Wikipedia:Backdoor canvass
This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
Mentioning other editors not currently involved in a dispute who have previously or separately disagreed with your opponent so that you can "courtesy notify" them is obvious canvassing, no matter how you try to spin it. Proper conduct dispute resolution is best done by providing diffs of their behavior, not by making a shopping list of folks who agree with your point of view.
Making your case
When "making a case" at either of the administrator noticeboards (
Nonetheless, Wikipedia has very strict rules about
More harm than good
Administrator noticeboards are watched by many and frequented by many more again. Having neutral third parties comment on the case is often more valuable than a conga line of editors showing up to have their whack at the piñata.
And...
There is a good chance that if those other editors have a different but ongoing conflict with the editor in question, they will see your compulsory {{ANI-notice}} on the editor's talk page and will be prompted to offer their thoughts if they feel they have something to contribute.
Of course...
None of these ideas mitigate the need to notify someone that they are the subject of an administrator's noticeboard discussion. Courteous editors will often also notify those directly involved who aren't the subject in an effort to afford an appropriate right of reply.
There are other times where endorsement of particular cases is required or where specific groups (like
Notes
- not a battlegroundwith "opponents" and "sides".