Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Administrative action review

Canvassing tag
Does this page require a canvassing tag? I request an uninvolved editor to decide. Jehochman Talk 18:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The canvassing notice was placed originally by, then reverted by myself (diff), restored by . This tag should indicate a credible canvassing concern, and can have serious ramifications at the time of closing. Instead of such a concern, the notice was placed in response to my pinging the RfC participants. That isn't canvassing as I pinged all of the participants, regardless of their !votes. I expressly invoked WP:APPNOTE which is typical to cite in this situation, and the situation itself is pretty normal, like when participants are pinged from a past AfD to the present one. It simply isn't appropriate to connect a canvassing concern to what I did. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You are canvassing as you are clearly intent on bringing in a group of editors who have a predisposition to support this board. If you want their feedback on whether the monstrosity you created is what you asked for then ping them to the talk page of the monstrosity. I’m happy since your pings did not work to remove the tag if you stop trying to ping. Spartaz Humbug! 18:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I obviously can't decide whether the tag should remain or not as I'm clearly involved, but this would seem to fall under Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics). DRV's add a note on AfDs (which are usually watchlisted by all participants) and by their nature, their numbers are usually imbalanced one way or another Nosebagbear (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Since the canvassing was repeated anyway I’m withdrawing my offer to remove the tag. Let the closing admin decide if its appropriate. Spartaz Humbug! 18:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't intend to !vote on this discussion but maybe this this makes me involved. Anyway, says that placing messages on the talk pages of Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics) is acceptable. It says further that The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it.. See also WP:VOTESTACK: Posting an appropriate notice on users' talk pages in order to inform editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be appropriate under certain circumstances. Since no one is alleging that  has only pinged users who were inclined to vote in a certain way to this discussion (i.e. keep or delete) and has pinged all the participants to the previous RfC, I don't think that there's a breach of WP:CANVASS here.  JBchrch   talk  19:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, this very new page has nearly 150 watchers, which means it's being very closely watched. Pinging a hundred people, most of whom likely have this page on their watch already, isn't really necessary unless it becomes obvious that a discussion is being overlooked. There's nothing wrong with pinging everyone from the previous RfC, but this discussion was listed at AN, and the page again has plenty of watchers, so it wasn't really necessary and probably contributed to the WWIII atmosphere, so it may not have been helpful, which is also important. Just because something is allowed doesn't necessarily mean it's a great idea. If it's actually a good idea, someone with multiple years of experience and tens of thousands of edits will think of it. Guaranteed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by valereee (talk • contribs)
 * If it's actually a good idea, someone with multiple years of experience and tens of thousands of edits will think of it. Guaranteed. Strongly disagree with this general approach. JBchrch   talk  21:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Clarifying: overenthusiastic clerking by inexperienced editors is seldom helpful. Not never. Seldom. —valereee (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This I can agree with! JBchrch   talk  22:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)