Template talk:Canvass

Usage

{{subst:Canvass|topic of user's cross-posting or concerned Article/Talk page}}

Example

Would create this:

You have recently been observed aggressively cross-posting in order to influence the straw poll on whether straws come in poles. Although the Arbitration Committee has ruled that "[t]he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice"¹, such cross-posting should adhere to the guidelines laid out in Wikipedia's internal spamming article. In the past, aggressively worded cross-posting has contributed towards an Arbitration Committee ruling of disruptive behavior that resulted in blocking². It is best not to game the system, and instead respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building, by ceasing to further crosspost, and instead allowing the process to reflect the opinions of editors that were already actively involved in the matter at hand. Thank you.

Discussion

What does the parameter in this template do? Rossami (talk) 06:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there is a parameter in this template, is there? — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 16:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Aggressive"

The reason I used the adjective "aggressive" in the wording is because the ArbCom has specifically stated, per the cite right there in the template, that cross-posting in and of itself is acceptable. But aggressive cross-posting — their wording — is not acceptable. Therefore, this template should not warn users for performing an action that the ArbCom has specifically deemed acceptable. — Mike • 23:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too much legalese/too agressive

This warning is too long and too much like Wikilawyering. It needs to be severly trimmed down and all of the legalese stripped out of it. The wording should be the equivalent of a, "policy in a nutshell" with a link to the finer details of Arbcom cases and the like. As well the wording with the graphic that this template currently has is like a "FINAL WARNING BEFORE BLOCK" message and for this type of behavior such a warning is not generally needed. The usual folks doing this type of thing just aren't aware that there exists internal spamming guidelines and as such this should just be a tool to highlight those guidelines to encourage folks to stop what they are doing. Netscott 23:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]