Wikipedia talk:Canvassing/Archive 1

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

message: I've made a number of changes and introduced some new text, please comment. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 08:45Z
Some of the changes I made:
* I replaced the "Alternatives" section about adding wikilinks to articles because it didn't really apply to canvassing.  I can see how it would appl  to non-canvassing internal talkpage spamming but I don't think that has been a problem at all, anyway it can stay at WP:SPAM.  I have rewritten the alternatives in terms of how to get wider discussion without targeting individual editors
* I integrated the "friendly notice" section into guidelines, avoiding saying "it's okay to canvass in some situations" but without really explaining anything.
* I added sections on "if you have canvassed", "if others have canvassed"
* "Editors may be blocked by administrators if they continue canvassing after being warned" - this wasn't there before but I believe consensus supports it.
* Re-factored —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 09:23Z
**I would recommend making the guideline descriptive rather than prescriptive. So "Editors have been blocked by administrators" reflects the history of responses to canvassing rather than telling admins what to do. The case-by-case decisionmaking on repeat canvassing should still occur at WP:ANI. ~ trialsanderrors 23:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: I don't really like the "Friendly notice" section, because it seems to be saying "it's okay to canvass in some situations" but not really explaining anything.  Thoughts on removing or improving it? —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 08:52Z
:I might have to dig into the WP:SPAM archives for this, but I seem to remember it states that you can ask editors who are experts in a topic for an expert opinion. On the last version I agree, it was uninformative:
::"If there are a small handful of editors who share your taste and/or philosophy, it is sometimes acceptable to contact them with regard to a specific issue as long as it does not become disruptive. This is more acceptable if they have made an unsolicited request to be kept informed, and absolutely unacceptable if they have asked you to stop."
:~ trialsanderrors 09:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Friendly notice" section 

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

message: This page seems to entirely change the positive view, and clear guidelines about canvassing. At the very least, I think we should remove the "guideline" template from the top, since it's such a dramatic change. - jc37 10:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean with "positive view", but I changed the tag. ~ trialsanderrors 11:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jc37 - it would be extremely helpful if you could point out where this policy is "dramatically different" from established policy at WP:SPAM.  The intent here certainly is NOT to chart a new direction, but rather to split an existing guideline in two and clean it up a bit.  As such, the "new" guideline should NOT have "dramatic" differences; I'm sure any such introduced are mistakes.  Again, specifics, PLEASE.  John Broughton  |  Talk 21:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Is this still forthcoming? ~ trialsanderrors 19:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much for reminding me : ) - It gets to be so easy to be distracted by so much on Wikipedia : ) - I'll finish checking my watchlist, and then this will be my first priority today : ) - jc37 20:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Responding below. - jc37 13:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Concerns

message: How does this proposed policy apply to activities not involving deletion or adminship, such as requests for article peer reviews (i.e. ), proposed WikiProjects, proposed awards/barnstars (i.e. ), and Good/Featured article candidates?  As an example, would posting a message on WikiProject Cetaceans regarding an ongoing FAC discussion about an article on a species of whale be prohibited? (i.e. )
:WikiProjects usually do their own monitoring and listing of AfD debates at least has (tacit?) community approval. The standard is to add a short notice to the debate like This debate has been added to WikiProject Cetaceans deletion sorting. Maybe this should be made explicit. I don't think FAC debates are treated differently. ~ trialsanderrors 06:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A distinction might lay in the opinion solicitor bringing a message to solicitee's (?) location vs. the solicitee going to a message posted at a community location. -- Jreferee 05:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Extent

message: I dont mind being canvassed, and don't really understand why it is bad form, and it may be appropriate to have a "Welcomes Canvassing" userbox.Belbo Casaubon 18:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you mean that you don't mind being multiposted. Canvassing is the attempt to influence debates by rallying likeminded editors, and it is bad form no matter if you're complicit in it or not. ~ trialsanderrors 22:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe what I am saying is that if a debate is worth having then it is worth including as many interested parties as possible, and I don't mind being invited, it expands the mind and encourages participation.Belbo Casaubon 23:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

text: WP:SPAM#Canvassing is an existing guideline and covers the same issues. This article was solely created for convenience. ~ trialsanderrors 19:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further, it doesn't matter if 20% or 50% or even 100% of users don't mind being solicited for their opinions or comments.  The issue is whether such solicitation improves the outcomes of discussion about candidates, deleting articles, etc.  It is the consensus of those here at Wikipedia that in fact canvassing makes such processes worse.  Canvassing encourages cliques, log-rolling, treating discussions like votes, partisanship, and a host of other ills (yes, I exaggerate, but still ... ) that run counter to building a good encyclopedia.  Whether some people are annoyed by it is irrelvant. Personally, I find it flattering to be asked to get involved, as long as the volume of such requests is small and targeted. So what? John Broughton  |  Talk 20:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with some of this, but I must point out that there is no consensus to adopt this particular guideline, and I think you'd find consensus lacking for some of the other points you make here too. Andrewa 23:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, WP:SPAM#Canvassing is an existing guideline, and it does not say quite the same things. So, when someone chooses to cite this proposed guideline instead... well, they shouldn't. If they want to cite both, that's fine. Andrewa 23:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hard to say if that actually makes a difference without looking at the case. Might've been been an editor who saw the note that this is being spun out but didn't notice we trying to edit the content. No matter the actual language, in spirit they should be the same. ~ trialsanderrors 02:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see that it makes a lot of difference. WP:SPAM#Canvassing is a guideline. This is a proposal. The guideline is citable as such, and justifies for example blocking persistent offenders. This is not and does not. Perhaps it will become a guideline, or even a policy, I'd like that actually, if the problems with the current version can be solved. But I don't hold out a lot of hope of that, frankly. The issues are very tricky IMO, and what is more serious, some of those involved in the debate seem to underestimate just how tricky. Andrewa 03:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just useless wikilawyering. ~ trialsanderrors 05:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your opinion is noted. Suggest you reread WP:ATTACK. I assume you're familiar with Wikipedia:WikiLawyering. Andrewa 02:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm talking about WP:WL #3. And WP:ATTACK still says "Remarks describing an editor's actions and made without involving their personal character should not be construed as personal attacks." ~ trialsanderrors 21:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: Type        	Accepted        	↔	Not accepted     	Term                    	Problem
Scale       	Limited posting 	↔	Mass posting     	Spamming                	Unsolicited mass spamming annoys many editors
       	AND             	 	OR               	                        	
Message     	Neutral language	↔	Partisan language	Campaigning/Push-polling	Undermines consensus finding in debates
       	AND             	 	OR               	                        	
Audience    	Bipartisan      	↔	Partisan         	Vote-stacking           	Undermines consensus finding
       	AND             	 	OR               	                        	
Transparency	Open            	↔	Secret           	Stealth canvassing      	Raises questions of bad faith intentions
: Mass notifications that stay within the accepted range are considered friendly notices
: Editors disagree whether receiving mass postings are annoying and editors can opt in to receive such messages if they are acceptable otherwise.
: It is community consensus that campaigning, vote-stacking and surreptitious canvassing makes consensus-finding processes worse off as it encourages partisanship, cliques, log-rolling, and treating discussions like votes.
A more fleshed-out version of the table above, trying to clarify the terms and adding transparency as a desired characteristic to make cross-posting acceptable. I reused campaigning in the common meaning of the word as political campaigning to influence potentially undecided voters by using partisan advertising language. I also separated the consequencies to stress the difference, and why editors can opt in to one type of cross-posting but not another. Does this make sense? ~ trialsanderrors 02:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does. And I very much like the new table. It makes the most sense when one reads the first column first. (I was going to make my previous comment about "Campaigning", when I noticed the first column, which clarifies the "how and why" of the term.) I think the "problem" for the first one should be flashed out more. I think mass spamming isn't just that it annoys talk page owners. It's the fact that if allowed, and then everyone can, and likely will do so, what's to stop bot (or even AWB) owners from filling every userpage with hundreds of messages. Which creates a "wallpaper" situation, in which genuine talk page conversation is undermined. Perhaps that's the phrase: "Undermines (or interferes with) genuine talk page discussions." - I keep wanting to add "potentially" to the start of that phrase, and "Attempts to undermine" at the start of the next two on the table. While accurate, I suppose this could make the table "too long" for viewing purposes. Perhaps the answer is to remove that column entirely (since it already has 2 of the 3 "notes", and add a number column (1,2,3,4), and explain the problems with each below the table? (However, a possible problem with numbering is that it may give the idea that 1 is "more important" than 4, or something like that. Maybe just referring to each by "term" is enough.) And if you haven't heard it yet, very nice work : ) - jc37 20:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the "Problem" column shouldn't appear in the final version, the three problems should be fleshed out in the main text, with "campaigning" and "Vote-stacking" combined since they have a similar effect on debates. I agree with your asessment of mass spamming, which is why I think that the "I like being canvassed" idea above isn't sustainable. Weh ave probably 500 deletion/page move/etc. debates going on every day, and certainly 50 to 100 where editors think they don't get enough attention. So while people might complain that the one or other message has been deleted from their talk page, there's a good chance that they will reconsider after getting 70 friendly notices every day. But if someone wants to implement it, I don't have an issue with it. ~ trialsanderrors 21:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While they may be similar, I really liked how you distinguished them in the table, so I don't know now if they should be merged... - jc37 22:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, if it helps making the distinction clearer. ~ trialsanderrors 00:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Table update

message: You know it occurs to me that there may be a fruitful distinction to be made between partisan & neutral canvassing.  The guideline could be organized as a statement of what the proper sort of advertising/canvassing/polling/(whatever) is, and then list the counterexamples of what are problematic.  Framing the whole thing positively can avoid some of the negative feel of the current framing that adds to the sense of rule-creep and may be more appropriate to the concept of "guideline" anyway.  So for instance, stating that if you are neutral but knowledgeable or interested in the issue; if you do it in a transparent / aboveboard fashion; if you do it without intent to shift debate in any one particular fashion; and if you target it correctly (to others who might have some relevant insight to add) then that is a good thing -- it facilitates discussion.  ... This might help deal with the lamentations about, and avoid exacerbating the problem with, under-advertisement of discussions/decisions or people being surprised by what happens to areas they've worked on. ... Then there can be discussion of the counterexamples and problems: partisan; hidden; intent; not targeted well. --lquilter 15:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not at all sure that "framing it positively" will find consensus. It strikes me more that the consensus opinion is that It's not a good idea, with exceptions, and the guideline should express that, but also make clear for editors how to proceed if they think they have a case that warrants an exception. Here's an interesting discussion where the consensus opinion seemed to be that the canvassing was proper: Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/ProtectionBot. ~ trialsanderrors 00:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  neutral vs. partisan 

message: Scale            	 	Message    	 	Audience     	 	Transparency
Accepted    	Limited posting  	AND   	Neutral    	AND   	Bipartisan   	AND   	Open
            	↕                	      	↕          	      	↕            	      	↕
Not accepted	Mass posting     	OR    	Partisan   	OR    	Partisan     	OR    	Secret
Term        	Internal spamming	 	Campaigning	 	Vote-stacking	 	Stealth canvassing
I'm not sure if interest in improving this guideline has died down, but here is a last attempt to organize the information in a simple table. This time flipped 90 degrees, with color markers for accepted, not accepted and the questionable area inbetween. The links under "Term" could lead directly to the sections on the different types of canvassing. ~ trialsanderrors 20:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm find with that, but it would seem to indicate that "Canvassing" isn't the right title for the guideline.  So maybe Wikipedia:Internal communications?   -- John Broughton  |  ♫ 21:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are tons of internal communications that aren't covered here. Per the draft definition above, canvassing requires a prefabricated message and solicitation of some kind. RFA thank-you notes are internal communications but not considered canvassing since the solicitation element is missing. "Check out my RFA" on the other hand is canvassing. ~ trialsanderrors 21:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: One more table update

message: The campaigning sections needs to be updated since it slightly conflicts with usage of templates. For example this policy is 'discouraging' campaigning to user's talk pages or targeting a group, when labelling articles with , , etc. I'm proposing adding a subsection where its acceptable to notify the 'main' contributors to the article in question which ultimately is the same thing those tags do. Mkdwtalk 12:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Under the draft definitions above those templates would fall under "friendly notice" and could be listed as an example. Generally, inviting authors or participants in prior discussions is not considered spamming or campaigning if it's done in a neutral fashion (e.g. using a template). ~ trialsanderrors 18:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Campaigning

message: A notable omission from this page is any real reference to the potential sanctions for canvassing (or at least for aggressive canvassing).  Reading between the lines, one can get a vague idea, but I think that this point should be addressed with particular clarity. Xdamrtalk 04:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Decisions on blocks are usually made at WP:ANI, so I don't think there will ever be a catalogue of penalties ("24 hours for every 10 users contacted") here, but a note that aggressive canvassing has led to blocks can be made here. In my opinion what is more important is to point out ways to remedy an act of campaigning while still maintaining that the user acted in good faith. So if a user contacted only Keep !voters of a prior debate, contacting the remaining participants is an acceptable remedy. Posting a note on the discussion page or even marking participants that were canvassed is a remedy against stealth canvasing, etc. Removing the canvass post from a user talk page is usually ineffective since users see the "You got mail" bar and check what went on on their userpage. ~ trialsanderrors 21:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sanctions

message: We've discussed refactoring the page several times. (And restoring appropriate edits from the previous "new" version.) Are we ready to dive in and do so? Also, I like the new template (which also doubles as a navigational tool), and would like to see it added to the page. 
Thoughts? - jc37 13:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm up for it. It just seems discussion has died around here and since it includes a new policy element (stealth canvassing) I didn't want to be bold. ~ trialsanderrors 18:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then let's refactor and not include the "stealth" column information yet. Once the page is done to that point, then we can start a discussion to modify the current policy. How does that sound? - jc37 10:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, table added. ~ trialsanderrors 18:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Refactor

message: There has been a lot of ongoing discussion over "Source Canvassing": the mass solicitation of editors to employ a specific source in expanding articles. For example, the (now deleted) Template:Catholic-expand was added to 100s of article talk pages which said (in essence) "This article can be usefully expanded from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia". This template and two others similar to it created around the same time were deleted per the following lengthy discussions:
:*Catholic-expand TfD
:*Catholic-link TfD
:*Catholic-link deletion review
:*HistSource TfD
:*HistSource deletion review 
:*"Category:Articles to be expanded from Catholic Encyclopedia" CfD
In general you will find most people on Wikipedia would prefer not to have templates, categories and other forms of anonymous solicitation being used to mass canvass one users opinion about which source should be used in writing articles. Every article on Wikipedia can be expanded as a matter of course, but the devil is in the details on a per-article basis, it is not possible to codify it and say "all articles of X type can be expanded using Y source". Further and more nuanced arguments can be found in the above discussions.
I would like to propose an addition to Canvassing that provides some guidelines on when and how to recommend sources and when it is inappropriate and becomes Canvassing.  -- Stbalbach 19:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with a lot of that, particularly when the material we are being told to use is often factually inaccurate and permanently biased. Moreschi  Request a recording? 19:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to say that this is spamming. Even though in this case the source might be PD, we'd expect the brunt of those attempts to be in order to push a commercial source. ~ trialsanderrors 19:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm opposed to having templates or categories recommending a specific source, particularly if that source is an obsolete and inaccurate public domain work. --Folantin 20:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I've made a few fixes and a slight expansion, but it looks good. Moreschi  Request a recording? 14:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I moved it over to WP:SPAM. ~ trialsanderrors 20:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; this is content-pushing, rather than point-of-view/personal/argument pushing, which is what canvassing is about.  Putting up a source via a template is no different than putting sources into the external link sections of articles.  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 01:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: John, have you read the above linked discussions? I know its a lot but maybe start with this one to get an intro to the nature of the problem. Templates of this nature are more than just "putting up a source", and they are more than just content-pushing, although that is part of it. -- Stbalbach 04:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is this an argument for posting it under WP:CANVASS rather than WP:SPAM? ~ trialsanderrors 05:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's no problem being in SPAM, I was addressing John's second comment. But I think it is a type of Canvassing. Canvassing is soliciting Wikipedia users on a mass scale to take a specific action, to do something (vote a certain way in a debate, edit an article using a particular source, etc..) - it pushes one users POV. I think putting it in SPAM dilutes its primary nature as a solicitation to action. It goes beyond just "putting up a source", if you had seen the situation that led to this I think you would agree. See the above linked discussions, any questions let me know.  -- Stbalbach 16:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that it involves soliciting. But the goal is to promote an outside source, not a viewpoint in a Wikipedia debate. ~ trialsanderrors 19:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it works fine over at WP:SPAM. Note that the lead paragraph there mentions canvassing as a type of spam, and this has cross-over problems of both spamming and canvassing, so I think it's fine to keep it in the parent guideline, WP:SPAM. — coelacan talk — 21:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source Canvassing 

message: *What is the real difference of posting to notice boards (which usually have a partisan crowd) than to individuals, provided the individuals don't object? I have seen lots of XFDs posted to notice boards in what must be an attempt to get interested people to participate in the debate, and getting notices on my talk page too, which may or not be welcome. Carlossuarez46 17:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice board posting 

message: Just noticed that the chart near the top conflicts with the explanation under Friendly Notice.  At the top, partisan notification is prohibited.  Under Friendly Notice, it is deemed acceptable to notify editors who share your taste and philosophy.  So which is it? --Butseriouslyfolks 18:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the taste and philosophy qualifier is misleading. I think the table defines Friendly Notice properly. A FN is a crossposted message that is limited to editors who have shown previous interest in the subject, that is neutral in tone and that does not select by "taste and philosophy". FN's are also neutral messages posted on relevant WikiProjects. ~ trialsanderrors 19:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internal Conflict 

message: After reading the above thread unsuccessful RfA candidacies, I had a few thoughts and ended up changing the lead to make it clear that contacting another Wikipedian to discuss an opinion they already gave is not canvassing.  Here are my few thoughts. RfA candidates contacting those who have participated in their RfA is not an exception to canvassing; it does not even fall within canvassing. Canvassing requires soliciting the opinions of others. In an ongoing RfA or an unsuccessful RfA, the opinions have already been given.  Emailing or posting a comment or note on the talk pages of those who have already participated in the RfA is not soliciting their opinion because the opinion has already been given. It is not campaigning for a second, future RfA, because that future RfA does not in fact exist and there is no guarantee that it will.  In fact, in response to an unsuccessful RfA, wouldn't you agree that it is important that the unsuccessful applicant communicate with any RfA participate who offered constructive criticism to better themselves? Also, in response to a negative opinion already posted in an ongoing RfA, isn't it important for the RfA candidate to contact that editor to discuss the matter to ensure that all sides of the issues have been conveyed? Asserting that an RfA applicant is canvassing if they contact someone who has already participate in their RfA seems more along the lines of anywhere from a mistake to an "ill-considered accusations of impropriety" as described in WP:CIV#ICA. Some of these ideas (not the rants) seem to generally apply to XfDs and other processes affected by wp:canvassing, so I revised the lead paragraph to make this clear. -- Jreferee 06:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to look it over. I'll probably revert because we had an issue with overly bold edits before, but I agree the guideline needs to be clarified in many aspects. A "What canvassing is not" section to start with. Certainly thank-you notes after RFA's are not canvassing. ~ trialsanderrors 18:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole "opinions have already been given" so it is not that bad part concerns me. Part of the big negative of Canvassing is that when you reach out to those who have already given a stated opinion, you can unfairly stack the deck in your favor with getting more voices (more quickly) to your side of the discussion vs the party that did not canvass. I think RfA are an entirely different subject matter then an XfD, RM discussion, naming convention or editorial disagreement and that differences should be addressed in this guideline. AgneCheese/Wine 19:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't follow this, but I reverted the changes. They strike me as too much ad-hoc legislation. ~ trialsanderrors 20:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My putting  around the arbcom quote is ad-hoc legislation deserving RVing? Lol. -- Jreferee 19:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was quite a bit more that blockquotes. ~ trialsanderrors 05:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I changed the lead

message: Is there consensus for adding a section on what canvassing is not? A few obvious entries:
# Excessive crossposting (or internal spamming): Posting messages on many editors' talk pages indiscriminately is not canvassing if it doesn't carry a solicitation to participate in a discussion. Internal spamming is still discourages since it tends to annoy recipients. Crossposts should be targeted to editors who have previously expressed an interest in the subject.
# Thank-you notes and follow-ups: Participants in a prior discussion can be notified of the result (this is common but not mandatory in requests for adminship), of significant developments, or of follow-up discussions, as long as all participants are notified and the message is written neutrally.
# WikiProject notifications: Many WikiProjects maintain notification boards for discussions relating to the project. Using these boards to neutrally notify knowledgeable Wikipedian is not canvassing. WikiProjects that serve primarily as rallying ground for a certain POV risk being deleted through the WP:MFD process.
Comments, additions? ~ trialsanderrors 21:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if any of these are things we would want to encourage by mentioning them; in other words, to do so might be a case of WP:BEANS.--cj | talk 03:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: #1 should be stated and discouraged. It's in the table right but without a target for the link. The other two frequently come up during discussions and tend to sidetracks the discussions themselves. I don't know which recent RFA it was, but the announcement of the RFA on the Australian noticeboard started a needless discussion about Canvassing. I also don't if Beans applies since it's already frequently practiced, so it's not something we invented here. ~ trialsanderrors 05:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What Canvassing is not

message: How much is "ok"? Just H 07:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We never do that. That's within the judgement of the editors who have to decide whether action is warranted. ~ trialsanderrors 09:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, define what the average "judgement" is, please. Just H 22:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing to keep in mind is this: if what you're doing is disruptive to the project, or likely to be, it's probably not okay, even if it's within "the rules." If it isn't, you're most likely not going to encounter a problem. IronDuke 23:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Defining the Line Between "Mass" and "Limited" Canvassing

message: The case in question is posting about a user conduct RFC at a wikiproject made up of members likely to have the same POV and be sympathetic to the user in question, and one with a particularly biased message: "I think it's just a witch-hunt".  The intent seems to be the same as canvassing, but it's a post in only one place.  I'd appreciate opinions on the matter, thanks.  --Minderbinder 22:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That message is certainly sharply worded and POV focus. However, I don't think you can make a broad assumption that all members of a Wiki-project would share the same POV. For instance, as a member of the Wine Project I was part of a discussion recently about Wine related article deletion and it was apparent that there are diverging views on the concept of notability on certain wine related articles. If someone where to post a generic "So and so article is up for deletion" message on the project talk page, I don't think it qualifies as canvassing. AgneCheese/Wine 22:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The main problem with that message is the tone, and it doesn't matter whether it technically falls under WP:CANVASS or not, agitation is not acceptable. I would remove the message and warn tell editor that neutrally phrased notifications are acceptable, but campaigning is not. ~ trialsanderrors 23:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any admins on here want to handle that message?  This user is already worked up over the RFC and related issues, and I'd rather not shake the hornets nest if I don't have to.  If someone could edit/remove it and leave a note, I'd greatly appreciate, thanks.  --Minderbinder 00:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: trialsanderrors, thanks.  --Minderbinder 00:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, the user changed it to neutral language. ~ trialsanderrors 00:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Oh, I concur with removing such. We've had issues in the past where a user put a message in big bold red letters on top of a wikiproject page, even. Such messages tend to misrepresent the issue and basically call for kneejerk reactions. That's not helpful at all. I'm not all that much in favor of advertising user conduct RFCs to begin with. >Radiant< 14:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's now a more neutral wording, do you think it's a bad idea to solicit responses on wikiproject pages at all?  --Minderbinder 14:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *No, for instance if there's a dispute on an article related to a wikiproject, it makes perfect sense to ask them there. For instance, there was a science-related CFD a while ago that I couldn't figure out, so I asked the Physics wikiproject for an opinion. >Radiant< 14:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *If everyone at WikiProject Paranormal thought Martinphi was great and Dreadlocke's post at WikiProject Paranormal likely was going to result in an avalanche of "Martinphi is great posts" at Martinphi's RfC, then their might be a canvassing problem.  However, the people who read WikiProject Paranormal talk probably are biased towards WikiProject Paranormal, not Martinphi.  Also, posting at a community area does not guarantee that the post will be read and does not guarantee that it will be read by those biased one way or another towards Martinphi.  Because this post is on a user's talk page who may have a bias one way or another about Martinphi, it is closer to being unacceptable than this project talk page post. Of course, one post on one talk page isn't much.  To give you a better idea about canvassing, this thread describes a recent situation where a get-out-the-vote message was transcluded onto 80 to 90 talk pages of people who may have been biased in one direction towards the MfD. -- Jreferee 19:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *I don't think it's bad at all, I think the Wikiprojects are an important home base to solicit expert opinions on topics. For Featured Picture discussions, I routinely post a message on the relevant Wikiproject if there are questions about accuracy. The point of this guideline here is not to say that soliciting is evil, it's only bad if you do it with the intent to undermine the discussion a create a more favorable outcome. Wikiprojects that live outside our policies tend to disqualify themselves if they swarm discussions in order to push an agenda. ~ trialsanderrors 22:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: **Indeed. A corollary is that POV-pushing Wikiprojects are not a good idea, but I don't think we have any of those at the moment. >Radiant< 09:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is soliciting input on a wikiproject page considered canvassing? 

message: Votestacking is sending mass talk messages out to editors who are on the record with a specific opinion and informing them of a current or upcoming vote. Partisan votestacking is not acceptable and includes posting talk page message to those on the record with support opinion about the matter. Event Category:Complex systems has a hierarchy based on the complex system article. For the Category:Complex systems CfD, mass talk messages were sent out to 30+ editors who contributed to the complex system article. Their contribution to the article means they likely would be in support of a category based on that article and would be more likely to post a Keep opinion about the category in a CfD. Message A typical posted talk page message was "Thank you for your contribution to the complex system article in the past. Currently there is a Call
for Deletion for the associated :Category:Complex systems covering this interdisplinary scientific field. If you would like to contribute to the discussion, you would be very welcome. Please do this soon if possible since the discussion period is very short. Thank you for your interest if you can contribute." In addition to targeting those with a inclination to Keep the category, the mass talk messages informed the editors of the then-current CfD and advocated for the category as a "interdisplinary scientific field". Results Of the 30+ solicited editors, six participated in the CfD.  Of the 6, 5 ivoted to keep: Adam M. Gadomski, Childhoodsend, GarOgar, Hu, Karol, and Salix alba. None of the six identified in the CfD that they were asked to participate in the CfD. The close essentially was based on the category being an interdisplinary scientific field and there was no indication that the closer was aware of the canvassing.  With the votestacking, there were 13 keep opinions and 3 delete opinions.  Without the votestacking, there were 7 keep opinions and 2 delete opinions.  Request While Wikipedia:Canvassing explains what is acceptable and not acceptable, it really does not address how to handle Wikipedia:Canvassing situations.  What does Wikipedia:Canvassing think should be done about this particular matter?  -- Jreferee 17:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, prior "principal contributors" are not generally considered a partisan audience, WP:AFD even has a template system set up to inform article creators and prior contributors about ongoing discussions. I'm not sure what the linkage is between the article and the category, but I'm willing to give the editor the benefit of doubt on that. Where I'm not willing to give the benefit of doubt is the content of some of the messages, containing clear attempts of coaching the editors to vote Keep, without so much of an explanation that our deletion processes are set up as discussion forums. In deciding how to respond to a canvassing attempt it's always important to look at the intent, and the intent was clearly not to improve the quality of the discussion but to manipulate it into a vote. On informing the discussion itself, as much as I'd like this to become mandatory, so far it's only considered good etiquette. In this case I would sternly warn the editor not to issue partisan notifications and possibly also to only notify editors who can offer substantive contributions to the discussion. ~ trialsanderrors 19:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Assuming you didn't mean to create separate subthreads, I downgraded the section headers above. On the issue, the guideline starts out by mentioning that canvassing is not illegal per se, only "disruptive" canvassing is, and we have tried to establish the dimensions under which canvassing can be considered disruptive. As a general rule, contacting other editors in order to change an outcome of a discussion is not automatically disruptive. There might be legitimate reasons to do so. For instance, if a physics topic is discussed by lay editors and you as a phycisist believe they're lacking the understanding to draw the correct conclusion inviting other physicists to join the discussion is not necessarily disruptive if it is meant to elevate the discussion rather than to compromise it. If you only invite a subset of phyicists who hold a certain stance on the topic then it might be disruptive. Similarly if you only invite editors who self-declare as inclusionists or deletionists the goal is certainly not to create a more informed outcome but an outcome that matches your own position. Also, as I said, it would certainly be good etiquette to self-identify as someone who was canvassed, but I don't think we have consensus (yet) to demand it or to censor those who don't. If you observe canvassing during an ongoing debate it is perfectly fine to identify the editors who have been canvassed, and if you observe it afterwards you should list it at DRV. If it had an impact on the outcome then it will likely be overturned and relisted. ~ trialsanderrors 02:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Disruptive" also is an interesting topic.  When stealth canvassing is going on as part of an XfD, that XfD probably won't appear as being disrupted.  However, the disruption may come afterwards once it is discovered that the XfD has been tainted. Emphasizing that the disruption should occur during the XfD seems to encourage solicitors to be as discrete as possible about their votestacking and encourage solicitees not to disclose their solicitation to prevent "disruption" of the XfD. -- Jreferee 18:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe what you're thinking of is "sidetracking". ~ trialsanderrors 19:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comment

message: I think Kelly Martin's support criterion deserves testing at least once. Someone stated concerns that it might constitute canvassing. Asking people to provide an opinion probably isn't canvassing (as per the discussion we had above), but just to be on the safe side, I'm reporting here that I've written to two wikiprojects, requesting their opinion on this editor. --Kim Bruning 20:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry but I have to say that this is a horrible idea. This is precisely the kind of clique-building this guideline is trying to guard against and it will only amplify the kind of problems we are trying to avoid at RfA. For one thing, such WikiProject canvassing will create a big distortion in favour of Wikipedians who are active in a rather large WikiProject. Also, how are we going to react if someone at, say Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal puts up an announcement of the form "this guy who has an anti-paranormal agenda is up for RfA"? Pascal.Tesson 20:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could possibly be so. One way to find out. :-) --Kim Bruning 20:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not it's canvassing, it's definitely close enough for people to oppose. I know I would. -Amarkov moo! 21:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I had already done so, so you should do so. :-/ At any rate, please do reference Kelly Martin's opinion, so people know the full situation. --Kim Bruning 23:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: It seems disruptive to me for someone to use one RfA after another to state that they will not support this RfA nominee until Wikipedia adopts a process for WikiProject's to endorse RfA nominees, particularly since such matter is out of the hands of the RfA nominee and there are other Wikipedia avenues dedicated to pursue such a personal desire. Why the RfA 'crats let it go on is a mystery. As for your question, in using one RfA nomination after another to solicit interests his/her agenda, Kelly Martin seems to have intentionally left out the details as to how a WikiProject would go about endorsing an editor for administrator. It is those details that inevitable would go against Wikipedia process and would make it easy to shoot down the idea based on existing Wikipedia policy, guidelines, and other process. If you look at what we have on the canvassing page so far, canvassing seems to involve posting message on others talk pages. By not using Wikipedia avenues dedicated to pursue such a personal desire and using the RfA process instead, such actions have left other to guess at the details of such a propose project and then guess at whether those details violate one process or another. Without knowing the details of the process by which WikiProjects endorse RfA nominees, you cannot say whether it is canvassing or in violation of other process. -- Jreferee 15:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a member of an active Wiki-project, I agree that this is a horrible idea that feels like a step towards developing a Wikipedia Electoral College. :/ AgneCheese/Wine 17:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like it because it'll encourage people to join WikiProjects for the wrong reasons. Instead of joining a WikiProject to help improve the encyclopedia, they would only join a WikiProject as a way to become an administrator. Do we really want users joining WikiProjects for that reason only? Acalamari 20:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thoroughly dislike the idea, because it can be divisive at wikiprojects.  There are several editors I know who do a good job as editors, but who I could not support as admins.  I think that it would be very divisive for wikiprojects to start discussing the merits of a particular RFA, because it would inevitably bring personalities into an area where discussions are supposed to focus on the project's articles, categories and templates.  Adminship discussions should be kept at RFA. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Blacketer]] 

message: Wouldn't external messages such as IM's or Emails to editors with similar POV count as canvassing? It would be less visible which makes it ten times worse. -- Cat chi? 21:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apart from the users doing the E-mailing saying something, how would you prove it? Acalamari 21:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apart from it being hard to prove, yes, it is canvassing. Radiant! 08:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it is canvassing, and very sneaky canvassing too; but unfortunately, as you said, it's hard to prove. Acalamari 16:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External messages 

message: I've removed this section to the talk page for now because I can't really make sense of it, and I've got extensive experience as an administrator.
: Leaving messages on multiple administrators' talk pages to attempt to get a second or third opinion on an administrative decision is usually deemed "internal spam" or "forum shopping" and can be blockable. The proper venue for such discussions is the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.
To me it seems to be saying that if administrator A performs a protection or blocking, say, user X can't go to administrators B and C to ask for a second opinion.  I can't see that this would ever be sanctionable behavior.
There may be a problem sometimes with an editor going to a large number of administrators in the vain hope of finding one to perform a block, but apart from the spamming element I can't see the problem there either.
Does someone who understands what this is supposed to be saying please explain it? --Tony Sidaway 09:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forum shopping 

message: I've currently nominated an article for Featured status. As you can see here, only one user has stated comments on it. I am wondering whether it is all right to inform members of WikiProject Hong Kong to comment on it, since it lacks comments, let alone a concensus. Or would it still be against this guideline.--Kylohk 21:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neutral notifications on WikiProjects aren't considered canvassing. Notifying members of the project on their user talk pages is, although I doubt it will draw a penalty. On the other hand, Featured article nominations are sometimes rejected based on lack of participation (or at least it happens at Featured Pictures), and as a nominator one should accept this in good graces and renominate after an acceptable time span. ~ trialsanderrors 04:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canvassing for an underreviewed FAC. 

message: Are votes on RfAs that are obvious results of votestacking discounted immediately? --PaxEquilibrium 20:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you talking about a specific case? Obvious votestacking should be brought up during the discussion, or at least be pointed out to the closing bureaucrat. ~ trialsanderrors 21:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how something can be an obvious result of votestacking. Who is to say that people might not have seen the RfA anyway? Canvassing should be taken into account, but I don't see why votes from people who were canvassed should be just discounted. -Amarkov moo! 21:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The specific case to which I'm referring to is a user who has been inactive for 8 months and then comes and votes on a RfA, with himself stating that he was invited to vote. ;0) --PaxEquilibrium 07:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfAs 

message: Does it count as canvasing to batch contact members of a project about project related issues such as the collaboration of the month, or a list of pages requiring attention?
Can this be done via bot?
perfectblue 10:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it probably doesn't count as canvassing, and yes, it can be done via bot. Moreschi  Talk 11:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a great idea for collaborations of the "lets-improve-these-articles" type, but not for XfD discussions. For XfDs, my reading of WP:CANVASS is that a neutrally-worded notice on the project page would be OK, but that masses of individual notifications is vote-stacking. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Projects and canvasing 

message: I am wondering what happens when there is a decision to keep an article but then it gets nominated again (for the same reasons). Given that deletionists tend to scour the articles for deletion page it may end up getting deleted even though its done in an unethical manor. Without canvasing this man in some cases not be able to be stopped. And depending on the importance of the article one is left with a dilemma as whether stopping abuse of the rfd system outweighs canvassing. Heliumballoon 17:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting that it seems that many more exclusionists seems to "scour" the AFD page. Heliumballoon 17:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am usually called an inclusionist, and I check every day to see what can be rescued--and so do others. There is no rule against notifying everyone who was at the previous AfD--if fact, its desirable and encouraged. But you've got to notify everyone, no matter how they !voted.  DGG 04:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. And, keep it neutral. Saying "please look at <this page>" suffices, and is better than "OMG! T3h evil ppl are dleetngi our good pgae agaian!!!!111" >Radiant< 08:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am fine with that. Heliumballoon 10:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Abuse of Nominating an article for Deletion

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

message: As brought up in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sports_lists this AfD, the article's creator posted on several people's talk pages to vote in the AfD.  Now, it was neutral tone, but the thing is, what's the "limit" of how many people you can ask.  I mean, it doesn't have to be set in stone or anything, just a general guideline. Kwsn(Ni!) 18:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Purely my opinion, but two factors to consider (a) is there an apparent attempt to overwhelm the "normal" amount of expected comments, and (b)  has the editor waited a bit (at least a day) to see how things are going?  For the first factor, simultaneously asking more than a half-dozen or so people to comment could result in significant biasing.  (Arguably, if a five are asked, and only one or two respond within a day or two, asking another handful to participate could be okay.)  For the second, a very one-sided expression of opinion in the first day or two would seem (to me) to justify asking (neutrally) those who might have opposite opinions to participate; this could help get a better discussion going.  And I suppose that a very low number of participants after a couple of days could also justify asking a bunch of other editors to consider giving their opinion, so that the deletion decision isn't based on just a handful of comments.  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 22:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

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

message: I propose the following wording for this issue:
*Lead section:
Canvassing (also known as "internal spamming" and "cross-posting") is overtly soliciting the opinions of other Wikipedians on their talk pages, or via email or other methods of communication, and it is controversial. However, it is agreed that disruptive canvassing, even if it seems to be within guidelines below, is never acceptable. ...
*Votestacking section
Votestacking is sending mass talk or email messages only to editors who are on the record with a specific opinion (such as via a userbox or other user categorization) and informing them of a current or upcoming vote. In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an AFD or CFD), it is similarly frowned-upon by many editors to send mass talk or email messages to those who expressed only a particular viewpoint on the previous debate, such as only "Keep" voters or only "Delete" voters.
*Campaigning section
A hard and fast rule does not exist with regard to selectively notifying on their talk pages or by email certain editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view, in order to influence a vote. However, the greater the number of editors contacted, the more often this behavior is engaged in, and the greater the resulting disruption, the more likely it is that this behavior will result in warnings and/or sanctions. Many Wikipedians have suggested that informing editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who voted in a previous AfD on a given subject) is normally acceptable.
*Email section (new)
Because it is less transparent than on-wiki notifications, the use of email or other off-wiki communication to notify editors is discouraged unless there is a significant reason for not using talk page notifications. Sending a notification to a group of editors by email may be looked at more negatively than sending the same message to the same group of people on their talk pages would be, depending on the specific circumstances.
I hope this text looks reasoanble, please feel free to suggest changes. DES (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks good to me and I would support its inclusion. Tom's suggested language about "communication" (i.e. keeping it more general) would also work I think, but personally I prefer the specificity in DES's proposal.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 22:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that on reading Tom's comment i included "or other methods of communication" in a couple of places. DES (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest putting this text on the guideline page, unless another editor has a different option.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 08:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose. You proposed wording for for the E-mail canvassing issue but you also changed other items. Please highlight all the changes first so that your proposed changes are clearer. -- Jreferee (Talk) 04:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Until they are all fully protected (which doesn't seem likely any time this century) people are certainly allowed to edit the page and improve it, rather than jumping through the bureaucratic hoop of highlighting everything first. >Radiant< 12:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested wording

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

message: ;Moved here from User talk:Trialsanderrors
Hello! Would you mind moving the "Wikipedia:Canvassing/Friendly" userbox to a template, or preferably to your userspace? It seems a bit odd to stick a userbox in Wikipedia namespace. Cheers, >Radiant< 13:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. ~ trialsanderrors 15:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Question though - I may have missed something, but where is this consensus-forming on the talk page? Apart from a dialogue between you and Dreftymac, the talk page hasn't had any discussion for a month. >Radiant< 16:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WT:CANVAS#Canvassing (the word) on the user box issue. ~ trialsanderrors 17:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, could you be more specific?  I read/skimmed that whole section and I only saw stuff from back in January or so; also although I saw stuff about a userbox, I didn't see anything about either mentioning or not mentioning the userbox on page Canvassing.  Could you please give me a unique search string pointing to one of the messages you mean and then I can easily find it on the page?  Thanks.  --Coppertwig 17:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion starts with "There is also a difference in effects." I proposed the userbox, which was supported by Andrewa and jc37 without opposition. If Radiant and you oppose the userbox then I guess we should re-open the discussion. ~ trialsanderrors 17:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *It's not a big deal to me but I'm not really happy with the concept, or with advertising userboxes of any kind on policy pages of any kind. >Radiant< 09:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well the impetus for the discussion was a simple problem with this guideline. We assume that most people are annoyed with random notifications on unrelated topics on their talk page, but we can't decree that they all have to be annoyed with them. Various users actually came here to complain that a notification was removed from their talk page by an admin. So the userbox is a simple way for editors to opt in to a friendly notices program. We discussed others above, but the user box one seemed the easiest to implement. If you favor others feel free to offer them here. ~ trialsanderrors 16:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm undecided about some things about the userbox, including the following ideas.  Maybe the policy should say that it's OK to inform everyone who participated in a discussion, and it's also OK to inform everyone who participated and who has such a userbox and not inform those who don't.  Maybe there could also be a userbox saying that one does not want to receive messages, and the policy could say that it's OK to inform everyone except those who have such a userbox.  I think some users have notices on their talk page saying not to discuss articles with them there but to use the article talk pages.  It could be OK to inform everyone except those people.  Here's a possible problem: there could be a cabal of people who know each other, know about the Friendly userbox, like it and have it on their page, and they could all edit the same articles.  Then they could pretty much canvass each other.  They could say, "let's all go and edit that article there."  Maybe having the Friendly usebox would cause such a cabal to come into existence.    They might tend to have similar opinions, since those who don't might get tired of getting those messages and take the Friendly template down.  Or, people might feel as if it's a cabal when a bunch of Friendlies descend on a discussion. I would like to point out that the existence of the Friendly template and mentioning it in the policy are two different issues. --Coppertwig 17:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

text: *One problem is that adding any amount of instructions to this page is going to increase wikilawyering about it. Canvassing is not infrequently done in bad faith, by people who will take any excuse as a firm endorsement of their actions. >Radiant< 08:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *How about a midsentence link or end-of-sentence "(see also X)" to a page that describes the userbox (or just to the userbox template page)? --Coppertwig 14:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *Undoubtedly, but as was discussed at length earlier, there are bad faith and good faith notifications, and the guideline should distinguish one from the other. Of course editors who canvass in bad faith will often try to selectively quote from the guideline to justify their actions, but I don't see how the adoption of the FN box will give them undue support. ~ trialsanderrors 21:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *The problem is, it gives them one more option.  So, they can look to see which group contains a greater percentage of their supporters:  all users who commented, or all such users with a Friendly userbox, or (possibly other criteria they think up).  And if one such group looks favourable to their side, they can notify that group and claim it was a nonpartisan selection of people.  Actually, it doubles the number of possible groups they could think up. --Coppertwig 21:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Friendly Notices" Userbox