Template talk:Not a ballot

Usage

• {{AfdAnons}} generate the standard text with "a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so"
• {{AfdAnons|reason}} replace the text above with "reason"
  • {{AfdAnons|1=reason}} if your "reason" text contains a '=' (often external URLs) — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib}

Note: Please insert this template underneath the heading/link to the article and/or the nomination. Placing the template above the heading makes it look as if the warning is associated with the previous discussion when displayed on the daily AfD listings. -- Saberwyn 22:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon users

"Additionally, some users may recommend deleting a page based wholly or partially on the fact that a large number of new or anonymous users recommend keeping." Do people actually do this? I would hope they have better reasons to recommend deleting. I don't think this line reflects very well upon the wikipedia AfD process; it will give newcomers a rather strange impression. David Sneek 20:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I have seen at least two cases of editors explicitely motivating delete with the presence of "new editors". My guess is that some editors that are neutral on a given article become more inclined for deletion in these cases: this sentence is more about the actual rather than the ideal process (if any).- Liberatore(T) 14:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I still believe, though, that the template would be better and newbie-friendlier without that sentence. David Sneek 09:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

"not a vote"

The text currently says, "please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted." This is actually kind of confusing; an unaware reader is likely to get the impression that it's trying to say something like "this is not a vote on whether this article is to be deleted; we have no intention of deleting this article at all."

(You may think that's silly; you may think it's obvious that the point is that it's not a vote but rather a consensus-gathering poll, but the reason you think that's obvious is becuase you already know it!)

To the person who doesn't already know this, to the person who assumes (as so many do) that everything is a vote, the sentence is actually pretty unlikely to have the desired effect. I think we should make the intent of the statement much more explicit, with something like:

...please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted; it is more like a straw a nonbinding poll to gauge consensus on the question.

And even if we don't change the wording, we should at least change the emphasis from "this is not a vote" to "this is not a vote". (In fact, if there are no objections, I think I'll make that small change now; my only reluctance is that I know that one should be wary before editing templates. This one isn't high-use, is it?) —Steve Summit (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC) [tweaked 15:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)]

The only objection I have is on the "straw poll" part. I would rather say "this is not a vote, but rather a discussion, on whether the article is to be deleted". - Liberatore(T) 14:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I meant to admit, mentioning "straw poll" would definitely be poor (it's one of those terms people are always twisting around to mean whatever they want to mean). But at the same time, AfD is clearly more than just a "discussion". Does "nonbinding poll" work any better? —Steve Summit (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It's better than "straw poll", but still gives the idea of collecting votes. Is there any simple way to say this is a process of collecting opinions instead of votes? For example "...please note that this is not a vote. It is a process of discussing and collecting opinions and ideas about whether the article is to be deleted." The "ideas" part is because sometimes people propose something different than just keep or delete. - Liberatore(T) 16:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not a vote but neither is it a poll. Note that the Voting is evil is actually a cross-wiki clone of Meta:Polling is evil and that all the section headings talk about "polls", not "votes". It is instead a discussion attempting to reach rough consensus on the appropriateness of the article for the encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Wrong. Please do not let connotations about "vote" and "poll" block you from correctly that your "articles for deletion" process, like the votes for deletion process for which I have much more familiarity, is both a vote and a poll. This is because each user states whether they want to keep, delete, or do something else. Though some users changed their votes after reading other votes, though some users only provide commons, though in the end the decision is not made by consensus and not counting, though the public at large does not participate, though it is true that "there is no ballot to stuff", it is false to claim in Template:AfdAnons that "this is not a vote".

I have participated in Wikibooks:Votes for deletion, Wikisource:Deletion requests, and MetaWikipedia:Requests for deletion, and freely use the words "poll" or "vote" to refer to this process. The fact that I read "this is not a vote" while reading Wikipedia today indicates that you are using Wikipedian jargon, in a template meant to be read by outsiders. Wow. --Kernigh 08:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Please, go ahead and ask at WT:AFD whether "AfD is not a vote" is just jargon. If it's jargon, it's taken to the letter by many people. - Liberatore(T) 10:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggested addition to template

It seems to me that very often the mere presence of many puppets "voting" in either direction makes editors more inclined to go in the other direction. Therefore, sockpuppeting and meatpuppeting will frequently hurt someone's cause rather than help it. We might get less sockpuppeting if we pointed this out on the template. JoshuaZ 19:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

A sentence like this was indeed added some weeks ago, but was later removed (see "Anon voting" above). Saying that "some editors are more inclined to suggest deletion" could be a reasonable compromise. - Liberatore(T) 10:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Status of templates?

It came up in an AFD - what status do templates have? Is using them policy, or pursuant to guidelines, are they something else? Шизомби 17:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I assume this is about the use of templates in AfD discussionss. This one has been used a number of times, as well as {{unsigned}} and {{unsigned2}}. In my opinion, the editor placing a template is taking responsibility of what's written in the template (it's like he/she has written its content), but other than that I have not seen any other objection so far. As far as I know, this one is not mentioned in any policy or guideline, but it's not forbidden either. - Liberatore(T) 17:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no personal objection to the template, it was raised by another. He thought people may find it overly intimidating and that people need to understand that they are still free to post. I don't think the template is that scary and that it explains itself pretty well, though it is longish. Шизомби 22:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Given how little it seems to dissuade anons and new users from posting crap reasons to keep things, intimdation doesn't seem to be a problem. JoshuaZ 22:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

What does this mean?

Not trying to be obtuse here, but what does this sentence mean? "Additionally, some users may recommend deleting a page based wholly or partially on the fact that a large number of new or anonymous users recommend keeping." Morton devonshire 00:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

While it is verbosely worded, I think it means if many new or IP users recommend keep, then more longterm WP users might recommend delete as a result. Something of a knee-jerk reaction perhaps. Anyway, I think it's meant to be a heads-up to those new or IP users that their keep might result in people recommending delete who would not have otherwise recommended delete. Whether that's true and if so to what extent, I couldn't say. When you initially removed it, you indicated you thought it was redundant with the comment about the closing admin. I believe this doesn't refer to closing admins, but rather to other users participating in the AfD prior to its close. Шизомби 00:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Either way, it's confusing and not really necessary given the purpose of the template. One of the problems with the template is size, so economizing space is important too. Morton devonshire 00:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It is important for new users because when a flood of IPs vote keep, many longterm Wikipedians, myself included, will very quickly swing towards deletion. Making them aware of that helps avoid biting the newbies. I'm going to see if I can come up with a way to express all that we want to say in a shorter template, though. Stifle (talk) 12:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

So wait, it's their job to keep you from biting them? That sounds somewhat backwards. If you recognize that you have a psychological reaction to anons coming on, shouldn't you deal with that yourself rather than try and change them so you don't have to? GreenReaper 04:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is the most controversial point of this template. Please take a look at the discussion above. I think that the changes proposed by JoshuaZ are the most reasonable. - Liberatore(T) 12:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I have re-introduced the clause "this is not a vote", because this is the most important part of this template. This is meant to discourage people from registering multiple accounts or fake "votes", which would just complicate closing the discussion without changing its result. - Liberatore(T) 12:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Template language.

Simply put, I am concerned with the language used in the template. Going through the template's history logs, its raison d'être is connected to "meatpuppet explosions" which occured a while ago. In particular, my gripe is with the following text:

"...for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia, and particularly, to this article, are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely by the closing Administrator..."

When I came across AfD nominations which applied this template, the impression I got was that my vote could be diminished — or even discarded — if it could be shown that I was a disinterested party. What constructive purpose comes from this? --Folajimi 20:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It should be rewritten to focus on meatpuppetry, and not used to try to cover other things outside its original purpose. Give it a shot, and I'll help. Morton devonshire 21:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll need a lot more context than is provided by the edit summary. --Folajimi 00:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this template, as evident from the sections above, is the difference between the theory and the practice of AfD. In theory, there is a discussion (in which everyone can enter) ending with a consensus or not. In practice, it's also true that: 1. the presence of a large number of new and anonymous editors makes some editors more inclined to suggest deletion; 2. some editors tend to ignore comments from new and anon editors, and 3. when there is no clear reason to keep or delete according to policy and guidelines (e.g., x people say notable and y say non-notable), consensus is somehow affected by numbers (10 vs. 1 is consensus, 10 vs. 9 is not), and new and anon editors tend to be neglected in this count.

I am not saying this is good: 2. is especially bad, but note that many people just ignore every comment after the nominator's one); however, 3. is somehow reasonable, at least in my opinion.

So, the problem is that this template should clarify that the deletion process is subject to policy, that we have guidelines, but we also have the habits of the people voting in the AfD and closing the discussions. This template can benefit a rewriting, but it'd not be easy. Good luck! - Liberatore(T) 18:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ballot stuffing

I have readded the part "ballot stuffing is pointless etc.". It may be obvious to us, but I don't think it is so for new editors that just arrived here and get the impression that this is a vote. That sentence was one of the very reasons this template exists. It may be redundant, but surely it's better to be clear on this point. - Liberatore(T) 15:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• It's not so much that it is obvious; that kind of assertion would imply arrogance on my part. Why would you have sockpuppetry employed in such situations if it was abundantly clear that the outcome of the debate/discussion is immune to such activities?

Perhaps a better question would be this: what evidence is available to prove that "ballot stuffing is [indeed] pointless"? Folajimi 16:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets are used because the uselessness of ballot stuffing is not at all evident to new users. The formatting used in AfD discussions (with lines like "'''Delete'''; reason. Signature") gives the impression that this is indeed a vote or a poll.

As for evidence of uselessness of ballot stuffing, I have yet to see an AfD where the outcome has been affected by ballot stuffing. On the other hand, there are a number of AfDs where new editors have affected the result by providing a rationale for not deleting. - Liberatore(T) 16:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Why exactly is this not considered a vote? If the decision regarding a nominated entry is determined by a plurality who express either "keep" or "delete", how is that different from a vote?

Also, if the outcome is independent of sockpuppetry, why bother with the tag in the first place? In time, those who use such methods are apt to give up, when they discover that it is a futile effort. --Folajimi 19:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• It's not a vote because what determines the result is more the rationale behind a suggestion for keeping or deleting than the "keep" or "delete" suggestion itself. As far as I am concerned, when I close an AfD, I routinely ignore any bullet that is only "*Delete. Signature" or "*Keep. Signature". Clearly, if there are 10 people for delete and 0 for keep, the result is obvious. That AfD is not a vote shows only when there is no unanimity. An example I think is particularly good is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Female nude wrestling, which was closed as deletion because of a general agreement the article had zero useful information, and in spite of a large number of "keep votes".

  As for use of socks, the problem is that people using them change every time. If BlogX is up for deletion, we see many readers from BlogX. If it is BlogY, it's the readers of BlogY, and these are usually different ones. This template is for new users -- experienced sockmasters would not care of this template anyway. - Liberatore(T) 19:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• The case you just made is definitely much more convincing than the lazy "ballot stuffing is pointless" remark. By providing a concrete example of how ineffectual sockpuppetry actually is, you have presented a much more persuasive deterrent to those who might consider using such tactics. At the very least, it will give such malcontents pause... Folajimi 20:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I propose that the lazy language be replaced with a convincing argument about the futility of any and all attempts to affect the outcome of AfD discussions by sockpuppetry or astroturfing... --Folajimi 20:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the example I provided is not about sockpuppetry, rather than the fact that AfD is a discussion and not a vote. Perhaps something like "Past attempts at influencing the outcome by a large number of "votes" only have failed, as these discussions are based on the strenght of arguments rather than on the weight of numbers." This has the problem of implicitely accusing of trying a similar attempt, so it may not be exactly the perfect solution. And, of course, we want to keep this template short. - Liberatore(T) 21:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm pleased to know that we are in agreement on all counts. I'll see what I can think of. Folajimi 21:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed language.

Here's a possible draft:

"The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or sockpuppetry."

Is that concise enough? --Folajimi 02:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's good. I'd replace "AfD nominations" with "deletion discussions", as this template is intented for newcomers. The link should be to Sock puppet (internet) or maybe to WP:SOCK (not sure what's best). - Liberatore(T) 13:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest WP:SOCK for this purpose; the helps place emphasis on the connection to Wikipedia's policy on this matter. It also helps that a link to the disambiguation page is placed at the top of the page. Folajimi 13:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok then. Since I do not see any other objection, I guess you can just go ahead and update the template, at this point. - Liberatore(T) 16:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --Folajimi 17:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Template should not be used

This template seems to serve only one purpose, to discourage people from making their voices heard in AfD debates.

Sockpuppetry in particular is not going to be affected by a notice, even if it is blunt and impolite.

I think it is not a remotely subtle template to use.

zoney ♣ talk 23:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This template is threatening and unhelpful. What happens without it? Maybe a bunch of newbies weigh in? Who cares? That could even be a good thing -- how arrogant is it of us to assume that new users can't contribute responsibly to an AfD? Furthermore, I agree with Zoney that the template will probably be ineffective in stopping sockpuppets. A puppetmaster is inherently dishonoring Wikipedia policies; why would he heed this warning? I don't mean to be rude, but I disagree with what I perceive as the spirit of the template. I'd like to hear some responses before I consider nominating it for deletion. --BDD 04:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It isn't meant to be subtle. It is meant to get the attention of new users. It has a much better chance of preventing them from getting bitten since they will have advanced warning. I know empircially that it has detered meatpuppeting in the past (at least one occasion someone from a forum I keep track of mentioned that he hadn't followed through on a request to go vote on one of our AfDs because the individual saw the template). JoshuaZ 04:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Two bugs

1. "Reason" parameter seems broken, I cannot get it to work.
2. The 4 tilde signature block comes out white on pink background in FF. Is the 'code' really required?

— RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 19:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The parameter is to be used as {{AfdAnons|of this reason}}, not as {{AfdAnons|reason=of this reason}}. I have removed the code tags, as they do not look well on the new background (Liberatore, 2006). 11:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, it looks better now, but I am still not seeing the reason work. I don't know much about templates, but I don't see any code in the template either that is looking for any parameter. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 13:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

In a template, code like {{{1|default}}} is replaced with the first argument, if any is provided, or with "default" otherwise. The following is produced by {{AfdAnons|'''this is the reason'''}} (Liberatore, 2006). 14:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I was bit by the '=' in the parameter problem, again. I fixed it with a 1=my text here. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 15:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Patent nonsense

The text of this template is very nearly the opposite of the truth. AFD is not a vote? What are you people smoking? Of course, if AFD weren't a vote there wouldn't be any use for this template in the first place. Nobody is bothered by newbies offering their opinions - it's the newbie votes that sometimes frighten the professional careerist AFDers.

Can we try a little honesty? Just a little? Or is that too much to ask of the high and mighty 'We' of Wikipedia? Mirror Vax 13:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If you believe this template is unhelpful and discourages deletion discussion by newbies, I suggest listing it under templates for deletion if you are so inclined. Nufy8 15:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Why can't the misinformation be corrected? Or do you believe the template is fully truthful? AFD is not a vote, etc. Come on. You know it isn't true. There are one or two free-wheeling admins, Jimbo being one, who sometimes go against the vote count. The rest follow the count quite strictly and never decide on "the merits of the arguments". Mirror Vax 20:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure some admins have made decisions based solely on votes, and I'm sure others have taken the arguments themselves into account. Either way, it's still deletion policy that AfD is "not a strict 'count of votes', but rather a judgement based upon experience and taking into account the policy-related points made by those contributing." I'm sorry if you perceive the actual practice of deletion as counter to official policy, but changing the template to conform to your own personal perceptions instead of what official policy states is not the way to go about expressing your dissatisfaction. Initiating civil discussion on that policy's talk page is. Nufy8 21:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you sorry that I'm correct, or sorry that I'm wrong? You didn't exactly say whether you agreed with my "perceptions". Which statement is closer to the truth: "AFD is not a vote" or "AFD is a vote"? Both are incomplete, but the second is much less misleading, yes? Mirror Vax 22:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what my perceptions are of deletion in practice; the policy states what I quoted above, and to change the template to purport the exact opposite is unconstructive. As for your second question, "voting" in some sense takes place in AfDs, and the object is not merely to count every "vote" and decide based on the results, but to make judgments based on arguments of each suggested action. I would agree that it's not worded particularly well in the template, but like I said, it still needs to be in concordance with policy. Nufy8 22:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what's so constructive about asserting things that nobody believes are true. Suppose I placed a template on articles that asserted that the article was 100% verified and accurate. You object that Wikipedia articles do, in fact, contain errors. I retort that that is only your perception and being error-free is the policy, and the statement must be in concordance with policy. The point is, it's one thing to express a preference for how one would like things to be, and another to assert a fact. This template, as I read it, asserts facts, so you can't be indifferent as to whether the assertions are true or not. Mirror Vax 23:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think in one respect, Vax is right. It doesn't seem to discourage meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry, so why bother having it? Morton devonshire 23:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind seeing it go myself, giving that it hasn't been very useful in my experience. That's why I suggested it be placed on TfD. Vax, I understand what you're trying to say, but the whole reason I blocked you was for the way you handled yourself. If you went to the talk page first instead of making the edits you did, there wouldn't have been a problem. I know I'm repeating myself, but if you're against this template, put it up on TfD. Judging from previous discussions on this talk page, you wouldn't be alone in your concerns. Nufy8 00:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Majority vote?

I have reverted the recent change from "this is not a vote" to "this is not a majority vote". The problem is that the second statement may imply that this is for example a vote where unanimity is required, which is not the case. A "survey" might be a better term, but that implies a lot of power from the closing administrator. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 13:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It should be contextually obvious that unanimity is not required, but feel free to add a statement to this effect. Just don't reinsert the factually incorrect claim that AfD discussions aren't votes, please. Thank you. —David Levy 13:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the dictionary; you are right: "this is not a vote" is technically incorrect. However, "this is not a majority vote" is somehow misleading: when people think of votes, they still think in terms of "I say this or that, and someone will count". The dictionary entry suggested me that the correct way to express what we want to say is "this is not a ballot". Do you agree with this version? Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 14:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "ballot" seems okay. I've made the change. —David Levy 14:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Moved

I've moved the page, as the template has been used in deletion discussions other than AfD and used to refer to users other than just anon IPs. Any objections?--TBCΦtalk? 05:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a good idea, although I think people are going to keep using AfdAnons as the name. I've fixed the usage notes, anyway. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Created a redirect from Template:Nab for ease of typing. I concur that "AfDAnons" was not an ideal name. Tizio 11:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Category?

I think having a category for AfDs with this disclaimer would be a good idea, to get more attention from Wikipedians in cases where the AfDs are more or less dominated by sock/meat puppetry and single purpose accounts. Memmke 08:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could call it something like "AfDs in need of attention" or "AfDs with heavy outer influence". Memmke 08:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that might backfire. These aren't really AFDs in need of more attention, they are AFDs already having too much attention. It's more a note for the new users that vote spamming is pretty much ineffective, and a note to the closer (in case it wasn't already obvious to him). (Radiant) 09:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they're having too much attention from outsiders, not neccessarily from Wikipedians. Memmke 10:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This used to be politer....

There is too much "you're vote won't count" and not enough "welcome to Wikipedia!" now. Also, tagging single purpose accounts could very likely be perceived by newbies as rude. This old version looks much better. I recommend reverting to that old version, to avoid biting newbies. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC), 21:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Additional uses

This template should be applicable for discussions outside of deletion debates. The {{rally}} template somewhat catered for this, but has (sensibly, I think) been redirected here. But now this template needs to be updated.--cj | talk 09:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised this template's never been nominated for deletion

It bites the newcomers really badly.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• That's cause for rewriting, not deletion. --W.marsh 15:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Newcomers come to Afd page, not to full day's discussions. so i added noincludes in usage. And thus hereafter it can be included in every afd discussion, and can be included in template:afd2, within noincludes. Lara_bran 06:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This templates violates WP:BITE and WP:AGF in such a way it makes it almost processcruft: the values of the community, the spirit gets bureaucratically smashed under the weight of process. There is no reason why to have a template with such an ominous tone and graphics. We either WP:BITE and WP:AGF or have this template, but we cannot have both. Hence, I will nominate for deletion. Thanks!--Cerejota 03:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Not a ballot

Template:Not a ballot has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Cerejota 04:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

proposed edit

---

Please use this section to edit the template. Also mention any problems about using noinclude of this template. Lara_bran 07:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Somebody experienced about afd behaviours please help improve this template sentences. Thanks. Lara_bran 08:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Changes incorporated except first sentence. I strongly feel first sentence should be softened. Lara_bran 07:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, why are you revert-warring to restore your undiscussed changes?

1. The statement "We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this" is intended to convey the fact that the policies and guidelines exist, not to encourage newcomers to immediately "go through policies and guidelines to help us decide this" (your text). If you believe that the phrase "we have" is intimidating, let's change it to "Wikipedia has" (which doesn't imply that the newcomers are excluded).

2. The statement "Deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes" is intended to convey the fact that the debate's outcome will not be determined numerically. It is not intended to serve as an instruction for the individuals reading the template (as "so please refrain from counting the votes" implies). —David Levy 08:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

First sentence needs rewrite, i did not touch as it had some transclusion of 1 etc. Lara_bran 03:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with the first sentence? —David Levy 07:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Changed wording

I've changed "on a forum" to "on another website" since "forum" seems to be too narrow (such canvassing notices have also appeared on non-forum websites such as blogs, for example [1]). TML (talk) 05:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Discourages new users from commenting?

I remember this template when I was a new user. I read it to mean that my comments were not important, so I didn't bother to comment on the issue.

Now that I am a more seasoned editor, and realize that all of the pages were called "voting" at one time, I realize what was said above Template_talk:Not_a_ballot#Patent_nonsense, is true. That in many ways straw polls/etc are a vote, in everything but name.

I am wondering if it is possible to measure what effect this template has on new user participation. I theorize that it has a negative effect, and that posting this template is advantageous to veteran editors. Ikip (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

While the template may be intimidating to new users, it can still be updated to be more friendly, such as mentioning that well-reasoned arguments are acceptable and providing a link to WP:AADD. Of course, there's bound to be a WP:BEANS issue when some user plows through the list just to disrupt a debate. --Sigma 7 (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I will try to make it more user friendly, if it is indeed editable to me. Okip (formerly Ikip) 14:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Okip: I saw your edit. Nice wording improvement, I like it.

--David Göthberg (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I don't know you from adam, but that reaction is rare around here. thank you so much for making my day. :) Okip (formerly Ikip) 15:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Haha, I assume that expression means you don't know who I am? I have seen your edits around here as Ikip over the years.

Anyway, when I see a good edit that I think has some risk that others might think is controversial or first should have been discussed, then I often add my support pre-emptively.

And as you say, as an editor it is always nice to get confirmation that other editors like what one has done. :))

--David Göthberg (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I made another change to it, re-adding the fact that it isn't a majority vote. I tried to make the previous wording sound less bitey but at the same time you have to realize that one of the reasons we created this template was to ward off new users who had been told offsite to come comment on these AFDs. I'm sorry Ikip, but the first sentence asking people to randomly post to it is not why we have this template; look at the name, it says "Not a ballot", that's the point this template was trying to get across, not that people were welcome to comment. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 23:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Coffee: I think you made it slightly too bitey again. I liked that the first sentence was welcoming, before all the "warnings".

--David Göthberg (talk) 02:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

David, your missing the point of this template; it's not to welcome people to comment, it's to tell people who came from some random website or forum that it's not a vote, and therefore their comment won't necessarily be "counted". — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

SPA Tags Inappropriate

The language used here is totally inappropriate. "Suspected" SPAs may be tagged. All they have to be is suspected to get a tag. There needs to be strong evidence not suspicion. This language has led to inappropriate tagging, like a nutritional biologist who edits a bunch of pages of vitamins, medical procedures, food toxicity, supplements and dietary intake gets tagged as an SPA for commenting on an AfD about a runner. Perhaps it was suspicious that this relatively light editor had a long period of absence (maybe a year or so) followed by commenting on an Afd, but he continued to edit other unrelated pages right after he commented on the AfD. This was such an inappropriate tagging that I felt not only did I have to reverse it, but leave a comment on both user talk pages who attempted to tag this user. This word "suspected" is way to week. Especially noting that there is now a common misuses section of the SPA essay, of which many things that may lead to suspicion are specifically mentioned as things not to use SPA as a label for. It really looks silly when this note tells people to tag suspicious users. Then the person who makes the tag also makes a link to the WP:SPA essay, and that essay basically explains to the person being tagged why they shouldn't have been tagged in the first place. MATThematical (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome

Shouldn't the statement "However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome" read this way instead "However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcomed" (i.e., welcome -> welcomed)? Mercy11 (talk) 04:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Image

The current image displays what appears to be a ballot box with the wikipedia W on it. Without looking at the text, the image in itself appears (to me) to be encouraging voting, contrary to the intention of the template. It might be better if there was a black/red slash over it discouraging voting. Alternatively, the image could be changed altogether. One option could be (the rather imposing) File:Notavote.svg, which is used on WP:VOTE.

Also, no matter which image is used, it should link to an appropriate help page (like WP:VOTE) instead of to the image itself.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed it was only semi-protected. Added link to WP:VOTE, in the image as well as the text.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Came here to say this too. I would suggest a new image along the lines of File:Not Admin.svg, which a giant cancel symbol in front of the image. Mz7 (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Very hostile

I saw this template and find it very hostile. The most hostile part is after the assume good faith part. It says to tag suspect single purpose accounts and canvassing.

A better phrase that keeps the same meaning would be: However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding (tildes) at the end.

Note: Comments by demonstrated single-purpose accounts or canvassed users may be tagged using: — User:username|username]] (talk • Special:Contributions/username|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. or Note: An editor has expressed a concern that username (talk • Special:Contributions/username|contribs]]) has been canvassed to this discussion.

---

This is to avoid disruptive comments consisting of accusations against other users resulting in an AFD turning from a discussion to an accusatory cage match.

Even better is to just leave out the "note" at the end of the template. Whiskeymouth (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 2 January 2017

Please remove "link=Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion" from the image link, so that clicking the image takes you to the image description page. This is required to comply with the file's licenses' attribution requirements. Thank you. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 03:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done —MRD2014 (Happy New Year!) 03:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 25 January 2023

Please add the following:

−

<small>'''Note:''' Comments by suspected [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|single-purpose accounts]] or [[Wikipedia:Canvassing|canvassed]] users may be tagged using: <code>{{subst:[[Template:spa|spa]]|''username''}}</code> or <code>{{subst:[[Template:canvassed|canvassed]]|''username''}}</code></small>

+

<small>'''Note:''' Comments by suspected [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|single-purpose accounts]] or [[Wikipedia:Canvassing|canvassed]] users may be tagged using: <code>{{subst:[[Template:spa|spa]]|''username''}}</code> or <code>{{subst:[[Template:canvassed|canvassed]]|''username''}}</code>. Comments by accounts blocked for [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry|sockpuppetry]] may be tagged using: <code>{{subst:[[Template:csm|csm]]|''username''}}</code> or <code>{{subst:[[Template:csp|csp]]|''username''}}</code>.</small>

Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done but I formatted a little differently. What do you think? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

That works for me. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 April 2024

Replace commas with semi colons as described in this diff Toadette ^{(Let's talk together!)} 10:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)