Wikipedia talk:Quickpolls/Archive 1

People who support the current quickpolls proposal

1. —Eloquence 15:44, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
2. Anthony DiPierro 15:55, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC) Support, with one tweak: "If the vote subsequently drops below 70%, the remedy should be reversed."
3. Angela - agree with Anthony.
4. Ruhrjung 16:00, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC) - although I seriously would like to see longer lasting bans
5. Seth Ilys 22:21, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
6. 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)
7. Cyan 22:39, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
8. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:50, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC) (Although see tqo suggestions below)
9. Dori | Talk 22:53, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
10. BCorr¤Брайен 22:55, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

People opposed to the current quickpolls proposal

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

---

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)

At first glance I was that this could be a problem, but it is largely up to me to make sure I didn'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)

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.

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)

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)