Wikipedia talk:Canvassing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Origins of this guideline 2 External poll 3 Changes 4 "Friendly notice" section 5 Internal spamming 6 Concerns 7 Votestacking vs. campaigning 8 Off-Wiki canvassing 9 Extent 10 Wikipedia:Multiposting 11 Welcome Canvassing 12 Canvassing (the word) 13 Intro/friendly reminder 14 CfD canvassing 14.1 Possible solutions 15 Table update 16 Reset 17 neutral vs. partisan 18 One more table update 19 Campaigning 20 Sanctions 21 Refactor 22 Definitions 23 Templates 24 (unsuccessful) RfA candidacies 25 Source Canvassing 26 Notice board posting 27 Abolish this policy 28 Internal Conflict 29 Opinions on Transparency? 30 I changed the lead 31 What Canvassing is not

[edit] Origins of this guideline

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

[edit] External poll

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

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

[edit] Changes

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

Some of the changes I made:

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

[edit] "Friendly notice" section

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

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

"If there are a small handful of editors who share your taste and/or philosophy, it is sometimes acceptable to contact them with regard to a specific issue as long as it does not become disruptive. This is more acceptable if they have made an unsolicited request to be kept informed, and absolutely unacceptable if they have asked you to stop."

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

[edit] Internal spamming

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

[edit] Concerns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Votestacking vs. campaigning

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

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

[edit] Off-Wiki canvassing

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Extent

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

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

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

[edit] Wikipedia:Multiposting

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Welcome Canvassing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Canvassing (the word)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Community consensus, the ArbCom, our conflict resolution mechanisms.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not limited to expected supporters

↔

Targeted to expected supporters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Intro/friendly reminder

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

You know, in looking over the page...

Since Votestacking has been merged with Campaigning...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] CfD canvassing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Possible solutions

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

[edit] Table update

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Reset

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] neutral vs. partisan

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

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

[edit] One more table update

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

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

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

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

[edit] Campaigning

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

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

[edit] Sanctions

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

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

[edit] Refactor

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Definitions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Templates

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

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

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

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

[edit] (unsuccessful) RfA candidacies

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

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

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

IronDuke 16:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Source Canvassing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Notice board posting

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

[edit] Abolish this policy

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

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

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

[edit] Internal Conflict

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

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

[edit] Opinions on Transparency?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] I changed the lead

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

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

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

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

[edit] What Canvassing is not

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

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

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

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

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