User:Travb/canvas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< User:Travb

You have new messages (last change).

1 Wikipedia policy
2 Vote spamming case 1
3 Vote spamming case 2
4 Wikipedia_talk:Survey_notification
5 Other users
6 History
7 Questions
- 7.1 Wikipolicy pages
- 7.2 Users

[edit] Wikipedia policy

[edit] Vote spamming case 1

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive142#RfA_vote_spamming

[edit] Vote spamming case 2

Morton devonshire (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) block log

User_talk:Morton_devonshire/Archive02#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FRationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush_.282nd_nomination.29

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive95#Controversial_Afd_and_POV_vote-stacking

User_talk:Cyde/Archive005#On_that_matter Applicable section:

Hi Cyde, I'm concerned about you closing the AfD and also about your block of User:Morton devonshire. There is no policy against notifying people of a listing on AfD. There is not even a policy against asking them to support a certain position on an AfD. Johntex\^talk 23:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

We've definitely blocked people for talk page spamming and vote-stacking before. If it's not written into the policy yet, it should be. We can't let people game our consensus system like this. --Cyde Weys 23:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

"We've done it before" is not a good reason. There is no policy that supports this early AfD closure or the block of User:Morton devonshire. The same applies to your blocking of User:Nescio. I view these as out-of-process blocks and I request that you unblock them. Johntex\^talk 23:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia_talk:Survey_notification

RE: Wikipedia_talk:Survey_notification#Internal_spamming_is_not_a_blockable_offense

It's been used recently by the School Project people to fight deletionists on the afd lists. Admins knew about it and no one was blocked. Mattisse 20:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

...In practice, though, it seems that WP:SPAM is treated as a de facto official policy, and therefore "this is only a guideline" isn't a good reason for dismissing it, as violations of WP:SPAM are considered "blockable offenses" SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magnitude

It seems to me that there's a difference between vote stacking and consensus building. I see nothing wrong with contacting a fellow editor and letting him know that a discussion is ongoing; even if I believe he agrees with me. It's only when I decide to contact 5,000 (or however many) of my fellow editors and claim they're all close personal friends that this is a problem. So while I think this proposal is a good starting point, I'd like to make sure we don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Inviting an associate to offer his opinion on a topic is not, and should not, be a violation of wikipedia policy. We need to figure out how to draw the line to separate collegial discussion and intercourse from pure politically-motivated vote-stacking. Nandesuka 16:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incompatibility with AGF?

I think that certain aspects of this proposed guideline conflict with Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Specifically, it says:

Notifing only people who you believe would agree with "your" position is a violation of this guideline.

This is purely subjective - how can an outsider know what someone is believing and what his motives are behind his actions. An outsider can assume that X, who is spamming talk pages with a link to an AFD is only notifying the users who X believes will support his position. Is that outsider assuming good faith, by doing that? I know that this may seem a bit wikilawyerish, but I was wondering about it earlier. --Latinus 20:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this line in the proposed policy concerns me for the reasons outlined by Latinus and Nandesuka (above in the "Magnitude" section). I would support this policy becoming official, but only if this line is altered or changed. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 21:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

An example of the potential problems this might cause -- say an article in Category:Burning Man came up for deletion on AfD. I might take it upon myself to inform the editors listed in Category:Wikipedian Burners. I do not see this as vote stacking if I post a neutral notice to them, because they have declared an interest in the event and its culture and therefore might be presumed to have an opinion on the issue. However, it is also likely they will vote Keep on many Burning Man related topics that others might not find so notable for inclusion in the 'pedia. I would not want to be accused of violating this policy as a result. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 01:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that what you propose is already a violation of de-facto policy, and if you did it, is more than likley to get you banned. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RV of edits by Morton devonshire

I reverted his last two edits,[1] which I think go against what the proposed policy is trying to aim at. Morton devonshire is (I don't think he would disagree with this characterization) someone who has in the past notified about fifty people about a single AfD who could be expected to recommend the same thing as he, and hoped that those people in turn would contact other people to do the same. A "vote stacker" such as he might have some interesting and possibly valuable ideas about what a proposed policy on vote stacking should be, but I think they should be brought up on the talk page here first.

I strongly dislike vote stacking, and would like to see some sort of policy put into place regarding it, but there are still problems with the one as currently proposed that need to be improved upon. Шизомби 18:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no voting on Wikipedia -- it's about determining consensus. When viewing an Afd, the Closing Administrator is obliged to consider first the opinions of people who regularly edit the article, but that shouldn't be the only opinions she weighs. If a person properly considers Wikipedia policy regarding NPOV, notability, and the other policies which are relevant to Afd's, and applies these precepts to the article in question, then their opinion ought to be considered by the Closing Admin as well, even if they were invited to look at the Afd. We are a community of consensus, not votes. Comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia, and particularly, to the article in question, are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted by the Closing Administrator. Morton devonshire 19:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

One of the problems I see with vote stacking (or consensus stacking, if you like) is that it works against broad consensus. It serves to promote the consensus that exists among a narrower group of people who share an ideology or a support or opposition to a subject. One could argue that when stacking is being done by one "side" that the other "side" should simply do the same, however I think it would be better for all "sides" to refrain from such behavior.

Vote stacking tends to make the conscientious closing admins' jobs harder. The lazy admin will count the recommendations, and when there has been stacking, the stacked consensus will simply be followed. VS also seems to tend to result in "ditto" posts and baseless recommendations, rather than valuable observations about what ought to be done with an article. The conscientious admins have to sift through far more people's posts and histories to determine the best course of action; vote stacking increases the size of a discussion while decreasing its value and wastes their time. Шизомби 20:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem really is that for most Afds, there isn't a broad enough consensus to make a determination -- it's just the same-old POV-pushers, again and again. The community wants a NPOV encyclopedia, not one dominated by hardcore ideologues. The broader the consensus, the better. I'm not here to debate you, because based on our earlier interactions, I think you are non-appeasable and will just keep responding endlessly. Can we have anyone else's thoughts, please? Morton devonshire 04:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the name change from Vote stacking to Survey Notification is probably a sensible one, although notification should probably be lower-case and possibly should be plural. I don't like Morton devonshire's other edits, but won't revert for now - what do other people think? Шизомби 06:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)