Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 18


 * Radiant, I take great exception to the note you have appended to the beginning of this discussion. I read the article on canvassing and as far as I can tell I am well within the accepted guidelines: "Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine. Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not. The difference lies in the disruption involved. If what is happening is getting everyone upset then it is a problem. Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article." There was nothing aggressive or disruptive about my messages; no-one has indicated any upset and in fact any individuals I contacted on their user pages had already expressed interest in the issue or are themselves editors who use the category. My messages were neutrally worded and limited to individuals or communities whom I know or could reasonably expect to be interested, as per the guidelines. Further, my notices were hardly "extensive." In fact, I was only doing what the proposer ought to have done the last time this came up: as a courtesy, letting the people who actually use the category know that its fate was being decided. Since such notification did not take place, no, the discussion was not complete. Comparing that discussion to this one should make that clear. And, I would argue, being "useful" in this context is an argument: the category is useful to editors with an interest in the field; it is useful to users who are researching in the field; and it is consistent with categorizations that exist and are widely accepted elsewhere (universities; the Library of Congress; publishing). scribblingwoman 12:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The point is that you specifically contacted only one side of the debate.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * From Canvassing:
 * "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that '[t]he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice. However, excessive cross-posting goes against current Wikipedia community norms. In a broader context, it is unwiki.' Wikipedia editors are therefore not to engage in aggressive cross-posting in order to influence votes, discussions, requests for adminship, requests for comment, etc."


 * "If there are a small handful of editors who share your taste and/or philosophy, it is sometimes acceptable to contact them with regard to a specific issue as long as it does not become disruptive. This is more acceptable if they have made an unsolicited request to be kept informed, and absolutely unacceptable if they have asked you to stop."


 * I maintain I have not overstepped these bounds. scribblingwoman 12:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you must wikilawyer about it - read the paragraph on votestacking, which is very clearly what you have been doing.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we will have to agree to disagree. I maintain I was doing what should have been done in the first place: letting those who actually use the category know it was up for discussion. But I take your point, and the article on canvassing itself maintains there is not complete consensus on this issue. (Re. "wikilawyering" -- an interesting term -- the guidelines are there to read and use, no?) scribblingwoman 13:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * By "wikilawyering" I mean selectively quoting parts of a guideline to make it seem that it agrees with your action, when in fact it does not - just like you've selectively contacted only those people who agree with your point of view. In both cases you're deliberately skewing the issue.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are not addressing my points, points made in honest good faith. You are just accusing me. Re. wikilawyering: I seem to be finding an awful lot of various guidelines that agree with my actions ... scribblingwoman 13:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)