Wikipedia talk:Quickpolls/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Poll on the actual proposed policy

People who support the current quickpolls proposal

  1. —Eloquence 15:44, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
    Anthony DiPierro 15:55, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC) Support, with one tweak: "If the vote subsequently drops below 70%, the remedy should be reversed."
  2. Angela - agree with Anthony.
  3. Ruhrjung 16:00, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC) - although I seriously would like to see longer lasting bans
  4. Seth Ilys 22:21, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC) - although there should be time-limits on how long quickpolls stay open -- say, 2 or 3 days?
  5. Secretlondon yes - but I would like there to be a minimum time - especially for political issues which may have a regional bias.
    • Better to handle with "...drops below X%, the remedy should be reversed."--Ruhrjung 22:34, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • The normal rules of sleep do not apply to Wikipedians ;-).—Eloquence 22:40, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • They do for those of us with office jobs :( Secretlondon 23:11, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  6. Cyan 22:39, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  7. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:50, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC) (Although see tqo suggestions below)
  8. Dori | Talk 22:53, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
  9. BCorr¤Брайен 22:55, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
  10. Davodd 23:05, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
  11. fabiform | talk 23:07, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC) and I think there shouldn't be restrictions on the number of polls someone can call unless it turns out that the system isn't self-correcting
  12. Perl (Mabye 75 percent?)
  13. Taku 17:09, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
  14. Hephaestos|§ 17:12, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  15. Fred Bauder 17:17, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
  16. William M. Connolley 18:49, 2004 Mar 16 (UTC)
  17. Tannin 02:31, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC) Most of my reservations have been dealt with now. Let's do it.
  18. Martin 02:16, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC) I have reservations: I think four weeks is slightly too long for desysopping, and I think the three month requirement is a mistake, and I'd prefer a more incremental introduction, but I can live with this as v1.0.
  19. Ryan_Cable 11:53, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  20. ChrisO 01:36, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC) Not a bad system...
  21. I think its a lousy system, but its way better than near anarchy. Sam Spade 05:19, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  22. Arvindn 13:43, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  23. →Raul654 06:17, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)
  24. Adam Conover 06:51, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

People opposed to specific proposal, but with ideas for improvements that may change their vote, if accepted

(Please list any changes you would like to make next to your vote.)

  1. Oppose. All quick results need to be for short, limited times, not indefinite. The idea is to modify behavior, not be a court without due process. Normal discusion of a problem can handle things after no more than a few repeated offences and quick actions. Things like referring to aribtration are not suitable for a quick poll. Jamesday 23:14, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Changes I (+sj+) would like to see before voting for this :
    • A more gradual introduction of this idea. This is a *major* and abusable change. I don't like the idea of quickpolls doing anything 'permanently'. Regular one-week bans/desysopping until a case can go to arbitration seems much less offensive to the victim, and quite sustainable.
      • Quickpolls don't do anything permanent unless approved by arbitration. This was temporarily removed by Martin but I think it's a necessary protection.—Eloquence
    • Additionally, I think "2d and 3d offenses" should both indicate only a 24-hr ban, while "4th & further offenses" should allow up to a week ban. This would be a more moderate first step; after a couple months of trial use, I would be open to broadening or hardening the policy.
      • This is already a very lenient policy. I'm not willing to soften it further in the initial phase. But I'd be open to softening in case it turns out to be a problem.—Eloquence
        • Better now. But I do think some min number of edits -- 10? that's what we use when calculating Stats:#-of-users -- should be required, to get a sense of the voter.
      • Here's a detailed 'worst-case scenario'.
        • That's more of a story than a scenario, and not a very realistic one at that, largely because any quickpoll requires prior warnings about the policy in question
          • Ah! This was unclear. "repeat offenders" could apply to 'someone who has violated any policy in the past' (indeed, I only just now realized the other way to parse it). The new wording is great.
        • ...and also because it has an unrealistic "one against everyone" view of Wikipedia editing.
          • Right. story it was; 'scenario' in quotes. I agree its unrealistic.
        • Now, the only point from that scenario which I can agree on is problematic is that of a one-week-desysopping being hard to undo once it has become final. A quick-resysopping clause on WP:RfA might sense; on the other hand, if people change their opinions so quickly, then maybe it's a good thing that they get some time to think about them first.—Eloquence
          • See new comment below on min. length of time.
    • A less strident voting policy, coupled with a more strident listing policy. (I don't like the idea of every user with 3mo+100 edits being encouraged to edit Wikipedia:Recentchanges whenever they are in a really foul mood!) Perhaps 4mo+400 edits, or adminship, to list a quickpoll; only 1mo+100 edits to vote in one. (that should be enough to avoid endless sockpuppets; as with any poll, the vote of someone demonstrated to be a sockpuppet can be ignored.) Adminship should suffice to 'qualify' a user. +sj+ 12:20, 2004 Mar 20 (UTC)
      • The voting policy is already less strident - there is no 100 edit policy any longer. Please read the current version of the proposal.—Eloquence 00:15, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)
        • Now the barrier to ranting on RC is really too low. Most of the time when I visit RC, I absolutely don't want to see emotional comments about who's abusing whom. 99% of edits to WP are not about that. How about limiting the allowable RC change to a single link, on a new Quickpolls: line created for this purpose, consisting only of UserA:UserB, where UserA is listing a poll regarding UserB?
    • A minimum length of time a poll must be left up before acting on it, perhaps an hour? Again, make slow changes... this can be strengthened if it isn't abused.
  3. anthony 22:10, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC) I'm not sure how it could be fixed, though.

People opposed to the idea

  1. Oppose strongly. --Wik 23:57, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Eclecticology 05:04, 2004 Mar 15 (UTC) It's just more bureaucracy.
  3. Weakly sceptical; having seen it in action. May switch later. -- Cimon avaro 07:52, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
  4. I think quickpolls will become the place where people like Lord Kenneth and Reddi will rule the day. Wikipedia is (and should remain) a place where people seek consensus. I'm just worried the current system of friendly consensus will turn into a bunch of hard popularity votes. I'm worried that this vote itself might prove me right, if votes are simply tallied, and this comment goes unnoticed :-( Kim Bruning 18:17, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Polls for edit warriors? for admin oversights? for vandals? That makes no sense. These polls will further bog people down, waste time, and create witch-hunts. Previously banned people will not vote with their conscience, but with revenge in mind. People are going to start feeding off the drama of these polls. Some people will make a mockery of the system. Quickpolls should be used for questions like: should image3 be justified to the right or to the left? Leave discipline issues up to the 175 admins, the Mediation and Arbitration committees. If Arbitration refuses to hear it, that's the end. Get over it. Don't start these vigilante groups. Kingturtle 07:14, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

General Comments about the proposed policy

While I support this enthusiastically, I think its use should be extremely rare. While full blocks are the only way to deal with pure vandals, it would be nice for there to be allowance for people blocked this way, who might not be vandals but simply get carried away in a dispute, to at least be able to participate on talk pages. Per-page protection is another possibility (I assume per-page protection would not apply to talk pages as well). Unfortunately, these protections are not currently technically possible, but I hope this political "solution" does not stop the desire to have the technical techniques added. Anthony DiPierro 23:16, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As long as we speak of 24-hours ban, it can hardly be any concern that the banned user is blocked also from talk-pages. This scheme can be realized without any software changes. Per-page protection and other alternatives seem to be a much later possibility.--Ruhrjung 23:34, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This scheme can be realized without any software changes, and that's why I support it. But I see it as a less than optimal solution. I'm not sure why you say it can hardly be a concern to block non-vandals from talk pages. It is a concern, at least to me, and I would think others share that concern. Again, we're not talking about someone intentionally destroying Wikipedia (although that is one of the three posibilities). Anthony DiPierro 23:21, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Of course it would be a serious concern and a severe condition if the ban laster longer than 24 hours.--Ruhrjung 17:53, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Problems already resolved

Moved to Wikipedia_talk:Quickpolls/Initial proposal resolved issues

Problems to be resolved

"Persecution" issue

I'm worried about political abuse - but we'll see how it goes. If it is clear that people with minority politics are being targeted then I think we will need to review and make amends if necessary. Secretlondon 23:12, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that I don't think it will be - I expect that 172 will be listed here and maybe even myself. However I don't expect RickK or VeryVerily to end up being listed. Can you see the problem? Everything we have so far has been used for partisan ends, why should this be any different? I'm sorry if this is too blunt - but there seems to be a fair amount of minority baiting atmSecretlondon 23:21, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's almost certain that RickK will be listed here promptly for not following deletion policy. I've considered listing him for desysopping for that reason at least once a month for many months now. Jamesday 23:23, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
You just won't go to sleep will you Secretlondon? What do you mean by minorities? Trolls are in the minority, so are crackpot theorists, should they be left free to roam? As long as people abide by the policies, it doesn't matter whether they are in the minority does it? Dori | Talk 23:26, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
Minorities are for instance Poles who feel that Allied (including Soviet) views have been purported wrongly for 60 years. And people with a less rosy view of USA and UK, remember this is an Anglophone forum.--Ruhrjung 23:30, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
That doesn't solve the issue of verifiability. There are plenty of people that feel the US committed the 9/11 attacks, should they be allowed to express that in articles? Dori | Talk 23:33, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
However, more fair schemes would require software changes, and that would certainly take some time to accomplish.--Ruhrjung 23:32, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I don't know, I think at least 20% of the regulars here are fair minded and can look past partisan disputes. And for those whose edits are rejected by an overwhelming majority of people, they're not going to win in the end anyway. Personally I will vote against a 24-hour ban for anyone participating on the talk page unless they are obviously trolling or there has been a strong consensus reached against them and yet they continue to force their viewpoint. Anthony DiPierro 23:43, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

permananent de-sysopping issue

if the user in question is a sysop, a temporary desysopping (until the case is heard by arbitration, which may reinstate sysop privileges)

What if the arbitration committee refuse the case? Does the desysopping become permanent as it seems to have done in the case of 168...? Angela. 15:56, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

If they refuse to hear it, that means the decision is obvious and does not need review. So the answer to your question is yes, until sysop status is granted again on

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.—Eloquence 15:59, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

If they refuse to hear it it could just mean that the AC is overwhelmed with work. Eclecticology 05:04, 2004 Mar 15 (UTC)
At first glance I was that this could be a problem, but it is largely up to me to make sure I don't do something worthy of being desysopped. The only issue is that it could take a week to restore someone's status, but if there are still more than 70% of the quickpoll votes in support of the desysopping, that shouldn't be a problem. -- BCorr¤Брайен 22:55, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
If they refuse to hear it, it's obvious that they don't think there is a case to be heard and the action should be immediately undone. Jamesday 23:17, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

de-sysoping based on quickpoll should be limited to 24 hours at a time, rather than until heard by arbcom. Martin

All that would accomplish is added overhead: Say the arbitration commission takes the case after a week, and people feel that a sysop has egregiously violated policy - now they have to confirm that every day, with proper announcement of the poll etc. But this additional bureaucracy accomplishes nothing. We already have the "falling support" requirement - as soon as people stop supporting the desysoping, the sysop can be reinstated. And we have WP:RFA, where people can try to build consensus on a reinstatement. Please construct what you think would be a worst case scenario to determine whether this 24 hour limit is actually needed, or whether it just makes things more complicated..—Eloquence

All quick results need to be for short, limited times, not indefinite. The idea is to modify behavior, not be a court without due process. Normal discusion of a problem can handle things after no more than a few repeated offences and quick actions. Things like referring to aribtration are not suitable for a quick poll. Jamesday 23:14, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The arbitration commission can always refuse to hear a case. The only difference here is that there's more support to hear it.—Eloquence 23:17, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
So this is a way of bypassing the arbitration committee? Secretlondon 23:18, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'll happily support anything with 24 hour time limits, but not something unlimited. We can hold non-quick polls and consensus building if repeated quick actions aren't doing the job. Jamesday 23:21, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It's up to them to decide if they want to make a decision. In any case, we are talking about temporary blocks or actions which can be easily undone if there is community support to do so.—Eloquence 23:24, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

Worst case scenarios, as requested by Erik:

  1. Alice is a sysop. She edits a protected page to insert her POV. It's a repeat offence. She's been warned before.
  2. Bob doesn't like this, and starts a quickpoll. In about an hour, there are ten votes in favour: after all, it was an open and shut case.
  3. Dave the Developer de-sysops Alice for 24 hours, and asks the arbitration committee to hear the case.
  4. Meanwhile, Alice, realising the breadth of opposition to her actions, decides to change her ways. So, were she re-sysopped, she'd be a good and useful sysop.
  5. The arbitration committee is busy, and doesn't hear the case for a couple of weeks. It's got a backlog, perhaps (more than likely). Half the committee is on holiday. Whatever. When it does here it, it takes three weeks to make a decision (entirely plausible, on past form).
  6. Alice gets more and more frustrated by the impasse, and quits Wikipedia in anger. We make an enemy of a former friend.

Second scenario:

  1. Geri is a sysop. She edits a protected page to insert her POV. It's a repeat offence. She's been warned before.
  2. Hugh doesn't like this, and starts a quickpoll. In about an hour, there are ten votes in favour: after all, it was an open and shut case.
  3. Dave the Developer de-sysops Geri for 24 hours, and asks the arbitration committee to hear the case.
  4. Meanwhile, Geri , realising the breadth of opposition to her actions, decides to change her ways. So, were she re-sysopped, she'd be a good and useful sysop.
  5. The arbitration committee accepts the case. It then spends a week investigating the issue, taking statements, discussing the matter, and so forth. All of this is completely wasted time.

third scenario:

  1. Jeremy is a sysop. He edits a protected page to insert his POV. It's a repeat offence. he's been warned before.
  2. Karen doesn't like this, and starts a quickpoll. Nobody votes for it, because they've seen what happened to 168... and Alice, and Geri, and Jeremy's basically a good guy.
  3. Jeremy, emboldened by this, carries on. Other sysops follow Jeremy's example. We get vigilante justice, block wars, protection wars, non-sysops become second class citizens. Wikipedia fails.

The third scenario is hyperbolic, but representative of the sorts of problems that concern me. It's important that people feel free to vote for de-sysoping as a temporary measure that is aiming at fixing an emergency situation, rather than an act of punishment that will last indefinately.

Instead, I would suggest using repeated 24hr de-sysoppings. Aside from anything else, they would graphically demonstrate to the arbcom that this issue needs investigation. Given that sysops do other things than abuse their sysop powers, and most of them are moderately sensible, you'd probably only need two or three at top. Martin 00:11, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In all of the cases, the sysop could simply re-apply for adminship on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, pledging not to violate policy in the future. If there is consensus to forgive the sysop, arbitration obviously needs not hear the case (I have just inserted a clause to make that clearer). Does that address your problem? I am quite opposed to requiring repeated 24 hour desysoppings because I fear that would bog down the quickpoll system needlessly. Let's use the wiki way for cases like this - try to build consensus.—Eloquence 00:33, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)
The sysop could reapply on Requests..., but in the scenarios I've sketched out, they probably wouldn't get the level of support required, I suspect.
I agree with building consensus, but I'd prefer to build it from the status quo, rather than from the desysopped position.
My feeling is that quickpolls are actually very low overhead, really, so I can't see them getting that bogged down, and repeated 24hr de-sysoppings make it very easy for the community to come to a consensus (or the arbcom to come to a decision) that the sysop in question needs to be a normal user again.
Your clause is better, but still not quite good enough. Perhaps we could compromise on a maximum de-sysoping time (on the basis of a quickpoll) of one week? Martin 00:48, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Alright, what do you think about my kinder, gentler guidelines?—Eloquence 01:02, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

That's definately more like it. I'll tweak a little (for wording really). Martin 18:33, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What is a reverted edit issue

  • 100 "non-reverted edits". What is a "non-reverted edit". A user can make a really bad edit and it gets whittled away by three or four subsequent edits. One assumes that this isn't a "reverted edit". I'm not sure that this is a significant problem, but it is problematic.
    • In my understanding, it would be a reverted edit. Do you think this can be clarified somehow?—Eloquence
      • I can't think of a way to clarify this at present. At least, not a practical way. It is a difficulty though, and suggestions are welcome. Ideas anyone? Tannin
      • Also, I feel that this would become a less significant matter if we rise the entry bar a little higher - e.g., 200 edits, or admin user to start the poll. Either or both of these would reduce the salience of this matter. Tannin
    • It seems to me that Quickpolls started by trolls would never even reach 8 yes votes, and could be safely ignored. Anthony DiPierro 23:47, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • sock-puppets? --Ruhrjung 23:56, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • I don't see how sockpuppets will ever be able to reach 80% with over 10 votes without it being obvious. And obvious sockpuppets will of course not be counted. Anthony DiPierro 23:59, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Barrier to entry issue

  • Only 3 months and 100 edits. This is too few. Seems to me the threshold should be quite a bit higher. Something in the order of 500 to 1000 edits. We want genuine Wikipedians participating in these polls, not trolls or blow-ins. I think this is particularly a problem as regards starting a Quickpoll. Imagine letting (Username omitted) loose with this! As presently formulated, the idea makes my troll-alarm go off.
    • Well, I do not agree. If we are being trolled we have other ways to deal with that. I think setting up a clique system here is not a good idea -- above all we want be open and friendly towards newbies. My suggestion would be to use a modest requirement at first and make it more strict if that should become necessary.
  • Two possible fixes for this problem. (a) increase the minimum time/edit requirement. (b) Allow any qualified user to vote but require an admin to start the Quickpoll. Before people howl about that being undemocratic, remember that a non-admin user needs only to persuade one admin user to start a Quickpoll. If you can't find one single admin to share your view out of ~150 admins, then the view obviously won't have enough support to pass anyway. Also, this might help cut down on the "poll abuse" problem.
    • I'm afraid that some people will object to any system that requires admin participation on principle.—Eloquence


Implementational issues

I've just realised that I read this incorrectly to start with. I've voted for quickpolls, but wouldn't be able to vote in one myself (I thought the 3 months/100 edits only applied to those people starting polls, which I could live with happily enough). I don't know what I think of this rule. I'm still a month too young to vote in a quickpoll, but I'm about to be made a sysop. Hmmm. I'm not sure if I should propose a change just for me (I mean, I can wait a month, it's not going to kill me), in case it weakens the safeguards. fabiform | talk 23:13, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think we can fine-tune this limit as we go along. Right now it seems to me that 3 months is a good time to familiarize oneself with our policies.—Eloquence

Since this is all about percentages, and seeing all the detailed talk above, would it be a good idea to have a TOC tally? These would need to show the total number of votes, votes for and against (otherwise we wouldn't know if they were up to date or not), as well as the percentage. Eg, for the current poll (6: 2/4: 33%). Good idea, or very bad idea? fabiform | talk 23:29, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, a toctally would make sense (Optim's legacy lives on ..).—Eloquence

16th March review

After a 24 hour hiatus in new input I thought it would be ok to have a review of the discussion. As I see it the votes are

  1. 17 in favour
  2. 3 potentially favour but with stated reservations, for two users these reservations may have been satisfactorily addressed. Probably not satisfactorily addressed for Jamesday?
  3. 3 firmly against. Ec's opposition to bureaucracy is probably unresolvable. This will add a little more bureaucracy, but maybe there is appetite for it in this case. Kingturtle's opposition is, I think, based on the wish to trust admins more. Is this suggestion better than the status quo though for you Kingturtle. Wik is also opposed, but hasn't given reasons yet.

There are also several other issues raised that it wouldn't be fair to mark resolved. However the responses seem to indicate it would be worth giving this a go at least on a trial basis - no other suggestion in this area has come anywhere near this close to a consensus. Thus I propose the following route to take this forward:

  1. Ask Jimbo his opinion. This is an important issue and I think it requires his blessing.
  2. If and when the proposal receives his blessing, set off a one-month trial period. At the end of the month, take stock how successful quickpolls have been and then make a decision on their permanence.

I hope my review is a fair reflection of the actual debate; I tried to make it so. As a precaution, I'll hold off and let someone else do the actual contacting of Jimbo so that it doesn't look I am trying to ramrod this proposal through into policy.

Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 23:02, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think a one-month trial period is a good idea, in any event. I do have concerns about whether or not this can be fairly applied. But the fact that it is open to most Wikipedians (not just sysops) and requires 80% leads me to believe it would. Anthony DiPierro 23:17, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Just to clarify - unless I misunderstand, it's open to *everyone* who has been here longer than 3 months, and that requirement is merely insurance against sock puppet accounts. →Raul654 23:19, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
Well, 3 months with at least 100 (non-reverted) edits. And according to Eloquence that requirement is more than just insurance against sock-puppet accounts. But still, 3 months isn't all that long. Anthony DiPierro 23:26, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

abstain...

Fennec brings up a good point. There should not be any votes to abstain. Yeas and Nays only. Kingturtle 05:03, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

sock puppet detection

Erik: I take your point about sock puppets expressing opinions upon whether other sock puppets are sock puppets, but I think that particular circumstance is best solved via the medium of common sense and good judgement. I've edited it to be "community consensus" - it should be clear to all that random sock puppets are an annoyance, not part of our community. Martin 00:30, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, I fear that is a recipe for endless meta discussion and edit wars about what is or isn't a sock puppet, especially if we allow anyone to "flag" them as such. I would really prefer it if we would at least leave this particular decision to the maligned admin class, who are by definition known and trusted members of the community and exactly the kind of persons who should make such decisions.—Eloquence 00:38, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)
Well, we've not had those problems on VfD (in that we haven't had any mis-deleted or mis-kept articles due to sock puppets, AFAICT), so I think we should take that risk. If it does become a problem, then we can change the policy quickly enough, right? Martin 00:50, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hm-hm. As the final decision rests with a sysop or developer I guess I can live with it for now. I hope it doesn't turn out to be a problem.—Eloquence 00:55, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

voting rule tweakage

The problem situations under previous quorum rules:

  1. 9 people are in favour of a temp-ban, the tenth is against. Under old rules, tenth should abstain, because voting against would paradoxically cause the ban to go ahead.
  2. 10 people are in favour of a temp-ban. Then, all ten change their mind. Under the old rules, the temp-ban stays in effect, because 15 people are required to reverse a decision.

So I fixed it. Very rules-lawyer of me, I know. Martin 00:36, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Kingturtle's conversation moved down here

(out of the poll itself)
  1. Eloquence has convinced me. I am changing my vote. Kingturtle 04:41, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

previous (obsolete) discussion

  1. Polls for edit warriors? for admin oversights? for vandals? That makes no sense. These polls will further bog people down, waste time, and create witch-hunts. Previously banned people will not vote with their conscience, but with revenge in mind. People are going to start feeding off the drama of these polls. Some people will make a mockery of the system. Quickpolls should be used for questions like: should image3 be justified to the right or to the left? Leave discipline issues up to the 175 admins, the Mediation and Arbitration committees. If Arbitration refuses to hear it, that's the end. Get over it. Don't start these vigilante groups. Kingturtle 07:14, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • If this system will not be implemented, I can guarantee you that vigilantism will continue on Wikipedia. People will not go to arbitration, because they know that arbitration takes forever. Instead they will ask a developer or sysop to make a quick decision, in some cases the developer or sysop will comply, and they will keep it as quiet as possible to avoid public outcry. And as you can see on WP:RFA, there is often wide support for maintaining the outcome of such actions. This is not a vigilante group, this is a way to avoid vigilantism, by requiring general community support for any immediate action. As a proponent of due process, you should support this process, as it is quite clear that it fills a vacuum. "That's the end, get over it" is not an argument many people are likely to accept.—Eloquence 10:45, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
      • I support due process - and the system I endorse is the Arbitration Committee. I realize the Arbitration Committee is yet to get its rear in gear, but that is the system I support - NOT the quickpoll system. The process needs to be centralized and consistant. Kingturtle 23:08, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • This system complements the AC, it does not replace it. A certain degree of decentralization is a good thing - it speeds things up and leads to shared responsibility (and blame).—Eloquence
          • I trust the judgment of admins. Why create this bureaucracy for something an admin can already do? An admin should be able to act immediately to stop the improper action of a user. The admin should not have to wait 24 hours to give someone a 24 hour ban. That gives the improper user 24 hours extra time to muck around in wikipedia. It is extremely rare for an admin to make a gaff in judgment. Trust the judgment of the admins. Kingturtle 23:57, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
            • I don't reckon a quickpoll will take 24 hours to come to quorom, more like one hour is my guess. Also we have tried allowing to act unilaterally - in the sense that the backing for their action has not been formally verified, only informally, but it hasn't been sustainable in these very sensitive cases. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:36, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

More questions

Since the one who is the subject of the poll cannot vote, to make it fair should the vote of the person proposing the poll count? Dori | Talk 04:06, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

Probably not.—Eloquence 04:10, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. +sj+ 09:06, 2004 Mar 20 (UTC)
OK...so is this going to be reflected in the proposal? what do others think? Dori | Talk 04:32, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

Another question, are quickpolls perpetually open? Dori | Talk 04:32, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

Reading through the page above, one wonders how much the process intended to create concensus in reality changes the idea which most contributors voted for, and if they who cast their votes many days ago actually would do the same with the latest tweaks. ...Speaking for only myself, I must say that I would have been more than happy if the objective of de-sysopping was quite simply removed when it turned out this to have produced the most serious objections.--Ruhrjung 21:05, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Everyone is of course free to change their vote, even after the proposal goes live. As for the desysopping, that was one of my motivations for creating the proposal in the first place.—Eloquence 23:55, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

placement

above the "Announcing a quickpoll" section needs to be a "Placement of a quickpoll" section. Where should these be placed? At the bottom of the Talk Page in question? Are there instances in which the Talk Page isn't appropriate? Should these ever take place on the Talk Pages of users? Should there be a single metapage devoted to the taking of quickpolls? Kingturtle 20:14, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I was thinking that all quickpolls should be put on Wikipedia:Quickpolls itself.—Eloquence

Going live

With 20 votes in support, and 4 (more or less) against, this is as close to consensus as it gets. I'm taking this live for a 30 days trial.—Eloquence 02:26, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)

Maybe then the Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version is to be updated accordingly?
I tried to. Can of course always be reversed. ;-)))
--Ruhrjung 13:49, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"3 revert guideline?" 3 reverts should get a protected page, right? -24.4.83.91 04:05, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That won't work if the same user keeps violating it on multiple pages.—Eloquence 04:11, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)
IE, now the community has alternatives. Protection, protection on specific version, reverts by multiple users, or quickpoll temp-banning. Or some combinatino thereof. Which is nice. Martin 12:56, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Only the latter two are community alternatives. The first two are sysop alternatives. anthony 08:14, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

3 months/90 days

"Any individual registered user who has been active on Wikipedia for longer than 3 months may start a quickpoll and vote in one."

Kingturtle wanted to change this to 90 days, but 3 months is much easier to calculate. anthony 08:13, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

90 days vs. 3 months

The problem with 3 months is that its length can vary from 90 to 92 days. Making the waiting period 90 days makes it fair to all users, no matter when they begin. 90 days is consistent. Kingturtle 08:16, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You are fussing over nothing, three months is much easier to calculate by eye and people will virtually never be on the boundary. With the rules already fairly complex for these polls, this is an extra layer that we don't need. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:53, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Ok, I shoulda read the page first. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:41, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It is not fussing over nothing. Strangely and remarkably enough, during the very first QP, a voter's time-of-service was questioned. User:Hcheney's first post was 14:58, 23 Dec 2003 and his vote on QP took place 05:26, 23 Mar 2004...91 days. I feel counting the days is more fair. If it is difficult for others to count the days, I'll be happy to. It is a very quick calculation. Kingturtle 06:12, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Why not count hours. After all, it's unfair for people who don't become a user in the 90 days before the clocks get moved ahead.
I don't think there is a difference in fairness, and judging from the fact that many sysops don't even know how to count 5 days (as I discovered by watching votes for deletion/undeletion) I think counting 90 is going to be too much for them to handle. anthony 22:26, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
There's nothing unfair about three months. It may vary in the number of days, but that variance is spread randomly among all users, and therefore is perfectly fair. Really, I think you're trying to fix a problem that doesn't actually exist. anthony 11:02, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Three months can vary in time. As we've seen, in the very first QP, a user was on the cusp. In a 90-day-three-months, he would get to vote, while in a 92-day-three-months, he would not get to vote. That isn't right. A flat 90 days would be more fair.
The list of 50 recently active wikipedians is based on 30 days, not one month (for example). Kingturtle 01:43, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
As I said, 90 days can vary in time too. There being a variance in time does not make it any less fair. It's stupid to unnecessarily complicate things like this. anthony 02:11, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Calculating 90 days takes 15 seconds. I can do it on my hands. It is not complicated at all. Kingturtle 02:49, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
You're smarter than many other wikipedians. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 21:23, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Here's another way, besides using fingers. Atop each date-article, that date's number is listed. March 11 is the 71st day in a Leap Year; August 3 is the 216th. 216 minus 71 equals 145. Kingturtle 23:02, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the lesson. That still doesn't change the argument. By the way, try explaining modulo arithmetic to people when the date overlaps years. I've already tried it on VfD. Of course the same mistake could be made with 3 months, but people seem to grasp that concept a bit better. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 23:07, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Exception for Sysops

A thought. I may be made a sysop soon, but have not yet been here three months. I won't be able to vote in any quickpolls. While I don't really care too much myself- a few weeks' delay won't bother me, at least not much :) this seems rather incongrous with the responsibilities granted to sysops. I therefore propose an exception to this 3-month rule for anyone who is a sysop already before that time. (And I promise not to vote in any quickpolls before then, even if this exception is approved... just for good measure.) It's a small matter, but still... why not? - Fennec 03:15, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

When to remove notice?

Is it really fair to remove the notice from Wikipedia:Recentchanges before the poll has ended? Dori | Talk 19:10, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

The notice needs to be kept - I had no idea quickpolls were in progress. Secretlondon 23:14, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Can notice be placed on watchlist?

In addition to adding notice on Wikipedia:Recentchanges (the text shown atop the "Recent changes" page), can it be added to Watchlist? - Texture 23:14, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The quickpolls page, or W:RC? You can watch either. Dysprosia 23:16, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I just stared watching Quickpolls. Didn't have it on my radar or I would have participated. - Texture 23:25, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Strange removal rules

The rules for removing a vote tally are weird. Or at least their effects are:

Suppose we have a vote going on with 19 for, 11 against. That's more than 60% for, so we keep the vote going. Now 10 more people vote for. Then the vote is 29 for, 11 against. That's less than 80%, so we remove the vote. By voting for the banning, those people have made removal of the vote possible. Sounds like an unintended consequence. - Andre Engels 22:31, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, I think that's exactly what the intended consequence is. The goal of a quickpoll is to reach a quick consensus. If an 80% consensus hasn't been reached by 40 votes, then we declare there not to be a community consensus and move on. Otherwise unsuccessful polls could stay up forever. - Seth Ilys 03:28, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ok, but explore Andre's point a little deeper. If it is 19-11 in favour, then the 80% barrier can NOT be broken before 40 votes. Thus there is literally no point have the poll any more. However the poll can not be removed, because with 30 votes the cut-off is lower. I.e. the system is a little bit broken. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:55, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So it really is the intended consequence that 19 votes for and 11 against we wait whether there might be a consensus, but that with 44 votes for and 11 against we give up? I don't see the logic there. In the first case it's "26 more votes and we're going to ban." In the second 25 of those 26 votes are in, one more and we are going to ban. Still, the first is apparently "still a consensus possible" while the second is "no, no consensus". Am I the only one who thinks that that is weird?

Here's a table.

votes against effect based on votes for
0 0-7: keep listed, 8 or more: ban
1 0-7: keep listed, 8 or more: ban
2 0-7: keep listed, 8 or more: ban
3 0-11: keep listed, 12 or more: ban
4 0-15: keep listed, 16 or more: ban
5 0-19: keep listed, 20 or more: ban
6 0-3: keep listed, 4-5: remove, 6-23: keep listed, 24 or more: ban
7 0-2: keep listed, 3-6: remove, 7-27: keep listed, 28 or more: ban
8 0-1: keep listed, 3-7: remove, 8-31: keep listed, 32 or more: ban
9 0: keep listed, 1-7: remove, 8-30: keep listed, 31-35: remove, 36 or more: ban
10 0-8: remove, 9: keep listed, 10: remove, 11-29: keep listed, 30-39: remove, 40 or more: ban
11 0-11: remove, 12-28: keep listed, 29-43: remove, 44 or more: ban
12 0-12: remove, 13-17: keep listed, 18-19: remove, 20-27: keep listed, 28-47: remove, 48 or more: ban
13 0-13: remove, 14-16: keep listed, 17-19: remove, 20-26: keep listed, 27-41: remove, 42 or more: ban
14 0-14: remove, 15: keep listed, 16-21: remove, 22-25: keep listed, 26-55: remove, 56 or more: ban
15 0-22: remove, 23-24: keep listed, 25-59: remove, 60 or more: keep listed
16 0-63: remove, 64 or more: ban

In fact, the situation is even worse - when the vote is 32-8, 36-9, 40-10, etcetera, both banning and removing are allowed (here given as ban).

Looking from the other side, with 35 votes for, 9 votes against are enough to end the poll, but if there are 23 votes for, 16 votes against are needed. - Andre Engels 10:52, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I also don't like the one-vote difference between ending the vote and banning. I would like to propose the following:

  • 10-25 votes: <= 50% in favor
  • 25-39 votes: >=12 votes against
  • 40 or more votes: <= 70% in favor

Compared to the current system, it keeps more when there are more than 40 votes (to get some sort of 'buffer area' between banning and removing of vote), it removes more when there are 25-40 votes (to remove my paradox) and it removes more with 10-20 votes (for simplicity). - Andre Engels 10:59, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

One penalty per poll?

Since quickpolls can stay on the voting page for up for 48 hours after an initial remedy is imposed, people can change their vote even after a user's 24-hour ban is lifted. Thus a user could have an initial vote meeting the 80%/8 support threshold, have that ban lifted if the vote slips below 70%/5 oppose... but the vote could *still* slip back above 80%. I don't think that it's fair or reasonable for a user to be banned, unbanned, and rebanned (potentially) multiple times as opinion shifts. The further on from the initial offense, the less weight that the original offense carries for voters -- whereas they should more ideally be launching a separate quickpoll for separate offenses.

I think that this was a major oversight in the quickpoll rules. The final paragraph of the "Removal" section should read more like: "Quickpolls should be removed from this page upon the completion of a 24-hour ban, or upon its reversal (by support falling below 70%) prior to the end of the 24-hour ban period." That way there's clearly only one penalty per poll. Comments? -- Seth Ilys 02:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is this some kind of joke? Wik has 50% support and i have 100 percent support. I am just trying to go about my business and upload pictures like I usually do. Now I see the potential for this being abused. Perl 02:38, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ahh, yes, good point. Seth. It's good to have a rules lawyer in the house sometimes. I'll fix. Martin 00:02, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Archive protocol question

Perhaps I've missed something in the various explanations of how things work with this page, but why is the "Wik & Perl" poll on the archive page, but not the "GrazingshipIV & Anthony DiPierro" poll? BCorr|Брайен 13:58, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

  • GrazingshipIV deleted the discussion link without archiving it. - Texture 16:48, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Texture look into archives for poll-I did archive it as the record will show. GrazingshipIV 17:03, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

My apologies. You did attempt to archive the discussion. However, you did not use the link from Wikipedia:Quickpolls which was Wikipedia:Quickpolls/Archive. Instead you created a new one off the Wikipedia:Quickpolls/Anthony-Graz called Wikipedia:Quickpolls/archives. I have redirected Wikipedia:Quickpolls/archives to the correct one specified on Wikipedia:Quickpolls. - Texture 17:08, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Question about Quorum

How were the numbers "8" (to censure) & "5" (to clear) selected? These numbers seem uncomfortably small to my taste, & I'd prefer a quorum based on the total number of Contributors to Wikipedia in Good Standing. Back when I belonged to a union, ISTR the quorum was set at 3% of the total membership (because we were lucky to get that many to a meeting) -- which might be achievable on Wikipedia.

ISTR (again) some 50,000 people are registered contributors to Wikipedia; assume that 90% of those would be acceptable under some usable definition of "Contributors to Wikipedia in Good Standing", then 3% would be 150. A majority of how 150 people vote would be far more convincing than the opinions of any 13 random Wikipedians. -- llywrch 02:36, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

However, this would also render the quickpoll process fairly useless. I agree that 150 people would be better, but when have you ever seen 150 people vote on anything on Wikipedia? I can't recall that happening, and I can't see the odds of it happening on a regular basis anytime soon. Ambivalenthysteria 03:57, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
You have to keep in mind that only a small number of registered users participate actively. According to [1] only about 2000 wikipedians are active, and that it is unlikely to see even 60 of them vote (to make up the 3%). I also forgot to mention that many wikipedians may not be familiar with the case, or even if they are familiar, they may not make up their mind one way or the other. Dori | Talk 05:21, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)

I still would like to see some explanation of how the numbers for this quorum were determined. We'll be having this argument, only far more heatedly, in one year when there are twice as many active wikipedians, & a number of them are appalled at how easily it is for a quickpoll to ban someone. (Not that I'm against banning troublemakers, but such a ban ought to be done with a clear process -- otherwise, it will become more trouble than it is worth.) -- llywrch 03:14, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

To answer the question directly, I selected 8 because it was 80% of 10, and I selected 5 because it was 30% of 15. The former numbers where chosen by Eloquence, I think. Martin 00:00, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think we should require a minimum of 20 votes / 80% approval to ban to avoid overly hasty decisions where not enough airtime has been given to counter-arguments. 10 votes is clearly not enough.—Eloquence 03:20, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

If you want to get that many votes, I think the solution is to change the guidelines for advertising quickpolls. Right now we remove the listing from Recent changes when 15 votes are cast. That page probably draws the most voters, so we shouldn't remove a quickpoll listed there until we're safely over whatever quorum we choose to require. --Michael Snow 17:47, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

While we're at it I think there should be a 24 hour limit on unimplemented polls. It seems that a poll which is close to but not quite at 80% could theoretically last forever. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 03:32, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How about if we say all quickpolls are open for 48 hours, then they get closed and archived. Even if a poll closes at 79.9% in favor. The only exception should be keeping a poll open that might reverse an already implemented ban by dropping support below 70% (i.e. if the ban was implemented after the first 24 hours, keep the poll open until the ban ends). Right now we're not clear because the page seems to say two different things. And this would allow us to get rid of the confusing table of fewer than 20 votes, less than 40% support, etc. --Michael Snow 16:42, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'd go for a 48 hour window to accept votes, as long as there's a minimum numbers of votes for a poll to be considered "approved", say 1% of the active Wikipedians. That would mean right now 20 votes, & would be adjusted upwards (hopefully ;) in the future. -- llywrch 20:33, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Acting on my own suggestion, I've archived Anthony's second quickpoll, since it has passed the 48-hour mark. I figure that as the proponent of the poll, I can do that with some claim of legitimacy. If anybody objects, let me know, but I don't think we can have a quickpoll hanging over somebody's head indefinitely. --Michael Snow 03:13, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Regarding quorum, I believe that emergency action should require only a small proportion of total Wikipedians - in the tens, not the hundreds. However, there might also be a possibility of some kind of General Resolution system, for settling non-emergency issues. To some extent, the elections for the Wikimedia board will have an element of that, I suspect. Martin 00:00, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Change username

I asked a question at Wikipedia talk:username about whether internet addresses should be acceptible, but I realized that we need a way of enforcing name changes in general. What does everyone think of adding a "change username" to the list of why quickpolls are held (and to remedies)? It bothers me that quickpolls would get more power, but it bothers me more that right now admins and developpers have to make such decisions. Dori | Talk 20:14, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with what she says - it's a vaild point. Moncrief 21:18, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
Maximus Rex just altered something in my comment above - I really don't appreciate you changing my post. That is not acceptable Wikipedia behavior. Moncrief 21:20, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
Ok, but Dori is really tired of people thinking that he is a female. Maximus Rex 21:23, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I think that's an acceptable edit to make. Angela. 03:38, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Dori - what he says is quite correct. →Raul654 21:27, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
This should definitely be added to quickpolls. The current RfC method is not attracting enough votes. Angela. 03:38, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
(Comment by Anthony removed by Anthony)
I take it this refers to holding a quickpoll over banning someone with an unacceptable username (against policy) who refuses to change it? In that case I oppose it, as these usernames should simply be blocked in my opinion. — Jor (Talk) 11:04, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
quickpolls seem good for "emergency" action, generally (hence "quick") - I'm not sure how well they would stretch to name-changes, which seem to me like a non-emergency issue. Then again, maybe if the community could deal speedily with inappropriate usernames, it'd act as some form of deterrent. After all, we can deal speedily with offensive talk page comments, just deleting them, so why shouldn't we be able to act equally quickly with regards to usernames?
Umm, put me down as "don't know", I guess... :) Martin 23:44, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. There can be polls for this, but not quickpolls. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 01:06, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

format of listing

The current format of the listing on Recent Changes is intrusive and tedious. Every time you refresh recent changes it catches your eye, particularly so as it is in the same general screen area as the (much more important) "You have new messages" notice. The bolding has to go. Tannin 18:21, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I think so, at least the way the system is being used now. Martin 21:56, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

both or neither

In two instances now, I've wished to vote for "both or neither", but it isn't easy to do this in the current system, which seems a shame. Martin 21:56, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think it's most honest if you actually decide how you wish to vote (i.e. if the requirement for banning are fulfilled or not) for both, and then cast your votes accordingly. ;-) --Ruhrjung 22:27, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am being honest (which is admittedly rare for me). I honestly wish to vote for "both or neither". I honestly believe that those two are the correct outcomes, given the nebulous state of the requirements for banning. I honestly find this hard to do in the current system. It's honestly occurred in two instances now. I honestly find this a shame.

To summarise:

Martin: I wish to vote for "both or neither".
Ruhrjung: You should decide how you wish to vote.
Martin: I wish to vote for "both or neither".

Ho hum. Martin 23:01, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 18:20, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC)) I agree with Martin

Toctallies

Has there been a vote or decision to remove Toctallies? - Texture 01:02, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be a vote to remove incorrect toctallies. Has there been a vote to add toctallies? anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 01:03, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Anthony, if you would say that the tallies are incorrect in your summary or anywhere we could update them faster than if you just revert the previous person and just say "rv" in your summary. - Texture 01:11, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I don't want you to update them faster. In fact, I don't want you to update them at all. There is no consensus for toctallies. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 01:14, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Then consider it my comment and leave it be. And why did you remove Wik's vote and leave Jor's vote? Neither appear to be over but why would you archive one and leave the other? Especially if you are going to leave older votes. Your actions don't make sense. Is there something you are trying to accomplish? - Texture 01:23, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining. - Texture 02:38, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Wik had 10 votes, Jor didn't. If you'd like to remove Jor anyway, I wouldn't object. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 02:06, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Ah, so that is why Wik's was removed. I take it you will now remove mine as well as there have been 10 votes? (Where is this 'remove after 10 votes' thing discussed by the way?) — Jor (Talk) 18:45, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I've removed it. The guidelines for removal are on the Quickpolls page, under Removal of quickpoll listing. --Michael Snow 19:35, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Toctallies are silly. If a user is interested in a section they can click on it and view the numbered lists for themselves. If a sysop wants to know if it's time to block, they can use a computer to do the math. I think it's safe to assume most wikipedians have computers. Also, toctallies make it impossible to link to a section on the page, since the anchor name keeps changing. silsor 07:37, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
I access wikipedia through my typewriter. How am I supposed to do this number crunching you propose? →Raul654 07:40, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

It's probably not a good idea to make voting too difficult - having everyone who votes have to break out calc.exe doesn't seem helpful to me. I'll just switch things to "??" every time I vote - if someone cares, they can update. Martin 23:29, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Encyclopedic content cannot be determined by vote

Obvious really. This is what happened on the article on scientific skepticism: One of the parties put the other party on the quickpolls page, clearly intending to get the other person off for 24 hours while editing the page to his POV. I've also seen a quickpoll stlye vote on talk:facism now, where votes really shouldn't happen. Quickpoll gives the mistaken impression that simple majority opinion is good enough for wikipedia. I'm saddened to see that happen. Whatever happened to the consensus rule?

Kim Bruning 13:11, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not at all a simple majority. ;-> --Ruhrjung 13:44, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. the main advantage to quickpolls is that they allow response to someone who has done much more than violate the mere letter of existing policy -- but protests innocence or conspiracy or mis-representation and so shouldn't be blocked automatically. If the '3-rv' guideline has become policy, then it should take 6 or 7 rvs, with multiple parties on one side and one on the other, before someone tries to settle such an issue via QP. +sj+ 20:18, 2004 Apr 2 (UTC)

I think for the record it should be stated that Reddi was CLEARLY in the wrong in injecting pseudo-science into the page despite repeated warnings from users other than Lordkenneth. The problem occured because Lordkenneth lost his cool and started making rash decisions-I think if taken to an arbitration committee it would be ruled that Reddi was vandalizing the page mostly because he does not beleive in science or the power of reason from a philosophical perspective, which is fine, it is just that those beleifs do not jive with the goals of a Encyclopedia. GrazingshipIV

I object to the entirety of graz's comment above, and want it to be noted that I for one find it entirely non-factual. Sam Spade 23:01, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Yes but you and Lordkenneth have a personal history which he articulated quite nastily.It also seems that you hold some of Reddi's views, particularly the one about Lordkenneth. It would be good to state reasons for a critque makes it more beleivable.  ;) GrazingshipIV 23:31, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Fascism, a couple of points. 1) The vote is not a "quickpoll-style vote". A quickpoll vote is to block a user for 24 hours. This vote is not about that, but about article content. 2) The vote was in order to resolve a content dispute which was not proving amenable to discussion. Several of us tried to make some effort to explain to TDC why the Soviet Union should not be considered a fascist state, and he ignored us. 3) The vote, as it stands, is nowhere near a "simple majority". TDC has received no support for his position. Hopefully, that will lead him to agree not to keep inserting this poisition, so we can unprotect the article and start working on it again. While perhaps the vote is not per standard usage, I felt it was the best way to come to some sort of at least temporary agreement so as to unprotect the page. john 23:30, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The objectives were different and assuredly quite noble.
I found it interesting to see that the poll you used was styled along the line of quickpolls, and you probably hadn't read Wikipedia:Polling guidelines at all before you went and did it anyway. Polls can be quite destructive, perhaps we should allow quickpolls against people who fail to follow polling guidelines? ;-) .
The main problem I see is that quickpolls misleads people into thinking that polls are ok, or worse, that *voting* here is ok. It's a kind of politics and psychology problem. It's harmless enough on its own, but people start following the example.
It's mentioned elsewhere, but just in short: polling and voting are not the only consensus building tools we have at our disposal. They are just the heaviest and clumsiest tools at our disposal. It's like using a front loader to plant violets in your garden, where a small hand tool would have been more appropriate. You're just as likely to crush the violets and knock down the house. The front loader has its place, certainly, I won't disagree with that. Just this isn't it.
Kim Bruning 08:58, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • 2nd example in 2 days : VerilyVerily vs 172. :-( Kim Bruning 09:50, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)