Wikipedia talk:Canvassing

Archives

---

1. Dec 2006 – Aug 2007

is this for real?

Is this article for real? Is there really a big enough concern about people being influenced in their voting or discussions to warrant a long article analyzing the problem? Do we really have that little faith in people to spot when they are being influenced? Personally I appreciate it when an issue is brought to my attention via my talk page or some other method. It's pretty obvious when they are trying to influence one way or the other. Give contributors a little more credit.--Rtphokie (talk) 04:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems that it happens, especially with newer editors. It's not that people can't tell when they're being influenced- it's that a discussion/vote will be unduly biased in favor of one side just because someone went to the trouble to send out a net for anyone who would agree with them. Epthorn (talk) 12:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

While discussions and votes are open to all we shouldn't delude ourselves that they are democratic. Participation is still largely by admins and those who care most about a topic. I welcome other points of view. This notion that the other side is bussing in voters sounds like sour grapes to me. Nothing preventing the other side of the argument from gathering similar support, if it's out there that is. The only real danger I see in canvassing is noise but that's not the argument being made here. Bias seems to be the primary argument here. --Rtphokie (talk) 13:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

YES to every question -and with good reason. Please note the "friendly notices" section.--Keerllston 02:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Responding to Canvassing

I just removed the following paragraph as I think it needs discussion before it can be included:

Responding to disruptive canvassing

The most effective response to quite recent, clearly disruptive canvassing is to block the user(s) responsible for the canvassing, to prevent them from posting further notices. The use of rollback to remove notices from user talk pages is not recommended, as the recipients will read the notices anyway, and will post a large number of complaints on your talk page. Canvassing notices can be expunged from user talk pages by deleting the affected talk pages, then restoring all revisions except those containing the notices, and those that were already deleted. It is recommended that caution be exercised before deploying this technique, since talk pages containing an extremely large number of revisions may be difficult to restore, and since the deletion of pages with large numbers of inbound links can cause server slowdowns. Future modifications to the MediaWiki software may permit the deletion of specific revisions of a page directly; such a feature, if implemented, would be a highly effective tool for cleaning up user talk page canvassing.

First of all, responses to canvassing should be targeted at preserving the integrity of the discussion rather than punishing the perpetrator. So a canvasser who used biased language or canvassed only editors of a certain bent can be asked to notify all prior participants and use neutral language. WP:CANVASS is not exactly a well-known guideline and it goes counter to the norms on many online forums, where soliciting is common and often encouraged. Only if the canvasser is unapologetic and threatens to continue a block is warranted. Decisions on blocks are also technically outside the scope of this guideline, as they're usually agreed upon at WP:ANI or similar forums. The discussions and decisions here should focus on how a debate can be salvaged after canvassing has occurred. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph in question doesn't recommend immediately blocking any users responsible for disruptive canvassing -- it merely states that blocking is the "most effective response" for the prevention of further canvassing. This claim is quite accurate -- an immediate block will stop canvassing far more quickly than asking nicely if the user(s) responsible might consider stopping. This does not imply, of course, that an immediate block without warning is justified in all cases -- whether it is depends on particular circumstances, such as whether the user engaging in the canvassing has a prior history of canvassing, and is left to the discretion of the administrator responding to the situation, guided by the blocking policy and associated practices. Therefore, I suggest that the first sentence be expanded for clarification: "The most effective response to quite recent, clearly disruptive canvassing is to block the user(s) responsible for the canvassing, to prevent them from posting further notices. However, it is recommended that users with no prior history of canvassing be asked nicely to stop canvassing, and blocked only if they continue." It may or may not be possible to remedy the effects of canvassing with neutrally targeted and worded notices in any given case -- for instance, there may be no list of all prior participants to notify. I would not object, however, to the inclusion of language suggesting that users who have engaged in disruptive canvassing be encouraged to implement such a remedy where feasible. In any event, it appears that only the first sentence of the "responding to disruptive canvassing" paragraph is actually in dispute, since the remainder does not discuss blocking at all. If there are no further objections, I will restore the portion of the paragraph that is not disputed. John254 16:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I would support a general section on responses, merging your paragraph with the one about "If you have canvassed". Most remedies work no matter if the canvasser or someone else implements them. Obviously blocking is a sometimes necessary response, so a side note to that effect is warranted ("Canvassing, if deemed disruptive, can result in blocks, so if you canvassed accidentally helping to turn the solicitations into friendly notices is the best way to avoid a block"). ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how to effectively merge the paragraphs, or what the title of the aggregate paragraph should be, though you're welcome to merge them. I will, however, add a modified sentence concerning blocking to the "responding to disruptive canvassing" paragraph, which suggests that blocking be used only as a last resort or on repeat offenders, and avoids encouraging administrators to block first and ask questions later. John254 16:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Good idea to say something about how to respond to a canvassing situation. I would prefer to delete the last three sentences, since I do not want invisible deletion of messages from user talk pages to become standard practice. It would be open to abuse, and the more often it's normally used, the more likely abuse might be. Even if used according to some guideline, I would be uncomfortable about messages disappearing mysteriously from my talk page without even showing up in the edit history. Given the large number of complaints mentioned in the earlier part of the paragraph, apparently a lot of other users have similar feelings about messages disappearing. Also, this is not really the place for speculation about future software modifications; and "highly effective tool" makes it sound desirable to have that feature in the software, when there is not a consensus that it's desirable (for example, I would oppose it). Other possibilities for helpful software might be limits on how many user talk pages one can edit in a given period of time, or (preferably) tools for alerting people to the situation when someone is posting a lot of user talk page messages.

I think it's probably better to write as if the majority of readers are non-admins (though keeping the admin reader in mind as well).

Asking the canvasser to notify all previous participants (or something) seems like a good idea to me to be mentioned here as a suggestion; the best action in each individual situation would have to be worked out among those involved. "using neutral language agreed upon by both parties" might be useful words to insert. I.e. after one asks the canvasser to notify those on the other side too and to use neutral language, the canvasser might begin doing that but using language that seems neutral to the canvasser, in which case the language is likely not to seem neutral to the person complaining about the canvassing. It's important not to be too hasty in that situation. --Coppertwig (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

While it is possible to conduct "invisible deletion of messages from user talk pages", only developers have the tools to effectuate such deletions. Even the oversight tool couldn't be used to remove messages from user talk pages without first reverting them, since the current version of a page cannot be oversighted. Current policy prohibits the use of either developer or oversight tools in responding to disruptive canvassing. So, what we are considering is the use of ordinary administrative deletions and restorations in removing canvassing messages from user talk pages. This would hardly constitute "invisible deletion of messages from user talk pages", since such deletions and restorations would be shown in publicly accessible logs, just like any other administrative action. Additionally, the deleted notices could be viewed by any administrator, which would deter misuse of such deletions. The virtue of deleting canvassing notices is not in actual "invisible deletion of messages", but merely that the recipients of the notices would not see them, either in the current versions of their talk pages or the page histories. It is also my (unconfirmed) belief that if the only revision of a user talk page that would trigger a "you have new messages" notice is deleted, such a notice would not appear. Of course, administrators who received canvassing notices would be able to view them, even if the notices had been deleted from the page history. Functionally, there is little difference between blocking users to prevent them from posting more canvassing notices, and deleting such notices from user talk pages to which they have already been posted. John254 14:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

A draft version:

Responding to canvassing

Canvassing that is deemed outside the confines of friendly notices can compromise community debates, so it should be neutralized as soon as it is discovered. In most cases removing the messages from talk pages is ineffective, so it often makes more sense to remove only biased language and to notify all parties to a debate rather than only a subgroup. In any case a notifier should be added to the discussion that canvassing has occurred and what measures have been taken to remedy it. If an editor canvassed other Wikipedians in ignorance of this guideline they should take measures to make their efforts compatible with the friendly notice guidelines. Obstructing efforts to remedy canvassing is generally considered disruptive and have lead to blocks. Disruptive canvassing should be reported at WP:ANI.

If canvassing is discovered after a debate has been closed and it seems like the canvassing has influence the debate, it can be reviewed, for instance at WP:DRV.

Feedback welcome. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This proposed draft is problematic. First, there may be no list of "all parties to a debate" to notify. Consider, for example, the canvassing that occurred with regard to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Images of Wikipedians (2nd nomination). Ta bu shi da yu (talk · contribs) attempted to provide notice of the MFD discussion to the hundreds of users whose pictures appeared in the project page, most of whom would reasonably be expected to (and in fact did) support retention of the page. However, it would likely be difficult, if not altogether impossible, to develop an equivalently large list of users who would be expected to support deletion of the page. Even if such a list could have been developed, the posting of hundreds of additional notices might have been viewed as disruptive in and of itself, merely because of the annoyance generated by posting messages to large numbers of user talk pages. The frequent posting of notices concerning XfD and other discussions to large numbers of user talk pages, even if neutrally worded and targeted, would have the effect of filling user talk pages with mass-posted notices, and would make individualized messages more difficult to find. Finally, the proposed draft provides no discussion of any effective means by which to remove disruptive canvassing notices from user talk pages. While such removals would obviously not be justified in the case of canvassing which is considered to be disruptive only by virtue of sending possibly unwanted messages to large numbers of users, the removal of canvassing notices may be the only effective response to attempted votestacking for an XfD or other discussion. Perhaps a script could be developed to effectuate the deletion and restoration of user talk pages necessary to expunge canvassing notices, allowing easy, one-click removals. John254 03:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Overly prescriptive

This guideline seems to be incredibly prescriptive, perhaps excessively so. Does any of it have actual support in practice? --Tony Sidaway 00:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

At a guess I'd say that this guideline is utterly irrelevant to actual practice. Jimbo Wales himself has said canvassing is a natural outgrowth of any discussion by wikipedians. [1]

I can state with absolute certainty that the cyberstalking list was and is absolutely used to discuss proposals for change to Wikipedia in order to deal with the very difficult issue of cyberstalking. This includes people discussing things like possible policy changes, and other people saying that those policy changes are unworkable, or unwise. In short, like every discussion I have ever seen of Wikipedians in any place, for example, private meetups, public mailing lists, public irc channels, private irc channels, coffeeshops, wiki workshops, etc., the list absolutely was used to canvass support for issues under discussion in Wikipedia. I can't imagine that anyone could imagine that any discussion could be otherwise.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

So yeah, basically this guidline has absolutely no support in actual practice, and canvassing appears to be a normal activity. V (talk) 04:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far. Jimbo's statement does square with my expectations and experience. There are times when legitimate discussions are hijacked by a "rent-a-crowd" mentality, however. I think we take a much harder line on attempts to swamp debate than we did a couple of years ago when (to my dismay) it was not unknown for some editors to round up a posse of a score or so supporters, and this wasn't considered abusive. So between that laxity and the quite strong (and probably unworkable) text of this document, there's a point at which we now do take action. --Tony Sidaway 05:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh, well I would have been most active back when (circa 2002 and from my rather vague memories) it was considered pretty normal for users round up faction supporters by posting on user talk pages. From memory it worked pretty well since if one "side" noticed the other side doing it they'd just go off and round up their own faction members as well. All in all it just dragged in more eyeballs. Discouraging on-wiki canvassing just seems like a way to force canvassing into secrecy since it's inevitable and normal. That and you'll end up with factional interests in the "in-group" canvassing at will while this guideline gets used as a bludgeon against other less favored groups. Don't mind me though, I may just be suffering from culture shock at just how much discussion has moved off-wiki. I'd honestly suggest trying to encourage canvassing to move back on wiki where it's out in the open. It honestly did work pretty well back then and I'm getting the strong impression that canvassing is a normal and inevitable activity that if disapproved of will only go underground and result in denials and obfuscation. Given how difficult it is to prove that off-wiki canvassing is occurring all all this guideline does IMHO is encourage people to canvass off-wiki and lie about it. It's like prohibition, people are going to do it anyway so making rules against it just drives it underground. V (talk) 06:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I get about 1600 links to this guideline, or roughly 5 links per day since it was branched out from WP:SPAM. I'm not sure where the idea that this guideline is not supported by daily practice comes from. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Examples and direct language

This guideline has a detailed theoretical analysis of canvassing, but I'm afraid it might be inaccessible to new users. It manages to explain everything without giving any examples of non-permitted behavior and without every referring to the main areas in which canvassing is a concern: deletion discussions and requests for adminship. I think that the theoretical analysis should be deemphasized and examples of permitted and non-permitted canvassing added. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Can the following be considered friendly notices?

Say there is a TFD for Template A and another template, Template B, gets mentioned as a good alternative. Template A is deleted and the closer says Template B has consensus. One month later, Template B is nominated for deletion. Is it acceptable to contact all the editors who participated in the TFD for Template A on their talk pages and inform them that Template B has been nominated for deletion? --Pixelface (talk) 06:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. That's a neutral canvass, on the face of it. The "information" should be neutral. Not "OMG look what they are up to." --Abd (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Opting in using canvassing subpages

Is the main purpose of prohibiting canvassing that (1) it can distort debate outcomes, or (2) like email spam, it distracts and annoys users? If it's the latter, perhaps we could have users opt-in to receiving canvassing notices by creating a canvassing subpage (e.g. User talk:Obuibo Mbstpo/Canvassing) and inviting users to put their canvassing notices there. The user can qualify that invitation however they want (e.g. "Only canvassing notices pertaining to cat- or goat-related articles, please" or "Only one canvassing notice per user per month, please") and watch or not watch that page as they choose. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Mbstpo edited the guideline to reflect his idea of a canvassing permission and subpage, but I think it is premature to have it in the guideline, it should first be discussed here. So I'm reverting it out, which should not be construed as opposition. --Abd (talk)

At Mbstpo's request, I've reverted my reversion. Enjoy.--Abd (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

To the first question, the answer is simply 'yes'. Canvassing is discouraged both because it distorts discussions and because it annoys. I'm restoring Abd's original revert; consult the Village Pump before making such a dramatic change to the guideline. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The Village Pump is generally a more appropriate forum for cases in which the proposed change would affect more than one policy/guideline; otherwise, it can be taken care of on the policy/guideline talk page. Moreover, there is nothing wrong with making an edit before consulting other editors; see the square box directly underneath the "previous consensus" oval in the flowchart located at Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_can_change. Do you have a substantive objection to allowing opt-ins? Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Opt-in or not, it distorts discussions. The guideline is already written in such a way that notifying editors – in neutral terms and on a limited scale – of a discussion in which they are likely to have an interest is permitted. There's no need to modify this guideline to allow that, and there's no good reason to allow or encourage spamming campaigns on a larger scale.

The change that you propose would affect many – perhaps all – Wikipedia processes, from the resolution of article content disputes to RfC to AfD. It would even distort future discussions of policy changes. Believe me, even if there were a ghost of a chance of your proposal being adopted, it would absolutely have to go through the Pumpo or some other public venue first. Honestly, though, I suspect that widely advertising your proposal will just cause someone less lazy than I to delete your pro-canvassing templates. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Is consensual talk page communication any worse than people communicating off-wiki (e.g. on IRC) to coordinate action on AfDs and other decisions? Such channels are already being used for such things. Caucusing is a normal and useful part of most large decision-making groups. See also Wikipedia:PARL#Allowability_of_caucuses. This just provides an avenue to do it in a more transparent way.

"Canvassing" is basically a neutral word, as you'll see below. Depending on the circumstance, it can be bad or good. I think it's a spectrum that runs from friendly notices to caucusing to spamming. If the person gives permission to be contacted about something, it falls more into the category of caucusing than spam. By definition, in the case of caucusing, we are not talking about "spamming campaigns on a larger scale" as you mention above.

• Caucus: "a meeting of people whose goal is political or organizational change"
• Canvass: "solicit votes from potential voters in an electoral campaign"
• Spam: "unsolicited email"

In order to fit in the category of "friendly notice," a communication has to meet the four different attributes of limited posting (rather than mass posting); neutral (rather than biased); nonpartisan (rather than partisan); and open (rather than secret). Some caucusing might not meet all of those attributes but that shouldn't make it unacceptable if the person has opted in to receiving that kind of communication. It is just one way of working for political or organizational change – which we could sure use on Wikipedia – one decision at a time. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 03:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(dedent) The strong reaction Mbstpo received to his "canvassing" subpage suggestion is a little surprising to me given the "Friendly notices" userbox mentioned on the project page; the only difference is that the subpage is used with his idea and the Talk page with the Friendly notice userbox. By the way, I opposed his suggestion because it does not address the noise problem; but it was an alternate idea to what is already legitimate, and if the text involved was wrong, i.e., didn't sufficiently warn against illegitimate canvassing, the text should have been fixed. Certain kinds of "canvassing" are already allowed, apparently, such as posting a notice to a Wikiproject page for users who might be interested in a particular AfD as shown by their interest in the Wikiproject. (or on a subpage of the wikiproject specifically dedicated to related deletion debates.)--Abd (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

BJBot 4

I've reopened approval discussion for BJBot 4 (a notification bot taks). Since we are talking about WP:CANVASS over there, I'm posting a link here. Please follow-up on Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/BJBot_4#Opt-in_instead_of_opt-out. Suggestions/opinions welcome. Thanks. --Ligulem (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Other alternatives to canvassing

I went ahead and added this text:

As an alternative to canvassing, one might establish a user subpage listing Articles for Deletion, for instance, that he wishes to draw other editors' attention to. He can then, over time, form relationships with editors he believes will be sympathetic to his general views, letting the existence of that user subpage spread through word of mouth. Other editors can watchlist it or transclude it to their own userspace (perhaps even their talk page), providing the advantages of canvassing without disruption. Patience is the key to making this work. Of course, opponents can watch that page as well, so the effect is balanced.

This seems in keeping with the spirit of this page, and I believe is sufficiently different from my previous rejected proposal that it is acceptable to be bold and introduce it here. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

In reference to this reversion, does anyone have a substantive (as opposed to procedural) reason the above text should not be on the page? I will wait 24 hours for one to appear before reverting. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

To further illustrate what I'm doing, please see User:Obuibo Mbstpo/Discussions in progress. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

In other words, this is a way to create a flash mob at an AfD or other discussion, as a way to generate a distorted and misleading opinion sample. Notices on WikiProject pages – the exiting approach to this type of notification – offer a more neutral approach and are more likely to attract subject matter experts. This proposal is a way to summon up Obuibo's Mob. Please don't put the text back in; we're not interested in any ways to circumvent this guideline. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Nonetheless, there is nothing prohibited such user subpages, right? Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're asking "Will you be blocked if you persist in doing this", I can't answer that. I can tell you that it's a bad idea, and won't be incorporated into this guideline. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

My mob could beat up your mob. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Quit it, Obuibo. Nobody is going to get beat up.--Abd (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Could this be used for mobbing an AfD? Perhaps. But lots of useful tools can be abused. I've never understood the fear of extra !votes. After all, they don't count, do they? It's arguments that count, right? What this does, and does legitimately, is to invite more eyes to look at a page, eyes that have clearly volunteered to be so informed. It gets a bit dicey if a large number of users are deciding to act together to vote identically, but it also seems pretty useless to even try that. If it's done through a page like this, it will quite likely be mentioned in the AfD. What will happen legitimately, though, is that more and better arguments, and more discovery of sources, will arise. And that cannot but fail to improve the project. It's a brilliant idea, which I'd been the first to think of it.--Abd (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again, it appears your hypothesis has been proven. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite curious. TenOfAllTrades appears to own Wikipedia. He uses "we" when referring to the community's opinion, excluding others present. That is, there is, here, apparently, "us," i.e., TenOfAllTrades or others agreeing with him, and "them," those not included in "we." Such as Obuibo and myself. It is not my desire to make this a personality conflict; rather, we should focus on the proposed text, and how to make it a reasonable proposal, if that is correct, and then how to determine the community's response. It starts here with the participating editors. Has the community spoken through the keyboard of TenOfAllTrades? How would we know?

I'm going to note that off-wiki equivalents of Obuibo's suggestion are already in use. Some have been explicitly approved by Jimbo Wales, and they are used by reputable Wikipedia users and administrators. However, that certainly won't cancel out the community's opinion, if it is different. On the other hand, unenforceable rules can cause more damage than good; enforcing rules against this kind of notification here will simply shift it off-wiki, where it already happens with mailing lists and IRC channels.

Obuibo did credit me for the idea; however, though it fits organizational theory that I've been working on for over twenty years, this immediate idea came from an AN/I report: [2]. This is in reference to User:Kmweber/Some AfDs to fight. Is this allowed? There is no policy against it.

Because it is open -- anyone can easily find these pages if they are being used -- this does far less harm, if it does any at all, than secret communication. I would revert it back in, but I'm waiting for more comment to spontaneously appear, and we may wish, at some point, to solicit further comment. I'd rather wait until the tweaks are made to make it the best proposal, and I have utterly no desire to edit war.--Abd (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

My mob RULES! Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently Obuibo likes my argument. Yes, I came here because of the file he created, he'd notified me of it, as might be expected. In any case, if it's a good argument, it's good that it was solicited, and if it is a bad argument, it's proper that it be disregarded, and there was little or no harm that my presence was invited. This is not a vote. There is no presumption at all that can be drawn from an argument being made by one, two, or twenty editors, as to its cogency, for often people here congregate based on some kind of mutual interest; it's only when there is broader exposure that we start to find out what true consensus is.--Abd (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just wanted to take advantage of that opportunity for a pun. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and transcluded {{User:Kmweber/Some AfDs to fight}} to my userpage. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Question

Does WP:CANVASS have any bearing on talk pages of articles (i.e. not intended to be discussed on said talk page, but rather inform visitors of that specific talk page about some other thing)? ~ UBeR (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Should this page encourage friendly notices?

In the past two years, I've been involved in a few RfCs and other conflict resolution procedures on articles dealing with specialist topics. My general reaction is that there have been very few comments from editors who were not already involved in the conflict. (A different situation obtains in the case of "hot topics" which always draw a large number of partisans).

Conflict resolution should benefit from outside points of view, yet the whole tone of this page is to discourage canvassing as if it were a bad thing. Given the well defined criteria of (Limited) Scale, (Neutral) Message, (Nonpartisan) Audience, and (Open) Transparency that have been developed here, I propose that we redraft the opening paragraph of the section on friendly notices to encourage the posting of friendly notices to all Wikiproject talk pages associated with an article in which there is a conflict.

In order to draw a wide range of informed, but uninvolved, editors into the conflict resolution process, neutrally worded notifications should be posted on the talk pages of all Wikiprojects identified as associated with articles concerning which there is a dispute. Such "friendly notices" may also be sent to a small number of editors if they are intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion (for example if to editors who have substantively edited or discussed the article or to a Wikipedian is known for being an expert in a certain field and has shown interest in participating in related discussions). This is more acceptable if they have made an unsolicited request to be kept informed, but unacceptable if they have asked you to stop. Examples of friendly notices include:

Always keep the message neutral, and leave a note on the discussion itself that you sent out friendly notices. Editors who like to be informed about Wikipedia discussions can add the "Friendly notice" userbox to their user page.

I welcome discussion of this draft. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

After reading my proposed draft, I realized it would have the effect of reducing the bulleted list to one item. I've now revised the entire subsection (above), with additions to my previous draft italicized and deletions struck out. Comments please, either as to the general idea or the details. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This proposal having been up for a week with no objections, I've made the change proposed above (although with some rearrangements in the interest of coherence). --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I semi-reverted the above. The main problem is that this section deals with more than "dispute resolution". There's the XfD process, for just one rather large example. Otherwise, nice job of turning a bulleted list into text. (I'm currently not sure which would have been better/clearer, but that can be determined over time : ) - jc37 21:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I knew this would be controversial, but could you explain why we shouldn't try to encourage involvement in the XfD process? --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify? I am not seeing how you came to that conclusion by what I said above. - jc37 23:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. The point I was raising was that the most favorable language relating to canvassing was that it was acceptable under certain circumstances. I was proposing to positively encourage canvassing, in accordance with the criteria of Limited, Neutral, Nonpartisan, and Open by saying friendly notions "should be posted..." Removing that phrase removes the positive encouragement of involvement in the various discussion processes and returns us back to the generally negative tone of the article. This tone is probably is a remnant of the earlier versions of the article, which had a section heading Canvassing is bad; don't do it.[3][4], until it was deleted [5] to set a more neutral tone. I'm trying to provide balance to the remnants of that old negative tone.

I'm okay if people don't want to move in that direction, just so we're conscious of the general tone of the present version to discourage canvassing. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with a "more positive tone", as long as it remains "neutral".

My concern with your edit was that you were changing what the section meant. It appeared you were limiting it to only notices concerning dispute resolution, when "friendly notices" may concern any sort of discussion. So that's what I was trying to do, stay less specific about the type of discussion, while remaining neutral in its "tone". Does that better clarify? - jc37 21:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

canvassing via dedicated WikiProject is allowed?

The guideline says nothing specific about cases like the following: When a WikiProject dedicated to "[preservation of] "Trivia" and "In popular culture"-type information in Wikipedia" hosts a list of "articles facing deletion", I'd personally argue that this violates at least the spirit of the guideline insofar as it addresses a biased sample audience. Any comments would be appreciated, particularly by people experienced with this guideline. Also note that the reasoning according to which the average WikiProject participant is knowledgeable on the respective subject matter is not valid here since there is another, separate WikiProject specifically dedicated to trivia cleanup. Dorftrottel (harass) 00:36, April 13, 2008

I think canvassing via Wikiproject is fine. It's one of the few ways you can legitimately get larger participation in a discussion. Note that people who are opposed to whatever the Wikiproject is for are also able to watchlist the Wikiproject page and watch for such deletion discussions. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That's true. I even joined the WikiProject. But, depending on the respective deletion discussion, it may require a much larger number of other people to even out the bias introduced by the notice at this WikiProject. This is because AfD is unfortunately handled too much like a vote, both by a certain crop of participants and by many closing admins. Dorftrottel (criticise) 01:42, April 13, 2008

This question seems to have two parts: What to do when you have concerns about a WikiProject, and whether dropping a friendly notice on such a WikiProject's talk page is considered inappropriate canvassing.

If you have concerns about a WikiProject, there's Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, or even WP:MFD, to start a discussion about the concerns.

As for the latter concern, as long as the notice conforms to the guidelines of a "friendly notice", I don't think there would be an issue with the notice in most cases, though if you feel that the WikiProject is questionable, then you probably shouldn't drop the notice. (Potentially erring on the side of caution.) - jc37 03:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm talking about this project and this dedicated section. I believe it institutionalises canvassing. Dorftrottel (bait) 03:20, April 13, 2008

Well, on one hand, if I take the project's goal at face value, it claims to be attempting to work within Wikipedia's framework. But I can understand your concerns. It's definietly a WikiProject worth watching. As for the notices, that's actually rather common. Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Notice board (one of many, many examples). - jc37 03:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Standard practice everywhere to alert a wider audience, rather than just those who might around WP:AFD. The aim is to improve articles, not delete out of hand. If that is canvassing, then the whole trivia cleanup is. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your own rather strong opinions on the matter prevent me from taking this particular comment of yours at face value. The aim of that entire project and especially that section is to prevent removal and deletion even of material and "articles" that are in clear violation of Wikipedia content policies. Dorftrottel (harass) 04:37, April 13, 2008

Opinioniated? moi? Certainly no more than yours. Time to drop this debate as it's going nowhere. in clear violation of Wikipedia content policies is a subjective assumption masking as an objective observation. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You are of course free to leave the debate. Regardless, I would appreciate more opinions by people a tad more interested in encyclopedic standards and a tad less in adolescent amounts of useless trivia and yet more popculture noise. Dorftrottel (harass) 06:30, April 13, 2008

When I respond to articles placed in the "facing deletion" column, it is generally to improve them in whatever way I can -- and then !vote. Efforts along these lines recently prompted a nominator to withdraw his nomination, despite substantial opposition to the article in its pre-edited form (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classical elements in popular culture (second nomination)).

The two other most active participants in the project, NickPenguin and Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, also contribute substantially to article improvement in this way. So I assure you, the project is far more than a canvassing tool (and those who are wary of the project's goals can simply join and/or watchlist it, as you have done yourself). The purpose of the "articles facing deletion" section is to highlight articles which have the most urgent need of improvement.--Father Goose (talk) 11:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I know that some actually do what you describe and that's absolutely great. Recently, I withdrew an AfD nom myself after someone surprisingly came up with sources and added to the article. But others, and I daresay the majority, does not do that. I've seen too many AfD comments along the lines of "Keep. Improve the article yourself, you bad-faith nominator." in articles with no sources at all, and after spending some time looking for sources myself. The people who are interested in actually saving articles should be wary of this kind of abuse, and aware that such project lists can be used in many ways, not all of them laudable or productive. Dorftrottel (bait) 14:45, April 13, 2008

I have been a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia and Popular Culture for the short time that I have been a registered editor here. Not once have I seen anyone say "please help save this article from deletion". Articles are simply posted on the page as "facing deletion". I, for one, will not vote on articles that I cannot justify keeping around. And I'm sure there are plenty of trivial and pop culture articles that escape our attention (we do have real lives as well), so its not like we go around trying to tip the vote in our favor. As far as I know WP:TRIVIA is not a policy, its a guideline. What is considered trivial is a matter of highly subjective debate, and our only goal is to express our side of the debate... not to preserve every last bit of trivia and nonsense. In my view, the easy way out is to simply declare anything to do with pop culture as trivia and delete it, instead of spending the time to improve it, which is what we are trying to do. In essence, we are working to improve Wikipedia, not just to clutter it up with more junk. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"please help save this article from deletion": That's not my concern. People don't need to, and most likely wouldn't, say something like "let's mass-vote to keep" or anything like it. But the fact worries me that some editors keep appearing out of nowhere, just to vote(!) keep against, at times, all our core content policies. Anything that can be done to prevent that should be done. Ideally, closing admins would just discount any policy-defying or -ignoring comment, but they don't, they mostly count heads. So I believe something else must be done; and not encouraging this sort of thing, by declaring it canvassing, is one possible measure. Also: I like pop culture. But on Wikipedia, I like minimum encyclopedic standards even more. Dorftrottel (bait) 20:34, April 13, 2008

What if we had a link on our page to the AfD page itself? Is that canvassing? Am I not allowed to vote simply because of my views? Just because I disagree with some of the guidelines (not policy) means I'm not allowed to vote? I don't understand what you're implying. The fact remains, people will gather in link-minded groups in order to further their agendas. If that is "canvassing" then so be it, I guess we shouldn't have any projects at all because people might declare agendas and further them by taking action. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it ErgoSum88, the guidelines on the front of this page are pretty clear. A neutral friendly notice is absolutely fine - and is used often on AfD to alert various projects if an article which lies in a particular field comes up. There is no problem. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a problem, in my humble opinion. But for some reason you are fighting against acknowledgement of that problem and against implementing solutions, in my humble opinion. Dorftrottel (ask) 22:28, April 13, 2008

this is the same objection as made to all wikiprojects. But it is intrinsically neutral. There is nothing to stop someone who dislikes this sort of articles from watchlisting the project page--or even joining the project--and then they could look for articles in this list to see if perhaps they did in fact merit deletion, and say so aft AfD. I'm a member of some projects whose implications I do not agree with, or which I think have an excessive tendency to promote the writing of dubious articles--I go there, and say what I think. I joined the Malls projects to argue for higher standards for malls articles, and for deleting the ones that didnt reach it. DGG (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Maybe that's actually the best way to look at it. Consider the issue dropped. Dorftrottel (warn) 02:31, April 14, 2008

Would this be canvasing?

Asking for opinions here before I act on this. I have had a regular effort to clean up city categories. Recently this effort has been called into question on my talk page. One of the objections raised was that I had not been consulting the various state WikiProjects before each clean-up. Considering that I have done well over 50 of these clean-ups over the past year, having to do such a consult before each and every one would add a layer of beurocracy to things that would make the whole effort far more trouble than it's worth. I have had another idea, though, and that is to set up a centralized discussion on the whole issue, and because my not consulting with the various state WikiProjects has been specifically raised as a problem, I would like to place breif notices on each of their discussion pages inviting their input on the issue. I would also place notices on a half dozen or so pages relating generally to categorization.

But the admin in me is made a bit nervous by the idea of dropping discussion notices on 50+ pages all at once. OTOH, I don't see much way of making a centralized discussion meet the objections without actually inviting the various project to the discussion.

So here I am, before I move forward with this, looking for opinions on whether I would indeed be crossing the line of this guideline, and, if so, does anyone have any suggestions for alternate ways to go about this. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If there's a practical reason to do it, just do it.--Father Goose (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

There were several places on this page where a sentence was better placed in a different section. So I've merged those.

In addition, I merged the section on Campaigning to Votestacking, and wrote a new section on Campaigning. There seemed to be a confusion between swaying the reader, vs. swaying a discussion's consensus. - jc37 19:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it canvassing if....

Is it considered canvassing to advertise an XfD on one's user page? Thanks.  Moo  Chat  22:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Counter-canvas

According to Wikipedia:CANVASS#Votestacking user may not canvass selectively to influence a decision. But what if a user does that during a poll? While the user may be asked politely to stop this, the damage is done. The vote will be effected as the users contacted will likely respond. Thus, in effect, the user "gets away" with such acts, if this is his/her first time.

To counter this effect, is it permissible to counter-canvass, that is notify users of the opposite "side" of the issue? Or should the input of users who make drive by votes (without even entering into the discussion), as a result of the canvassing, be disregarded as far as consensus is concerned?

Bless sins (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing and Consensus Building Disconnects

Having been recently called out for Blatant Canvassing for making a single user working on a project I am involved in aware of an AFD debate, I became aware of this guideline. As I always do with WP, I read the guideline, the talk page and tried to interpret the guideline in light of what I had done.

Here’ what I wrote: Support needed to preserve (Article). Username: Please weighin on keeping the above article. This is a 2nd proposal to delete.

I retrospect, the request was not neutral, but had I left out the words Support and Keeping, this particular user would still have weighed in to keep the article. That said, I tried to apply the Canvassing guideline to my single post. Scale: One post to a project associate Message: Benign, but not NEUTRAL Audience: Clearly partisan Transparency: Open

So did I violate the guideline and was I justly called out for Disruptive Canvassing? I find that hard to answer. Although I clearly understand the NEUTRAL guideline and agree with it, I do have difficulty with the AUDIENCE aspect as I would be unlikely to canvass anyone who hadn’t been participating on or with a distinct interest in an article (and thus was non-partisan).

Then I began to tackle the notion that Canvassing (whatever the form) is disruptive to consensus building. Here’s the Canvassing Summary: WP:Canvass is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion. Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive.

Here’s the Consensus Summary: WP:Consensus is typically reached as a natural and inherent product of the wiki-editing process; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it. In essence, silence implies consent, if there is adequate exposure to the community. Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, should never over-ride community consensus on a wider scale, unless convincing arguments cause the new process to become widely accepted. In the case of policy and process pages a higher standard of participation and consensus is expected than on other pages.

I bolded the particular sentance that is troubling.

Adequate Exposure In Many Cases Requires Canvassing

There may be some in the WP community that do nothing but monitor and edit in WP. Many of us however have real jobs and our ability to monitor all relevant (to us as individuals) is limited in time and scope. This is especially true of deletion debates which can materialize out of no where and one can find deletion discussions that are so far gone and off-topic that the discussion isn’t about the quality or subject matter of the article, but a ramble of arguments by deletionists and non-deletionists over WP guidelines. Only when editors clearly understanding of the subject matter weigh-in does the article get a fair deletion discussion. Unfortunately those editors may be totally unaware of the deletion debate unless they are notified (some how) of it. If they are silent, consensus is assumed, but in reality, wider, informed consensus was avoided.

Currently the WP:Consensus guideline makes no mention of WP:Canvass and I believe the statement: . In essence, silence implies consent, if there is adequate exposure to the community is somewhat in conflict with the WP:Canvassng guideline. Not only should WP:Canvass be referenced in WP:Consensus, the guidelines should be compatible. Adequate exposure may indeed require extensive canvassing to insure knowledgable editors participate in a debate. Currently, I don’t think the two guidelines are compatible as written. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel your pain, Mike. WP:CANVASS is problematic, to be sure. If AfDs, for example, aren't based on votes or the number of people commenting, why is canvassing considered a problem? Of course, the fact is that numbers do influence results. Wikipedia guidelines do not control, but actual practice is to warn re canvassing and to block if continued after warning. In an AfD, an editor can pretty much call whatever they want to call canvassing, and, unless it isn't civil, it will stand. It is up to the closer whether or not to factor that charge in. However, from the guideline, a single post, by definition, is not canvassing.

The current text: Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion.[1] Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive. This guideline explains how to notify editors without engaging in disruptive canvassing.

The chart below is a bit deranged. Probably should be fixed. The way the chart reads, if any *one* of the following apply, it is canvassing:

• Mass posting
• Message biased
• Partisan audience
• Secret

Your single post was biased, and to a partisan audience. Of one editor. This wasn't canvassing, period. Some participants in AfDs will go to desperate lengths to prevail, to impeach those seen as being in opposition. It's quite a problem. So, on the one hand, if there is canvassing (is "two" editors enough for canvassing? My opinion, no .... but the community might well decide otherwise. There is some value to limiting it to one.), it is proper to notify the AfD and provide evidence. On the other, it really shouldn't make much different. One more vote? Now, if your friend presented a better argument, that is interesting, and is exactly why we might want to be careful about prohibiting canvassing. So, some alternatives that won't get you blocked.

• Notify a relevant wikiproject.
• Notify a deletion-sorting page.
• Notify all editors who have edited a page in the past.
• Notify all editors who have previously voted in an AfD on the article.

These are all generally considered acceptable. One admin left the project when he was blocked for notifying all Wikipedians who had contributed images to a page with photos of Wikipedians. But, as I recall, he was vindicated, the block was considered improper (even though, since, he did not pursue it, there may not have been a formal decision. The charge made against him was that those who had edited the page were necessarily biased. Sketchy, I'd say, though possibly true in some way. The same could be said about anyone who has edited any obscure article, though, and it's considered courteous for an AfD nominator to notify such people.

Key: the notice should be rigorously neutral, and, in my opinion, should be disclosed on the AfD page. That's my practice, and I haven't been warned yet for canvassing. I even sent a notice to an external mailing list in a recent AfD over Asset voting, and the nominator made a big flap over it. Other users also complained a little, but revised their complaints after they read the actual notice. The external list is one read by voting systems experts, and it is a neutral list. Had I not notified the AfD of it, this could have caused a problem as "secret." I don't know if any votes came in as a result of the mailing, though I suspect that one Delete vote may have. And my position was Keep. My purpose -- which counts! -- was that I suspected that those familiar with the field might be able to supply reliable source. I saw Newyorkbrad, in another voting systems AfD, write something like "we need to hear from experts on this topic." Well, that is what I was doing, suggesting that experts comment. Without bias. There is also another mechanism you might use in some cases.

• Add your comments about the AfD to your user page or to your Talk page. If your friends watch your Talk page, for example, there is no way to know how many will read it, and it is not considered canvassing. A few users have set up special pages for announcements, inviting others to watch them. Again, no problem, at least not so far. This has not been considered canvassing, even if it is outrageously biased.

So the chart is far too black-and-white, oversimplified. And we don't want instruction creep. At least I don't want it, nor do many long-time Wikipedians, there seems to be a new generation that want everything spelled out in black and white.--Abd (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Abd - Thanks for the thoughts. Although I am not worried about Canvassing guidelines in general (I didn't know they existed until this AFD debate), I have always been concerned that AFD debates suffer from a real lack of knowledgeable input. I understand how to deal with the canvassing guidelines in the future, but feel there is still a bit of a disconnect between Canvassing and Consensus guidelines.--Mike Cline (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Surveys

I'm not sure this is the right place to ask this question: Are there any rules/bureaucratic hoops/etc for contacting editors for polls or surveys that don't directly affect anything on-Wiki? If, for example, the folks that run the Gallup poll wanted to survey a random selection of Wikipedia editors, is there any sort of paperwork that needs to be done first? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest asking about this at the Wikipedia:Village Pump. (Pick whichever VP sub-page you feel is appropriate to your question.) - jc37 07:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I took this to WP:VP, where the response was that there are no hoops to jump through or permissions to get. Anyone can contact Wikipedia editors through Wikipedia to ask them to participate in surveys. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC) (who is no longer watching this page)

I found the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Pollsters (Feel free to update the link after it archives.)

And that's not exactly what was stated. Personally, I'd suggest keeping User:John Broughton's three (a, b, c) points in mind. As he noted, you may receive sanction if others see this as spamming.

And note that I'm not going to even try to guess if this is appropriate (which is why I suggested the VP in the first place). - jc37 23:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:Policy shopping

This was added as a see also. It's an essay, not a guideline, and I am not the least sure it have general agreement, not yet having had much discussion. I'd like to remove it from the list--what do we usually do about linking to essays?DGG (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I've undone the addition. Whether or not it has general agreement, I don't think it's actually related. WP:CANVAS is about how to properly solicit more editors to add their opinions to a discussion. WP:Policy shopping is a recommendation for how to present an argument. Not close enough to justify inclusion, even in the "See also" section. Cheers,Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I defined "involved editors" in the main text

While notifications of editors who have already demonstrated an interest in a topic of discussion is acceptable (whether these involved parties are members of a relevant WikiProject, recent editors of a page under discussion, previous participants in the forum where the discussion is taking place) it is civil to post a notice in the discussion that such a notification is to be made.

 $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 15:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Instead of the above paragraph, how about we add something like the following sentence to existing text. (The proposed addition is in italics.)

Editors who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion, might also place such neutrally-worded notices on the talk pages of a WikiProject, the Village pump, or perhaps some other related talk page, while still only, or in lieu of, posting a limited number of friendly notices to individual editors. Such editors might be chosen due their demonstrated knowledge or expertise, due their having recently contributed substantial edits to the article or talkpage page under discussion, or due their previous participation in the forum where the discussion is taking place.

Comments?  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 15:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

So you want to add:

"Such editors might be chosen due their demonstrated knowledge or expertise, due their having recently contributed substantial edits to the article or talkpage page under discussion, or due their previous participation in the forum where the discussion is taking place."

That makes a presumption about editors that we really can't make. - jc37 16:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I've struck the presumption (which was based on guidelines elsewhere in Wikipedia about "expert opinion," but your point is taken). Any other objections?  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 16:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Good call, but there's another intrisic problem with the sentence. The section you're appending it to could have quite a few other examples. However they greatly depend on context of a case-by-case basis.

For example, I don't think that anyone would suggest that all the editors of a page which has over 5,000 edits should all be canvassed for a current discussion, especially if their last edit was months or years ago. And the same goes for edits to an article's talk page.

That said, there may be times that it may be appropriate for recent editors to be notified of recent edits.

But it's better if this page was vague on that point, and allow for the case-by-case basis. (It also helps reduce WP:BURO.)

Does this better clarify? - jc37 07:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The example you cited was already addressed by the phrase recently contributed. Several months ago wouldn't have been recently.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 10:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I simplified the chart

via putting wikilinked terms at the top of each column:

	Stealth canvassing		Massive cross-posting		Campaigning		Votestacking
Inappropriate canvassing	Secrecy	OR	Mass scale	OR	Biased message	OR	Partisan audience
	↕		↕		↕		↕
Friendly notices	Transparency	AND	Limited scale	AND	Neutral message	AND	Nonpartisan audience

 $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 15:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. Canvassing is not a negative term. with your edits, you are changing the tone of this guideline.

Per WP:BRD, now is the time for discussion; for you to explain the reasons for your edits, in order that consensus may be determined. - jc37 15:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"Canvassing" has been changed back to "inappropriate canvassing" now in the above, thanks; otherwise what is proposed to be changed from the existing chart via the above arrangement is for its wikilinked terms to be placed along the top of the columns.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 15:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well another problem is that those links which you would like at the top, are the names of sections on the page which indicate inappropriate canvassing. That's why they were on the row they were.

Is there a point to this change other than to insert new words for inappropriate canvassing? - jc37 15:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The proposed arrangement was a minor, stylistic change. No big deal, either way! Nonetheless, Jc37, I fail to understand your objection since the sentence directly above your comment reveals that "Inappropriate canvassing" is presently unchanged. Furthermore, the row that presently contains wikilinked terms "Stealth canvassing," etc. is not labeled "Inappropriate canvassing" as you believe but rather "Terms."... What's more important is the suggested edit in the section above. Could you comment there? Thanks.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 15:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The template was a result of lengthy discussions, and is also a visual aid.

Why are you suggesting its removal/replacement? - jc37 16:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

In your sentence above you suggest I'd proposed a chart be removed when I'd merely suggested it be flipped, which I said was in order to place wikilinked categories along the top of its columns. But should your queries really be simply rhetorical and the main thrust of your belief is that the Wiki in Wikipedia does not mean that folks can suggest possible edits, please just say so and save me a lot of time here, geez.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 16:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

My apologies if that's how my comments have come across. These are genuine questions. - jc37 07:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's no template whatsoever being discussed here -- and with your responses' non sequiturs otherwise (by their objections having already been satisfactorily addressed), I'm left with the impression of you as a Wikisloth who nonetheless haunts a page, reverting anything suggested, shooting first after only glancing at a suggested edit later long enough to come up with a plausible explanation, but ending up with a deletion rationale that's patently inapplicable, more often than not.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 10:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Shortcuts

In my experience these are a bad idea unless large page size is involved.

And having an editor jump to a section of the page, without knowing what else is on the page may leave them with an inaccurate sense of the policies or guidelines being conveyed. - jc37 07:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The WP:STEALTH shortcut was also to a micro-section. My taking the sentiments of this talkpage section at face value, based on principle (not article WP:Ownership), I've deleted the template advertising it as well, although the shortcut will still work, if anyone has already put it in their repertoire.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 16:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: the recent reverted revisions

While I am all in favor of being bold, the recent revisions do not seem to clarify or otherwise advance the purpose of this guideline, so I support their reversion. I will oppose them until further discussion here makes it clear what the purpose of the changes is and confirms that there is a consensus for them.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 09:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:ARS and Template:ARS/Tagged

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the reason Black is so mad:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FACs needing feedback view •
MLS Cup 2022	Review it now
Buangkok MRT station	Review it now
Starship Troopers (film)	Review it now
Fountain Fire	Review it now

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

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

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

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