Wikipedia talk:Quickpolls/Initial proposal resolved issues

Tannin's issues (resolved)

I have to rush (it's a workday) and have not had time to think this through properly yet. On the whole, I think this is probably the best way forward but I have several reservations:

* The proposed percentages need refinememt. At present, it says 10 votes and over 80% — i.e., 9 votes out of 10. Shouldn't that be 80% or over?

• • Fixed.—Eloquence
    • Changed rather than fixed - no way to tell how many of those who voted yes did so because they wanted a 9 out of 10 result. Jamesday 15:50, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

* How do we deal with abstentions and other votes that are not clear yes/no statements? ("Yes but" and "no but" and "yes to X but no to Y" votes.) Ignore them? Count them as part of the total from which we calculate the 70 and 80% numbers. Assign them on a best-guess basis to either the Yes or No camps?

• • There should not be much room for this type of votes. Maybe we should make it explicit that any vote needs to be clearly "yes" or "no", and if changes are required, a new poll ("fork") should be started instead?—Eloquence
    • Fair enough. Tannin
  • If they are conditional, has the condition been met yet? If yes, it's a vote that way, if not, it's a vote the other way. Jamesday 15:50, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

* At present, the gap between an implementation percentage (80%) and a reversal percentage (70%) is just one vote. This suggests that we could see a rapid cycle of ban/unban/ban again results. Attention to the exact phrasing of the percentage rules could deal with this.

• • I've changed this by requiring a higher number of votes for the rollback.—Eloquence
    • If that remains I'm switching my vote to oppose. Someone who gets 10 yes votes then 5 no votes should be immediately unbanned. Look at my comment below, the difference between 70 and 80% is more than one vote already. Anthony DiPierro 23:58, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I think allowing a few more votes for the decision to "settle" is a good idea. How do you feel about a 15 vote requirement as a compromise?—Eloquence
    • While I'd prefer 12 :), 15 is good 'nuff. Shouldn't be too difficult to get an extra 3 votes. Anthony DiPierro 01:11, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I too am happy with 15. Tannin
• The matters that Quickpolls can be used to settle are fairly well defined at present. However, it seems almost inevitable that the mechanism, if it works and is seen to be a success, will get expanded to other uses as well. This may or may not be a good thing. It seems to me important that we get this right, as we may well be opening a Pandora's box.
  • I see your point, of course, but I think we can deal with these issues as they arise.—Eloquence
    • I think so too, but I think it's a good thing to be aware of this possibility in advance. Tannin
  • What was proposed was over 80%, ie 9 votes out of 10. To go below 70% would take 3 of the original votes changing (60%, below 70%) or addition of 3 negative votes (9/13=60%). The revised version saying at least 80%, below 70% and at least 15 votes drops the approval threshold from 90% to 80%. It decreases the number of no votes required to undo things from 3 changes to 2 changes (80% to 60%) or addition of 3-5 negative votes and 2-0 positive (10 positive/15 total = 67%). Net effect: takes us further from consensus and increases the ease of a change if the original voters change their mind. Doesn't decrease the number of negative votes required but does require two additional votes of any sort to get something undone, ignoring any votes until 5 more have been cast. In short: the only change was to make a flip-flop by tthe original voters easier and to rquire at least 50% more votes to undo something once the wider commmunity sees the vote. Jamesday 15:50, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I think you're overstating this here. The change from 80.000001% to 80% only affects things if there are exactly 10 (or 20, or 30, etc) votes. That's a rather rare case. Anthony DiPierro 15:58, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have to rush off to work, so please forgive any howlers in the above. In the abstract, I support the Quickpoll idea. I do believe, however, that we need to get it right first time if we possibly can — particularly as it is more than likely that this mechanism will expand in function as time goes by. I hope and expect to be able to change my vote to "yes" after some refinement to what is, I think, an excellent idea. Tannin 23:40, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Pcb21's suggestions (answered satisfactorily)

Two suggestions

In the "when are quickpolls allowed number 1)" section I would like to see explicit mention that reverts do not have to be plain reverts... the person calling the poll should be able to interpret "close reverts" as reverts if they wish in order to bring the poll. Voters will of course make their own intrepretation of the edits in question.

While I can certainly think of a number of situations when people are making small edits but are essentially reverting, I do feel that is different from a plain old revert. Often part of the editing process is going back and forth, and having "close calls" fall under this rule means that 1) people may sincerely think they're working collaboratively, but the poll-caller may not agree, and 2) the "quickpoll" won't be as quick if voters have to review the page history and compare edits before voting to decide if there are three reverts or not -- and if they don't bother to but still vote... BCorr¤Брайен 23:37, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

In order to prevent a proliferation of quickpolls, would it be a good idea to restrict each user to own be able to call one poll per calendar mouth. I suggest this because most other request-type pages have been bombarded with frivolous requests from some users in the past. I don't think the proposed restriction would be too onerous for genuine complaints, there should be lots of people will to bring into attention. Should a user bring a second complaint in a month, it could be removed by any other user, so long as they explain why.

The poll needs 10 users to take effect, so I don't think this will be a big problem. Besides we can always set up a quickpoll on someone who abuses this policy *cue evil laughter* Dori | Talk 22:59, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

It says "Any individual user who has been on Wikipedia for more than 3 months and who has made more than 100 non-reverted contributions may start a quickpoll and vote in one" There are plenty of non-admins who have been here for 3 months and have 100 edits. Dori | Talk 23:28, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

Note that I have voted in favour of these polls whether these refinements are accepted or not... so I hope the adoption or rejection of the refinements shouldn't hold up the basic idea from being adopted. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:50, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

For the first suggestion, I agree entirely, but I think the quickpoll scheme should only list the policies to which it applies. The details of this particular policy should be formulated on Wikipedia:Revert.

The problem of poll abuse will solve itself, I think, because people who hold frivolous polls will be quickly rebuffed. We can address this by allowing for quick removal of a poll where less than 40% are in favor after 10 votes. Would that work for you? In case of repeated trolling, I think the general Wikiquette policy is applicable.—Eloquence 22:59, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

Fine by me. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:27, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

One of Martin's issues (resolved)

Martin wrote: I'm confused: anyone can request arbitration, according to our proposed wikipedia:arbitration policy

That is correct. The proposed "referral to arbitration" remedy is merely intended to give an additional sense of urgency and community support to any such arbitration request.—Eloquence 22:43, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've edited the page to make this clearer - hope that's ok. Martin 23:03, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)