Wikipedia talk:Canvassing/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Origins of this guideline

This guideline was originally part of Wikipedia:Spam. For discussion about splitting it off, see Wikipedia talk:Spam#WP:CANVASS -- John Broughton | Talk 02:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

External poll

On german wikipdia user:Karen thomä is doing a poll among the 500 most active users for her thesis in communication science (university Dresden) [1]. Therefore she asked e.g. all these 500 users on their discussion to help. She registered new and only did a few edits in namespace (because wikipedians asked her to). Would such behavior be canvassig on english wikipedia? -- 172.177.110.155 08:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This would fall under the WP:SPAM guideline - this is spamming to get participants for a poll, not to directly influence an on-wiki discussion. In the past, this kind of thing has also been controversial, as it is an annoyance and "taking advantage" of Wikipedia even though it is not for commercial purposes. There's one exception I know of where it was specifically OK'ed by the Wikimedia Foundation beforehand so that incident fizzled (IIRC). But in general it's not OK. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-31 08:48Z

Changes

I've made a number of changes and introduced some new text, please comment. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-31 08:45Z

Some of the changes I made:

• I replaced the "Alternatives" section about adding wikilinks to articles because it didn't really apply to canvassing. I can see how it would appl to non-canvassing internal talkpage spamming but I don't think that has been a problem at all, anyway it can stay at WP:SPAM. I have rewritten the alternatives in terms of how to get wider discussion without targeting individual editors
• I integrated the "friendly notice" section into guidelines, avoiding saying "it's okay to canvass in some situations" but without really explaining anything.
• I added sections on "if you have canvassed", "if others have canvassed"
• "Editors may be blocked by administrators if they continue canvassing after being warned" - this wasn't there before but I believe consensus supports it.
• Re-factored —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-31 09:23Z
  • I would recommend making the guideline descriptive rather than prescriptive. So "Editors have been blocked by administrators" reflects the history of responses to canvassing rather than telling admins what to do. The case-by-case decisionmaking on repeat canvassing should still occur at WP:ANI. ~ trialsanderrors 23:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I can see how descriptive rather than prescriptive guidelines are less controversial, but isn't there enough support for a prescriptive one? With multiple ArbCom rulings and such. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 22:05Z
      • Yeah but if the ArbCom rules on something we can just link to their ruling and let it stand as status quo on the issue. ~ trialsanderrors 06:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"Friendly notice" section

I don't really like the "Friendly notice" section, because it seems to be saying "it's okay to canvass in some situations" but not really explaining anything. Thoughts on removing or improving it? —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-31 08:52Z

I might have to dig into the WP:SPAM archives for this, but I seem to remember it states that you can ask editors who are experts in a topic for an expert opinion. On the last version I agree, it was uninformative:

"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."

~ trialsanderrors 09:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Internal spamming

Re your comment at WT:SPAM#WP:CANVAS, I think WP:SPAM should solely deal with commercial interests, so "internal spamming" should be listed here even though it shares a name with external spamming. Unsolicited broadcasting of your efforts is frowned upon, while narrowcasting (sending it to a few editors with whom you share a collaborative relationship) might be acceptable. It is always to ask in advance if it is acceptable, and ongoing narrowcasts should be replaced with a Wikiproject. ~ trialsanderrors 09:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Concerns

This page seems to entirely change the positive view, and clear guidelines about canvassing. At the very least, I think we should remove the "guideline" template from the top, since it's such a dramatic change. - jc37 10:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean with "positive view", but I changed the tag. ~ trialsanderrors 11:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Jc37 - it would be extremely helpful if you could point out where this policy is "dramatically different" from established policy at WP:SPAM. The intent here certainly is NOT to chart a new direction, but rather to split an existing guideline in two and clean it up a bit. As such, the "new" guideline should NOT have "dramatic" differences; I'm sure any such introduced are mistakes. Again, specifics, PLEASE. John Broughton | Talk 21:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

First, my great apologies for not being clearer. (Your request for clarification is one that I often request as well... sigh - I'll chalk it up to lack of sleep : ) - When responding, my main concern was that this was an attempt to change direction, which made the "guideline" tag seem at least a bit premature.

As for what I mean(t), there is a tonality to this page that seems to differ from that at WP:SPAM, and several things listed there would seem to have been changed here. When I return later I'll see about doing a more detailed comparison of the two. - jc37 21:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this still forthcoming? ~ trialsanderrors 19:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for reminding me : ) - It gets to be so easy to be distracted by so much on Wikipedia : ) - I'll finish checking my watchlist, and then this will be my first priority today : ) - jc37 20:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Responding below. - jc37 13:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Votestacking vs. campaigning

I did a bit of moving around and copyediting, but I'm not all sure what the difference is. Votestacking = soliciting votes for XfD, campaigning = soliciting votes for RFA? We might be able to merge those two sections into one, or we should clarify the difference. ~ trialsanderrors 22:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I would say the words mostly mean the same thing with a very subtle difference: votestacking is an event, i.e. what has happened when a debate has been (successfully) biased, and campaigning is an action, i.e. the act of the perpetrator trying (possibly succeeding) to effect votestacking. I've merged the two sections. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 00:23Z

Off-Wiki canvassing

There seems to be no mention of off-Wiki canvassing. This could be done by e-mail (virtually undetectable, of course) or on another Wiki or forum.--Runcorn 22:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

There's already this statement: Canvassing also includes the use of a custom signature to automatically append some promotional message to every signed post, or other means such as through e-mail. Is there some way to word it better? We could add in the "Admin involvement" section: Note that although canvassing in external fora may not be directly blockable by Wikipedia administrators, the effects are easily be detected and the user blocked on Wikipedia. Or is that too BEANSy? —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 00:23Z

I would add that external canvassing towards people not already established editors becomes a meatpuppet exercise, something also covered by WP:SOCK. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 00:25Z

Yes, I missed the ref to other means. I would be very unhappy about blocking anyone for off-Wikipedia activity.--Runcorn 18:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the "e-mail" refers to Wikipedia-linked email, per Wikipedia:Emailing users. Using that feature to canvass IS something that users should be subject to blocking for. But otherwise, no, things like F2F and IRC and private emailing shouldn't be covered by this policy, and perhaps the best way to deal with them is to so state. John Broughton | Talk 22:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, whether off-wiki actions can have on-wiki repercussions is a current controversy so I would just leave it ambiguous for now. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 22:20Z

The issue of off-wiki canvassing needs to be further adressed.—Gaff ^ταλκ 02:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Extent

How does this proposed policy apply to activities not involving deletion or adminship, such as requests for article peer reviews (i.e. [2]), proposed WikiProjects, proposed awards/barnstars (i.e. [3]), and Good/Featured article candidates? As an example, would posting a message on WikiProject Cetaceans regarding an ongoing FAC discussion about an article on a species of whale be prohibited? (i.e. [4])

WikiProjects usually do their own monitoring and listing of AfD debates at least has (tacit?) community approval. The standard is to add a short notice to the debate like This debate has been added to WikiProject Cetaceans deletion sorting. Maybe this should be made explicit. I don't think FAC debates are treated differently. ~ trialsanderrors 06:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A distinction might lay in the opinion solicitor bringing a message to solicitee's (?) location vs. the solicitee going to a message posted at a community location. -- Jreferee 05:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Multiposting

Thanks to Radiant! for picking this up. I guess no one here has heard of this before. I flipped the arrows though since it looks like no one else has either, and even though the intent seems to be similar Multiposting doesn't seem to have the community input to call itself a guideline. ~ trialsanderrors 18:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow - I've been building an index to Wikipedia for several months now, and never came across that one - perhaps because it had, prior to today, a total of six incoming wikilinks, five of which were from user or talk space. Anyway, a suggestion - the "Forum shopping" section in this guideline never fit in well at all, in my opinion - one doesn't think of that when thinking of spam or canvassing. I suggest merging that section OUT of this guideline and into the "Multiposting" guideline, and keeping the two separate. And adding a few links - in this policy and elsewhere - to that semi-orphaned guideline so that it's not almost totally invisible. John Broughton | Talk 22:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think WP:MULTI (if that's the supposed shortcut) says anything more than WP:CANVAS does in one sentence: "Internal spamming Multiposting is advertising one's editorial efforts to a large number of editors without intent to influence a debate. It is often considered annoying by the recipients and also discouraged. Editors with whom you share a collaborative relationship on the other hand might like to hear about your work. If in doubt, you should ask beforehand." And to avoid what WP:MULTI warns against, too many forums for similar ideas I tink we can just change "Internal spamming" to "multiposting" and redirect it here. ~ trialsanderrors 02:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There are really two separate concepts here: (1) I'm doing this neat thing, would you like to comment/join - more information is at [location]?, compared to (2) I have this problem, and here are all the details - can you help? For the first, internal spamming is the best label, in my opinion. For the second, forum shopping is probably the best label, because "multiposting" could be taken as covering the first category as well.

Not only are the types of postings different, but the solutions to the problem are different: for the first, just delete the internal spam; for the second, pick the best central location, move any comments at other locations into that central location; and leave a note at the other locations about where the central location is. And the volume of posts is different too: forum shopping exists even if a request for action is posted only in two places, while the threshold for what is "internal spamming" is certainly much more than two postings. John Broughton | Talk 13:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

On re-reading WP:MULTI I agree. They should stay as separate concepts. Whether they should stay on separate pages is another question. I think there is enough similarity to discuss them in context. ~ trialsanderrors 21:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome Canvassing

I dont mind being canvassed, and don't really understand why it is bad form, and it may be appropriate to have a "Welcomes Canvassing" userbox.Belbo Casaubon 18:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you mean that you don't mind being multiposted. Canvassing is the attempt to influence debates by rallying likeminded editors, and it is bad form no matter if you're complicit in it or not. ~ trialsanderrors 22:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe what I am saying is that if a debate is worth having then it is worth including as many interested parties as possible, and I don't mind being invited, it expands the mind and encourages participation.Belbo Casaubon 23:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case you should sign up to WikiProjects that monitor deletion debates (an help with the monitoring yourself). ~ trialsanderrors 23:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind being canvassed either. I'm a mature adult, and I really think I should be able to make up my own mind without the self-appointed minders who cite this proposed policy censoring my talk page, despite my posting a notice there explicitly asking them not to. It seems to me that in terms of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines I have every right to receive these messages, and their removal is therefore vandalism. And that's in terms of existing guidelines, not this proposal for which I hope no consensus is likely. Andrewa 11:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPAM#Canvassing is an existing guideline and covers the same issues. This article was solely created for convenience. ~ trialsanderrors 19:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Further, it doesn't matter if 20% or 50% or even 100% of users don't mind being solicited for their opinions or comments. The issue is whether such solicitation improves the outcomes of discussion about candidates, deleting articles, etc. It is the consensus of those here at Wikipedia that in fact canvassing makes such processes worse. Canvassing encourages cliques, log-rolling, treating discussions like votes, partisanship, and a host of other ills (yes, I exaggerate, but still ... ) that run counter to building a good encyclopedia. Whether some people are annoyed by it is irrelvant. Personally, I find it flattering to be asked to get involved, as long as the volume of such requests is small and targeted. So what? John Broughton | Talk 20:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with some of this, but I must point out that there is no consensus to adopt this particular guideline, and I think you'd find consensus lacking for some of the other points you make here too. Andrewa 23:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, WP:SPAM#Canvassing is an existing guideline, and it does not say quite the same things. So, when someone chooses to cite this proposed guideline instead... well, they shouldn't. If they want to cite both, that's fine. Andrewa 23:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hard to say if that actually makes a difference without looking at the case. Might've been been an editor who saw the note that this is being spun out but didn't notice we trying to edit the content. No matter the actual language, in spirit they should be the same. ~ trialsanderrors 02:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that it makes a lot of difference. WP:SPAM#Canvassing is a guideline. This is a proposal. The guideline is citable as such, and justifies for example blocking persistent offenders. This is not and does not. Perhaps it will become a guideline, or even a policy, I'd like that actually, if the problems with the current version can be solved. But I don't hold out a lot of hope of that, frankly. The issues are very tricky IMO, and what is more serious, some of those involved in the debate seem to underestimate just how tricky. Andrewa 03:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This is just useless wikilawyering. ~ trialsanderrors 05:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. Suggest you reread WP:ATTACK. I assume you're familiar with Wikipedia:WikiLawyering. Andrewa 02:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm talking about WP:WL #3. And WP:ATTACK still says "Remarks describing an editor's actions and made without involving their personal character should not be construed as personal attacks." ~ trialsanderrors 21:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing does not restrict people from receiving message, it restricts others from posting certain messages. Different behaviors need to be addressed separately, otherwise we would end up with a big, jumbo mess. -- Jreferee 06:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing (the word)

Ok, there seems to be a misunderstanding of what the verb "to canvass" means. This page presumes that it's equivilant to "votestacking", ie that when canvassing, one is only going after opinions that match the certain outcome. That's not true (see Canvassing, for example). Canvassing is not dissimilar to polling. The idea is to get other people involved in the discussion.

Canvassing is a "tool", and as such can be used positively, or in ways which someone may not see as positive. Some examples listed at WP:SPAM are/were: "friendly notice", "campaigning", "and "votestacking". Essentially, canvassing to those interested in the topic is fine. Canvassing to those interested in a topic, with the intent to votestack, or some form of POV-push is not-so-fine.

I'm concerned that in re-writing the sections from WP:SPAM, the "just fine" aspect of canvassing is being/has been written out, even to the point of mis-defining the word canvassing itself.

I started to edit the page to re-integrate the sections from WP:SPAM, but I think I would like some discussion about this first. - jc37 13:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't notice the "friendly notice" section disappeared. I agree it should go back in. The "Problems with canvassing" section seems to get the definition right, but the intro paragraph adds the "further one's side" element, so that should be corrected too. I think it was ok to merge the campaiging and votestacking sections, or do you see a reason to keep them separate? ~ trialsanderrors 21:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Accepted	↔	Not accepted
Limited posting	↔	Mass posting
AND		OR
Neutral in tone	↔	POV pushing/soliciting
AND		OR
Bipartisan	↔	Partisan

Is this a fair representation of the current accepted norms? ~ trialsanderrors 22:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a good start. The problem is, who decides what is partisan? Who decides what is limited posting?

Feel free to have a look at the alleged spam removals I've reverted on my talk page. Just look for any revert by me in my talk page history.

I do not understand how anyone can claim that these are damaging to Wikipedia, especially when I have explicitly invited them. On the other hand, a proposed guideline that authorises uncontrolled and unwanted reverting of my talk page is a bit scary. Andrewa 03:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, who decides what is partisan? Who decides what is limited posting?

Community consensus, the ArbCom, our conflict resolution mechanisms.

Just look for any revert by me in my talk page history.

Diffs? ~ trialsanderrors 05:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No, community consensus will not be part of the process if this guideline is adopted. The consensus will be to adopt it; Then it will be up to individuals to interpret it. And my feeling is that as it stands it would end up losing us a lot of editors, because for every one who takes it to dispute resolution, many others will just leave.

All I'm asking is that you leave messages left for me on my talk page alone. Is that unreasonable? Do you really think I'm the only one who would like this?

I'll post the diffs when I get a moment. They aren't hard to find. Andrewa 05:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Lst time I checked I never posted or removed anything on your talk page. You're not exactly making sense here. It's also not a question of whether "this guideline will be adopted". The guideline on canvassing is already adopted and has been for a long time, it's just that as of now it's located at WP:SPAM#Canvassing. The branching out and editing has no policyshifting objective, but simply to separate two very different activities (external spamming and internal canvassing) and explain them on different pages. Further edits simply had the goal to clarify the terminology, and Jc37 had reasonable objections to the edits, so we reset it to a proposal. If we revert to the original version, it automatically turns into a guideline as a copy of the text in WP:SPAM#Canvassing. ~ trialsanderrors 06:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have never said that any changes to my talk page were made by you.

Just to clarify, when I say if this guideline is adopted, I mean Wikipedia:Canvassing, of which this is the talk page. As to whether there is a policy shift objective, that is irrelevant, the point is that there appears to me to be a policy shift consequence. And it's a bad one. Andrewa 09:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly not my intention to create a policy shift, simply to clarify the terms and include related content on the same page. (Not speaking for others here, but I doubt a policy shift has consensus.) And I still haven't seen anything from you that says "This wouldn't have happened under WP:SPAM but now it's done under WP:CANVASS. ~ trialsanderrors 21:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I reverted the table above to my original edit. Andrewa's John Broughton's change was

Not limited to expected supporters

↔

Targeted to expected supporters

instead of partisan↔bipartisan. I don't disagree with the new wording (actually I do, but that's another issue), but I would prefer that my comments remain intact. ~ trialsanderrors 07:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That change was not made by me. Andrewa 09:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I apologize and corrected the comment. ~ trialsanderrors 19:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No probs. Thanks for using strikeout to preserve the threads. Andrewa 02:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Responding to the initial commenta at the top of this thread:

• I like the comparison table above. Though we should make clear that the dividing line between each side of the table is rather subjective.
• I don't think that there's a problem with merging campaigning and votestacking, though maybe "campaigning" could even be seen as a neutral term? Votestacking would seem to be the widespread term for the negative action, the problem, of course is the debate over Voting is evil/Voting is good, which this could be seen as becoming a part of by using the word "vote". Maybe we should discuss what would be a "good" term for negative canvassing? - jc37 14:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think the term you're looking for is push-polling. ~ trialsanderrors 19:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

There is also a difference in effects. Canvassing with a partisan message or canvassing a partisan crowd creates a negative externality on the community (as discussed by John Broughton above), so editors cannot "opt out". Bipartisan canvassing of uninvolved editors doesn't automatically create an externality, but it annoys many editors, so editors can potentially opt out and declare that they're open to solicitation. This seems to be Andrewa's main issue. Technically we could creatwe a userbox & category & template to "neutralize" this:

+This user likes getting friendly notices.

• Userbox "This user likes to be informed about ongoing debates."
• Category Category:Wikipedians open for canvassing
• Template {{opinionrequested}}
  • "Hello: Your opinion on Article is requested. ~~~~"

My hunch is that this will die out because people will eventually get annoyed with being canvassed, but it seems that would be an acceptable form of canvassing. ~ trialsanderrors 19:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the above is a great idea : ) - jc37 22:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Likewise. And presumably, people who disregarded this template and removed legitimate messages would be liable for sanctions such as blocks, desysopping, and the like, which alleged canvassers already suffer. The rules cut both ways. Andrewa 03:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have grave doubts that you can find consensus for that unless there is strong evidence for bad faith. ~ trialsanderrors 09:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Canvassing/Friendly ← userbox. ~ trialsanderrors 00:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Intro/friendly reminder

I removed the intro paragraph and restored the friendly reminder section, as it seem those two changes don't have consensus. ~ trialsanderrors 06:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, in looking over the page...

Since Votestacking has been merged with Campaigning...

Perhaps this page should be renamed "Wikipedia:Campaigning". Since nearly the entire page has to do with that.

This would give us the "best of both worlds". WP:SPAM links would still be accurate when dealing with all sorts of multiposts/campaigning/friendly notices, and yet the bulk of the "Campaigning" information can be split to this article.

What do you think? - jc37 14:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hm, based on my thoughts in the above thread, maybe we should figure out a "better" term for negative canvassing (and by corollary this page). - jc37 14:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep all advice on internal solicitation on one page, that was the reason for the spin-off in the first place. Spamming and solicitation are very unrelated activities, while soliciting, campaining and multiposting are related. So editors want to find out in one place where they differ and what is acceptable. ~ trialsanderrors 18:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok. That said, then, I think that maybe we should refactor the page into acceptable/unacceptable sections, to make the dividing lines clearer. Also, take a look at the section "Dealing with canvassing". It still has the sense that all canvassing is evil. - jc37 22:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

We can always revert to the version at WP:SPAM if this one is controversial. I have pretty much no opinion on that part. On refactoring, I agree, that's why I'm trying to organize the concepts into the table. ~ trialsanderrors 00:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

(undent) "Campaigning" is definitely a better term (IMHO); it even can be seen as stretching far enough to include forum shopping (as in, campaigning for a friendly admin). WP:SPAM can then include posts on user talk pages that are intended for commercial, religious, or similar purposes (which is what people think of as "spam"), while "campaigning" has to do with trying to get other editors to do something within Wikipedia. John Broughton | Talk 20:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

In the table further down I've defined campaigning as canvassing with a partisan message, e.g. "Go here and vote Keep". So it would be a subset of canvassing. ~ trialsanderrors 22:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

CfD canvassing

Just by happenstance I was canvassed last night via e-mail to participate in a CfD discussion. I invited the interested editors to discuss this here. My comments about the solicitation:

1. The invitation was neutral in tone and in my opinion the intent was to diversify the group of commenters, not to push a POV. So this was above board. Sometimes discussions suffer because they only attract a partisan crowd due to subject matter.
2. The solicitation wasn't announced in the discussion (or I didn't see an announcement). That's the first problem.
3. The solicitation came by email. That's two problems in one: 1. I mostly don't like getting emails on Wikipedia matters, that's what my talk page is for; and 2. Using email gives this solicitation an air of surreptitiousness.

I think most of the problems can be solved with my proposal above. 1. Stick to transparent means of soliciting. 2. Announce your efforts during the discussion. 3. Solicit opinions only from editors who asked for it. ~ trialsanderrors 19:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll probably ruffle a few feathers here but I think CFD's are often under-advertised. Its the nature of category pages that very few editors contribute to the page and so don't have them on their watchlists, but many editors use them. Theres been a few cases where the first I've seen of a CFD debate is after the event when an admin deletes a category from an article I've been watching. CFD tend to be a small select group of editors who watch it frequently, and I guess most other editors don't have the time to regually watch it. Say take Category:Wikipedian martial artists, which is up for merging, this has not been publicised anwhere that I can see, yet it effects 45 users, most of whome are probably unaware of the change. This is itself is probably an uncontriversal discussion but there have been similar more contensious ones which can slip under the radar. --Salix alba (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Many things are underadvertised. My most recent blunder as an admin (I do make them) was not to inform the relevant Wikiproject before doing an uncontested but listed move. I just assumed they were watching, and apparently they weren't.

The existing guideline is not perfect by any means, IMO it's already too stringent. One of the people who canvassed me recently was blocked for 48 hours for doing it, despite the fact that none of the "victims" of this canvassing complained, and the reason given for the block was a proposed guideline. What a way to treat a newbie!

But on the other hand, the canvassing was successful, in that the decision went the way the canvasser wanted, and was quite close so it was probably affected. How do we correct that, if correction is needed? Canvas people on the other side?

Next time, I guess this user (if they remain one) will contact me by email instead. What has that gained Wikipedia? The mind boggles.

The spirit of Wiki is openness, lack of censorship, minimal control. This will undoubtedly be challenged as Wikipedia grows, we'll experiment with tighter control. This proposal is part of that. Some of these experiments have already been successful. But IMO this one is just instruction creep, and of course that compounds the problem of getting meaningful participation from the community as a whole. We'll see. Hang in there! Andrewa 00:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You have no obligation whatsoever to inform a WikiProject. I don't know who told you that, but WikiProjects have no status that gives them right to be informed. If they want to be informed they can organize the monitoring among members. The idea that it is other editors' obligation to keep a WikiProject they have no connection to abreast is ridiculous on its face. We have gazillions of WikiProjects and 80% are moribund. Oh and campaigning for a deletion debate is unacceptable under WP:SPAM#Canvassing too. ~ trialsanderrors 00:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite so, see my response at Talk:ECW World Championship#Proposed move reversal. But IMO goodwill is far more important than the rules are in making Wikipedia work. Goodwill will overcome the faults in the rules, but regardless of how good the rules are they won't overcome a lack of goodwill.

I don't think that the result would have been changed if the Wikiproject had been informed, and even if it had been changed I don't think Wikipedia would be any better for that. It's one of my principles that if consensus can't be reached, then it doesn't really matter which way the decision goes. This is a bit radical perhaps, but I can't see how else it can work, and it does. Wikipedia is proof that it does.

But, if I'd informed the Wikiproject, I think we'd have reached a more comfortable decision, and Wikipedia would have been better for that. My blunder was not an obligation unfulfilled, there was no obligation as you rightly say. But it was an opportunity missed. Andrewa 01:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that. You would've bought into the "Who moved my cheese" mindset that seems to prevail in the Project, and that never improves an organization. We provide reasonable mechanisms to keep those who care informed, but we're not there to drag people to the trough by their noserings. ~ trialsanderrors 02:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

ISTM that I bought into that anyway, and that's part of the essential romance (;-> of WP:RM. It's an interesting Wikiproject, who would have thought that an entire industry of self-confessed fakers would attract such a following? But the job of a sysop isn't to make such judgements, fortunately. Not sure about the noserings, neither the wrestlers nor the fans seem the types to wear them. I could be wrong. Andrewa 03:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• The key to the issue that User:Trialsanderrors raised is, I think, the transparency; I think that's best accomplished by placing a discreet notice on the AFD/CFD/whatever about solicitations. It could even be a small template: {{solicitations to:|x}} where x is "User/reason/by User:" / "Project/reason/by User:". Then anybody can add in their own list of solicitations. ... However, I think that it should be framed positively, as in "Transparency about soliciations is good form; here's a template to facilitate." with no adverse consequences. Sometimes people are a bit quick off the trigger to assume bad faith w/r/t failure to adhere to the increasingly arcane practices of the wikipedia community.

Second - Specifying method of solicitation doesn't seem helpful, because there are probably users who prefer email or whatever. And it can't be enforced. And it's artificial IMO. Best to just leave it to out.

--lquilter 19:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this guideline should be about enforcement in the first place. It should be the first port of call for users who think they need to draw attention to a discussion that suffers from lack of attention/inbuilt bias by the editors who pay attention etc. The message should be 1. It's probably not a good idea, and 2. If you still think it's a good idea here is what you should do to keep it above board. I'd wager to say that blocking for canvassing is rare, and that most canvassing that occurs is in the "yellow" range that doesn't lead to penalties but that sidetracks the actual discussion into an "Is it ok to canvass?" discussion. If we can cut down on that and move some of the yellow canvassing attempts into the green range then this guideline serves a purpose. On email and transparency, if we actually implement the userbox solution and notify the discussion that they canvassed all willing editors then I believe transparency requirements are fulfilled, even if some of the editors prefer email notification. That's very similar to the "This discussion was included in XYZ" notifiers used by WikiProjects. ~ trialsanderrors 19:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I like the WikiProject notifiers you mention -- that's what I was thinking of, but something that could consolidate those notices with notices about other kinds of solicitations. Are there examples of the userboxes in operation for this kind of function that we could point to? I only look at them when I look at user pages. --lquilter 20:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible solutions

One solution to the issues raised above, is to expand Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting into Wikipedia:WikiProject Discussion sorting per my comment on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting#Expanding_project_scope. This would allow all WikiProjects to maintain a centralized watchlist for current discussions. Multiple tags could populate multiple WikiProject lists. Many WikiProjects already use the AFD lists. Another solution is to introduce a new article space for discussions only (AFD, CFD, TFD, RFC, RFA, RM, etc.) allowing bots to monitor that space and alert users for topic-related discussions on an opt-in basis. This would eliminate canvassing entirely. —Viriditas | Talk 10:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Table update

Type	Accepted1	↔	Not accepted	Term	Problem
Scale	Limited posting	↔	Mass posting	Spamming	Unsolicited mass spamming annoys many editors2
	AND		OR
Message	Neutral language	↔	Partisan language	Campaigning/Push-polling	Undermines consensus finding in debates3
	AND		OR
Audience	Bipartisan	↔	Partisan	Vote-stacking	Undermines consensus finding
	AND		OR
Transparency	Open	↔	Secret	Stealth canvassing	Raises questions of bad faith intentions

¹ Mass notifications that stay within the accepted range are considered friendly notices

² Editors disagree whether receiving mass postings are annoying and editors can opt in to receive such messages if they are acceptable otherwise.

³ It is community consensus that campaigning, vote-stacking and surreptitious canvassing makes consensus-finding processes worse off as it encourages partisanship, cliques, log-rolling, and treating discussions like votes.

A more fleshed-out version of the table above, trying to clarify the terms and adding transparency as a desired characteristic to make cross-posting acceptable. I reused campaigning in the common meaning of the word as political campaigning to influence potentially undecided voters by using partisan advertising language. I also separated the consequencies to stress the difference, and why editors can opt in to one type of cross-posting but not another. Does this make sense? ~ trialsanderrors 02:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It does. And I very much like the new table. It makes the most sense when one reads the first column first. (I was going to make my previous comment about "Campaigning", when I noticed the first column, which clarifies the "how and why" of the term.) I think the "problem" for the first one should be flashed out more. I think mass spamming isn't just that it annoys talk page owners. It's the fact that if allowed, and then everyone can, and likely will do so, what's to stop bot (or even AWB) owners from filling every userpage with hundreds of messages. Which creates a "wallpaper" situation, in which genuine talk page conversation is undermined. Perhaps that's the phrase: "Undermines (or interferes with) genuine talk page discussions." - I keep wanting to add "potentially" to the start of that phrase, and "Attempts to undermine" at the start of the next two on the table. While accurate, I suppose this could make the table "too long" for viewing purposes. Perhaps the answer is to remove that column entirely (since it already has 2 of the 3 "notes", and add a number column (1,2,3,4), and explain the problems with each below the table? (However, a possible problem with numbering is that it may give the idea that 1 is "more important" than 4, or something like that. Maybe just referring to each by "term" is enough.) And if you haven't heard it yet, very nice work : ) - jc37 20:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree the "Problem" column shouldn't appear in the final version, the three problems should be fleshed out in the main text, with "campaigning" and "Vote-stacking" combined since they have a similar effect on debates. I agree with your asessment of mass spamming, which is why I think that the "I like being canvassed" idea above isn't sustainable. Weh ave probably 500 deletion/page move/etc. debates going on every day, and certainly 50 to 100 where editors think they don't get enough attention. So while people might complain that the one or other message has been deleted from their talk page, there's a good chance that they will reconsider after getting 70 friendly notices every day. But if someone wants to implement it, I don't have an issue with it. ~ trialsanderrors 21:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

While they may be similar, I really liked how you distinguished them in the table, so I don't know now if they should be merged... - jc37 22:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem, if it helps making the distinction clearer. ~ trialsanderrors 00:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Reset

I restored the original version spun out from WP:SPAM#Canvassing with only minor changes. There are many good edits in the edit history, but it is becoming clear that the changes are considered a policy shift and are not likely to gain a consensus. We should treat this as an existing guideline and discuss nontrivial changes here before implementing them. ~ trialsanderrors 02:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I have to (reluctantly) agree on all three counts. I'll go through the last version and see what's possibly re-addable. Though based on the discussion above, perhaps we should ReOrg the page (retaining the content, of course) to match the table above? - jc37 20:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly in favor of reediting. The teminology is very confusing and better organization wouldn't hurt either. It just got to the point where the policy debate got in the way of improving the guideine, and Quarl's edits, while certainly well-intended were probably a bit too fast for others to follow. ~ trialsanderrors 21:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hang in there! The split is an excellent idea. I'm sorry it's got so tangled, and apologise if anything I've done has made it more difficult. That was the opposite of my intention.

But I have to say that as it stands this is not a fix. We now have two copies of the text, both marked official, and likely to diverge in content. That's instruction creep at its worst.

If you want to go down this reset path, IMO you need to have a clean cutover, when the text in Wikipedia:spam is replaced by a nutshell summary and a wikilink. That's when this becomes the official copy. Andrewa 22:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm perfectly fine with deleting the text in WP:SPAM. This was the original intent since internal and external spamming have very little in common. That just got put on hold because of the editing, policy SHift, switch to "proposed", etc. Which is why I reset in the first place. If we agree that canvassing should be covered here then we should remove the text at WP:SPAM post haste. ~ trialsanderrors 22:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to wait until this page is more "stable". Perhaps an "under construction/discussion" template at the top? - jc37 22:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The removal of the text from WP:SPAM of course requires consensus on its own talk page, rather than here. See Wikipedia talk:Spam#Official cutover. Andrewa 00:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Can't hurt, but the thread directly above, WT:SPAM#WP:CANVASS already expressed unanimous consensus to move, not to duplicate, and the Proposal to move tag in the actual text did not trigger any opposition in the last ten days. ~ trialsanderrors 00:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

That's my impression too. Actually, I've quite deliberately put Wikipedia talk:Spam#Official cutover at an extra level of heading depth, so it becomes part of WT:SPAM#WP:CANVASS. But if you're happy that there's consensus to do the move, why is there now this duplication? Andrewa 02:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The pain of discussing things on two forums at the same time (aka multiposting). I completed the move. ~ trialsanderrors 02:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Point taken! (;-> Progress. Andrewa 03:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

neutral vs. partisan

You know it occurs to me that there may be a fruitful distinction to be made between partisan & neutral canvassing. The guideline could be organized as a statement of what the proper sort of advertising/canvassing/polling/(whatever) is, and then list the counterexamples of what are problematic. Framing the whole thing positively can avoid some of the negative feel of the current framing that adds to the sense of rule-creep and may be more appropriate to the concept of "guideline" anyway. So for instance, stating that if you are neutral but knowledgeable or interested in the issue; if you do it in a transparent / aboveboard fashion; if you do it without intent to shift debate in any one particular fashion; and if you target it correctly (to others who might have some relevant insight to add) then that is a good thing -- it facilitates discussion. ... This might help deal with the lamentations about, and avoid exacerbating the problem with, under-advertisement of discussions/decisions or people being surprised by what happens to areas they've worked on. ... Then there can be discussion of the counterexamples and problems: partisan; hidden; intent; not targeted well. --lquilter 15:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure that "framing it positively" will find consensus. It strikes me more that the consensus opinion is that It's not a good idea, with exceptions, and the guideline should express that, but also make clear for editors how to proceed if they think they have a case that warrants an exception. Here's an interesting discussion where the consensus opinion seemed to be that the canvassing was proper: Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/ProtectionBot. ~ trialsanderrors 00:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

One more table update

	Scale		Message		Audience		Transparency
Accepted1	Limited posting	AND	Neutral	AND	Bipartisan	AND	Open
	↕		↕		↕		↕
Not accepted	Mass posting	OR	Partisan	OR	Partisan	OR	Secret
Term	Internal spamming		Campaigning		Vote-stacking		Stealth canvassing

I'm not sure if interest in improving this guideline has died down, but here is a last attempt to organize the information in a simple table. This time flipped 90 degrees, with color markers for accepted, not accepted and the questionable area inbetween. The links under "Term" could lead directly to the sections on the different types of canvassing. ~ trialsanderrors 20:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm find with that, but it would seem to indicate that "Canvassing" isn't the right title for the guideline. So maybe Wikipedia:Internal communications? -- John Broughton | ♫ 21:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

There are tons of internal communications that aren't covered here. Per the draft definition above, canvassing requires a prefabricated message and solicitation of some kind. RFA thank-you notes are internal communications but not considered canvassing since the solicitation element is missing. "Check out my RFA" on the other hand is canvassing. ~ trialsanderrors 21:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Campaigning

The campaigning sections needs to be updated since it slightly conflicts with usage of templates. For example this policy is 'discouraging' campaigning to user's talk pages or targeting a group, when labelling articles with {{fac}}, {{GAN}}, etc. I'm proposing adding a subsection where its acceptable to notify the 'main' contributors to the article in question which ultimately is the same thing those tags do. Mkdw^talk 12:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Under the draft definitions above those templates would fall under "friendly notice" and could be listed as an example. Generally, inviting authors or participants in prior discussions is not considered spamming or campaigning if it's done in a neutral fashion (e.g. using a template). ~ trialsanderrors 18:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sanctions

A notable omission from this page is any real reference to the potential sanctions for canvassing (or at least for aggressive canvassing). Reading between the lines, one can get a vague idea, but I think that this point should be addressed with particular clarity. Xdamr^talk 04:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Decisions on blocks are usually made at WP:ANI, so I don't think there will ever be a catalogue of penalties ("24 hours for every 10 users contacted") here, but a note that aggressive canvassing has led to blocks can be made here. In my opinion what is more important is to point out ways to remedy an act of campaigning while still maintaining that the user acted in good faith. So if a user contacted only Keep !voters of a prior debate, contacting the remaining participants is an acceptable remedy. Posting a note on the discussion page or even marking participants that were canvassed is a remedy against stealth canvasing, etc. Removing the canvass post from a user talk page is usually ineffective since users see the "You got mail" bar and check what went on on their userpage. ~ trialsanderrors 21:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Refactor

We've discussed refactoring the page several times. (And restoring appropriate edits from the previous "new" version.) Are we ready to dive in and do so? Also, I like the new template (which also doubles as a navigational tool), and would like to see it added to the page.

Thoughts? - jc37 13:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm up for it. It just seems discussion has died around here and since it includes a new policy element (stealth canvassing) I didn't want to be bold. ~ trialsanderrors 18:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Then let's refactor and not include the "stealth" column information yet. Once the page is done to that point, then we can start a discussion to modify the current policy. How does that sound? - jc37 10:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, table added. ~ trialsanderrors 18:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Definitions

OK, I think first need for improvement is to get the definitions right. First draft:

• Crossposting is sending prefabricated messages to multiple Wikipedians directly to their talk pages or email accounts.
• Internal spamming is excessive or indiscrimate crossposting.
• Canvassing is soliciting the opinions of other Wikipedians via internal spamming prefabricated messages.
• Campaigning is canvassing with a partisan appeal, e.g. "please go here vote to overturn".
• Votestacking (rallying the troops?) is targeted canvassing to a partisan audience, e.g. only keep or delete !voters in a prior discussion, or self-identified deletionists or inclusionists.
• Stealth canvassing is canvassing conducted to be undetectable to outsiders, e.g. via email or restricted mail lists.
• Friendly notices are notifications that are open, neutral in tone, and directed at a bipartisan and small audience.

I think we can turn those into short and comprehensive definitions. ~ trialsanderrors 05:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (Extended 05:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC))

Bumping this down to get more input. Do those definitions clarify scope and scale of crossposting activities? ~ trialsanderrors 18:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Crossposting = cc (which unfortunately doesn't describe the business/bureaucratic use of the term - a "cc" section was/is a list which noted that copies were also sent to those people who were listed.) I think the term "crossposting" is likely the best term (And should likely absorb "multiposting" as well). I think the definition should be clearer that this is a neutral term. (When writing the definitions, we should pretend the table doesn't exist.) Also, I wonder if perhaps "Crossposting" might not be the best name for this page? It would seem to be the most generic.

Internal Spamming - Let's just call it what it is: excessive crossposting. I think we should remove the word "spam" entirely from this page.

Stealth canvassing - I don't know if we should even include this, since it's "outside" Wikipedia?

I agree that we need to make the definitions more concise. Giving them some thought... - jc37 12:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I was looking for the "positive"/"neutral"/"negative" symbols, but it looks like they've been deleted. I would think the issues with crossposting are very few, so most conflicts will arise over canvassing, which should be reflected in the title → this is where you go to get info on whether your canvassing was proper or not. Multiposting is technically crossposting to project pages, but eventually we can merge this in here. Excessive crossposting sounds good to me. Stealth canvassing creates an externality: the action is external but the effect is internal. I don't know if we can take action against external canvassing, but if it is noticed it should at least be brought to the attention of the community/closing admin. That's very similar to the {{Afdanons}} template. ~ trialsanderrors 20:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Templates

From WP:AFD: {{AFDWarningNew}}, {{AFDWarning}}, {{Adw}}. Anyone know of others? ~ trialsanderrors 01:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Is these a problem? The first two are courtesy notices to the person who created an article, warning that editor about a proposed deletion. Clearly not canvassing - only one post per AfD, and certainly not soliciting votes.

As for the third template, it's for major contributors to an article, so there probably would be multiple postings, but they would still be limited; the message is neutral; and the audience is bi-partisan: that shows on the table as a "friendly notice", yes? (In fact, I'd argue that the nominator posting notices of an AfD to major contributors to an article is more than courteous - it's making an extra effort to bring in anyone who might help improve the article, as well as bring in anyone who might have a strong argument about keeping it. Quite frankly, I wish every nominator would do this.) -- John Broughton (☎☎) 15:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I'd like to include them in the guideline to point out acceptable use. ~ trialsanderrors 18:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

(unsuccessful) RfA candidacies

It is commonplace practice even for unsuccessful RfA candidates to place little notes on voters talk pages, such as "thank you for your input" etc. This could be interpreted as "aggressice cross-posting" and campaigning (for a second, future RfA) and I think this special case should be expressly excluded from the policy. Kncyu38 16:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kncyu38. I don't see anything wrong in thanking voters for succesful and unsuccesful RfAs Happy Editing by Snowolf^(talk) on 16:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it as especially harmful, either, but the policy is, I believe, not to leave mass thank-you notes on people's talk pages whether candidacy was sucesful or no. You are supposed to leave a message on your own talk page that everyone can come and see, or a message on teh RfA talk page. Maybe it has to do with server load or something, but it's a bit frowned on, last I checked.

IronDuke 16:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This question is actually a result of my own actions, when I posted this on the talk page of an unsuccessful RfA candidate, saying that many RfA candidates (successful or not) leave such notes on voters' talk pages. Kncyu38 suggested to me that this might violate WP:CANVASS, and I wrote back that I thought it was acceptable as a form of courtesy, especially since so many RfA candidates seem to thank participants. I can appreciate why you wouldn't want to do this, though. If I was mistaken in my actions, I'm very sorry. --Kyoko 17:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not a violation of WP:CANVASS as it is written now. I falls squarely under "friendly notice" since it's not a solicitation to vote and it only targets editors who previously have taken an interest in the debate. If there is anything anywhere that indicates otherwise I'd like to see it. Xmas greetings on the other hand might fall under "excessive" (not aggressive) "cross-posting" if they're sent to editors you had no prior collaborative relationship with. Although I can't see how anyone would take action on those other than to say "please don't so it". ~ trialsanderrors 20:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"who previously have taken an interest in the debate" -- thanks, Trialsanderrors, that was precisely what I was looking for. Kyoko's friendly suggestion of course was as good-faithed as anything I've seen in Wikipedia, and as I told her I never meant to imply she misinterpreted policy, I was just confused for a moment and asked myself if Canvass said anything about this special case -- as you pointed out, it actually does. Case closed. Regards, Kncyu38 13:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Source Canvassing

There has been a lot of ongoing discussion over "Source Canvassing": the mass solicitation of editors to employ a specific source in expanding articles. For example, the (now deleted) Template:Catholic-expand was added to 100s of article talk pages which said (in essence) "This article can be usefully expanded from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia". This template and two others similar to it created around the same time were deleted per the following lengthy discussions:

• Catholic-expand TfD
• Catholic-link TfD
• Catholic-link deletion review
• HistSource TfD
• HistSource deletion review
• "Category:Articles to be expanded from Catholic Encyclopedia" CfD

In general you will find most people on Wikipedia would prefer not to have templates, categories and other forms of anonymous solicitation being used to mass canvass one users opinion about which source should be used in writing articles. Every article on Wikipedia can be expanded as a matter of course, but the devil is in the details on a per-article basis, it is not possible to codify it and say "all articles of X type can be expanded using Y source". Further and more nuanced arguments can be found in the above discussions.

I would like to propose an addition to Canvassing that provides some guidelines on when and how to recommend sources and when it is inappropriate and becomes Canvassing. -- Stbalbach 19:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with a lot of that, particularly when the material we are being told to use is often factually inaccurate and permanently biased. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 19:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say that this is spamming. Even though in this case the source might be PD, we'd expect the brunt of those attempts to be in order to push a commercial source. ~ trialsanderrors 19:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm opposed to having templates or categories recommending a specific source, particularly if that source is an obsolete and inaccurate public domain work. --Folantin 20:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Templates and categories for this purpose are definitely way too spammy and indiscriminate, and so far we've seen them applied with demands that they not be removed until "enough" of the source is used. These should be outright prohibited. Individual, separately crafted plaintext notes on article talk pages are probably okay since these can be argued for or against in the very next line by other editors, and eventually folded up into the talk page archives. But even these would also cross over the line when applied in general to "articles of X type" in large quantities. It can still be spam even if the sources are free; POV spamming is a problem too. — coelacan talk — 00:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added a Source soliciting section. It's a first draft any changes or thoughts would be great. -- Stbalbach 14:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've made a few fixes and a slight expansion, but it looks good. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 14:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

And I moved it over to WP:SPAM. ~ trialsanderrors 20:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; this is content-pushing, rather than point-of-view/personal/argument pushing, which is what canvassing is about. Putting up a source via a template is no different than putting sources into the external link sections of articles. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

John, have you read the above linked discussions? I know its a lot but maybe start with this one to get an intro to the nature of the problem. Templates of this nature are more than just "putting up a source", and they are more than just content-pushing, although that is part of it. -- Stbalbach 04:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

How is this an argument for posting it under WP:CANVASS rather than WP:SPAM? ~ trialsanderrors 05:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well it's no problem being in SPAM, I was addressing John's second comment. But I think it is a type of Canvassing. Canvassing is soliciting Wikipedia users on a mass scale to take a specific action, to do something (vote a certain way in a debate, edit an article using a particular source, etc..) - it pushes one users POV. I think putting it in SPAM dilutes its primary nature as a solicitation to action. It goes beyond just "putting up a source", if you had seen the situation that led to this I think you would agree. See the above linked discussions, any questions let me know. -- Stbalbach 16:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that it involves soliciting. But the goal is to promote an outside source, not a viewpoint in a Wikipedia debate. ~ trialsanderrors 19:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it works fine over at WP:SPAM. Note that the lead paragraph there mentions canvassing as a type of spam, and this has cross-over problems of both spamming and canvassing, so I think it's fine to keep it in the parent guideline, WP:SPAM. — coelacan talk — 21:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Notice board posting

• What is the real difference of posting to notice boards (which usually have a partisan crowd) than to individuals, provided the individuals don't object? I have seen lots of XFDs posted to notice boards in what must be an attempt to get interested people to participate in the debate, and getting notices on my talk page too, which may or not be welcome. Carlossuarez46 17:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The general view on WikiProjects is that the benefit of expertise overrides the potential problems of partisanship. This might not be true for all projects, but at least it allows for some transparency of the notification. There is a general complaint that because of the sheer amount of deletion debates editors routinely miss out on debates they could contribute to, so demand for a controlled way to notify editors is pretty strong and has led to the AfD categories and deletion sorting projects, to mention just two. And if a project gets overrun by a partisan crowd it might be a reason to bring it up at WP:MfD. ~ trialsanderrors 23:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • A distinction might lay in the opinion solicitor bringing a message to solicitee's (?) location vs. the solicitee going to a message posted at a community location. The first is an active attempt to persuade an unposted opinion of particular users and the second is a passive attempt to persuade unposted opinions of users who happen to pass by. The first is heavy handed and encourages "cliques, log-rolling, treating discussions like votes, partisanship, and a host of other ills."[5] -- Jreferee 06:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Abolish this policy

I'm challenging this policy, I think that it is pure censorship, and in an unacceptable way limits the freedom of people to spread their thoughts and ideas about wikipedia. It is repressive, autoritharian, and tends to avoid changes and reform movements. Spreading ideas and campaigning for issues about wikipedia is never "spam", is never distruptive. Simply abolish it. --Twilight 11:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You're a bit late to the discussion, considering that this policy is mostly a spin-off of WP:SPAM, and that policy was in place for a number of years.

I think you'd get more consideration for your arguments if you'd offer some specific cases/situations where this policy prevents something positive from happening, rather than making broad assertions that it's "pure censorship". And as for "abolishing it", the policy covers more than "spreading ideas and campaigning for issues" - for example, it addresses efforts to bias decisions at RfAs and XfDs - neither of which, I believe, has to do with "changes and reform movements". So perhaps you might think more closely about which parts you really object to. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I have problems with the policy but only because people who engage in it might get away with it while those who act without canvassing may have their views degraded by superior numbers. Yes, Yes, I know, numbers and votes don't matter. Forgive me if I think that there is a much better chance of an AfD being sustained if there are 20 deletes and 2 keeps rather than the opposite, arguments be damned. That said, eliminating the guideline would invite even more of the problem. So, what was your point again? Oh, right. Anyway, why isn't spreading ideas and campaigning 'spam'? You fail to mention how the two are mutually exclusive. Epthorn (talk) 12:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Internal Conflict

Just noticed that the chart near the top conflicts with the explanation under Friendly Notice. At the top, partisan notification is prohibited. Under Friendly Notice, it is deemed acceptable to notify editors who share your taste and philosophy. So which is it? --Butseriouslyfolks 18:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the taste and philosophy qualifier is misleading. I think the table defines Friendly Notice properly. A FN is a crossposted message that is limited to editors who have shown previous interest in the subject, that is neutral in tone and that does not select by "taste and philosophy". FN's are also neutral messages posted on relevant WikiProjects. ~ trialsanderrors 19:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Opinions on Transparency?

The table above contains transparency as a "friendly notice" criterion but the table in the current guideline doesn't. I think transparency (mostly meaning that the discussion is informed that editors have been notified, usually with a little template or comment) is important to keep notices above board. ~ trialsanderrors 20:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's that as critical to post (where?) that editors have been contacted, as much as it is to comply with the guideline about how editors should be contacted. But I'd welcome specifics, here, so I better understand your concern.

What concerns me is the lack of any mention, in the guideline, about the inappropriateness of stealth (secret) canvassing, as in canvassing via email, IRC, and instant messaging. One of Wikipedia's most important features is that what people do is visible via their user contributions page; stealth canvassing negates the power of this wiki to implicitly provide transparency.

So, may I suggest a new section (which would become a new section 2) on "Stealth Canvassing", which would say something like: Contacting one or two editors through means other than Wikipedia postings, in order to get their support, is acceptable, but any contacts in excess of that constitutes stealth canvassing, which is not acceptable. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There are some viewpoints that what happens off Wikipedia is no concern of Wikipedia, but our policy against meatpuppeteering belies that – as long as Wikipedia is affected by an action it's our concern. And I consider attempts to campaign offwiki worse than campaigns on user pages. ~ trialsanderrors 04:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You might want to review this thread Wikipedia_talk:Canvassing#Off-Wiki_canvassing. I think "canvassing" should be limited to uses of the Wikipedia servers. Otherwise, this guideline could get out of hand and very politically charged. Communications external to the Wikipedia servers should be handled by some other process. -- Jreferee 05:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Off-wiki_personal_attacks, they address the behavior-outside-of-Wikipedia issue, which might provide insite on how to deal with it here. -- Jreferee 19:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What, so now you're going to regulate behavior on Prisonplanet.com when they try to bring editors to Wikipedia? Good luck with that!  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 19:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed the lead

After reading the above thread unsuccessful RfA candidacies, I had a few thoughts and ended up changing the lead to make it clear that contacting another Wikipedian to discuss an opinion they already gave is not canvassing. Here are my few thoughts. RfA candidates contacting those who have participated in their RfA is not an exception to canvassing; it does not even fall within canvassing. Canvassing requires soliciting the opinions of others. In an ongoing RfA or an unsuccessful RfA, the opinions have already been given. Emailing or posting a comment or note on the talk pages of those who have already participated in the RfA is not soliciting their opinion because the opinion has already been given. It is not campaigning for a second, future RfA, because that future RfA does not in fact exist and there is no guarantee that it will. In fact, in response to an unsuccessful RfA, wouldn't you agree that it is important that the unsuccessful applicant communicate with any RfA participate who offered constructive criticism to better themselves? Also, in response to a negative opinion already posted in an ongoing RfA, isn't it important for the RfA candidate to contact that editor to discuss the matter to ensure that all sides of the issues have been conveyed? Asserting that an RfA applicant is canvassing if they contact someone who has already participate in their RfA seems more along the lines of anywhere from a mistake to an "ill-considered accusations of impropriety" as described in WP:CIV#ICA. Some of these ideas (not the rants) seem to generally apply to XfDs and other processes affected by wp:canvassing, so I revised the lead paragraph to make this clear. -- Jreferee 06:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to look it over. I'll probably revert because we had an issue with overly bold edits before, but I agree the guideline needs to be clarified in many aspects. A "What canvassing is not" section to start with. Certainly thank-you notes after RFA's are not canvassing. ~ trialsanderrors 18:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The whole "opinions have already been given" so it is not that bad part concerns me. Part of the big negative of Canvassing is that when you reach out to those who have already given a stated opinion, you can unfairly stack the deck in your favor with getting more voices (more quickly) to your side of the discussion vs the party that did not canvass. I think RfA are an entirely different subject matter then an XfD, RM discussion, naming convention or editorial disagreement and that differences should be addressed in this guideline. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow this, but I reverted the changes. They strike me as too much ad-hoc legislation. ~ trialsanderrors 20:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

My putting <blockquote></blockquote> around the arbcom quote is ad-hoc legislation deserving RVing? Lol. -- Jreferee 19:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

That was quite a bit more that blockquotes. ~ trialsanderrors 05:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What Canvassing is not

Is there consensus for adding a section on what canvassing is not? A few obvious entries:

1. Excessive crossposting (or internal spamming): Posting messages on many editors' talk pages indiscriminately is not canvassing if it doesn't carry a solicitation to participate in a discussion. Internal spamming is still discourages since it tends to annoy recipients. Crossposts should be targeted to editors who have previously expressed an interest in the subject.
2. Thank-you notes and follow-ups: Participants in a prior discussion can be notified of the result (this is common but not mandatory in requests for adminship), of significant developments, or of follow-up discussions, as long as all participants are notified and the message is written neutrally.
3. WikiProject notifications: Many WikiProjects maintain notification boards for discussions relating to the project. Using these boards to neutrally notify knowledgeable Wikipedian is not canvassing. WikiProjects that serve primarily as rallying ground for a certain POV risk being deleted through the WP:MFD process.

Comments, additions? ~ trialsanderrors 21:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if any of these are things we would want to encourage by mentioning them; in other words, to do so might be a case of WP:BEANS.--cj | talk 03:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

#1 should be stated and discouraged. It's in the table right but without a target for the link. The other two frequently come up during discussions and tend to sidetracks the discussions themselves. I don't know which recent RFA it was, but the announcement of the RFA on the Australian noticeboard started a needless discussion about Canvassing. I also don't if Beans applies since it's already frequently practiced, so it's not something we invented here. ~ trialsanderrors 05:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Defining the Line Between "Mass" and "Limited" Canvassing

How much is "ok"? Just H 07:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

We never do that. That's within the judgement of the editors who have to decide whether action is warranted. ~ trialsanderrors 09:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, define what the average "judgement" is, please. Just H 22:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The thing to keep in mind is this: if what you're doing is disruptive to the project, or likely to be, it's probably not okay, even if it's within "the rules." If it isn't, you're most likely not going to encounter a problem. IronDuke 23:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Is soliciting input on a wikiproject page considered canvassing?

The case in question is posting about a user conduct RFC at a wikiproject made up of members likely to have the same POV and be sympathetic to the user in question, and one with a particularly biased message: "I think it's just a witch-hunt". The intent seems to be the same as canvassing, but it's a post in only one place. I'd appreciate opinions on the matter, thanks. --Minderbinder 22:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That message is certainly sharply worded and POV focus. However, I don't think you can make a broad assumption that all members of a Wiki-project would share the same POV. For instance, as a member of the Wine Project I was part of a discussion recently about Wine related article deletion and it was apparent that there are diverging views on the concept of notability on certain wine related articles. If someone where to post a generic "So and so article is up for deletion" message on the project talk page, I don't think it qualifies as canvassing. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 22:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The main problem with that message is the tone, and it doesn't matter whether it technically falls under WP:CANVASS or not, agitation is not acceptable. I would remove the message and warn tell editor that neutrally phrased notifications are acceptable, but campaigning is not. ~ trialsanderrors 23:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Any admins on here want to handle that message? This user is already worked up over the RFC and related issues, and I'd rather not shake the hornets nest if I don't have to. If someone could edit/remove it and leave a note, I'd greatly appreciate, thanks. --Minderbinder 00:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

trialsanderrors, thanks. --Minderbinder 00:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, the user changed it to neutral language. ~ trialsanderrors 00:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, I concur with removing such. We've had issues in the past where a user put a message in big bold red letters on top of a wikiproject page, even. Such messages tend to misrepresent the issue and basically call for kneejerk reactions. That's not helpful at all. I'm not all that much in favor of advertising user conduct RFCs to begin with. >Radiant< 14:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It's now a more neutral wording, do you think it's a bad idea to solicit responses on wikiproject pages at all? --Minderbinder 14:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• No, for instance if there's a dispute on an article related to a wikiproject, it makes perfect sense to ask them there. For instance, there was a science-related CFD a while ago that I couldn't figure out, so I asked the Physics wikiproject for an opinion. >Radiant< 14:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• If everyone at WikiProject Paranormal thought Martinphi was great and Dreadlocke's post at WikiProject Paranormal likely was going to result in an avalanche of "Martinphi is great posts" at Martinphi's RfC, then their might be a canvassing problem. However, the people who read WikiProject Paranormal talk probably are biased towards WikiProject Paranormal, not Martinphi. Also, posting at a community area does not guarantee that the post will be read and does not guarantee that it will be read by those biased one way or another towards Martinphi. Because this post is on a user's talk page who may have a bias one way or another about Martinphi, it is closer to being unacceptable than this project talk page post. Of course, one post on one talk page isn't much. To give you a better idea about canvassing, this thread describes a recent situation where a get-out-the-vote message was transcluded onto 80 to 90 talk pages of people who may have been biased in one direction towards the MfD. -- Jreferee 19:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think it's bad at all, I think the Wikiprojects are an important home base to solicit expert opinions on topics. For Featured Picture discussions, I routinely post a message on the relevant Wikiproject if there are questions about accuracy. The point of this guideline here is not to say that soliciting is evil, it's only bad if you do it with the intent to undermine the discussion a create a more favorable outcome. Wikiprojects that live outside our policies tend to disqualify themselves if they swarm discussions in order to push an agenda. ~ trialsanderrors 22:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed. A corollary is that POV-pushing Wikiprojects are not a good idea, but I don't think we have any of those at the moment. >Radiant< 09:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing vs Consensus

Isn't canvassing only a problem when voting?

And wouldn't forbidding "canvassing" be detrimental to consensus at the same time?

--Kim Bruning 18:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

As my question has not been answered, and it is a fairly fundamental one, I'll skip the in-between steps.

I propose to discontinue this guideline and mark this page historical. Objections? --Kim Bruning 22:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Spend some time thinking about your questions lest you want to come across as disingenious. Consensus is still defined as a quantitative construct, so attempts to change the turnout compromise the process. Also, whether successful or not, attempts to do so need to be curbed. This is a long-established and important conduct guideline. ~ trialsanderrors 05:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus has never been defined as a quantitative construct. You are mistaken. --Kim Bruning 12:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. Canvassing is an issue even when things are decided by discussion and not vote. The point is, it's underhanded to selectively notify only those on one side of a debate. --Minderbinder 12:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If 10 people say A and A is invalid, and one person says B and B is valid, the outcome should be B. Rather than preventing legitimate attempts at consensus as collateral damage, it might be wiser to make our consensus process vandalproof instead. At many locations it already is.

At any rate this is just a dirty patch, and we should work to make it obsolete asap, if not today. --Kim Bruning 12:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Distorting a discussion by requesting responses from people you already know to agree with you is not conductive to consensus building. >Radiant< 09:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

But at the same time, it causes collateral damage when informing people who are interested in a topic is also considered canvassing. How do you tell the difference? --Kim Bruning 15:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• That is true. I think it's hard to define but easy to spot once you see it. It depends on (1) the tone of the message ("please look into this" vs "oh noes! Theyre delteing our artilc!!111!") and (2) whom is being asked (all involved vs. one side only). In general putting notices on Wikiproject pages is probably the best way to go. >Radiant< 09:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• In the AdD to the Category:Systems DRV, a user went around posting messages on talk pages, which appear to have been votestacking for the AfD. Wikipedia should have some process to link to as showing why such behavior is unacceptable. If Kim's position is that it is confusing to say there is good canvassing and bad canvassing, I'm in agreement. -- Jreferee 15:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Did the message influence the outcome of the CfD discussion in some undue way? --Kim Bruning 17:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• In this case, not really, because I (as closer) didn't close the CfD as a vote count, but analyzed the arguments. However, this closure is being questioned on DRV, by the canvasser himself. I'd have to look for diffs but I recall issues being obviously influenced by canvassing (the most obvious example being "schools on AfD" about a year and a half ago). >Radiant< 08:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

Votestacking is sending mass talk messages out to editors who are on the record with a specific opinion and informing them of a current or upcoming vote. Partisan votestacking is not acceptable and includes posting talk page message to those on the record with support opinion about the matter. Event Category:Complex systems has a hierarchy based on the complex system article. For the Category:Complex systems CfD, mass talk messages were sent out to 30+ editors who contributed to the complex system article. Their contribution to the article means they likely would be in support of a category based on that article and would be more likely to post a Keep opinion about the category in a CfD. Message A typical posted talk page message was

"Thank you for your contribution to the complex system article in the past. Currently there is a Call for Deletion for the associated Category:Complex systems covering this interdisplinary scientific field. If you would like to contribute to the discussion, you would be very welcome. Please do this soon if possible since the discussion period is very short. Thank you for your interest if you can contribute."

In addition to targeting those with a inclination to Keep the category, the mass talk messages informed the editors of the then-current CfD and advocated for the category as a "interdisplinary scientific field". Results Of the 30+ solicited editors, six participated in the CfD. Of the 6, 5 ivoted to keep: Adam M. Gadomski, Childhoodsend, GarOgar, Hu, Karol, and Salix alba. None of the six identified in the CfD that they were asked to participate in the CfD. The close essentially was based on the category being an interdisplinary scientific field and there was no indication that the closer was aware of the canvassing. With the votestacking, there were 13 keep opinions and 3 delete opinions. Without the votestacking, there were 7 keep opinions and 2 delete opinions. Request While Wikipedia:Canvassing explains what is acceptable and not acceptable, it really does not address how to handle Wikipedia:Canvassing situations. What does Wikipedia:Canvassing think should be done about this particular matter? -- Jreferee 17:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

First, prior "principal contributors" are not generally considered a partisan audience, WP:AFD even has a template system set up to inform article creators and prior contributors about ongoing discussions. I'm not sure what the linkage is between the article and the category, but I'm willing to give the editor the benefit of doubt on that. Where I'm not willing to give the benefit of doubt is the content of some of the messages, containing clear attempts of coaching the editors to vote Keep, without so much of an explanation that our deletion processes are set up as discussion forums. In deciding how to respond to a canvassing attempt it's always important to look at the intent, and the intent was clearly not to improve the quality of the discussion but to manipulate it into a vote. On informing the discussion itself, as much as I'd like this to become mandatory, so far it's only considered good etiquette. In this case I would sternly warn the editor not to issue partisan notifications and possibly also to only notify editors who can offer substantive contributions to the discussion. ~ trialsanderrors 19:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Some other thoughts. I think there are three separate questions here: 1. What do you do about the solicitor? 2. What do you do about those solicited who did not disclose that there were solicited in the AfD? and 3. What do you do about the AfD consensus? I don't have any answers and am looking for a good discussion on this.

What do you do about the solicitor?

What do you do about those solicited who did not disclose that there were solicited in the AfD?

What do you do about the AfD consensus?

The five votestacked keep opinions probably had influence over other non-votestacked keep opinions, something that can never be proved or disproved. In addition, the votestacked-influenced keep arguments were legit arguments, so where is the harm? DRV has specific purposes, such addressing whether the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly and whether there is substantial new information. The votestacking is substantial new information establishing that way too much credit was given to the Keep consensus in the close. While the votestacked-influenced keep arguments may be legit, it is the use of those votestacked-influenced keep arguments in determining consensus that improperly skews the interpretation of the debate. Discounting the five votestacked keep opinions may not be a sufficient DRV remedy in determining whether the closer interpreted the debate correctly. Discounting all the keep opinions may be going too far since at least some of them probably were not influenced by the votestacked keep opinions. And, if the solution at DRV is to relist at AfD to get a legitimate AfD, do you ban the votestack solicitor from the relisted AfD? Do you ban those initial AfD participants who were solicited but failed to disclose in the initial AfD that they were solicited? In the end, the AfD results probably would be the same (here Keep). Why should the AfD be relisted when the outcome will probably be the same? -- Jreferee 16:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Assuming you didn't mean to create separate subthreads, I downgraded the section headers above. On the issue, the guideline starts out by mentioning that canvassing is not illegal per se, only "disruptive" canvassing is, and we have tried to establish the dimensions under which canvassing can be considered disruptive. As a general rule, contacting other editors in order to change an outcome of a discussion is not automatically disruptive. There might be legitimate reasons to do so. For instance, if a physics topic is discussed by lay editors and you as a phycisist believe they're lacking the understanding to draw the correct conclusion inviting other physicists to join the discussion is not necessarily disruptive if it is meant to elevate the discussion rather than to compromise it. If you only invite a subset of phyicists who hold a certain stance on the topic then it might be disruptive. Similarly if you only invite editors who self-declare as inclusionists or deletionists the goal is certainly not to create a more informed outcome but an outcome that matches your own position. Also, as I said, it would certainly be good etiquette to self-identify as someone who was canvassed, but I don't think we have consensus (yet) to demand it or to censor those who don't. If you observe canvassing during an ongoing debate it is perfectly fine to identify the editors who have been canvassed, and if you observe it afterwards you should list it at DRV. If it had an impact on the outcome then it will likely be overturned and relisted. ~ trialsanderrors 02:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"Disruptive" also is an interesting topic. When stealth canvassing is going on as part of an XfD, that XfD probably won't appear as being disrupted. However, the disruption may come afterwards once it is discovered that the XfD has been tainted. Emphasizing that the disruption should occur during the XfD seems to encourage solicitors to be as discrete as possible about their votestacking and encourage solicitees not to disclose their solicitation to prevent "disruption" of the XfD. -- Jreferee 18:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe what you're thinking of is "sidetracking". ~ trialsanderrors 19:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Blacketer

I think Kelly Martin's support criterion deserves testing at least once. Someone stated concerns that it might constitute canvassing. Asking people to provide an opinion probably isn't canvassing (as per the discussion we had above), but just to be on the safe side, I'm reporting here that I've written to two wikiprojects, requesting their opinion on this editor. --Kim Bruning 20:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have to say that this is a horrible idea. This is precisely the kind of clique-building this guideline is trying to guard against and it will only amplify the kind of problems we are trying to avoid at RfA. For one thing, such WikiProject canvassing will create a big distortion in favour of Wikipedians who are active in a rather large WikiProject. Also, how are we going to react if someone at, say Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal puts up an announcement of the form "this guy who has an anti-paranormal agenda is up for RfA"? Pascal.Tesson 20:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Could possibly be so. One way to find out. :-) --Kim Bruning 20:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not it's canvassing, it's definitely close enough for people to oppose. I know I would. -Amarkov moo! 21:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I had already done so, so you should do so. :-/ At any rate, please do reference Kelly Martin's opinion, so people know the full situation. --Kim Bruning 23:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't even understands what Kelly wants with her new criterion. I'm not sure how a WikiProject should even endorse a candidate, and we generally remove announcements on WikiProjects that are not worded neutrally (see above, neutral announcements on WikiProjects are perfectly fine though). I don't see that her newest foible catches on though, and I certainly hope the 'crats will discount her opposition in cases where it matters. ~ trialsanderrors 02:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Meh. She's just asking for shrubberies. As I recall it wasn't common for Kelly to !vote either way on RFAs to begin with, so that really hasn't changed. >Radiant< 08:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems disruptive to me for someone to use one RfA after another to state that they will not support this RfA nominee until Wikipedia adopts a process for WikiProject's to endorse RfA nominees, particularly since such matter is out of the hands of the RfA nominee and there are other Wikipedia avenues dedicated to pursue such a personal desire. Why the RfA 'crats let it go on is a mystery. As for your question, in using one RfA nomination after another to solicit interests his/her agenda, Kelly Martin seems to have intentionally left out the details as to how a WikiProject would go about endorsing an editor for administrator. It is those details that inevitable would go against Wikipedia process and would make it easy to shoot down the idea based on existing Wikipedia policy, guidelines, and other process. If you look at what we have on the canvassing page so far, canvassing seems to involve posting message on others talk pages. By not using Wikipedia avenues dedicated to pursue such a personal desire and using the RfA process instead, such actions have left other to guess at the details of such a propose project and then guess at whether those details violate one process or another. Without knowing the details of the process by which WikiProjects endorse RfA nominees, you cannot say whether it is canvassing or in violation of other process. -- Jreferee 15:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

As a member of an active Wiki-project, I agree that this is a horrible idea that feels like a step towards developing a Wikipedia Electoral College. :/ Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't like it because it'll encourage people to join WikiProjects for the wrong reasons. Instead of joining a WikiProject to help improve the encyclopedia, they would only join a WikiProject as a way to become an administrator. Do we really want users joining WikiProjects for that reason only? Acalamari 20:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I thoroughly dislike the idea, because it can be divisive at wikiprojects. There are several editors I know who do a good job as editors, but who I could not support as admins. I think that it would be very divisive for wikiprojects to start discussing the merits of a particular RFA, because it would inevitably bring personalities into an area where discussions are supposed to focus on the project's articles, categories and templates. Adminship discussions should be kept at RFA. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

External messages

Wouldn't external messages such as IM's or Emails to editors with similar POV count as canvassing? It would be less visible which makes it ten times worse. -- Cat ^chi? 21:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the users doing the E-mailing saying something, how would you prove it? Acalamari 21:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Apart from it being hard to prove, yes, it is canvassing. Radiant! 08:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it is canvassing, and very sneaky canvassing too; but unfortunately, as you said, it's hard to prove. Acalamari 16:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Forum shopping

I've removed this section to the talk page for now because I can't really make sense of it, and I've got extensive experience as an administrator.

Leaving messages on multiple administrators' talk pages to attempt to get a second or third opinion on an administrative decision is usually deemed "internal spam" or "forum shopping" and can be blockable. The proper venue for such discussions is the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.

To me it seems to be saying that if administrator A performs a protection or blocking, say, user X can't go to administrators B and C to ask for a second opinion. I can't see that this would ever be sanctionable behavior.

There may be a problem sometimes with an editor going to a large number of administrators in the vain hope of finding one to perform a block, but apart from the spamming element I can't see the problem there either.

Does someone who understands what this is supposed to be saying please explain it? --Tony Sidaway 09:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Ah yes. That wording really isn't all that good. Forum shopping refers to "asking the other parent", making the same request in a different forum(s) after the first forum doesn't give you the outcome that you wanted. E.g. given a dispute over article, a user might complain about its wording on the village pump. If the wording doesn't change as a result for that, he might make the same complaint on the admin board. If that doesn't "work" either, he may nominate it for deletion. And so forth. Such behavior isn't helpful and potentially starts forest fires. The current wording seems mostly aimed at repeatedly asking for unblocks in a variety of ways until one finally finds an admin that complies, which really isn't all that productive either. Radiant! 09:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  I don't see a problem with that. If you finally find an administrator willing to investigate, talk to the blocking administrator, and unblock, for instance, it can hardly be described as unproductive. --Tony Sidaway 09:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  No, that is productive. However, if the admin investigates and concludes the block was valid, asking a second outside opinion probably isn't all that useful. If that admin also concludes the block was valid, asking a third outside opinion, well, you get the idea. Radiant! 09:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  Is this likely to happen? I'm just about ready to put it back into the article (perhaps tweaking the wording a bit) but I wonder if it's that important. --Tony Sidaway 10:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I've seen it happen a couple of times; the first example that comes to mind is Zen-master, who was eventually banned for exhausting community patience. It's a red flag that indicates the editor isn't actually looking for a resolution to a problem, but is looking for people who agree with him. >Radiant< 10:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing for an underreviewed FAC.

I've currently nominated an article for Featured status. As you can see here, only one user has stated comments on it. I am wondering whether it is all right to inform members of WikiProject Hong Kong to comment on it, since it lacks comments, let alone a concensus. Or would it still be against this guideline.--Kylohk 21:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral notifications on WikiProjects aren't considered canvassing. Notifying members of the project on their user talk pages is, although I doubt it will draw a penalty. On the other hand, Featured article nominations are sometimes rejected based on lack of participation (or at least it happens at Featured Pictures), and as a nominator one should accept this in good graces and renominate after an acceptable time span. ~ trialsanderrors 04:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

RfAs

Are votes on RfAs that are obvious results of votestacking discounted immediately? --PaxEquilibrium 20:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about a specific case? Obvious votestacking should be brought up during the discussion, or at least be pointed out to the closing bureaucrat. ~ trialsanderrors 21:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how something can be an obvious result of votestacking. Who is to say that people might not have seen the RfA anyway? Canvassing should be taken into account, but I don't see why votes from people who were canvassed should be just discounted. -Amarkov moo! 21:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The specific case to which I'm referring to is a user who has been inactive for 8 months and then comes and votes on a RfA, with himself stating that he was invited to vote. ;0) --PaxEquilibrium 07:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Results of votestacking are counted as normal AFAIK. --Kim Bruning 08:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• RFA is traditionally rather vulnerable to vote stacking. WP:BEANS, but in general the result is that stacker is given a mild warning and the candidate fails. >Radiant< 12:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • In the cases of opposing RfA votestacking? --PaxEquilibrium 19:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, yes. I don't recall ever seeing votestacking to gather support for a candidate. To a lesser extent, the same thing has happened in the last few ArbCom elections. >Radiant< 08:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Projects and canvasing

Does it count as canvasing to batch contact members of a project about project related issues such as the collaboration of the month, or a list of pages requiring attention?

Can this be done via bot?

perfectblue 10:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it probably doesn't count as canvassing, and yes, it can be done via bot. Moreschi ^Talk 11:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea for collaborations of the "lets-improve-these-articles" type, but not for XfD discussions. For XfDs, my reading of WP:CANVASS is that a neutrally-worded notice on the project page would be OK, but that masses of individual notifications is vote-stacking. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Abuse of Nominating an article for Deletion

I am wondering what happens when there is a decision to keep an article but then it gets nominated again (for the same reasons). Given that deletionists tend to scour the articles for deletion page it may end up getting deleted even though its done in an unethical manor. Without canvasing this man in some cases not be able to be stopped. And depending on the importance of the article one is left with a dilemma as whether stopping abuse of the rfd system outweighs canvassing. Heliumballoon 17:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• In general a relevant wikiproject is informed. Also, note that there are several inclusionists that "scour" the AFD page, and that this dichotomy in general is not helpful. >Radiant< 15:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that it seems that many more exclusionists seems to "scour" the AFD page. Heliumballoon 17:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I am usually called an inclusionist, and I check every day to see what can be rescued--and so do others. There is no rule against notifying everyone who was at the previous AfD--if fact, its desirable and encouraged. But you've got to notify everyone, no matter how they !voted. DGG 04:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep. And, keep it neutral. Saying "please look at <this page>" suffices, and is better than "OMG! T3h evil ppl are dleetngi our good pgae agaian!!!!111" >Radiant< 08:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with that. Heliumballoon 10:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There should be a section highlighting examples of acceptable and unacceptable canvassing

Having read this page, I am getting confused about certain borderline behavior, and whether it is acceptable. I agree that going to other users' talk pages to ask them to vote for them in a RfA or AfD is unacceptable. But what about informing project members over a content dispute in an article? I'm hesitatant to inform my own project due to the wording of this guideline. Can someone please clarify?--Kylohk 11:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Question

As brought up in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sports_lists this AfD, the article's creator posted on several people's talk pages to vote in the AfD. Now, it was neutral tone, but the thing is, what's the "limit" of how many people you can ask. I mean, it doesn't have to be set in stone or anything, just a general guideline. Kwsn^(Ni!) 18:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Purely my opinion, but two factors to consider (a) is there an apparent attempt to overwhelm the "normal" amount of expected comments, and (b) has the editor waited a bit (at least a day) to see how things are going? For the first factor, simultaneously asking more than a half-dozen or so people to comment could result in significant biasing. (Arguably, if a five are asked, and only one or two respond within a day or two, asking another handful to participate could be okay.) For the second, a very one-sided expression of opinion in the first day or two would seem (to me) to justify asking (neutrally) those who might have opposite opinions to participate; this could help get a better discussion going. And I suppose that a very low number of participants after a couple of days could also justify asking a bunch of other editors to consider giving their opinion, so that the deletion decision isn't based on just a handful of comments. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...

I did it, you know, canvassing, but only because of Kermanshahi's disruptive vandalism. Randalph P. Williams 11:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

E-mail canvassing

This has been mentioned but not thoroughly discussed above and I wanted to bring it up again. I have participated in a couple of AfD's recently where users admitted that they were canvassed to the AfD via e-mail. It seemed that the e-mails were only going to folks who were assumed to be on a certain side of the AfD. It seems to me that this is a clear violation of WP:CANVASS but we don't really have any explicit language about it. I don't think editors should be able to get around this rule simply by collecting e-mail addresses of like-minded editors and then sending out a mass e-mail. Obviously this is hard to catch, but occasionally an editor will admit that they were e-canvassed, and in any case even if it is seldom caught I feel we should list it as a no no. Do other folks think it would be possible to put some language in about this, perhaps in the "votestacking" section? Perhaps something as simple as "Votestacking is sending mass talk messages (or e-mail)..." would work. I don't have experience editing policy and guideline pages and I'm curious as to what others think.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, feel free to add that, and feel free to report it on WP:ANI if you see it happening again. >Radiant< 15:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll report this in the future if I run across it again. I added in the phrase "or e-mail" to the votestacking section, which seemed like the best place for it. If someone wants to put it somewhere else or phrase it differently that's fine.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is now a mini edit-war going on between User:Morton devonshire and myself over the phrasing I added regarding e-mail. I'm hoping other editors can weigh in here, as I do not want to revert any further and would like second and third opinions from folks who regularly work on this page. Morton reverted the change I made and changed other language in the votestacking section without prior discussion on talk, though I hope he will choose to engage here soon. It should be noted that Morton and I have been on opposite sides of heated AfD's in the past and disagree strongly about certain content issues. I had absolutely no intention of bringing this up earlier, but at this point I think it is important to point out that Morton was mentioned in an AfD as an editor who canvassed via e-mail (see this diff), so it is possible that he has a bit of a conflict of interest in removing language about e-mailing in order to votestack. In asking to include and then including this language, I was not pushing any sort of "vendetta" as Morton suggested in an edit summary, but rather trying to address what I saw as a hole in the policy. The language about e-mails would obviously be a guideline for everyone--there really was nothing personal about it which is why I did not bring up any individual editors. If a couple of disinterested parties familiar with this policy page could comment here and help with this dispute that would be much appreciated. Also perhaps Morton can provide a rationale for his recent edits of the votestacking section. Thanks.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't break the canvassing precepts, so there's no conflict here. You fail to mention that I notified editors like User:Stone_put_to_sky and User:Nescio in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State terrorism by the United States (sixth nomination) debate -- editors that are definitely on the other side of me in the debate over that article. And there's the rub -- I notified them off-Wiki, but you wouldn't know that because they might never admit that, as they are my polar opposite, and that's my point -- there's no way to police this, and it's obvious that it will just be used by vindictive folks to try to hammer people they disagree with. Your presence here makes my point.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 23:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No doubt canvassing is bad, I don't know how we are going to be able to regulate what people do in emails, but it should be mentioned that it isn't condoned. For the record, Bigtimepeace seems to be after people by bringing up Morton above. He was on the opposite side of the Afd from Morton and myself and I just had a checkuser done on one set of IP's which turned up as being those of an editor that is often on the same side of debates as Bigtimepeace and this editor used who at least one sock and numerous IP's to edit war and canvass. So the accusation of vendetta seems to be a fair one. If there wasn't anything personal about it, then you shouldn't have brought up individual editors, but you did, Bigtimepeace.--MONGO 22:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

(reply to MONGO, I had not read Morton's comment) I really, really don't want to create a big (or even little) tiff about this and regret that we are even having this discussion, but the only reason I brought up Morton is that there seems a strong possibility there is a WP:COI issue here given that he is known to engage in this practice and then dropped in here and removed reference to e-mails without any discussion. I think it would have been odd for me not to mention that, and I only did so after Morton reverted twice without explanation. Initially I very intentionally did not mention any specific editors, and in mentioning Morton I tried to make it clear that he and I had been on the opposite sides of disputed AfD's before, thus admitting that I am not a completely disinterested party. I assure you that I am not "after" Morton or anyone else, I just want this to be codified as a guideline though I agree it will be very difficult to regulate or catch. For the record, I oppose canvassing by any and all parties (including the socks and anon IP's mentioned by MONGO which have nothing to do with me), even when I am in agreement with them (see for example this edit regarding an anon editor who canvassed me to an AfD debate--in a ridiculous fashion I might add, given that I had already commented). I do take MONGO's point to be that something about e-mails should be mentioned in the canvassing guideline, which is really the only thing I'm interested in. Other feedback would still be welcome.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand why mass messaging talk pages can be disruptive, but how is email, any more than communicating by telephone or in person? Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I will take Morton at his word that he notifies folks from opposing sides about upcoming AfD's, and I have no problem with that and obviously would not view that as a violation of this policy. Now we can set that aside and deal with the guideline itself. Morton, since you apparently take care to notify folks from both sides of a debate, I would assume you would agree it is improper to notify only one side of a debate, even via e-mail, as this would constitute an effort at votestacking (here I am also replying to Tom above). Obviously it's difficult to police this (but not impossible, someone who receives an e-mail may report it because they know it's a no no), but that does not mean we should not state that e-mails are just as improper as talk page spamming. Some editors would no doubt read that and take it to heart, even if others would ignore it. If you disagree please explain, but I really do not see the problem. I also would still like to hear from third parties (who are disinterested, MONGO, Morton, Tom, and myself are not) on this.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

But you're making my point. You obviously hate my innards, and if someone asked you if I sent you an e-mail about a debate, you might deny it, and then I would get hammered. Hence my point, it's ungovernable, because on-Wiki Admins can't police off-Wiki behavior.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 00:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If I may say something, I don't have a problem with someone contacting me with some issue I am interested in - either by my talk page or email, and especially I have asked to be on matters (see: friendly notice). If emailing a user can be such a dangerous tool to our project, we should disable it from Wikipedia function. However, I have had to use email in the past to have a personal matter taken care of for someone I knew. No votestacking involved, nothing violating our canvass policy, just a privacy issue of someone I knew. Sure, abuse of spamming or email could be a problem, but how do you enforce it? I think the bigger problem Wikipedia has is the problem with sock activity. It is the weirdest thing - AfD is not a vote. Therefore- in theory, if someone who spams (or emails) 300 users, and they all show up with weak arguments to keep an article, it doesn't matter as the decision can be decided by 1 user with a strong argument for deletion (Wikipedia is not a democracy - so we think???). Strength of discussion should be the factor there, as we don't count heads. As far as notification goes, I don't have a problem with it provided it is done under acceptable terms. That is just my 2 cents anyway. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 00:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, reply to Morton) Let's please try to stay cool here. I categorically do not "hate your innards" (and I actually like that phrase) and do not think I have given you any reason to suggest that I do so I don't know why you would assume that. We have strongly disagreed about things in the last couple of months, and I have told you on your own talk page that I am not a fan of your noticeboard, but that is quite different, and I don't think your assumption about my feelings toward you is warranted or appropriate to mention here. If you had sent me an e-mail about a debate (and you never have as you know, we have only talked on talk pages) and if someone was accusing you of canvassing one side, you have my guarantee that I would not only not deny I had received an e-mail from you, but would tell whoever wanted/needed to know so you would not get hammered. I hope you can assume good faith here that I am telling the truth. Let's depersonalize this please, and stick to the question of whether e-mailing off-Wiki as an effort to votestack is a form of canvassing. Perhaps we should wait for others to weigh in rather than continuing this.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Bigtimepeace's points are valid, and I see no reason not to assume good faith with the reasons he provides for bringing up these issues. Questioning his good faith and motivations is not a valid response anyway, and doesn't address the issues, which are valid. Its true that enforcement is not possible, or highly problematic, but this seems to be a red-herring since this is only a guideline, not an enforceable policy. Thus, editors can come to a consensus that the community does not condone certain things, thereby discouraging its practice, without necessarily being able to do anything about it.Giovanni33 02:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Morton is correct. I have personal experience with a troll that claimed I emailed them with some nefarious comment. He would never post the email or otherwise prove the that I did. And here's the rub, while I certainly had never sent anything nefarious, I could never prove I didn't email him. And with rampant sockpuppetry, who really knows whos on the other end of any emails? Wikipedia encourages email contact of editors and it's pretty obvious by that "Email User" button. There is no way to police it so it's silly to have a policy on it. Wikipedia is not the The World Police and let's not try to turn it into that. --Tbeatty 03:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The guideline change re: e-mail refers very specifically only to e-mail sent to a group of like minded folks in an effort to votestack--it would not apply to any other form of e-mail contact and would not have to be "policed" (it's a guideline) so I do not understand Tbeatty's concerns. But enough.

Every single person who has commented here (including myself) is involved in a heavily disputed article, State Terrorism by the United States. Unsurprisingly, all editors who have commented here and are on "my side" of the dispute (just Giovanni33 for now, I would encourage others to hold off commenting since it will not help anything) have sided with my position, while all editors on Morton's "side" (everyone else) have sided with Morton's position (MONGO actually seems to be in favor of including some language on e-mails, though maybe I'm misreading him). Anyhow I think we should all be ignored (myself included), and taking our argument over here to WP:CANVASS does not help much I think. I think most or all of us have little or no history with this page, and I am interested in comments from editors who do and who are not part of the US State Terrorism brouhaha. I think the rest of us should back off and see if other editors either support Radiant's endorsement of putting language about e-mails here or think it was a bad idea. That's what I plan to do and I hope others will as well. Oh and Tom Harrison has changed back to Morton's version, again without discussion, and again adding in radically new language, however I will not revert but rather wait for third party comments.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not part of any "side". Your concern is simply unworkable. If you brought something from the State Terrorism article here, that is your own baggage but asking others to carry it is a little too much. Your proposal seems to be "Please ignore all the people who oppose my suggestion because they are wrong." I think if we simply don't do anything you proposed, wikipedia would be served well. --Tbeatty 04:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You once wisely told another editor, "I don't see how your personal feelings about me are relevant to this discussion." [6] I'm sorry you feel that every proposition I have ever made or ever conceivably could make on Wikipedia would hurt the project, and even more sorry you felt it was necessary to comment on your feelings here. It's probably the most unpleasant comment I've ever had directed at me from a fellow established editor, and obviously could not be less helpful.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

How is opposing your proposal here being transcribed into disparaging "every proposition [you] have ever made or ever conceivably could make on Wikipedia". Please read it again and keep in mind that this is discussing your proposal of punishing people who e-mail outside of wikipedia. I propose we don't do any of that nonsense. --Tbeatty 06:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an overly dramatic representation. It does not state "No one on Wikipedia can email anyone else that is also on Wikipedia", it is simply extending canvassing, as the practice is disruptive to Wikipedia AfD process. Why do I see the same faces here as I do on the State Terrorism page? --SixOfDiamonds 17:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I took your comment "if we simply don't do anything you proposed, wikipedia would be served well" as a general one because that's what it sounds like--otherwise you would have referred to this specific proposal and not "anything." If you say it's just about this stuff, fine, I really don't care.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's see: you proposed adding e-mail language. You proposed rewording it and adding it elsewhere. You proposed that Morton Devonshire had a COI and he should staop participating. You proposed that everyone here who disagreed with you was biased and should be ignored. I don't think we should do any of the things you proposed. I believe it's proper English and quite clear. --Tbeatty 07:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I do not condone email spamming, but I also don't think there is anything that can be done about it aside from discouraging it. I don't think the Morton version is more or less helpful that the Bigtimepeace version.MONGO 15:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not really sure what the issue here is. The policy pages are to lay out what should not be done, not provide methods for policing the items. The disruption is not that someone will have two sentences on their talk page, but that a person through canvassing will bias the normal participation of users to an AfD, a normal participation that is suppose to represent a standard equal spectrum of Wikipedia users. Seems like the language should stay since it appears everyone here is agreeing that it is wrong, just wondering how it will by handled, which is not the job of the policy pages, but of Arbcom and the community to address. Perhaps someone from arbcom should be asked to look at the added wording and see how they feel regarding it, since they will be the ones addressing it directly as well as allegations of it. --SixOfDiamonds 17:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• As an editor who has never edited any of the articles mentioned above, and who has not interacted, to my memory, with either Tbeatty, Bigtimepeace, or User:Morton devonshire, it is my view that canvassing by email is at least as improper as canvassing on wiki talk pages, and that if a given msg, to a given set of recipients, on their talk pages, is considered improper canvassing or attempted votestacking, then the very same msg, to the very same set of recipients, by email, is at least as improper. indeed, in a borderline case, the email version might be less proper, since the on-=wiki method at least has transparency. I think that this page should say that, in some form of words or other. i grant that this can be hard -- in some cases impossible -- to police. But our guidelines are written primarily to explain to editors of good will what is acceptable and not acceptable, not as a code of laws intent of collecting legalistic evidence with which to convict or acquit people of crimes. (Indeed even in the "real world" many actual laws depend largely on voluntary compliance and exist to spell out agreements). If someone accuses of canvasing says that emails were sent to "all sides", particularly if a list of recipients is presented, I think the WP:AGF should normally prevail, and i also think that WP:AGF would suggest that we not assume in advance that such recipients would often lie about the matter. DES ^(talk) 21:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

How about something more inclusive, like 'communication': eg. Votestacking is communicating with editors who are on the record with a specific opinion... That way we get email, telephone, personal conversation, etcTom Harrison ^Talk 21:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggested wording

I propose the following wording for this issue:

• Lead section:

Canvassing (also known as "internal spamming" and "cross-posting") is overtly soliciting the opinions of other Wikipedians on their talk pages, or via email or other methods of communication, and it is controversial. However, it is agreed that disruptive canvassing, even if it seems to be within guidelines below, is never acceptable. ...

• Votestacking section

Votestacking is sending mass talk or email messages only to editors who are on the record with a specific opinion (such as via a userbox or other user categorization) and informing them of a current or upcoming vote. In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an AFD or CFD), it is similarly frowned-upon by many editors to send mass talk or email messages to those who expressed only a particular viewpoint on the previous debate, such as only "Keep" voters or only "Delete" voters.

• Campaigning section

A hard and fast rule does not exist with regard to selectively notifying on their talk pages or by email certain editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view, in order to influence a vote. However, the greater the number of editors contacted, the more often this behavior is engaged in, and the greater the resulting disruption, the more likely it is that this behavior will result in warnings and/or sanctions. Many Wikipedians have suggested that informing editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who voted in a previous AfD on a given subject) is normally acceptable.

• Email section (new)

Because it is less transparent than on-wiki notifications, the use of email or other off-wiki communication to notify editors is discouraged unless there is a significant reason for not using talk page notifications. Sending a notification to a group of editors by email may be looked at more negatively than sending the same message to the same group of people on their talk pages would be, depending on the specific circumstances.

I hope this text looks reasoanble, please feel free to suggest changes. DES ^(talk) 21:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This looks good to me and I would support its inclusion. Tom's suggested language about "communication" (i.e. keeping it more general) would also work I think, but personally I prefer the specificity in DES's proposal.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that on reading Tom's comment i included "or other methods of communication" in a couple of places. DES ^(talk) 22:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest putting this text on the guideline page, unless another editor has a different option.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. You proposed wording for for the E-mail canvassing issue but you also changed other items. Please highlight all the changes first so that your proposed changes are clearer. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 04:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Until they are all fully protected (which doesn't seem likely any time this century) people are certainly allowed to edit the page and improve it, rather than jumping through the bureaucratic hoop of highlighting everything first. >Radiant< 12:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Notes on talk pages aren't always, or even often, unacceptable

I just had a fellow come to me for help with some non-nude images that were of dubious provenance, depicted possible minors, and so on. In the end they were deleted by Jimbo.

Meanwhile some misguided individual had a go at the original editor accusing him of (presumably unacceptable) "canvassing". It seems to me that this guideline cannot possibly be intended to make it impossible to solicit help from an editor. That is, after all, what talk pages are for. Perhaps the wording of this guideline should be made more clear so that we don't have people getting the idea that user talk pages are only there for posting block notices. --Tony Sidaway 00:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, here's where I think the problem lies

This is the version of the lead para on December 31 last year:

Canvassing is the systematic contacting of individuals in a target group to further one's side of a debate. In Wikipedia, Canvassing, also known as "Wikipedian-on-Wikipedian spamming", "internal spamming" and "cross-posting", is the attempt to influence the outcome of debates by soliciting comments from like-minded editors. It is strongly discouraged with a few exceptions.

This is today's version:

Canvassing (also known as "internal spamming" and "cross-posting") is overtly soliciting the opinions of other Wikipedians on their talk pages, and it is controversial. However, it is agreed that disruptive canvassing, even if it seems to be within guidelines below, is never acceptable. On at least one occasion, a provocative attempt to stack an ongoing poll by cross-posting has contributed.

I think the latter version is a bit vague because "overtly soliciting the opinions of other Wikipedians on their talk pages" is pretty much what talk pages are for. Perhaps some of the clarity of the earlier version might be restored. --Tony Sidaway 00:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that in this context, and many others, allegations of improper canvassing are far too common. The purpose of this guideline is to prevent the unfair skewing of results in a discussion and perhaps, to a lesser extent, to avoid drawing undue attention to one particular discussion at the extent of others. This worthy goal should not be pursued at the expense of being able to draw the attention of editors who are knowledgeable or interested in a different subject-matter or policy area to the fact that their input would be valued in a discussion relating to their area of interest or expertise. The current wording needs to be tweaked although I haven't yet thought of a better one. Newyorkbrad 00:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Redraft: A redraft of this wording should be fairly uncomplicated, since the first sub-heading in the guideline text already contains a diagram enumerating the "essential elements" for a prima facie showing of canvassing. A re-wording more closely aligned with that diagram, therefore, seems appropriate here. dr.ef.tymac 05:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Another problem with the lead section is it fails to properly distinguish the "acceptable" range of canvassing from the "unacceptable" range (for example, canvassing is disparaged as 'spamming' and called 'controversial' despite that the guideline clearly indicates limited 'friendly notices' are within the range of acceptable conduct, and [apparently] meet the definition of "canvassing"). dr.ef.tymac 05:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Redraft needed

After having a look at the discussion history of this guideline, and reviewing some apparent sources of confusion, I think a redraft of the text is appropriate here. Comments, criticism and feedback are welcome. dr.ef.tymac 05:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing (also known as "internal spamming" and "cross-posting") is overtly soliciting the opinions of other Wikipedians on their talk pages, and it is controversial. However, it is agreed that disruptive canvassing, even if it seems to be within guidelines below, is never acceptable. On at least one occasion, a provocative attempt to stack an ongoing poll by cross-posting has contributed towards an Arbitration Committee ruling of disruptive behavior that resulted in probation and eventual banning by the community.[1]

Change to:

Canvassing is the distribution of messages to a targeted audience on a scale that exceeds that of ordinary interpersonal correspondence. Canvassing may be deemed a misuse of Wikipedia resources if any of the following occur: 1) the content of the messages entails bias intended to unfairly skew the outcome of a matter under dispute; 2) the audience is targeted on the basis of partisanship, or other factors favoring a given "side" in a dispute; 3) the scale of the distribution is unreasonably wide or indiscriminate; or 4) the canvassing is otherwise disruptive to the operation of Wikipedia, its users, or contributors.

I think you're definitely on the right track. This is much clearer. --Tony Sidaway 10:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I fear I've broken this rule

What should one do if one wishes to change confusing wikipedia policy, that is defined piecemail over several different articles? I tend to just ask the same question on several different talk pages in that case. Mathiastck 13:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Please elaborate? The easiest place to bring up policy issues is the Village Pump. There is an ongoing (but difficult) effort to keep policy simple. >Radiant< 10:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

So why shouldn't I "canvass" like this?

Canvassing is the distribution of messages to a targeted audience on a scale that exceeds that of ordinary interpersonal correspondence. Canvassing may be deemed a misuse of Wikipedia resources if: 1) the content of the messages entails bias intended to unfairly skew the outcome of a matter under dispute; 2) the audience is targeted on the basis of partisanship, or other factors favoring a given "side" in a dispute; 3) the scale of the distribution is unreasonably wide or indiscriminate; or 4) the canvassing is otherwise disruptive to the operation of Wikipedia, its users, or contributors.

So if you tell the talk page of a WikiProject that a certain article on their subject matter exists and they may be able to help improve it, without soliciting any particular improvements, does that violate this rule? I never heard of any Wikipedia convention on "canvassing" until someone accused me of it because I did just that, and implied I was thereby being abusive. (And he had earlier said he thought it would be a good idea.) Specifically, I notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics of an AfD nomination, without urging anyone to vote "keep" or to vote "delete". That is in fact frequently done and customary in that particular WikiProject. Michael Hardy 23:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• As long as the message is neutral in tone, no. What we frown upon (and occasionally block people for) is spamming a lot of user talk pages, especially if done one-sidedly (either by contacting only users known to hold one particular opinion, or by using decidedly biased messages, or both). >Radiant< 12:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I reverted to the original lead. Not that the original is very good, but the version above is not only wrong but also incomprehensible gobbledigook (I had to read it twice, and I got a Ph.D.), and I don't see any consensus for the change. Re Michael's question, there is a clear consensus that neutrally phrased notifications on Wikiprojects are not only accepted but desirable if they are geared towards attracting expert opinion to the disscussion. If the lead doesn't make that clear we have a problem. ~ trialsanderrors 16:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I wish to contest this rationale for the wholesale deletion of the updated lead. So far, you are the first and only contributor to comment unfavorably on the re-draft. All other comments on it have been favorable. Moreover, all of the contributors who have commented on the lead have identified serious problems with the "old version" (what you call "original version") even you.

If you have specific problems with the lead as re-drafted, please enumerate them and continue to discuss potential for improvement using the same process of iterative review that you've used in the past. This seems far more productive than wholesale restoration of content that seems to be universally disfavored. Thanks for your consideration. dr.ef.tymac 16:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It's 1. unreadable, and 2. wrong. Re 1, you seem to be unaware that the guideline targets the whole population of Wikipedians, 99% of whom in all likelihood will only scratch their heads at lines like "entails bias intended to unfairly skew the outcome of a matter under dispute". For all its flaws the original version actually manages to get the main point across rather than confound the reader with poorly-though-out legalese. Re 2, "distribution of messages to a targeted audience on a scale that exceeds that of ordinary interpersonal correspondence" is not canvassing, that's just internal spamming. Canvassing requires an element of solicitation, and it doesn't necessarily have to go out to a targeted audience. In the lengthy prior discussion above we actually painstakingly separated the strands that go into the whole complex of canvassing/crossposting/campaigning, so confouding the issues in the first sentence certianly doesn't help the cause. ~ trialsanderrors 17:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

O.k. take deep breaths ... first off, I'd appreciate if you could help keep the discussion focused. Unsubstantiated speculation about my personal attributes and level of awareness is off-topic. Ditto for the unsubstantiated speculation about 99% of Wikipedians. If you have substantiation for any of these claims, I welcome it, otherwise, it frankly detracts from the quality and credibility of this discussion.

Second, thank you for mentioning specifics, that will also keep the discussion focused. Glib generalities such as "it's wrong" are equally unproductive. I will now address specific issues that you've raised, item-by-item:

Item-by-item response to User:Trialsanderrors

"entails bias intended to unfairly skew the outcome of a matter under dispute"

O.k. that's one part that could stand to be re-worded, even removed. I have no problem with that.

the original version actually manages to get the main point across rather than confound the reader with poorly-though-out legalese

That's your opinion, which you are entitled to, but there are other opinions to the contrary. I am assuming you are willing to admit yours is not the only relevant opinion. As already mentioned, you are the first to comment unfavorably on the re-draft. Nevertheless, you are indeed free to see it how you see it, but to me, this specific remark is pure editorializing, so I can't really address it substantively.

"distribution of messages to a targeted audience on a scale that exceeds that of ordinary interpersonal correspondence" (is just internal spamming)

Point1_1: Changing the word "messages" to "solicitations" addresses this issue. Unless you want to assert that this sentence is "incomprehensible gobbledigook (sic)" then this simple change appears to address all of the (on-topic) concerns that you've brought up so far.

Point1_2: The wording you restored: Canvassing (also known as "internal spamming" ... fails to make the very "correction" you point out here. There's no reason to correct it here in discussion, but leave it incorrect (or vague) in the lead section itself. Either the two are distinct concepts, or they are mutually interchangeable. Which way do you want it.

Update: I see this particular problem has been fixed now. Thanks, User:Trialsanderrors for addressing this. dr.ef.tymac 18:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Point1_3: The wording you restored contains a parenthetical Canvassing also includes the use of a custom signature... ... This clearly pertains to the definition of "message" (or "solicitation" if you prefer) but it is not entirely unambiguous whether it pertains to the overall definition of "Canvassing". So why is this tacked-on after-the-fact consideration even placed there at the end of the paragraph? Shouldn't it be clearly associated with the definition of "what is a message"?

Point1_4: The wording you restored still does not clearly address the issue of whether "Canvassing" (assuming the definition is met) is always a misuse of Wikipedia resources. This distinction appears to be completely unrecognized in the text. This is probably the most critical deficiency with the "old" lead section.

it doesn't necessarily have to go out to a targeted audience.

O.k., this is another specific point that merits attention. The definition of "Canvassing" is composed of several independent elements. As far as I can see, no single element is definitive. So far, we have these elements:

• Scale
• Message (biased vs neutral // solicitation vs non-solicitation)
• Audience

Problem: The "biased vs neutral" and "solicitation vs non-solicitation" distinction is never made clear.

Problem: It is not clear if a finding of "Canvassing" is automatically considered a misuse of WP resources. What happens when one element is in the "unacceptable" zone, but all others are in the "acceptable" zone? (e.g., What mass-posting of a "neutral" message to a "non-partisan" audience?) This has been mentioned repeatedly in this discussion page but never definitively addressed (as far as I can see).

Problem: These elements include no notion of: 1) intent of the poster; 2) willingness of the recipient(s)

In the lengthy prior discussion ... painstakingly separated canvassing/crossposting/campaigning

Yes, and I commend your prior efforts, and those of others, which I've read and agree with in some areas, and disagree with in others. This, however, is a side issue. These individual "definitions" provide no independent guidance on how to apply the "elements". The "definitions" are conclusory. They assume a set of facts and then tell how WP policy applies to those assumed facts. Not every scenario covered by this policy is going to come in a pretty little package of already-anticipated facts. If they do, then there's no need for the "elements" to begin with; they could easily be replaced with "You'll know it when you see it."

Summary: The critical problem here is that there is no *clear* guidance on whether and when "Canvassing" is considered a misuse of WP resources; even if the "definition" of Canvassing is met. Moreover, the policy gives the appearance of analytical completeness (by showing a table enumerating the "elements" to consider), but then collapses into a morass of "know it when you see it" definitions that do not cover all possible scenarios.

The lead text as it stands now is critically deficient and needs to be clarified.dr.ef.tymac 18:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

redraft of lead section

Recently a contributor undid the redraft of the lead section with no discussion or rationale. This seems inappropriate, as the re-draft was done to address several issues mentioned by multiple WP contributors. dr.ef.tymac 17:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

A very short summary of example issues with the "old" lead section includes:

• Item1: fails to address "a fruitful distinction to be made between partisan & neutral canvassing."
• Item2: fails to address "The act of receiving the message is not canvassing."
• Item3: fails to distinguish "friendly notices."
• Item4: fails to identify "soliciting the opinions of other Wikipedians" is not always inappropriate
• Item5: fails to identify "thanking voters for succesful and unsuccesful RfAs" as not always inappropriate
• Item6: inconsistent with the table in WP:CANVASS#Types_of_canvassing
• Item7: fails to address "the wording of this guideline should be made more clear"
• Item8: fails to define "canvassing" clearly
• Item9: fails to mention the essential elements of "canvassing" (as shown in the table)

To see these issues mentioned in context, simply cut and paste the quoted text into your "find in this page" feature of your web browser.

Since there is some new attention being given to the lead, the matters at issue here should get more discussion, since multiple contributors have made favorable and unfavorable comments about the "new" re-draft, and there is no obvious consensus on which way to go. Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 17:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Side-by-side comparison

"original" (old) version || "redraft" (new) version.

I remvoed the side-by-side comparison. It's still available above under "Redraft needed". On the items list, it doesn't "fail" to address these things, it purposely leaves them to the table below as the table can offer a much more concise and comprehensive picture of the issues at hand than a lengthy and convoluted intro. ~ trialsanderrors 17:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anyone advocating a "lengthy and convoluted intro" ... if there are specific problems to address, then let's address them. This discussion page already shows that multiple contributors do not find the current "intentional omissions" of the lead to be well-considered. Each one of these "items" enumerated above relate to specific concerns addressed by different contributors, not just me.

If you dismiss this list, you're dismissing a good chunk of problems mentioned here in talk. dr.ef.tymac 18:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Another iteration

Recently a contributor undid a re-draft of the lead section on the grounds that it contained incorrect information and was not very readable. Another re-draft has been made to address some of the legitimate concerns that were raised; both with the re-draft, and with the "original" version as well.

This should be a move closer toward an acceptable resolution. Constructive criticism and comments are of course welcome. Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 03:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Current proposal

Canvassing is the attempt to solicit or persuade other Wikipedians with messages that are outside the limits of ordinary interpersonal correspondence. Canvassing is often considered unwelcome and intrusive.^[1] Although in limited circumstances it may be appropriate, if it is not done within the guidelines indicated below, or is otherwise disruptive, it may be deemed an unacceptable misuse of Wikipedia resources.^[2]

Alternative

Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to influence a community discussion. Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that by scale, language or target audience are written to influence rather than to notify others compromise those discussions and are generally considered disruptive. This guideline explains how to notify editors without engaging in disruptive canvassing.

Comments on the current proposal: [1] The problem with canvassing is not that it is intrusive, but that it compromises discussions and creates a "false consensus". [2] Should be worded more positively. Other than that this certainly moving in the right direction. I think the footnotes work too. ~ trialsanderrors 05:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the "Alternative" wording: it addresses the core issues more directly and puts the entire text in perspective. That's definitely good. The only issue (for me) at first glance is the second sentence. It may benefit from minor copy editing. Regardless of that one small issue, however, it definitely looks like the best fit for the lead section. dr.ef.tymac 06:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

On re-reading, "by scale, language or target audience" sounds stilted and should be replaced or removed. We could possibly introduce the key terms here "by campaigning, votestacking or excessive crossposting" or just leave it as it is: "messages that are written to influence rather than notify". ~ trialsanderrors 06:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

An earlier thought: it seemed like introducing "campaigning, vote-stacking, etc." as specific "facets" of Canvassing would be a good idea to add to the lead. On reconsideration, it now seems saving additional terms for later is the better approach. (less potential for confusion, less potential inconsistent use of terms by WP readers who cite this, but are unfamiliar with the nuances, etc.)

Considering the subsection "Types of canvassing", it looks like the general structure is already well-suited to both introduce and explain these key concepts later on in the text. Also, this helps mitigate the previously-encountered difficulties with narrating concepts from the diagram in a concise and readable lead section. dr.ef.tymac 07:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, apart from some copy-editing I think we boiled this down to the most succinct message possible. I'm also in favor of trimming the appeal to authority that takes up paragraphs 2 and 3, or relegate it to the footnotes. Thanks for pushing this. ~ trialsanderrors 16:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

One more possible change: Instead of written to influence rather than to notify others I would now put written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a debate. ~ trialsanderrors 16:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Substantially in agreement on all points except the last one. I can foresee contributors complaining: "Isn't *all* good-faith discussion an attempt to 'influence' the outcome of a matter under review?"

I've been assuming all along that this is a question of *proportionality*. It would seem an intent to "influence" is not necessarily sufficient for a showing of misconduct. It's when we combine that intent with the potential "(scale + language + targeting)" abuses that problems arise.

This is one reason for the "interpersonal correspondence" and "intrusiveness" measures that were added previously. The goal was to express the relevance of "(scale + language + targeting)" with one simple English word or phrase, without laboriously spelling out those elements completely in the lead.

Nevertheless, I don't have any specific preference on wording to introduce *proportionality*, so long as it is either: 1) addressed somewhere in the text (doesn't have to be in the lead); 2) rendered unimportant by the clarity of terms already there; or 3) shown to be unimportant because my analysis of this situation is simply not correct, and we don't have to worry about it in the first place.

If 3) is the case, then I'll be more than happy with a simple clarification here in talk.

If it's case 1) or 2), then the existing outline of the entire policy and incremental and minor copy-editing should be adequate. Considering the substantial improvements that have already materialized, this also should be relatively straightforward to resolve. dr.ef.tymac 17:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, intrusiveness is not a necessary condition for disruption, nor is large-scale spamming. We actually get infrequent complaints that votestack messages have been removed from a user talk page. In that case the users want to be notified (usually because they agree with the canvasser), but the notification comes with a slant – either it targets editors by viewpoint or it contains biased language. There are a number of accepted forms of notifications, which we should probably list: notify all editors who substantively edited the article, notify all participants in a previous debate on the topic, etc. For all other cases we can probably only admonish the editors to be conservative about canvassing and point out that disruptive canvassing in the past can lead to sanctions. ~ trialsanderrors 21:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, admittedly I had not considered that scenario when introducing the "intrusive" component, but that's another reason why I am not particularly emphatic about the specific wording, and more concerned that the terms remain clear throughout.

But this brings up another (side) issue, since we are talking about punishable misconduct here, it definitely seems more equitable to treat "non-intrusive" Canvassing with a lot more restraint than might otherwise be given (IMO). It is often difficult to objectively asses "biases" ... especially since we all have them.

Back to the main point. The "Alternative" lead looks good at this stage in the game. I hope you are planning to add it in to the text. dr.ef.tymac 00:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't monitor WP:ANI, so I don't know how frequently canvassing leads to blocks, but the first thrust of this guideline should be to prevent canvassing, and if it occurs, to limit the fallout. A major problem with canvassing is often that it sidetracks a discussion by triggering a metadiscussion whether the canvassing attempt was within bounds, and that it invalidates a discussion so that it has to be overturned and restarted. If we can cut down on this kind of excess heat then the guideline serves a better purpose than by delineating penalties. New lead added, I also moved the appeal to authority to the footnote to declutter the text. ~ trialsanderrors 17:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"Friendly Notices" Userbox

Moved here from User talk:Trialsanderrors

Hello! Would you mind moving the "Wikipedia:Canvassing/Friendly" userbox to a template, or preferably to your userspace? It seems a bit odd to stick a userbox in Wikipedia namespace. Cheers, >Radiant< 13:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. ~ trialsanderrors 15:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Question though - I may have missed something, but where is this consensus-forming on the talk page? Apart from a dialogue between you and Dreftymac, the talk page hasn't had any discussion for a month. >Radiant< 16:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Question to both Trialsanderrors and Radiant!: where on Talk:Canvassing are you discussing the recent edits/reverts you've been doing? (I searched for "userbox" on the page but didn't succeed in finding the current discussion -- sorry if it's obvious.) Thanks. --Coppertwig 16:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

WT:CANVAS#Canvassing (the word) on the user box issue. ~ trialsanderrors 17:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, could you be more specific? I read/skimmed that whole section and I only saw stuff from back in January or so; also although I saw stuff about a userbox, I didn't see anything about either mentioning or not mentioning the userbox on page Canvassing. Could you please give me a unique search string pointing to one of the messages you mean and then I can easily find it on the page? Thanks. --Coppertwig 17:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion starts with "There is also a difference in effects." I proposed the userbox, which was supported by Andrewa and jc37 without opposition. If Radiant and you oppose the userbox then I guess we should re-open the discussion. ~ trialsanderrors 17:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• It's not a big deal to me but I'm not really happy with the concept, or with advertising userboxes of any kind on policy pages of any kind. >Radiant< 09:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Well the impetus for the discussion was a simple problem with this guideline. We assume that most people are annoyed with random notifications on unrelated topics on their talk page, but we can't decree that they all have to be annoyed with them. Various users actually came here to complain that a notification was removed from their talk page by an admin. So the userbox is a simple way for editors to opt in to a friendly notices program. We discussed others above, but the user box one seemed the easiest to implement. If you favor others feel free to offer them here. ~ trialsanderrors 16:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm undecided about some things about the userbox, including the following ideas. Maybe the policy should say that it's OK to inform everyone who participated in a discussion, and it's also OK to inform everyone who participated and who has such a userbox and not inform those who don't. Maybe there could also be a userbox saying that one does not want to receive messages, and the policy could say that it's OK to inform everyone except those who have such a userbox. I think some users have notices on their talk page saying not to discuss articles with them there but to use the article talk pages. It could be OK to inform everyone except those people. Here's a possible problem: there could be a cabal of people who know each other, know about the Friendly userbox, like it and have it on their page, and they could all edit the same articles. Then they could pretty much canvass each other. They could say, "let's all go and edit that article there." Maybe having the Friendly usebox would cause such a cabal to come into existence. They might tend to have similar opinions, since those who don't might get tired of getting those messages and take the Friendly template down. Or, people might feel as if it's a cabal when a bunch of Friendlies descend on a discussion. I would like to point out that the existence of the Friendly template and mentioning it in the policy are two different issues. --Coppertwig 17:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we're much more at risk of having editors of similar mindset edit the same articles, or be members of the same WikiProject, and both are accepted filters for notifying. The scenario for your objection might not be altogether impossible but it seems a bit far-fetched. On opting in vs. opting out, the agreement above was that the default case is that editors do not want to be spammed on their talk page about discussions they have no stake in, so opting in is the way to allow the minority who wants to be spammed to signal this to the world. Of course nothing prevents any user from putting a "No spamming" box on their user page. ~ trialsanderrors 19:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• One problem is that adding any amount of instructions to this page is going to increase wikilawyering about it. Canvassing is not infrequently done in bad faith, by people who will take any excuse as a firm endorsement of their actions. >Radiant< 08:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• How about a midsentence link or end-of-sentence "(see also X)" to a page that describes the userbox (or just to the userbox template page)? --Coppertwig 14:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Undoubtedly, but as was discussed at length earlier, there are bad faith and good faith notifications, and the guideline should distinguish one from the other. Of course editors who canvass in bad faith will often try to selectively quote from the guideline to justify their actions, but I don't see how the adoption of the FN box will give them undue support. ~ trialsanderrors 21:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• The problem is, it gives them one more option. So, they can look to see which group contains a greater percentage of their supporters: all users who commented, or all such users with a Friendly userbox, or (possibly other criteria they think up). And if one such group looks favourable to their side, they can notify that group and claim it was a nonpartisan selection of people. Actually, it doubles the number of possible groups they could think up. --Coppertwig 21:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)