Wikipedia talk:Canvassing

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

message: Above, I see a discussion about whether WP:APPNOTE should explicitly bar activities discussed in WP:INAPPNOTE. Prior to this discussion, there was no such explicit bar. In other words, the status quo was that APPNOTE should not mention INAPPNOTE. Then, a discussion was started at WP:VPI, and the post there included the question, "Should the examples listed at WP:APPNOTE be exceptions to WP:INAPPNOTE, or just examples of notifications that are usually acceptable?".
I don't see a clear consensus—either on this page or on the VPI page. Shouldn't this guideline maintain the status quo until such a consensus is established?--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version is that status quo; it has been in place for a year. It shouldn't change without a consensus to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor [[point of order]] 

message: Back in January, there was an undiscussed bold edit added to the lead. I recently found out about it, and reverted it with substantial reason for disagreement. This should have been enough to keep controversial material out of guidance until it has been further discussed, but my removal of the objectionable edit was reverted with an explanation that, [in spite of any objections to it], the edit is still useful and "right" considering the immediate context. I reverted the bold edit again with a counter argument that the context also strongly suggests otherwise, and a reminder that bold edits to guidance should be taken to discussion if they are controversial before they are added. I have a strong opinion that "special use" for words on Wikipedia that would otherwise have a normal meaning is an abuse of language becoming like a spreading cancer. It seems we are just making WP:CREEPy stuff up just to justify other CREEPy stuff. Huggums537 (talk) 06:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that we each explained our reasoning in our respective edit summaries. Here is a link to the Wiktionary definition of the term: . The way that we use the term on Wikipedia is pretty obviously different than that. The closest is the definition that comes last (as the least frequently used), and is presented as a political use of the word. As such, it seems reasonable to me to explain what we mean by it. If your objection is to the use of "special words", that would be addressed by renaming the guideline page, not by removing all explanation of how the use is distinctive to Wikipedia, as a term of art. And we use such terms, in WP: space, for a lot of other things beside canvassing, so I think that your objection may be a matter of personal opinion, rather than community consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is the addition itself that is the matter of controversy regarding personal opinion rather than community consensus since there has been no policy or guideline offered that supports such a consensus, but only personal opinions related to personal interpretations of Wiktionary definitions that really make no sense whatsoever since even if we say the least frequently used most lowly definition on Wiktionary is equivalent to any use on Wikipedia, then we would be wrong for saying Wikipedia use compared to Wiktionary use are "obviously different", and there would be plenty of room for debate, or differing opinions without any actual guidance or policy with a real true consensus to look to. For another thing, if I can make the removal by using definitions just as easily as you can argue that the addition should be there with your interpretations of Wiktionary, then it is obviously evident the addition is based on opinions rather than policy no matter which side of the fence you land on so it isn't fit for guidance. This is the crux of my objection, that the addition was added without any support or backing from policy or guidance, and then no discussion from community for consensus. My opinion about "special use" words was just an added footnote, but I'm glad you tried to latch onto it anyway. Huggums537 (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

message: I was wondering if it is okay or even encouraged to notify editors who were involved in the 3 previous AfDs (#1; #2; #3) about a follow-up AfD. They helped making the decisions in the previous AfDs, and perhaps should be notified of a new nomination that is a direct follow-up of those previous AfDs. WP:APPNOTE says  may be notified on their user talk pages (so not the AfD page itself), and WP:VOTESTACKING similarly states: 
However, I am wary that this could still potentially violate WP:VOTESTACKING. After all, I know how they voted and commented in the past 3 AfDs (all voted either Delete or Merge), so I can guess how they are going to vote and comment in a follow-up AfD, thus perhaps unduly influencing the outcome of the discussion. If the voting had been more mixed, I would definitely have notified everyone regardless of their votes. But in practice, notifying them now seems like votestacking, even if it would technically be allowed on their user talk pages. I don't want to unduly influence the result, and think the nomination should be judged on its on merits, even if those are partially dependent on the precedent set by the previous deletion of the other 3 articles. So, shouldn't I notify them? I'm inclined to think it would be inappropriate in this case. I've just never done this before in AfDs, so I better ask first. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notifying editors for follow-up AfDs 

message: Followers of this page may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Gaming the system#Proposal for an additional point.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A related [[WP:GAMING]] proposal 

message: Most of WP:CANVASS deals with discouraging users from canvassing (understandably.) It briefly mentions how to respond to canvassing, but (implicitly) from the perspective of a bystander who sees it happen, not someone who is the subject of it. This recent ArbCom motion makes it clear why that's not sufficient - banned editors are canvassing users via email; guidelines that only target the canvasser are obviously going to be ineffective in that situation. And, as discussion there makes clear, stealth / email canvassing has been occurring with increasing frequency. I think that the initial reaction of ArbCom in that case reflects the general community consensus and actual practice; however, this page doesn't actually lay it out that I can see.  So I suggest adding a "what to do if you are canvassed directly" section or something along those lines, perhaps in WP:STEALTH, stating that:
* You are strongly encouraged to report it; but as long as you don't act on it, you aren't required to.
* However, if you do participate in the discussion you were canvassed for (even if you believe you would have participated anyway), you are required to disclose that you were canvassed. Failure to do so may lead to sanctions.
The first point is, I think, necessary because if an editor doesn't act on the canvassing, they themselves haven't done anything wrong; we'd prefer they report it but we can't realistically require that. The second point is necessary in order to discourage stealth canvassing by making it more difficult. The parenthetical is necessary because I believe the editors who are most likely to report being stealth-canvassed are highly experienced and extremely active ones, who are the very ones who have the strongest claim to saying "ah, I'd have seen the discussion on RFC/All or AFD anyway, so I wasn't really canvassed"; it's important to make the requirement to report being stealth-canvassed as clear-cut as possible. If an editor believes they would have participated anyway, that's fine, they can say so when indicating they were canvassed; but they still need to make it clear so anyone closing the discussion or evaluating its consensus can make their own call on that and in order to ensure that stealth canvassing remains difficult. --Aquillion (talk) 07:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for thinking of this, and I support such a change. One revision to your proposal: on the first bullet point, I would change "; but as long as you don't act on it, you aren't required to" to ", regardless of whether or not you act on it". Although I agree with the concept you describe, that we shouldn't require it to the extent of making non-reporting sanctionable, the language seems to me to go too far in implying "don't worry about it". As long as we say "strongly encouraged", that makes it clear that we aren't saying "required". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's a gap between the two bullets that needs filling, even signposted with the use of "however" in that second bullet. I agree that if you respond to direct canvassing by taking part in the discussion to which you were summoned, you should disclose that. But it also seems that if a good-faith editor receives an invitation that they recognize as inappropriate canvassing, whether they choose to report it or not, the optimal response is not to participate in the discussion, and we should put that in writing, too. I recall the case of a fairly prolific editor who was in an ANI discussion clearly leaning toward his ban, who reached out to a couple of other editors to come defend him. I was quite impressed that one of the canvassed editors responded that they had been inclined to do so, and had been preparing comments, but that the receipt of the canvassing invitation made their participation no longer appropriate (and even scolded him for putting them in that position). We can't force that sort of response, but it's something we should encourage. In discussions that are significantly less oriented toward any sort of voting, canvassed editors who choose to participate can still effect a significant impact on the tone and course of the discussion, shaping it in a different direction to a very different outcome. Grandpallama (talk) 23:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm reluctant to go beyond the disclosure requirement because ultimately editors can't control whether someone attempts to canvass them or not; I think there's limits to how much we can suggest they do in response (especially given that even suggestions in policy are often taken to have enough force to lead to sanctions if ignored.) Barring an editor from an entire discussion - possibly a very important one, which they would inevitably have participated in anyway - purely because of something someone else did is too much for me even as a suggestion; the disclosure is IMHO enough in that anyone who eventually assesses consensus will know to take that into account. --Aquillion (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

text: I would support this, and actually made a bold edit to that extent two years ago, but unfortunately it was reverted. BilledMammal (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  More strict guidelines for what an editor should do when the subject of canvassing