See also Wikipedia talk:Quickpolls
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)
This is still set to removal after 15 votes. Should this be increased? Martin 22:26, 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)
Sure, it was a plural you. Martin 13:11, 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)
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)
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)
The current removal guidelines are, I think, not quite ideal. I propose the following replacement:
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)
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)