Wikipedia talk:Canvassing/Archive 5

Amending recommendation text
Presently the text reads: "The talk page of one or more WikiProjects (or other Wikipedia collaborations) directly related to the topic under discussion", which would seem to be too vague. Are there any objections to "The talk page of WikiProjects (or other Wikipedia collaborations) directly related to the topic under discussion. This should include those WikiProjects listed at the talkpage header for the affected article."? LeadSongDog come howl!  16:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Authorities and WP:CANVASS
FormerIP's question about Italian expertise generalizes beyond local embassies. To pick a topic at random, say jellyfish courting rituals, suppose an expert in that area finds herself in a dispute with a bunch of obvious amateurs in that area arguing about how to present the subject. Is it appropriate for her to canvass a community of experts on jellyfish courting rituals for their opinion? I don't see anything in the canvassing guidelines that addresses this sort of situation. (Even though I don't work in marine biology myself I would be enormously grateful for any sort of answer to this question.) --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 08:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Vote-banking
was proposed as a new section. I find one large problem is that many current projects, for which neutral notification is specifically allowed by this guideline, would become pariahs under this suggested change. That is, people in a project on a controversial topic may well be in accord about that topic to a greater or lesser extent. This change would forbid even a neutral notificattion to a very large number of projects. Collect (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I always thought that would fall into the same category as "Vote stacking" - if the entire project is known to be non-partisan then it's a problem. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That's not how I read proposed addition to the guideline. As I read it, it just means that one shouldn't actively try to make projects partisan by trying to get only people of a certain persuasion to join the project.TheFreeloader (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The wording appeared to affect both new and existing projects.  I would carefully suggest that the LGBT project (as an example) has a preponderance of people with certain positions, and this change would mean that not even a neutral notice should be made to that page.    And I further carefully suggest that this is true of a large number of existing projects.   As far as I care, as long as the wording is scrupulously neutral, and the choice of places to notify is not affected by a desire to sway the positions of editors who will view the notice, than it is fine.  If the wording is in any way non-neutral, I dislike it. Collect (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It was my mistake then. My meaning was closer to what Freeloader said, not what you said. The problem isn't notifying a group. The problem isn't even if the group incidentally has a systemic bias of some kind, which is unfortunately going to be a natural outcome from people focusing on topic areas they're interested in. The real problem is when someone looks through the userboxes or some such, sends invites to them to join a specific group, and assembles a partisan army. Basically, delayed vote-stacking. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In other words, you have no objections to current biases in groups, but you feel that new groups formed precisely how the current groups were formed will somehow be more injurious to WP processes?  Sorry -- I think that anyone starting a new group of any kind is likely to do it the same way the current groups were formed.  With exactly the same likely level of bias on any given topic.  I can not support a grandfathering in of some biases on the belief that a new group will be worse-biassed. :)    Sorry - in other words, instruction creep != progress.  And as long as the notifications are neutral, pre current rules, I am satisfied. Collect (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The most contentious group, IIRC, was the ARS.  I believe my suggestion at WP:False consensus adequately deals with how such should reasonably be dealt with.  I invite your comments on the ArbCom statements. Collect (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't say it's even about current biases. I know there are current biases. But some are preventable, and some aren't. Unpreventable? the idea of organizing a bunch of editors with expertise in a certain subject area. If they all know about it, that is itself going to lead to a different kind of coverage than if it were in some other project's purview. Preventable? That someone can find all the editors who have this userbox and recruit them to a WikiProject (the more inactive the better), and create a partisan group that they can use to sway discussions at a later time. There's a difference between recruiting people interested in LGBT issues and notifying them of a LGBT article, versus recruiting people with a particular POV on a contentious subject area to participate in big policy discussions and RFCs. I actually think that essay is useful and an accurate reflection of the kind of disruption I'm talking about, and that most people would agree is disruptive. I would just rather it be here, out front and center, rather than letting people find new creative ways to canvass. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree specifically on trying to affect that potential problem, as seen by you, by adding a new hoop here.  This page is not the place to draw political lines of any sort, directly or indirectly.   And this page is not the place to even think of adding instruction creep. In my opinion. Collect (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing a consensus that there IS a problem though. It's a natural extension of people trying to game the "vote stacking" system. I think TheFreeloader is sympathetic. And it's consistent with your essay. I may have botched the wording. But I think something needs to be said here. Or else people will game the canvassing system. Right now, it would be against Wikipedia policy to notify everyone in this category of a discussion, but it wouldn't be against Wikipedia policy to notify everyone in the same category to join a WikiProject or other collaboration. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not strengthen the current wording on "vote stacking"? Say instead of " Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions "  strengthening it to "posting to users based on their expressed opinions about a topic or user, or on any presumed similarity of opinion based on membership in any group indicated by userbox etc." or the like?  And adding here that vote stacking specifically shall be discounted in determining any consensus?  Sorta strengthening the current rule without actually creating a new one? Collect (talk) 23:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good idea. I think the notion of "banking" is an important one though, a delayed effort to stack the vote by recruiting people to a central collaboration first. I won't get hung up on the wording or semantics. If you want to take a first shot at a wording go ahead. I'm going to think about it and take another shot at it maybe tomorrow. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and amended your changes. I named the phenomenon so that it's more clear what it is. I explained it was about recruiting people to a collaboration. I also tried to strengthen the wording so it wasn't just any old common interest (e.g.: interested in politics), and instead made it more about a common agenda which should fit nicely with the comment about userboxes and "known opinions". If I went too far, let me know where I went wrong and why. I'm sure we can come up with a wording that everyone thinks is fair. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Further revisions - the main term "vote banking" is specifically about the equivalent of a "political party" which I feel is apropos as well (though not requiring the group to be about "politics" of course). Collect (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I 100% agree. Part of the point of discouraging canvassing is that we're trying to avoid a system where Wikipedia becomes organized under partisan political parties. (Or even a single organized cabal vs. everyone else.) Then you'll never get consensus on anything. I support the comparison you're making. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Pre-canvasing
This is something I have been thinking about for a while and it would be related to "stealth canvasing". This is when an editor contacts other editors by email or off-wiki to participate in a discussion he hasn't started yet. He tells them of the subject of the proposal, venue, and the time and date he plans to start the discussion. If one sees a discussion where a lot of editors immediately show up to support a proposal, this may be what happened. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * See the discussion directly above about "banking" !votes.  Collect (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I just read it and it looks like a slightly different issue. That is, the organization of what might be called "POV clubs" to !vote a certain way in potential future discussions on a certain topic or range of topics regardless of who starts such discussions. What I'm talking about is more specific. Example, User:Cruftsucks emails a bunch of "deletionist" saying "Hey guys, I plan to nominate Bulbasaur for deletion again next Friday. If we can all show up and !vote early before the ARS shows up we just might finally be able to get this piece of shit off Wikipedia". However, I can see how the 2 can overlap if said "POV club" has an off-wiki mailing list and they use it to organize future AFDs, RFCs, etc. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

A way of canvassing many people
A person may send the message:" " the text for canvassing" Find 2 users without copies of this message, and make it on their talk pages." First there would be 1 copy of it, then 3, 7, e.t.c. No one makes more than 2 copies.(It isn't forbidden) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.228.166.209 (talk) 10:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Reasonably, for determining WP:False consensus, the total number who were improperly canvassed is what counts.   Neutral notification made to people not chosen for specific agreement on the issue is likely not a problem. Collect (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Newsletters
Would it be canvassing, if a project added some notes about current discussions on their talk page in their newsletters? --  Nascar 1996 ( Talk • Contribs ) 03:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

advice?
Hi, in interpreting the policy, particularly that very good coloured table (which should be a model for a few other guides and policies, I think), could someone tell me whether this falls within the acceptable? Thanks. Tony  (talk)  03:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Curious
Am I being overly sensitive here, or do I spot an inventive form of canvassing?? An editor just "thanked" all of the editors    who voted oppose to the proposal to merge Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes into Confucius Institute and invited them to put the Controversies article on their watchlist. None of the editors favouring merger were "thanked". Chances are these "thanked" editors already have the article on their watchlists already, but comments on the general principle of whether this could be considered canvassing would be welcome... -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 01:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If there is an ongoing dispute in the Controversies section which is in any way related to the arguments for "merge" then there may well be an inventive "bending" of the CANVASS rules. Best practice is to "thank" even editors whose opinions are 180 degrees away from your own.  (I did it once, and, ocf course, was accused of being naive ). Collect (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If I have unknowingly violated the WP guidelines, I apologize. My understanding, perhaps wrong, was that WP:CAN guidelines refer to ongoing discussions. I don't know, can canvassing be ex post facto? In this case, I waited until two weeks after the merger discussions had ended without compromise, and the RFC had expired. My straightforward intention was to broaden participation in the Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes article, which could benefit from fresh pairs of eyes. Since the merger proposal was discussed on the Talk:Confucius Institute page, I contacted those interested editors who commented but might not have watchlisted the C&CCI page in question, but saw no point in notifying those who had already edited and (like Ohconfucius said) were watching it. In similar situations, how should one contact concerned editors? Keahapana (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not just contact everyone involved and don't extend any gratitude? Just say: since you took an interest in the discussion, consider watchlisting the page, reading more on the subject, and becoming more involved in the discussions going forward. You may even be able to give them a "selected readings" which emphasize the takeaways (i.e., CIs are propaganda organizations run by a sinister government etc.) The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed change of wording
"However canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. "

to :

"However canvassing which is done with the intention of recruiting people to a discussion in order to influence the outcome in a particular way is considered inappropriate. "

Reason: just getting more !votes in the discussion is a bad thing, galvanising people to do work is a good thing. Example: someone proposes IP's be banned from creating new page, another editor sets up a New Page Patrol School and recruits and trains 100 New Page Patrollers. This should not count as inappropriate canvassing, although canvassing form members, if sufficiently successful, may influence the outcome of the discussion, and indeed may be intended to. Rich Farmbrough, 15:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC).


 * I've modified the "in a particular way" in the lead as ambiguous - all notification will influence in some way, so the phrasing is meaningless. What is not acceptable is taking sides with the notification. Diego (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Asking about a discussion that already reached a consensus is canvassing?
What if an AfD or discussion that reached a consensus and had ended failed to answer a participant's doubts? If the participant goes to a talk page of a certain Wikiproject or guidelines/policies' talk page would this be considered canvassing? Bleubeatle (talk) 03:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Without more detail it's impossible to answer. But based on what you said, waiting until an AFD is over to ask for clarification on a policy would be the epitome of good practice. Asking people after an AFD to overturn would be highly suspect. Asking people on a policy page to look into an AFD in the middle of it would be highly suspect. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks for answering. Yes, I asked after the AfD discussion ended but I was suspected of canvassing support to re-open it since I told the non-admin that closed it prematurely to re-open the AfD which led to me being suspected of going against the consensus as well. Maybe I should've just done a merger proposal in the first place. Anyways I'll remember to avoid some of these things so that I don't get suspected anymore. Cheers.Bleubeatle (talk) 06:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

how to report canvassing
how do i report canvassing, a editor is canvas other editors who support the oppiste side of dispute to take part in a dispute on talk page to make a consensus fall in the other way how do i go about reporting this?-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 12:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Campaigning
In my opinion, the section on Campaigning is quite confusing. Campaigning, as defined, is generally a good thing. Every post at an XfD ought to be an "attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent". I think the point of this section is that individual posts intended to persuade are fine, but when posting notices to a group of editors, the content should be more neutral. There must be a better way to write this section, because it currently exists as part of a list of inappropriate behavior, when in fact, campaigning isn't prohibited per se, it is only prohibited when used to canvass.

The nice graphic above already notes that message should be neutral, rather than biased. If there is a need to reinforce the point in this list, there must be a better way. (I'll take a stab at alternative wording, but want to see if my point is valid first.)-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  18:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Notification to related articles
Another editor recently suggested that I was canvassing by posting notice of Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels on related pages prior to the AfD's resolution. The AfD was intended as a test case; now that it has succeeded, those related articles are being tagged with AfDs themselves. My tone may have come off as sarcastic to some readers, although at the time, I was actually on the fence about the AfD.

My issue with the Canvassing guideline, and with Wikipedia talk pages and dispute resolutions in general is that I find the involved editors to exhibit a strong self-selection bias. More often than not, I've found the same editors, endlessly rehashing the same arguments, in any given subject area; and in many cases, "outside" editors who appear to take no particular interest in a subject, but are commenting due to an overarching point of view about the proper content or general nature of WP.

Out of the entire Wikipedia community, is it known what proportion spend time at WP:Village Pump or at Project pages? It would seem that a wider net should be cast in order to reach a broader consensus and to (one hopes) bring about a generally happier community.

In the case of an AfD or some substantial mandatory change proposed to a entire category of articles, is there a bot or some other mechanism at the article level to make editors aware of significant changes proposed for those articles? Should "test cases" be disallowed such that all relevant articles should be nominated simultaneously (at least in the case of AfDs)? --Chaswmsday (talk) 08:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

This policy is inherently unfair
I am looking at the political environment in certain areas of Wikipedia, and it is clear to me, that we do not have a fair and just decision making process, and yet we are expected to respect the results of the process. Due to the fact that I am a morally reflective person, I really am not able to pretend about the situation. In some cases, it is not only morally permitted to be able to use one's free speech, but in fact required. This canvassing policy has absolutely no moral foundation. It seems to be based solely on the desire to be free from annoyance. Well annoyance is a choice, and people are responsible for their own choices. I should have every right to contact people who are stakeholders in a decision, including ones that I feel will do the right thing in my opinion. If there are people opposed to my view, they should have every right to contact stakeholders that they think will support their view. I am increasingly feeling that Wikipedia has failed, and all of the avenues that reasonable and civil people use to improve the situation have been forbidden. I find the idea that I should be in violation of a policy merely for using my ability to express in a reasonable manner my position to be immoral, repugnant and disgusting. This is a formal proposal to abolish this policy, and delete this page.Greg Bard (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You are not being prevented from dropping a neutrally worded friendly notice on a few talk pages. And for that matter on relevant noticeboards (such as at a reevant nWikiProject or the VP). The problem is mass notices; with clear attempts to "votestack".
 * If you wnt nto see this page removed, then help educate those who see discussions as "voting". If more discussions were accepted to be closed per weight of the arguement alone, completely ignoring numbers of pile on "voters", then I don't think we'd need much of this page anymore. (We say that's true, per WP:CON, but we still have those who freak when they think a closer didn't "count" their "vote".) So until that is consistently true Wikipedeia-wide, then this is needed. - jc37 22:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If you see mass notices as a problem, then you are unclear on how an open society works. I also find characterizing a call to action, or campaigning as something negative (is "votestacking" just another way of saying that people who agree with one side or the other are expressing themseles?!) is repugnant.Greg Bard (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a democracy. If that's what you are looking for, you're at the wrong place, Sorry. - jc37 03:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Then I am completely justified in this proposal. The idea is that the process needs to be accessible to reason. If it is not, then it is not a fair system, and not only does not deserve our support, but we are morally required to change it. I'm not talking about mob rule here. I just have every right to contact whoever I want concerning issues arising here without being penalized. Greg Bard (talk) 04:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly it is accessible to reason. One should not be able to select likeminded team-mates and bring them to a discussion to slap down your ideas. Instead one should notify groups with a neutral interest in a subject and do so in a neutral manner. We have various noticeboards for this purpose, particularly the wp:Village pump pages. The fair and reasonable approach is to confine one's arguements to the discussion page and present the notices in such a way that the readers only see one's position in the discussion by going to it. If they can tell, the process is going to be slanted. Your right to include fellow thinkers is inviolate, but it does not extend to excluding people you might expect to oppose your arguements.LeadSongDog come howl!  18:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So, for example, if the occult, alternative medicine, or hare chrishna wikiprojects happen to have hundreds of brain dead people following their talk page, and the logic and critical thinking wikiproject has only a dozen I can't use, for instance, the "Skeptical wikipedians" category and notify everybody? Is that correct? Greg Bard (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct. But you could notify both the hare chrishnas and the WikiProject Rational Skepticism. I can't see how that behavior, which is allowed by this policy, is not fair. Diego (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't fair, because if it is obvious to someone who actually is educated and experienced in a particular subject matter. and; for instance, Category:Perfectly reasonable classification in an obscure academic area that helps distinguish sense from nonsense is being proposed for deletion; and people who don't know the first thing about that subject matter are weighing in on it (i.e. the ignorant hoi polloi), and people who have an agenda to make sure that sense is not distinguished from nonsense are weighing in on it too, together they will greatly outnumber people who are actually experts in the area. There are plenty of wikiprojects in with very small numbers who are at the mercy of this deadly combination. I should have EVERY right to bring the situation to the attention of people who actually know the subject matter, who may not be watching the talk page of the wikiproject. Greg Bard (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As one of the content creators here, rather than the top 1% who make the policies and do not contribute anything to the encyclopedia, I completely agree with you. Personally I am a member of WikiProject Astronomy and have seen so many perfectly valid categories and articles go away because of the idiocy of this encyclopedia's discussion process. Wer900 • talk 19:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

ok lets takea example, a article you have worked on for saya year ges put up to AFD for notanbilty and copyvio, now if you was to canvas you are only likely to canvas people you know would support your side and not otehr who be opposed to it, its natural human thing, that the essence of not canvas, as another user has pointed out there nothing wrong with posting at a project to make it out in the know because then your not trying to attract one type of person you will get both, only people witha genda wont like canvas rule because it means it will go against them Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 19:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There are certain Wikiprojects that have very few people following the talk page. It makes the process all about political power, not actual reasoned debate. I have to tell you, I'm having a hard time with the fact that people don't see the inherent immorality of this policy. I have every right to use my ability to express myself to influence a decision, and this policy is outrageous. Greg Bard (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * if you dnt like the policy leave. wikipedia is founded on consensus not what is right by some experts in a field, and you have answer your own question as to why canvasing is banned "I have every right to use my ability to express myself to influence a decision" you dnt have every right to influence a decision, you influence it by giving a good argument supported by policies again if you dnt liek it leave wikipedia Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 20:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoah, there, Andrew. Don't go driving him off. He's absolutely right that he has every right to influence decisions by using his ability ot express himself. That's exactly what we want editors to do, as opposed to gathering a bunch of buddies to reiterate the same point. In an ideal discussion, a few editors say useful things, most editors recognise they have nothing better to add, and a conclusion is found from the short, sweet, and consise result. Of course that seldom happens, but we can hope for better. Where he's mistaken is that he evidently thinks AFD is a vote, not a presentation of policy-based reasoning. He could be forgiven for that error, as all too often that is precisely what happens, but it is not the intended way it should happen. The frequency with which reasoned wp:consensus degenerates into voting is a real problem that needs fixing. LeadSongDog come howl!  22:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, silly me. All this was just wp:FORUMSHOPPING after Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_December_9. Don't do that. LeadSongDog come howl!  22:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * im not wantign to drive away for wanting to express himself, i encourage that if it within policies but he seems to think canvasing he has right to do using his powers to get other liek minded to vote as you put it. but to be honest i think AFD need to be rethought fromt eh ground up, as you have some that as you say about votes, then you have some that you have policie mad editors who will either spout of this and that policies o either get ti delete or merge or kept, rather than focus on the key policies notabilty, reliable sources, verifiabilty no original research and consensus i dnt know how many times recently i ahve seen editores do afd or cfd or tfd etc and then just say oh it breaks tis policy so delete and 90% of the tiem the plicie doesnt apply the way they are saying there jsut using it to justify it, and as a admin who reads it all (not me i am referring to) a admin sees these policies and use of them and says the consensus was delete because person a used policy t that isnt the wa it should be either, it should be does this aritcle fail this policie if yes delete if no dnt Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 22:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, could you try that in English please? LeadSongDog come howl!  04:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with this editor. Due to the policy against organizing editors in favor of or against them, policies are largely written by the small group of editors who contribute little to the content creation and counter-vandalism work that ensure that Wikipedia thrives. "Consensus" on Wikipedia is that of a self-selected minority who have sealed their position with this policy. I wrote an essay on the definition of consensus earlier, designed to be a guide for admins in order for them to make less controversial decisions, but now I see that it can be applied to the current situation. In short, the anti-canvassing policy is unfair and only distorts the true meaning of consensus, moving it from the mutual agreement of a large section of the community to that of an upper tier of editors who actually do little for the quality of the content and use Wikipedia because they like argument, crushing of the opposition, and tens of thousands of people slaving beneath them without a say in policy. Wer900 • talk 19:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

What's considered a fair notification vs convassing?
If a RFC/U and one of the supporters goes out and look for people who have disagreed with my edit, and leave a comment in a hope they'll support the cause, but don't notify editors who I've interacted but haven't particularly disagreed with me, what does it mean in the scope of our votestacking policy? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Query
Hi -- I think this would be ok, but just want to check here first (if anyone wants to opine). I am participating in a move discussion, that follows (within a few hours) a prior move discussion on the same subject. The first discussion involved about 8 editors, half of whom have commented in the follow-on/contary move proposal.

Is it ok if I contact the remaining few editors from the first merge discussion, with a neutral message on-wiki, to notify them of the new discussions, to improve the discussion by broadening participation/consensus? Also, it involves construing and applying a policy and an mos provision. Is it ok if I post a brief wholly neutral message as to the merge discussion, on the talk page of the policy and of the mos provision? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Guidance modification
I've modified the guidance in WP:Canvassing to clarify that the template is used on the canvassing user's talk page. Posting the template where the canvasing took place (for instance, on a WikiProject talk page) is likely to engender defensive remarks or further distractive comments. Ideally notices of discussions will comply with guidance so that there should be no ensuing discussion! In cases of outright disruptive blatant canvassing, I think it is appropriate to remove the canvassing notice (and replace with one that complies with guidance). But my modification does not address that course of action. – S. Rich (talk) 04:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Campaigning on excessive number of wikiprojects
If an editor leaves a biased report (for example changing name of RfC to something biased) on say 10 Wikiprojects likely to bring people who agree with those biases to an article, what is best way to proceed on the wikiproject talk pages?? Thanks! ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 14:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Just change to appropriate name (I did that before noting there were 9 more)
 * Just make a note that there was canvassing there?
 * Is there some other appropriate template or tag since none of these quite right?
 * Once you put up what is the most appropriate way for them to respond and should one only remove it if one's concerns satisfied? (SensitiveTemplate:Canvassed issue, if their opinion was in line with campaigning statements and one believes it's a BLP violation). Obviously my using it has already started a minor brohaha which will probably grow. More guidance needed.


 * There are two issues of concern. One is the Message question. Is the notice posted in a neutral fashion. Two is the Scale question. Are the messages going out to an excessive number of individuals. There is no restriction on posting to Project talk pages. And just because a Project has a particular topic that it likes, we cannot disregard the AGF of those project members and assume they will vote one way or the other on any particular RfC. Regarding improper wording of a RfC, I think WP:TPO applies. Change blatant POV RfC titles without discussion. If there needs to be tweaking, discuss the matter with the OP. – S. Rich (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * SRich: You should not you are an involved part in this,it being your RfC in question. And particularly on Template:Canvassed. Need uninvolved editors guidance. Which probably won't come til after the long weekend. So there is no reason for anyone else but me to remove the tags. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 16:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, that topic was pretty much settled at ANI: i.e., wikiprojects should be relevant and 10 might be a bit excessive. I'll start a new section on the points that probably do need better clarification in the article. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 15:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Revising 'Campaigning' type notifications
The issues of spamming and vote-stacking have been discussed in recent sections (above). And I think the recent change here is helpful. Also, I think the guidance about WP:Canvassing is appropriate to a certain extent. That is, we tell the offending editor to "cut it out" as a editor behavior warning. But what about the non-neutral notice that might go out? A notice that says "Please comment in the new RfC about horrible abuse that pink elephants are suffering." clearly has a POV. I propose that guidance be modified to explicitly allow reversion of POV/campaigning-type notices. – S. Rich (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * hmm - that seems reasonable if egregious - but if its just slightly biased a better approach would be to ask the person to reword or add your own wording directly underneath.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Srich, in my view such a policy would open a can of worms. RfCs tend to occur in contentious settings and the possibility of an edit war over canvassing notice reversions should be avoided.  Unless there is a bright line test, I think such a policy might do more harm than good.  SPECIFICO  talk  18:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This discussion actually relevant to real life Wiki happenings. SPECIFICO canvassed 10 Wikiprojects, excluding a couple of the most relevant ones; Srich changed the headers which were biased; I did a WP:Canvass ANI where one other person opined it was too much and the closer said it was "a bit much".
 * Looking back, I'd say, sure you can suggest people change it; and you suggest they alert those relevant projects or whatever they missed; but you can't just change them yourself (and SRich is very quick to change or hide things he thinks are uncivil).
 * And if you think people are cavassing you can go to WP:ANI. In my experience they don't take it too seriously unless an editor's pissed off a bunch of people doing it and in other ways. (Like when - who was it? - to me to ANI for my notification on GenderGap and got laughed off. Frankly, I was so used to opinionated posts there that really were canvassing-related, it didn't occur to me it was; so I'm happy to see clearer guidance here on it. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 03:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion sections and Template:Canvassed
Regarding "How to respond to inappropriate canvassing" - these issues came up at a recent RfC where for the first time I dealt with the canvassing issue, including using templates, and probably screwed it up. So would like to save the next person problems. Note, if no experienced editor uninvolved in previous dispute responds, I'll just put up what I think should be there - i.e., a) encourage to go to WP:ANI rather than discuss and b) say tags should remain til tagged user answers concerns. (Being bold usually will get a discussion going :-) So comments from editors with more experience in this area appreciated. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 16:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If there is a canvassing issue on an RfC, AfD or elsewhere is it appropriate to start a "Concerns about canvassing" section with evidence or should one just go straight to WP:ANI with questions/concerns? (People can be more shy about going to ANI and get bogged down in discussion.) If it's the latter because canvassing can distort the process, maybe that should be mentioned in How to respond to inappropriate canvassing.
 * There is Template:Canvassed, for expressing a concern that a user was canvassed to a discussion. But where do you put it - the response page to an RfC or an AfD, for example? Can other editor's take it off before the tagged individual has responded to the tagging editor's concerns?


 * Canvassing is an editor-behavior issue, so the best place to discuss in on the talk page of the canvassing editor. (If it is blatant canvassing or if the canvassing editor does not responde positively, then ANI might be the next step.) Discussions re canvassing on the article talk page or other forums are tangential to the particular topic being discussed. (Indeed, they are distracting if not disruptive.)
 * There are two ways to canvas individuals: on- and off-wiki. On-wiki canvassing is easy to see: the canvassed editor will have a posting on his/her talk page. Off-wiki (email, etc.) is, of course, difficult to prove. If someone thinks a particular editor was canvassed off-wiki, I think an inquiry on the talk page of the targeted editor would be appropriate. ("Hey, were you canvassed?" or "Did you make a remark at [discussion] because you were canvassed?") If there is an editor-talkpage canvassing message, and the editor has posted to the discussion, then "tagging" the particular comment of the contributing editor may be appropriate, but I'd be very careful -- tagging the remark of an editor (experienced or not) may not be appropriate because doing so suggests bad faith on the part of the editor. Remarks from editors who have not been individually canvassed or remarks from experienced editors should not be tagged, and removing such tags seems appropriate. – S. Rich (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, even though SRich was the main person I was debating this with, let us continue...
 * Template:Uw-canvass, warning for user talk pages So Template:Canvassed must be for the relevant discussion.
 * I just put a "Where are we supposed to put it?" message on talk page of the Template:Canvassed. Maybe that will get someone's attention. (Template:Canvassed/doc doesn't say either but didn't leave a message there.)
 * I searched wiki search with term has been canvassed to this discussion and low and behold I found several uses - here on a user talk page discussion; an article talk page discussion (includes a diff); Request move discussion (with note "having made no recent relevant contributions other than the above support. All have been left up. No users responded to it.
 * The point is that this is the proper use and we just need a slightly broadened statement to explain Template:Canvassed, i.e., that it is for expressing a concern that a user was canvassed to any discussion. And/or a description in the "How to respond to inappropriate canvassing".  But enough for now. Nap time... ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 17:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * So should I tweak per the above and see if that brings out further commentary or do an RfC? ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 13:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * What particular tweaks do you have in mind? – S. Rich (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Too burned out to think of more than what I wrote. Later... ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 11:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Since people are visiting here, any thoughts on this template?? ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 04:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm a bit unclear on the question. where to put this template? It goes into the relevant discussion. What am I missing?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I see the changes you made, and reverted them. Per the above, we do not have a consensus. Moreover, I do not think it is a good practice to tag someone's comments with a "canvassed" notification. Doing so is an ad hominem remark and can only divert discussion away from the particular topic. In effect it says "I think you might have been canvassed, so we shouldn't pay attention to your comment." With this in mind, is the template itself one we should keep? – S. Rich (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed language
Finally a third editor has chimed in at this noticeboard and thinks the following language clarifies the matter, which is fine with me:
 * Template:Canvassed, for expressing in a discussion that a specific user was canvassed to the discussion

Per this revert, SRich disagrees. Others thoughts? ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 13:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Third editor? Do you mean the questions that Obi posted? It does not seem that Obi was endorsing anything. We have three issues at play: 1. Should the template even exist? 2. If so, what should it say? 3. Where should it be used?  Addressing the threshold issue, I think it is disruptive to discussion threads and should be discarded.  – S. Rich (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * agree with Srich The proposed change would lead to more confused and intractable multilateral conflicts -- contrary to the purpose of notification.  SPECIFICO  talk  14:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * OK,missed Obi's comment above. Did you not see that Obi also had tweaked Template:Canvassed?
 * I forgot there was discussion of whether this should exist, so people should comment on that. You could remove it but I'm sure someone would put it back, maybe even someone besides me. ;-) ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 14:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, so far we have three editors involved in a recent dispute about the template and one not involved, ‎Obiwankenobi. Now this actually may be something we need an RfC on. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 15:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm reverting the improved language. This template is broadly used, and when used, is *always* used in a discussion. If there is disagreement about whether this template should be used at all, then put it up for deletion or salting. Edit-warring over clearer language does not make any sense at all. Consensus is not just represented by words on a policy page, it is also represented by the agreed-upon and non-reverted actions of of editors across many discussions. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Also FWIW, I don't think we need an RFC. If the template is inappropriate, then it should be deleted, and MfD discussions are considered to have community consensus. If it is *not* to be used on a discussion page, then there is already a different template for user pages, so I'm not sure where else such a template should be placed. Not_a_ballot also mentions this template, saying that comments by canvassed users can be tagged - and Not a Ballot is on many many pages - so to assert that this template does not belong on a discussion page has no consensus, and there is lots of evidence of consensus that it should be placed there. SPECIFICO and SRich seem to think this template will cause disputes - ok, if so, then please nominate it for deletion - but keeping it, then saying it can't be placed anywhere doesn't make any sense at all. Until it is deleted, we need to give clear guidance here, and since there is confusion as to whether this can be used on a discussion page, we should be clear that for now, it CAN be, in fact, that's the only reasonable place to put it, and that's where it has been put in dozens or hundreds of discussions.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Good, one less RfC. And as I said above in researching template I found it used four times (at least that had not be removed - which could be because issue resolved or originator removed, not necessarily that their was agreement on the page to remove it). ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 19:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's also subst'ed sometimes, so just checking for transclusions doesn't show all instances.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Only notify one place?
Sometimes only trying to tweak policy makes one read it carefully enough! Re: this under "Appropriate Notification":
 * An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion might place a message at one of the following:
 * The talk page of one or more WikiProjects (or other Wikipedia collaborations) directly related to the topic under discussion....

So even though you can notify 5 or 6 relevant Wikiprojects (ie., most relevant ones, not leaving out relevant ones you don't like), you can't also notify, say the person who did most of the work that is now being worked on? Or someone who said, "tell me if this issue is raised at a noticeboard"? If that is not true maybe we need new wording like: Thoughts on clarifying this? ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 04:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * might place a message at one or more of the following, if done in a cautious manner (or whatever)
 * One or more is fine. To be honest, I never read it as "only one". I don't think we need "if done in a cautious manner" --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify, so you are saying changing it to: "one or or more" is fine? ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 13:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's fine. Or "any". --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Related question on which discussions
To be bold and get your attention :-), I added in parenthesis to this section intro:
 * "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a talk page, noticeboard or other discussion might place a message at one of the following:"

I only recently have done this besides on an article talk page, and never have had a problem when I did, but now I'm having a problem getting responses on a few things and getting WP:FORUMSHOP thrown at me by the editor whose edits I (and sometimes other) question. So think this needs to be clarified. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 18:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I for one think it's clear that the canvassing guideline applies to any discussion at wikipedia. I've reverted, as "discussion" is clear - it means "discussion" - wherever that happens. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Just wanted there to be someone else besides me thinking that. Unfortunately, for a long time I avoided doing that because I thought it meant just discussion; guess I'm just too uptight :-) ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 18:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, so I'm having a problem with WP:OR issue on a BLP; posted to BLPN and getting no response (except involved editors process points). Can a point a link to the BLP discussion on WP:ORN? I assume not, but those too ARE discussions and someone has already called my suggestion to move discussion forum shopping. So I guess this might be an example where canvassing becomes forum shopping? Confused!! ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 18:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:ORN is explicitly a forum to ask questions about original research. So,I'd suggest framing the question together with the person you disagree with, then posting it to WP:ORN for more feedback. I don't think this is quite forum shopping, unless you are a lone voice in the wilderness and 10 editors are opposing you.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be a second discussion of the same material. That's why I thought moving it or merely linking to it better. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 19:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A collegial discussion about how to frame a question for advice from other editors would not be a second discussion of the question in dispute. SPECIFICO  talk  17:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Mailing lists
(Note: Discussion of Mailing lists sponsored by Wikimedia Foundation.)

I can't see anything in the guideline about mailing lists, yet recently an editor was taken to AN/I for notifying the gender-gap mailing list about an issue related to content about women. I would like to add something to the guideline about notifications to Wikimedia Foundation mailing lists being acceptable, if framed neutrally, so long as the list moderators have no objection. Otherwise we have a situation where people who might be interested in an issue are not being told about it. Not everyone pays attention to the talk pages where notifications are left.

The edit would stress that it has to be Wikimedia Foundation lists, so that we're not appearing to condone posting to private lists. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Three+ questions: 1. Wouldn't mailing be off-wiki? (I assume this means email.) In which case stealth canvassing is at play. 2. How does an editor access a Foundation mailing list? (Indeed, do such mailing lists exist?) 3. In any event, how would such (inappropriate) notification be monitored? – S. Rich (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think notifying a foundation-sponsored and open-access-archives mailing list is acceptable, as long as it's neutral, and the relevant discussion is informed, and a link provided to the email list archives when such informing happens. In this case, the person in question didn't do several of those things. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "Stealth canvassing" just mentions email in general. It would be helpful since GenderGap was sponsored by WikiFoundation types and all sorts of canvassing happened there, thus my own post, which wasn't done neutrally cause most messages on most topics are not and certainly responses tend not to be at all. A reminder on mailing list footer or monthly reminder on policy would help. Also on the relevant project page about mailing lists, whose name forget right now. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 02:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Srich, the Foundation hosts several mailing lists for Wikimedians that anyone can join; see here. If we make clear that the lists in question must be public (that is, open to all and with public archives), I don't think it would count as stealth canvassing. I do understand the concern about not wanting only one group of like-minded editors to be informed, but the current situation means that interested people are not being told about issues they might care about, which is reducing participation in discussions on Wikipedia. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think especially in the case where a mailing list is canvassed, the discussion in question should *definitely* be informed and a direct link to archives provided (as of now, the guidance is a bit wishy-washy) - that way, concerned people can watch the conversation evolve over email if necessary. In addition, however, the scope of notification should be balanced. For example, suppose there is an AFD about a controversial feminist politician. Gender-gap could be notified, but the US politics project should *also* be notified. You may also want to have an agreement on GenderGap to not actively group-together around ongoing AFDs/etc so as to avoid being dubbed a cabal - if GenderGap members have thoughts on an active discussion, it is perhaps better to put those thoughts in the discussion itself. All off-wiki-collaboration should obviously be treated the same, I'm not singling out gendergap. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe policy pages need more intro boxes with bullets for most important points which later explained in text. Too easy to not read far enough down and/or carefully enough at end. As I said elsewhere, if I'd read WP:Canvass more carefully, it would have helped me kick butt a bit more on my last (and only?) canvassing complaint at ANI. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 02:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I had to read it 3 times before I found the line about "it's nice to notify the discussion" - it's rather well hidden in plain view. We could start a new section below this one to draft a better version, eh - that could include some stuff about mailing lists, etc. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Foundation mailing list is quite interesting. Still, I have concerns. 1. It's not clear how expansive these lists are (but that takes more figuring out on my part.) 2. Sending non-neutral messages in itself is problematic.  It is easy to anchor a desired response with a loaded message. With a posting on a noticeboard or WikiProject the notice can be revised if it does not meet neutral criteria -- even though the bell cannot be unrung. With an email, the unringing is more difficult. – S. Rich (talk) 03:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Srich, I do appreciate these concerns. The other side of it, though, is that Wikipedia is a huge and complicated site, and lots of people pay little attention to the general noticeboards and talk pages. So to attract interested commentators, you often have to tailor your notifications, and mailing lists are one way that people do that. It can mean that we attract more intelligent responses, because we've asked people who have thought about the issues. My thinking is that, so long as we make clear that the mailings lists have to be official ones, with public archives, that's a good enough safeguard, because then anyone who wants to can join and check that notifications are neutral. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I also see on this list that viewing the members of the list is available only to list members. So, if there was concern that vote-stacking was going on, the concerned editor would have to join the list and then view it to screen what, if any, particular interests were present amongst the members, and then try to figure out what to do if improper canvassing was afoot. – S. Rich (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If there's a public archive, you can look at that to see who has posted what. We can make clear, if we add that these mailing lists are okay, that they are only acceptable if they have a public archive. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * For example, here is the main Wikimedia mailing list archive. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Another concern is that you cannot monitor the off-wiki actions of other users. Suppose user X starts an AFD discussion, and Y joins in to vote to delete. By looking at X and Ys contributions, you can easily ascertain if they are canvassing on-wiki. But if they do something off-wiki, you're now relying on them to be forthcoming about it - there's no "contribution" list to monitor. I know this is incredibly easy to game in any case, but it is something to think about if we explicitly allow email notification, what are the parameters. There is also canvassing to sites like WR/WO/etc that happens, and probably IRC discussions, as well as lots of other off-wiki happenings. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Mailing to the Gendergap list and other Wikimedia mailing lists should be fine. All the other lists have pretty much standard Wikipedia demographics anyway. The Gendergap list, on the other hand, was specifically set up by the Foundation to counter systemic bias. Prohibiting contributors from flagging things there just reinforces and perpetuates the systemic bias, defeating part of the purpose of that list. Andreas JN 466 17:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * I've added that public mailing lists run by the Foundation are okay (diff). I also added "There is a fine line between justified notification and canvassing. Editors should use common sense when deciding where to draw the line." I did that because the guideline was veering toward being too restrictive. It's hard to list all the examples of notifications that are acceptable, so hopefully common sense will prevail. Basically, people who might obviously want to know about something have to be allowed to be told about it. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Obiwankenobi has reverted me. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Except for some of the grammatical changes (like starting bulleted comments with non-capital letters), I support most of SlimVirgin's changes. Why not all? I'd like to see guidance that urges editors to vet proposed notifications. Something like "I propose to post the following notification on these e-mail lists: Notice – a discussion about pink and blue Easter Eggs is now underway at blah-blah-blah noticeboard. Interested editors are invited to comment." – S. Rich (talk) 04:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * We could certainly add that editors notifying a mailing list should make a note of that in the discussion. I don't think we can ask people to get permission, as it were, because some editors will always say no, no matter how unreasonably. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * [In reply to SlimVirgin's comment]: All-in-all this is an editor behavior issue. Nice to get consensus before sending out a notice, and making a suggestion as to a NPOV notice forces editors to consider what they'd prefer. I think my proposal is simply a helpful-hint, and is not intended as a requirement. (For, as you say, someone will probably object in controversial cases no matter how well crafted the notice is. But in such cases, the notice should be well-crafted!) If an editor mis-behaves, NPOV-wise, then posting an editor talkpage notice is, IMHO, the best course of action. – S. Rich (talk) 05:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Advance consensus of notification is not required if you're posting to talk pages, so shouldn't be required if you're emailing. But disclosure of the fact should be, and it must be publicly accessible. I've often seen "balance" canvassing, where one editor notifies a certain set of boards, and another editor comes along and notifies a different set of boards which they consider to balance the first set of notification. Disclosure is key to permitting this, esp in the case of email.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Obi, I am not suggesting that advance consensus be required. Only that posting suggested notification language would be helpful, useful, recommended. And posting on one noticeboard, followed by posting on other noticeboards, is acceptable. But the language of all notices should be strictly neutral. – S. Rich (talk) 05:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I guess my question is, this seems a bit new - it has never been suggested that people post notification language BEFORE notifying - rather that they notify, neutrally, and then inform the discussion afterwards (this is for on-wiki)- do you think the rules should be slightly different in this case for off-wiki?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You're not getting any suggestions from me about rules -- only recommended techniques to achieve consensus. And in the case of off-wiki, I can't see how any rules would be or can be applied. (Unless the NSA gets into the act.) Why? Because we can't see what sort of off-wiki canvassing is going on. – S. Rich (talk) 05:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The existing language says off-wiki notification is discouraged. The intended additions are to allow this, if certain things are followed - that's what I mean by rules. Yes, I realize we can't enforce everything, but we should be clear what behavior we expect. Suppose X notifies an internet forum, hoping to garner votes in his favor. However, one of his rivals also lurks at that forum - he sees the improper canvassing, and then brings it to the attention of admins here. Bingo. So, in some cases, improper off-wiki canvassing is found and noticed by someone - hence the need to have clear standards of conduct here, so we know if someone has crossed the line.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I reverted because you made a wide-ranging set of what you called "tweaks" which in many cases changed the meaning of the message. I'd suggest you limit your changes to one issue at a time - e.g. what we're discussing here.
 * I disagree with your addition of "fine line between justified notification and canvassing" - this is just a great example of language you just invented that will cause arguments in the future "I'm on the other side of that line" "No you're not!" etc. You also made it seem like canvassing was only disruptive in "extreme" cases. Net net, you made a ton of undiscussed changes, so you should not be surprised at the revert.
 * That said, I think the language that should be added re: emails should be roughly as follows:
 * The rules of proper notification apply equally to on-wiki as to off-wiki actions. In other words, if a given message would be inappropriate on a talk page, it is equally inappropriate to send the same message via email.
 * In addition, because email is not transparent (it doesn't show up in the contributions list), disclosure of any such emails is essential.
 * Thus, if you wish to notify of an active discussion via email or to an internet forum, the following four rules should be followed:
 * 1) The notification must be to a publicly accessible, publicly archived mailing list or forum, ideally one run by the wikimedia foundation.
 * 2) The notification itself must be neutral
 * 3) You should not participate in encouraging other editors off-wiki to take a particular side after the initial notification
 * 4) You must notify the relevant discussion of the off-wiki canvassing, and provide a link to the discussion so they can confirm that your notification was neutral.
 * Any other forms of off-wiki canvassing, such as posting to private mailing lists or forums, sending emails to individuals, or any other off-wiki action is strictly proscribed, considered stealth canvassing, and thus disruptive. The only exception is where there is a specific reason to not use talk page notifications. In any case, any such email canvassing should be disclosed. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I support the grammatical ones more than the content changes, some of which probably do need to be discussed. We only need to add foundation mailing lists once, I think, though I'm not sure how that impacts what to say about IRCs (which I don't use or understand too well) since it seems a lot of them are quasi-official, but they don't seem to be as easily accessible as email lists). ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 04:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I added the mailing lists three times: once in the "appropriate notification" section (see this version, and twice in the sections about stealth canvassing and emails (where I added "See above for the exception for public mailing lists run by the Wikimedia Foundation"). SlimVirgin (talk) 04:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, simple proposal. Why not just add the below to the list of "Appropriate notification" (Perhaps in third place since that would be the last listing for notices to wider audiences.)
 * (Intro reminder:)An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion might place a message at one of the following:......
 * On a Wikimedia Foundation public mailing list open to all and with a public archive. Since discovering editors have made notifications off Wikipedia is difficult, it is good practice to leave a note at the discussion providing a link to the notification. (Links can be found in the public archive.)
 * Notes: No need to repeat the rules, because that is assumed. I left off "don't discuss afterward" because people do discuss notifications sometimes now and inappropriate discussion by the person doing the notification can be judged by their statements in either case. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 03:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * we should be more discouraging about it, and should oblige notification if it's done. I can't really see much justification for off-wiki notification when several broad, widely watched pages exist. There's even a gendergap project I think no? There is countering systemic bias for example. I think off-wiki notification esp of Formal discussions should be rare and only if there's good reason to think to cant reach that audience through on-wiki notification. -Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think we here can forbid it. That would have to be taken to the appropriate village pump or Foundation email list covering all Foundation emails (I have no idea what that is). Do so and come back with what they say. Meanwhile people can post of Foundation email lists at their own risk. No AfDs of interest in the pipeline right now. :-) ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 17:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * carol, this is a guideline, developed by consensus, about canvassing. This is exactly the place to discuss modifications to it. If you want to inform village pump of this discussion please do so. My point it, the language today strongly discourages off-wiki canvassing, we should continue to strongly discourage it. That's not the purpose of the email lists, and past consensus has led us to the language here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I canvassed Wikipedia talk:Mailing lists about it anyway :-) ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 02:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Given no response at Wikipedia talk:Mailing lists per above, posted this discussion Meta mailing list talk and Meta Gender Gap talk. Since it recommends people discuss things at the mailing list, posted there too. Since there are a number of foundation types on that list, people who are involved in other mailing lists as well may respond and therefore we'll get a good spectrum of informed opinion. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 16:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Please review WP:NOCONSENSUS and WP:CANVASS SPECIFICO  talk  17:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Please review "read the whole discussion" above. :-) But seriously, we're at a stalemate and people will keep posting high charged notifications on gender gap list (maybe even me 6 months down the road after 8 other people do and I've completely forgotten this discussion which got nowhere.) ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 18:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Carol, SV, everyone else, let's do this - let's create a draft somewhere, of the changes we want to make re: mailing lists, and just start editing. Since it's not a live policy, we can be a bit more brutal and inclusive as well. I think we're close, we just need to put ink to paper.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Now a days if you get one more person commenting you are lucky! Anyway, I'll start with tweaking my suggested language above:
 * (Intro reminder:)An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion might place a message at one any of the following:......
 * On a Wikimedia Foundation public mailing list open to all and with a public archive. It is good practice, [ and strongly suggested that, editors] leave a note at the original discussion providing a link to the notification. Links can be found in the [mailing list's] public archive. 
 * I won't try to summarize what others may have said after that and let them suggest. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 21:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe the consensus here is that the meaning of the policy is ..."place a message at one any of the following"
 * Forgot it had changed. ''CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd; 14:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Anyway, to me the biggest sticking point is Obiwankenobi saying that none of the Foundation lists should have any notices on them. The problem is, if you look at Meta's mailing lists there are quite a few that would have legitimate reasons to link to various discussions as an FYI, even if they were not encouraging people to discuss, which they also might have reason to, for example, at Village Pumps, etc. Even when not encouraged, inevitably someone will jump into the discussion. Even in something like GenderGap, sometimes people will say, "what are people's opinions of this sexist garbage at this discussion" without encouraging people to go there, but some people will go anyway. Once anyone tries to enforce such a new rule, it will get shot down and removed from this project page.
 * I think the most you can do is, as I just added in brackets to my proposal, say it is "strongly suggested that" editors tell others they've posted to a list. Thoughts? ''CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd; 14:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * i never said never, just said discouraged. And we should not strongly suggest, we should oblige transparency when this occurs. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, corrected. I don't feel that strongly, but also don't feel like debating it any more. Probably best thing to do is use your language in context of above and then wait to see what happens. IMHO, feel free to do so if no one disputes it on this talk page in next couple days. If editors coming by have a problem with it, they'll say so and do something about it. ''CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd; 17:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to add support for a requirement that notification on the mailing lists, forums, twitter and the like should be followed with a declaration at the discussion including a direct link to the posting. If there's clear disclosure and it's possible for both others users and the closer to see upfront then it can result in much less tension than when accusations of foul play fly back and forth. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Our use of the word "canvassing" is a bit odd, and is more like push polling. Most of our canvassing is done in a good faith effort to notify others of a discussion, such as at the Village pump, some of it is inappropriate, like notifying Wikipedia talk:Article titles watchers of every requested move (or any that do not require a policy change). Some e-mailed notifications are required for privacy reasons, and are not done to be stealthy. I would not like to see an encouragement of notifying a ton of mailing lists of every RfC or AfD. We already have adequate notification of each type of discussion, in my opinion, and anything else is most likely to be done to obtain a specific result, and ill advised (you get what you want to the detriment of the project). Apteva (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

proposal to require an anti-canvassing message on talk pages
A proposal perhaps was impliedly begun by editor Obi-Wan Kenobi and I am making an explicit proposal here. It is to post on all WikiProject talk pages and collaboration discussion pages a message box against posting to canvass, and there is now such a box at WikiProject Feminism and several other places. Requiring under my proposal means that it may not be deleted. The only alternative, I think, is to have such a message on none of the pages, deleting those few already present, and that's a faster plan to implement. If we want to add the message, I created a possible template to make this easier and more consistent. I'll wait a week for any comments. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * First, to make it clear, here's the message:


 * Second, yeah, it better not be just at Feminism wikiproject! I mean any project with a strong POV on ethnic/religious/sex-gender/political/national/etc issues can be expected to have a fairly predictable response to a number of issues. But is it at all of those projects, at the very least? I doubt it.
 * Third, it should better define what canvassing is since obviously we've been tweaking this page which wasn't clear on a couple issues, like if you can put it in more than one kind of place, what individual canvass template about, etc. (And it would be nice to define how many is too much of any notice in any category and/or in total. I've been yelled at for doing two and laughed at for complaining about 10, so I'm real confused.)
 * Finally, I'm sure this will be rejected. Which means we will have to get busy putting it on all those wikiprojects, even if it means there is a rebellion against the template. Or we could discuss improving the template! ''CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd;  18:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose adaption of the template, much less requiring it on talk pages. I think the fundamental principle to WP:AGF is sufficient guidance. Posting the template makes it look like editors in general are apt to canvass, when the problem is really infrequent. When it does arise as an editor behavior issue, the problem should be brought up on the contributor's talk page. Posting this template (or any such notices) on the talk pages devoted to discussing a topic can only divert the discussion from its focus. – S. Rich (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd rather delete the few, but to add to some and not others requires predicting which articles will be subject to appeals to participate in discussions and therefore which groups of WikiProjects will be relevant. For example, if a dispute is about an article saying that the speed of light is a beautiful number, having this notice at a WikiProject on physics but not at the WikiProject on interesting numbers or art would skew the results. The same could apply to a dispute about a statue in San Francisco honoring Putin or Magellan or about whether the serial comma is used more or less by children than by adults. I don't think we're competent to make those predictions about which pairs of subjects are unlikely; all we need is one asymmetry for the arguments to start.
 * My template draft (linked above) is slightly different but the major issue is the same with either.
 * I doubt we should specify how many noncanvassing invitations to participate there can be, as that would depend on the dispute, because of both content and who's already participating.
 * Nick Levinson (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC) (Corrected my misspelling and my miscapitalization: 18:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC))


 * Example Propositions of this sort should be based upon evidence so here's a recent example: Articles for deletion/List of bullycides. What seemed to happen here was that, following a hostile posting on the BLP noticeboard, the nature of the discussion was transformed as a large number of noticeboard regulars turned up to support the poster's POV.  I can't see this template stopping such behaviour though.  Such editors seem quite self-righteous per WP:FANATIC and seem likely to reject any such restraint, using their number to quickly remove such a template from their hangout.  See belling the cat.  Warden (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * First, what is the policy? Can anyone stick a template on and it stays no matter what? or does the project decide? I don't see any discussion of it on the Feminism wikiproject.
 * Also, it's not just about predictions, it's politics. To say "yes" it must go on Wikiproject Palestine but not on Wikiproject Israel, for example, is a very political act. To say "yes" it must go on Wikiproject Libertarianism but not on Wikiproject Socialism would be a similar act. And same with WP Feminism if Wikiproject Men's rights goes through.
 * I bet a bot could go through and put it on all of them. That would be easier and less conflicting than anything else. Otherwise, I think it's up to each project whether they have it. ''CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd; 19:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If a bot could also check that the template has stayed put and if the bot is run often (probably if the functionality is added to a frequently-run bot already available), then adding the tag is much less objectionable, because deleting it would get caught whenever the bot detects absence.
 * I agree on the politicalization.
 * I think the WikiProject decides unless an exception is made taking away their authority in this case.
 * This should also apply to other collaboration pages, but I don't know how to identify all of them. If that includes noticeboards, I suspect they'll object.
 * Discussion with WikiProject Feminism was on the edit summaries, then at my talk page, and then here.
 * Nick Levinson (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the principle of "reasonableness" can be invoked here. I saw such language at conservativism, so I added it to a few other places. I don't think we need to spam every wiki project - but I do think it is a useful reminder, as on several occasions I've seen people notifying *certain* notice boards, but not others, clearly with intent to recruit a certain type of editor. No, we can't stop it, but we can certainly let people know that such notifications are nonetheless violating the spirit of this guideline, and make such quite clear before they post their notification. Thus, I don't think we need either "it's required on all projects", nor "every project can decide yes or no if they want it" - rather, an in-between guideline, which could be something like "Projects that are focused on a particular political or social philosophy should place this template up top" = so we don't spam wikiproject United States and wikiproject mathematics with this stuff, but feminism, gender rights, socialism, libertarianism, conservativism, discrimination, and so on, should have it. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a book on math as developed by South American Indians and a book on English grammar as spoken by African Americans. If their content is in articles and near-canvassing messages are posted to the math and grammar WikiProjects but are virtually restricted from the Indian and Black WikiProjects, that's a political skewing. A field having open politics is not more biased than a field with discreet or subtle politics. So the templates need to be everywhere.
 * Arguably, each WikiProject could add it on its own if it wishes to stop getting threads about articles, but that's unlikely, since editors watchlisting a WikiProject generally ignore threads they're not interested in anyway.
 * Membership in a WikiProject is not restricted, so I think the message or template would often be used to keep editors from posting to a certain WikiProject that someone wants to exclude from the discussion without being an active member.
 * Nick Levinson (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: Perhaps this template could be better worded; it is certainly NOT intended to prevent notification of relevant projects. It is rather intended as a reminder to not notify in a seemingly biased fashion. I'd be happy with suggested rewording/etc of the template.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * All you can do is forbid certain actions, not the consequences that may flow from them. So you can say something like "remember it is acceptable to post notices of interest to people in the project but they should be done in a neutral fashion. For more information see WP:Canvass." You can't go into a lot of detail about what to do on other projects or email lists. In the end response more depends on what the issue is and who happens to look (some days of week better than others) and who has the time and energy to respond. ''CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd; 23:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I'm happy for any suggestions to rework the wording/etc to make it clear that notification is ok, but that it must be neutral, and most importantly, it must *not* be done with the hope of recruiting a particular POV to the discussion. Thus, for example, if an article about a female writer is up for deletion, and the !votes are trending towards delete, it would be inappropriate to then go and just notify project-feminism. In the same way, an article about a conservative talk show host, trending towards deletion, it would be inappropriate to then just go notify project conservativism. There are subtle shades here, and we'll never be able to eliminate subtle forms of leaning-type-canvassing, but at least with this template we could have an agreed upon way to tag pages that might be magnets for canvassing-type notices (and I've outlined them above, we could generate a larger list).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I was just giving a friendly suggestion, but I do Oppose the proposal. Re: the female writer examples, and trending towards delete, sounds like no one notified WP:Feminism doesn't it?? Sometimes people don't find out about a conversation til later and see a rediculously off balance result for reasons we may never know, though the fact there are so few women editing might be part of it. Canvassing by a couple individuals who don't tell anyone could be it too. And tags aren't going to stop anyone anyway, even if they see them, unless they've been personally warned a few times. The rules remain so vague that, as I've said before, one person can get yelled at for only doing one or two notifications (who knew they were "mandatory" for volunteers) and another can do 10 and it's no biggie.  I've seen lots of flood keeps. It happens. ''CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd;  00:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The exact wording is not the problem. The problem is the protocol for choosing pages to add it to and what happens if someone deletes it later. If some pages are magnets, describe a systematic method for identifying which pages those are, otherwise we'd just be relying on a few people's subjectivities and skewing the results. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I'd like to see consensus in favor of such an action before accepting a single user's unilateral assertion that such steps are necessary. If this proposal stems from the post recently closed as canvassing at the fem Project, I'll note that a notice wasn't about to stop that user, who has since received a block and topic ban for other contentious history. czar   &middot;   &middot;  23:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is a very shaky solution to a problem that more or less does not exist. The policy is clear.  Violations are not rampant, and there are ways to deal with them when they occur. The toxic template looks downright scary.  SPECIFICO  talk  00:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

propose to delete similar boxes on other pages
To prevent skewing of results, I propose to delete the similar boxes posted on other pages (as a result of consensus above). I'll wait a week for any response. If pages can be identified, that can help. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Go for it. Maybe in edit summary say that if people really think it is necessary they should propose it on the talk page. ''CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd;  23:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Done, at the WikiProject talk pages for Conservatism, Gender Studies, and Politics/Liberalism; and I didn't find any other pages with the wording. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted you at the Conservatism WikiProject, and there are a lot of good reasons for my doing so. I'll begin with some background. I created that box on that particular talkpage:. I never intended it to be copied anywhere else, and I was unaware that it had been placed elsewhere until I saw the removal on my watchlist today, and followed it to the discussion here. The discussion here may well be correct that it is a bad idea for it to appear on other WikiProjects. But there were good reasons for it at that particular project. If you look at the edit history just before and after my diff above, there was a "drama" over canvassing there, and such "dramas" have unfortunately been a perennial problem there. Unfortunately, we keep getting new editors who want to push a US-conservative POV who are attracted like bees to honey to that talk page, and the notice serves a genuine educational purpose there. It's been a useful fix for a serious problem. As to what led someone else to copy it to other projects, I have no idea. Now when I looked here, I see very few editors involved in the discussion, and no evidence of posting a link to the discussion on the affected talk pages before making the deletion. So it's a rather slender "consensus" to delete it from other projects, and I would have been happy to explain this history if I had known about this discussion. But really, this is not a one-size-fits-all situation, and there are compelling reasons for the notice at its original location. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for coming here to help explain what happened. I would conclude from your comments that you were too bold.  Making statements like "but I don't need your permission", while ballsy, sound awfully self-righteous.  My research seems to indicate you disliked seeing editors swarm to 2012 Benghazi attack after User:Cirrus Editor made a general request for editors' help.  Next time, please assume good faith.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 01:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for educating me about AGF, as well as for educating me about what I liked and disliked. My edit summary should be understood in the context of the edit summary that came directly before, which stated that the removal of the notice should not be done without prior approval at this talk page. My edit was the "R" in WP:BRD, and my explanation on this talk page was the "D". --Tryptofish (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There have been real concerns, voiced by a number of editors in good standing, that the Conservatism WikiProject in particular has attracted and sometimes enabled inappropriate canvassing. The thread you dismissively linked above actually demonstrates one such instance. The tag was placed in good faith in response to a serious, substantive concern. MastCell Talk 02:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't object to the reverting of my deletion, given the circumastances described, which, as far as I know, don't much apply elsewhere. What seems particularly relevant besides volume is that, if I understand correctly, many of the posters in question have strongly conflicting ideas of what conservatism is, leading to posts that distract WikiProject respondents, creating a burden.
 * Although I did not open a talk topic on the WikiProject Conservatism talk page, I did link to the existing consensus discussion in the edit summary, and that served the purpose.
 * Nick Levinson (talk) 15:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks MastCell for explaining, and thanks Nick Levinson for understanding. I think that Nick's conclusions are very reasonable. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this latest move. I added several of these to politically-minded discussion boards in the interest of quelling inappropriate canvassing, and to balance the noticed that was heretofore only at conservativism. It was recently removed from wikiproject feminism, but there have been multiple instances of inappropriate canvassing there, e.g.:
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Feminism/Archive_2
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Feminism/Archive_2
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Feminism/Archive_2
 * etc. There is no problem with notifying any of these projects about articles within their scope, or even articles that are not in their scope but about which people might be interested in. However, FEMINISM does not mean "women", and I've seen several of these over the years there, and at other pages, that are basically trying to rally a particular POV to a discussion, which is the very definition of prohibited canvassing.
 * I think we should go back to the idea of a template; that way, the wording can be consistent and agreed upon. Many talk pages have many different templates, urging different sorts of things, and no one says Round in circles must be placed at the top of every page. Certainly, if consensus holds that the template should be removed from a particular project page, that is fine, but you have to allow time for consensus to form. Yes, I KNOW a template won't prevent people from doing bad things, but if that argument was really valid we'd just get rid of templates in general. The purpose of this template is to make people think. Why am I posting a notice to Wikiproject:Liberalism and not Wikiproject:Conservativism? is it because I'm not getting enough support for my side of the argument? Or is it because the article is clearly in scope for Liberalism, and not for conservativism?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If such a notice was on all of the WikiProject talk pages and collaboration pages and couldn't be removed from some, that would be fine with me, but no one has suggested a method for doing so. It's not impossible: a bot could be programmed to check that all pages of a defined type have a certain template (except that I don't know how to abstractly define a collaboration page other than a WikiProject talk page), and the bot could be an already-running bot with an additional item to check for. Thus, the major labor would be in programming and in the initial adding to pages; after that, there'd probably never be much work again. But consistency is important or results get skewed.
 * If there are only "several" instances in "years", even per page, given how many AfDs and other potential subjects of canvassing there are, there may not be enough of a problem to justify the major labor, although editor Obi-Wan Kenobi implied there may be much more of a problem, so perhaps someone can sample across WikiProject talk pages and archives to figure out how much it's a problem, by looking both for notices on some pages and for the absence of similar notices at nearby times on other relevant pages (since presence alone is not a problem but presence and absence may be).
 * Suppose a Wikipedia article about a small town that hosted a residential camp for children with mental disabilities omitted the camp (supposing they both still existed). Suppose WikiProjects about discrimination and mental illness had the proposed anti-canvassing notice but the geography WikiProjects did not. Assuming the notices are effectual (most are, often enough), the result would be to notify some editors but not others and skewing would occur if people who think mental illness is something polite people don't talk about in public are the ones who learn about the article but those who consider it nothing shameful and fully fit for discussion do not find out about the article's omission. So, I don't think we can select which WikiProjects should get the notice.
 * Of the three examples, 2–3 were within the scope of feminism, in that women's issues in modern discourse usually overlap feminism, visibility for some women as being more than wives and mothers being an important issue in feminism, covering the Ph.D. case and perhaps including the leaders and women in warfare (especially with the response), and the one about men being also about pro-feminism (by following the link). So a question about the 2–3 is whether other WikiProjects were notified, too.
 * Nick Levinson (talk) 15:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC) (Corrected syntax error and misspelling: 15:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC))
 * Again, the purpose of such a template is not to prevent notification; instead, it is to make people think, before posting their notification, of their intent in doing so, which should be neutral and pure of spirit (in an ideal world! :) ) Are they trying to rally people with a particular POV? If so, they should reconsider. You can also think about it this way - if we take feminism as an example, I've seen several notifications there of "a woman's article is being deleted, come save it" and "an article that is bad for women is being deleted, come help kill it". This to me is a non-neutral use of canvassing. Imagine if we had a Wikiproject Men's Issues (actually, one was just started), and you had the inverse, e.g. "Hey guys, an article about a non-notable woman is up for deletion, come help kill it" or "Hey guys, an article about a barely notable man is up for deletion, come help save it". Do you see the problem? In either case, such canvassing is unhelpful in general to the spirit of wikipedia. There seems to be a bit of affirmative-action-for-neglected-classes-of-editors here, such as the canvassing we see on the gendergap mailing list - canvassing a conservative page to get conservatives to weigh-in is a no-no, but canvassing a feminism page to get feminists to weigh in is a yes-yes. This is subtle, but there nonetheless. We *do* need affirmative action to get more women editors here, and to get better coverage of women's topics, etc, but I think we need to consider how such affirmative action intersects with our anti-canvassing policy.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand the purpose and thinking is fine and so is your counterexample, but the effect of the message would still be to skew unless added to all such pages. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * When you say "all such pages", do you mean "all wikiproject pages"? That seems a bit dramatic. Again, we have round in circles which could apply to many talk pages, but isn't placed on all of them by default. There are probably hundreds of talk page templates that can be placed. I think we should create a good template, get the wording right, and then put it where we think there might be issues, and let consensus sort out removing them if needed. If/when we add, we should also attempt to be balanced - so I wouldn't want it on women's rights but not on men's rights for example, nor on conservativism but not on liberalism. Doing a pepper/salt--ketchup/mustard approach may work best here - sauce for the goose/sauce for the gander? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd support adding the tag to any project where canvassing has been a substantial issue. A quick glance at the members list of the Conservatism WikiProject indicates that many of its participants have joined explicitly to promote a specific ideology and to find like-minded ideologically driven editors. Looking through the article's talkpage archives reveals a number of instances of inappropriate, ideologically-driven canvassing. Thus, the template seems warranted on that WikiProject's talkpage. I can't speak to whether similar issues exist on other WikiProjects; if so, then the template would be useful there as well. But the template should be added where it's demonstrably needed, on a case-by-case basis - that is balanced. It would be unbalanced to argue: "well, if you tag the conservative WikiProject, then you have to tag the liberal WikiProject", unless both WikiProjects have similarly evident issues with canvassing. MastCell Talk 18:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * MastCell just said exactly what I would have said. It's really all about the history of the particular talk page, and not about making all the talk pages look the same. I'd also add that there is no reason, a priori, to simply replicate the language I wrote (as much as I'm flattered). Perhaps there would be a good reason to word a message a little differently at another project. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the other thing that is crucial here is that there is a wide consensus that such a message belongs at Wikiproject Conservatism (due to a long history of the community having to deal with the canvassing from there) - anyone going on a solo run declaring other projects as canvas sites when they're not is effectively making a point. Fundamentally nobody should be giving warnings for things that haven't happened, and furthermore WP:BEANS applies. Moreover if an individual user is canvassing then the individual needs to dealt with-- Cailil  talk 12:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The Round in circles template would not produce the problem of skewing, and most other templates that occur to me at the moment also would not, so probably each WikiProject can post or not as it sees fit. I do mean all WikiProject talk pages plus all collaboration pages, that being the reason for the examples I already gave. The present consensus opposes most of the tagging and I still hold the same view. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a bit of a double standard here however. I placed the template on Feminism, where there is long term, blatant and inappropriate, canvassing, but a consensus of 2 people there decided to delete it. So we need to decide, can an individual project delete the wording? If so, couldn't conservativism delete it if they so chose? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As I see it, it's a matter of case-by-case. At the conservatism project, I put the notice there, as someone who actively watches the page but who is not actually a project member. However, there hasn't been any interest in removing it. In that case, there was something of a consensus that there was a problem that the message helped to resolve. So it depends on how you define "if they so choose", because "they" can include members of the community at large. I don't follow the feminism project, so I have to go by what you said here. On the face of it, one person (you) decided that there was long-term blatant canvassing, and two other people decided otherwise (but maybe that's not really the case, I don't know). Perhaps there should be a wider discussion at that project, with an RfC if need be. But I think the bottom line is that it's a mistake to try to treat all projects the same way, which is why you have gotten pushback here, and instead one has to look at the history of what has been going on, case-by-case. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "long term, blatant and inappropriate, canvassing" – care to present some diffs? As one of the members of a select group of editors invited to join the WikiProject Men's Issues, what are your thoughts on adding the template to that WikiProject page? Would it be a double standard not to do it after adding it to the WikiProject Feminism? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My proposal above was ketchup/mustard. If you add it to one, you should add it to any project which looks at the other side of the story. So, conservativism/liberalism; mens' rights/women's rights; israel/palestine; etc. So yes, we should add it there. Others have been arguing for case by case, or killing the template entirely (which, btw, doesn't even exist yet)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * speaking of reading diffs, which you like to chastise me on, how about reading what I wrote above, just scroll up, before your pointy queries.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I did read it. You consider a request for input concerning a split proposal as canvassing, although the article Men and feminism is directly related to the WikiProject? I disagree. Doesn't canvassing look more like this and this? I'm sorry that you feel bothered by my questions. I find your template additions quite pointy but let's agree to disagree. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sonic, you obviously DIDN'T read what I had posted above before asking your pointy question, as I clearly stated I would not want this on feminism w/o putting it on men's rights - then you come here and re-ask me my views on same, when I had already shared them above. So, please start by reading.
 * Secondly, it seems like you're making a reference to the canvassing notices I listed above - e.g. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Feminism/Archive_2 - did you actually "read" what was written? I'll write it here: "I think the Men's rights article needs a cleanup and neutralising, because it seems to be mostly from a "hurr hurr women are such bitches" viewpoint that killed off the female privilege article (thank god). Again, the way to neutralise it comes under this project more than anything, I think." That is a classic example of an improper canvass - first, notifying Feminism project (when men's rights isn't really in scope), but secondly, the form of the notice, which was not neutral. That particular one is less of a big deal, as it was really a content issue, as opposed to an ongoing AFD, but there are several examples of those as well. The point is, the editor in question CAME to the feminism page, LOOKING for a particular POV. If you want more examples of canvassing there, or at the gendergap mailing list, just brew a cup of coffee and start reading, I'm not doing your homework for you. And the other examples you give are also obvious canvassing. So what?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Appropriate notification of editors on clear policy issues
Currently a hypothetical question. The situation: multiple editors have explained a policy (or more than one) after being attracted by a noticeboard posting, then left the venue where the issue was discussed. But an editor (or two) who clearly are in the wrong engage in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and keep making the same errors or violations on the article. Is it appropriate to notify all the editors who explained the policy, even if it is six or seven? Or is there some upper number? Just wondering. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc  14:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it would depend on context. If the IDHT person(s) are referring directly to what those 6 or 7 editors said, or if the 6 or 7 seemed to indicate that they had an ongoing interest in the matter, then it doesn't strike me as canvassing. If it's more like a matter of trying to round up people who can be expected to look negatively at the IDHT person(s), then there might be a canvassing concern. It also depends on what the notification to the 6 or 7 says, and what it does or does not ask them to do. Although it's not the question that you asked, one obviously would not contact every editor who ever edited a particular policy page, when filing a complaint at ANI about a violation of that policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was thinking specifically of those editors who recently had explained/warned about the same policy to the same editor(s). User:Carolmooredc  11:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

anti-WMF canvassing
How is and  not canvassing? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I agree. I removed it as canvassing at one point, but was reverted; However, I've got better things to do than dig through the history for the diffs. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  08:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

AfD canvassing
Good morning. I have a small problem: I have been implicitly accused of inappropriate canvassing in the context of an AfD because I sought the participation of an administrator who wrote the notability guidelines in question. WP:CANVASSING states the following:

"In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.

"However, canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior.

"Appropriate notification

"An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:


 * "The talk page of one or more articles, WikiProjects, or other Wikipedia collaborations directly related to the topic under discussion.
 * "A central location (such as the Village pump or other relevant noticeboards) for discussions that have a wider impact such as policy or guideline discussions.
 * "On the talk pages of a user mentioned in the discussion . . ..
 * "On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include:
 * "Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article
 * "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
 * "Editors known for expertise in the field"

Masem, the editor whose participation I solicited, is an administrator who was intimately involved in the writing of the specific notability guidelines of WP:NSPORTS, as well as the related commentary of WP:GNG. I solicited his opinion because I believe with good reason that NSPORTS and GNG are being routinely misapplied in the very specific scenario epitomized by the Chalmers Tschappat AfD. Given Masem is an "editor known for expertise in this field," and an "editor who [has] participated in previous discussions on the same topic [or] closely related topics," I believe that the AfD closing admin's characterization of my invitation to him to participate in the AfD as inappropriate "canvassing" is incorrect. I would be grateful if concerned editors with expertise regarding our CANVASSING policy would express their opinions. I believed that I was carefully adhering to our canvassing guidelines with particular reliance on the highlighted sections above. Was I wrong? If so, I owe two administrators an apology -- one for getting him involved inappropriately, and another for suggesting that his own interpretation of WP:CANVASSING is incorrect. Your guidance is requested. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The only people that seem to pay attention to this "policy" seem to be those who come here with a POV complaint. As I discussed to silence above, we ought to automate the process, you know, with a BOT, to automatically notify all involved editors with generic neutral text, to notify them of an issue in which they would be appropriate to comment.  Full disclosure:  I am involved in the NSPORTS discussion in general, though I did not know about the current complaint.  That has nothing to do with my proposal posted weeks ago. Trackinfo (talk) 09:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sadly, TrackInfo, WP:CANVASSING appears to be one of the most discussed, least read and understood, and least enforced Wikipedia policies. Agree with it or disagree with it, most Wikipedia editors have not read it and do not understand what it actually says.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It may be misunderstood, or misapplied. There are far too many accusations being thrown around.  We ought to support this policy with a procedure, automated by a bot, to take the POV aspect out of the process.  Or someone should come up with a reasonable objection for why we shouldn't do this. Trackinfo (talk) 08:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The role of social media in canvassing
I would like to point to a recent arbitration case where I found User:Newyorkbrad's comments quite insightful: "For years I've been struggling to figure out how our anti-canvassing policies should be updated and applied. Given the prominence of Wikipedia and of Wikipedia articles, it is entirely inevitable that when controversies arise, they will be discussed off-wiki both privately and publicly." This sentiment was also echoed by User:Worm That Turned in the same discussion: "For the moment, I'm going to abstain. The first did appear to be canvassing, but as NYB states below our canvassing policy is hugely out of date. We live in a world dominated by social media, where people will highlight matters to each other quickly. I think the community needs to consider the issue of canvassing in this changing world, and as such feel uncomfortable making a decision on it here." I would like the community to re-review our policies on canvassing and how to best integrate and interpret the great leaps and bounds in social media and technology into this page. The problematic and outdated "stealth canvassing" subsection should also be addressed.

A few questions

 * "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 identical 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."
 * This sounds like too much wikilawyering, particularly 'identical notices should be sent to [the opposing viewpoint]' and 'do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them'; honestly this whole clause should be taken out.
 * I think that the first part should be kept, but I'd change the wording from identical to similar. Wikilawyering, being what it is, could be used to penalize an editor who would send nearly identical notices to people, only differing in let's say one word: a) "in the past you've supported X" and "in the past you've opposed X". I'd support removing the second sentence, as what is "too many" is unclear, and the limitation of "do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them" is plain ridiculous. There's no way to opt-in to receiving messages anyway, nor to opt-out of anything but some mass bot mailings. It's nothing but a dead wording to beat down people with during exercises of wiki-lawyering. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Indiscriminately sending announcements to editors can be disruptive for any number of reasons. If the editors are uninvolved, the message has the function of "spam" and is disruptive to that user's experience. More importantly, recruiting too many editors to a WP:dispute resolution can often make resolving the dispute impossible. Remember the purpose of a notification is to improve the dispute resolution process, not to disrupt it."
 * I've noticed that many editors say this is in fact NOT canvassing, because while its inappropriate, if there's no language in the message that would attempt to persuade another to take sides in a dispute, then it is merely disruption and should go on Disruptive editing rather than Canvassing. (This is followed immediately by the section on "campaigning" which directly addresses canvassing.)
 * I am ok with the first sentence, as we do want to note that people should not be spamming talk pages of uninvolved editors. The second sentence ("more importantly...") seems unnecessary, and anyway, most dispute resolutions I've seen fail because there's not enough active people participating in them, not because there are too many. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "possibly using [[Image:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' 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. on their talk page"
 * Don't template the regulars.
 * Not sure what's your point is here, other than the above paragraph is too long and could be summarized better? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Users with a prior history of disruptive canvassing, which they have previously been asked to discontinue, may be blocked immediately without further warning, if such an action is deemed to be necessary."
 * Redundant; users with a prior history of disruption, period, may be blocked immediately without further warning.
 * Uegh, I support removal it, but because it seems to open to much power to abuse. What counts as prior history of disruption? Getting blocked once? Five tiems? Getting talk page warnings? Five years ago? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Finally, on stealth canvassing: "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. Depending on the specific circumstances, 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."
 * There's a lot of moral, ethical, and legal questions behind the use of social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc) behind this, but we'll stick to some Wikipedia policy discussion. For one, WP:OFFWIK states "Please note that...engaging in any type of behavior on any other sites, including sister projects or Wikipedias in other languages is not a violation of English Wikipedia policy." And then WP:OFFWIKI (is that an essay? information page? guideline? policy?) states "As a note of caution, using external forums to make decisions about Wikipedia content is frowned upon. This is particularly true if discussion fails to take place on the wiki as well, to allow people to participate equally even if they were unaware of the off-wiki discussion. In general, a consensus must be built on Wikipedia to indicate that the community supports an action. However, as a place to get questions answered or have a wide-ranging discussion that may not be specific to a particular encyclopedia article, an external forum can often be useful." There's quite a few competing viewpoints I can see on Wikipedia; whether or not offwiki actions should be used to judge onwiki behavior (as in another recent arbitration case), whether they can be used to censor said behavior (no more excessively insulting people on 4chan), the relevance of NOTSOCIALNETWORK, and the impacts Wikipedia can and do have on real life and vice versa (the relevance of Wikipedia is in the real world).
 * Ah, now we get to the "good" part (i.e. the dumbest, least enforcable, most anti-AGF, biggest "stick to wikilawyer people with" part). Now, WP:OFFWIKI seems like a wikiessay (I've just tagged it as such) that's practically unknown and unlinked to, so it cannot be considered a serious guideline, but the sentiments from arbitrators you quoted above carry much more weight, certainly good enough to start seriously considering the implications of this policy. There are numerous problems here. First, it's nearly impossible to control, so it's a dead (rarely enforceable) policy. Second, there are plenty of forums out there, frequented by respected Wikipedians and regular members of the community, from IRC, official Wikipedia listervs, Facebook groups, other wikis, blogs, WMF media, regional chapters forums, off-wiki forums, face to face meetups, etc. Some of them are more transparent, some are much less so. If people want to canvass, they want. How they do it is irrelevant, unless we want to become another NSA and spy on all Wikipedia editors, they (we) will find a way to talk with others. All that this results in is anti-AGF suspicion ("how did you find out about this discussion, hmm"?). We should change the wording here. Instead of discouraging off-wiki communication (being critical, creating rules to beat people down with) we should encourage on wiki communication due to its virtues (transparent, archived, etc.). We should encourage people to use neutral audience good canvassing tools like RfC more, and I'd suggest creating a forum, a noticeboard, where people could list debates that they think are suffering from too much partisanship/potential canvassing. The best solution do deal with canvassing is to encourage more participation, ideally from neutral parties (but per NPOV, nobody is really neutral). I think most canvassing is a result of few people outside those with some interest in given issue being likely to discuss it; as noted elsewhere - the other side of discouraging notification is limiting participation, particularly from experts. I think it's time to seriously revise this: let's encourage participation, and to deal with partisan participation, create a forum where it could be reported, not to gag people, but so such discussions can benefit from influx of neutral parties. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * (I might have to start an RFC on this.) TeleComNasSprVen (talk &bull; contribs) 03:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It's nice to see the community wake up to the fact that this policy is outdated and badly written in a number of places. I found this discussion just now, and I see this hasn't received enough attention, so here are my few cents above in an attempt to re-awaken this thread. I fully support starting an RfC on this, with Village Pump notifications, as it is clear this page doesn't see much attention. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Notification of involved editors
I've been accused of Canvassing a couple of times when attempting to notify editors who have worked on an article, that the article has been taken for deletion discussion. Somehow, for all the words in the policy, that case is not specified. If an editor has edited to an article, clearly visible in history, they should be involved in the discussion. By the very nature that they pushed the save button, they have proven themselves to care about the subject and that they proclaim to know about the subject. Why or how could notifying these editors be considered canvassing? Since there is apparent ambiguity here, this should be cleaned up and specifically stated. Since political activism is the next accusation, we should have a generic notification template. And to take out the filtration process a biased editor might do if selecting which editors were to be notified manually, that ought to be automatically sent to all involved editors upon the creation of the AfD. This ought to be basic procedure. So how do we make this so? Trackinfo (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll go a lift further, CfDs and TfDs affect more than one item. Anybody who has transcluded either a category or template involved in a deletion discussion should get notified, otherwise a hidden discussion (and you have to admit, these discussions are hidden to the majority of wiki users) could wipe out a person's work without them having the opportunity to defend it. Trackinfo (talk) 02:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that wide notifications are good. The more people involved in past editing/discussions one can notify, the better. The only problem would be if notifications were selective, i.e. if you were notifying only one side of the debate (provided that both sides participated in the editing/discussions). Deletion notices require the notification of the creator anyway; I think it is simply best practice to notify any major contributors if possible. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That is why I suggest it be BOT driven and procedural. If it is an automated process, to all editors of the involved article(s), then there is no selectivity or bias.  You would be reaching individuals who have either added to or deleted from an article.  Specifically that means, they have professed a knowledge of the subject.  Related to the discussion below, I think if associated wikiprojects were to be contacted, that too would be a good thing.  Here on neutral ground we should draft neutral language.  "An article you have previously edited, {article name} has been nominated for deletion.  The discussion is happening at {link}."  "An article associated with {name wikiproject}, {article name} has been nominated for deletion.  The discussion is happening at {link}." Trackinfo (talk) 04:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing Country / Nation level Wikiprojects
I propose to add a short subsection or atleast a bullet point forbidding editors to request help at country Wikiprojects (doesn't count for generic wikiprojects) for the purpose of content disputes (and more specifically inter-country / international disputes). This is synonymous to introducing deliberate systematic bias by inviting editors from a wikiproject with a very high probability of shared nationality and ofcourse as it is done at the posting editor's choice, it's almost always when they need an opinion where most from that nationality will share their POV. In my opinion and experience, this is never 'countered' by informing at the counter part wiki projects which are not as active or have a few editors or not as active WP:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. It only takes only a few editors from the informed Wikiproject to come and tilt the balance of discussion due to POV and bias even if a majority of the editors know better so AGF for the majority Wikiproject members is moot. Same is the case with the less active counter part that may have editors who know better and do not get canvassed to the discussion and hence the few of the few is much less than few from the many (if that makes some sense). It shouldn't count as canvassing when an obscure article needs editing without a content dispute, it should be only considered during a content dispute or to game the system by doing the same later etc. I will also note that this act is not always intentional by the editors but has almost always the same result and informing them of WP:CANVASSING that specifically clarifies this will counter systematic bias. -- lTopGunl (talk) 07:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC) }}
 * Support as nom as I have seen this happen alot and I have felt that I can not (always) clearly suggest WP:CANVASSING to them though it does already apply in blatant conditions. This type of posting is unhealthy in such situations even if it is clearly not canvassing and promotes WP:BATTLE. -- lTopGunl (talk</b>) 07:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose This idea seems to be oriented at limiting input, confining it to people who are NOT necessarily informed about a subject. It is equivalent to politicians who try to choose their electorate.  That is the consistent problem with most AfDs, its always a very small group of very opinionated editors who may be or most likely are not experts in the subject under discussion.  If it is possible to invite people potentially knowledgeable about a subject into a debate, thats a good thing.   Yes that may sway the decision away from the trend.  Remember, wikipedia is here to inform people.  We are here to present accurate information.  So the more informed voices we bring into the conversation, the more voices we bring into the conversation in general, the more likely we are to come to a proper consensus. Trackinfo (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose This seems overly draconian to me. While some bias may exist in country WikiProjects, a lot of useful knowledge also exists there. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I totally agree with Trackinfo; this is a perfect illustration of why this policy is one of the biggest hurdles dragging this project down (together with COI). NPOV already states that nobody is neutral. Sure, people related to a given country may be a bit more partisan - but also more knowledgeable. We need as much input as possible; the correct solution would be to make such canvassing mandatory for all and any parties; word should be spread wide - the more people who participate, the fewer partisants there will be, and the more reasonable ones will join. On another note: why single out countries? Why not forbid to canvass on religion-wikiprojects for religion article disputes? Etc., etc. A bad, bad idea that needs to be shot down now, buried and salted. PS. A question to the nominator: since you are proposing a rule that would affect a large group of WikiProjects, did you leave a note about your proposal at their pages? Or are you trying to, in essence, pass a law about a group without telling said group they are even being discussed? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't mind this for religion projects either.. it would probably apply in a similar way... I only dealt with country disputes so probably that's why I used that example. While I recognize that more input is useful, I have seen the noticeboards being used as canvassing tactics to overwhelm the less represented projects or areas. Wikipedia is already trying hard to counter the systematic bias that comes in inherently due to no internet access to a majority of the world population and whose POV is often not balanced in. The ones that do give input from those regions should not be reverted out by multiple editors once a more active wikiproject is informed. While it is true that consensus counts the weight of arguments and not just the numbers, reverts don't and this unhealthy process refers to editors joining in to revert and then leaving one line arguments without further discussion. I don't think it is draconian as the suggestion is only limited to disputes and not for general improvement of articles. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 10:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to add, since I missed to answer the last part of your question, I've transcluded this discussion right from the point I proposed it to the much wider audience of WP:VPR, so please assume good faith. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 17:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Proposal assumes bad faith, which is a terrible basis from which to operate. Resolute 16:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It actually assumes good faith on the majority of the project memebers. However, WP:SPADE applies; what's been happening (or has the chances to happen) should be considered logically. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Except that you propose to deny that good faith majority the opportunity to comment because of a few bad actors. Resolute 16:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I don't want that and I am open to suggestions that would be able to achieve this without preventing the good faith editors... perhaps general guideline for them to not participate in reverts or something like that. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose although I am not necessarily opposed to the idea in general. I guess the problems I see are that it is in at least some of these cases the people who are involved in national projects, or projects related to specific religions, who will be among the most knowledgeable about a topic. While those groups can and often do include some of the most partisan POV pushers, they also include some of the best informed editors, and I don't see it as beneficial to make efforts which might exclude the latter for the purposes of trying to keep the former from having too much input, much of which can often be seen by the closing admin as problematic anyway. John Carter (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out all discussions are not closed by an admin.. the proposal is hoping to target disputes between 2-3 editors that don't go as far as an RFC, rather simple talkpage discussion. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right. I was thinking more about formal RfCs than about discussions per se. I would suppose though that in the event that the non-RfC discussion does seem to be perhaps too one-sided, calling for RfCs would still be in both instances the apparent reasonable next step in such instances. John Carter (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That does appear to be the case more than often.. which is why I called unhealthy to do so in the first place. I do agree that it also excludes editors with more knowledge on the topic and assuming good faith most of them will not react in a nationalistic way (or may not respond at all which is even more the reason for this to go forward), but the few who do risk to introduce animosity between the original editors disputing by fueling it... perhaps some other way could be proposed by another editor to do this without preventing that. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose: If there is a dispute involving groups X and Y, and both of them have related wikiprojects, then the appropiate way to request more input is to notify Wikiproject X and Wikiproject Y. That's already said in the policy Cambalachero (talk) 16:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - agree with others here that this proposal would only serve to limit input and that existing policy already addresses this issue. I also echo User:Piotrus' concern that this proposal appears to be an attempt to implement policy changes that affect a large number of editors and WikiProjects without their input. Mihaister (talk) 23:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's time to WP:SNOW close this. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup, pretty much.. You've beat me to saying that. I've removed the RFC template... but not closed as withdrawn because some one might just come along and drop an out of the box suggestion that doesn't involve implementing this proposal per se or any stopping at project noticeboards and yet helps in some way. Some one may NAC it if they feel that's not likely too. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 03:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This topic just caught my eye, and I'm here to do just that: point something out without saying we should implement the proposal. Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland, which I think is exactly an example of what you have been discussing here. I think it's an example of where one has to careful about subtle canvassing, but it does not rise to where we should WP:CREEP. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I see why this proposal can't be implemented (and as I said, I wouldn't continue to ask for it with even an apparent consensus against it), but it is often a disappointing thing to see happening in content disputes and it is not a fair deal. I think for now this will have to be independently judged towards tendentious editing and current canvassing guidelines and if an editor has a pattern of gaming this way, it can still be dealt with. The proposal was to stop the ones who just do it some times so as not to surpass the community tolerance, though there's a lot of collateral there and wont be a feasible option as you and a lot of editors above said. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 15:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Notification of style issues in RMs?
At Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style,  I've proposed the idea of advertising at WT:MOS those WP:RM discussions that involve issues of style guidance, such as capitalization, similar to the way many RMs are automatically advertised at wikiprojects. An editor responded that this would be pure canvassing, and that I should bring the idea here to have it shot down. What do people think? Dicklyon (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Would this be canvassing?
There was a recent case where someone pinged another user, by posting this on a talk page, to get them to the page and get their take on controversial additions to the page.

"I reverted (user name) here on his addition, pointing him to the WP:MEDRS guideline. He re-added the material, and with what is not much of an improvement. (Pinged user), as a fellow WP:Med editor who has also recently mentioned/interacted with them (as seen here and here), do you mind weighing in on this matter?"

My question is, am I allowed to use this message format to ping other users to a page, or would it be WP:Canvassing if I do so? Does requesting other users come to a page to get their thoughts on an issue if presented like this count as canvassing, or is it just regular communication? --7157.118.25a (talk) 04:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I told 7157.118.25a to ask here if what I did -- asking a fellow WP:Med editor who knows WP:MEDRS well and who had previously interacted with him (in a positive way) -- was inappropriate WP:Canvassing. In other words, I told 7157.118.25a that Jytdog has been involved with the Homosexuality article before his interaction with him there, and he is well-versed in medical topics and knows WP:MEDRS well; notifying him passes what is considered appropriate WP:Canvassing. But then again, the WP:Canvassing guideline currently mentions nothing about pinging editors via WP:Echo. Flyer22 (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty new to the talk sections, but I found a project in the IdeaLab on recruiting women with disabilities and I think I know some people who run online communities for women with disabilities and who could make that happen. I sent the project page to them, in the hopes that they could help flesh out the idea and make it something that would be easy to implement. Is connecting them to the project page canvassing?

I also posted the project on of wikipeda forums I know are frequented by women with disabilities and some other projects on reducing harassment on a blog post about harassment on wikipedia. My hope was that I could encourage people with related interests, experiences, and expertise to get involved in the discussion, but it could effect the vote (so far I've only heard back from one friend, who is also an editor). 87.17.188.189 Xttina.Garnet (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this canvassing? Text relates to style noticeboard proposal
One editor believes that the following text, which was posted to WP:RSN, WT:ORN, WT:RequestedMoves, WT:NPOVN, and WT:BLPN, violates WP:canvassing. The other does not.

There is talk at the village pump about creating a noticeboard similar to this one for style issues. Right now, people tend to bring their style questions to WT:MoS and other talk pages:. They do not much disrupt business there, but there is some concern that people may not know where to go to get a clear answer about Wikipedia's policies regarding punctuation, capitalization, spelling, and other style issues. Proponents of the measure say that a noticeboard would be easier for people to find. Opponents of the measure argue that such a style board might facilitate forum shopping and drama. Contributions from users who have experience with Wikipedia's noticeboards would be very welcome. The proposal itself is at the Village Pump. A mockup of the style noticeboard is here. The first editor contacted the poster with canvassing concerns on the poster's talk page here (will reveal identities of participants). The poster requested clarification and constructive criticism. The first editor stated that participants on noticeboards would be more likely to approve the creation of a new noticeboard. The poster stated that participants on noticeboards would be valuable to the discussion of the proposal because they would know whether objections to it were merited or not and that he/she did not believe they would be inherently more or less likely to approve the creation of a new noticeboard. Thank you for any help you choose to give. 06:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

What defines excessive notifications?
How many RfC notifications are reasonable. The canvasing guidelines clearly state that the number should be limited. How do we decide if that limit has been crossed? Excessive notifications is the core concern with[| this ANI.] I feel that 30+ notices, updates and adding to the list of locations after the discussion does not go the way the originator of the RfC would count as excessive. The original RfC was posted in seven locations which seems sufficient if a bit on the too much side to me. If you can't find the right 4-5 places to post the RfC then perhaps you need to do a better job thinking about the issue (in my view). After a period two additional notices were added to new locations and new notices were posted at several of the old locations (on some high traffic boards the notices cycle off rather quickly). Anyway, while I'm using a real ANI as the example, please answer this in general terms. Thoughts on the actual ANI can be added there. ThanksSpringee (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * To me, and I was one editor who was lured in by that notification, or more particularly, by the efforts of another editor to retroactively HIDE that notification, I think that was appropriate. I think there is an attitude, which I ranted about on an entirely unrelated AfD where senior wikipedia users wish to keep these decisions closed.  Making these discussions about the removal of content (which is always the goal of a discussion, it is always a net negative vs status quo) by the smallest number of participants seems to be the active goal.  I've complained for years that these discussions are hidden in backrooms.  Worse yet, moving things around for the purposes of WP:FORUMSHOPping.  I've edited a lot, have way too many uninteresting notice boards (like this one) in my watch list and have chased numerous insane AfD attempts, yet I still am shocked when one of these destructive decisions ripples through a series of content I have contributed to.  To the particular case of, his notices were to the articles affected and related to the content.  That is an ideal means of notification because they do not send bothersome messages directly to user talk pages.  Frankly, I'm active.  I'd like to get the notification whenever any content is going to be wholesale removed that affects an article I have contributed to.  I realize other editors don't want to take such an active stance.  HughD's process is an ideal alternative.  He should be commended.  The only thing that could be as effective but more neutral, as I have proposed to dead air in the past, is to Bot automate this notification process. Trackinfo (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I see what you are saying. You like the idea of informing more rather than less.  I agree in cases such as one I was recently involved with where basically no one outside of the specific project talk page was notified and then an article I worked on was blanked.  That said, I don't think we have defined excessive.  On the ANI in question several of us feel the editor's notices were excessive.  Now, like many of his other bad behaviors perhaps this would have gone unnoticed were it not for the biased, though not radically so, locations where the RfC was posted and the clearly disruptive way he interacts with others on the talk pages (and floods them with often useless replies).  He has never adequately justified why he picked some and left other logical choices out.  Certainly the Citizens United talk page is unrelated yet likely a good place to find people who are sympathetic with his cause.  We also have the generally disingenuous relies to others etc.  Look at the number of editors, including those who agree with the proposal who have said the behavior is destructive.  It's clear from this and a few other ANI's of which he is/was the subject, not to mention some recent blocks, that he is walking the disruptive line.  That said, we still don't have an answer when the guideline says an editor goes from reasonable to not.  The guidelines do not say error on the side of more vs fewer notifications.  So based on your views, how do we decide when an editor has gone too far? Springee (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What would be too far? Obviously bothering the disinterested.  But remember we are the #1 information site on the web.  We get billions of article reads, serving many millions of people.  So on a decision to censor content from that readership, how many people participating is too much?  5, 10, 100.  I've never seen an RfC or an AfD with that much participation.  When we delete content on the misrepresentations of one editor and maybe a couple of votes by dittohead friends, we are a disservice to our community.  I've watched it happen repeatedly, too often in a rear view mirror.  We have a corrupted system where it is much harder to get content back, its almost impossible to SEE what was deleted.  As I keep saying ,it is an entirely negatively based system.  The nature of THIS content is political in nature.  There is one side that actively wants to bury negative information about participants on their side.  I see the same names of the same offending group of editors doing the same things on other articles with a similar political slant.  That makes their actions all the more offensive and improper. Trackinfo (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Certainly the Citizens United talk page is unrelated" Please note Citizens United v. FEC was included in the "See Also" section of Americans for Prosperity, the target article of the RfC question, until it was a few hours after Springee's ANI filing by a User:Capitalismojo, on record as opposed to the RfC question in the Survey section of the RfC, as is Springee. BTW before you ask, I didn't add Citizens United v. FEC to the "See Also" section of Americans for Prosperity. What is your basis for saying that Citizens United v. FEC is "likely a good place to find people who are sympathetic with his cause." What is the cause? What is the bias of the participants at Citizens United v. FEC in your view? Can you please be more specific about the "destructive" behavior you mention? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 02:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * For someone who claims they want a general answer to a question of policy, you seem to be delving quite deeply into sharing details of your real ANI example. Hugh (talk) 04:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * wrote "It's clear from this and a few other ANI's..." When does asking a general question on a guideline talk page become WP:FORUMSHOPping? Hugh (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your question. We can determine what is and is not excessive RfC notification by referencing our policies and guidelines. WP:RFC says "one or more" and explicitly authorizes venues such as notice boards, associated project talk pages, and closely related article talk pages. WP:Discussion notices "Best practices" states that "regular updates may be appropriate" and that "setting a time for the discussion to end" is a best practice. Our behavioural guideline WP:CANVAS defines excessive as "indiscriminate" and "disruptive." We should expect that a necessary precondition of a problem with excessive RfC notices would involve several noticeboard regulars, WikiProject participants, or article talk page contributors, commenting in objection to the RfC notice, or deleting the RfC notice with a terse edit summary, not just those on record in opposition to the particular RfC question. I hope this helps answer your question. Thank you again for your question. Hugh (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Off-Wikipedia Workgroups and Discussion
Is there any Wikipedia rule or policy that prohibits people from meeting and working-out differences of opinions on articles outside the (horribly abysmal and inadequate) Wikipedia Discussion Pages?Jonny Quick (talk) 07:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * There are quasi-conventions where I am sure some Wikipedia issues get discussed, and there is definitely discussion on IRC, so the answer is basically "no." AFAICT Collect (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Pinging?
Quick question: Does pinging a user in order to get them to participate in a discussion violate our prohibition against canvassing? I feel that if I know user x agrees with me the sky is red, then pinging him in the midst of related talk page discussion should count as canvassing. Calidum T&#124;C 04:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * CANVASS basically stipulates that either you have a strong notion as to the views of the person or persons contacted, or that you give a non-neutral statement of the RfC. Your question, however, is in a grey area - if you know he will agree with you on everything, then it is improper to ping him to get his attention. If you have discussed the sky colour with him in the past, then it might be CANVASS.  If you simply feel you have presented sufficient material that you expect a neutral observer would nod his head at your claim, then it is not CANVASS.   If you cite his posts from elsewhere and you ping him out of courtesy, it is generally not CANVASS.  So without a real explanation of the case, there are at least four separate possible results. Collect (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This was never followed up on, but it has been an issue lately. I'm referring to this post, where an editor has pinged two others and included in the post a question to the effect "can you support this suggestion?" The suggestion is that of another editor, but one that is supported by the editor making the post. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * What AussieLegend calls a current example is an incorrect example; see my replies on the matter. Collect made it quite clear above what canvassing is and isn't. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's an incorrect example in your opinion, which is why I have posted here. Collect has made it quite clear that without a real explanation of the case, there are at least four separate possible results, which is why I have explained this case. In my opinion it is stealth canvassing: You haven't posted a question directly on the users' talk pages. Instead you have pinged the users and asked "can you support this suggestion", while trying to influence them by flattering them, saying "You both know that I highly respect you, and appreciate your opinions on any topic". -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. Stealth canvassing? Not in the least. Your "can you support this suggestion" argument has taken the matter out of context, and is rather silly. Like I stated, Collect made it quite clear above what canvassing is and isn't. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You really should wait for, or anyone, to respond. Another editor has taken issue with your comments at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler, saying On that basis I think there is a lesson for [Flyer22 Reborn] to learn here: if you ping editors for an RFC then "What do you think of Masem's proposal?" would be preferable to "Can you support Masem's proposal?". Please give others a chance to weigh in. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 22:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

OK - when you ask other editors, you should use language which in no way whatever can be construed as showing your own opinion, and, ideally, you should include editors who definitely do not always agree with your own position, but who are regarded as generally reliable impartial folks on the issue at hand. I hope this clarifies things a bit :). Collect (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

AussieLegend, if you make claims about me that I dispute, I am going to dispute those claims. I do not have to wait for others to weigh in on your mischaracterization of me and/or my post. I felt that Collect initially ignored you (he was editing Wikipedia long after you pinged him), and I took that as him not seeing the matter as seriously as you do. Collect stated above, "CANVASS basically stipulates that either you have a strong notion as to the views of the person or persons contacted, or that you give a non-neutral statement of the RfC." And like I noted, "That you took 'Can you support Masem's suggestions?' as me asking them to support any of the suggestions is your interpretation. If I had stated 'Can or can't you support Masem's suggestions?', I highly doubt you would have taken issue. But there was no need whatsoever to state 'Can or can't you support Masem's suggestions?' Some grammar experts, for example, believe that stating 'whether or not' is redundant; you can simply stop at 'whether.' I stopped at 'can.' When I pinged them, it was without any assumption of what they would state [...] WP:Canvass, as made clear at that guideline and on its talk page, is about knowingly pulling in editors to influence a discussion in one's favor. I did not know or suspect that Betty Logan felt this way. And I felt it was better that I ask for their opinions on this dispute out in the open on this talk page instead of at their talk pages."

As seen here, Betty Logan did not state that she took issue with my wording or support the implication that I canvassed her. She simply suggested that it would be better if I use different wording, and it's clear that she suggested that because you dislike my wording. She was also clear that we do not always agree. In fact, there are various times we have disagreed. The two us disagreeing is not a rare site. We even disagree on this spoiler matter; in other words, we are not in full agreement. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

And as for adding pinging to the guideline, this dispute is an excellent example of the gray area that Collect noted above, and is why pinging is unlikely to be added to the guideline. At least not without careful wording. I maintain that this is the case since editors ping others to support their viewpoint in discussions all the time, including with regard to disruptive editors. I certainly ping editors to discussions involving disruptive editors all the time, and so does just about everyone else on Wikipedia. In these cases, it is almost always clear that we are pinging them for backup. When it comes to cases like the aforementioned RfC, biasing the discussion was never on my mind, and I don't believe that I did bias it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Right to defend yourself
This policy has been used in an attempt to restrict my right to defend myself against the serious accusation of wikistalking. For the record, the accusation is totally unfounded. When the accusation was made, I naturally sought comment from four other editors who, in my view, could verify that my accuser was involved in longstanding disputes. The details are not so important, because the main point is there is an accusation and a need to defend it. How surprised I was to find that this policy was used to critise me for seeking comments from other editors involved in the dispute. The right to a defense is a fundamental of law. Even criminals have the right to defend themselves. Travelmite (talk) 05:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've just discovered that the editor went so far as to actually revert my requests! . The editors reasoning is here . Travelmite (talk) 05:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is possible to inform someone of an ongoing discussion at ANI or wherever in neutral manner as explained in WP:CANVASS. You could simply use a template such as Template:See discussion or even Template:ANI-notice which (I think) will automatically add an appropriate neutral section heading as well. If you don't like templates, then you could simply post short neutral message and heading, and also include a link to the relevant discussion. There's really no point in trying and defend yourself the talk pages of various editors, etc. because the issue is not going to be resolved there. You should instead focus that energy at the ANI thread because that's where the issues between you and this other editor are going to be ultimately dealt with.
 * As for you edits being reverted, I think this was probably not a good idea, even more so if the other editor would likely be pre-disposed to "taking your side" so to speak in the relevant discussion. I personally would not have reverted you per WP:TPO, but would've have pointed out that you might have been canvassing in the ANI thread, and perhaps even by adding uw-canvass to your talk page. Reverting/redacting another editor's talk page posts, however, is an area where care needs to be taken and is something which should be reserved for serious policy/guideline violations such as personal attacks, BLP violations, copyright violations, clear-cut vandalism, etc. If the post was made on article's talk page or a general noticeboard, then I guess it could've been collapsed/removed per WP:TPG, but things are much trickier on another editor's user talk page. Instead of removing the post, simply adding something about them (with diffs) to the ANI thread, and explaining why they are believed to be improper seems a wiser course of action. The other editors participating in the ANI would see the diffs and then be able to make their own judgment as to whether it was canvassing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, agree. A point of clarification: I didn't try to defend myself on the talk pages. Just a sentence directing them to the discussion. What I think needs to be made clear on this guideline about Canvassing, is that a person defending an accusation is an exception to this specific rule (other rules such as attacks and vandalism would still apply, as they are certainly not part of organising a defence to an accusation). Travelmite (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I would suggest a line which says that "This guideline does not apply in situations where an editor is defending an accusation on a dispute page, as the right to present a defense is paramount." Travelmite (talk) 10:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate that this has been an unpleasent experience for you, but I don't feel the change you are proposing is needed at all. It is completely possible for any editor to notify another in a neutral manner by using either of the templates I mentioned above, or with a simple message and a link. There's no need for any more information that to be to be provided. If an editor wants to know more, they can find out themselves by checking out the relevant discussion. Now, while I may not agree with your proposal, I don't own this page. You can of course ask for comments from the community at large via an WP:RFC if you wish. Perhaps, others will feel differently than I do and be in favor of such a change. I would strongly advise, however, that you do seek a consensus for any changes you wish to make since this is a community-wide guideline and being WP:BOLD is likely going to lead to a quick revert. Good luck to you whichever course you choose to follow. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What is neutral? That's a far higher standard than being civil. Is that a requirement normally on a talk page? But let's be practical. Someone is being accused, so how then it reasonable for them to be prevented from saying they are innocent or need a particular form of assistance. What sort of temperament would you expecting from people? Travelmite (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * A simple message such as "There is a discussion going on here (insert wikilink) that you may be interested in. it would be appreciated if you would make your views known." and that's it. Your "Request for character reference" totally violates the canvassing policy. It in effect says "I am having some troubles with another editor and would appreciate you speaking up for me". Furthermore, the way you phrased it could be considered "leading the witness" so to speak. This is just not done on Wikipedia. You may ask for additional opinion, but deliberately seeking out editors who would side with you while excluding those who may have an opposing view can, and will, get you blocked. There is no "right to defense". Wikipedia is a private website where there are no rights. You plead your case to the wider community. Those inclined to defend you will do so without your urging, similarly, those inclined to condemn will also do so. Blackmane (talk) 12:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your contribution. Leading the witness is a particular form of questioning. Is this restricted too? It is astonishing that the words "I would appreciate you speaking for me" are inappropriate. Of course, they are not. You're saying (insert wikilink) is okay, but it's necessary to avoid the people who can defend you. Does this apply to the accuser also? Regarding rights, Wikipedia is not above the law. You cannot mistreat people or be racist against people. If anything it holds a higher standard than private life. Nevertheless, the net result of this prescriptive action is denial of justice. Would you agree that a new editor seeking help would innocently write something like:
 * Hi, you were help to me last month when I started Wikipedia. Now I am in trouble, and someone is threatening to kick me out. They've been awful to me and I couldn't take it. I wrote something and now I am being accused of the worse things imaginable. If you could help me out one more time, I'd appreciate it greatly.
 * The theoretical defendant who may write that is not exercising any tricky legal tactic. It's a normal human response. However that same person who does not understand such arcane rules (the new editor for example) is blocked, and the experienced harasser continues unabated. Can you see the argument I've made in response that Wikipedia's dispute resolution (as you describe) would mostly result fundamentally unjust outcomes? Travelmite (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Marchjuly suggested an RfC. That would point to here? Travelmite (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I have re-iterated a general proposal at Village_pump_(policy) Travelmite (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * In reply to your original response to my comment, there can be no leading the witness as all evidence on wiki can be obtained on wiki through the form of diffs in the contributions history. (Insert wikilink) is the link to where the discussion is taking place for example WP:ANI which would take you to the latest thread on ANI. It applies to both accused and accuser. Canvassing for support regardless of side violates this policy.
 * WP is certainly not above the law, but as with any dispute where recourse is sought, evidence is required. Can you show that someone was racist/anti semitic/blatantly abusive/etc ?
 * Your hypothetical violates the canvassing policy and if the transgressor were a newbie, they would be warned for it and directed to this policy page. Persistent canvassing despite the warning can only result in blocks. The experienced editor should know better. I've studied ANI for a very long time and very rarely have I seen a newbie blocked for canvassing without thought. Obvious cases like SPA's and promotion only accounts are an exception.
 * Wikipedia's dispute resolution does not need to result in justice. There is no right to free speech, no right to representation, no right to natural justice. There are only the policies that have been built on the back of years of consensus. Anyone who wishes to make a change need only to propose it, frame their argument cogently and present an RFC where sufficient traction is gained that it becomes policy. An excellent example is the recent RFC concerning extended confirmation protection. Previously, this was an arbitration committee only protection level, but it was viewed as sufficiently useful for wider use and an editor ran a straw poll, a number of editors helped flesh out the RFC questions, the questions were posted to the wider community and enough support was gained for implementation. Thus ECP is now an additional protection level, joining Semi protect and full protect. This is how community consensus and change is achieved. Blackmane (talk) 02:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And presumably the new editor so warned, it would hit like a double-strike. They would come to the correct conclusion that the system is biased and leave Wikipedia. If the accuser's intent was to control the page, the editors departure would be more effective than a short-term block. Yes, I've put forward a proposal to fix this. It's intolerable. Travelmite (talk) 05:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, you ignore the fact that no evidence is more glaring than the black and white evidence that diffs provide. Getting back to the main point, your proposal basically results in ineffectual canvassing. The black and white of diffs cannot lie. I don't see how you linked a newbie being warned and them coming to the (misguided) conclusion that the system was biassed. Seriously, the more I read of your arguments the more it seems like you're clutching at straws. Blackmane (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:APPNOTE self-contradiction?
Two parts of WP:APPNOTE appear to contradict:


 * "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:" (emphasis added)
 * "On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include:
 * Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)"

How can an editor have participated in previous discussions on the same topic, and yet be "uninvolved"? What if the previous discussion was, like, yesterday? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Order of "Appropriate notification" section
As seen here, I disagree with the following order by Jc37:
 * A central location (such as the Village pump or other relevant noticeboards) for discussions that have a wider impact such as policy or guideline discussions.


 * The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion.
 * The talk page of one or more directly related articles.

______

I disagree with that order because when it comes to contacting other editors for opinions, using the article talk page and/or contacting WikiProjects are more common actions than heading straight to the Village pump and/or other noticeboards, and because the "central location" bullet point is specifically about "discussions that have a wider impact such as policy or guideline discussions." In most cases, contacting editors for opinions is not about matters that may impact a policy or guideline; they are usually more so about article matters than specifically policy or guideline matters. Furthermore, editors should usually try to settle matters at the article talk page before seeking opinions via WP:Dispute resolution. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

That stated, in my experience, using "the talk page of one or more directly related articles" to contact editors for opinions is less practiced than going to the talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects, or going to the Village pump or other relevant noticeboard. So I'm okay with the "The talk page of one or more directly related articles." bullet point coming third. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I made this compromise edit. Per above, I think this order is more true to practice. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Scenario: Would this be "vote stacking"?
I would like to notify those who identify as RC Patrollers of proposals at the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that have something to do with RC patrolling, frankly including one I have proposed. Would this be considered vote stacking? I'm not telling them to vote for anything -- just to see them and make up their own mind, since it's an area of their concern. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been expecting that this issue would come up, and I've asked some questions about it myself at the meta talk page for the survey. It seems to me that the instructions there should be guiding, because the outcome of the survey affects meta, so if they feel comfortable with what we at enwiki might consider canvassing violations, then they are qualified to determine that they are not being harmed by it. Here is what the survey page says about it, at 2016 Community Wishlist Survey:
 * "A reasonable amount of canvassing is acceptable. You've got an opportunity to sell your idea to as many people as you can reach. Feel free to reach out to other people in your project, WikiProject or user group. Obviously, this shouldn't involve sockpuppets, or badgering people to vote or to change their vote. But a good-faith "get out the vote" campaign is absolutely okay."
 * I've been proceeding on that basis for the two proposals that I made there. And I certainly hope that no one here will think that I've done anything wrong as a result. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response, . I guess there's nothing really stopping me from proceeding then, although I suspect I might get a complaint anyway. :) Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 16:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)