Wikipedia talk:Quickpolls/Rules

Quorum

I switched the policy back to "minimum of X votes in favour" for quorum, rather than "minimum of Y votes of any kind". I wish to avoid the problem where (say) 16 people have voted in favour of some action, and it is thus in the interests of those who oppose action to not vote, rather than voting against.

If X=16 still seems too low, please feel free to raise it. Martin 22:18, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think X=16 is too high. From the archive, no quickpolls would have been implemented at that level. I think X=10 would be better, given the new rule preventing involved parties frmo voting.Martin 13:10, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't think any of the quickpolls should have been implemented, so X=16 seems fine. In fact, maybe I'll even go back to supporting this. I'll wait a while and see, though. anthony (see warning) 13:52, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Too high. These are supposed to happen fast, before acting. A poll with a quorum of 20 or so is effectively a normal poll about conduct, like those we've had before. Easy reversibility is the way to handle troublesome results, if we see any. So far I'm more troubled by clear violations of the revert rule which haven't resulted in positive decisons. Jamesday 08:42, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yep. I've reverted it back to X=8 - what it was originally, and what people voted for. Martin 23:47, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That was a bad move. It often happens that the first handful of votes fall into one category, and the next batch fall into a different one. A reasonably large sample reduces that effect. There's no point in the poll result being reversible if it takes 24 hours to gather the required votes.--Eloquence * 03:21, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

Reducing the minimum number of votes for quorum is going to make it less likely that it takes as long as 24 hours to gather the required votes, surely? Martin 21:04, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think Eloquence is talking about the votes required to reverse, not the initial quorum to implement (i.e. what's the point if it takes 24 hours to get the votes to reverse a 24-hour ban?). --Michael Snow 22:45, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

recent changes removal

This is still set to removal after 15 votes. Should this be increased? Martin 22:26, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely it should. Recent changes is the only reasonably reliable way of drawing more votes, and the listing should not be removed until the quickpoll has a quorum to make a decision. --Michael Snow 23:41, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you were desperate, you could also alter the "my watchlist" message. Or even the "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" message... Martin 23:45, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance, but wouldn't I have to be an admin to alter those messages? --Michael Snow 23:57, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sure, it was a plural you. Martin 13:11, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, maybe I should have used "one" instead of "I" then, to be more precise. The point being, you (plural) don't have to be an admin to start a quickpoll, and the methods for advertising the quickpoll shouldn't require admin privileges either. --Michael Snow 23:56, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd say increase it, but put a limit, say 12 hours, on it. Also, I'd say the user's name shouldn't be part of the message. It's too easy to harass users with quickpolls this way. anthony (see warning) 13:54, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Both suggestions sound fair to me. --Michael Snow 23:56, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

trolling

a signed in user confesses to deliberate trolling

I don't think we want to give trolls, who are out to stir up trouble, the benefit of their names in lights on recent changes. If we want to block folks for trolling, is this really the best way? Martin 23:50, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So why did you revert yourself? anthony (see warning) 17:04, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Because I wasn't sure. Hence the question-mark. Martin 17:09, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Rules question

The new rules say you can only start one quickpoll at a time. What is meant by "one"? In the past, we have had dual quickpolls where both subjects had made many reverts to the same page. Are we now going to require two different people to sponsor quickpolls in these instances? It seems to me that in these situations, we should allow both offenders to walk the plank together, rather than giving one the satisfaction of watching the other go first. --Michael Snow 23:53, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It seems that people have been happy with people to create such twin quickpolls in recent times... not that both offenders have typically walked the plank... Martin 12:41, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Removal of quickpoll listing

The current removal guidelines are, I think, not quite ideal. I propose the following replacement:

If no action is taken within 24 hours, remove the quickpoll.
If action is taken, remove the quickpoll when the action expires or is reversed.

The former ties in with the fact that quickpolls must be started within 24 hours of the behaviour in question, and are meant to be for emergency action. The latter ties in with the fact that quickpolls cannot be reimplemented once reversed.

Comments? Martin 18:42, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: Symmetric 3-revert rule

I have made a proposal to address the problem of asymmetric application fo the 3-revert rule. Details at Wikipedia talk:Quickpolls#Alternative proposal: Symmetric 3-revert rule. -- Cyan 14:43, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]