Hosta

Archives

Dec 2006 – Aug 2007 Aug 2007 - Dec 2007 2008 2009 - 2010 2011 - 2016 2016 – present

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Regarding Do not use a bot to send messages to multiple pages, is the "how" of the delivery something that still matters? Note, I am not in any way talking about the content of the delivery - but assuming the content is acceptable and the audience is acceptable - using the system bot via Special:MassMessage should be preferable to individually sending talk messages to an list if the acceptable audience is in anyway sizable. Thoughts? — xaosflux ^Talk 03:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That specific guidance needs to go. It might make sense to dedicate a paragraph or so to "notification by (semi-)automated methods" in its place. --Izno (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm missing something, that sentence only means sending a one-sided message that way is inappropriate. In other words, don't mass message something like "please vote support for xyz". There's certainly no problem with using a bot for neutral messaging, and the sentence probably should be clarified in that regard. Maybe: Do not use a bot to send non-neutral messages to multiple pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline already has "appropriate" and "inappropriate" sections speaking to the content and the audience ("non-neutral messages to multiple pages" are inappropriate regardless of how they are delivered), I have no desire to change that - just that the "how" of the delivery doesn't belong (and if a sizeable audience is appropriate - then using the Mass Message function is likely the best way to deliver the message from a technical point of view). — xaosflux ^Talk 02:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only way I can read the current text is "Do not use a bot to send messages to multiple pages" like, ever, for any reason. Super clear: if you want to send the kind of messages we're talking about here, you can't use a bot to do it. If the intent is to say "do not use bots to send inappropriate messages" or if the intent is "using bots to send appropriate messages is fine", we have a massive failure of communication. Since, you know, the text says the complete opposite of that, in every way I can interpret it. CapnZapp (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, if it is appropriate to copy-n-paste the same message en masse (say with dozens or hundreds of browser tabs) then using MassMessage should be just as appropriate. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After becoming aware of an issue within deletion discussions, I wonder if the above can be expanded to include not notifying interested parties in an effort to achieve a consensus based upon only the nominators rationale and discussion among those who habitually participate in that space. While notifying those in the editing history of items up for deletion is not mandatory, the fact that it is recorded within the guidelines suggests that it is optimal and Wikipedia:Consensus indicates that it should be expected that there might be opposing views that need to be weighed for a sound decision to be made. Since deletion discussions are time limited, I would suggest that not allowing all potentially interested parties the opportunity to contribute makes any decision made from reviewing only the arguments of those notified through a more limited notification more likely to be challenged after a decision of delete - with the subsequent expense of time and energy. Comprehensive notification is a more efficient method of allowing consensus to form.

If it felt that the above sub-section is not the appropriate one to include deliberate non notification, perhaps another might be suggested? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this proposal derives from a discussion at WP:ANI (permalink) and at at User talk:VegaDark(permalink). For the sake of transparency, it would have been better for LHvU to disclose that this all relates to the highly unusual situation of a CFD debate on a category relating to LHvU. Not compulsory of course, but it is surely optimal to disclose a direct personal interest like this so that editors can make their own assessment of how much is concern for healthy process and how much is personal interest in the fate of a category about LHVU, populated by LHVU's wiki-friends.

At the second venue, I offered some comments[1] on LHvU's ideas. In summary, LHvU seems to be seeking a degree of notification which I have rarely seen at AFD, and AFAICR have never seen at CFD. It would impose a high burden on editors who nominated categories for renaming for deletion or merger, and in most cases I think that burden would be massively disproportionate to any potential benefit. In particular, CFD and TFD do not deal with substantive content. CFD deals solely with navigational devices (categories), and TFD deals primarily with a different form of navigational device (navboxes). The nature of the decisions thee is very different to AFD, which is all about whether to remove substantive content.

Both CFD and TFD are an ongoing maintenance process, adjusting navigational aids as the encyclopedia grows and develops. It would be wrong to impose on them the sort of burdens imposed at AFD, because the stakes are so much lower at CFD and TFD, and the effect of those burdens would be so much higher. In particular, LHvU proposed to VegaDark that it was wrong to launch a CFD without advising those who have edited or populated categories, and since LHvU has not clarified the scope oh their proposal here, I presume that they also intend it to apply to TFD.

The problem is that this would require require a revision history search of each page in a category, which could easily take many hours for a larger categories. In 11 years at CFD I do not recall ever seeing that done, just as I don't recall from sporadic visits to TFD any sign of nominations accompanied by systematic notifications of those who applied a template to pages. 8 days ago I opened a CFD discussion on 596 categories, at WP:CFD 2017 February 10#Subcategories_of_London_Boroughs. Those categories between them contains many thousands of articles, and there is just no human way that it is feasible to identify and notify all the contributors. That CFD was unusually large, but in the last 8 weeks I alone have opened at least half a dozen CFDs which involved more than 100 categories each. The sort of notification which LHVU seeks would make that sort of maintenance impossible, and it directly contradicts the explicit guidance in the nutshell at the top of the guideline When notifying other editors of discussions, keep the number of notifications small.

So I think that a one-size-fits-all approach to desirable XFD notification is unfeasible. If LHVU wants to take specific proposal to individual XFD pages, they would be better considered against the needs of that process.

In any case, the clear focus of this guideline guideline is about how to avoid votestacking. It is largely a collection of negatives, and LHVU's desire for positive burdens would fit poorly into the overall purpose of this guideline. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The genesis of this discussion was User:BrownHairedGirl's comments at User talk:VegaDark#Ultra-Speedy deletions, which I read after going to the talk page of User:Vega Dark. It seems to me that there might be an issue where an understanding of policy disallows discussions to occur before action is taken, which I feel is contrary to the concept of consensus i.e. as a category is unpopulated for 7 days it might be deleted even if notice of the intent to delete is only provided late on the 6th qualifying day. Where depopulation was the result of error or inattention the opportunity to Wikipedia:FIXIT is potentially lost, unless there is the even more burdensome business of undeletion requests and discussion - not all parties are admins with the ability to reverse an admin action, and most will correctly not without attempting consensus with the original admin. There are good reasons why it is noted on deletion guidelines that interested parties should be notified, in case the issue can be resolved before going to a final determination of consensus on the original request.

Yes, I went to that page after the matter referred to above as I had been worried about a comment made my User:VegaDark in response to a query why people with a category in userspace were not advised that it had been nominated for deletion - the response was that such notice might cause a delay in the prompt deletion of the category in question as notified parties might argue for keep under Wikipedia:ILIKEIT. My understanding of Wikipedia:CONSENSUS is the very light weight attached to such arguments should not be a reason for not providing the opportunity for people to wield it. In the event, those who were alerted to the matter provided policy and guideline based reasons why deletion was not in the best interests of the project - and the result was keep. I am concerned that where notification is suggested within the guideline and that they are either not given or only belatedly, in order to ensure the prompt consideration of consensus only under the "strict" understanding of policy as provided by the proposer without the benefit of other views - particularly of those who have contributed to the subject - that there might be the potential of the charge of Wikipedia:VOTESTACKING by omission.

Even when I was active as a contributor and admin, I was very rarely found in the Deletion discussions area of WP except with regard to articles. I am and was aware of the sheer amount of drudgery involved in dealing with the wiki-gnoming aspects, and how there was always more work available than there were editors to deal with it. However, Wikipedia is NOTFINISHED and arguments about the increased load upon those involved in the less acclaimed back rooms should be viewed in the light that time is not a limiting factor. Yes, editor and admin burn out is - so it needs to be made clear that the most efficient way of handling tiresome issues is clarification on what needs to be in place to ensure consensus is properly arrived at. It is under that reasoning and that reasoning only that I have sought to extend the meaning of "silence" in a type of inappropriate conduct in deletion discussions to include the non notification of some parties by choice or habit.

I take User:BrownHairedGirl's point about transparency, in how I became aware of a potential issue, but am unsure if it is germane to the broader point. Perhaps, as an example of giving proper and full notification of all matters potentially effecting a discussion, then I should have. It is, after all what I hope to achieve by opening this discussion here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LHVU, I am sorry to say that your reply comes across as thoroughly disingenuous. As a former admin, you will undoubtedly be aware that speedy deletions are based on a long-standing policy at WP:CSD that a consensus-forming discussion is not required before the speedy deletion of a page which meets one or more of certain specified criteria. In fact, I just checked your own deletion log[2], where I see close to 1000 deletions over a period of about 4 years, nearly all of them speedies. So it's very clear that you are well-aware of the distinction, and well-aware that speedy deletions exist precisely to allow minimal process for uncontroversial actions.

Your attempt to conflate the question of canvassing with the question of under-notification is tenuous enough, but this latest attempt to tie speedy deletions into concerns about consensus-forming is utterly mischievious -- because the whole point of speedy deletion is that per the policy's nutshell under certain limited conditions, a page may be deleted by an administrator without waiting for any discussion. WP:CANVASS is entirely about discussions, and the WP:CSD is about actions without discussion, so trying to tie the two together is plain silly.

You didn't mention speedy deletions when you posted on VegaDark's talk page[3], and you didn't mention speedy deletions when you first posted on this page[4]. You raised it now only because after those two posts because it was after them that I resumed[5] a discussion with VegaDark about some nuances of the speedy process. You would of course have been welcome to join in that discussion, but your attempt to conflate that with CFD notifications has all the hallmarks of post-facto muddying-of-waters.

So, leaving aside the red herring of speedies, we return to your original point here about CFD notifications. I hope that you can agree that when considering notifications, there is a balance to be drawn between a whole range of factors. The desirability of bringing more people into a discussion is balanced against the intrusiveness of excessive notification, the risks of vote-stacking, and the burden on editors launching a discussion. You are briefly dismissive of the burden on editors proposing actions, saying that time is not a limiting factor. Actually, no. There is no deadline, but time most certainly is a limiting factor, and if the sort of burdens you seek were ever imposed at CFD, most of its works would simply stop. It wouldn't be delayed or postponed, because there is no reason to expect that any editor would devote the utterly huge amount of time required for the sort of notification you seek.

Now, if there was some sort of systemic problem here, then you would have a point in suggesting that the balance should be adjusted. But the crucial fact of all this is that (apart from the speedy deletion red herring) your grounds for concern are based solely on the thoroughly exceptional case of a category relating to you personally, a conflict of interest which you failed to disclose. You have offered no evidence that there is any wider problem of under-notification which would justify considering some sort of change. If you do have some such evidence, then please present it ... but I will be very surprised if you can find anything other than very rare cases. I closed dozens of CFDs each year, sometimes hundreds, and it is exceptionally rare to find any sort of post-closure complaint based on lack of notification. You can look at the archives of WT:CFD and find next to nothing on the issue, and similarly with ANI.

Ironically, the only ANI discussion I can recall on this was last month, when another admin tried ramming through some speedy renamings of untaggedd categories, and ignored objections to the lack of notification. When I reverted, he got exceptionally irate and started a multi-venue shitstorm, but the discussion ended up back at back at CFD. Despite the very high profile of that brouhaha, nobody has sought any notification of that discussion other than the tagging of the categories.

So all of this is a non-issue, an extrapolation of the exceptional circumstances of LHVU's personal category into an counter-factual claim of a wider problem. Naughty. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I mostly agree with everything User:BrownHairedGirl had to say here. I think if this type of non-automated notification were expected prior to a nomination, virtually all XfDs would grind to a halt. Nobody would bother working on the category system when it could potentially take up hours of volunteer time just to make sure all those notifications were made. With the focus on having a "balanced namepace" in your edit history as of late with WP:RFA, certainly no administrator hopefuls would ever venture into XfD else they would need 100 user talk edits for every semi populated category nomination. I can't imagine a single CfD regular bothering making nominations on anything but incredibly new and easy to notify categories - no changes to existing structure would ever be done. Also I can't imagine the nightmare of notifications any semi regular category gnomes would get if every category they edited triggered a CfD notification (although if nominations grinded to a halt I guess this wouldn't be an issue). To implement this sort of notification requirement would be so overly burdensome that literally nobody would deal with category work anymore. The same argument goes for user categories in particular - notifying all members of a category would be so overly burdensome you would effectively stop all user category nominations. VegaDark (talk) 04:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The idea that user categories (which is what are pertinent here) can be deleted without even notifying the editors in those category is unreasonable in the extreme. The idea that tagging the category pages is sufficient notification is absurd. VegaDark asserts that the notification burden is an unreasonable burden might be arguable if the only means of notification was manual editing of every editor's user talk page, but it isn't. There are means of having a bot notify every editor on a list, and a bot to automatically notify all editors in a specified category would not be difficult to create. The reason to avoid notifying editors in a category you want to delete is because you know it will be contentious, and choosing not to notify for this reason is both a deliberate attempt to skew the debate and profoundly disrespectful to the editors you seek to avoid including. Anyone working in user category maintenance should have the decency to engage with the editors effected by the actions you propose. LessHeard vanU is correct, in my view, what has been occurring is unacceptable attempts to avoid engagement with key stakeholders in general in user category discussion, and the fact that the specific example cited is a category related to him is irrelevant. The editors in user categories are people and deserve to be treated as such. Some categories will need deleting, some even speedily, and policy must guide the process, but the fact that maintenance is easier if the people effected don't know until after decisions are taken does not justify their exclusion. "Consensus" by omission of interested parties lacks legitimacy and integrity. It should not be necessary to have a rule to ensure ethical / principled operations of user CfDs, but if it is, the so be it. EdChem (talk) 13:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @EdChem: To be clear, you are suggesting that our failure to go above and beyond what policy requires (and on top of that, in my view an act that would be detrimental to the interests of the encyclopedia), by failing to use a hypothetical bot that could be created to notify individual users, is "Unreasonable in the extreme?" Sorry, but notifying individual users in user categories, even if it were as easy as an automated bot (which it currently is not) is an activity that would make the encyclopedia worse, because notifying such users is not reflective of consensus. People have a tendency to want to keep things they have self-selected to be placed on their userpage, wouldn't you agree? How is reaching out to a subgroup of people more inclined to support keeping a better measure of consensus over random, disinterested (not to mention generally more policy-aware) people who happen to come across the CfD?. As I've previously stated, notifying members of a category is like notifying NRA members that a gun restriction is about to be passed. This is based off of over a decade of dealing with user categories and personal experience - often such notification results in ILIKEIT votes not based in policy regardless of the reasons for deletion. Unlike AfD, CfD has lower participation. You can't rely on many neutral people coming in and giving their .02, particularly when it comes to user categories which many users expressly avoid caring about. If you are worried about notification, I liked SmokeyJoe's proposed solution which would assign every user category to a Wikiproject, and notification could go to that Wikiproject's talk page. This would, in my view, accomplish concerns regarding lack of notification while simultaneously not reaching out to specific users likely to try to sway discussion a particular way. VegaDark (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @VegaDark: Perhaps you would like to go and review your own comments from debates in 2007/8 about LGBT categories, and reflect on your own comments, then re-read what I have said. In the meantime, I did not suggest just a hypothetical bot, I stated that "[t]here are means of having a bot notify every editor on a list." A system like is used by ArbCom for each case, which the Signpost uses for deliveries, or like the admin newsletter uses. This is not something novel on WP, nor is it difficult to implement. That policy does not require notification of users in user categories you seek to delete is a flaw in policy, one likely resulting from the group of editors working on category maintenance is small, like-minded, and rarely confronted by outside editors on matters of principle. So, yes, not notifying is unreasonable in the extreme. Choosing to not notify the group most directly by the proposed decision regarding a user category to which they have taken a deliberate decision to join is indefensible. Your view that these editors might be biased is akin to saying you don't like what they might say. I wonder if you've ever considered that, since user categories are supposed to have a collaborative purpose, the editors in the category are the ones most likely to have direct knowledge of its collaborative value? Your view comes across as that your opinion is correct and those who value something and disagree with you must be wrong or biased. You state that neutral people don't come to CfDs, but presume that you and the regulars at CfD are neutral and unbiased, and the "not to mention more generally more policy-aware" comment underlines the "we're right, outsiders are wrong" attitude. I don't doubt that there are a lot of categories that need removal, and that category maintenance is necessary, and even that it is thankless and under-recognised work. But when it comes to user categories, groups of editors who are also people, there have been serious mistakes and harm done, and the idea that the problem can be resolved by trying to remove categories without telling the editors in them is offensive. And, I believe that a properly constructed RfC on this point, held at a widely read page and well publicised, would show a community consensus to that effect. EdChem (talk) 12:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could I ask about how WP:CANVAS applies to this thread? Is it bad to link to the discussion at Donald Trump? Should I only discuss this general issue at a specific example of that issue Siuenti (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully I am not violating this policy by this notice, please revert if you feel like I am. This policy and the specifics herein are being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#WP:CANVASS and input there from the editors that have watchlisted this policy could be helpful. Endercase (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a sign of canvassing?

The out-of-the-blue editor admits that the other editor, who he is supporting, contacted him soliciting his input in the discussion. By his talk page, this seems to be a common practice of him inviting him, and the other editor then supporting him. (See the "Hey Friend" message regarding Fairview Alpha, Louisiana here, and other similar ones here).

And the two editors who are agreeing with each other never mentioned this in the talk page discussion, till the issue was raised by the editor with whom they disagree.

But he says he "I don't see how this is inappropriate." Because he says he is one of the most active editors on "political geography articles in Michigan" (though not on the subject of the discussion -- inclusion of notable people in lists of people).

If this is canvassing, what does one do, where in addition to the two disagreeing original editors we only have the editor that joined out of the blue, supporting his wp "Friend," who contacted him, leading him to join the discussion? --2604:2000:E016:A700:79D7:9430:713A:70E2 (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When you discuss another editor's behavior on a "WP" page you are required to notify then in writing at their talk page. I explained my actions at Talk:Plymouth, Michigan and also told you what you could do to garner wider participation in the discussion. And I am one of the most active editors on political geography articles in Michigan. Political geography (also known as social geography), broadly defined, is articles about things man has imposed on the landscape, such as (but not limited to) roads, schools, settlements, other political divisions (such as counties, townships and states) and buildings. Except roads and buildings, all articles on these subjects have either notable people sections or associated freestanding list articles for them. So yes, I am quite familiar with them. Your attitude shows a remarkable lack of good faith, bordering on WP:OWN. If you wish to make a complaint about editor behavior, the proper place is WP:ANI. I would not suggest going there tho. Just lose the chip on your shoulder and work the conflict through. Believe it or not, the editorial control on Wikipedia is driven on conflict by design. John from Idegon (talk) 03:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the question is if it is Canvassing or not. I think it should be "Was it inappropriate canvassing?" Endercase (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many editors (recent example here) use the term "canvassing" in a way that clearly leaves the implication that canvassing is wrong. They often use the term "canvass" (a broad term coving both acceptable and unacceptable actions) as a negative, or they use "WP:CANVASS" as itf is only covers the unacceptable actions.

That is not what this guideline says. Canvassing is an action that can be done properly or can be done improperly. This guideline specifically notes that contact of other editors may be perfectly acceptable and then goes on to identify cases where it is not acceptable.

Is my opinion that the wording should be tightened up in this guideline, as it is perfectly possible for someone to read this casually and come away with the impression that this is a guideline about canvassing which is always inappropriate.

I believe the problem arises from this key sentence:

However, canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate.

The construction of the sentence sounds like it could be defining canvassing as something that is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of discussion in a particular way. But that's not what it's trying to say. It is trying to distinguish acceptable canvassing from unacceptable canvassing.

The subsequent sections are fine. One section identifies ways of informing that are considered appropriate. Some of these actions could be considered canvassing but would be considered acceptable canvassing. A subsequent section talks about inappropriate notification. Those examples are typically canvassing and would be considered unacceptable canvassing. Fixing the wording should be relatively simple, subject to the usual discussions of exactly what wording is best. I also think we should consider whether this guideline should be retitled as "inappropriate canvassing". I fear that the ubiquitous history of the use of wp:Canvassing and WP:CANVASS may make it difficult to rename this guideline.

Proposed wording

Replace:

With

Title of guideline

I hope someone with more knowledge of the technical implications of change in the name will weigh in regarding whether this is feasible or not worth the effort.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I feel that in the case you mentioned providing examples of comments on an ongoing discussion is bad canvassing. As long as the message is neutral then it should remain okay. I cant speak about project notifications though. Would it be acceptable for example to inform the Liberal projects about an ongoing discussion related to Donald Trump? Would it be okay to notify WikiProject Palestine about an ongoing discussion about Israel? The problem is that even if an editor knows that a project might be interested it can still be seen as biased. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better to adjust and combine the first paragraph with your proposed changes, to avoid repetition. Perhaps something like this:

Notifying other editors of ongoing discussions, also known as canvassing, is acceptable when done with the intent to improve the quality of a discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. It is inappropriate to selectively notify editors with the intention of influencing the outcome towards a specific bias, subverting the normal consensus process.

To be honest, though, I think there generally is a promotional connotation to the word canvass, and I expect people will continue to use it in a negative sense, regardless of any changes made. isaacl (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - There is appropriate notification and inappropriate notification. Appropriate notification is not canvassing, while inappropriate notification is canvassing. That's how I've always viewed it at least, but I could be incorrect on the semantics, so I'll be interested to read others opinions on the matter. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 00:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest possible oppose - "Canvassing" IRL does not have a negative implication, but in the Wikipedia sense, it is quite simply the disruptive behavior of soliciting input in order to artificially create a consensus, or lack thereof, that would not otherwise exist. The whole point of WP:CANVASS is to identify this behavior as being distinct from simply notifying people. It is extremely important that the distinction is made, as we are almost wholly governed by consensus, and consensus building is impossible if canvassing is going on. Changing the term "canvassing" from a specific, negative behavior to a broad general term that may be considered good or bad would create unnecessary confusion, muddle the distinction between what is acceptable behavior and what is not, deprive the community of the clear, longstanding label for what is a severely destructive behavior, and provide a free strawman defense for those accused of canvassing (I can already see canvassers citing this proposed wording as a defense). Canvassing has a specific meaning. De-fanging the use of the word in order to remove the negative connotation would not provide any benefit to the project. We do not need users accused of canvassing making the argument that there's "nothing wrong with canvassing". That's not the point of this policy. The point is to identify a specific, inherently destructive behavior which we call "canvassing". Strongly recommend we retain the longstanding position of this policy and do not soften our stance on what "canvassing" is. Swarm ♠ 19:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]