Wikipedia talk:Quickpolls

message: The quickpoll process was originally implemented as a 30-day trial. We have now had 30 days to evaluate whether this process is beneficial. It seems appropriate for us to consider the experience and decide whether we want to continue using quickpolls.
* To review the poll and discussion surrounding the initial design and implementation of quickpolls, see Wikipedia talk:Quickpolls/Archive1.
* To review the actual quickpolls and related comments, see Wikipedia:Quickpolls/Archive.
* To review general quickpoll discussion during the trial period, see Wikipedia talk:Quickpolls/Archive2.
* To review the current quickpoll policy and related discussion, see Wikipedia:Quickpolls policy and Wikipedia talk:Quickpolls policy.
Question: Do you think we should continue using quickpolls?
===Yes===
#Quickpolls would work great if everyone accepted the three revert guideline.  Sadly, somebody always wants to make an exception, thus negating the rule. It should be an absolute rule -- anybody who reverts three times in 24 hours for any reason whatsoever should get a 24 hour ban.  Tuf-Kat 18:54, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
#William M. Connolley 19:38, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC) Yes. Also, the 3-revert rule should become absolute, with ignorance no excuse. Being banned for 24h is not such a serious penalty that we need to agonise over it too long. Currently we are far too wishy washy. Suggestion: 2nd ban gets 2 days; 3rd 4; 4th 8... etc.
#Ruhrjung 19:58, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: These are my suggestions. Sam Spade 13:29, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Sysops can unblock themselves, so you'd probably need to quickpoll, unsysop, and block. At which point, why not just unsysop, if it's the sysop powers that are the problem (eg, a sysop starts blocking every editor of Wikipedia). Martin 23:27, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Review of quickpoll process

message: #Quickpolls would work great if everyone accepted the three revert guideline.  Sadly, somebody always wants to make an exception, thus negating the rule. It should be an absolute rule -- anybody who reverts three times in 24 hours for any reason whatsoever should get a 24 hour ban.  Tuf-Kat 18:54, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
#William M. Connolley 19:38, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC) Yes. Also, the 3-revert rule should become absolute, with ignorance no excuse. Being banned for 24h is not such a serious penalty that we need to agonise over it too long. Currently we are far too wishy washy. Suggestion: 2nd ban gets 2 days; 3rd 4; 4th 8... etc.
#Ruhrjung 19:58, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes

message: The quickpolls policy currently allows quickpolls when:
# someone violates the three revert guideline
# a sysop repeatedly misuses a sysop capability
# a signed in user goes on a "rampage" of some type
# a signed in user confesses to deliberate trolling
If you support quickpolls for some of these situations and oppose them for others, please indicate in your vote the situations for which you support quickpolls.
#Only for cases 3 and 4.  In my mind, quickpolls are very useful for situations like we had with Plautus satire, or maybe Bird.  In other words, situations where there's a consensus that someone is a major disruptive influence, and something needs to be done faster than the arbitration process can work.  They shouldn't be used for routine disputes.  I dislike the current situation where there seems to always be a quickpoll going on, usually involving conflicts that really aren't worth the attention of the whole community. Isomorphic 17:57, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes, but only for certain cases

message: # I do not think they are useful. Cases like P.Satire and Bird are better dealt with "in vivo" and "in real time" by one/several sysops, for my taste. Pfortuny 18:05, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: No

message: This space is to consider possible changes to improve quickpolls
* Most of the problems actually helped through quickpolls have been new users who are not contributing in good faith.  In light of this, why not give greater discretion to sysops in dealing with this?  Bearing in mind Wikipedia:Don't bite the newbies, we could still permit discretionary bans and blocks for new users (less than 30 days old?) who are disruptive and who have not made any good-faith contributions.  UninvitedCompany 19:16, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: These are my suggestions. Sam Spade 13:29, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested modifications

message: I'd like to see some form of automation for condorcett voting --this alllows ranking of several alternitives.  Hottly disputed subjects might also benifit from a split page line by line "rebuttal" or alternate opinion format wiki deuling?  But I am interested in trolproofing the concept. perhaps with "voting and forking" of "sections and  versions".  It seems appealing to let memes rise on their own.
-ws 
* We need to think of automatizing the whole thing. It takes too long to solve a "quick"poll (for my taste) and so they lose their utility. I think this is not the place (now) for more thinking, so I stop here. Pfortuny 18:04, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sysops can unblock themselves, so you'd probably need to quickpoll, unsysop, and block. At which point, why not just unsysop, if it's the sysop powers that are the problem (eg, a sysop starts blocking every editor of Wikipedia). Martin 23:27, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Other comments

message: It's not very useful to rely on voting, but we can't seem to live without it either. How can we solve this conundrum?
Let's make the guidelines so clear that ALL admins will feel empowered to use their judgment. If someone gets out of line, we can try:
*teaching
*warning
*blocking
I would say that in case of doubt, an admin should consult other contributors (regardless of "rank").
And if any action (like blocking) is taken, definitely report this to the community for review.
We've tried all sorts of systems. When the only way to block a user was to run a SQL query to mangle their password, that pretty much left it up to developers like Tim Starling, Brion Vibber and Eloquence. (By courtesy, I was called a developer even though I never did anything but run SQL queries and make annoying comments about speeding up the server! :-)
Then sysop powers were broadened to include the "Block this user" button. But we haven't come to a stable consensus on where and how this power should be used. Be too nice, and trolls over-run the dungeon (so to speak). Be too aggressive, and you run the risk of being called on the carpet yourself for "abuse of power". What's an admin to do? --Uncle Ed 12:39, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Limitations of democracy

message: What constitutes a "rampage" anyway"?  I think I may have just been a victim of such by 172, who has been following me around rolling back even simple housekeeping edits on all sorts of articles. -- VV 05:43, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 172 sticks controverisal assertions into articles - one could call it trolling - as that whole mess at Pinochet proved.  He starts an edit war whether I try to explain or not, so I removed POV/misinfo without immediate explanation in these two cases, much as I feel he has done to me.  I noted on the talk page my objections re Bush, and as for Qaddafi, besides the slanted phrasing of the new paragraphs, I don't believe it's proven that Qaddafi's daughter was killed; at best, it was his adopted daughter, and I don't think we're even sure of that.  Anyway, these objections were valid ones and cannot be equated to his rampage of reverts against me (nor violation of protection policy). -- VV 06:14, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Slanted phrasing does not justify a wholesale revert, and I don't see as the phrasing was especially slanted.  I have no idea about the daughter - the version you reverted to said adopted daughter.  Encarta says it was his daughter, says my quick google search.  At any rate, I don't see why an adopted daughter does not count as a daughter.  As to George W. Bush, your comments seem to have more merit, but you ought have added them at the time, and, to be honest, you ought have, as you say, picked through and made changes rather than reverting.  Given the intensity of editing on the George W. Bush article, and given your own history with 172, it was unwise of you to move into that one anyway.  I'm sure Cecropia, for instance, would have been all over any left-wing bias 172 may have introduced, without the need for this kind of crap. john 06:24, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: John, how would you handle it if he reverted your edits to articles over and over again arbitrarily just to prove the point that he can keep you from editing articles? It's clear that he didn't even read either of the edits that I'd made. After a while you'd say to hell with civility and 3-revert rules. I might've made that string of changes just to prove a point, but you know that I never insist on making changes to articles without a reason. 172 06:05, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep you from editing articles?  You've been editing dozens of articles lately, and just now I took exception to two.  You don't see me coming down on Zimbabwe and imperialism (although for all I know you're POV-pushing there too). -- VV 06:37, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: (John's comment is addressed to 172, but....)  I definitely agree that wholesale reverting is rarely appropriate.  Unfortunately, it's how 172 has always done business (remember FOX News? state terrorism?), and the sort of careful salvaging you suggest I do has been too often rewarded with a rollback. -- VV 06:37, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: I acknowledge I've been increasingly impelled by frustration.  But I still find that handicapping oneself with behavior restrictions when locking horns with 172 just means capitulation. -- VV 07:19, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: I battled 172 on two controversial articles; 172 wildly mass reverted my edits on a slew of articles, most wholly uncontroversial.  Surely there is a difference?  I don't know what the status of said accommodation is; I'm still not touching a few articles, for now, but that does not mean the rest of Wikipedia is fair game.  No, sorry, I haven't put in the time to look deeper into the mediation option. -- VV 08:33, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: I haven't been doing that.  Who says I have? -- VV 18:20, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: No, it's a rolling 24-hour limit; remember, Wikipedia is time-zone-less.  Wik is correct, although this is not the first such misunderstanding. -- VV 09:05, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  You might want to check your facts (as I've just done): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_revert_a_page_to_an_earlier_version#Revert_wars_considered_harmful ; "Never revert the same article more than three times in the same day". "Day" is not defined - in fact there's whole paragraph describing just how undefined it is.--Gene_poole 09:25, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You really take the biscuit Gene. Look at the reverts I mentioned above. Even by your definition (which by precedent is not the correct one, Wik has been banned under the 24 hour period interpretiation) you reverted 4 times in one day on the 4th May. An apology at this point is required  don't you think? theresa knott 11:09, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Well, right now I think we're generally not holding quickpolls for simple violations of the 3-revert limit. See the discussion above. The rule that applies to you, Wik, is a separate ruling by the arbitration committee. I note that they said it was to be "in addition to any wider policy that the community may decide to apply." --Michael Snow 21:45, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rampage 

message: Cyan's version might fix the problem of preferential treatment when two editors are working on the same article. It will not fix that same problem when two editors are working on separate articles. Determining whether or not an editor broke the 3 revert rule is really a trivial task (providing that the rule is clear, and with the exception of cases where reverts are obfuscated by additional edits - the 'clever people' Cyan mentioned.) The policy should therefore be designed to ensure that *every* editor who breakes the 3 revert rule gets the penalty. Quickpolls are not necessary here. These matters should only go up one level in the dispute resolution process if an editor objects, and additional penalty can be imposed when such objections are found to have no basis (whithout any cost to raising an objection even in relatively straightforward cases too many people would do so.)
So, if this issue can't have a software solution (which I still think it should,) then I propose something like the following system:
Chose a group of people whose task it would be to automatically ban whoever reverts 4 times in a UTC day (this could simply be all sysops.) Create a special page where bans will be announced, much like the current Protection log.
For simple reverts the procedure would be the following:
#Anyone can post a notice about someone exceeding the 3 revert limit (on a special log page.)
#The next sysop who happens to see the log page will ban all the names on the list in the order in which they are listed (this ensures  equal treatment.) If the 3 revert rule hasn't been broken he or she puts either "less than 4 reverts" or "not an obvious revert" next to the name listed.
#Another sysop checks the list and if there are no problems, puts 'confirmed' next to all unconfirmed entries in the list, before banning any new names on the list.
#The person who was banned can object and the matter is then passed on to arbitration. If the arbitration comittee decides that he was right, the two sysops involved will be prohibited from banning for 30 days (or a week.) If he or she was wrong, the ban will be extended for 24 hours.
#Anyone can object if someone wasn't banned even though the 3 revert rule was broken. The matter goes to arbitration and for sysops the panalty is the same as above. For the person raising the objection the panalty is either the same as above, or alteratively the person could be placed on a list of wikipedians with restricted rights for 30 days (for example no right to raise objections.)
In cases when reverts are obfuscated by additional edits:
#same as above
#same as above
#If there is at least one 'not an obvious revert' message next to a name, a poll starts under the name, and lasts 48 hours. All sysops can vote, and are required to follow strict guidelines when determining whether the edits in question are reverts.
#same as above
#Since the issue was not straightforward, and a decision was based on a poll result no panalties are issued to sysops.
Also, instead of banning someone for 24 hours a person breaking the 3 revert rule could simply be limited to 3 edits per article for 30 days, which could be enforced by software.
The above system is meant to fix the 3 things that didn't work in the quickpolls version.
#Interested parties could not start quickpolls. In any legal system the ability of interested parties to bring the issue before the justice system is the best guarantee that whenever a law is broken penalties are imposed. 
#Anyone could vote, including people known for making biased decisions (or just stupid ones.) In a well functioning system such people are never promoted in the hierarchy. 
#Those who voted had nothing to lose. Thus they were only concerned with following their agenda, and voted against banning if they agreed with the person making the edits, or if they felt the system wasn't working etc. In a well functioning system people always know that there is a personal cost to making the wrong decision, and generally are not willing to pay the price to support someone they like.  
The 3 revert rule needs to be changed to 3 reverts in a utc day, (instead of the current 'there is a speed limit of 3 rods per something or other, and if that's confusing you should just slow down' version.)
The guidelines for determining whether an edit is a revert should be something like: "Any edit that includes either the removal or addition of a controversial phrase that was previously removed or added on the same day or the day before will be counted as a revert." To further clarify you could require the other party to identify the phrase in the summary before edits of that phrase are counted as a revert. --Voodoo 02:07, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Mine too theresa knott 08:29, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: YAAP (Yet Another Alternative Proposal)

message: The Quickpoll process isn't being used, and hasn't been in quite a while.  There is no strong consensus here that Quickpolls are useful.  Because of this and of the long inactivity, it's not clear to me what would happen if a new Quickpoll were started now, or whether its result would still be considered binding.  I have put a note on the page in an attempt to reflect this, so that newer users who come across it will understand the context.  Isomorphic 15:21, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Along as the wikipolice are silent on this issue.  The first editor to create a quickpoll would receive the answer.  I see no reason why you cannot create a quickpoll since is has been over 30 days. -- John Gohde 16:10, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Been over 30 days since what?  I think you must be confused about something.  Quickpolls were tried for a period of 30 days.  At the end of that 30 days, we started the review above to determine whether we would continue using Quickpolls at all, and if so whether any changes to policy were required.  The reactions in the 30 day review were very much mixed, so there wasn't a clear conclusion reached.  People have stopped using the page, so it seems that there is a de facto consensus not to use quickpolls anymore.  You could still start one, but it's not clear that they still carry any weight given the number of people above who said we should stop using them. Isomorphic 16:44, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a few people may have been confused by the fact that some participants, perhaps including myself, occasionally referred to a 30-day review, and therefore concluded that the review period would last for 30 days. I agree with Isomorphic's conclusion that the quickpoll procedure lacks consensus support for continued use, and therefore should be considered inactive. --Michael Snow 22:52, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: If quickpolls really are supposed to have been discontinued, it might be helpful to redirect the page to WP:RFC to prevent people not realising this and trying to use it. Angela. 02:06, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Quickpolls as a formal process are clearly dead at this point.  Still, I don't see much harm in the sort of occasional and informal use we've seen since. I don't personally frequent RfC, so I don't know how similar/dissimilar they are. Isomorphic 02:24, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Inactivity Notice

message: I'm wondering what people think of using quickpolls for content disputes as an alternative (or compliment) to RfC's. IE a quickpoll on which version of an article is preferred, on which side is right in a dispute etc? AndyL 14:38, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a bet leery of settling edit wars with quickpolls.  I think this could be abused, one side calling for a quick poll at a time when the other side is unlikely to be online, for example. I think the protect and discuss method we have now will be more productive than a quickpoll to enforce a particular version of an article. Gentgeen 15:04, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: The problem with using "quick"polls to solve content disputes is that content disputes can't (and shouldn't) be solved hastilly.  They need discussion and consideration, not just a random poll of whoever wanders through.  Besides, I can easilly foresee constant arguments here if we did that. Isomorphic 20:43, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Other uses for quickpolls