Wikipedia talk:Straw polls/Archive 1

message: (from Wikipedia:Voting guideline to Wikipedia:Polling guidelines)
Removed:
# The completed polls may be used to set policy and/or resolve disputes
This needs to be rephrased. Polling is just one way to reach consensus. --mav 00:52, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved 

message: As the ever-persisent disputed over Gdansk/Vote prove, our current policy is in need of a serious redesigning to fox the loopwholes. Please comment on Template_talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice#Constructive_proposal and help us draft a new policy proposal. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Proposal now official, now at: Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Fixing_giant_loopholes_in_Wikipedia:Survey_guidelines. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix the loopholes 

message: Note that the discussion that lead to this propsal is User:Piotrus/Sandbox#Fixing_giant_loopholes_in_Wikipedia:Survey_guidelines.
Wikipedia:Survey guidelines, a guideline for all manners of surveys and votes on Wikipedia, is deeply flawed in its existing rules and fails to address several important issues. A prime example is that in Gdansk/Vote it allows both sides of the dispute to claim they are immunie from 3RR rule, as well as disputing the very vote results. As there are proposals for new votes similar to the Gdansk/Vote, I feel we must fix the policy ASAP - otherwise, those votes will be nothing but a giant time loss for everybody involved, including poor participants of RfC, RfA and admins enforcing 3RR rule, who - judging on Gdansk/Vote results - will soon be asked to chose sides in various interpretations of the vote. I hate instructions creep, but I am afraid this is necessary in this case. I think the following changes have to be implemented to survey 'how to' creation and enforcement:
# This is supposedly an official guideline, but it states first: These guidelines provide a framework that may be followed when creating a new survey. These are not binding in any way. It would be funny if it wasn't sad. What's the point of official unbidning guidlines, especially when they are used to change/counteract official policies (like 3RR)? We need to make some of them obligatory for carrying all votes on Wikipedia, or at least those that affect official policies. I definetly think that each survey must follow points 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.
# Points 1 and 3 are 'good wishes', and should be moved to the introduction section of the guideline
# Point 9 is too general: Where there is a sign of activities intended to frustrate the intent of the survey, those who can opine may be restricted. A lack of restrictions is usually best, so this may be invoked after the polling has started. We need to specify what are the 'acitivies intended to frustrate the intent of the survey' and how 'those who can opine may be restricted'. In current form those rules allow for, for example, for a restriction of vote to 'Yes' only.
# Point 10 is even worse: If the majority of opinion is in one direction, but a significant minority of people oppose it, work to find a solution that can be accepted by as many people as possible. It can easly be used to dispute almost any vote after the voting has ended. It should either be deleted, or we need to define significant majority *gasp* with clear qunatiative percents - and make it clear to the voters (by adding the relevant requirement to step 2 of 'creating a new survey section') that they know that the vote needs more then normal majority (50%+1) to pass. Otherwise any user can claim that anything is a 'significant majority' and the vote is unbinding. I'd suggest that a Wikipedia vote must require at least a 75% majority to be binding, otherwise it can be only a guideline. This should be cleary stated at the beginning of the survey, so that everybody participating would know how much votes are needed for the motion to pass (or not).
# Further, we need to add to that section an obligatory information on who can vote, preferably make this a rule in survey creation instead of leaving it to arbitrary decision of not always impartial vote creators. I.e. make a rule that only users who have at least x major edits and registered y time periods before voting can vote. I'd suggest 100 edits and a week. Note that such a rule applies to current meta:Election_candidates_2005.
# If a vote would influence and official policy (like the 3RR) then information about the vote should be added to the relevant policy discussion/talk page. Similarly, if a vote would influence mainspace articles, note on the vote should be added to them as well (as was done in Gdansk/Vote example).
# We need to add an information what is the minimal numbers of voters that makes the vote valid (for example, a vote with 1-2 users is not very useful). While for the obscure topics that generate little interest even 1-2 votes may be sufficient, I suggest at least 30 voters for a binding vote in cases the vote would go against an official policy (like the suspention of 3RR rules against losers of the vote reverts, as is the case with Gdansk/Vote).
# We need to decide whether and if so, under what rules can a vote/survey be repeated. I think a vote can be repeated until a binding desision is reached. If a vote has passed a decision, a new vote should not bring the issue again until at least a year have passed since the last one or there is an Arb Com agreement to start a new vote. And if a vote is repeated, all past votes on the issue should be copied and included in a new vote unless the vote owner changes decision. An exception can be made for instances where it is quickly discovered that the wording has been too vague and thus the primary vote failed to solve the issue and that some sort of repeated vote is necessary to make it clearer what is intended. I'd suggest that any user can request a revote on such grounds (clarification needed), informing all past voters and asking them for agreement, and if 75% agrees that a revote on those grounds is needed, it can be carried out. However, if they don't, then a revote on those grounds cannot be repeated for a year.
# We need to make clear if the current changes apply (or can apply) to old votes.
# We need to make a rule about vote enforcement. What's the use of a vote if those who don't like the result can ignore it? If a vote is binding, that all edits contraty to the vote decision should be reverted and not count toward 3RR rule. 
Well, that's all I can think of now. A final note: I don't want to formalize all votes and surveys, only those that like Gdansk/Vote infringe/break other official policies like the 3RR in case of Gdansk/Vote. Fuzzy and inbinding votes are good - but not in important matters. So, what do you think? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstand the point of surveys. A survey or poll is not a binding vote. Kim Bruning 19:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tell that to the people engaged in Gdansk/Vote and claiming it gives them immunity to 3RR. Apparently quite a lot of people (enough to force desisions on 3RR blocks or lack of them) considers this survey binding enough to be above the official policy of 3RR. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's *ahehehehe* wrong. Which people were it? *innocent look* *rubbing of hands behind back* Kim Bruning 11:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Since there have been no meaningful (content) objections so far, I will be changing the guideline in a few days. I will post a notice on VP(p) again, and RfC and AN this time to attract more attention. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You've had one objection from Kim Bruning, and here is another from me. Wikipedia is not a democracy. A survey cannot overturn policy. Secretlondon 14:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Who create policies? We do. Surveys are just a formalized voting, and Wikipedia is build around consensus. If majority of users want something, it has to be changed - Wiki has always worked that way. I don't see a difference whether the majority choses to speak on a talk page of through a more formal survey vote. A note about a survey will be added to the policy page, so all interested parties will be informed. Perhaps, if you think it may be abused, we can add a requirement that such votes need to be notified on AN, RfC, VP(p) and should require a given number of participnats/majority support? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Anyone who knowingly violates the 3RR can be banned, without exceptions.  Surveys do not provide an exemption for that rule.  That is the only thing that must be clarified on the page. Superm401 | Talk 14:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Replied above. I doubt 3RR would ever be changed, it is too useful. But nothing should be above the will of the majority - if for example at some distant future, 90% of Wiki users want to change 3RR to 4RR, shouldn't they be allowed to do so? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The above proposal is a result of agreement and collaborative work by several users. We would like to hear more opinions on this now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. My opnion is that the above text is not a proposal, but a skeleton from which an actual proposal might be built, and that it is not anywhere newar a sufficnent basis on which to be "changing the guideline". I want to see a detailed text of what the revised guideline would look like, and to see multiple people specifically supporting that text. I don't object to developign such a text, adn to then seeking support for it. But commeths above suggested that you thought you were ready to change the workign guideline. i think you haven't come near that stage yet. DES (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is a good start. Policy making is very tough business, and I am grateful for Piotrus for getting things going. The comments above have my support (since I was also involved in the first disussion round). I am not sure if they can be implemented all at once, but a one-by one approach should be possible. I think especially the points "what is a majority", "who can vote (edit count)" and "how many votes needed for a valid vote". And, most of all, how to enforce the vote outcome if users refuse to follow the majority vote. The only way currently possible in the Wikipedia:Blocking policy would be for disrupting wikipedia. A 3RR Excempt was also voted on in the Gdansk vote, but continues to cause problems. Yet a vote enforcement is needed, otherewise we'll open the doors to anarchy. -- Chris 73 Talk 09:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixing giant loopholes 

message: Consensus must be reached about the nature of the survey before it starts. Allow about a week for this process
Is it good to specify a timeline in this way? I would rather suggest something like "Consensus must be reached about the nature of the survey before it starts. Let this process last until it is finished, which can often can be expected to last at least a week." / Habj 11:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time needed to reach consensus 

message: I've created AfD-style poll closure templates at polltop and pollbottom. Like the AfD-style closure templates, these are meant to be used with . There's a demonstration of what these templates do on each talk page (the demos are identical, as both templates are necessary to get the effect). Hopefully I haven't recreated work already done. :P If someone wants to, it might be worth adding a link to these to the survey guidelines... but only after suitable discussion, and of course, a survey. :P Comments welcome and appreciated. --Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 09:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Polling/survey templates

message: Have a look through the revision history of this one. This is textbook m:instruction creep and I've edited it accordingly. Wikipedia is not a game of Nomic. Or shouldn't be - David Gerard 20:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've merged it to Wikipedia:Straw polls as was suggested in the header - David Gerard 20:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What on earth?

message: Please read the sixteen point introduction at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Lists by religion-ethnicity and profession#Move to delete 99% of all Lists and Categories of Jews: Sixteen reasons why this should become a fixed Wikipedia policy and related discussions at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Lists by religion-ethnicity and profession#Proposed amendment: remove all Jewish-related lists. Thank you. IZAK 11:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to delete 99% of all Lists and Categories of Jews 

message: There needs to be a guideline as to what to do with old polls.  When can/should they be archived?  Should a summary of the poll topic and its results be given a permanent place at the top of the article's talk page?  Any thoughts?  -- noosphere 00:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just an issue of appearence..whats the need of another rule?--Urthogie 11:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The need is for clarity so as to minimize pointless arguments.  These issues should be hashed out once and a guideline created, so stupid arguments and edit wars don't start up over these issues in the future.  -- noosphere 01:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happens to old polls? 

message: This guideline has a contradiction: in the lead, it describes straw poll as not having "opening and closing times as votes do", while in the "Creating a survey section" step 4 is "A deadline for the survey should be considered so as to resolve the issue in a timely manner".  Explicitly stating some sort of loose timeframe seems like good advice to me; what do others think? --jwandersTalk 08:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: Since there is clearly some contention as to the status of this article, I've removed the "guideline" tag.  Not a guideline if there isn't consensus. - brenneman {L} 11:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where? Where are these people disputing this page? Radiant is one, are you another? This has been a guideline for a year, more discussion is needed before its demoted. Fresheneesz 00:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed tag 

message: I think that this page should encourage users to write the reason for their vote right next to it like this:
:Delete - because the page fails verifiability, none of the sources provide information that verifies the article. User:Your name here a:dd, the datehere year (UTC)
That way people can gauge how and why the poll is turning out like it is. Fresheneesz 19:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  .... uh.. straw polls... *aren't* binding. Doesn't it say that in the article? I don't understand why you're confused. Straw polls aren't binding, and are used as an indicator. Whats your point? My point is that this page attempts to explain how to make a good straw poll. Are you trying to tell me that a straw poll would be better *without* peoples reasons for their opinions? Fresheneesz 01:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, btw, I insist on this as a guideline because it has been one for a long time. That, and I don't see significant consensus to demote it. Do you? Please just point me to something that would convince me. Fresheneesz 01:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  Reasons would make it BOTH a poll and a discussion. Fresheneesz 01:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  And of course that's exactly what we should have. Wikipedia is not a democracy. 170.215.91.131 00:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mandating reasons attached to a vote 

message: It seems to advocate things going in different (random) directions. We should consider reverting.
Somehow guidelines do not appear to coincide very well with best practices, we've seen it before. We may need to consider a different procedure for maintaining them.
Kim Bruning 14:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Radiant wants to make sure you want to revert to a time when this wasn't guideline - a vast minority of the history of this page. But I agree, guidelines, practice, and intention have all gone in three different directions - wikipedia needs a better framework of organization. Fresheneesz 23:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page seems old, broken , and badly maintained 

message: This page appears to have more merit than it's previous  tag would lead one to believe with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 other language Wikis that appear to have equivalent pages. This page merits continued development and being turned back into a guideline. (→Netscott) 05:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even WP:NOT references this page (and has done so for a very long time). (→Netscott) 05:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Returning this page back to '''guideline''' status

message: This used to be a guideline - and it gave advice on how to use *non-binding* straw polls. Now it is calling strawpolls voting, and labeling them as bad? What the hell? Fresheneesz 02:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If  you review the history of this page you'll find it readily apparent who the folks are that have been working to de-strengthen this page.  02:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When did the point of this change?