Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Test run

This is part of Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal.

Test Run
[ vote] – discuss
 * Any changes to the criteria for speedy deletion that are made as a result of this proposal are subject to a test run. One month after they are instated, a revote will be called on any of them for which three or more registered users request it.

Votes
'''This proposal is no longer open for voting. Voting closed on July 19, 2005 15:11 (UTC).'''

Support

 * 1) A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  July 4, 2005 15:45 (UTC)
 * 2) Naturenet | Talk 4 July 2005 16:20 (UTC)
 * 3) Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; July 4, 2005 17:03 (UTC)
 * 4) Zscout370 (Sound Off) 4 July 2005 17:13 (UTC)
 * 5) DES 4 July 2005 18:47 (UTC)
 * 6) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 4 July 2005 19:28 (UTC)
 * 7) humblefool&reg; 4 July 2005 20:35 (UTC)
 * 8) Dragons flight July 4, 2005 21:46 (UTC) Though the threshold here is so low that I can foresee revoting a lot of issues even if they are only weakly contested.  Still, better than nothing.
 * 9) *Yes, that is a good point. I originally wanted to word this so that the people contesting would have to show a valid reason for doing so - but that could arguably lead to discussion whether or not the reason was valid. So I'm assuming that people won't run wild with this. Technically any proposal that gets three oppose-votes could get a revote, but I'm sure that most people would understand that there is no point to that unless you give people a good reason to change their opinion. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; July 5, 2005 09:11 (UTC)
 * 10) Dmcdevit 4 July 2005 23:18 (UTC)
 * 11) NatusRoma 4 July 2005 23:55 (UTC)
 * 12) Why not. JesseW 5 July 2005 00:08 (UTC)
 * 13) Denni &#9775;  2005 July 5 01:41 (UTC)
 * 14) Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 5 July 2005 02:09 (UTC)
 * 15) mikka (t) 5 July 2005 02:51 (UTC)
 * 16) gadfium 5 July 2005 03:03 (UTC)
 * 17) This will allow us to ferret out any unforeseen negative consequences. &mdash; Phil Welch 5 July 2005 03:24 (UTC)
 * 18) Xoloz 5 July 2005 06:17 (UTC)
 * 19) Sasquatch&#08242;&#08596;Talk&#08596;Contributions July 5, 2005 07:08 (UTC)
 * 20) Better to be on the safe side. JoJan 5 July 2005 08:24 (UTC)
 * 21) &mdash; Ram-Man (comment) (talk) July 5, 2005 14:18 (UTC)
 * 22) I'm for a test run. (I'd prefer if the revote threshold was a little higher, though.) — Bcat (talk | email) 5 July 2005 14:19 (UTC)
 * 23) Always test something before you implement it Lectonar 5 July 2005 14:23 (UTC)
 * 24) But see also Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Z --Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 14:47 (UTC)
 * 25) David Gerard 5 July 2005 21:35 (UTC)
 * 26) Rossami (talk) 5 July 2005 21:46 (UTC) This is an excellent idea - very much in keeping with the philosophy of a wiki.  I recommend adding one caveat which may address some of the "looseness" concerns - The clause remains in effect during the re-vote.  The theoretically endless revotes may waste our time but won't be able to derail the process.
 * 27) --Mononoke 5 July 2005 22:46 (UTC)
 * 28) * Mononoke's 250th contribution was at (or after) 03:29, 10 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 08:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 29) Factitious July 5, 2005 22:58 (UTC)
 * 30) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 5 July 2005 23:01 (UTC)
 * 31) Support - a chance for refining the concept is an excellent idea... of course, any Wikipedian could seek consensus for a review of any measure at any time, so the one month mark may be artificial here, but good to have nonetheless. -- BD2412 talk July 6, 2005 00:44 (UTC)
 * 32) Support - obviously this means that any which pass will probably need a revote, but good to take a second look. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 6 04:59 (UTC)
 * 33) Provision to reconsider, without a new drawn-out discussion. --Alex12 3 6 July 2005 07:38 (UTC)
 * 34) &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 6 July 2005 09:57 (UTC)
 * 35)  Sietse 6 July 2005 10:16 (UTC)
 * 36) Good safety measure - Sam Vimes 6 July 2005 11:33 (UTC)
 * 37) --BaronLarf July 6, 2005 12:59 (UTC)
 * 38) Support. Nathan J. Yoder 6 July 2005 13:22 (UTC)
 * 39) I believe in the principle of this proposal, but I believe it's instruction creep. --Deathphoenix 6 July 2005 13:58 (UTC)
 * 40) Laura Scudder | Talk 6 July 2005 13:59 (UTC)
 * 41) &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 6 July 2005 15:01 (UTC)
 * 42) ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 6 July 2005 19:11 (UTC) a very good idea, altho probably not necessary, I assume if any of these proposals are bad enough, they'll be back at the chopping block one way or another, by hook or by crook.. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 6 July 2005 19:11 (UTC)
 * 43) Support. I like safety measures.  Provisions for this sort of thing is a good idea. Fieari July 6, 2005 20:46 (UTC)
 * 44) * Fieari's 250th contribution was at (or after) 03:43, 11 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 08:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 45) ABCD 6 July 2005 22:44 (UTC)
 * 46) BD2412 makes a good point that is enough to stop me thinking bad things about this proposal. -Splash 7 July 2005 01:00 (UTC)
 * 47) Support.  Ral  315  July 7, 2005 05:17 (UTC)
 * 48) Ucucha See Mammal Taxonomy 7 July 2005 13:14 (UTC) I think it's good to have a look again then.
 * 49) * Ucucha's 250th contribution was at (or after) 07:40, 9 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 08:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 50) Test runs are fun! -- Rune Welsh &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; July 8, 2005 09:02 (UTC)
 * 51) Neutralitytalk July 9, 2005 09:31 (UTC)
 * 52) This link is Broken 9 July 2005 16:04 (UTC), although 3 may be too small
 * 53) Septentrionalis 20:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 54) Dsmdgold 13:22, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * 55) Shanes 05:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 56) Support having a test run. JuntungWu 14:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 57) Weak support. Three seems too low, but that shouldn't stop a test run. IanManka 04:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 58) * IanManka's 250th contribution was at (or after) 05:33, 13 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 05:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 59) Perfectly valid concept, though it will likely necessitate revotes on all. Superm401 | Talk 04:16, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * 60) Support Dpachmann 19:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 61) * Dpachmann's 250th contribution was at (or after) 19:31, 15 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 62) Certainly better than nothing. Andre ( talk ) 20:28, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * 63) Support test run ;Bear 16:43, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * 64) Support cohesion 00:43, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) --Henrygb 4 July 2005 21:31 (UTC)
 * 2) No provision for suffrage - in the extreme case, all three registered users could be one-edit sockpuppets, forcing a revote of a 100-to-4 consensus. Such would be ignored, of course, but where do you draw the line?  I'd support only if those calling for a reconsideration had in fact voted in favor of it originally. --Cryptic (talk) 5 July 2005 03:26 (UTC)
 * 3) A bit loose as it stands: The number of votes for recall needs to be raised and the possible number of 'extensions' made explicit, e.g. one. Aaron Brenneman 5 July 2005 07:41 (UTC)
 * 4) * Comment This was Aaron Brenneman's 3rd edit. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 8 July 2005 15:13 (UTC)
 * 5) Instruction creep.  We can reconsider anything at any time anyway.  Kelly Martin July 6, 2005 02:30 (UTC)
 * 6) Holding a highly-organised vote with careful explanation of all options only to hold off from adoption in the situation of a majority 'yes' vote, in favour of a pilot scheme is one thing. Specifying criteria for which a re-vote can be requested by anyone who can rustle up just two buddies; or, as noted above two sockpuppets (and potentially full implementation of a widely lauded & successful pilot stymied), to drag the issue out is quite another. Hopefully it wasn't planned for the second voting run to be allowed to initiate a second pilot with three-user call for revote thereafter ad infinitum. Whitehorse1 | July 29 2024  (UTC)
 * 7) * Whitehorse1's 250th contribution was at (or after) 07:33, 6 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 08:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Three users is far too low of a threshold, for the reasons given above. Josh July 6, 2005 09:11 (UTC)
 * 9) Threshhold too low &#10149;the Epopt 6 July 2005 13:14 (UTC)
 * 10) I smell sockpuppets. --Wikiacc (talk) July 7, 2005 02:10 (UTC)
 * 11) Threshold. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 7 July 2005 02:22 (UTC)
 * 12) Very low threshold. This essentially obliterates the purpose of the proposals being currently voted. I cannot help but conclude that these polls are nothing but a purposeless power struggle between certain users. Hopefully, positive results will come from them, but this proposal certainly tries to prevent that. --Sn0wflake 7 July 2005 05:33 (UTC)
 * 13) Feels a bit like instruction creep and frankly, three users is not a very good threshold. -- Ricky81682 (talk) July 7, 2005 07:29 (UTC)
 * 14) No. A 70% requirement to pass each amendment is a pretty solid safety net already, and all of the proposals have been put under heavy scrutiny. Don't want to start redebating this thing in a month's time. Sjakkalle (Check!)  7 July 2005 11:11 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose.  Sjakkalle has good points. &mdash; F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( TALK )  06:32, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) We have more than three problem users active in any given time. jni 7 July 2005 12:03 (UTC)
 * 17) As above. I'm shocked that, given the long effort that's been put in here, we've decided to have such a low threshold. -Harmil 7 July 2005 16:36 (UTC)
 * 18) Instruction creep.  Grue  7 July 2005 20:21 (UTC)
 * 19) Three users is too low a threshold. Kaibabsquirrel 8 July 2005 07:10 (UTC)
 * 20) This is silly, CSD is a policy, not a minivan. -- M e r o v i n g i a n  (t) (c) July 8, 2005 08:57 (UTC)
 * 21) Pointless - Any rule can be amended by consensus at any time anyway.  Anyway. Proto t c 8 July 2005 09:39 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose. Trust in the process, holding revotes is impractical. David | Talk 8 July 2005 11:34 (UTC)
 * 23) Don't need it. One voting process is enough.  The various proposals already provide good safety mechanisms.  Friday 9 July 2005 05:48 (UTC)
 * 24) * Friday's 250th contribution was at (or after) 22:53, 10 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 08:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Peregrine  AY  9 July 2005 09:32 (UTC)
 * 26) Gwk 9 July 2005 16:28 (UTC)
 * 27) * Gwk's 250th contribution was at (or after) 02:40, 10 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 08:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) --Doc (?) 9 July 2005 17:59 (UTC) not needed - if any changes become obviously problematic an ammendment can be proposed in the usual way
 * 29) At first I was going to support this proposal, but on thinking more closely I've decided to oppose. I do not see why this is neccessary because a proposal can be made to change the CSD criteria if any of these ones pass to undo a change. Therefore this test run proposal seems to me to be unneccessary. -- Joolz 9 July 2005 18:41 (UTC)
 * 30) I think this overcomplicates the process and may make it so that this takes forever to be finalized, especially with sock puppets about. --FreelanceWizard 06:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 31) * FreelanceWizard's 250th contribution was at (or after) 06:53, 10 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 08:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 32) I say in for a penny, in for a pound. Hiding 22:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 33) 3 votes is too low. -- nyenyec &#9742; 00:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 34) Terrible. We don't need to see bad ideas in action. -- A Link to the Past 08:36, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * 35) Limitation too long, threshold too low. Suggest variable waiting period up to 3 months depending on percentage of original vote. Example: if test run is approved by 80%, then 80% of 3 months becomes the limitation before a revote can be held. Suggest a revote recall threshold of 5% of the original number of voters.Inigmatus 14:47, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 36) * Inigmatus's 250th contribution was at (or after) 17:21, 12 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 37) Three seems kind a low...(read: possibility of abuse) ---Feydey 21:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 38) If we dont like it, we can change it back useing the usual processes. No need for a "test run" Iain 13:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 39) New policy is difficult enough to adopt already, without having to adopt it twice.  This is both a bad idea and, potentially, bad precedent.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 40) My thoughts exactly. If something doesn't work, we'll fix it - and it might take more than the stated amount of time for the problem to become obvious, anyway. Noel (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 41) I agree with everyone. The rules arn't carved in stone and can always be fixed. Casito&#8669;Talk 01:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 42) Oppose- three people is too few to make a valid revote. How about a percentage of the voters in the original vote must call for a revote? (for example, if 100 people voted support for a proposal, 20 people would be needed to call for a revote)... Or something like that. 3 is too few. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk  20:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments

 * This proposal makes it unclear what the voting on the other proposals means. Are they for adopting something or merely testing it or does it depend on the outcome of this poll. Ideally testing should be done before voting on adoption and votes in favour of testing should not be mixed with votes in favour of adoption.--MarSch 13:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

There is already too much voting and not enough consensus building on Wikipedia lately

 * 1) Given that I object to the method used to implement changes to policy, (See Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal) I support rapid review of anything adopted under these methods, but not by voting. Unfocused 15:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

After this vote is over with, i will want to propose a suggestion (perhaps to becoem a guideline, or perhaps soemthing else) on how test runs can be doen in future policy decisions. Part of it will be to encourage discussion to build consensus, and not just a direct jump to a vote. I don't want to float this jsut yet -- I want think a bit first, and i don't want it seen as part of this proposal. DES 15:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You mean like How_to_create_policy? Why not just work on that page instead?  This recent rash of policy votes appear to me to be impatient attempts to bypass the consensus building present in the normal policy making procedures, and get straight to the implementation.  Unfocused 18:22, 14 July 2005

(UTC)
 * I think i'd start on a sub-page or linked page to that, with the plan to merge it onto that page if consensus develops. i certianly woudn't rush to a vote before there seemed to be soemthing like consensus in discussion and if the consesus was clear enough, it might well be that a formal vote would not be needed, as indiacted on DES 19:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Test run proposal B
I'm not sure where exactly to put this. In response to the objections and weak support votes for the test run, I suggest we introduce a modified test run proposal:

Test Run B.1: New criteria stays enforced for up to a minimum time of 1 week up to a maximum time of 10 weeks dependent on the leftover popular percentage over 70%.

To figure the popularity factor: 1. Subtract 70 from the final percentage in favor. ex. for an 80% in favor vote, take 80-70=10 2. Divide remainder by 30. ex. 10/30 = 33%. 3. Round to the nearest week. ex. 33% of the maximum of 10 weeks is 3 weeks. The popularity factor for an 80% approval forces a 3 week test run before a recall can be initiated.

With 75% of the vote, there is a 16% additional popularity factor, new criteria has a 2 week testing time. With 80% of the vote, there is a 33% additional popularity factor, new criteria has a three week testing time. With 85% of the vote, there is a 50% additional popularity factor, new criteria has a five week testing time. With 90% of the vote, there is a 66% additional popularity factor, new criteria has a seven week testing time. With 95% of the vote, there is an 83% additional popularity factor, new criteria has an eight week testing time.

Test Run B.2: A revote can only be called for when the test run is complete, and the number of requests match or exceed 10% of the number of vote originally tallied. Example1: a criteria passed and 100 total people voted. 10 people would be needed to force a revote after the test run.

Example2: a criteria passed and 250 total people voted. 25 people would be needed to force a revote after the test run.

What do you guys think? Can this be added to the list of proposals?

-Inigmatus 16:45, July 12, 2005 (UTC)