Wikipedia talk:Canvassing/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Is it canvasing to post in another weapons list page and ask an opinion?

I was trying to find out why some weapons list were acceptable, while others were not, so I posted on the Star Trek weapons list, and nowhere else. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_weapons_in_Star_Trek&diff=264975194&oldid=264950547 This was reverted by AnmaFinotera who claims I was canvassing. Can someone please look at my message, and tell me if that counts as canvasing or not? It was only made in one area only to ask for an honest opinion. It was a legitimate question, and I think it very relevant to the other page as well, since all wikipedia weapons list pages are affected by these policies. Dream Focus (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I must say, DF, I don't see that as a violation of WP:CANVASS at all, but AnmaFinotera may have some reasoning which escapes me at this moment. I've posted a message on her talk page, and we'll see what she has to say. Like you, I am assuming good faith; I would do this with anyone anyway, but in her case, given that she's an extraordinarily experienced and respected editor, it is a must. Cheers. Unschool 04:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

See his other edits, in particularly the discussion on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Gantz equipment. Nor is his wording neutral at all. He clearly implies that because his unnotable list is going to be deleted, that the Star Trek weapons list is "in danger" of the same fate, despite it clearly being notable, by claiming they are "the same." He's also been forum shopping by attempting to have the AfD overturned by for a similar list under the false claim that there was no consensus for the decision (User talk:MBisanz#Why did you delete/redirect Clow Cards?, and by posting at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#Character Pages, and Equipment Pages trying to get support for his point of view. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

AnmaFinotera keeps accussing me of nonsense. In the Clow Cards AFD discussion, 1 person said delete, 2 said merge/redirect, 1 said merge, and 2 said keep. I asked it be opened for future discussion, instead of just deleted. And me posting in the appropriate policy discussion page to ask if equipment pages were as valid as character pages, was not to gain support, but simply to ask a legitimate question. Dream Focus (talk) 04:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

DF, the consensus was not to delete, but to merge. I looked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clow Cards, and it seems that it was closed quite properly. DF, WP:AfD exists for a reason, and that is because different people have different ideas regarding what material is noteworthy enough for a Wikipedia article. Consensus was clearly not in favor of Clow Cards having its own article. Someday that may change. But in the meantime, you would probably help yourself best by letting that one go and get into the business of editing other articles. If consensus is against you today, it is very frustrating, but you have to go on, and you have to devote your energies elsewhere—hopefully article writing—rather than in fighting those who disagree with you today. I would venture to say that most Wikipedia editors with any intelligence don't learn to get past the frustration of losing a discussion until they have 2000-3000 edits. (I know it took me longer than that.) But stay calm, find something else to edit, and remember this old bit of wisdom (just read the words in boldface). It helps a lot. Unschool 05:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you misread me. I'm as calm as can be, just curious mostly. I seek out information, and find someone trying to stop me from even asking the question, erasing my comment on a page, without any justifiable reason(twice). After it was erased, I posted here for an opinion, and after you agreed it didn't seem like canvasing, I went and undid her deletion. She deleted it again, I undoing it again. The post there should be considered unrelated to anywhere else, they honestly not connect, I just trying to figure out why things are. She seems to believe everything is a personal attack against her, it all starting here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dream_Focus&redirect=no#Messages Dream Focus (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for encouraging you to get "calm"; I had no basis for assuming you were not. I do, however, stand by the rest of my advice. You'll just get further in this work and ultimately feel better about things once you learn to let go of lost battles. I'm not saying you're right or wrong in this whole Gintz matter; I've never even heard of the subject. I'm just saying that, when you've lost a battle, don't keep fighting it, no matter how right you think you are.

I mean, it may happen that later on you can bring it up again. When I had been editing about two months I got involved in a big argument over a policy issue, an argument in many ways appears like this one. I was so totally pissed that these other "goons" could not see what I was saying. It was hard to let go. But I finally did, and I went out and became a productive editor (at least, I think so). More than two years later, the issue presented itself again. I re-entered the discussion, and you know what happened? Well, I'm not going to tell you, because it doesn't matter. All that matters is that I was able to engage the discussion without feeling wronged or misunderstood; I assumed good faith, and others did the same of me. And that makes all the difference in the world. Unschool 06:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:ARS and Template:ARS/Tagged

Resolved

 – I'm boldly archiving this as the discussion seems to have lost steam. I'm not sure anyone was swayed from their stance but at least some of the valid concerns were raised and discussed. If someone feels this needs to be delved into further I suggest starting a more focussed specific thread. -- Banjeboi 11:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The Wikipedia Article Rescue Squadron, an overtly inclusionist article cleanup Wikiproject, has for a while now used {{rescue}}, a cleanup tag that automatically adds the article to their cleanup categories. There are no criteria for using {{rescue}} other than that a member of the project has to feel that the article shouldn't be deleted. I don't really have a problem with this on its own, since it is a project for article cleanup.

However, they recently created and implemented {{ARS/Tagged}}, a template intended for their user talk page to automatically link any article tagged with {{rescue}}. This has created an automatic scheme where anyone who wants to keep an article from being deleted can automatically add it to the talk pages of a number of self-professed inclusionists. Automatic talk page canvassing, with no entry in the AFD history, no clear entry in the article history, and no entry in the talk page histories, is troubling to me.

Am I alone in being bothered by this? - [[|A Man In Bl♟ck]] (conspire - past ops) 02:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you aren't. Some members of that group have been practicing various forms of canvassing lately which I've been disgusted to see has seemingly gone unnoticed and unchallenged...and this seems like it really crosses the line. That template should be deleted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Then we should delete the templates for AfDs in general or RfAs that appear on userpages as one can argue that these are also used to canvass. As a member of the ARS, I don't feel compelled to rescue every article templated or even comment in every AfD and I doubt the other users do as well. Not much different than someone who say watchlists AfDs or wikiproject AfD lists. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

One is a general posting in a public place, shared by all who pass by. The other is a targeted notice to a group with stated partisan views. Other Wikiproject lists are generally non-partisan, although I'd be less unhappy with a central list that wasn't being transcluded onto the talk page of expressed partisans, or if I hadn't seen evidence of bloc action (coincidental or not), or if the project wasn't expressly partisan. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The project is no more partisan than AfD is. I haven't seen anything different from say known deletionists block voting with "per noms" rapidly after certain editors' nominations either, so perhaps these things cancel out. A good deal in that group don't argue to keep all the time and even I am not willing or able to defend and try to rescue everything. It's useful in seeing what's worth rescuing, but by and large I also try to work on the articles too. I don't simply see something templated and feel I'll just help in the AfD alone. And nor do all the other members who occasionally help in the article rescue efforts. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Come on. It's an expressly partisan inclusionist project. The work is good work, and I support its work, but the core members include you, Ikip/Inclusionist(!), DGG, Banjeboi, and Peregrine Fisher. The talk page regularly includes discussions about defeating the deletionists.

Automatically transcluding a subset of AFDs onto the talk page of self-declared partisans is troubling to me, and while you can make up claims that "Oh, the other guys do it too" unless you can point to an example of someone else doing it systemically so I can complain about them, too, I'm no less happy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any evidence of it being more partisan inclusionist than AfD is partisan deletionist. I am seeing it being used to help rescue articles from deletion and with at least some degree of success. If the end result is content that is somehow used, then it's a good thing. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes I have to wonder if you're pulling my leg. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't take any of the criticism seriously Black, with 167 articles deleted it is pretty obvious your own POV, Collectian not only has 366 AfDs herself, she also was involved in an edit war with me recently over WP:Television episodes, refusing to allow any template tags on the page, so she is not exactly an impartial neutral party either. Ikip (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hence why I'm not exactly getting my feathers ruffled about partisans, my own views are clear and unconcealed. However, I'm not making automated tools to bring other partisans to AFDs. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Power to you Black. I respect your actual contributions to the project. Add a category tag to Template:AfDM, then I will help you make a template too. Ikip (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think an inclusionist version of AFD and a deletionist version of AFD would be very productive. I would rather this not turn into the usual "my views are correct, so anything I do is correct" nonsense this typically turns into. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Here you go Black, your own template, {{AfD/Tagged}} now there are hundreds of articles you can pass judgment on, insisting that other people add references, criticizing that their contributions are simply not good enough:

I am glad that you are criticizing ARS, because that means a lot of editors who know how to add references and contribute content are saving articles. Ikip (talk) 04:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have anything to contribute other than sarcasm and villification? This kind of "well, you're my enemy, so I don't have to listen to you and if I'm making you unhappy, good!" attitude is not productive. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Accusing some talk page template as being an instrument of canvassing is kind of a villification, no? I think here, at AfDs, etc., we are all spending far too much time doing stuff other than working together to improve articles. We should all get back to that and help each other to add references and what have you. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's a template that exists to link articles on AFD on the talk page of expressed inclusionists. If this were done by hand, the appearance of bad faith would be overwhelming. The reason I brought it up here and on the project talk page is because I hoped that this was an unintended consequence. If I had reason to believe actual bad faith, I have a delete button. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone listed there is an inclusionist, though, and you have edited around there, i.e. non-inclusionists obviously watch that project, so aside from helping to improve articles, I am not seeing any detrimental effect. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I had no problem before. Is there anyone who isn't a self-described inclusionist who has this template on their talk page, though? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who all has it. I didn't put on my page (if someone else did and I'm unaware, I didn't add it...). I just wouldn't assume that because someone's an inclusionist they will always knee-jerk try to keep. I deliberately avoid a good deal of discussions that I am either ambivalent on or am okay if deleted (one more delete from me is not necessary and if I actually did comment in more discussions for stuff that I don't believe meets our inclusion criteria, I would have well over the 50+ current deletion arguments I've made). I think we should be able to get wider participation in AfDs and I strongly support requiring notification of not just article creators, but also anyone with a few contributions, because the usual half dozen odd commentors in five days just doesn't seem a real pulse taking of how the community views the articles in question. There are some discussions I have missed a day late or so that I reckon I might have been able to at least get a merge out of. My hope is that the members will make more efforts at rescuing the articles as I attempt more so than commenting in the AfDs as we need both and there are times where I feel as if I am carrying the weight of reference searching and adding. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

How is this different from "Here's AFD/x, I thought you might want to comment" on the talk page of everyone you know to be an inclusionist? And how can the appearance of impropriety be avoided in the future? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It's kind of like that RfA box some people have on their userpages; just because it's there doesn't mean everyone who has it is going to comment in every RfA listed. If someone specifically goes to peoples' pages saying, be sure to comment in all of the following discussions, then that's one thing, but a template that editors can look at at their discretion is not quite the same thing, because as I said before, I don't feel inclined to try to rescue and arguer to keep everything that's ARS templated and I don't see the members of the group go to defend everything templated either. So, it's like checking the RfAs, okay which ones do I want to comment in and which ones should I avoid? Same thing, let's check the list of items tagged for rescue, okay, well I can find sources for this one, or I think this artice has potential, but it's no guarantee that anyone will comment in support of everything on this list and it's even possible that some will argue to delete as I recall DGG doing in an ARS templated article that I argued to keep. As far as the future, people will assume and interpret things all kinds of ways regardless of what we attempt to do. I suggest having one of those small script "This article has been tagged for rescue" style messages akin to those the wikiprojects use for deletion sorting. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

But that is every RFA and is not pitched directly to a partisan bloc, whereas this template is currently in use only by expressed inclusionists and belongs to an expressly inclusionist project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe everyone listed at Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Members#All_Members would identify as an inclusionist. Some certainly, but not all. Plus, we state clearly at Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron#So_the_ARS_are_wild-eyed_inclusionists.3F that we do not intend a partisan agenda. It's about rescuing what articles can be rescued, not rescuing everything. If it was inclusionist, it would be about trying to rescue as many articles as possible, when I and the others I usually work with approach it as acknowledging that we can't rescue everything so focus on those for which sources can be found and then work from them. Do you suspect some people might misuse things, well, it's kind of like guns don't kill people, people kill people. How do we stop people from misusing AfD? Because some do, should we eliminate AfD altogether? So far, you seem suspicious about one particular discussion, which those same editors could have easily stumbled upon and agrued to keep regardless of that userspace template as that's how I would have expected them to go anyway. Would not having that template have actually casued any of them to argue differently or to not eventually come across the discussion, I'm not so sure. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course not, that's a list of hundreds of people, many of whom don't even edit any more. On the other hand, this template is only on the user/talk pages of self-declared inclusionists, the talk page is constantly bandying about talk of "winning against the deletionists", the project page links just about every inclusionist essay I can think of outside of the whole CRUFTCRUFTCRUFTCRUFTCRUFT hairball, and all of the regular commentors on talk save Protonk and myself are self-declared inclusionists. This is not a problem on its own, but an automatic AFD list pitched to a clearly partisan group is, if only for the appearance of impropriety. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I can think of some more inclusionist essays not listed...:) Anyway, though, looking at some of the supports for WP:FICT, it's not as if there aren't other pages riddled with remarks about defeating inclusionists. But I don't see how having this list on someone's page is any different than say having the ARS category page watchlisted or looking for AfDs of articles by other means that has the template. I don't have the template, because I can still find all the tagged articles on another page in the ARS space, just as I don't keep the RfA template on my page as I just check the RfA page to see who's been nominated or watch list discussions in which I anticipate a reply. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

WT:FICT isn't a wikiproject, is heterogenous in the extreme, doesn't have an automatically-populated list of borderline AFDs being posted on people's talk pages, and isn't doing anything but generating megabytes of useless internecine infighting. Non sequitor.

Having a list in the ARS space is emotionally different, for reasons I cannot entirely put my finger on. The goal of the project is at least proximate to the exhortation to focus on improving articles, not swamping AFDs. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting...you claim I have 300 deletions, then point to a tool which only says that 100 articles I've AfDed were deleted with 88 others probably merges/redirects. New math? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Arguing with Ikip about who is and isn't an inclusionist or deletionist is fruitless. This sort of Conservapedia factionalize-and-villify nonsense is a distraction. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is the reason Black is so mad:

1. Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama
2. Spectra Fashions
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Skullhead

Three articles Black has attempted to delete, without contributing anything to the article, which the ARS actually added content and references too, making his chances to delete that much harder. Ikip (talk) 05:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Two of those articles predate this tool (and I don't think I wanted to delete either, as I recall). The last post-dates this tool, and has four ARS members (who made no substantial edits to the article, and before any sources at all had been offered) all voting "Keep per [whoever]", after the article was added to this template. Is that appearance of impropriety not worrisome? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No, as it's just not much different than however else anyone got to the discussion. Does everyone who argued to keep have the specific template under discussion here on their userpages? Not all of them. Is everyone who argued to keep even an article rescue squad member (I don't believe Richard Arthur Norton is). And at least one member (me) did try to find sources and add them and then debate them in the AfD, while still here and there trying to find more. Don't get me wrong, when I template an article, I am hoping that other members can find sources I haven't and will be able to add them to the article. I don't template merely hoping to get some more keep "votes." I look through the various AfDs for ones that I find particularly worthwhile and template those. Then, I spend time looking for sources and compile what I can and return to the article to do what I can hoping that maybe someone else is doing the same. Sometimes I don't even comment in the AfD as well in the hopes that those who do are taking note of article rescue attempts underway. Frequently, I'll only comment in the AfD if I think it's really necessary, because I would much, much rather use what time I have welcoming new users or adding sources and fixing grammar and spacing. I whole-heartedly believe way too much time is spent on this site in AfDs and pages like this that could and should be spent helping each other to actually improve the articles. But, I guess that's the nature of things. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No, but nearly everyone who had the specific template on their user page argued to keep per DGG, save of course DGG.

There is a significant appearance of impropriety, that a tool that is expressly not for AFD cavassing correlated exactly to a bloc of pure "Per [user]" votes. This is worrisome to me. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm honestly just not seeing it. You know I don't really like "per x" "votes" and all and wish more of my fellow ARS members would help in the article improvement too, but we can't really compell volunteers to do that, but if anything is of concern it is that more time has been spent speculating on editors' intentions than trying to improve the article. I think we really got side-tracked. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not speculating as to their intentions, just seeing a very unfortunate pattern. WP:ARS is in a tenuous position, and as soon as this tool came to be there was an apparent misuse. How did it happen, how can we prevent it, and is this an appropriate tool? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Based on past experiences with those editors in many an AfD, I am reasonably confident that they would have argued that same way regardless and would have commented in that discussion regardless. I don't think the tool actually made any kind of decisive differences. All of those editors are capable of finding AfDs and their arguments are consistent with those they have made before this template was created. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Then why is it necessary? Why have such an easily-abused tool, when it will cast a pall over good-faith comments? This is the damage the appearance of impropriety can do, even when there is no impropriety. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying that it is necessary, as again, I don't have it, only that I am not convinced it is being used maliciously, because those editors probably have the ARS pages watchlisted anyway where the templated articles are listed and more likely than not would have commented in that discussion and argued in the manner they did regardless of this particular template. I don't believe it really made a difference. I trust admins to not assume bad faith against the ARS members who commented in the AFD. Is it necessary, well, no more necessary than WP:FANCRUFT is to building an encyclopedia and just as surely as we'd get by just find not having that useless essay, we'd probably get by without this as well. I don't personally care if this particular template is kept or not (with that said then we should get rid of nonsense like the fancruft essay too). My concern here is seeing what I suspect was done in good faith being characterized as if it was some kind of collusion among editors or as if it somehow made a different in the discussion when I doubt it in both cases. Regards, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I know and agreed...its rather disappointing to see how badly the factionalization (new word?) is getting in recent times. Where sides used to seem to at least be able to meet in the middle, its becoming like little war camps with the moderates stuck in the middle. And lately, the whole "inclusionist" thing is getting over the top, with people throwing three sources on an article and calling it "fixed" then leaving it no better than it was before yet proudly declaring" we saved it." I don't even get how that makes anyone proud...take that article to GA then claim you did something, or heck even B class. But that rarely happens, and usually not from the "rescue" group.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Not all articles have to be GA or B class to be worthwhile to include on our project. Nominating articles for deletion that can be improved happens all too often and that is far more eggregious than anything else. We should all be working together to improve articles rather than become a collection of discussions. At the same side, I don't see how destroying other editors' work can make anyone proud either. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* That's a disservice to the work the project does, and completely irrelevant to the point I came here to make. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

A nobody is a much better diplomat than me, so I will let him talk. FYI, I attempted to combing the Inclusionists with ARS a few months ago and infuriated a lot of people, including Ben and Prot. So to say that ARS are inclusionist is simply not true. Ikip (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little worried about the shift ARS is taking, since they get a pretty big exemption from "canvassing". An exemption that mostly stems from the fact that they work to rescue articles rather than debate about them. In my opinion so long as the focus of the project remains in letter and in practice to rescue articles (and not debate them), they should be fine using whatever means available to them to let members know which articles are up for rescue. But if at some point they become a funnel for discussion at AfD, that perspective will change dramatically. Protonk (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• With respects to User:A Man In Black, I consider trying to improve wiki by rescuing artcles to meet the very core foundations of what wikipedia is all about. If I succeed, great... wiki is improved. If I fail, I move on and wiki might be just a little diminished. Many new editors, dazed and confused by the wiki process, may continue and become terrific contributors with even the smallest amount of encouragement. So rescuing articles and showing fellowship to new eitors improves wiki. I am a fairly recent member of ARS, having joined when invited by Mgm, and I enjoy being able to make positive contributions to the project. However, I do not know who this "They" are to whom you refer, and I have no template automatically notifying me of anything. So, I can only suppose that this "scheme" is not "automatic" to ARS members unless one personally exercises an option to be so informed... and that could be a terrific tool just like so many others we all have available for further improvement of the project. I think it makes good sense to give worrisome articles every possible oportunity to be of value to wiki, but do not see that as being inclusionist or deletist. I think inproving wiki is everybody's main concern. Further, I have cafefully studied the "so-called" canvasing, and though it pushes the edge, it does not seem to violate guideline, as it does not seem pointed at editors either favorable or opposed and seems to be worded in an extremely neutral manner... even though it has apparently ruffled the feathers of some. To those whose feathers are ruffled, I can only ask that they step back and ask themselves.... isn't improving the quality and uesfulness of wiki the goal to which we all aspire? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  Again, not opposing the project, just a single tool it uses, one which you don't use.

  I would turn that question around: you manage to help the wiki without an automatic, scarcely-logged filtered list of borderline AFDs appearing on your talk page. Why is this problematic tool necessary, if you're clearly getting by without it? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  And in return, I would have to ask why ANY of the tools made available to editors exist. Simple answer: If a tool helps an editor do a better job of improving the project, then the tool has value to that editor and to the project as a whole... whether it's a single tool used by one editor or a multiple set used by many. To be frank... it has been quite a chore keeping up with so many many many articles at AfD.. and there are only so many hours in a day. And now that you have my curiosity up, I feel compelled to myself take a close look and see if this notification tool can help me improve the project. And please believe me, as I am not trying to be flippant or snide, I want thank you for bringing its existance to my attention. It could defintely be useful if it does all you say it does, as scolling through all the pages of AfD's can be an onerous and painful chore. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  Installed in a sandbox linked from my userpage. Seems an interesting little gizmo. Surprised it lists so very few articles... but that nust mean there are only a few currently tagged for rescue... and likely they need the most help the soonest. Perhaps one day rescues will no longer be required, but appreciate that I can provide this service toward the betterment of the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's that big a deal. It's a shortcut for the ARS crew to keep abreast of articles that have been tagged, maybe saves them a click or two from looking at that auto-generated page or whatnot -- but, I think the vim and vigor with which ARS members already check up on ARS-tagged articles' AfD pages is already high enough that this shortcut won't make much of an impact. If the concern is that it makes it more likely the ARSers will swarm to an AfD discussion significantly faster or more often than they already do, then, no, I don't think that's the case. --EEMIV (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. To both A Man In Black and A Nobody - WP:TLDR. In general I see this as one editor being over eager to try various schemes and ideas to help a project which does work seen as inclusionistic. Many ideas don't stick and to their credit they keep plugging away. The template, I think, is not a bad idea but I'm also open to modifying it and frankly there is a lot of maintenance work at ARS and I try to measure out my volunteer hours accordingly. I think if there is community agreement this this particular template is inherently canvassing then it likely shouldn't be used, it's designed for user space and the only reason I have one is it was placed as part of a talk section, and will be archived soon if it hasn't already. I guess another concern could be that similar clean-up projects would do the same but I'm also unsure if that would be inherently canvassing either technically or in spirit. Personally, I'm not terribly bothered either way and everytime these issues are brought up, the ARS folks seem to favor being NPOV and just getting on with the work. -- Banjeboi 03:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

FACs needing feedback view •
1914 FA Cup final	Review it now
Empire of the Sultans	Review it now

FWIW, I stumbled across this template listing FACs. Not perfectly equivalent but similar aspects of highlighting articles on one's userpage for attention. -- Banjeboi 12:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• There is a huge difference between sending unsolicited messages to editors in bulk, versus notifing editors who specifically signed up to receive notification on a topic. There are no restrictions on who can add the template to their page, and in fact one could add it with the intention of finding articles to delete. This is basically equivalent to a user watching a wikiproject page, except by more efficient means. AfD hero (talk) 08:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note that A Man in Black has in the past couple of weeks:

1. tediously argued on ANI against editors inviting other editors to join WP:ARS, despite 260 other templates which do the same thing.
2. demote WP:PRESERVE, which asks editors to use deletion as a last resort
3. has accused editors of canvassing by using the {{rescue}} tag on AfDs
4. Raised a stink about a list of articles marked as tagged for rescue Ikip (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Please keep the arguments directed at the subject at hand and not the person who made them. This is the talk board for the canvassing guidelines, not an RfC on AMIB. Themfromspace (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There does exist at least one example of this template's clear misuse: EagleFan, who has this template on his talk page, recently went down the list, with a series of rapid-fire keeps (all with no rationale or "per [other user]" rationales) all to articles on the list. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] These AFDs are all on the ARS template and have little else in common; they are different topics, are spread over several days, and his comments are all within the space of 20 minutes.

The problem is that I don't know what to do. The potential for misuse is clear, and we have an example. It's also a useful tool for the project's good work. I'm troubled, but I have no particular solution. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a trouble with useful tools... They can be misused as well as they can be used.

Perhaps the first step might be to determine what the criteria is for inclusion on the template, and further, what the criteria should be. Perhaps that might help minimise misuse? - jc37 08:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't dislike the current criteria. An article can be flagged for {{rescue}} if it's in danger of being deleted for bad writing or a lack of notability. I don't mind broadly written, general criteria because it should include everything that can be improved to be saved, and narrower criteria wouldn't prevent or even significantly impede this sort of misuse anyway. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Mk, then I think I may be joining you at the "at a loss" table, shortly... - jc37 08:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Massive canvassing at AfD

RE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongolia during Tang rule. Can the AfD be closed because of canvassing? Ikip (talk) 07:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Generally, the way that's dealt with is that the closing admin takes into account the skewed votecounts, either relying chiefly on arguments or simply discounting the canvassed people. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Votestacking and WP:SOCK

Is the the votestacking can be the signs of sockpuppet? I noticed in certain AfD noms there was a sockpuppet-related votestack. Junk Police (talk) 23:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Advertising discussions

Please see Wikipedia:Advertising discussions, a proposal I've made to formalise guidelines on where and how the largest discussions should be advertised around Wikipedia to ensure sufficient input to major discussions. Improvements to the page and input on the talk page would be appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 10:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Change to the forum shop section

Hi together. I expanded the forumshop section slightly to include behavior that afaik is already frowned upon as admin shopping but was not explicitely covered. As this talk page is quite dead, I decided to go with WP:BRD in this case. Regards SoWhy 13:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD notifications at related articles

Are AfD notifications on the Talk pages of related articles inappropriate canvassing? They don't seem to violate the four listed criteria.

Example: WP:Articles for deletion/Quilem Registre Taser incident, notifications left at four articles.

• The nominated article Quilem Registre Taser incident was lightly edited and probably poorly watched.
• A merger was proposed, the merge target List of people who died after being tasered in Canada was one of the notified articles.
• The notifications were disclosed and briefly justified at the AfD.
  1. Talk:List of people who died after being tasered in Canada – proposed merge target (diff)
  2. Talk:Robert Dziekański Taser incident – prominent Canadian incident, most active related article (diff)
  3. Talk:Taser – main article (diff)
  4. Talk:Taser safety issues (formerly Taser controversy) – sub-article relevant to deaths (diff)
• Some "Taser incident" articles were excluded, such as UCLA Taser incident and University of Florida Taser incident.

Flatscan (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Expanded, added diffs per Ikip. Flatscan (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Copied specific notifications from AfD. Flatscan (talk) 04:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I am confused about what you the bullet points mean. Can you rewrite and clarify? thank you. Ikip (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The bullet points are items specific to the example that I consider relevant and wish to highlight. Flatscan (talk) 03:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I see:

1. Quilem Registre Taser incident was lightly edited, and was probably poorly watched.
2. There was merge proposals in Quilem Registre Taser incident, in which List of people who died after being tasered in Canada was the proposed merge target.
3. The Notifications were disclosed and briefly justified at the Quilem Registre Taser incidentAfD[[9]]
4. Some "Taser incident" articles were not notified.

Got it thank you. Ikip (talk) 04:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The specific example provided, leaving notice at the proposed merge destination (List of people who died after being tasered in Canada), seems to make abundant sense; you seem to mention that other notices were left, but it's difficult to comment on those without knowing where they were. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've copied the notifications from the AfD. There's a little more justification at the AfD, but it's less important, and I'll probably rehash it when I analyze this example from the outside. Flatscan (talk) 04:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

NO! WP:canvassing is a guideline (suggestion) and NOT a policy (rule). Big difference. TomCat4680 (talk) 08:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with this in theory, we should be careful to not suggest that this should be interpreted broadly. A fiction-related AfD (or for that matter, a math-related AfD) could lead to comments all over. - jc37 23:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Spamming all of Special:WhatLinksHere would be clear disruption in most cases. I can't imagine a case where 10 article notifications would be acceptable, but I don't want to set a number. I would support a wording (probably at WP:Articles for deletion#Notifying interested people) recommending "a limited number of closely-related articles". Flatscan (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There simply doesn't need to be more rules here.

The suggested text has two words which have no defintion: "limited number" and "closely-related articles".

This page is created to stop one sided from being notified (i.e. editors on their talk page) since any person can be watching a particular page, then this is not notifying one side. Ikip (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it may be helpful to provide guidance on this specific topic. The text is meant as a recommendation or suggestion – as you pointed out, it cannot function as a bright-line rule. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The real problem is understanding the motivation of our rules against canvassing and the editor placing the notices. Posting notices in related places, such as related articles, is in itself innocuous. We have entire deletion sorting noticeboards devoted to this concept. However, if the motivation of the poster is to recruit people to one side of the debate, it becomes canvassing as a result of the intent. If someone is, for example, an ardent and vocal member of the Article Rescue Squadron that has publicly stated that deleting articles is disruptive, it's very hard to look at any notices that person has placed as having been placed because of a pure and innocent motivation to improve discussion. One of the things one gives up when one becomes a vocal advocate of something is the right to be viewed as neutral. I don't place many notices of AFDs that I create for precisely that reason: I'm identified by many as a deletionist bogeyman, so my notices no longer appear neutral. I routinely place them on the deletion sorting lists, and place a notice at WT:Record charts when I nominate a chart for deletion, and refrain from doing more. I strongly suggest that ARS members similarly refrain.—Kww(talk) 14:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'd argue that notices that go to involved parties are generally acceptable. Notifying a project about an article at AfD (or Featured Article noms) is reasonable and good. Informing "partisans" who are likely to come in on your side isn't. As noted, that's what the deletion sorting stuff is about. I watch the "games" AfD list for example. Mostly because I know a lot about games... Hobit (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

  What's appropriate when there's no applicable project and no noticeboard? Is what's appropriate for an article that has no project/noticeboard also appropriate for an article which does have one? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

  It's a very good question. I'd say posting on the talk pages of a small number of related pages in an attempt to find people who know the topic is reasonable. Defining "small" and "related" is not obvious. Hobit (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• I notice that recent comments focus on votestacking, but excessive cross-posting should also be considered. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed. We get back to words. Indiscriminate in this case. I think the small number of related article talk pages is reasonable. Defining those terms isn't obvious. My gut says 1-2 is small and 7+ isn't in this context. Related is probably impossible to define other than "a reasonable person would think so". Hobit (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Those numbers are in line with my thoughts. If an editor thinks that some notices look questionable for either reason, I think asking for clarification is fair, either at the AfD's talk page or directly at User talk. Flatscan (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Agreed. Hobit (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Notifications on the talk pages of related articles seem quite sensible as often articles constitute an interlinked set which would suffer if one element was eliminated. Most AFD debates suffer from a lack of editors who know something about the topic and this seems a good way of attracting informed comment. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Notifications on relevant article talk pages are entirely appropriate and in good faith. It is indeed considerate to seek out the insight of those who worked on the article and thus may have a greater familiarity with sources related to the specific subject under discussion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Going back to the specific example, I considered doing only the first two, skipping the overall subject articles, but ultimately decided on all four. It was a close decision, but the possibility of getting a wider consensus won out. I believe that RomaC came via the notice at Talk:Robert Dziekański Taser incident (asked for confirmation, but no response yet). I expected participation from Dziekański due to its activity and close relationship (2 Canadian incidents occurring within a week, news articles mentioning them together); the overall inactivity of Taser and Taser controversy should have tipped me off. Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Addition to votestacking

Andrevan made an addition to votestacking that was reverted. It concerns an editor selecting and notifying a discussion which has a consensus (and perhaps a selection of editors) with which the editor agrees. An example would be an editor who wishes for a delete outcome canvassing a similar AfD already closed as delete.

Notifying participants in a particular previous AfD of a new related AfD has been the subject of recent votestacking complaints – but only because one side was omitted. As soon as both sides were notified, the complaints were dropped, which implies that such notifications are generally accepted. I think that canvassing potentially biased discussions may have been overlooked and that this addition merits discussion. Flatscan (talk) 03:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled with his exact wording, but the concept was valid.—Kww(talk) 03:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I didn't phrase it completely well, but I don't think the revert was in good faith. But if anyone could take a stab at rephrasing this, it definitely seems like an important thing that was left out. In this case, BVE Trainsim was closed in 2006 as Keep, when people were a lot less hard on reliable sourcing in articles and a lot of things got by only to later get deleted. I'm not completely sure that it will go the other way this time, but Ikip who voted Keep this time clearly was concerned so canvassed the entire discussion, which was 5-2 keep including me the nominator. In my opinion this is a clear application of the prohibition against canvassing to turn the discussion. Andre (talk) 11:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Contacting editors for follow-up RfC

I am planning to start an RfC about date-delinking, which will follow on several previous ones. Would it be appropriate to contact users who commented in previous RfCs to inform them of the new one? --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:Advertising discussions may be more appropriate. Flatscan (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Cross-reference to "Publicising discussions"

I left a notice above (in April) about Wikipedia:Publicising discussions (back then, it was called "Advertising discussions"). Are there any objections to adding a reference from this guideline to that "how-to" guide? I don't want to do so myself, as I wrote the initial draft of that "how-to" guide and have been, well, trying to make people more aware of it. It currently contains a reference to this guideline. If someone uninvolved agrees, could they add a reference somewhere? If anyone disagrees, could they discuss it here? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 06:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I support adding a link (see my comment immediately above). The See also section is an obvious choice. I'll add it there if no one else does within a few days. Flatscan (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I added a link there, first alphabetically. Flatscan (talk) 02:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Goodness. I should have kept the name as "Advertising..." to keep it first in alphabetical order in other places! :-) Thanks for adding it. Carcharoth (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Cross-posting to 46 project members and about to do more.

Having read the discussions above, I would appreciate guidance on whether an editor User:Camaron posting to 46 talk pages of Wikiproject Eurovision members about a straw poll in an RfC on sourcing is appropriate. Posts may be seen here [10]. RfC at [11]. tanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I was aware of this guideline, and I will go through this list:

• Scale: Was limited posting, all editors are highly involved in this issue as it is about sourcing for Eurovision articles, and the decision will impact on their editing highly. It is very rare to send out talk page notices for the entire project but I think this issue is critical enough to warrant it, and in the past I have only received complaints for not doing it enough. WikiProject Eurovision is not the first project to do this, WikiProject Films for example does it as well occasionally for important issues such as membership recall so there is precedent. The only other editors I contacted were previously involved in the RfC, no uninvolved editors were contacted, which is what is discouraged by this guideline.
• Neutral: Message was neutral, I did not attempt to sway users in a particular direction.
• Audience: I originally contacted only those listed as active for the project, as I thought they were the ones that would be affected most by a decision made. This is not a partisan group and they disagree on many issues, including sourcing as discovered in a previous RfC (see WP Eurovision talk page archives). I did not select which members to contact, any missed out was accidental, and I think it should noted that I contacted users on the project who I have personally disagreed with on sourcing issues in the past, so I have not got much personally out of this.
• Transparency: I did it on public talk pages and said it clearly that I had done it on the RfC itself, so it was very open. I could have done it by e-mail for most editors but did not for transparency.

I also followed the instructions at Wikipedia:Canvassing#If you intend to canvass:

• Be open, I was per above.
• Be polite, I tried to write the message as open and civil, I specifically said the poll could be modified as I did not want to give the impression that I was project dictator.
• Do not use a bot., I didn't this was done 100% manually, which put a limit on how many I could contact.

This could have gone in the project newsletter, but that was not due out for anther month and I was concerned I may receive complaints from users if they did not find out about it a month after posting. I considered putting it on WP:CENT, but I thought the RfC was too specific only being about a small niche of articles to require wider community notification. As for doing more, I have long finished and any extra I did was only in response to the original complaint on the RfC itself. Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Butting in

I've never been a part of this talk page before, and I'm hardly an "old hat" at WP; but, FWIW - I think this is the most counter-productive "guideline" I've ever seen at WP. We are supposed to be an "open" community that works in a "collaborative" manner, and to say that it's wrong to solicit viewpoints from our fellow editors is simply the exact opposite of the intent of our goals. You folks can have at it here, and I'll not belabor the point - but to try to quiet the request for input is simply wrong. Mark this whole thing as "historic", and lets get to talking to one another, THAT'S how people collaborate. My opinion, full stop. — Ched :  ?  06:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ched, you should know that you are not alone in your thinking. Whoever created this guideline seemed to fear that allowing free speech would result in mob rule and a squashing of rational thinking. (My own thinking is, the appropriate response to free speech is more free speech, not less . . . ) Yet there's nothing that we can do about it, methinks, because this policy was carved in stone before I ever heard of it, two years ago. In fact, the way I heard about it was like most editors—I unknowingly violated it. It certainly is counterintuitive, isn't it? Sigh. Unschool 14:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahh-Haa.... so you're the one that... Just kidding. — Ched :  ?  15:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

IRONY Law _{type! snype?} 21:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I've not felt this stupid for several months. I have no idea to what you two are alluding, or if even you are referring to the same thing. What is it that you regard as ironic, Law? Unschool 02:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I was just trying to make a "funny" - that you were the person who had been accused of "Canvassing" - The humor (or so I thought) being that so many folks are accused of it. My guess would be that Law noticed you dropping a message on my talk page - and saw irony in "canvassing" about "canvassing". — Ched :  ?  02:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh I was purely being juvenile. I found the canvassing talk page because the link was 'canvassed' on your talk page. Obviously it wasn't truly canvassing - I just lol'd at the way I got here. Law _{type! snype?} 01:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that depending on where one posts it's rather easy to sway a deletion discussion one way or another. That's why it's encouraged to post at the relevant project pages, but soliciting particular editors or groups of editors can get tricky. I sometimes go to an editor I know is familiar with a subject area so they can elevate and offer insight into a discussion. But clearly there are ways of swaying a closely contested discussion. That's what we're trying to avoid in so far as it's possible.ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it's my viewpoint that our "decisions" are based on "consensus", and the belief that the more input we have, the better we're able to establish consensus. I've seen many a editor chased from an article when a few folks "set up shop" on a page, and then dictate what should or should not be allowed in an article. If the new editor tries to introduce material that may make an article more NPOV, then tries to get a wider audience, that editor is often accused of "canvassing", and I simply don't see that as a bad thing. I would think that political and religious articles would be an example of this. — Ched :  ?  04:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

CoM, you are absolutely right when you say that its easy to sway a deletion discussion by soliciting the input of a few editors, particularly if you already know their point of view. But the solution--prohibition of canvassing--is worse than the problem. From my standpoint, if someone with whom I was disagreeing chose to bring in other editors who agreed with him, my response would be a) to more seriously consider his viewpoint, since it represents the viewpoint of many others, and b) if I still felt the same way, I would go out and see if others agreed with me, or even seek out others who in the past have agreed with me. We'll have a better idea of what actual consensus is if more people, not less, participate. And the idea that it's okay to post on relevant project pages is a non-starter, in my opinion. People who regularly work together often share groupthink, and posting on project pages can actually increase the imbalance of opinion, if the vast majority of participants in a project share the same thinking. I mean, what's wrong with bringing in outside ideas?

The logic against canvassing, if applied elsewhere in life, would clearly be seen as absurd. Let's say I live in a small New Hampshire town and at the next town meeting a dispute will be decided between two merchants, one of whom wants to ban parking in front of stores and move it to a central location blocks from the business district, and another merchant who wants to continue allowing the parking. If WP:CANVASS applied in this situation, the only persons who would be notified about the parking debate at the town meeting would be the two merchants involved, and anyone else who had already gotten involved. We wouldn't bother advertising the meeting in the town paper or send out emails to the citizens, because--gasp---large numbers of people might show up and "sway" the debate. Isn't that a foolish viewpoint? I certainly think so.

I adhere--scrupulously--to WP:CANVASS, because it's the current "law". But it doesn't change the fact that I think it's a fundamentally stupid law, grounded in the opinion that people can't be trusted to do what's right. And that's about as anti-Wikipedian an idea as you can come up with. Unschool 06:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I've seen deletion discussions where an editor leaves a note to everyone who voted delete in a pervious discussion. Is that appropriate? Or what about an editor who is on the losing side of a debate and posts notes to friends. These things happen. There are people that can be asked who can be counted on to give fair opinions and there are situations where soliciting input can be done in a way that's disruptive. AfD is an open process and I suggested areas I think are reasonable to post to solicit wider input. But selectively seeking input from a particular set of editors can be very problematic. I would be interested to hear what someone like Michael Q Schmidt has to say on the issue. I don't see as much division and canvassing as I used to. But it only takes a few editors working together to be able to sway deletion discussions. Soliciting wider input can actually help counter that, but there are situations where I think canvassing is a real problem. For example there are certain editors who can be relied on to vote delete on pseudo-science topics. And there are certain editors who vote delete on controversies involving the president. I can't recall many instances of being accused of canvassing. But I try to be careful about who I go and ask. People sometimes have a lot invested in an article or an AfD outcome and it's important the everyone can be confident that the process is fair and isn't prone to being skewed by selective canvassing. I haven't read the guideline, but the concern about the solicitation of votes in order to rig an outcome of an AfD is legitimate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand all of that. What you are saying is the rationale for WP:CANVASS. I'm saying something very different. I'm saying take the restrictions off of everyone. Yes, people will solicit those who agree with them. Fine--let the people on the other side do the same! Let anyone and everyone who gives two hoots participate. The solution to editors who will try to dominate the debate on a page is not to restrict their speech, but for their opponents to strengthen theirs. I don't know what country you live in, CoM, but chances are, it's got some form of democratic government. Do you want to take steps to restrict the number of people who participate and vote, just because someone will "Persuade" them?

Here's another thing to think about. Right now, the "good guys" won't canvass, and the "bad guys" will. What's worse, the bad guys don't even have to canvass in the open; they can just send each other emails that we'll never know about. So if everyone is allowed to canvass, then no one will have a disadvantage just because they're following the rules. Unschool 07:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

CoM is right. If there was a way to get the input of everyone who was vaguely interested in a given issue, that would be one thing. But the whole point of canvassing is to "stack" the voting and win the debate. However, you are also right that only morons canvass in the open, and the smart ones do it via e-mail. So that leaves us with a dilemma - what's the right solution? One solution is to have ALL pending votes listed on the banner. That doesn't seem overly practical. But if there were either a central repository or an automated notification to any theoretically interested parties, that might be more practical and more fair, as it would tend to nullify the effects of biased canvassing that CoM is talking about. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't want to spend my time fighting canvassing wars. Just as paying people to go to the polls is problematic, so is canvassing. I've now read the guideline and I support it. The distinctions it makes seem very reasonable to me. Solciting input from the community is good, canvassing is bad. Creating a section in this guideline suggesting appropriate ways to solicit input might be a good idea (maybe using a neutral forum like the article content noticeboard?). But seeing who can rally a bigger gang for their side doesn't seem like a good way to go about AfDs. Sorry to rain on anyone's parade. I'm a big supporter of deleting the wp:dick page if that's any consolation. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I do want you to understand that I know that the motives of those who support WP:CANVASS are noble. I just also think that they're misguided, because people are almost certainly emailing one another to get around the guideline, which then punishes those who follow the guideline. At the same time, I recognize that allowing the free-for-all that I favor would generate some degree of chaos. But at least it would be more honest.

An alternative might be something like a permanent page like the Discussion Report that the Signpost has had for the past six months or so. One page where anyone and everyone could post any discussion of any type they wanted to have listed. It would be a mess, but it would be better than the craploads of discussion spam that would likely hit our talk pages if my proposal was adopted.

I don't actually favor dropping WP:CANVASS, because (ironically) I believe it represents the consensus of the community. All I'm doing is periodically reminding anyone who will read what I write that we shouldn't be fooling ourselves into believing that this guideline does what it purports to do. It does not actually promote fair discussion with equal input from all sides; in point of fact it suppresses discussion and it gives undue advantage to the unscrupulous. Unschool 21:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The guideline on "canvassing" is yet another of those that I first heard about (besides speedy, conflict of interest, and spam) by seeing it used in ways that are bad for Wikipedia, and of which those who used them should be ashamed. About two years ago, I posted absolutely neutrally worded notices to two WikiProjects informing them that a certain deletion review discussion was taking place. Another user, still today a very active Wikipedian and an administrator, very indignantly objected to my "canvassing", pointing out this guideline and said I must be "desperate" to resort to that standard procedure (of which he had expressed his approval before I did it), which is in fact the usual and responsible thing to do, and had been a customary practice for some time before that. I later found myself accused by various others of having contacted people I knew would support my position. That was dishonest. The aforementioned administrator was systematically dishonest in other ways as well, and I have to suspect him of deliberately urging his friends to accuse me of, among other things, biased canvassing. I'm not sure exactly how that bears on the present discussion, but the fact that good policies can be used in dishonest ways should be borne in mind. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's how it bears on the current discussion: Wikipedia is "not censored", we are told, and yet there is one place where that is not true: When we talk about what we should be doing on Wikipedia. The irony is sublime.

Most people who engage in "disruptive" behaviour on Wikipedia are well aware of what they are doing, whether it is trolling or simple vandalism. But those who get hit by the charge of canvassing are almost universally shocked, because it runs so counter to the principles that they thought guided this project. Unschool 23:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

"Stacking the deck" is a wikipedia principle??? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No, of course not. The principle of Wikipedia to which I'm referring is that ordinary people can be trusted to come together and collaborate--despite their differing backgrounds, skills, and even viewpoints and create a reliable encyclopedia. Essentially, we build this encyclopedia on the principles found in Madison's essay, Federalist No. 10, in which Madison argues that tyranny is best kept at bay not by attempting to control factions with differing viewpoints, but by trusting that when all the factions come together for debate, that they will control one another and have to compromise in order to achieve the common good. We have essentially enshrined that principle by the very creation of Wikipedia, and we trust it when it comes to writing articles, but we don't trust it when it comes to talk pages. Unschool 00:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Theory vs. reality. That's why we have admins and it's why they can block disruptive editors. And it's why we have rules - and the capability of enforcing them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. And since we always say that "it's not a vote", we could trust administrators to make judgement calls instead of merely counting votes. I agree with the need for rules and the capability of enforcing them. I just think we should strive to be a bit more consistent and a bit less deluded. Unschool 01:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Per Bugs: "However, you are also right that only morons canvass in the open, and the smart ones do it via e-mail."

This is yet another guideline which unintentionally benefits established editors and hurts newer editors. Established editors will probably have a network of friends they can e-mail. New editors don't.

Unschool, what would you suggest doing? Without a bold idea, I guarantee this discussion will eventually die and no action will be taken. Ikip (talk) 01:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

And if they're smart enough to use e-mails, they could also be smart enough to craft elegant support or oppose comments that will fool the admins. Sometimes I'll get a notification that an article I've worked on is up for something: anywhere from good article to deletion. If everyone who worked on a given article was notified, or if there were otherwise a central notification page for pending decisions about articles, that could level the playing field and lessen or nullify the impact of "stacking the deck". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"will fool the admins." huh? how so? I don't think it is possible to fool admins in the AFDs themselves. Do you mean quoting unrelated policies? That is the norm, see how WP:IINFO is abused. Writing an elegant support or oppose is not "fooling" the admin, it is "convincing" the admin with the best argument, which is okay and encouraged.

there was a previously created and disabled bot which I have been supporting to recreate, which notifies all creators of an article. Last I checked it was in test mode. The next step, which will be much more complex and difficult, will be to notify all editors who had x amount of edits on the page.

Contacting all editors who edited a page is technically possible, I just personally don't have the tech knowledge, and it has never actually been done before. Ikip (talk) 02:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Final thoughts (for now)

Nothing is going to change here for the forseeable future, so I just want to end my participation with a couple of thoughts.

• I see the problem not as being new vs. experienced editors, but ethical vs. unethical.
• I recognize that abolition of WP:CANVASS, with no other actions taken, would create significant chaos, at least temporarily, if only because it would create a huge sense of uncertainty about the validity of talk page polls
• The current "certainty" at such polls is illusive.
• The future hope for ending this well-intentioned but hopelessly naive guideline will be some sort of notification system.

1. As I indicated in an earlier post, I think Baseball Bugs's idea of a common posting area is one acceptable way to do it. The only problem, as I see it, is that such a posting place would likely become a morass, unless someone took on the job of constantly keeping it organized.
2. A more active solution, such as Ikip mentions in his/her last post, is also interesting, but not necessarily better. It's actually superior to the general posting page, in that it would not require editors to look at the post page, the notification would come to them, but unfortunately, it leaves out people who might also be interested but have never visited the page. I remember more than one time that I have visted a page for the first time only to discover that I missed by a mere days an intense discussion that lasted for weeks or months that settled an issue differently than I would have liked.

• I think that it is clear that editors on both sides of the WP:CANVASS issue are all acting with the best interests of this project. We simply disagree on how to achieve it. Accordingly, the topic is worth discussing, from time to time, and it is worth exercising patience over, as well. Best wishes to all. Unschool 11:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No personal advocation, updates to campaigning

I recently made edits reverted because guy said there was no consensus. I shall start a discussion here to generate consensus. You may already see the beginnings of consensus at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Canvassing_violation_by_Cookiecaper_in_order_to_reach_a_false_consensus , where at least three editors have suggested or threatened that posting a message whose headline asks its recipients to go to Sean Hannity's page to support the inclusion of information regarding his unfulfilled promise to be waterboarded is a violation of this here guideline because it is "biased" or "campaigning", though per the definitions on this page it is not, because it is not posted in an attempt to persuade or alter the viewpoint of its recipients, only to implore them to act if they care.

One editor has suggested that anything more than "Please share your opinion on x at y" is inappropriate canvassing. As I have been directly threatened that "[I] will be banned" if I ever post a "canvassing" message that exceeds "Please share your opinion on x at y", I felt that if this is the common interpretation of WP's admins, it ought to be reflected on this page, so that other people like me aren't similarly ostracized. I hope this doesn't offend you lot.

Anyway, I think that my edits were worded carefully and appropriately. I suggest that you all reach a "consensus" on this issue promptly so that I may prevent other innocent editors from encountering a similar fate. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 19:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Cookiecaper, "imploring people to act" in a way you have suggested to them actually is "an attempt to persuade or alter the viewpoints of its recipients." The problem is that you seem to be resistant to the only obvious interpretation of the words. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict; reply is to cookiecaper) You clearly violated WP:CANVAS with your off-wiki post that did not merely ask people to participate; it obviously and explicitly stated your opinion and practically begged people to go support your own opinion ("I implore all Wikipedians to fight the good fight and keep on Hannity's page mention of his promise to get waterboarded.") Trying to insinuate that WP:CANVASS somehow isn't clear, and that your ANI thread should somehow be used as a reference to other poor souls who can't figure out what a relatively simple behavioral guideline means, is disingenuous. I suggest you drop this agenda/crusade; you have no support and it's quite obvious you were in the wrong. Tan | 39 20:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

See, I know it obviously and explicitly stated my opinion; that's the point of these edits. I meant to obvious and explicitly state my opinion. As this page was written when I was made aware of it [after I posted the thing to reddit], there is no indication that one may not state their opinion, either obviously or explicitly. That was part of the edits I was writing in, because you seem to think it's not fair, or that it constitutes an uncouth and illegitimate swaying of the discourse. I don't think it does; if someone runs across my reddit post and doesn't believe that the inclusion of the referenced information is notable, they're not going to magically change their mind because someone else said that it is. My post did not contain language intended to persuade non-believers; it contained a message intended to persuade believers to deliberately act, and, though the message was not directed to skeptics, for their input as well.

As I feel that my interpretation is reasonable, I would like to include it on the actual guideline page, so that WP's admins will be justified in their interpretation and so that other editors won't be disciplined for a normal, non-extremist interpretation wherein one can speak more than "Please give opinion on x at y".

Your admins have stated that I could _not_ give a message that amounts to more than "Please give opinion on x at y". If this is actually true, this page should reflect that. There's a difference between campaigning and stating a preference or revealing some degree of bias; one is performed with the explicit intention to persuade persons who would otherwise not be interested or supportive to change their minds, while the other is a blatant and straightforward statement of fact, which is truly favorable before the face of man of God. Intent should not be disguised, and policies that encourage such are useful only as fodder for corruption. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 23:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Shrug. If you are unable to understand the basic principles set forth in WP:CANVASS, for whatever reason - inability, unwillingness - I cannot help you further. The bottom line is - do it again, and you will be blocked. What you did is unacceptable to the vast majority of the Wikipedia community. I would say that you can disagree with the guideline, but since you seem to not even understand the guideline, I would suggest moving on. Given your level of disillusionment noted on your userpage and below, perhaps Wikipedia is not for you. Tan | 39 23:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, to me the second part of your addition sounded a bit like kicking over the chess board upon getting checkmated. DVdm (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The page DOES say that.... The recommended way to invite others to the discussion is the {{please see}} template. This template leaves the following text on the user's talk page You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:MyArticle. /My signature/ Couldn't be clearer really. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It could be clearer, as I've read this page three or four times now and still haven't noticed it. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 16:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The language in the second part is intended to make clear to visitors that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that only pendants, sleuths, and obsessors can successfully edit. In 2005, I was quite active because I believed in WP's mission and the process was not egregiously corrupted or hard to tolerate. I left because it was becoming so. It is now much worse than it ever was; one cannot add a notable event without being reported to the Administrator's Noticeboard on vastly overblown charges and by a statute grossly overapplied.

It was a simple attempt to make clear WP's descension to both veteran admins and prospective editors. Wikipedia is very sick, but its governors ignore all... because they enjoy the pedantry. The point is, there are very few people who are willing to put up with this kind of crap. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 23:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If this wiki has become so sick and you feel so unhappy about it, then perhaps it's time to move on... and start your own Wikicookia? DVdm (talk) 08:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I am intent on doing so sometime soon, actually. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 16:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand. You think, that just because this event had news coverage, that it is notable. We have all linked you many times, have you even bothered to follow the links? WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. The fact of the matter is that coverage of this promise has dropped off the radar, and hasn't been covered since. If it was such a notable event as you claim it to be, then there would still be active coverage of it. But there isn't, therefore, it isn't. Another issue here is WP:WEIGHT. You are giving way too much weight to this single event. The article is about his life, not some promise he made back in the day. As has been stated many, many times, something like this is better suited for the article about the show, not his life. I don't watch the show, but I am sure that Hannity has made many promises throughout his life, on his show, many news-worthy promises that he hasn't kept, where news-coverage of said promise has dropped off the radar.

By trying to include this single event in an article, about his life, you are violating policies, policies like WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. How many times am I going to have to link you to get you to read them, and understand why this excerpt is not the single most important thing in an article about his entire life?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think there are more important standards than the recency of news coverage of Hannity's claims. If your criterion is recency of news coverage, I hope that you cut out general biographical information, because that doesn't get news coverage very often, either.

This is still a big deal in the circles I run. In fact, I got involved in this edit war after a thread about how Hannity still hasn't fulfilled his promise. It's an important biographical insight -- torture is a big deal, it's one of Hannity's constant shticks that torture is not torture. He made this promise to prove to his guest that this is a minor encounter which does not constitute torture or inappropriate punishment or interrogation. He has since continuously chickened out, even in the face of Olbermann's offer of $1000 per second.

It's notable because it lends itself majorly to the understanding of Hannity's ideology. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 16:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, both of you, This is not the place to discuss the content of any article. It is for discussing changes to the canvassing guideline. Cookiecaper, if there's nothing left to discuss about the guideline, then this discussion should be closed. If there is something left to discuss, you should bring it up so the discussion doesn't get closed. Capisce? — Gavia immer (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Gavia's statment. take it elsewhere if necessary. Ikip (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Who ever decided that this should be a guideline?

I have examined the history for this article and its talk page, and cannot find any consensus for marking it as a guideline. The "guideline" template was first inserted in this edit, which is only the 15th edit that the page ever received. In fact, only two users (Quarl and Trialsanderrors) had even edited the page up to that point. How can two users form enough consensus for a guideline? Everyone seems to have simply taken it for granted, without looking into the background at all. I am challenging the guideline status and marking it as an essay until and unless someone can show consensus now. *** Crotalus *** 18:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this here. While I agree with your historical analysis, I think this guideline/essay has not only gained traction as a pseudo-policy, it has gained de facto consensus. Demoting it to "essay" would result in canvassing RfAs, AfDs, etc much, much harder to regulate. Tan | 39 18:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there needs to be an official decision that something becomes a guideline, if you add the tag and nobody objects then it has been accepted. The fact that it has been a guideline for 3 years, and that it has been actively used as part of our best practices shows a level of acceptance from the community. Regardless there is no harm in reconfirming the consensus.

The prohibition on canvassing is not a matter of opinion, but something that is regularly enforced through warnings and blocking. Being a guideline is far more representative of its status than calling it an essay. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Crotalus horridus, the history of most pages are just as you describe, using a Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. I don't agree with it one bit, but that is the way things work here. I studied the dubious history of some of these pages here User:Ikip/Sausage. Ikip (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not challenging the legitamacy of this guideline, but Crotalus has brought up a really good point. Guidelines should have more consensus before being approved. It is a terrible precident to allow just about anything to become a guideline without much public debate. I'm not all that keen on "DeFacto" consensus, since many minor edits can be slipped through and forgotten very easily.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution on canvassing

Question: what would be the best dispute resolution place to ask for input on whether certain specific actions were inappropriate canvassing? I've referred a user to WP:CANVAS and they reckon what they did was fine. Rd232 ^talk 23:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Is Canvass dead....

Is Canvass dead as a guideline? After looking through the proposed WP:CDA process and questioning the wording of Canvassing section the responses are that the community finds that its acceptable to canvass for ....the participation of outside parties to present information, evidence, context, or even third-party opinion. If this has become acceptable for a process like the current WP:CDA proposal that it needs to write in specific exemption so as to enable canvassing then surely its only fair to enable it for other discussion especially WP:RFA. Given this conflict of positions for the same, though opposite action sysop processes it may be time to consider the possibility of removing Canvass as guideline and replacing it with process/policy specific criteria. Gnangarra 14:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Single noticeboard

An editor posted (one) note about a dispute at the External links noticeboard. The dispute is squarely within the remit of the noticeboard. The editor has now been accused of violating WP:CANVAS (by an editor that disagrees with most of the responses that begin "I am responding to the request at ELN...", naturally).

Is it even possible for a single message to the obviously most appropriate noticeboard to violate WP:CANVAS? Surely we want editors to use these noticeboards for their primary purpose, even if they can't think of a way to explain the dispute that satisfies all parties. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of responses, and the presence of a section in need of basic copyediting, I've WP:BOLDly changed the page to (1) mention noticeboards and (2) put all the information about choosing an audience in the same place, rather than having it intermingled with sentences about the need for neutrally worded notices. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this canvassing?

User:Jojhutton said that I canvassed when I asked one user to tell him that a portal was meant to cover an entire county and to ask him to stop removing the portal from certain pages. The discussion is here: User_talk:Jojhutton#Carlsbad - And my message to the author of the portal (the person who intended to set the scope of the portal) is here. I had pointed out to this user that several entries in the portal discuss other cities in San Diego County, but the user continued to remove instances of the portal in other San Diego County cities, so I messaged him, asking him to stop, and I told him that I would tell the portal's creator that this was happening, that I knew that he intended to set the scope to cover the whole county, and to ask him to tell Jojhutton to stop. jojhutton is saying this is canvassing, even though I only contacted one user and that this wasn't about a formal "should this be adopted?" or "what is the scope?" discussion. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing is attempting to sway voters

The text in WP:CANVASS defines "canvassing" in a peculiar manner, with a meaning not found in mainstream sources:

"Canvassing is sending messages to Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion." (top of page)

Instead, in the world at large, the term "canvassing" is most often defined in mainstream sources as "electioneering: persuasion of voters in a political campaign" (Princeton-edu). A typical type of canvassing activity is going door-to-door and handing out flyers that attempt to persuade voters to favor a particular candidate or a proposition (referendum) to change regulations. Contacting general voters is called "polling" or "announcing" rather than "canvassing". By using highly original definitions of terms, the guideline WP:CANVASS has violated WP:NOR ("No Original Research"), and it should not be used to direct Wikipedia activities. There are numerous other problems as well. WP:CANVASS warns people not to announce new articles, but articles are not a "community discussion", hence the guideline starts with an unusual, original-research definition of "canvassing" and then strays from that definition to condemn other types of announcements used in collaboration work. The guideline is too nebulous, and contradictory, to be considered compatible with typical collaboration activities. Because the guideline violates the policy of WP:NOR, it thus violates WP:CONSENSUS, which requires decisions to conform to other policies; plus the later text, about not announcing new articles, strays from the concern about informing people about a "community discussion" and enters the realm of forbidding actions based on technicalities, rather than the needs of collaboration work. Furthermore, WP:CANVASS discusses AfD discussions under "Votestacking"; however, since before 2009, AfD discussions are no longer based on votes (now termed "non-votes" or !votes), and the term "votestacking" does not apply to AfD pages. For those reasons, I consider WP:CANVASS to be an invalid guideline which violates WP:NOR and WP:CONSENSUS and thwarts collaboration, and I oppose its status as a guideline. It should be demoted to an essay, noting that it contains some original-research views which are contrary to current Wikipedia policies. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOR only applies to articles, not to Wikipedia-space. Many essays and guidelines contain material that would be considered original research if they were articles, but they're not, so it's not a problem. In this case, I agree that the word 'canvassing' isn't perhaps the best one to use, but it's become widely adopted; if you have a better name for this page, please suggest it. As for 'votestacking' - this is an issue that's come up many times before. AfD discussions are not votes, but they are efforts to fairly determine community consensus, and sending messages to large numbers of like-minded users in order to persuade them to comment (particularly when done secretly), perverts those efforts. Decisions at AfD are not made strictly by counting votes, but if one group of commenters at an AfD is brought there by messages from a sympathetic user, it makes it harder for the consensus result to be determined. Robofish (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing can also refer to get out the vote operations, which is precisely what "canvassing" is taken to mean here. While discussions here are never meant to be head counts, if a group of like-minded editors are all informed of a given debate and sent to participate in it then it can give the impression that a given position has stronger community support than it really has. And of course you disagree with WP:CANVASS, Wikid77: you've been told that if you engage in any further actions which can be taken to be canvassing then you'll probably be indefinitely blocked. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Ad homs aside, I think the original observation is correct - the initial definition immediately seemed wrong to me. "Canvassing" (in a real-world AND a Wikipedia context) is not understood as including all sending of informational messages, only the sending of such messages in a biased way. In other words, there is no such thing as "appropriate" canvassing on WP - here (though not of course in politics) "canvassing" is always understood as meaning something bad, as Chris's words seem to confirm. --Kotniski (talk) 07:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I've attempted to repair the definition.--Kotniski (talk) 07:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

friendly vs. neutral

Does wikispeak equate "friendly" (as in friendly fire) to "nonpartisan" ? It looks like the table does. Methinks that "friendly" is, on the contrary, stronlgly partisan. The desired "nonpartisan" communication should also include "hostile" and "throwaway" messages, should it not? East of Borschov 07:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point; there's no reason why an inappropriate canvassing note can't be "friendly". We shouldn't be using "friendly notice" as the opposite of "(inappropriate) canvassing".--Kotniski (talk) 07:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

There is another point to consider. Communication with hostile parties is discouraged by the rules (don't feed the trolls, don't beat the dead horse etc.) and goes against common sense - unless there's a genuine will to end the conflict, or some very serious issue at stake. A routine AFD, normally, is not significant enough to bang on the best enemy's door. East of Borschov 16:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I entirely understand that last point, but I've changed the wording to remove the misleading "friendly notice" terminology.--Kotniski (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The guideline as it stood a few days ago recommended broadcasting the message in a "nonpartisan" way. In areas of conflict there's a solid probability that the "less than friendly" part of the audience will be actually hostile, with a long track of conflict with the nominator. The guideline obliges the "canvassing party" to call their bitter opponents, but good sense and other guidelines suggest otherwise. P.S. the new formatting is shorter but appears too cluttered together to be comprehensible. The old pinkie table added some visual relief. East of Borschov 18:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Forum shopping

Is forum shopping canvassing? (I would think not.) Is admin shopping a case of forum shopping? (again, I'd have thought not - an admin isn't a forum).--Kotniski (talk) 10:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, in the absence of any replies, I'm going to try to sort this out in a more logical way.--Kotniski (talk) 11:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Namely, I've moved the section to WP:Consensus#Forum shopping and related behaviors.--Kotniski (talk) 13:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Was this a "neutral" message?

I sent this [12] to everyone practicable who had participated in the first AfD in an article (now at number 5 in under a year <g>). I felt this was neutral, and avoided any possible cavil that people were "selected" for the message. I relied on "If necessary, neutrally worded notices on the talk pages of individual users who have participated in previous discussions on the same or closely related topics, who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed. The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions – for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then similar notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. Do not send notices to too many users, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them." and also "Such notices should ideally be brief " and "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 inappropriate to send an undue number of notifications to those who expressed a particular viewpoint on the previous debate. For example, it would be votestacking to selectively notify a disproportionate number of "Keep" voters or a disproportionate number of "Delete" voters." I was accused of CANVASSI=ing - and I would like to know - are the sections I cite still part of this page? Was the message neutral? Was sending to those who opined at a single AfD "excessive" or in any way selecting on the basis of their opinions? Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

If you sent the message to people on both sides of the debate equally, then I don't think anyone should have any objection.--Kotniski (talk) 11:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I sent to everyone <g> without even noting mentally what their positions were! See the complainant's user page at User:Cereal_Surreal and look at the last part where he describes himself essentially as a stealth sock <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I must say (and I'm not an admin, just speaking for myself) that I think you did right here. If people have contributed to a discussion, they have a right to know if the same issue is being raised again (essentially, if they are not told, then they are being disenfranchised, by having their previously expressed views ignored). If you're going to inform some, you have to inform all, so if it turns out to be a few dozen (quite a large number), that's just slightly unfortunate. The disruption (if any) comes from the people who continually re-raise the same issue when the previous result went against them.--Kotniski (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The case at hand is number 5 AfD on the same article in 11 months <g>. The complainant is a person with multiple accounts <g> who appears to have some sort of animus against me in any case. m Again - thanks - and thanks to anyone else opining here. Collect (talk) 14:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Should an RFA be announced on a candidate's wikiproject talkpages?

AFAIK, there is no explicit guidance on this matter. Editors within a project generally have increased awareness of each other's work. They are accordingly more likely to be knowledgable commentators on a request for adminship for another editor from that project. Is it problematic to post a neutral announcement of the RFA at the talkpages for project of which an candidate editor is subscribed? If so, why? If not, are there specific caveats? Either way, should WP:CANVASS not address this? LeadSongDog come howl! 16:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

CANVASS generally deals with unsolicited posts to others - posting on one's own userpages is likely not in that category. Posting on a project or article page is, however, likely to breech that wall. Collect (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this should be a problem. I've been thinking about the concerns over the RFA drought, and I think that working through the larger WikiProjects to nominate candidates might be effective. It would be silly to use the WikiProjects to organize such an effort, and then tell them that they were inappropriately spamming themselves by talking about it, or updating themselves on it.

Furthermore, I think that WikiProjects are good sources of information about an editor's qualifications; they are more likely than the average RFA follower to know if a given editor is a source of problems, or of solutions. I doubt that we'll get many "I'm a member, he's a member, therefore I mindlessly support!" responses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I can see that caution is needed, but when an article is being considered for deletion, renaming, or merging, I've always accepted it is sensible (as well as courteous) to notify any relevant WikiProjects since their members are most likely to be knowledgeable on the issues. I know it's not a precise analogy, but the logic is similar, as pointed out above. At the very least, it may attract more participants to RfA. I assume that anyone trying to game the system by joining a dozen WikiProjects just before their RfA in order to gain publicity would soon be spotted. --RexxS (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this canvassing? (2)

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large.

— User:SarekOfVulcan, ONaNcle's talk page, at 15:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The prevailing opinion is that wikipedia should respect Agatha Christie last will about the Mousetrap ; you're on the minority side on that matter and you know it ; anyway, I'm not English native since my mother-tongue is French and therefore I'll not dare talking legalist matter with you ; being French native I had even never heard before about the word canvass or canvassing ; furthermore, it seems (it happened to me on Simple this year) that I could be blocked while not following your injonctions the context of which I don't master ; my next step will be to copy and neutralize some overspoiled entries from wikipedia to another wiki to stay on the main wiki as quiet as I was before this Spoilergate --ONaNcle (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not English native as well (Italian), yet if you want to know what "canvassing" means, just 1)consult a dictionary 2)read the policy linked above. That said, we're not here to respect author's wacky last wills. They are non binding to us. Our service is to provide information: if this service goes against a dead person's will and her supporters, too bad for them. --Cyclopia^talk 20:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I have edited the above quote to look more like a quote; directly copy-pasting another editor's reply without making sure it appears as a quote is wrong, as it can be seen as impersonation(even though it isn't in this case). Sarek didn't post here, so I have 'quoted' the quote, with a direct diff reference to the place and time where the quote originally took place.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Excessive cross-posting – "individual"

There has been some reverting over the insertion of "individual" into

Posting messages to an excessively large number of individual users, or to users who have asked not to receive such messages

which describes Excessive cross-posting. That item is clearly not meant to cover WP:Centralized discussion, WP:Noticeboards, WP:Village pump, WikiProjects, or anything else recommended by Appropriate notification. Notifying a WikiProject is fine (subject to other measures), but contacting all its members directly is inappropriate.

It has been interpreted to cover only User talk pages, but may cover article talk pages also (#AfD notifications at related articles). Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Requesting Comment: Does posting the following to the talkpages of active and past editors of an article constitute canvassing?

The actively interested editors of the pages on Autogynephilia, homosexual transsexual, and BBL theory have been discussing a merger. You are an editor that was deeply interested and involved in the past. straw Poll on the merger proposals. I am notifying you of this poll as a courtesy.

I sent it to past editors that I have been on opposite sides of mediations and other dispute resolutions from on these articles. People who may not side with me by any means. The merger we were discussing began with the person proposing it sending notice to a list of concerned editors. I notified largely the same list, save for one or two names I did not know, who's talk pages said they were retired. --Hfarmer (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You selectively chose a 14 people, with a couple people who are token opposition, and made the announcements in stealth. Shortly after initiating an OR dispute which you selectively recruited another editor to comment on -- also in stealth. This after trying to out me today. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate canvassing?

A user has alleged that I've violated this guideline by indulging in inappropriate canvassing. I'm requesting comments to determine if this is indeed the case.

A discussion was in progress on the talk page of FA India since September 11, 2010 to include content about the deaths of 37 million Indians from starvation caused by the famines during British rule of India. The proposed phrasing at the time User:BritishWatcher accused me of canvassing looked like this[13]:

“ Between the 11th century and the 18the century, famines in India were few and local and they affected comparatively a small number of people. Eighteen famines were recorded during this period in India. Under British rule, a total of 31 famines were recorded for the 100 years between 1800-1900 with a death toll of about 37 million, primarily due to starvation. India continued to suffer from famines under the British Crown, right up to independence in 1947 after which they vanished with the establishment of representative democracy and a free press. ”

No poll/vote was ever called for on the India talk page. I invited editors from Indian, Irish, Northern Irish and Irish Republicanism projects to participate in the discussion in a neutral way.[14] The contentious invitation is the Irish Republicanism (anti-British) one but, IMO, this was balanced by inviting the Northern Irish.

I invited users from the Irish projects because India and Ireland had both suffered famines with huge death tolls during the same period under the same regime, that of the British. Another point made was that I should have invited people from the British Empire project. I did not do so because I was and am not aware of other countries under British rule at that time in history of having faced similar famines. In short, I thought that inviting people meeting five common factors would help improve the quality of the debate. These factors were:

• The country should have been under British occupation
• People should have been resisting British rule
• There should have been a famine or multiple famines between 1800-1900.
• Policies of the British regime should have caused starvation deaths
• Death tolls should have been in millions.

	Scale		Message		Audience		Transparency
Appropriate	Limited posting	AND	Neutral	AND	Nonpartisan	AND	Open
	↕		↕		↕		↕
Inappropriate	Mass posting	OR	Biased	OR	Partisan	OR	Secret
Term	Excessive cross-posting ("spamming")		Campaigning		Votestacking		Stealth canvassing
Violation?	No -- There was no mass posting. ONLY 3 posts to relevant projects were made.		No -- Message was neutral as shown in this diff. [15]		No -- Both sides Irish and Northern Irish were notified.		No -- No e-mail or other social media involved.

Related links: Talk:India#Famines_in_India, Talk:India#Famine.2C_starvation_deaths_during_British_era, ANI [16]

Have I been doing inappropriate canvassing? Zuggernaut (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

With the above table, you seem to be asking editors to agree with your opinion, rather than let them evaluate your edits for themselves. If I were you, I would get rid of the {{no}} templates, and just link the applicable diffs, instead of outright denying it. I for one do not see your message as neutral.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Z has still not answered what is really the only relevant question in this instance: why was an Irish board contacted about an Indian matter, when other boards much more closely related (i.e. British Empire) were not? I believe the answer to that is that Z was looking for like-minded editors, and felt it was more likely to find them at the Irish board than at the British Empire board. This posting here is not a bona fide attempt at soliciting information in a neutral manner, but simply another Wikilawyering ploy by Z to avoid accepting responsibility for their misdeed.

At this point, AGF on this matter has run out for me, and if Z is not willing to state their understanding of what the canvassing policy means, after they've been informed so by numerous editors, and thier acceptance of responsibility for breaking it, apparently with deliberate intent, then a short educational block would be in order. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Z also failed to link to the ANI thread about his behavior, which is here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken - Any elementary student of the Indian independence movement knows the Indian-Irish connection, one of the links between the two countries can be found by reading up on Annie Beasant. Regarding the ANI accusation, I forgive you and assume good faith rather than accuse you of WP:Competence. It is clear that you've been voicing loud opinions on this matter without even fully reading the discussions. ANI is clearly mentioned and a link provided.

I was really hoping a neutral group, one which is not associated with the ANI would opine here. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my competence is so very much at issue here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

One editor brought the report to ANI, the rest were neutral with respect to you, at least until your own Wikilawyering behavior and refusal to accept responsibility entered into it. You came here not for neutrality, but in the hope that you would get a different answer, hence your inquiry, which was not a neutral question, but a defense attorney's summation. Please get over it, you were wrong, you acted against policy, that policy is clear, and you need to accept it publicly and move on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Not incidentally, you still have yet to answer the pertinent question, which is not "Why the Irish board" but instead "Why the Irish board and not the British Empire board?" It is that selectivity on your part that makes it canvassing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Look below for your answer Beyond My Ken. Zuggernaut believes that people should be allowed to post to boards that back their own POV. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This entire thread actually violates something else in it's on existence; WP:FORUMSHOPPING.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Change required to votestacking?

The current definition of votestacking appears to be restrictive in that it limits the opening up discussions/debates to wider audiences. Each party involved in a discussion would ideally like to invite the entire pool of users who are likely to support their position. The present guideline disallows this by stating that the invited audience should not be partisan. If one party invites an audience that supports their position then isn't it the responsibility of the opposing party to invite people supporting their position? The guideline should focus on ensuring the all parties have the same abilities in widening the audience by having access to the same tools, disallowing bots, scripts, stealth e-mailing, etc. Most of these are already addressed in Scale, Message and Transparency.

Does the votestaking part of the guideline need re-defining or elaboration? Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think "votestaking" does: but I'm just one editor with an opinion. WP:LAWYER may need a "brush-up", as that's an essay (unlike the WP:CANVASS guideline). "Baby steps" are how we all learn to walk, right?... Doc9871 (talk) 08:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

" Materially "

Our attorney friends use the term of art "materially" to distinguish things that really affect outcomes. Nucleophilic (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed cleanup, inclusion of external canvassing, and possible promotion as policy

Following considerable discussion at Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry, the community has tentatively shown some support for retiring the term "meatpuppetry" due to multiple known issues it leads to. The question arose of a better replacement term which after some thought led to an updated proposal as follows:

WP:CANVASS covers and comments on various types of inappropriate internal canvassing. Meat-puppetry is basically inappropriate external canvassing and only has a very short section. If the handling of external canvassing was moved to this page it would bring a number of good advantages:

1. The question of a better less problematic term for meatpuppetry is resolved, since "external canvassing" would now be a very natural and accurate term (some people preferred it anyway).
2. Better explanation could be given on handling than can fit in sock policy, and much of the handling of external canvassed visitors might apply to internal ones (AGF etc).
3. CANVASS would then handle all forms of canvassing, internal and external, and be the community's main and sole reference point on all types of canvassing. Possible suitable policy?
4. Provides a good opportunity to clean up CANVASS and review whether it can be improved at the same time. (The draft includes copyedits)

• Draft: User:FT2/Canvassing
• Discussion: here (to keep continuity of discussion on meatpuppetry)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: This is a bit of an inaccurate assessment. Per the summary by FT2 (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia_talk:SOCK#Summary_so_far_and_updated_proposal, "29 support, 21 oppose" - this means there was not an overall consensus to "retire" the term meatpuppetry. -- Cirt (talk) 20:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

... hence accurately described as "some consensus" not "clear consensus", with numbers stated for transparency. There is more support than not to look at a better term if one exists, and warrants further discussion to see if a clear consensus would exist given a few specific terms suggested in the previous discussion. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Not really familiar with anywhere on Wikipedia where a 58% outcome is considered "consensus" to change something significant like these sorts of WP:Guideline pages. -- Cirt (talk) 09:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible canvassing regarding an RFA

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#RFA canvassing (perm)

Over at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard it has been suggested that this board could provide useful feedback on the question if a single message, posted by a user to his own talk page and expressing an opinion to an ongoing RfA, should be considered improper canvassing or not. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to say "yes", if it's a talkpage that enough people are watching, and there's a history of the editor using it to influence WP editing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

My position is made clear at the linked discussion: the appropriate place to register one's opinion of a candidate is on the RFA itself. Posting a non-neutral message on one's talk page is inappropriate per the second (and quite likely perhaps third) scale(s). –xeno^talk 17:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a transparent attempt to reinterpret a long-standing guideline in a novel way for short-term political gain. Disgusting. Hans Adler 18:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you clarify what short-term political gain is being sought here? Do you feel it is appropriate for people to post to their own talk pages a message intended for their talk page watchers which states "Oppose XYZ candidate's RFA", or "Support XYZ candidate's RFA" ? –xeno^talk 18:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

As long as we cast our reasons next to our !vote, every single RFA is riddled with canvassing. The comments are usually not part of a discussion, but stand alone next to the signature. Whether a user does this on his talk page or at the RFA will have the same effect. As long there are people who !vote one way or another depending on who said what, I don't think I'd call this canvassing. I once supported an arbcom candidate on my user page, and nobody accused me of canvassing (granted, hardly anyone watches my page, unlike WMC's :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 18:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting point. I hadn't thought about it that way. –xeno^talk 18:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

For some reason that leaves me completely puzzled because I am assuming good faith, you and a few others are unhappy about a comment that WMC left on his talk page. Now you seem to be trying to set up precisely the kind of totalitarian regime that WMC and a few others have been talking about recently for everybody, just to cover this one case. Hans Adler 18:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm doing no such thing - I'm simply seeking clarification on a guideline which seems to have generated two diametrically-opposed interpretations. Whatever interpretation consensus determines as valid is what I will use on a go-forward. –xeno^talk 18:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry to say someone posted the following above and put your signature below it: "the appropriate place to register one's opinion of a candidate is on the RFA itself. Posting a non-neutral message on one's talk page is inappropriate per the second (and quite likely perhaps third) scale(s)." This looks to me like an attempt to create a situation in which nobody knows when then they are allowed to comment on an RFA on their own talk page. It's a recipe for almost certain disruption. Hans Adler 20:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I don't see how asking people to post their opinions on RFAs in the designated venue makes WP a totalitarian state. –xeno^talk 15:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not. What is moving Wikipedia in a troubling direction is forbidding people from posting their opinions outside the "designated venues", and threatening them with sanctions if they do not comply. Quite apart from the fact this this violates basic and justified expectations for an open exchange of ideas, it also leads to WP:CREEP, and the worst kind of creep. Suddenly you create unnecessary and counterproductive new rules that need enforcement, and the application of which will cause endless discussion and drama. Also, of course, enforcement by volunteers will at best be arbitrary, not systematic. Thus, you hand a new weapon to whiners and wiki-lawyers who prefer to "request enforcement" over honest discussions, and you disadvantage editors who have preserved their natural distaste for snitching and whining and still hope for common sense to prevail. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

This argument strikes me as FUD. We have the canvassing guideline in place for a reason: to prevent community discussions from becoming susceptible to votestacking, bloc voting, etc. No one is suggesting we should bring minilove into existence. Also, I don't see that anyone threatened WMC with sanctions for the posting. I'm just suggesting he avoid further such postings as they have an air of impropriety according to the project page. –xeno^talk 16:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you, as an admin and bureaucrat, in reply to a request on the BN, "ask" somebody to do something (or not do something, in this case), you'd better make sure that this is a polite request that reflects your personal judgement about what is best, but that the user is completely free to ignore you without any consequences but possibly a change in your opinion on his wisdom. This is your chance to clarify that that was your intention. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Users are free to ignore me just as they are free to ignore the accompanying project page that suggests one should not post messages with the intent of informing Wikipedians about a community discussion in a non-neutral manner. Whether there will be consequences because of inappropriate canvassing is not something I can control. –xeno^talk 16:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

With hindsight, how do you feel about this today? Couldn't this have been done discreetly by email to avoid the canvassing, in the same way that WMC could have used email to notify his friends? Hans Adler 20:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain, with reference to the scales, how that is inappropriate canassing? –xeno^talk 15:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It was a message to all your friends, telling them that there was an RfA where their vote would be needed. Exactly like WMC's comment that started this discussion, it was not a mass posting but a single one. It wasn't neutral but biased in favour of you being a suitable candidate. It was directed to a presumably partisan audience (probably more so than WMC's talk page, given the huge number of his enemies who are watching it). Both were equally open.

Note that I am not seriously claiming there was anything improper. But if you want to argue that what Balloonman did was proper and what WMC did wasn't, you will have to engage in some hair splitting that might damage your eyesight. Hans Adler 15:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Balloonman offered to nominate me for adminship; suggested that I was ready to stand. He didn't suggest people should vote for me (didn't even vote for me himself, iirc). And he followed the RFA procedures (note no where in the procedures does it say that you should post to your talk page watchers suggesting how they should vote on a particular RFA). –xeno^talk 16:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I have also commented in the linked discussion. Briefly, Wikipedia editors are given wide latitude to freely express their opinions about Wikipedia policy, practices, and processes in their own userspace. I would much rather see editors post a single, open, transparent endorsement or rejection of a candidate, rather than encourage them to try to game the rules or engage in inappropriate canvassing. I would dispute Xeno's suggestion that this sort of post falls foul of the third 'inappropriate canvassing' rule of thumb in any case; one's opponents are just as free to watchlist one's userpage as one's friends, and moreover there is no mechanism by which you can prevent anyone from watchlisting any page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that in general, this should be allowed. And to not be considered canvassing. After all, we do allow the person up for RfA to note it on their own userpages/talk pages.

That said, this all presumes WP:AGF of the users in question.

Thinking about this specific case: This would seem to be a blocked user apparently using recent events (which involved the said user to be sanctioned by the community/arbcomm) which may have made their talk page more watched. Which to me sounds like a continued attempt at disruption. And if it is determined to be so, would warrant further appropriate sanction (such as losing the ability to edit one's user pages). The issue may be moot, now, of course. (The RfA is closed.) But there is always the future to consider. - jc37 18:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Hard cases make bad law. I have intentionally formulated the question in the abstract. If anybody wants to argue special circumstances, they can do so, at one of the many noticeboards around. However, claiming that the act of a user posting a reasonable opinion (not a PA) on his or her talk page is in violation of WP:CANVASS and should be forbidden and/or sanctioned is bad, counterproductive, counter to Wikipedians' reasonable expectations, and not ground in any on-Wiki precedence. I don't want to have to check the numbers of watchers of a page before I post an opinion. I don't want to have to verify that there is a no exclusive venue for an opinion I'm about to post among the myriad project space pages. And I certainly don't want a posse of Huggle-wielding members of WikiProject Opinion Maintenance patrolling user talk pages, searching for inappropriate comments, and issuing glaring warning templates before reporting people to the central opinion maintenance noticeboard so that new admins can fulfil their mandated block quota. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I still think it helps to take particulars of this case into account. As I read WP:Canvass, and as I think it should be read, there is strong emphasis on the word "intent". If someone intents to influence the outcome of a discussion with what they they are writing, then that is canvassing. And therefore this clearly is a case of canvassing as the poster of the comment has already stated that he wrote it to influence his audience[17]. I do not think the venue of the comment has any relevance; WP:Canvass says nothing about the policy being restricted to messages posted on certain pages.TheFreeloader (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Why on earth would somebody ever post an opinion if not to affect the outcome of a discussion? Narcissism is about the only reason I can come up with. But to clarify: I do not agree that this particular instance is inappropriate. But that is not my main point. I strongly object to people claiming this instance is inappropriate because it is in general inappropriate to post opinion outside of defined and walled noticeboards set up the that purpose. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC

You are setting up a straw man again, it is not being argued that you can not talk about a discussion outside where it is being taking place. It is being argued that you can not do it with the intent to influence the outcome of the discussion, i.e. canvass. So, if you can not discuss a Wikipedia discussion without canvassing, then no, you should not discuss about it outside where the discussion is being formally held.TheFreeloader (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it clearly goes against the spirit of wp:canvass to post partisan messages about Wikipedia decisions anywhere else than on page where the discussion takes place. I believe in a zero tolerance policy against any attempts trying influence the outcome of a Wikipedia discussion outside where the discussion is formally taking place. If any of this sort of activity were to get accepted, I think it could become a slippery slope. Contentious issues could turn into battlegrounds over who can recruit most people for their cause within whatever means were to be permitted.

I also think it wrong to try to define inappropriate canvassing. All canvassing is in my opinion inappropriate. The term "inappropriate canvassing" has only relatively recently been added to this policy (without discussion), and I think it probably shouldn't have been as it wrongly implies that there is such a thing as "appropriate canvassing".TheFreeloader (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

If over two years ago was "relatively recently"[18], I envy how you view the passage of time ;> That being said, it's clear before this point that "inappropriate"="canvassing", (at least according to the guideline's history)... Doc talk 19:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it must have been in and out a couple of times then because as recently as four months ago there wasn't any mention of "inappropriate canvassing" [19]. But in any event I think it is a wrong term to include in this policy. It has not only now, but also in the Zuggernaut discussion above, caused problems due to the misconception that "appropriate canvassing" exists. All the policy should say is "appropriate notification" and "inappropriate notification", which is also called "canvassing".TheFreeloader (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

What it is, is that every once in awhile, someone comes along and after hearing people say "canvassing is bad", while not realising that people are referring to inappropriate canvassing, they attempt to change the page to reflect that.

However, I believe this page has had information about appropriate canvassing even since it was split from WP:SPAM.

The header "friendly notice" was merely changed semi-recently. - jc37 20:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Then I think there should be found some other way to express that this is about inappropriate notifications (maybe hidden text), because I can not think of what "appropriate canvassing" would constitute. I can't think of anything I would call canvassing that I think would be appropriate for Wikipedia.TheFreeloader (talk) 20:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

From the inception of this particular article, "Cavassing is bad"[20]. It's "evolved" considerably since then as it must, and like most guidelines, editors get to write them and change them all the time. No different from any other article, really. "Appropriate" and "inappropriate" canvassing? The terminology seems to change as well. This guideline is by no means "completely defined", and I think this should be continued in the discussion (the initial WMC thing is, IMO, far less important than making the guideline clearer to everyone in general). From what I'm seeing, the intro to the original intent of this guideline has done a complete roundabout from what it says now. Is it the dictionary term we're applying, or is "WP canvassing" something else? Doc talk 21:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

(Actually, this is the first page edit. And it clearly shows that some canvassing can be appropriate - per arbcom, no less.)

WP:CANVASS describes canvassing on Wikipedia. We shouldn't attempt to redefine what the term canvassing means per WP:NEO. The common misconception of the term on Wikipedia is that often the usage of canvassing is typically meant to imply inappropriate canvassing, such as campaigning and/or votestacking. (Basically: attempts to bias a discussion in a particular way.) - jc37 21:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The first page edit says "occasional cross-posting is okay" but uses the term "canvassing" only in a negative way. I would also think that "influence" is a better term than "inform"[21], and would be clearer in defining what WP's definition of canvassing is as it applies here... but that's just me. Doc talk 21:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand what you see as "appropriate canvassing". As it is defined below (informing people about discussions/decision/elections, with the intent to influence its outcome), I can not think of any situation that canvassing would be appropriate on Wikipedia.TheFreeloader (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it is good definition which is given first in the old version I linked to above (which has sadly been removed now):"Canvassing on Wikipedia means sending messages to Wikipedians informing them about a community discussion, with the intention of influencing the outcome in a particular way." I would add though that it includes possible future Wikipedians too (as in "no meatpuppeteering").TheFreeloader (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note - I often see talk concerning comments made on "his/her own user page". It's worth noting that "...pages in user space belong to the wider community. They are not a personal homepage, and do not belong to the user. They are part of Wikipedia, and exist to make collaboration among editors easier."(1) People commenting on their "own" userpage are really just commenting on WP's pages: and nobody has the "privacy" to do just anything they want to here. It's a public website, and "userpages" are owned by the community. So "his" webpage isn't "his", or yours or mine. His userpage is a public forum, and that is not in dispute at all. I think we all know this, and the comment was clearly made with this in mind. Is it "canvassing"? Maybe the guideline will be made "better" because of this. Doc talk 22:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually Doc, this is incorrect per WP:NOTAFORUM. Wikipedia is not a forum. It is a encyclopedia. However you are correct that editors do not own userspace. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 04:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, if this isn't a "forum", what is? Your "own" userpage? Expect a sound "trouting"... delivered at my own leisure... Doc talk 04:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Responding down here to Stephan Schulz's initial post, I would like to point out that his characterisation of the example post here as "a single message, posted by a user to his own talk page and expressing an opinion to an ongoing RfA" presents the post in a 'good' light. Several other factors make this situation different: (1) The user was blocked; (2) The user has a history of addressing a talk page audience from something akin to a soapbox; (3) The message was non-neutral; (4) When questioned, the editor said he was addressing those watching, as opposed to making notes for himself for later use; (5) It was not a single post, as there was a subsequent post later (admittedly after the RFA had closed). So my view is that the context is vital when considering such postings that are taking place in user talk page space. The context I would look at, for future cases like this, include factors such as: (i) whether the editor is under restrictions of any nature (such as a topic ban); (ii) whether the editor is blocked (they may possibly be venting on their talk page or using their talk page to circumvent the block); (iii) whether (looking at the phrasing of the edit) they are making notes for their own use or addressing a wider audience; (iv) whether they have a previous history of this behaviour; (v) whether the message is non-neutral or not; (vi) whether there are subsequent posts that need to be taken into account; and finally, if things are still unclear, to (vii) ask the editor direct why they made the edit in question. All these factors, and answers to questions, may need to be taken into consideration before coming to any conclusions.

On a more general note, discussions on Wikipedia can be considered in the following way:

• One-to-one (conversations between two people, no others visibly participating)
• Many-to-one (many people leaving messages at someone's user talk page or a discussion focused on a single editor)
• One-to-many (posts addressed not to a single or few users, but to a wider audience and anyone reading)
• Many-to-many (numerous users participating in discussions, such as at noticeboards)

Though clearly there is a spectrum between the types given above. Possibly some form of etiquette could handle the modes of address that people adopt when posting. Some are adept at switching from personal one-to-one conversational tones, to public speaking tones used to address the widest possible audiences. Clearly it is not desirable to insist on how people should post (that would be authoritarian!), but I do think that the tone people adopt, and whether they are engaging in public speaking or a conversation, should be taken into consideration when looking at possible examples of WP:CANVASS. Carcharoth (talk) 10:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is my proposal for this etiquette: "It's ok for users to post reasonably expressed opinions that neither fall under WP:NPA nor are disruptive on a technical level to their own user talk pages or other such talk pages where a discussion of the topic is happening. It's not ok to invent policies or guidelines that require the careful weighting of 7 different criteria, several of which are subjective, in a misguided attempt to control natural forms of expression that Wikipedians have used since time immemorial." --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. This is a correct description of current practice. Hans Adler 11:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, admins usually have discretion to consider some of those criteria anyway. Out of interest, do you and Stephan think any of those seven criteria would ever need to be taken into consideration? Surely some of them would need to be considered? I am presuming here that you wouldn't forbid my point (vii) - namely someone asking questions about an edit they had concerns about. I will presume that if one of my criteria is not mentioned, that you have no objections to it. Carcharoth (talk) 11:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think point (vii) is really problematic. Either the answer is irrelevant - then there is no point to the question. Or one answer will be better for the editor than the other, in which case you invite (and, in fact, effectively reward) editors for lying. Few are as open and as honest as WMC, and eve he, I dare say, relies on the first option I mentioned. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Before even coming to any specific points, the list as such is problematic. You intend to restrict the speech of Wikipedians. Even with very clear rules this would lead to a large amount of misunderstandings, incorrect allegations, incorrect application by admins (in ways that you never imagined because they appear obviously unreasonable to you), etc. With a large list of conditions that's going to be even worse. Did you ever wonder why there are so many disputes about civility and relatively few about canvassing? It's because civility is subjective and for canvassing we currently have relatively clear rules so that generally everybody agrees whether they apply or not.
• As I wrote in my response to Collect below, there isn't even a problem in the first place. Why restrict reasonable political speech of a user? If the user is not taken seriously by others there is no problem, and if the user is taken seriously by others then there is probably a reason for that. You seem to be arguing for a draconian wiki equivalent of loss of civil rights for prisoners. I doubt you are going to get much support for that.
• (i), (ii) should not play a role in this context unless the restrictions are directly related to the political speech in question and the user has explicitly been informed of that.
• (iii) a priori a reasonable criterion but likely to encourage dishonesty and cause dissensions in the details of application.
• (iv), (vi) are reasonable, but note that previous or subsequent inconvenient but legal behaviour cannot be held against the user.
• (v) is not a reasonable criterion for something that is posted on a single user talk page.
• (vii) is bound to create an atmosphere of double-speak and dishonesty. Look at Lar's way of communicating with WMC if you don't understand what I mean. (So far he seems to have escaped all sanctions with this method.) Hans Adler 13:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible that the key here is whether the notice in any way could be considered neutral in tone? If a post says "vote yes" or "vote no" isn't that the key where CANVASS then must become applicable? Collect (talk) 11:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

No. There are too many additional factors to consider, such as whether it's a "notice" or part of a conversation. In the end we would have an enormous set of rules and sub-rules with special exceptions etc., and all that only to restrict certain kinds of unwanted but not inherently problematic speech of Wikipedians about wiki politics.

This entire problem only arose because a user is blocked and a large number of respectable users who are fully integrated into the wiki society believe this is not OK. (Most of us think that WMC is wrong for dealing with the CC disruption that comes from blogs ineffectively, and Arbcom is wrong for dealing with WMC ineffectively and ignoring the root cause. WMC is topic banned and blocked, and Arbcom is not, so we are supporting WMC.) I doubt that Gavin.collins would get his talk page access removed for RFA-related "canvassing" on his talk page, for example. But a recommendation by WMC is taken seriously because others trust his judgement. This is the kind of problem that a society gets when it starts persecuting dissenters. Whether Wikipedia has reached that stage is entirely subjective and depends on one's position on various points of wiki ideology (e.g. interpreting certain policies and principles in a fundamentalist or pragmatic way; whether the policies, the community or the encyclopedic content are considered most important; etc.). Hans Adler 12:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hans, do you feel it is appropriate for people to post to their own talk pages a message intended for their talk page watchers which states "Oppose XYZ candidate's RFA", or "Support XYZ candidate's RFA? –xeno^talk 14:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it just like adding a userbox (or longer argumentative text) to your user page, on some aspect of on-wiki controversy?--Kotniski (talk) 14:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a simple yes/no question. –xeno^talk 16:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but an inappropriately worded one. See my response. Hans Adler 16:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Appropriate: No. It's in bad taste to put it so bluntly. Giving directions instead of arguments is not in the wiki spirit. Permitted: Yes, and we can't change that. The regular brawls after civility blocks demonstrate the disruptive potential of restricting editors' speech subject to unclear criteria. Hans Adler 16:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

In that case, I think we're closer to agreement than I previously thought. Thanks, –xeno^talk 16:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there some principle at stake here? If so, what, exactly? Is the fact that the notice concerned an RfA (as opposed to, say, a discussion about hyphens) relevant to the criticism? Is the fact that the user was blocked (and so was effectively using the talk page as a way to get round the block) relevant?--Kotniski (talk) 16:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

In principle I see none of the context, other than the fact that the poster was trying to influence the outcome of a discussion with a message posted outside where the discussion was held, as relevant. That is wrong no matter the context. But I do understand why some people would see it as aggravating that the poster was both trying to influence a relatively important decision, and trying to circumvent a block. TheFreeloader (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• I've seen people base their RFA votes because they trust User X and if he's said something, that must be right. I've also seen the converse, and also votes to counter other votes, etc. Most of the time, for every person who says no, there'll be someone who says yes, or vice versa. That no drama is raised about such comments/votes but that there is drama over this is the sort of thing that makes Wikipedia look like a joke. As TOAT correctly notes, you can't stop people from saying certain things or people watching certain things. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the next form of gaming the system came in the form of an editor (who has an axe to grind) pretending to be friends with their adversary (eg WMC) and then voting saying "WMC said no too". You can't expect to put a public project like Wikipedia (with its 5 pillars) in a bubble or glasshouse, which is what is really being proposed here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
• I've quoted this in another forum. Will quote it here too. If ips cannot post or comment at RfAs, neither should blocked users be allowed to. At the same time, if a candidate who has an ongoing RfA is allowed to only post a neutral statement on his/her own talk page pointing watchers/readers to his ongoing RfA, then the rule to the same extent applies to other editors - that even they can only post neutral comments about an ongoing RfA (whosoever's RfA) on their talk pages. If there is a discussion to influence votes in an ongoing RfA occurring on a forum other than the particular RfA, then that would qualify as clear canvassing/forum-shopping. If the inappropriateness of such discussion is clearly deliberate, a warning is in order to the particular editor - and a block in extreme cases. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 17:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

  Your point about IPs is interesting, but I see two serious problems with applying it to this situation. The first is that we generally allow logged-in users (especially ones with a significant track record of contributions to the project) significantly more latitude in their own userspaces than we do non-logged-in IP users. If someone is under a temporary block (as opposed to a permanent/indefinite block or ban), we do not ostracize them from the community, though we will take steps to prevent disruptive conduct during their block (as I've noted elsewhere, the conduct in this case appears to be neither disruptive nor a continuation of the topic ban violation which led to the original block, so restriction is unnecessary and far outside our usual practice). It is not clear to my why we should choose to equate a temporarily blocked editor with an anonymous IP editor.

  The second problematic point is that IP editors are permitted to comment on and at RfA. The instructions at the head of WP:RFA are explicit: "Any Wikipedian is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections, but only those with an account may place a numerical (#) "vote"." IP editors are permitted to participate in the RfA process, as long as they are not engaged in other policy violations (primarily sockpuppetry and block or ban evasion) in doing so. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right. In essence, therefore, a blocked editor would need to ensure (like an editor who has an ongoing RfA) that he/she does not post any comment about any RfA on his talk page that seems non-neutral. I, for one, would therefore be prone to informing any editor (about the possible issue) who does otherwise on his talk page. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 11:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be drawing conclusions which are not supported by my comments or by existing policy — your 'therefore' doesn't seem to follow. It was not clear to me why we should treat temporarily blocked editors identically to IP editors; it is equally unclear to me why we should treat temporarily blocked editors identically to the RfA candidate. Why should editors not be allowed to express opinions about Wikipedia processes in their own user space? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Editors are allowed to express opinions about Wikipedia processes on their own user space. Not canvass for/against RfAs and other similar voting-enabled discussions (AfDs etc). Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 16:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing is a bad thing

I have restored some elements from an older version of this policy to do away with the notion of "appropriate canvassing" in this policy. I, and I think most people, see the term canvassing as referring to something bad, to try to influence the outcome of an decision by sending out messages. So to include the terms "inappropriate" and "appropriate canvassing" in this policy is like to cause some people to think that some campaigning or some votestacking is acceptable, which I would emphatically say it is not. Overall I think the message of this policy just gets clearer by not referring to inappropriate and appropriate canvassing.TheFreeloader (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that "trying to influence the outcome of a decision" is a bad thing. There are two reasons why canvassing is a problem: First, mass postings are disruptive. Secondly, selectively drawing on people with a certain viewpoint may lead to decisions which are at odds with the more general consensus. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I said "trying to influence the out of a decision by sending out messages". I do agree with the rest, although I would also find it problematic to send out biased messages about Wikipedia discussions anywhere. Just as one consequence of allowing that, it could easily lead to people "race to notify a wider audience" as the first party to post a notification about a discussion on project talk pages get their take on the issue to be read first. But of course, if you think that campaigning shouldn't be disallowed then you are welcome to start a section about that. TheFreeloader (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the change.

You can want canvassing to be defined a certain way, but per WP:NEO, we shouldn't be redefining the word ourselves.

You're welcome to attempt to find a consensus that on Wikipedia all canvassing is bad. (And subsequent to that, note that that is the case on Wikipedia.) But I doubt that such a consensus will form. Through LONG standing consensus and several previous discussions - some going back years.

But please feel free to try.

In the meantime, you may want to re-read the page. AFAICT, most of your concerns are already addressed on the page. - jc37 23:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright, but can you then point me to those previous discussion where this has been debated. And do you have any evidence for canvassing being a neutral word outside of Wikipedia, I think you would need that to call "canvassing is negative" a neologisms. I do know that the policy as it is does not allow any forms of votestacking or campaigning. My point is just, that there seems to have been some misunderstandings anyways, and I think not talking about "appropriate canvassing" could make the policy read clearer overall.TheFreeloader (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Some time ago, I wrote a short page on various ways to publicise discussions. It is listed in the "see also" section here, along with a link to the AfD guidelines on notifications for that process. The point being that it is usually possible to draw a distinction between canvassing and publicising. On the meaning of the word canvass, I agree that it is most often used in a negative sense, but it can be used in a more neutral sense as well, as in "they did a survey to canvass opinions on which product was the most popular" as opposed to the more explicit definitions that involve solicitation of opinion (or, more usually, of votes). See the definitions here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yea, you could call it "to publicize", you could call it "appropriate notification"(/to notify in an appropriate way), like is already done in the policy. I just don't think you should call it "appropriate canvassing", as it can be misunderstood. On the meaning of the word canvass you found, I just don't see how the neutral meaning of canvass, which essentially means to survey, has any relevance to the topic of policy. Should it really be understood that this policy by saying "appropriate canvassing" means that people are still allowed to conduct public opinion surveys?(more evidence that the meaning of canvass is split, and that the alternate meaning is not related to this topic [22][23] [24]) I might actually go so far as to say that the neutral meaning of the word canvass which is being argued for here could just as well be a Wikipedia neologism. TheFreeloader (talk) 01:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

All three of your linked examples show that the term "canvass" is neutral. Noting that one of them does indicate that it can be used in conjunction with another word. for example to canvass for support. The word/term canvass (or rather to canvass, to use the infinitive) itself is neutral. - jc37 13:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

How do the examples show that canvass is neutral? To me they all seem to say to canvass (in the relevant meaning) means to solicit voters. And in my opinion that is not neutral and can not be described as "appropriate" anywhere on Wikipedia.TheFreeloader (talk) 13:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You can ask someone to vote, without asking them to vote in a certain way.

And as far as what you're talking about on Wikipedia, if you read WP:CANVASS it specifically says that the friendly notice should be neutrally worded.

As I said earlier - what you're wanting is already there. - jc37 17:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Well still, most often "to canvass", also outside Wikipedia, has the connotation that it is done to in some way further one's own cause. But even if is sometimes used as just meaning to inform about a dicision, I just don't see why that certain meaning of "to canvass" needs to be so dominant in this policy. There are so many other, less confusing, options instead of "appropriate canvassing", like publicize, appropriate notification or friendly notice. As I see it, it would be better to just have footnote which explains that this policy and Wikipedia generally uses canvass in a negative sense, and for appropriate notifications the term "appropriate notification"(or something else) is used.TheFreeloader (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

My experience is that the word "canvassing" on Wikipedia almost always refers to something that the writer considers inappropriate (see the discussions earlier on this page, for example - "is this canvassing?" "possible canvassing") I don't see any need to try to fight a losing battle over this.--Kotniski (talk) 10:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Jc, you seem to be fighting a one-man battle to make this word mean something other than it does. Maybe you think it should mean something quite neutral, but whether we like it or not, it's come to have a particular meaning on Wikipedia, and this page should simply make it clear what that meaning is. To make it less confusing, if you think that in the real world "canvassing" means something different than it means here, then we should clearly not link it to the WP article Canvassing. Also I don't know why you restored "sending of messages to Wikipedians" - in most cases it's not "sending" messages as most people would understand it, but simply posting messages on various noticeboards and talk pages.--Kotniski (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm attempting to ascertain that a.) we don't invent our own terms and b.) we actually follow common convention/practice on Wikipedia.

Notice that I have not disagreed with you that at times editors type the word canvassing as a quick way to say inappropriate canvassing. Happens often enough to note it on the page.

But at the same time, neutrally worded notes to others also happen with fair regularity. And in my estimation, there are a LOT of these.

Plus, if you try to change it so that such notes are "against the policy/guideline" - ppl will shrug and do it anyway, and most likely change the page back. So let's avoid the drama, and follow common practice - which is what we're supposed to do on policy and guideline pages anyway.

At this point, we're in WP:BRD mode. someone was WP:BOLD, someone else reverted, and now it's time to discuss.

And if you really want to attempt to achieve consensus to make all canvassing on Wikipedia bad, then let's leave some notices on the WP:VP, and at template:Cent.

Oh wait: if we did that we'd be violating the presumption: that neutrally canvassing for people in a discussion is bad.

Which means that left only on this talk page, no consensus can be formed. What a conundrum..... - jc37 17:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

We seem not to be understanding each other - all I'm concerned about is the terminology, not the substance. There's no doubt that some notification is OK and some notification is not; the question is whether people on Wikipedia understand the word "canvassing" to refer specifically to the inappropriate sort. My experience is that this happens more than "sometimes" or "often" - it seems to be the normal use of the word on Wikipedia. So in this case, given that the meaning of "canvassing" in the real world is different, we do invent our own terms (for better or worse). I'd happily see all this jargon like "canvassing", "sockpuppetry", "meatpuppetry" abandoned in favour of actual words with the meanings that ordinary people will understand, but while it exists, we don't do anyone any favours by misleading them about the way these terms are actually used.--Kotniski (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I somewhat disagree about usage. And it's going to be subjective, regardless. So I would suggest staying on the side of caution and saying "often", rather than suggesting that it's most or all of the time.

And I agree with not misleading anyone. But this is also the lead of the page, and so it needs to reflect what's in the page - appropriate AND in appropriate.

AFAICT, the usage is mainly due to common truncation of speech. When you diagram a sentence, often you will have a word in parenthesis where a word "should" have been, but it was "assumed" by the speaker/writer, and that is pretty much the case here. - jc37 18:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Question - If I bring someone up at AN/I, and I send them a {{subst:ANI-notice}}, aren't I therefore "canvassing" according to the overly neutral first sentence of the lead? I'm "sending them a message with the intent to inform about a community discussion". It still seems far too vague to me, and does not help clarify what WP canvassing is really about. And this wasn't always the case... Doc talk 19:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That seems to be the result of Jc's insistence on not telling people what the word really means in Wikipedia parlance. There is appropriate and inappropriate notification - Canvassing generally refers the inappropriate kind, regardless of whether we think it should have a wider meaning. Jc, can you not see you're on your own on this one, and simply let it go?--Kotniski (talk) 09:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not "on my own" in this. This is a simple case of verifiability.

I see three editors here who want to change how a word is defined, because in their experience on Wikipedia, they've seen the word used this way.

IWANTIT doesn't make it so. - jc37 19:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, what I'm seeing is one editor who made the change to the ineffective lead after it had been worded otherwise since its beginning and continues to revert to his preferred change, who has had more "input" on this guideline than any other editor in the page's history[25], and who is not addressing my question. Does notifying someone of a discussion at AN/I qualify under the current lead? I believe you cannot disagree that it does, and this is a problem. No? Weakening and "neutralizing" the wording of this guideline does not clarify it at all. Doc talk 19:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

(De-dent) - If the lead is "ineffective" in your opinion, what about it is ineffective (in other words, how does the lead not represent the page that follows)?

"Does notifying someone of a discussion at AN/I qualify [as canvassing] under the current lead?" - yes it does. It's right there on the page: the second bullet point under appropriate canvassing.

As I've said many times: I personally don't have a problem with noting that it's a common misconception by some Wikipedians that canvassing only has a negative connotation. the whole idea of "groupthink" would seem to apply here. Thinking that it's so, doesn't make it so.

And someone using canvassing in a truncated way; and/or someone presumes that anything to do with preventative policy/guideline must be negative; doesn't change the definition of the term. That just would indicate that it might be a fairly commonly misdefined term by speakers/writers on Wikipedia (happens often enough with many words, especially online). systemic bias would seem to by floating its way here as well.... - jc37 20:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Normally the first sentence should try to summarize the concept of the guideline as best as possible: it's the first thing one reads. We're not trying to "re-invent" the term canvassing, and if this is the main issue per WP:NEO, perhaps it should changed. Something like "Wikicanvassing". We've got "wikilawyering" and "wikiquette". Or perhaps "Snickerdoodling". Whatever it is, it should be outlined from the very beginning, in the very first sentence, what it means. This is what is ineffective about, "Canvassing on Wikipedia refers to the sending or posting of messages to editors with the intent to inform about a community discussion.": it could mean an AN/I notification (or any other notification to any board); it could mean "Hey, they forgot to inform you that your image is up for deletion and they're discussing it right now at FfD!"; it could mean any number of things. As for the second, "qualifying" sentence in the lead: here's a Google of "inappropriate canvassing"[26]. What do we have? WP and blogs using the term. The wording of this guideline has been watered down steadily, and I feel the original intent of the guideline has been confused and continues to confuse editors. Doc talk 21:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

What you seem to be focused on is: "Canvassing with the intent to disrupt the consensus-making process on Wikipedia".

And that's fine. And if there is a better way to convey that, let's please do. I find that policy/guideline pages are always in a tug-of-war between brevity/concise-ness and clarity.

But we should beware of having only a guideline for the bad and not the good. In my opinion, it's a recipe for drama waiting to happen.

Which is another reason that canvassing (as it is, in real life, a neutral term) is used for this page, so that BOTH can be conveyed, in order to prevent misunderstandings.

The problem I see, honestly, is that we usually don't talk about the good (or bad, really) unless accusations happen. (This discussion was seemingly prompted by just such an occurrence.) So editors don't often hear about the term used in any other light.

So if the issue for you is clarity, then yes, please let's discuss that. (Though maybe under a separate thread, for "clarity" of purpose : ) - jc37 21:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I just can't see how you can claim to fight on side of WP:V(in a place where verifiability isn't required btw) when you still haven't presented a single piece of evidence for that canvassing is a neutral word outside of Wikipedia.

It is not being argued that only inappropriate notification should be discussed in this policy; it is being argued that sending out appropriate notifications shouldn't be called canvassing. I would have no problem with changing the name of this policy to WP:Notification (if that's not already taken) to convey with the title that this is about both what is and what isn't allowed. (Which trying to change the meaning of the word canvassing doesn't really do anyways). TheFreeloader (talk) 07:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

But see, that's where your argument fails. Even by the links you provided, canvassing is indeed a neutral term outside Wikipedia.

Let me give you a few examples which may perhaps help. If a volunteer were to go door to door, and merely ask each person to vote, but not who to vote for, then the volunteer would be canvassing the neighbourhood. (A related search.)

If a policeman were to go door to door to ask each person what they were doing last friday night, they too would be canvassing the neighborhood. They are not suggesting what the person should say, merely asking for comment. (A related search.)

So canvassing can indeed be used neutrally.

And of course if, in addition to asking people to vote, the volunteer were to ask them to vote for the conservative candidate, then they'd still be canvassing, but they'd also be campaigning. And campaigning on Wikipedia is inappropriate canvassing.

Does that help? - jc37 07:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be hard to argue that a census taker is attempting to campaign or votestack. So, here's some search results. This page is pretty clear in usage. - jc37 07:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The two last examples (the police investigation and the census survey) are again not about canvassing in the relevant meaning. In those examples "to canvass" means "to investigate" and "to survey". Those meanings are not relevant to this policy, as I very much doubt that when you say "appropriate canvassing is a allowed" mean that "people can investigate things" or "people are allowed to survey". As to the first example, I would say that, that does imply something which would be inappropriate on Wikipedia, as it to me implies, what here is called, "votestacking". Politicians and campaigners do not conduct "Get out the Vote" campaigns and such just because they like high turn out statistics. They do it because they think the people they are contacting are more likely than the general population to vote for them. And activity like that should not in my opinion be seen as acceptable on Wikipedia.TheFreeloader (talk) 08:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, atm, you really seem to be attempting to be intentionally obtuse, in order to push a POV.

Kotniski and I have agreed and disagreed about various things presently and in the past, and I don't know if this doc is one of several docs I have known over the years here, but at least both of them seem to be genuinely attempting to discuss so that we might find a better way to convey the lead.

If I didn't think you were POV pushing at this point, I'd be checking your contribs right now to see how in articles you might be mis-representing references just as you just tried to here.

But at this point, I think WP:DNFTT probably applies, so, moving on... - jc37 18:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what exactly are you talking about? How can you even push a POV in a wiki policy? I simply have no idea how WP:NPOV could be applied to Wikipedia policies. All I am trying to do here is to keep a discussion going on an issue which in my opinion definitely hasn't been settled. I would say it's you who are way out of line here, not only making personal attacks, but also reverting edits and refusing to discuss the issue. I really have no idea what was so offensive about my objections to your examples that you simply had to get incivil about it. I would like it if you could please at least me tell what that was.TheFreeloader (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is no real disagreement about the content of the page, and only the usage of the term "canvassing" is disputed, with particular focus on the question: Does "canvassing" encompass appropriate and inappropriate notifications, or inappropriate notifications only? I don't really have a strong opinion, but I'd like to offer two related points:

• Most of what editors need to know (or will want to know) about canvassing for day-to-day editing is summarized in the table. The fact that it describes appropriate and inappropriate behaviors means that a more encompassing definition of "canvassing" provides more context.
• It could be a bit awkward or confusing to define "canvassing" as an entirely inappropriate behavior in the lead, and to then proceed to discuss "Appropriate notification" in the next section. It would be a bit like having a "Praise" section in a Criticism of X article.

Disclosure: I was (appropriately) canvassed. : ) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Except that we observe how people actually use the word "canvassing" on WP and notice that it nearly always refers to something negative. We can't pretend that usage is different than what it is. A better solution would be to rename the page to a neutral explanatory title, something like "Notifying others of discussions", say what's appropriate and inappropriate, mentioning in passing that in WP jargon such actions, particularly the inappropriate kind, are often referred to as "canvassing". And even better, shorten the whole thing to one paragraph with four bullet points, which is really all the content we have here, and merge it into WP:Consensus.--Kotniski (talk) 10:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't dispute that, on Wikipedia, the negative-only usage tends to be more common than the neutral usage. However, given the more general meaning of the term "canvassing" and the desirability of contrasting appropriate and inappropriate behavior, I think we can choose to present the subject more generally. An explanatory title could accomplish the same thing, but I think that's something which would need to be discussed in more depth. I think your final suggestion (shorten and merge to Wikipedia:Consensus) could, in fact, be the best solution. WP:CONSENSUS already contains a section titled "Consensus-building by soliciting outside opinions", and the main points from this page probably could be merged there. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Kotsniski: I don't think your last edit is quite there, but I think we're getting closer. I still think that we should link to the Wikipedia article. If for no other reason than the confusions that have been happening even now about what the term means...

As for how to convey it better, I think part of the problem may be that we've made it too brief. The lead was longer, but we made it more concise.

It might be worth going back and looking at the longer lead to see if that helps? At least we might have some presentation suggestions which could help clarify things better.- jc37 18:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Jc37, I'm aware that you're an administrator and a very good editor, and I think we may have crossed paths somewhere in the past as you suggested above. I think that to re-insert your preferred vague version in the lead (twice now since this discussion began five days ago) does not demonstrate a willingness to change the lead, which I have quite explicitly shown is not sufficient. I think it wouldn't kill anyone here to let someone else revert back to your version if that is what another bold editor would choose to do. How long would TheFreeloader's reversions back to the (at least) slightly more satisfactorily worded lead have lasted? We'll never know. We could have started back at the drawing board, but no. By compromising so little in the language, there doesn't seem to have been much progress in improving the description of this guideline. I agree with him that WP:NEO is being stretched with this notion of "appropriate" and "inappropriate" canvassing: WP and blogs are not reliable sources from which we can infer these to be widely accepted terms. Would you at least concede that "inform" is absolutely inadequate and far more confusing than "influence"? It's a beginning. What, again, of changing it to "Wikicanvassing" or merging it to avoid "reinventing the word"? And I don't think that dismissing TheFreeloader (who appears to have a clean blog log) as a "troll" is really helpful at all... Doc talk 19:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

First, outside Wikipedia canvassing is a neutral term. It's used as a "blanket" term for going "door-to-door" (whether it's physically, by phone, email, or whatever), as it were. This is regardless of whether you're a salesman, or a policeman, a pollster, or a census taker. All refs so far support that, dictionaries, secondary sources, governments, and news agencies.

For someone to suggest otherwise, suggests to me that they are attempting to "spin" interpretation in order to push their own agenda. And when I consider that this discussion started from a recent controversy (semi-related to a much bigger controversy/drama), I would be foolish to not recognise that there are POVs to push. And in such cases, it's usually not helpful to continue to try to continue naive attempts to constructively engage with such an individual (hence the essay about DNFTT). And POV pushing to the point of not openly engaging, but merely spinning to push the pov, would seem to me to be trolling, but, of course YMMV...

Anyway, setting aside the POV issue, for the moment, let's go back to the usage of the term on Wikipedia.

I think that it's a question of applying a "label" to an choice of action.

And knowing how people can and do Wikilawyer so much here, I would like to avoid setting us up for a situation sometme in the future where some drama happens because someone claims that to place a notice at WP:VP (for example) is attempting to disrupt the consensus process. (I know it seems not likely "now", but I have little doubts, having seen some of the amazing things done when claiming something by looking at policy and guideline pages - which, as we know, in most cases are supposed to represent common practice and not be prescriptive.)

So, with that in mind, even if we call it "kerfluffing", it's gonna be gamed and wikilawyered. And so we really should make clear that certain types of notification are fine.

the term canvassing was around before I got involved with even the original section at WP:SPAM (back then, inappropriate cavassing was called "spamming" - but because there was a want to make clear the difference between external spamming and canvassing, the concepts were split.)

Do Wikipedians often use the term canvassing in the negative sense (canvassing with the intent to influence)? yes, I have not disputed that since the start.

The problem I see is that, for some reason, there is a want (a wont?) to remove the appropriate ways to notify (to canvass).

And that goes against common practice as I've seen it, pretty much everywhere, and has been repeatedly supported in arb findings.

All that said, recently I saw that (for semantic reasons) the naming conventions page was renamed to "article titles".

In that spirit, I would not strongly oppose changing the name of this page to "Notification", I suppose. But honestly, this really comes down to the question of whether canvassing is neutral. It is, the refs say it is, it's just that on Wikipedia "negative bias to usage" exists...

Another option, could be to split the page, and have appropriate and inappropriate on separate pages.

But again, all of this just seems to be cosmetic to me.

I'd really just rather we find some way to convey all of this in the page itself, which, I would think, would be the best route, if, for no other reason, to prevent further future confusions. - jc37 20:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think anyone is arguing that we shouldn't delineate what is or isn't appropriate notification: we have to. It's what we call it, and whether "canvass" and "notification" are really the same. Look at something like WP:HOUND: of course it is explained what is and is not considered hounding. I've dealt with hounds, and believe me, they stalk and harass other editors ruthlessly. But following another's edits is not in and of itself wikihounding (again with a "wiki" word), and this is made clear in the description. Wikihounding was changed from Wikistalking, and terms often evolve here. Look also at the strength of the first sentence of that policy section: this one should model itself after ones like this. Maybe "canvass" isn't descriptive enough to fully satisfy everyone and avoid confusion. I think this is a situation based heavily on semantics, and that more input from other editors is heartily encouraged to obtain some form of consensus on how to resolve this. There's a few watchers on this page: anyone want to join the discussion? :> Doc talk 21:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's semantics. No question.

Setting aside the actual definitions for a moment, to me, canvassing has the "sense" of asking, while notification has the sense of "telling. So personally, I think the "asking" is more polite : )

We can even make it two words to Discussion notification, but this page also involves some things which aren't necessarily discussions (at least not we might define them). - jc37 21:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Your point about "canvassing" meaning "asking" and "notification" as "telling" is interesting, and the first similar word that popped into my head to being close to canvassing was "soliciting". Of course, this could mean to "sell something" in the strictest sense, but all words can be construed as more or less "neutral" or "positive" or "negative". "Soliciting prostitution" = Bad. "Soliciting opinions" = Not bad?. It depends on how you look at it. Doc talk 21:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It would depend on how one was soliciting the opinion. (though yes, I think to "soliciting an opinion" is too close to "eliciting an opinion".) As noted here, neutral notifications are fine, but a note or question which indicated bias, may not be.

And yes, determining "bias" can be rather subjective. (And is unfortunately gamed more often than we'd like, though typically by the more experienced editors.)

This is part of why "canvassing" has been used, I think.

One thing that I've been thinking about is that the term "canvassing" does imply broadness of field. (When one canvasses a neighborhood, it's often indiscriminate, and can be a widely thrown net.)

And that "sense" would seem to be counter to what we're trying to describe as "appropriate" canvassing. - jc37 21:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

An excellent point - I hadn't really considered the police usage of the term (searching for information on crimes), more the "canvassing the voters" meaning. I also believe that "canvassing" here is linked to the idea of "mass posting", not asking just a few editors to reply. I think we're onto something, Jc37... :> Doc talk 21:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Which brings us full circle back to "spamming". lol

The other semantic issue is the difference between notifying (a behavior/action) and a notice (an "object", per se, a piece of text).

This page (in my opinion) should be about addressing behaviour: how one notifies, how many one notifies, how one conveys bias (or lack thereof). All behaviors/actions.

And we lose that a bit, I think, if we call the page "notifications" (a noun). - jc37 22:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't support calling it simply "Notifications" - no way, no how. On the "notifying" vs. "notice" - we would have to change several userboard instructions to reflect this: (e.g.) from "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion" to "You must give notice to any user..." at AN/I. Not sure how big a deal that is, but I'm just one guy. Freakin' semantics... ;> Doc talk 22:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Which sound like further examples of usage.

So "notifying" seems to be the common parlance (and something I think most could agree on).

But, as you note, it needs words with it.

Notifying editors of one or more discussions? (waay too long, I think...)

But merely "Notifying editors" seems to lack "something". - jc37 22:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the "swaying" or "influencing" part is crucial to understand when notifying can be considered inappropriate - and it does kind of go back to "spamming" or "soliciting". Trying to "sell" someone (using a pre-determined agenda) on something before they've even looked at it... Doc talk 22:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure.

And that comes back to how to write a better lead : )

Whatever we do here, the page (which includes its name), should encompass the acceptable as well as the unacceptable. - jc37 22:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Per my WP:HOUND example (and my reference to the first sentence of that paragraph), you are "preaching to the choir". :> Doc talk 22:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Nod : )

So, if canvassing is out (as I think we've demonstrated), it looks like we need a new name.

Though I'd accept "Notifying editors", if no better phrase is developed. - jc37 22:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm more of the frame that we should continue labeling what the negative meaning (on wiki) of "canvassing" was originally intended, with another term (be it a "wiki-term" or not), and then define what that is and is not in the guideline. People always have and always will like to come up with "catch-phrases", and "canvassing" is a term that will never die easily. If we alter that terminology, people will still have a "negative" term to accuse others of, which again is really why "canvassing" will never die, and why we have to point out differences to begin with. Doc talk 22:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Shrugs, we keep the shortcuts as redirects, and move on.

I still use the term "naming conventions", myself : )

If nothing else, we'll be removing the contention concerning Wikipedia usage vs. "real life" usage.

And if we determine that canvassing is at least fairly congruent to indiscriminate multi-posting (though, it doesn't "have" to be - I might suggest that canvassing is as broad as the canvasser wants it to be), then those shortcuts could even refer (point) to that specific part of the page. - jc37 23:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure shortcuts will totally "do it". I would think that the majority of people are less apt to say, "You've been notifying editors improperly!", than, "You've been canvassing!" or some other (actually "shortcut") negative term. It's how we accuse people of impropriety: by labeling it. "You've been stealing!" rather than "You've been taking things illegally!" Start with/keep the negative connotation, then define what it isn't. Doc talk 23:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this, I don't think trying to change the meaning of 'to canvass' on Wikipedia will ever work. All it does is to create confusion. That's also why I think the wording of this page shouldn't be based on some (supposed) neutral meaning of 'canvassing'. Even if it could be used outside Wikipedia with a neutral meaning, I still think it is wrong to say that it has that meaning on Wikipedia. It doesn't, and therefore I think it shouldn't take up more than a footnote explaining special meaning of the word on Wikipedia. It greatly reduces the clarity of this page to use most of the lead for that.TheFreeloader (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(de-dent) - I started to try to redesign the intro based upon the recent discussion with you (doc), and realised part way through that I could just drop the first line entirely, and as it was merely attempting to say what the next two sections were already saying (and better). So I just removed the line altogether. - jc37 09:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's an excellent change: the simpler and more concise the better, especially when considering the newest of editors that come along every day. I'm very glad that the guideline description is changing for the best, and hopefully more editors will work on it with us there to make it "almost perfect": I really do like the way it's set up now: it reads better, setting up the subject. Cheers, and great work as always :> Doc talk 10:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Guidance Revision; "Excessive Number"

Hi. A change was just made to the guideline, without discussion here unless I missed it, adding a new requirement to the effect that "an excessive number of messages" is inappropriate.

I have no problem with the new requirement, and am happy to abide by it. But it lacks objective criteria, which would be helpful to me and no doubt to others. How many such posting are considered "excessive"? If we leave it to subjective notions, it is a recipe for problems, as people being people the answer will differ among them.

Furthermore, is it permissible to notify all editors who have provided at a prior AfD on a subject, and not yet at the current AfD? If so, is there a limit there, or is it permissible to contact all editors who contributed to the prior AfD, no matter what that number may be.

Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

There is rarely a need to contact people that have participated at a prior AFD on the subject. If there is a prior AFD, then the people at it came to either a "no consensus" or "keep" conclusion. Inviting them back biases the discussion towards "no consensus" or "keep", which is the essential result that WP:CANVASS is attempting to prevent: an editor making a series of invitations that have the likely result if influencing the result of the discussion towards a desired goal.

As for "excessive number", think in terms of a dozen or so.

Notifications of discussions are best used for areas that require experience is a certain area. I get invited to a lot of discussions on record charting and chart notability, for example, because I was the primary contributor to WP:GOODCHARTS, WP:BADCHARTS, and {{singlechart}}, and people know that I will be familiar with the status of the various organizations involved. They don't invite me in the hope that I will distort the results, they invite me in the hopes that I will make the result accurate. The same doesn't apply to RFAs, AFDs, MFDs, and other community discussions that have a binary result. For those, the risk of biasing the result is so high that inviting participants is rarely justified.

One of the reasons we have this trouble is that people started to see notification of participants in prior AFDs as a courtesy. That ballooned until we hit behaviour like your recent block (where even though I thought your behaviour was unacceptable, I also believe it was undertaken with good intent and in good faith). I think we need to clearly identify "contacting editors at prior and related AFDs" as highly discouraged behaviour, to be done only in unusual circumstances.—Kww(talk) 14:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

As long as all are contacted, I see no problem. CANVASS deals with trying to get undue numbers of one side or another side involved - any fully neutral notification is proper. Choosing specific editors to notify is, however, not on. Always remembering that folks who can not take part in the discussion due to editing restrictions, or who ask that they not be notified in general, do not need to be notified. (signing for User:Collect)

I think it's good to notify people, and that if you do notify people, you must notify all of them (or a subset of them, e.g. those that commented at greatest length, if it really can be selected without bias). If it's a large number, doesn't matter. It's not the sort of thing that turns up on anyone's talk page often enough for it to become an annoyance to anyone. If you've commented in a discussion, there's a good assumption that you'll be interested in commenting (or at least knowing about) another discussion on the same subject. If anyone's annoyed, it's the fault of the people who keep making the same nominations over and over again in the hope of eventually getting their way.--Kotniski (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

What purpose does notifying a group of people that collectively voted "keep" or reached "no consensus" about a discussion serve? Why don't you think it unduly biases the subsequent discussion to reach the same result?—Kww(talk) 16:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The more people involved, the more likely it is that aspects of the matter will be considered, so the more likely the right decision will be reached. If there was a result last time, then we shouldn't be having a new discussion unless new arguments have come to light (in which case people are likely to have different views this time); if there was no result, then there's nothing to be biased in favour of. --Kotniski (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Except that a "no consensus" result on an AFD is effectively a "keep". Inviting a group of people that couldn't agree the first time is very likely to result in a group of people that still can't agree.—Kww(talk) 19:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Except what do you do when a small grouop AfDs an article 7 times or more? If the earlier people are not notified, sooner or later the group will successfully delete the article. Collect (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

So your purpose in notifying the larger group is to avoid deletion? Isn't that precisely what WP:CANVASS prohibits? "The intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate" is straight from the definition of illegitimate canvassing.—Kww(talk) 22:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It depends - there may have been a majority for deletion before, in which case notifying that group will be biased towards deletion. But by your argument, we could never notify prior participants of anything unless the previous split was exactly 50-50, since if it was anything else then we'd be "biasing the discussion towards a particular outcome" by informing all of them, or selecting people on the basis of their opinions if we informed a smaller but evenly divided subset.--Kotniski (talk) 07:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Posit that 30 were active in a prior "no consensus" result, and that (noting the decline in AfD participation) a total of 5 opined at the 8th AfD on the topic. I consider that notifying the 30 is not only proper but wise. In one case at hand, most of those !voting "delete" actually changed to "keep" in the 8th AfD which means that no violation of neutrality was remotely possible. Collect (talk) 11:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I still think that the purpose of the notification is to have the article kept, which is impermissible. Routine notification of participants in previous AFDs should be explicitly prohibited. In that sense, you are right: when it comes to AFDs, you should never notify anybody about anything.—Kww(talk) 13:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Limiting "mass posting" is a concept that has been in this guideline for a while.

1. There is no explicit limit: 1) forming consensus on one number would be difficult and drawn out, and 2) once set, it would be gamed by users posting n-1 notifications. A week ago, many users were unhappy about 65 notifications, but in 2009, Arbcom declined to issue a finding of fact regarding a case involving hundreds of notifications. I prefer following WP:Publicising discussions and keeping individual messages to a bare minimum.
2. Notifying participants at prior AfDs, or AfDs on closely-related topics, is generally allowed – insofar as editors usually don't file AN/Is over it. General practice is to select AfD(s) and notify all participants. I'm not a fan (WT:Canvassing/Archive 4#Addition to votestacking, 2009), but overall sentiment is fairly permissive.

Flatscan (talk) 05:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• The fairest way to notify is to notify everybody, no matter how many there might be, and the best way to accomplish it is by bot or similar automated process. Sure, it will notify people who have left or are not particularly interested, but that does no harm. Whether this will work out to keep or delete will depend on the situation. I can see it every way--if the prior decision was to keep, the ones who care most will come back. Whether what they care about is keeping it or deleting it will vary unpredictably. If it was no consensus, the reason for the no consensus is usually divided firm opinions. Again, the ones who come back will be the ones who care most, or think they have something persuasive to say. There will in either case be newcomers also, and if the result is different, it will be they who determine it. What we want is better and fairer discussions. The main problem with most AfDs is that too few people participate. All Wikipedia procedure relies upon community consensus, not consensus of a few people, and the wider number who help determine it, the better. I haven't the least idea whether this will help the deletionists or the inclusionists, & I do not care--if it could be shown that this would tilt the balance towards deletion I would still support it, & try to restore the balance otherwise. I could make an argument that it would favor deletion--the people who closely follow the articles are likely to come back in any case, and they are somewhat more likely to be the ones who will support keeping it. If one argues for deletion and loses, I think most people would decide not to bother following it further unless they desperately care to remove it. Or I could posit any number of other hypotheses. What I do support is a more prominent way of following relisted AfDs in general--whichever way that tilts the balance also. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

" a more prominent way of following relisted AfDs in general" - Ding! We have a winner. Postulating that most people don't bother unwatching old AFDs (and that the ones who do unwatch don't care), you've got your notification system right there: just add a link to the new AFD into the old one (including in the edit summary, so it's clickable right from the watchlist). If possible, add it into WP:Twinkle as part of the nomination process. Problem solved. Rd232 ^talk 01:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• • But this presumes that it is desirable to notify people of AFDs: it's not. There's no need to notify anyone of an AFD. We generally don't notify about AFDs, MFDs, RFAs, or any other discussion that results in a binary (or nearly so) decision.—Kww(talk) 05:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Traditional exemption for notification to prior discussion participants restored, as I see no consensus for the removal thereof. We have no way of preventing notification off-wiki of people to coordinate discussion for removal of articles, hence the removal of this legitimate basis for clear on-wiki neutral notifications makes no sense. Collect (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Neutral RfA notice in customized signature?

If I were seeking the mop, would it be considered acceptable to put a neutral link to my open RfA in a customized signature (such as the mock-up I've fabricated for this comment)? It's not explicitly telling people how I want them to !vote, and (IMO) it's unobtrusively small, but do people still think this would be "canvassing" (or too close to the line)? Richwales (talk · contribs · RfA) 06:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It would make me go to your RFA and vote against it. Notices on your talk page have normally been considered acceptable, other forms not so much.—Kww(talk) 15:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the advice/warning. Richwales (talk · contribs) 00:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

A question, though. Does it matter if I put an {{RfA-notice}} on my talk page, or on my user page, or maybe both? You (Kww) said to put the notice on my talk page, but WP:RFA/NOM#User notification says to put it on my user page. Does it matter? If I were to put {{RfA-notice}} on both my user page and my talk page, would that be considered overkill? Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Re user vs. talk, I don't see a problem with doing both. However, these notices do tend to attract trolls and vandals to your RfA, especially if you're a vandal fighter or involved in any active disputes. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Non-English content and WP:CANVASS

I'm involved in a dispute about whether an Italian language source can be used to support particular wording in an article (discussion here). It does not seem to be the case that any of the editors involved so far are able to read Italian very well, and so arguments are being made on the basis of running text through Google translate.

It seems to me that the matter could be resolved fairly easily if Italian-speaking Wikipedians were involved. The only way I can think of to achieve this is to post talkpage messages asking for assistance from a handful of users in [[Category:User it-N]]. Provided the message is neutrally-worded and users are not pestered if they ignore it, I don't think this would be a breach of WP:CANVASS. What do you think? --FormerIP (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

That's what we have Wikipedia:Local Embassy. In this case, you want Wikipedia:Local_Embassy#Italiano_.28it.29. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response! Very useful to know we have that facility, though. --FormerIP (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)