3 ms·

I found the thread hard to parse.[0]. Can you explain the reason? from a brief skim he is promoting some project he wants to start in wikipedia from outside wi

I found the thread hard to parse.[0]. Can you explain the reason? from a brief skim he is promoting some project he wants to start in wikipedia from outside wikipedia, is that it or did I misunderstand? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Possible_off-wiki_canvassing_by_User:Larry_Sanger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noti...

n_e 3mo ago
> There is general agreement among participants that he has engaged in off-wiki canvassing and is not here to constructively build the encyclopedia. There is also a significant concern shared by many editors that his actions constitute calls for outing.
jasonlotito 3mo ago
Simple. He broke this rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing This is fairly straightforward, with the result (blocked from editing) mentioned clearly. It doesn't matter the topic. Being a cofounder is immaterial.
- moralestapia 3mo ago
  The link you provided does not describe what would be usually be thought of as a "rule". Consider updating your comment to make more sense wrt. that.
  - echoangle 3mo ago
    The rule is: If there is a decision to be made on Wikipedia, the decision is made by reaching a consensus among Wikipedia users using discussions. You’re not allowed to bring in other people that might share your view but that might not even be Wikipedia users and have them argue your position for you. You’re not even allowed to selectively advertise the discussion among Wikipedia users to bias the discussion.
    - moralestapia 3mo ago
      Sorry but that text is contained nowhere in the link that was provided neither are you the person I replied to. What is this supposed to mean?
      - kayxspre 3mo ago
        Wikipedia has a series of interconnected policies and guidelines, and sometimes you cannot simply make a conclusion on that page alone. The Canvassing page is a behavioral guideline that was linked to/from "Consensus" [1] (which I personally believe to be a very ironclad rule, whether positively or not), and "Consensus" is a Conduct Policy. Policy has a higher precedence as it was generally and mostly recognized and acknowledged by its members. That summary you are replying to is not a verbatim text of the guidelines (since there is none), but an interpretation of the page "Canvassing" itself. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus
  - jasonlotito 3mo ago
    > The link you provided does not describe what would be usually be thought of as a "rule". Yes, it does. > Consider updating your comment to make more sense wrt. that. It makes perfect sense to reasonable people.

n_e 3mo ago

> There is general agreement among participants that he has engaged in off-wiki canvassing and is not here to constructively build the encyclopedia. There is also a significant concern shared by many editors that his actions constitute calls for outing.

jasonlotito 3mo ago

Simple. He broke this rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing This is fairly straightforward, with the result (blocked from editing) mentioned clearly. It doesn't matter the topic. Being a cofounder is immaterial.

moralestapia 3mo ago
The link you provided does not describe what would be usually be thought of as a "rule". Consider updating your comment to make more sense wrt. that.
- echoangle 3mo ago
  The rule is: If there is a decision to be made on Wikipedia, the decision is made by reaching a consensus among Wikipedia users using discussions. You’re not allowed to bring in other people that might share your view but that might not even be Wikipedia users and have them argue your position for you. You’re not even allowed to selectively advertise the discussion among Wikipedia users to bias the discussion.
  - moralestapia 3mo ago
    Sorry but that text is contained nowhere in the link that was provided neither are you the person I replied to. What is this supposed to mean?
    - kayxspre 3mo ago
      Wikipedia has a series of interconnected policies and guidelines, and sometimes you cannot simply make a conclusion on that page alone. The Canvassing page is a behavioral guideline that was linked to/from "Consensus" [1] (which I personally believe to be a very ironclad rule, whether positively or not), and "Consensus" is a Conduct Policy. Policy has a higher precedence as it was generally and mostly recognized and acknowledged by its members. That summary you are replying to is not a verbatim text of the guidelines (since there is none), but an interpretation of the page "Canvassing" itself. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus
- jasonlotito 3mo ago
  > The link you provided does not describe what would be usually be thought of as a "rule". Yes, it does. > Consider updating your comment to make more sense wrt. that. It makes perfect sense to reasonable people.