Requests for Comment/Amendments to Canvassing Policy

Following recent passage of the Wiki Governance policy, the concept of canvassing was formalized as explicitly forbidden instead of a generally-held community taboo. While the initial language was narrow in scope and prohibitions, Wikipedia's standards on canvassing make clear that there are several gaps in our policy compared to the much more expansive definition embraced by WP.

This proposal serves to incorporate improvements already identified by the community to bring us more in-line with other consensus-driven projects, I encourage the community to review carefully and vote thoughtfully as these changes will have global reach given the policy they alter/enhance. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 16:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Expansion of Scope
Amend current Canvassing policy to start with: The following actions are prohibited in regards to any request requiring community vote: Convert existing prohibitions into a list below this preface statement.

Rationale: The current policy only covers RfPs despite the prior community taboo applying to essentially every type of RfX where a vote is taken. This language broadens policy to match that understanding and future-proof against new process that should develop for other types of requests. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 16:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  as proposer. NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 16:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 2)  - Why not? Seems reasonable. Globe - (Talk • Contributions • CA) 17:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 01:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 4)  --DeeM28 (talk) 11:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 5)  Redmin Contributions CentralAuth (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 6)  -- Hey Türkiye  Message? 17:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 7)  - This seems an efficient way forward for such proposals and makes good sense from that perspective |  -- FrozenPlum   19:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 8)  Should've been done a long time ago. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 9)  --1108-Kiju /Talk  03:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Clarification on Private Asks (Opposition and Vote Stacking)
Amend prohibition in Canvassing policy as follows: Privately asking individuals or groups of users to support or oppose a request is prohibited.

Additionally, amend the following prohibition: Offering, promising, or giving advantage/preferential treatment in exchange for a Support or Oppose vote is prohibited at all times and regardless of venue.

Additionally, Add the following new prohibition for private asks: Once a request is open for voting, privately contacting individuals or groups of users to ask for their participation in a request, even neutrally, is prohibited.

Rationale (Amendments): The current policy only covers private requests for support, not opposition, and uses ambiguous language about individuals vs groups. This proposal clarifies:
 * that campaigning/promises in exchange for votes of support or opposition is prohibited
 * that private asks for a support or oppose vote to both individuals and groups is unacceptable
 * that 'bribery' is unacceptable in any venue at any time, regardless of success or intent to deliver on promises made. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 16:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Rationale (Addition): Current policy doesn't cover neutral but selective asks for participation from users with known views on a topic to achieve an intended outcome, also known as vote-stacking. Once a request is live, public channels should be used instead. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 16:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  as proposer. NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 16:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 2)  It is more comprehensive and makes sense. Globe - (Talk • Contributions • CA) 17:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC) Striking per BrandonWM below. Globe - (Talk • Contributions • CA) 04:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 3)  conditional on Proposal 2A passing The prohibition of canvassing is evidently an extension of the reach of Miraheze policies outside of the Miraheze platform and on other platforms such as email, IRC, Discord or any other external communication platforms. The first two lines of prohibition which are for the most part a clarification of the current position seem grave enough that it constitutes an acceptable "overreach" in my opinion. As for the third line I believe that it takes the prohibition too far. While I understand that at on some topics one user's opinion may be a well known fact it is too far-fetched to suggest that it is possible for users to know in advance how another user intends to vote. I believe that while there is indeed a potential minimal risk it would not be in my view wrong to send a neutrally worded reminder to another user privately who regularly votes in RfCs asking them to vote in a particular RfC as doing so in a public channel generally would not have the same effect. I am sure it is often that many users who do not frequently visit Meta are not even aware of RfCs and do not check public venues so privately informing them about it should not be a wrong. --DeeM28 (talk) 11:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 4)  the amendment passes as well. Redmin Contributions CentralAuth (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 5)  per above -- Hey Türkiye  Message? 17:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 6)  per above also, if amendment passes. This just makes good sense to help prevent vote stacking. |  -- FrozenPlum   19:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) The first two are fine with me, but a prohibition on asking for participation, even if it doesn’t ask to participate in any way, is not right and not something I can support. There are a wide variety of reasons to ask users for participation, and banning that overall would be detrimental. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 01:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Asks for participation are still allowed, but the proposer should do so in public channels once voting has started. Individual private asks of participation by the proposer (who that clause is aimed towards) can easily veer into an attempt to selectively rally known supportive users, the exact form of canvassing this clause is meant to prevent. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 05:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have created an amendment to exclude the final line. --DeeM28 (talk) 11:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments

 * I would like the word "private" to be clearly defined in scope. (Ideally this shouldn't presume prior knowledge of e.g. what Wikipedia's conventions are.) Clearly Discord DM's are private, but is asking people on talk pages (since anyone can view talk pages) private? Is asking on a community (not the Miraheze meta) wiki considered to be private? Their corresponding Discords/IRC? --Phenomist-alt (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Glad to provide context. Private in this case is defined as a limited channel of communication that is not broadly visible to any user.  Examples would include a discord/IRC direct message, a private Discord server or role-specific channel not generally available to all users, or email messages.  While contacting via talk page isn't private as you rightly point out and thus wouldn't be covered, it would violate the spirit of canvassing rules to ask for support or selectively notify users via a talk page for an active election in which you are the proposer. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 22:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * On the matter of local wikis, a neutral notice of an open RfC either on-wiki or a community-specific discord wouldn't run afoul of this and wouldn't be considered "private", regardless of whether it's a public or private wiki. However, asks for support or opposition on a global matter would instead fall under general election 'vote brigading' rules, rather than canvassing rules. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 22:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 2A: Clarification on Private Asks
The following is not included: Once a request is open for voting, privately contacting individuals or groups of users to ask for their participation in a request, even neutrally, is prohibited.

Support

 * 1)  per the arguments advanced above. --DeeM28 (talk) 11:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) .  This is an acceptable compromise that retains the core improvements of 2. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 15:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 3)  Redmin Contributions CentralAuth (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 4)  - As others have said, this seems a good compromise. |  -- FrozenPlum   19:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 5) Per below. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 05:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  I had no opposition to the first two, only the third. This is the third. I still stand by by words from before. I do acknowledge that there is a possibility for canvassing in that manner if this proposal is not passed, but there are reasons to ask for participation in private venues. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 16:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think there might have been a mis-read, this proposal eliminates the third line from the original proposal. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 16:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it appears so. My mistake. (Also a note that a capital P in the ping template doesn't work for pings for some reason, so I never got the notification.) BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 05:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments

 * To clarify the intent of this proposal, it is that the above line is removed from proposal 2 and not implemented? If so, let's tweak language to make the intent of 2A clear. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 16:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, . Per the reasoning I provided when voting in the original one I do not believe that the above line is needed and as such this proposal is to keep the others but remove that one. --DeeM28 (talk) 10:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much appreciated. See above, the intent is deletion of the 3rd line you oppose, not making it the only line. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 15:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 3: Disclosure of canvassing while Voting
Additionally, Add the following clause at end of prohibition list: Voting on a request without disclosing private attempts to sway your vote (as defined in the above canvassing prohibitions) will result in your vote being struck through and not counted towards final consensus. Depending on severity/frequency, stewards may take additional action in line with related conduct policies.

Rationale: This new clause formalizes outcomes for undisclosed canvassing influence that are currently held as a community best-practice. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 16:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  as proposer. NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 16:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 2)  It's really just common sense. Globe - (Talk • Contributions • CA) 17:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 3)  I support this proposal as long as disclosure does not entail the striking out of such a vote. I am also skeptical of the additional action part of this proposal and would strongly advise that it is only applied if there is clearly demonstrable bad faith. I am also skeptical due to the fact that a user may not be aware of this policy and their vote may be struck out due to their unawareness. --DeeM28 (talk) 11:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Happy to clarify: Disclosure would not lead to strikeout of vote, and discretionary action (already empowered today under conduct policy) has a high standard of proof -- clear demonstration of bad faith as suggested. This only makes clear Stewards' role in handling repeat offenders. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 15:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 1)  Seems necessary and common sense to prevent such behaviour in the first place tbh. |  -- FrozenPlum   19:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) This clause, while being well-intentioned, will cause several problems. For example, what if a user who votes on an RfP has a good reason for not disclosing private canvassing attempts? That user could've been harassed in an attempt to earn their support for that RfP and threatened with harm if they told anyone about it. Practically forcing them to disclose it publicly would put them in unnecessary danger. The alternative would be to not disclose it and have their vote unfairly struck out despite them not having done anything wrong. Some people wouldn't take this well and attempt self-harm or even suicide. What if the very act of disclosing private canvassing attempts violates a legal agreement/disrupts a serious investigation (e.g. having such attempts remain private would be crucial to a hypothetical T&S investigation)? Tali64³ (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand where you are coming from, but this vote is based on a huge if. What you have described will probably not happen, and if it does, it won't happen very often. No policy can be perfect, and I don't think relying on a "Well what if" is a good voting strategy. Globe - (Talk • Contributions • CA) 18:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * While you do have a point that no policy can be perfect, the hypothetical scenario I described in my vote would cause serious reputational damage to Miraheze if it happens and it becomes news. In that case, it's better to play it safe than risk having someone attempt to kill themselves over a vote. Tali64³ (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * While you are correct that it would hurt Miraheze's reputation, I honestly doubt that this would ever happen. You have your opinion, and I have mine. Globe - (Talk • Contributions • CA) 18:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's more likely than you think. Cyberbullying is still rampant despite attempts to squash it. Tali64³ (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The scenario you describe is one that would require immediate steward intervention. Such behavior is extremely toxic, not in keeping with Conduct policy, and has no place on the platform.  An alternative would be disclosure to stewards vs public disclosure, this would also meet the threshold in my mind.  --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 18:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's better to have exceptions described in my oppose above codified, so that there wouldn't be any confusion on what is and isn't allowed under this new clause, which is why I created Proposal 3A. Tali64³ (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The situation described would necessitate Trust and Safety intervention, not even Steward intervention. If such a case occurred, it might be grounds for potential Terms of Use action/a global ban issued by Trust and Safety if threats of harm are being used or if harassment is egregious and leading one to self-harm. If disclosing a vote may disrupt a pending T&S investigation, T&S will privately communicate this to the closing functionary or disclose it once appropriate measures have been taken. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 18:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) There are a wide variety of reasons not to disclose attempts to sway your vote. Firstly, it may have been a good-faith mistake by the user requesting it. If so, disclosing that would be an extremely bad look for that user and has ruined reputations for months and years after. It’s a good practice, sure, but shouldn’t be mandatory. Users are free to do what they wish. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 01:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * To clarify, is this a Amendment 3B passes? --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 05:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 16:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 3A: Exceptions for Certain Circumstances
Due to issues with the current wording of Proposal 3 (as outlined in my oppose), I propose the following alternate wording that would override Proposal 3 if passed:

Voting on a request without disclosing private attempts to sway your vote (defined in the above canvassing prohibitions) where disclosing such attempts would not result in imminent danger to you or anyone else, would not be in violation of any legal agreements, and would not result in serious disruption to any relevant investigation will result in your vote being discounted. Depending on the severity/frequency of such voting, Stewards may take additional action in line with related conduct policies.

Rationale: This proposal adds wording to Proposal 3 that would provide exceptions for threats of harm, legal agreements, and relevant investigations (such as those performed by Trust & Safety).

Support

 * 1) as proposer. Tali64³ (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  Not conceptually opposed to clarifying method of disclosure (e.g. a steward or T&S report vs public) but as written this gives a carve-out that makes such behavior easier to get away with, behavior that realistically needs to become a T&S matter (or, may it never come to pass, a law enforcement matter) as soon as possible irrespective of a particular vote. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 20:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 2)  3B preferred. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 01:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 3)  3B is a better option. Globe - (Talk • Contributions • CA) 12:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Amendment 3B: Clarification of disclosure channels
Add the following clarifying language to proposal 3: Disclosure can take place either publicly on your vote or privately to Stewards (or T&S channels in the case of threats), as needed.

Rationale: Public disclosure is not necessarily a requirement as long as the closing parties are made aware of the canvassing attempt, and as Tali64 rightly points out, there are scenarios where public disclosure may cause more harm than benefit. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 20:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) as proposer NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 20:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) This is a reasonable solution to the issues I mentioned in my oppose to the original proposal, though I'd still like specific exceptions in the policy. Tali64³ (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) This is something I can get behind. Public disclosure is not always necessary, but I have no opposition to Stewards and Trust and Safety. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 01:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 4)  Since Stewards make the final decision in relation to the outcome of the RfC and will consider that in the weighing of the votes this appears to be appropriate. --DeeM28 (talk) 11:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 4: Prohibition on Public Campaigning
Add the following prohibition: Once a request is open for voting, public and explicit asks for votes of support or opposition are prohibited. This prohibition is not venue-specific (e.g. on-wiki vs discord) but should not be read as a prohibition of good-faith debate on the merits of a request in public venues.

Rationale: Current policy doesn't cover things like campaigning for votes to support/oppose a particular policy in either Miraheze-specific discord channels or wiki-specific discords. Additionally, language about good-faith debate has been added to make clear that this prohibition should not be read as a chilling effect against public discussion of a request. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 16:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  as proposer. NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 16:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) . It is just common sense. Globe - (Talk • Contributions • CA) 17:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) The way this is worded isn’t the best due to loopholes, but this is okay enough. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 01:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  I believe that this proposal goes too far for what is necessary. It can certainly be agreed that in private channels such behavior is not appropriate because it is hidden and cannot be scrutinized by the Miraheze community. In public I believe that it is fair for people to express their views and invite people to follow them and support or oppose proposals. As for the chilling effect and good faith drafting it is not very convincing to me as I do not see an example where such public campaigning could be considered "bad faith" and there is a risk that it would be considered bad faith if it supports or opposes an unpopular opinion. As such I am unable to support this proposal but I would be willing to support a more narrow proposal that is more specific about what the initiator considers a "bad faith debate". --DeeM28 (talk) 11:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 4A: Codifying examples of acceptable/prohibited public campaigning
Codify the following examples of acceptable vs unacceptable speech under this prohibition:

Examples of acceptable speech in public channels include: *"I think proposal A is pretty great because of X, Y and Z" (general statement of support) *"I dislike proposal A, I think it's overreaching and I hope folks vote it down" (implicit ask for opposition but within bounds) *"What do you think about amendment B to proposal A? I think it might need some changes but want to get other folks' opinions." (general debate on particulars, not a call to action) * Placing a message on one's talk page asking for participation on a request, e.g. "I'm running for Wiki Creator, please provide your feedback!" (explicit ask for neutral participation)

Examples of prohibited speech include: * "Support (or oppose) Proposal X! Vote here now!" (explicit ask for a vote) *"I dislike proposal A, I think it's overreaching and folks should vote to oppose it now" (explicit ask for opposition) * "You should all support this proposal, otherwise you're going to lose your rights!" (explicit call to action, albeit using less-direct language) * Placing a message on one's personal talk page asking for support or opposition to a request, e.g. "I'm running for Wiki Creator, please add your vote of support to appoint me here!" (explicit ask for partisan support)

Rationale: Per feedback, clear examples were needed to differentiate intended narrow scoping of what could be considered good-faith vs an attempt to change vote outcomes. NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 15:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  as proposer. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 16:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 2)  Thank you NotAracham for providing this clarification as to what constitutes good faith or bad faith. I can weakly support this but must point out that I am not very comfortable with the idea of banning the "explicit ask for opposition" part of. I once again do not see a particular issue with a user expressing their dissatisfaction with a proposal and even asking others to follow them if this is done in a public and transparent manner. The line between the implicit and explicit asks for opposition is quite thin. For example if I hypothetically suggested that people should definitely oppose this proposal because I think it is an overreach that would seem to be caught by this provision. I would strongly recommend that assuming this proposal passes Stewards should be very careful to not overreach (irony is noted) and create a chilling effect where users are afraid to argue their points because they are afraid that it may be too "explicit" and would be removed. Common sense and assuming good faith should be guiding principles for Stewards when enforcing this prospective policy. --DeeM28 (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 3)  I don't see why this needs to be codified, but it's okay. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 05:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 5: Best Practices
Add the following best practices subclause to the canvassing section: Additional Best Practices While not directly prohibited, it is recommended that proposers halt private asks for feedback (e.g. what are your thoughts on proposal x?) at least 24 hours prior to the start of voting to avoid appearances/suggestion of Canvassing. Global notices/reminders for an open request should ideally be placed by an uninvolved User, though this is not a strict requirement as it may not always be practical or possible. If you believe a violation of Canvassing rules has taken place, please reach out to a Steward at your earliest convenience for an assessment.

Rationale: Certain best practices don't merit codifying as outright prohibitions or reporting requirements, but may not always be intuitive to new users and are as such worth mentioning. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 16:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  as proposer. NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 16:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 2)  first sentence is removed. Globe - (Talk • Contributions • CA) 17:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It believe it would benefit us if an explanation could be provided for the conditionality in order for an amendment to be proposed to this proposal if that is felt to be necessary. --DeeM28 (talk) 10:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1) I don’t see why this needs to be codified, but if it were I would have no strict opposition to it. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 01:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 2)  I think this rule is fair and is a good recommendation but I agree with BrandoWM that I do not believe it is necessary for it to be included in the policy explicitly. --DeeM28 (talk) 11:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments

 * I'd like to better understand your problems with the first sentence. Could you elaborate?
 * Sure! I honestly just disagree with the statement. I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to go ask a user to share their thoughts on a discussion after it has started. I find it incorrect and unhelpful. I like the other points though. Globe - (Talk • Contributions • CA) 17:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, the main concern attempting to be addressed there is proposers reaching out to individuals saying things like "I see you oppose part x of this request. What would be needed to get this to be supportable in your view?"  While well-meaning in most cases, that's arguably canvassing if it takes place in private channels shortly before launch. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 18:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)