Misplaced Pages

:Canvassing: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:55, 22 November 2007 editJohn254 (talk | contribs)42,562 edits adding modified sentence concerning blocking, as described on talk page← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:06, 4 December 2024 edit undoDanbloch (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers17,431 edits Undid revision 1261166382 by 216.80.39.34 (talk); rvvTag: Undo 
(475 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Misplaced Pages guideline}}
__NOTOC__
{{redirect|WP:CAN|the Wikiproject
{{subcat guideline|behavioral guideline|Canvassing|]<br />]}}
about Canada|Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Canada|the Wikiproject about Canberra|Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Canberra|canned edit summaries|Misplaced Pages:Canned edit summaries}}
{{For|external advertising in article space|Misplaced Pages:Spam}}
{{Distinguish|Misplaced Pages:Forum shopping}}
{{subcat guideline|behavioral guideline|Canvassing|WP:CAN|WP:CANVASS}}
{{nutshell|When notifying other editors of discussions, keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions. Be open!}}


In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve ].
{{For2|external advertising in article space|]}}


''']''' refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal ] process, and therefore is generally considered ] behavior.
''']''' is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion.<ref>Any kind of solicitation may meet this definition, including, for example, a custom signature to automatically append some promotional message to every signed post.</ref> 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.<ref>On at least one occasion, a provocative attempt to stack an ongoing poll by cross-posting has contributed towards an Arbitration Committee ruling of disruptive behavior that resulted in probation and eventual banning by the community. An arbitrator clarified the position: "Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine. Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not. The difference lies in the disruption involved. If what is happening is getting everyone upset then it is a problem. Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article." See ].</ref>


==Appropriate notification<span id="Friendly notices"></span>==
{{Shortcut|WP:APPNOTE}}
An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:
*The talk page or noticeboard of one or more ] or other ] which may have interest in the topic under discussion.
* A ] (such as the ] or other relevant ]) for discussions that have a wider influence such as ] discussions.
* The talk page of one or more directly related ].
* On the talk pages of a user mentioned in the discussion (particularly if the discussion concerns complaints about user behavior).
* On the ] pages of concerned editors. Examples include:
** Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article
** Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
** Editors known for expertise in the field
** Editors who have asked to be kept informed


The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. Do not send inappropriate notices, as defined in the ], and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them.
__TOC__


Notifications must be ], neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion. The {{tl|Please see}} template may help in notifying people in a quick, simple, and neutral manner.
==Types of canvassing==
The following table explains under which circumstances notifications are considered acceptable ("friendly notices") or unacceptable ("disruptive canvassing"). In a nutshell, to avoid disrupting the consensus building process on Misplaced Pages, editors should keep the number of notifications small (or seek out WikiProjects), keep the message text neutral, and not preselect recipients according to their established opinions.


Note: It is good practice to leave a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made, particularly if made to individual users.
<center>
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;"
|-
| width=17% | &nbsp;
| width=17% | '''Scale
| width= 5% | &nbsp;
| width=17% | '''Message
| width= 5% | &nbsp;
| width=17% | '''Audience
| width= 5% | &nbsp;
| width=17% | '''Transparency
|-
| style="background:#efe;" | ]
| style="background:#efe;" | Limited posting
| style="background:#efe;" | <small>AND
| style="background:#efe;" | Neutral
| style="background:#efe;" | <small>AND
| style="background:#efe;" | Nonpartisan
| style="background:#efe;" | <small>AND
| style="background:#efe;" | Open
|-
| style="background:#ffe;" |
| style="background:#ffe; font-size:15pt; padding-bottom:6px" | ↕
| style="background:#ffe;" |
| style="background:#ffe; font-size:15pt; padding-bottom:6px" | ↕
| style="background:#ffe;" |
| style="background:#ffe; font-size:15pt; padding-bottom:6px" | ↕
| style="background:#ffe;" |
| style="background:#ffe; font-size:15pt; padding-bottom:6px" | ↕
|-
| style="background:#fee;" | '''Disruptive canvassing'''
| style="background:#fee;" | Mass posting
| style="background:#fee;" | <small>OR
| style="background:#fee;" | Biased
| style="background:#fee;" | <small>OR
| style="background:#fee;" | Partisan
| style="background:#fee;" | <small>OR
| style="background:#fee;" | Secret
|-
| Term
| ]
| &nbsp;
| ]
| &nbsp;
| ]
| &nbsp;
| ]
<!--
|-
| Problem
| Annoys editors{{fn|2}}
| &nbsp;
| Compromises consensus&nbsp;finding{{fn|3}}
| &nbsp;
| Compromises consensus&nbsp;finding{{fn|3}}
| &nbsp;
| Raises questions of bad&nbsp;faith&nbsp;intentions{{fn|4}}
-->
|}</center>


==Inappropriate notification==
=== Friendly notices ===
{{Shortcut|WP:INAPPNOTE}}
Neutrally worded notifications sent to a small number of editors are considered "friendly notices" if they are intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion (for example if 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:
{{Template:Canvassing table}}


Inappropriate notification is generally considered to be disruptive. Canvassing normally involves the posting of messages. However, it may also include other kinds of solicitation, such as a custom signature to automatically append some promotional message to every signed post. Do not use a ] to send messages to multiple pages as this can be seen as a form of spamming.
* Notifying a related WikiProject
* Notifying all editors who substantively edited or discussed the article or project
* Notifying all editors who participated in a preceding discussion of the article or project, as long as it goes out to all editors
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 Misplaced Pages discussions can add the "]" userbox to their user page.


The following behaviors are regarded as characteristic of inappropriate notification (and may be seen as disruptive):
=== Excessive cross-posting ===
Important discussions sometimes happen at remote locations in Misplaced Pages, so editors might be tempted to publicize this discussion by mass-mailing other Wikipedians. Even if the goal is not to influence the outcome of the debate, indiscriminately sending announcements to uninvolved editors is considered "talk-page spamming" (or e-mail spamming) and therefore disruptive.<ref>The Arbitration Committee has ruled that "he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Misplaced Pages's common practice. However, excessive cross-posting goes against current Misplaced Pages community norms. In a broader context, it is ''unwiki''." See ].</ref> Editors trying to attract a larger audience for a discussion should contact related WikiProjects first and use only limited friendly notices to individual editors. *'''Spamming''': Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand.<ref>In 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that "he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Misplaced Pages's common practice. However, excessive cross-posting goes against current Misplaced Pages community norms. In a broader context, it is "unwiki." See ].</ref>
*'''Campaigning''': Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner.
*'''Vote-stacking''': Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a ], ], or prior statement).<ref>See ] for a series of findings by the Arbitration Committee concerning vote-stacking and improper CANVASS</ref> ] involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a ], similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage, much as a form of prearranged vote stacking.
*'''Stealth canvassing''': Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail, ], or ], for example) to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages)
*Soliciting support other than by posting direct messages, such as using a custom signature with a message promoting a specific position on any issue being discussed.


Below are brief explanations of the most common types of inappropriate notification:
=== Campaigning ===
A hard and fast rule does not exist with regard to selectively notifying on their talk pages certain editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view, in order to influence a vote. However, the greater the number of editors contacted, the more often this behavior is engaged in, and the greater the resulting disruption, the more likely it is that this behavior will result in warnings and/or sanctions. Some Wikipedians have suggested that informing editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be acceptable.


===Spamming and excessive cross-posting<span id="Excessive cross-posting"></span>===
=== Votestacking ===
Indiscriminately sending announcements to editors can be disruptive for any number of reasons. If the editors are uninvolved, the message has the function of "spam" and is disruptive to that user's experience. More importantly, recruiting too many editors to a ] can often make resolving the dispute impossible. Remember that the purpose of a notification is to improve the dispute resolution process, not to disrupt it.
Votestacking is sending mass talk messages only to editors who are on the record with a specific opinion (such as via a userbox or other user categorization) and informing them of a current or upcoming vote. In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an AFD or CFD), it is similarly frowned-upon by many editors to send mass talk messages to those who expressed only a particular viewpoint on the previous debate, such as only "Keep" voters or only "Delete" voters.


The inclusion of links to discussions, including featured content nominations, in signatures has been found to be disruptive spamming.<ref>See the discussion at ].</ref>
=== Stealth canvassing ===
Because it is less transparent than on-wiki notifications, the use of email or other off-wiki communication to notify editors is discouraged unless there is a significant reason for not using talk page notifications. Depending on the specific circumstances, sending a notification to a group of editors by email may be looked at more negatively than sending the same message to the same group of people on their talk pages.


===Campaigning===
== Forum shopping ==
] is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of a specific individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages.
{{Shortcut|]}}
The term "forum shopping", or "asking the other parent", refers to repeatedly asking for outside opinions until you get an opinion you like. For instance, if you're blocked you can ask for an outside review of said block; if this review concludes that the block was proper, it is generally inappropriate to ask for yet another outside review. Forum shopping can be considered "internal spam" and can be grounds for blocking.


===Votestacking===
This also includes bringing up the same issue on a number of forums in succession (e.g. the village pump, admin board, deletion discussions, etc.) because the debate on the first forum did not yield the result you wanted.
{{Shortcut|WP:VOTESTACK|WP:VOTESTACKING}}
{{Redirect|WP:VOTESTACKING|the inactive page about survey notification|Misplaced Pages:Survey notification}}


Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a ], or from ]), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion.
== If you have canvassed ==
The following guidelines for cross-posting have wide acceptance among Wikipedians:


In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an RFC, AFD or CFD), it is similarly inappropriate to send a disproportionate number of notifications specifically to those who expressed a particular viewpoint on the previous debate.
* Be open. Do not make cross-posts that initially appear to be individual messages.
* Be polite. ] issues are extra-important when a message is likely to be read by many people.
* Avoid redundancy. Rather than copying the same five page essay to twenty talk pages, write it once, in the place where it is most relevant, and then link to it.
* Do not use a bot. If you're not willing to spend the time personally sending the messages, don't force us to spend the time reading it (or throwing it away). Also note that running bots without authorization is almost guaranteed to get both your account and the bot account blocked.
* Do not attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view.


Posting an ] on users' talk pages in order to inform editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be appropriate under certain circumstances.
There are often better alternatives to canvassing. For example, suppose you've written a cool new article, and you want lots of people to read it. Simply add links to it from other encyclopedia articles, where it is relevant, and also add it to appropriate categories. This increases the exposure of your article, while simultaneously benefiting the encyclopedia, without annoying your fellow contributors.


== Responding to disruptive canvassing == ===Stealth canvassing===
{{shortcut|WP:STEALTH}}
The most effective response to quite recent, clearly disruptive canvassing is to politely request that the user(s) responsible for the canvassing stop posting notices, and to block the user(s) only if they continue, to prevent them from posting further notices. Users with a prior history of disruptive canvassing, which they have previously been asked to discontinue, may be blocked immediately without further warning, if such an action is deemed to be necessary. 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.
Because it is less transparent than on-wiki notifications, the use of email, IRC, Discord, or other off-wiki communication to notify editors is strongly discouraged unless there is a significant reason for not using talk page notifications. Sending a notification to a group of editors by email is usually looked at more negatively than sending the same message to the same group of people on their talk pages.


==How to respond to canvassing==
==Notes and references==
The most effective response to quite recent, clearly disruptive canvassing is to politely request that the user(s) responsible for the canvassing stop posting notices, possibly using <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>subst:]<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code> on their talk page. If they continue, they may be reported to the ], which may result in their being ] from editing. Users with a prior history of disruptive canvassing, which they have previously been asked to discontinue, may be blocked immediately without further warning.
{{reflist}}

==Other forms of inappropriate consensus-building==
For other types of actions that are inappropriate in the consensus-building process, see the ]. Apart from canvassing, these include ] (raising an issue on successive discussion pages until you get the result you want), ] and ] (bringing fictional or real outside participants into the discussion to create a false impression of support for your viewpoint), and ].

==Templates==
*], warning for user talk pages
*], article talk page message, based on canvassing activity soliciting feedback from established accounts
*], article talk page message, based on sockpuppet activity
*], for use on discussion pages
*], for use in a discussion, to express concern that a specific user was canvassed to the discussion
*], for use in a discussion, to inform other editors that a given user has made few edits outside of this discussion. See ] for more details on proper use of this template.
*], to notify users and groups of users of an RfC in a neutral way


==See also== ==See also==
*] {{Misplaced Pages glossary}}
* {{Section link|Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion|After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors}}
*]
* ]
*] section on ]
*] (inactive) * ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


==Notes and references==
]
{{reflist}}
]

Latest revision as of 17:06, 4 December 2024

Misplaced Pages guideline "WP:CAN" redirects here. For the Wikiproject about Canada, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Canada. For the Wikiproject about Canberra, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Canberra. For canned edit summaries, see Misplaced Pages:Canned edit summaries. For external advertising in article space, see Misplaced Pages:Spam. Not to be confused with Misplaced Pages:Forum shopping.
Blue tickThis page documents an English Misplaced Pages behavioral guideline.
Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. Substantive edits to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this guideline's talk page.		Shortcuts
This page in a nutshell: When notifying other editors of discussions, keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions. Be open!

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

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

Appropriate notification

Shortcut

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

  • The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Misplaced Pages collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion.
  • A central location (such as the Village pump or other relevant noticeboards) for discussions that have a wider influence such as policy or guideline discussions.
  • The talk page of one or more directly related articles.
  • On the talk pages of a user mentioned in the discussion (particularly if the discussion concerns complaints about user behavior).
  • On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include:
    • Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article
    • Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
    • Editors known for expertise in the field
    • Editors who have asked to be kept informed

The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. Do not send inappropriate notices, as defined in the section directly below, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them.

Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion. The {{Please see}} template may help in notifying people in a quick, simple, and neutral manner.

Note: It is good practice to leave a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made, particularly if made to individual users.

Inappropriate notification

Shortcut
  Scale   Message   Audience   Transparency
Appropriate Limited posting AND Neutral AND Nonpartisan AND Open
↕ ↕ ↕ ↕
Inappropriate Mass posting OR Biased OR Partisan OR Secret
Term Excessive cross-posting ("spamming")   Campaigning   Votestacking   Stealth canvassing

Inappropriate notification is generally considered to be disruptive. Canvassing normally involves the posting of messages. However, it may also include other kinds of solicitation, such as a custom signature to automatically append some promotional message to every signed post. Do not use a bot to send messages to multiple pages as this can be seen as a form of spamming.

The following behaviors are regarded as characteristic of inappropriate notification (and may be seen as disruptive):

  • Spamming: Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand.
  • Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner.
  • Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement). Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage, much as a form of prearranged vote stacking.
  • Stealth canvassing: Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail, IRC, or Discord, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages)
  • Soliciting support other than by posting direct messages, such as using a custom signature with a message promoting a specific position on any issue being discussed.

Below are brief explanations of the most common types of inappropriate notification:

Spamming and excessive cross-posting

Indiscriminately sending announcements to editors can be disruptive for any number of reasons. If the editors are uninvolved, the message has the function of "spam" and is disruptive to that user's experience. More importantly, recruiting too many editors to a dispute resolution can often make resolving the dispute impossible. Remember that the purpose of a notification is to improve the dispute resolution process, not to disrupt it.

The inclusion of links to discussions, including featured content nominations, in signatures has been found to be disruptive spamming.

Campaigning

Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of a specific individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages.

Votestacking

Shortcuts "WP:VOTESTACKING" redirects here. For the inactive page about survey notification, see Misplaced Pages:Survey notification.

Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion.

In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an RFC, AFD or CFD), it is similarly inappropriate to send a disproportionate number of notifications specifically to those who expressed a particular viewpoint on the previous debate.

Posting an appropriate notice on users' talk pages in order to inform editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be appropriate under certain circumstances.

Stealth canvassing

Shortcut

Because it is less transparent than on-wiki notifications, the use of email, IRC, Discord, or other off-wiki communication to notify editors is strongly discouraged unless there is a significant reason for not using talk page notifications. Sending a notification to a group of editors by email is usually looked at more negatively than sending the same message to the same group of people on their talk pages.

How to respond to canvassing

The most effective response to quite recent, clearly disruptive canvassing is to politely request that the user(s) responsible for the canvassing stop posting notices, possibly using {{subst:Uw-canvass}} on their talk page. If they continue, they may be reported to the administrators' noticeboard for incidents, which may result in their being blocked from editing. Users with a prior history of disruptive canvassing, which they have previously been asked to discontinue, may be blocked immediately without further warning.

Other forms of inappropriate consensus-building

For other types of actions that are inappropriate in the consensus-building process, see the policy on consensus. Apart from canvassing, these include forum shopping (raising an issue on successive discussion pages until you get the result you want), sock puppetry and meat puppetry (bringing fictional or real outside participants into the discussion to create a false impression of support for your viewpoint), and tendentious editing.

Templates

See also

This page is referenced in the Misplaced Pages Glossary.

Notes and references

  1. In 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that "he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Misplaced Pages's common practice. However, excessive cross-posting goes against current Misplaced Pages community norms. In a broader context, it is "unwiki." See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/IZAK#Principles.
  2. See WP:False consensus for a series of findings by the Arbitration Committee concerning vote-stacking and improper CANVASS
  3. See the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive262#Linking to discussions in signatures.
Categories: