Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Firefox version history (2nd nomination)

There's no reason for this article to be deleted[edit]

A history of Firefox versions is important for archival purposes. It isn't an exhaustive list of patch or update notes. What is the reasoning? 2601:249:8B00:4EA0:262C:693F:5E9C:B477 (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected canvassing[edit]

@JoelleJay tagged a number of comments citing a "concern" about editors being canvassed. Is there any evidence to support this claim? If there isn't, this seems disruptive. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoasif, Popeter45, Klausness, Moongrimer, LinuxPower, SnickeringBear, and Bb010g: Courtesy ping of tagged editors: can any of you state if you were invited here by another editor, on a different site, or in some other way were solicited to !vote here? —Locke Cole • t • c 01:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did see this brought up on Reddit, and left one comment on that thread. I've occasionally edited over time, read through discussions on this article's content on Wikipedia & the relevant policy documentation, and then proceeded to vote according to my own assessment of the situation. I was made aware of this nomination externally and read & considered external discussion about this nomination, including some calls to vote that I would count as canvassing, but I decided to act independently of that canvassing, took care to respect Wikipedia's policies & expectations for editors, and believe that my activity here does not count as canvassed. I was notified but did not let that notification influence my actions in a specific way. bb010g (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found the link on Reddit but no not asked to comment Popeter45 (talk) 06:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@joellejay may I ask you remove your tag of me Popeter45 (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You admitted you were canvassed here (you don't have to be personally asked to participate for it to be considered canvassing), and this was also echoed in the closure of the SPI report (This is fairly clearly the result of off wiki canvassing). JoelleJay (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no i was not canvassed here, i have stated this many time but seems you dont want to accept that as i argue for a opposite viewpoint to you and you are now resorting to dirty tactics to discredit me Popeter45 (talk) 17:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you arrived here after seeing that post on reddit, you were canvassed. JoelleJay (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

by that logic i could say you were canvassed after seeing this in AfD listings, just because you saw a listing to a AfD doesnt make you canvassed, should i tag you as canvassed? Popeter45 (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner.
* Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement). Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage, much as a form of prearranged vote stacking.
* Stealth canvassing: Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail or IRC, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages)
*Soliciting support other than by posting direct messages, such as using a custom signature with a message promoting a specific position on any issue being discussed.

The reddit post you followed managed to hit all of these. JoelleJay (talk) 02:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the deletion note on iOS version history (I regularly visit that page) and noticed that other pages were marked for deletion too. LinuxPower (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll vouch for LinuxPower's good faith, having worked with them on the iOS version history article late last year. The canvassed tag was inappropriate (also, shouldn't those tags be signed? Anyone can put an ad-hominem next to others' comments, and not take credit for it?) DFlhb (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the signature of the editor. @JoelleJay: The Template:Not a ballot at the top of the discussion and the Reddit link does more than enough to notify the closing admin that there may be canvassing. Closing admins are familiar with how canvassing works, give them more credit than that. Template:Canvassed is useful for specific instances where one or two editors may have been canvassed and there is evidence for it but it's made largely redundant with Template:Not a ballot and it's not for tagging everyone you think may have possibly been canvassed, seemingly at random. If you're going to make accusations about specific editors, at least sign your name to those accusations. - Aoidh (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not sure how you came to the conclusions that you did regarding who you suspected of canvassing. A quick glance at User:LinuxPower's contribs would have immediately shown that this article is right in their area of interest, so it's more than reasonable that they were not canvassed and came here organically, especially when they have edited this page months before this AfD. A look at User:Yoasif's user page make it obvious why they would have seen this discussion as well, so what was the evidence that suggests that these two editors in particular were canvassed? It's one thing to add the ballot template and let editors/closing admins know that there is general canvassing going on, it's quite another to specifically point out and accuse specific editors. My advice would be to either provide evidence or to strike those comments. - Aoidh (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to LinuxPower, that tag was accidental.

I followed the precedent from the SPA tag in the same thread, which didn't have a sig.

The editors I tagged, apart from LP, had zero recent edits and/or were considered canvassed at SPI and/or there was other off-wiki evidence they arrived here through canvassing. The canvassing notice at the top states comments may be tagged as canvassed, and there is no indication at CANVASSING or CONSENSUS that it is inappropriate to use this tag. JoelleJay (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is inappropriate to use this tag when you're getting it wrong and without evidence. I suggest you strike that accusation against LinuxPower and leave the canvassing concerns to the closer; they have the same evidence you have and can weigh the canvassed comments appropriately without risking wading into WP:ASPERSIONS territory with comments against specific editors. - Aoidh (talk) 23:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay, I did see a discussion on Reddit about supposedly controversial edits on the page that were made prior to the AfD. Since this is a page that I had previously found useful myself, I decided to have a look at the edits (which, by the way, I found justified, even though they were immediately reverted). After looking at the edits and the Talk page, I went back to the article itself, which I then saw had just been marked for deletion (perhaps by someone who disagreed with the revert of the previous edits). Note that I first looked at the edits before the AfD. I could not possibly have been canvassed to contribute to an AfD discussion that had not even been started yet. I did have an opinion on the AfD once I saw it, so I contributed. 20:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Klausness (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]