as calm as can be, just curious mostly. I seek out information, and find someone trying to stop me from even asking the question, erasing my comment on a page, without any justifiable reason(twice). After it was erased, I posted here for an opinion, and after you agreed it didn't seem like canvasing, I went and undid her deletion. She deleted it again, I undoing it again. The post there should be considered unrelated to anywhere else, they honestly not connect, I just trying to figure out why things are. She seems to believe everything is a personal attack against her, it all starting here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dream_Focus&redirect=no#Messages Dream Focus (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for encouraging you to get "calm"; I had no basis for assuming you were not. I do, however, stand by the rest of my advice. You'll just get further in this work and ultimately feel better about things once you learn to let go of lost battles. I'm not saying you're right or wrong in this whole Gintz matter; I've never even heard of the subject. I'm just saying that, when you've lost a battle, don't keep fighting it, no matter how right you think you are.

I mean, it may happen that later on you can bring it up again. When I had been editing about two months I got involved in a big argument over a policy issue, an argument in many ways appears like this one. I was so totally pissed that these other "goons" could not see what I was saying. It was hard to let go. But I finally did, and I went out and became a productive editor (at least, I think so). More than two years later, the issue presented itself again. I re-entered the discussion, and you know what happened? Well, I'm not going to tell you, because it doesn't matter. All that matters is that I was able to engage the discussion without feeling wronged or misunderstood; I assumed good faith, and others did the same of me. And that makes all the difference in the world. Unschool 06:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:ARS and Template:ARS/Tagged

Resolved

 – I'm boldly archiving this as the discussion seems to have lost steam. I'm not sure anyone was swayed from their stance but at least some of the valid concerns were raised and discussed. If someone feels this needs to be delved into further I suggest starting a more focussed specific thread. -- Banjeboi 11:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The Wikipedia Article Rescue Squadron, an overtly inclusionist article cleanup Wikiproject, has for a while now used {{rescue}}, a cleanup tag that automatically adds the article to their cleanup categories. There are no criteria for using {{rescue}} other than that a member of the project has to feel that the article shouldn't be deleted. I don't really have a problem with this on its own, since it is a project for article cleanup.

However, they recently created and implemented {{ARS/Tagged}}, a template intended for their user talk page to automatically link any article tagged with {{rescue}}. This has created an automatic scheme where anyone who wants to keep an article from being deleted can automatically add it to the talk pages of a number of self-professed inclusionists. Automatic talk page canvassing, with no entry in the AFD history, no clear entry in the article history, and no entry in the talk page histories, is troubling to me.

Am I alone in being bothered by this? - [[|A Man In Bl♟ck]] (conspire - past ops) 02:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you aren't. Some members of that group have been practicing various forms of canvassing lately which I've been disgusted to see has seemingly gone unnoticed and unchallenged...and this seems like it really crosses the line. That template should be deleted. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Then we should delete the templates for AfDs in general or RfAs that appear on userpages as one can argue that these are also used to canvass. As a member of the ARS, I don't feel compelled to rescue every article templated or even comment in every AfD and I doubt the other users do as well. Not much different than someone who say watchlists AfDs or wikiproject AfD lists. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

One is a general posting in a public place, shared by all who pass by. The other is a targeted notice to a group with stated partisan views. Other Wikiproject lists are generally non-partisan, although I'd be less unhappy with a central list that wasn't being transcluded onto the talk page of expressed partisans, or if I hadn't seen evidence of bloc action (coincidental or not), or if the project wasn't expressly partisan. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The project is no more partisan than AfD is. I haven't seen anything different from say known deletionists block voting with "per noms" rapidly after certain editors' nominations either, so perhaps these things cancel out. A good deal in that group don't argue to keep all the time and even I am not willing or able to defend and try to rescue everything. It's useful in seeing what's worth rescuing, but by and large I also try to work on the articles too. I don't simply see something templated and feel I'll just help in the AfD alone. And nor do all the other members who occasionally help in the article rescue efforts. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Come on. It's an expressly partisan inclusionist project. The work is good work, and I support its work, but the core members include you, Ikip/Inclusionist(!), DGG, Banjeboi, and Peregrine Fisher. The talk page regularly includes discussions about defeating the deletionists.

Automatically transcluding a subset of AFDs onto the talk page of self-declared partisans is troubling to me, and while you can make up claims that "Oh, the other guys do it too" unless you can point to an example of someone else doing it systemically so I can complain about them, too, I'm no less happy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any evidence of it being more partisan inclusionist than AfD is partisan deletionist. I am seeing it being used to help rescue articles from deletion and with at least some degree of success. If the end result is content that is somehow used, then it's a good thing. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes I have to wonder if you're pulling my leg. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't take any of the criticism seriously Black, with 167 articles deleted it is pretty obvious your own POV, Collectian not only has 366 AfDs herself, she also was involved in an edit war with me recently over WP:Television episodes, refusing to allow any template tags on the page, so she is not exactly an impartial neutral party either. Ikip (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hence why I'm not exactly getting my feathers ruffled about partisans, my own views are clear and unconcealed. However, I'm not making automated tools to bring other partisans to AFDs. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Power to you Black. I respect your actual contributions to the project. Add a category tag to Template:AfDM, then I will help you make a template too. Ikip (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think an inclusionist version of AFD and a deletionist version of AFD would be very productive. I would rather this not turn into the usual "my views are correct, so anything I do is correct" nonsense this typically turns into. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Here you go Black, your own template, {{AfD/Tagged}} now there are hundreds of articles you can pass judgment on, insisting that other people add references, criticizing that their contributions are simply not good enough:

I am glad that you are criticizing ARS, because that means a lot of editors who know how to add references and contribute content are saving articles. Ikip (talk) 04:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have anything to contribute other than sarcasm and villification? This kind of "well, you're my enemy, so I don't have to listen to you and if I'm making you unhappy, good!" attitude is not productive. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Accusing some talk page template as being an instrument of canvassing is kind of a villification, no? I think here, at AfDs, etc., we are all spending far too much time doing stuff other than working together to improve articles. We should all get back to that and help each other to add references and what have you. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's a template that exists to link articles on AFD on the talk page of expressed inclusionists. If this were done by hand, the appearance of bad faith would be overwhelming. The reason I brought it up here and on the project talk page is because I hoped that this was an unintended consequence. If I had reason to believe actual bad faith, I have a delete button. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone listed there is an inclusionist, though, and you have edited around there, i.e. non-inclusionists obviously watch that project, so aside from helping to improve articles, I am not seeing any detrimental effect. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I had no problem before. Is there anyone who isn't a self-described inclusionist who has this template on their talk page, though? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who all has it. I didn't put on my page (if someone else did and I'm unaware, I didn't add it...). I just wouldn't assume that because someone's an inclusionist they will always knee-jerk try to keep. I deliberately avoid a good deal of discussions that I am either ambivalent on or am okay if deleted (one more delete from me is not necessary and if I actually did comment in more discussions for stuff that I don't believe meets our inclusion criteria, I would have well over the 50+ current deletion arguments I've made). I think we should be able to get wider participation in AfDs and I strongly support requiring notification of not just article creators, but also anyone with a few contributions, because the usual half dozen odd commentors in five days just doesn't seem a real pulse taking of how the community views the articles in question. There are some discussions I have missed a day late or so that I reckon I might have been able to at least get a merge out of. My hope is that the members will make more efforts at rescuing the articles as I attempt more so than commenting in the AfDs as we need both and there are times where I feel as if I am carrying the weight of reference searching and adding. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

How is this different from "Here's AFD/x, I thought you might want to comment" on the talk page of everyone you know to be an inclusionist? And how can the appearance of impropriety be avoided in the future? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It's kind of like that RfA box some people have on their userpages; just because it's there doesn't mean everyone who has it is going to comment in every RfA listed. If someone specifically goes to peoples' pages saying, be sure to comment in all of the following discussions, then that's one thing, but a template that editors can look at at their discretion is not quite the same thing, because as I said before, I don't feel inclined to try to rescue and arguer to keep everything that's ARS templated and I don't see the members of the group go to defend everything templated either. So, it's like checking the RfAs, okay which ones do I want to comment in and which ones should I avoid? Same thing, let's check the list of items tagged for rescue, okay, well I can find sources for this one, or I think this artice has potential, but it's no guarantee that anyone will comment in support of everything on this list and it's even possible that some will argue to delete as I recall DGG doing in an ARS templated article that I argued to keep. As far as the future, people will assume and interpret things all kinds of ways regardless of what we attempt to do. I suggest having one of those small script "This article has been tagged for rescue" style messages akin to those the wikiprojects use for deletion sorting. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

But that is every RFA and is not pitched directly to a partisan bloc, whereas this template is currently in use only by expressed inclusionists and belongs to an expressly inclusionist project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe everyone listed at Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Members#All_Members would identify as an inclusionist. Some certainly, but not all. Plus, we state clearly at Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron#So_the_ARS_are_wild-eyed_inclusionists.3F that we do not intend a partisan agenda. It's about rescuing what articles can be rescued, not rescuing everything. If it was inclusionist, it would be about trying to rescue as many articles as possible, when I and the others I usually work with approach it as acknowledging that we can't rescue everything so focus on those for which sources can be found and then work from them. Do you suspect some people might misuse things, well, it's kind of like guns don't kill people, people kill people. How do we stop people from misusing AfD? Because some do, should we eliminate AfD altogether? So far, you seem suspicious about one particular discussion, which those same editors could have easily stumbled upon and agrued to keep regardless of that userspace template as that's how I would have expected them to go anyway. Would not having that template have actually casued any of them to argue differently or to not eventually come across the discussion, I'm not so sure. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course not, that's a list of hundreds of people, many of whom don't even edit any more. On the other hand, this template is only on the user/talk pages of self-declared inclusionists, the talk page is constantly bandying about talk of "winning against the deletionists", the project page links just about every inclusionist essay I can think of outside of the whole CRUFTCRUFTCRUFTCRUFTCRUFT hairball, and all of the regular commentors on talk save Protonk and myself are self-declared inclusionists. This is not a problem on its own, but an automatic AFD list pitched to a clearly partisan group is, if only for the appearance of impropriety. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I can think of some more inclusionist essays not listed...:) Anyway, though, looking at some of the supports for WP:FICT, it's not as if there aren't other pages riddled with remarks about defeating inclusionists. But I don't see how having this list on someone's page is any different than say having the ARS category page watchlisted or looking for AfDs of articles by other means that has the template. I don't have the template, because I can still find all the tagged articles on another page in the ARS space, just as I don't keep the RfA template on my page as I just check the RfA page to see who's been nominated or watch list discussions in which I anticipate a reply. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

WT:FICT isn't a wikiproject, is heterogenous in the extreme, doesn't have an automatically-populated list of borderline AFDs being posted on people's talk pages, and isn't doing anything but generating megabytes of useless internecine infighting. Non sequitor.

Having a list in the ARS space is emotionally different, for reasons I cannot entirely put my finger on. The goal of the project is at least proximate to the exhortation to focus on improving articles, not swamping AFDs. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting...you claim I have 300 deletions, then point to a tool which only says that 100 articles I've AfDed were deleted with 88 others probably merges/redirects. New math? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Arguing with Ikip about who is and isn't an inclusionist or deletionist is fruitless. This sort of Conservapedia factionalize-and-villify nonsense is a distraction. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is the reason Black is so mad:

1. Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama
2. Spectra Fashions
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Skullhead

Three articles Black has attempted to delete, without contributing anything to the article, which the ARS actually added content and references too, making his chances to delete that much harder. Ikip (talk) 05:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Two of those articles predate this tool (and I don't think I wanted to delete either, as I recall). The last post-dates this tool, and has four ARS members (who made no substantial edits to the article, and before any sources at all had been offered) all voting "Keep per [whoever]", after the article was added to this template. Is that appearance of impropriety not worrisome? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No, as it's just not much different than however else anyone got to the discussion. Does everyone who argued to keep have the specific template under discussion here on their userpages? Not all of them. Is everyone who argued to keep even an article rescue squad member (I don't believe Richard Arthur Norton is). And at least one member (me) did try to find sources and add them and then debate them in the AfD, while still here and there trying to find more. Don't get me wrong, when I template an article, I am hoping that other members can find sources I haven't and will be able to add them to the article. I don't template merely hoping to get some more keep "votes." I look through the various AfDs for ones that I find particularly worthwhile and template those. Then, I spend time looking for sources and compile what I can and return to the article to do what I can hoping that maybe someone else is doing the same. Sometimes I don't even comment in the AfD as well in the hopes that those who do are taking note of article rescue attempts underway. Frequently, I'll only comment in the AfD if I think it's really necessary, because I would much, much rather use what time I have welcoming new users or adding sources and fixing grammar and spacing. I whole-heartedly believe way too much time is spent on this site in AfDs and pages like this that could and should be spent helping each other to actually improve the articles. But, I guess that's the nature of things. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No, but nearly everyone who had the specific template on their user page argued to keep per DGG, save of course DGG.

There is a significant appearance of impropriety, that a tool that is expressly not for AFD cavassing correlated exactly to a bloc of pure "Per [user]" votes. This is worrisome to me. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm honestly just not seeing it. You know I don't really like "per x" "votes" and all and wish more of my fellow ARS members would help in the article improvement too, but we can't really compell volunteers to do that, but if anything is of concern it is that more time has been spent speculating on editors' intentions than trying to improve the article. I think we really got side-tracked. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not speculating as to their intentions, just seeing a very unfortunate pattern. WP:ARS is in a tenuous position, and as soon as this tool came to be there was an apparent misuse. How did it happen, how can we prevent it, and is this an appropriate tool? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Based on past experiences with those editors in many an AfD, I am reasonably confident that they would have argued that same way regardless and would have commented in that discussion regardless. I don't think the tool actually made any kind of decisive differences. All of those editors are capable of finding AfDs and their arguments are consistent with those they have made before this template was created. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Then why is it necessary? Why have such an easily-abused tool, when it will cast a pall over good-faith comments? This is the damage the appearance of impropriety can do, even when there is no impropriety. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying that it is necessary, as again, I don't have it, only that I am not convinced it is being used maliciously, because those editors probably have the ARS pages watchlisted anyway where the templated articles are listed and more likely than not would have commented in that discussion and argued in the manner they did regardless of this particular template. I don't believe it really made a difference. I trust admins to not assume bad faith against the ARS members who commented in the AFD. Is it necessary, well, no more necessary than WP:FANCRUFT is to building an encyclopedia and just as surely as we'd get by just find not having that useless essay, we'd probably get by without this as well. I don't personally care if this particular template is kept or not (with that said then we should get rid of nonsense like the fancruft essay too). My concern here is seeing what I suspect was done in good faith being characterized as if it was some kind of collusion among editors or as if it somehow made a different in the discussion when I doubt it in both cases. Regards, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I know and agreed...its rather disappointing to see how badly the factionalization (new word?) is getting in recent times. Where sides used to seem to at least be able to meet in the middle, its becoming like little war camps with the moderates stuck in the middle. And lately, the whole "inclusionist" thing is getting over the top, with people throwing three sources on an article and calling it "fixed" then leaving it no better than it was before yet proudly declaring" we saved it." I don't even get how that makes anyone proud...take that article to GA then claim you did something, or heck even B class. But that rarely happens, and usually not from the "rescue" group.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Not all articles have to be GA or B class to be worthwhile to include on our project. Nominating articles for deletion that can be improved happens all too often and that is far more eggregious than anything else. We should all be working together to improve articles rather than become a collection of discussions. At the same side, I don't see how destroying other editors' work can make anyone proud either. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* That's a disservice to the work the project does, and completely irrelevant to the point I came here to make. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

A nobody is a much better diplomat than me, so I will let him talk. FYI, I attempted to combing the Inclusionists with ARS a few months ago and infuriated a lot of people, including Ben and Prot. So to say that ARS are inclusionist is simply not true. Ikip (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little worried about the shift ARS is taking, since they get a pretty big exemption from "canvassing". An exemption that mostly stems from the fact that they work to rescue articles rather than debate about them. In my opinion so long as the focus of the project remains in letter and in practice to rescue articles (and not debate them), they should be fine using whatever means available to them to let members know which articles are up for rescue. But if at some point they become a funnel for discussion at AfD, that perspective will change dramatically. Protonk (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• With respects to User:A Man In Black, I consider trying to improve wiki by rescuing artcles to meet the very core foundations of what wikipedia is all about. If I succeed, great... wiki is improved. If I fail, I move on and wiki might be just a little diminished. Many new editors, dazed and confused by the wiki process, may continue and become terrific contributors with even the smallest amount of encouragement. So rescuing articles and showing fellowship to new eitors improves wiki. I am a fairly recent member of ARS, having joined when invited by Mgm, and I enjoy being able to make positive contributions to the project. However, I do not know who this "They" are to whom you refer, and I have no template automatically notifying me of anything. So, I can only suppose that this "scheme" is not "automatic" to ARS members unless one personally exercises an option to be so informed... and that could be a terrific tool just like so many others we all have available for further improvement of the project. I think it makes good sense to give worrisome articles every possible oportunity to be of value to wiki, but do not see that as being inclusionist or deletist. I think inproving wiki is everybody's main concern. Further, I have cafefully studied the "so-called" canvasing, and though it pushes the edge, it does not seem to violate guideline, as it does not seem pointed at editors either favorable or opposed and seems to be worded in an extremely neutral manner... even though it has apparently ruffled the feathers of some. To those whose feathers are ruffled, I can only ask that they step back and ask themselves.... isn't improving the quality and uesfulness of wiki the goal to which we all aspire? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  Again, not opposing the project, just a single tool it uses, one which you don't use.

  I would turn that question around: you manage to help the wiki without an automatic, scarcely-logged filtered list of borderline AFDs appearing on your talk page. Why is this problematic tool necessary, if you're clearly getting by without it? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  And in return, I would have to ask why ANY of the tools made available to editors exist. Simple answer: If a tool helps an editor do a better job of improving the project, then the tool has value to that editor and to the project as a whole... whether it's a single tool used by one editor or a multiple set used by many. To be frank... it has been quite a chore keeping up with so many many many articles at AfD.. and there are only so many hours in a day. And now that you have my curiosity up, I feel compelled to myself take a close look and see if this notification tool can help me improve the project. And please believe me, as I am not trying to be flippant or snide, I want thank you for bringing its existance to my attention. It could defintely be useful if it does all you say it does, as scolling through all the pages of AfD's can be an onerous and painful chore. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  Installed in a sandbox linked from my userpage. Seems an interesting little gizmo. Surprised it lists so very few articles... but that nust mean there are only a few currently tagged for rescue... and likely they need the most help the soonest. Perhaps one day rescues will no longer be required, but appreciate that I can provide this service toward the betterment of the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's that big a deal. It's a shortcut for the ARS crew to keep abreast of articles that have been tagged, maybe saves them a click or two from looking at that auto-generated page or whatnot -- but, I think the vim and vigor with which ARS members already check up on ARS-tagged articles' AfD pages is already high enough that this shortcut won't make much of an impact. If the concern is that it makes it more likely the ARSers will swarm to an AfD discussion significantly faster or more often than they already do, then, no, I don't think that's the case. --EEMIV (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. To both A Man In Black and A Nobody - WP:TLDR. In general I see this as one editor being over eager to try various schemes and ideas to help a project which does work seen as inclusionistic. Many ideas don't stick and to their credit they keep plugging away. The template, I think, is not a bad idea but I'm also open to modifying it and frankly there is a lot of maintenance work at ARS and I try to measure out my volunteer hours accordingly. I think if there is community agreement this this particular template is inherently canvassing then it likely shouldn't be used, it's designed for user space and the only reason I have one is it was placed as part of a talk section, and will be archived soon if it hasn't already. I guess another concern could be that similar clean-up projects would do the same but I'm also unsure if that would be inherently canvassing either technically or in spirit. Personally, I'm not terribly bothered either way and everytime these issues are brought up, the ARS folks seem to favor being NPOV and just getting on with the work. -- Banjeboi 03:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

FACs needing feedback view •
2023 World Snooker Championship	Review it now
Tornado outbreak of February 12, 1945	Review it now
Susanna Hoffs	Review it now
2023 Union Square riot	Review it now

FWIW, I stumbled across this template listing FACs. Not perfectly equivalent but similar aspects of highlighting articles on one's userpage for attention. -- Banjeboi 12:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• There is a huge difference between sending unsolicited messages to editors in bulk, versus notifing editors who specifically signed up to receive notification on a topic. There are no restrictions on who can add the template to their page, and in fact one could add it with the intention of finding articles to delete. This is basically equivalent to a user watching a wikiproject page, except by more efficient means. AfD hero (talk) 08:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note that A Man in Black has in the past couple of weeks:

1. tediously argued on ANI against editors inviting other editors to join WP:ARS, despite 260 other templates which do the same thing.
2. demote WP:PRESERVE, which asks editors to use deletion as a last resort
3. has accused editors of canvassing by using the {{rescue}} tag on AfDs
4. Raised a stink about a list of articles marked as tagged for rescue Ikip (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Please keep the arguments directed at the subject at hand and not the person who made them. This is the talk board for the canvassing guidelines, not an RfC on AMIB. Themfromspace (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There does exist at least one example of this template's clear misuse: EagleFan, who has this template on his talk page, recently went down the list, with a series of rapid-fire keeps (all with no rationale or "per [other user]" rationales) all to articles on the list. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] These AFDs are all on the ARS template and have little else in common; they are different topics, are spread over several days, and his comments are all within the space of 20 minutes.

The problem is that I don't know what to do. The potential for misuse is clear, and we have an example. It's also a useful tool for the project's good work. I'm troubled, but I have no particular solution. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a trouble with useful tools... They can be misused as well as they can be used.

Perhaps the first step might be to determine what the criteria is for inclusion on the template, and further, what the criteria should be. Perhaps that might help minimise misuse? - jc37 08:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't dislike the current criteria. An article can be flagged for {{rescue}} if it's in danger of being deleted for bad writing or a lack of notability. I don't mind broadly written, general criteria because it should include everything that can be improved to be saved, and narrower criteria wouldn't prevent or even significantly impede this sort of misuse anyway. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Mk, then I think I may be joining you at the "at a loss" table, shortly... - jc37 08:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Massive canvassing at AfD

RE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongolia during Tang rule. Can the AfD be closed because of canvassing? Ikip (talk) 07:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Generally, the way that's dealt with is that the closing admin takes into account the skewed votecounts, either relying chiefly on arguments or simply discounting the canvassed people. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Votestacking and WP:SOCK

Is the the votestacking can be the signs of sockpuppet? I noticed in certain AfD noms there was a sockpuppet-related votestack. Junk Police (talk) 23:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Advertising discussions

Please see Wikipedia:Advertising discussions, a proposal I've made to formalise guidelines on where and how the largest discussions should be advertised around Wikipedia to ensure sufficient input to major discussions. Improvements to the page and input on the talk page would be appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 10:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Change to the forum shop section

Hi together. I expanded the forumshop section slightly to include behavior that afaik is already frowned upon as admin shopping but was not explicitely covered. As this talk page is quite dead, I decided to go with WP:BRD in this case. Regards SoWhy 13:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD notifications at related articles

Are AfD notifications on the Talk pages of related articles inappropriate canvassing? They don't seem to violate the four listed criteria.

Example: WP:Articles for deletion/Quilem Registre Taser incident, notifications left at four articles.

• The nominated article Quilem Registre Taser incident was lightly edited and probably poorly watched.
• A merger was proposed, the merge target List of people who died after being tasered in Canada was one of the notified articles.
• The notifications were disclosed and briefly justified at the AfD.
  1. Talk:List of people who died after being tasered in Canada – proposed merge target (diff)
  2. Talk:Robert Dziekański Taser incident – prominent Canadian incident, most active related article (diff)
  3. Talk:Taser – main article (diff)
  4. Talk:Taser safety issues (formerly Taser controversy) – sub-article relevant to deaths (diff)
• Some "Taser incident" articles were excluded, such as UCLA Taser incident and University of Florida Taser incident.

Flatscan (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Expanded, added diffs per Ikip. Flatscan (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Copied specific notifications from AfD. Flatscan (talk) 04:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I am confused about what you the bullet points mean. Can you rewrite and clarify? thank you. Ikip (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The bullet points are items specific to the example that I consider relevant and wish to highlight. Flatscan (talk) 03:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I see:

1. Quilem Registre Taser incident was lightly edited, and was probably poorly watched.
2. There was merge proposals in Quilem Registre Taser incident, in which List of people who died after being tasered in Canada was the proposed merge target.
3. The Notifications were disclosed and briefly justified at the Quilem Registre Taser incidentAfD[[9]]
4. Some "Taser incident" articles were not notified.

Got it thank you. Ikip (talk) 04:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The specific example provided, leaving notice at the proposed merge destination (List of people who died after being tasered in Canada), seems to make abundant sense; you seem to mention that other notices were left, but it's difficult to comment on those without knowing where they were. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've copied the notifications from the AfD. There's a little more justification at the AfD, but it's less important, and I'll probably rehash it when I analyze this example from the outside. Flatscan (talk) 04:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

NO! WP:canvassing is a guideline (suggestion) and NOT a policy (rule). Big difference. TomCat4680 (talk) 08:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with this in theory, we should be careful to not suggest that this should be interpreted broadly. A fiction-related AfD (or for that matter, a math-related AfD) could lead to comments all over. - jc37 23:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Spamming all of Special:WhatLinksHere would be clear disruption in most cases. I can't imagine a case where 10 article notifications would be acceptable, but I don't want to set a number. I would support a wording (probably at WP:Articles for deletion#Notifying interested people) recommending "a limited number of closely-related articles". Flatscan (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There simply doesn't need to be more rules here.

The suggested text has two words which have no defintion: "limited number" and "closely-related articles".

This page is created to stop one sided from being notified (i.e. editors on their talk page) since any person can be watching a particular page, then this is not notifying one side. Ikip (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it may be helpful to provide guidance on this specific topic. The text is meant as a recommendation or suggestion – as you pointed out, it cannot function as a bright-line rule. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The real problem is understanding the motivation of our rules against canvassing and the editor placing the notices. Posting notices in related places, such as related articles, is in itself innocuous. We have entire deletion sorting noticeboards devoted to this concept. However, if the motivation of the poster is to recruit people to one side of the debate, it becomes canvassing as a result of the intent. If someone is, for example, an ardent and vocal member of the Article Rescue Squadron that has publicly stated that deleting articles is disruptive, it's very hard to look at any notices that person has placed as having been placed because of a pure and innocent motivation to improve discussion. One of the things one gives up when one becomes a vocal advocate of something is the right to be viewed as neutral. I don't place many notices of AFDs that I create for precisely that reason: I'm identified by many as a deletionist bogeyman, so my notices no longer appear neutral. I routinely place them on the deletion sorting lists, and place a notice at WT:Record charts when I nominate a chart for deletion, and refrain from doing more. I strongly suggest that ARS members similarly refrain.—Kww(talk) 14:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'd argue that notices that go to involved parties are generally acceptable. Notifying a project about an article at AfD (or Featured Article noms) is reasonable and good. Informing "partisans" who are likely to come in on your side isn't. As noted, that's what the deletion sorting stuff is about. I watch the "games" AfD list for example. Mostly because I know a lot about games... Hobit (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

  What's appropriate when there's no applicable project and no noticeboard? Is what's appropriate for an article that has no project/noticeboard also appropriate for an article which does have one? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

  It's a very good question. I'd say posting on the talk pages of a small number of related pages in an attempt to find people who know the topic is reasonable. Defining "small" and "related" is not obvious. Hobit (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• I notice that recent comments focus on votestacking, but excessive cross-posting should also be considered. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed. We get back to words. Indiscriminate in this case. I think the small number of related article talk pages is reasonable. Defining those terms isn't obvious. My gut says 1-2 is small and 7+ isn't in this context. Related is probably impossible to define other than "a reasonable person would think so". Hobit (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Those numbers are in line with my thoughts. If an editor thinks that some notices look questionable for either reason, I think asking for clarification is fair, either at the AfD's talk page or directly at User talk. Flatscan (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Agreed. Hobit (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Notifications on the talk pages of related articles seem quite sensible as often articles constitute an interlinked set which would suffer if one element was eliminated. Most AFD debates suffer from a lack of editors who know something about the topic and this seems a good way of attracting informed comment. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Notifications on relevant article talk pages are entirely appropriate and in good faith. It is indeed considerate to seek out the insight of those who worked on the article and thus may have a greater familiarity with sources related to the specific subject under discussion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Going back to the specific example, I considered doing only the first two, skipping the overall subject articles, but ultimately decided on all four. It was a close decision, but the possibility of getting a wider consensus won out. I believe that RomaC came via the notice at Talk:Robert Dziekański Taser incident (asked for confirmation, but no response yet). I expected participation from Dziekański due to its activity and close relationship (2 Canadian incidents occurring within a week, news articles mentioning them together); the overall inactivity of Taser and Taser controversy should have tipped me off. Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Addition to votestacking

Andrevan made an addition to votestacking that was reverted. It concerns an editor selecting and notifying a discussion which has a consensus (and perhaps a selection of editors) with which the editor agrees. An example would be an editor who wishes for a delete outcome canvassing a similar AfD already closed as delete.

Notifying participants in a particular previous AfD of a new related AfD has been the subject of recent votestacking complaints – but only because one side was omitted. As soon as both sides were notified, the complaints were dropped, which implies that such notifications are generally accepted. I think that canvassing potentially biased discussions may have been overlooked and that this addition merits discussion. Flatscan (talk) 03:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled with his exact wording, but the concept was valid.—Kww(talk) 03:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I didn't phrase it completely well, but I don't think the revert was in good faith. But if anyone could take a stab at rephrasing this, it definitely seems like an important thing that was left out. In this case, BVE Trainsim was closed in 2006 as Keep, when people were a lot less hard on reliable sourcing in articles and a lot of things got by only to later get deleted. I'm not completely sure that it will go the other way this time, but Ikip who voted Keep this time clearly was concerned so canvassed the entire discussion, which was 5-2 keep including me the nominator. In my opinion this is a clear application of the prohibition against canvassing to turn the discussion. Andre (talk) 11:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Contacting editors for follow-up RfC

I am planning to start an RfC about date-delinking, which will follow on several previous ones. Would it be appropriate to contact users who commented in previous RfCs to inform them of the new one? --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:Advertising discussions may be more appropriate. Flatscan (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)