Jump to content

Wikipedia:Quickpolls

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ChrisO~enwiki (talk | contribs) at 10:57, 2 April 2004 (heading). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Quickpolls are polls among Wikipedia regulars on issues that need to be quickly resolved.

Policies

When is a quickpoll allowed?

Quickpolls can be used for three types of cases:

  1. someone violates the three revert guideline
  2. a sysop repeatedly misuses a sysop capability
  3. a signed in user goes on a "rampage" of some type -- puts insults on several user (not user talk) pages, vandalizes several articles, etc.

They need to be started within 24 hours of the alleged incident.

Before you take a quickpoll, give the user a fair chance to improve their behavior. If a user might not be aware of a policy, make them aware of it first. But there is no need to warn repeat violators of the same policy again and again.

Remedies

There are three possible remedies:

  • a 24 hour ban
  • A request for arbitration (although any user will always be able to request arbitration, a quickpoll may give an additional sense of urgency to the matter, and may influence arbitrator decisions to accept/reject the case.)
  • If the user in question is a sysop, desysopping. The recommended maximum lengths are:
    1. First violation: don't use a quickpoll - ask them not to do it again!
    2. Second violation: temporary desysopping for 24 hours.
    3. Third violation: temporary desysopping for one week.
    4. Fourth violation: permanent desysopping, pending final decision by the arbitration committee. If not confirmed by the arbitration committee within four weeks, the desysopping will be undone.

In any case, sysop status is reinstated, or a user ban is reversed if:

  1. The arbitration committee decrees that the sysop in question is to be reinstated.
  2. Support for the remedy drops below 70% (see below)
  3. The sysop is re-sysoped via wikipedia:requests for adminship

Announcing a quickpoll

A quickpoll should be announced on the following places:

  • The user_talk: page of the user in question
  • On Wikipedia:Recentchanges (the text shown atop the "Recent changes" page)

Encouraged, but not required:

  • Wikipedia: and wikipedia_talk: namespace pages that mention the incident in question.
  • The IRC channel.
  • If the ban is in relation to a specific article, the talk page for that article.

The format for an announcement on the user's talk page may look like this:

A [[Wikipedia:Quickpolls|Quickpoll]] is being held in regards to edits you recently made on {insert article name here}. You cannot vote on the poll, but you ''can'' make comments to defend yourself.

The format for a recent changes announcement is as follows:

<center><small>'''Please vote: [[Wikipedia:Quickpoll]] - on: [[User:Dogmaster3000|]], started by: [[User:Eloquence|]]'''</small></center>

For multiple polls:

<center><small>'''There are multiple ongoing [[Wikipedia:Quickpolls|quickpolls]]. Please vote.'''</small></center>

The notice on recent changes should be removed shortly after 15 votes have been received.

A quickpoll should be created on this page.

Format of a quickpoll

A quickpoll should take the following format:

User:Username
User:User1 (talk / contributions) has participated in edit wars on Kermit the Frog (talk / history) and ignored the revert policy in spite of being made aware of it. I think he should be banned for 24 hours. -- User:User2
Support
(votes in favour go here)
Oppose
(votes against go here)
Comments
(comments go here. These do not constitute votes.)

Rules

Users must meet the following criteria to be able to start a quickpoll or vote in one:

  • They must be registered users. Anonymous users may not vote in quickpolls or start them.
  • They must have been active on Wikipedia for longer than 3 months.
  • They must only start one quickpoll at a time and only one quickpoll per day.
  • They must not be a "sock puppet". If it is agreed that a vote has been made by a sock puppet, that vote will not count towards the result.
  • Neither the subject nor the proponent of a quickpoll may vote in it, but they may add comments on this page.

Users who have joined Wikipedia recently may also add their comments.

There is no voting deadline for quickpolls.

Quickpoll votes need to approach consensus. In practice, any quickpoll that shows at least 80% agreement with at least 8 valid votes in favor of the proposed remedy can be implemented. (If the remedy is a 24 hour ban, make sure that another sysop hasn't beaten you to the block button.) If the vote subsequently drops below 70% with at least 5 valid votes against, the remedy should be reversed.

Reversed remedies cannot be reinstated, even if the proportion subsequently rises again. If subsequent behaviour causes people to change their votes, you may instead wish to take a seperate quickpoll on the subsequent behaviour.

Removal of quickpoll listing

All quickpolls can be removed from Wikipedia:Recentchanges after 15 votes have been reached.

If a 24-hour ban or desysopping is proposed but not approved, the quickpoll can be removed from this page under the following conditions:

10-19 votes 20-29 votes 30-39 votes >= 40 votes

<= 40% approval

<= 50% approval

<= 60% approval

<= 80% approval

A quickpoll can be removed from this page 48 hours after the ban is implemented, or 48 hours after listing if no ban is implemented.

Archived polls

Concluded polls should be moved to Wikipedia:Quickpolls/Archive.

User:VeryVerily (6 votes / 0 for / 6 against / 0% in favour)

Multiple reverts in just over an hour on Red Scare. He didn't like some edits made to the article last week, but temporarily stopped fighting them. This is one of VeryVerily's tricks, total reversion of other people's work because of one grievance. Obviously, this sort of behavior provokes edit wars, since no user wants to be fully reverted because of some (often unrelated) objection. Recommend at least censure by the community; please note if you favor the 24-hour ban (forgive me if I don't fully understand quickpoll rules). P.s., VeryVerily is an old hat and knows the rules just fine. -- 172 07:21, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Support

172 07:21, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC) Ineligible to vote - "Neither the subject nor the proponent of a quickpoll may vote in it, but they may add comments on this page." -- ChrisO 10:08, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. silsor 07:40, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC) I protest this dramatization of quickpolls. The quickpolls concept was inspired by serious instances in which immediate action was required. It is currently a page to list every petty conflict over material.
  2. Silsor is 100% right. The next person who puts someone up for a quickpoll without a prima facia case for banning is going to find themselves in hot water. →Raul654 07:43, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Ruhrjung 07:43, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC) (ditto)
  4. john 07:55, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC) This is silliness, 172.
  5. Delirium 08:30, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC) Don't see a rule violation.
  6. ChrisO 10:14, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC) I see this as a retaliation for VV's quickpoll below. Abuse of process IMO.

Neutral/Comments

  • I reverted thrice. This quickpoll is "retaliation" for the below one, in which the guideline was violated. -- VV 08:27, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

User:172 (3 votes / 0 for / 3 against / 0% in favour)

Five reverts in just over an hour on Red Scare. He didn't like some edits made to the article last week, but temporarily stopped fighting them. Seven other users made edits since then, but just now he returned and reverted all of them back to his version (first edit on Mar 26). This is one of 172's tricks, total reversion of other people's work because of one grievance. Obviously, this sort of behavior provokes edit wars, since no user wants to be fully reverted because of some (often unrelated) objection. Recommend at least censure by the community; please note if you favor the 24-hour ban (forgive me if I don't fully understand quickpoll rules). P.s., 172 is an old hat and knows the rules just fine. P.p.s., it wasn't clear if the first revert should count, but without it it's still four. -- VV 06:56, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Support

VV 08:29, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC) Ineligible to vote - "Neither the subject nor the proponent of a quickpoll may vote in it, but they may add comments on this page." -- ChrisO 10:07, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. silsor 07:40, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC) I protest this dramatization of quickpolls. The quickpolls concept was inspired by serious instances in which immediate action was required. It is currently a page to list every petty conflict over material.
    • As I understand it, this page is primarily for users who break the three revert rule. 172 did that. His own quickpoll was simply his typically childish retaliation. -- VV 07:45, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • Quickpolls is a place to drag things through the dirt in front of the entire community. Feelings get hurt and conflicts are worsened instead of resolved. silsor 07:50, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
      • As for breaking the 3 revert rule, it is a new addition to Wikipedia policy in conjunction with this page. Although I appreciate the benefits it has in managing edit wars, it is providing an excuse for conflicts to escalate and is certainly doing nothing to help the community get along. silsor 07:52, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Ruhrjung 07:44, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC) (no comment)-:
  3. john 07:55, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  4. Danny 10:52, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Neutral/Comments

User:24.45.99.191

This user is intent on labeling Carl Sagan a pantheist. He will not accept any NPOV compromise attempts (that edit was instantly reverted) and has violated the three revert rule, even after a warning not to do so. Please peruse the page history for more information. He has also labeled other users "BIGOTS and CENSORS" and put the entire text of the Carl Sagan page on my talk page.

I propose a 24-hour ban ASAP.—Eloquence 20:31, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

I recommend extending this ban to all IPs listed as aliases on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress: 65.125.10.66/24.45.99.191/216.99.245.171/216.99.245.184/66.2.156.38 - Texture 20:38, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Note that the user has now, on his talk page, stated that he finds my NPOV compromise acceptable, but has gone around and pasted his preferred version on various pages, including Talk:Carl Sagan.—Eloquence 20:46, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

Implemented. silsor 22:37, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. Texture 20:32, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) - this is not a new trend
  2. EddEdmondson 20:33, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Jwrosenzweig 20:34, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) - 24 hour ban seems most wise.
  4. Hadal 20:36, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) - Vogel has a long, tiresome history of trying to insert his POV and attacking anyone who dare oppose.
  5. UninvitedCompany 21:05, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  6. Ruhrjung 21:32, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) (not sure if Quickpolls so to say were intended for non-logged in users, but I think it's a good idea)
  7. Michael Snow 21:42, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  8. Tannin I'm not convinced that a quickpoll is needed for this obvious case. To me, it looks like one that any non-involved admin would be justified in implementing without needing the poll.
    • You could look at it as a test case for using quickpolls as opposed to the existing approach. --Michael Snow 22:40, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  9. Ambivalenthysteria 23:40, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  10. Taku 00:58, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Ashibaka ✎ 01:16, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  12. Adam Conover 01:36, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC) - also see his similar behavior on Subject-object problem and Talk:Subject-object problem.

Oppose

  1. I haven't seen sufficient discussion by others in the talk page. Put the dispute to a vote first. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 21:29, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. I don't see sufficient evidence of having discussed the matter with him, warned him, etc... Paul is difficult, but not unreasonable (he even agrees w the compromise now, according to what is said above). Besides, I don't see a big difference between the two edits, its not like he was vandalizing or anything. I suppose I should be greatful that you even discussed it, instead of banning him outright, as usual. Sam Spade 22:36, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I never banned him. What are you talking about? Countless people have tried to discuss the matter with him, see Talk:Carl Sagan/pantheism.—Eloquence
      • I was refering to the past, situations not involving you. He is banned alot. And I don't see that discussion on talk:carl sagan as having been considerate of wikiquette, paul is not alone in having failed to be considerate in his communications (again not refering to you, don't be so thin-skinned ;) Sam Spade 00:25, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
        • Well, I feel that I have been reasonable with PV in the past, and he has always responded with an undue amount of hostility. I think it would be a good idea to send him an official message: "You can only go so far, but not further. Please try to work with others instead of bullying them into submission."—Eloquence
          • An official letter would be fine, but don't live up to his expectations, if it can be helped. He is a lively person, well used to debating these matters, but he isn't a troll IMO. He provides info, w citations, and sincerely wants to provide factual info in the article. He also has been becoming increasingly more reasonable about obeying policy. The only vanalism I have ever seen him to do involved blanking a talk page And that has almost never happened, in the aprox 6 months I have known him. He does have issues w flooding talk pages or wikiquette, but I think that stems for not understanding the applicable policies, or overzealousness. Sam Spade 01:33, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  3. The actual discussions on the article's talk page are unreasonable. Efforts were not made to create NPOV; rather, efforts were made to convince people that Paul's POV was completely wrong. ugen64 03:17, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

Comments and abstentions on 24.45

Looks like a ban is appropriate. I've not been a wikipedian long enough to vote, however. Dr. Z 20:52, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • This user repeatedly reverted the Carl Sagan page and made inappropriate remarks on the talk page. GrazingshipIV 21:18, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Do we need to do Quickpolls for anonymous users? Kingturtle 00:36, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • My first reaction is - no. The vast majority of our vandalism is from anons, and I hesitate to support anything that would make someone reluctant to remove a misbehaving anon. →Raul654 00:39, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • I oppose Quickpolls on anons, it would be impossible to do anything about vandalism. RickK | Talk 02:20, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Lord Kenneth

Lord Kenneth reverted the article Scientific skepticism at, in reverse order (and now converted to UTC Jamesday 07:27, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)):

  • 02:02, 31 Mar 2004
  • 01:38, 31 Mar 2004
  • 20:02, 30 Mar 2004
  • 03:33, 30 Mar 2004 making four reverts within 24 hours, the last being within 24 hours of this nomination. I propose simply a caution in this instance, in spite of the edit war history at that article. Jamesday 04:20, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Note that proposed remedy is a warning. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 22:30, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. What Kingturtle said. A warning is a good idea. --Alex S 14:57, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Warning is merited. -- Cyan 16:13, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. I agree that a warning, at the least, is appropriate. Jwrosenzweig 16:37, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Both he and Reddi need to stop this silliness (William M. Connolley 18:16, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC))
  5. Tεxτurε 23:50, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    Too many reverts. Kingturtle 06:10, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Ruhrjung 21:41, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) This request for 24-h ban seems more of vendetta than serious to me. The meaning with the three-revert policy is not to be a tool in fights between warring parties, but to improve wikipedia. Requirement of policy above seem not met.
  2. The rule is 3 reverts in a day, not a 24-hour period. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 21:36, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Quickpolls are for clear and obvious violation of policy, not for marginal bush-lawyer matters that qualify only in a technical sense. Tannin 22:25, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. The page Scientific skepticism is currently protected. Let's unprotect it first, & the first person to achieve 3 reverts in 24 hours gets to be the subject of another Quickpoll. -- llywrch 01:40, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  5. After re-assessing, I have changed my vote. I am considering oppossing Quick Polls all together. Kingturtle 03:18, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Comment

  • An ambiguity here is whether the policy here covers "a chronological day in some time zone, presumably that of the editor or reporter" or "a 24 hour period". A question in IRC prompted the view that it should be 24 hours, for which this series of reverts qualifies. Jamesday 04:20, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Wik is on a probation that allows similar 24-hour bans for violations of the revert rule. The ban has been applied based on a 24-hour period, regardless of calendar day or time zone. See User talk:Wik#Arbitration committee ruling. --Michael Snow 06:35, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I agree but someone other than me (because of me making a nomination here) should really change the no more than three reverts page from one day to 24 hours so we give fair warning to those who might consider the morning being a new day. Jamesday 07:01, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • A specific warning on the user's talk page would have been appropriate; I don't think anyone should be assumed to "know the policies" when quickpolls and related policies are so new. That said, I do wish Lord K would be less negative and aggressive. +sj+ 05:14, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC)
    • Lord Kenneth started a nomination here with this edit, dated 04:21, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC). That demonstrated to me that he was aware of the policies prior to at least three of the reverts in question. Jamesday 07:01, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • To be fair, Lordkenneth did make appeals to everyone on IRC chat (including Silsor and myself) so he was not entirely unilatteral in his response to Reddi who really presented the conflict on the page. I do not understand why jamesday would vote against the Reddi ban then raise this one-if Lordkenneth is guilty so is Reddi. I hope this is not personal. GrazingshipIV 05:19, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
    • The nomination of Reddi by Lord Kenneth didn't seem to meet the policy requirement and I voted accordingly. While checking that, I noticed that Lord Kenneth had done four reverts himself. When my use of non-UTC time was corrected, I saw that Reddi qualified and switched from opposing to supporting. Jamesday 07:27, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Please show if and how the user has been given a fair chance to improve his behaviour!--Ruhrjung 05:57, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Four is a big and welcome improvement on the number of reverts to that article by him on 27 Jan. His listing of Reddi here followed by he himself breaking the policy he'd listed Reddi for breaking just the day before persuaded me that he knew of the policy, failed to follow it anyway and had shown welcome, but insufficient, improvement. Note that I chose to suggest only a warning, though if someone really thinks that we can't use this for a formal warning I'd change it to a 24 hour ban... but I'd rather not while we're phasing in a new policy - better to start really gently with a warning first for a while, IMO. Jamesday 07:01, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • They should BOTH be banned from scientific skepticism for one week, and given a talking to, that seems best. This has gone on for a long time, and I think at least one of them will take the hint. The other will prob be back here in a week ;) Sam Spade 22:28, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Why do you need a quickpoll for a warning? Just give him a warning. I don't understand the vote. Angela. 22:21, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • I haven't been following the scientific skepticism dispute, so I cannot make any judgments pertaining to it for now. But speaking as a historian, IMO Lordkenneth raises the bar on WP for all users, including me. When users people give him reasonable arguments backed up by factual evidence and solid sources, I've seen Lordkenneth treat them fairly. If someone isn't setting a score or pushing an agenda, my guess is that this dispute can be worked out w/out a quickpoll. 172 12:33, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

User:Reddi

User:Reddi made over three reverts in one day. This is a clear violation of policy. He reverted and repeatedly injected biased information into the page scientific skepticism. The first poll did not merit a vote in my opinion despite Reddi's conduct because he did not violate policy. Now he has. Please review the page history to confirm or deny this. This is a vote for Quickpoll on a 24 hours temp-ban. RE-ADDED because other user wasn't here for three months. I am, so I will host the poll. Lord Kenneth 03:18, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

  • It's questionable, then, whether votes case before 03:18 should be counted, given as this can be considered a separate quickpoll from the one improperly started. At least, they should be re-affirmed. -- Seth Ilys 03:26, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • This is an entirely different poll. - Lord Kenneth 03:30, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • He or she who proposes a Quickpoll must present the case clearer and not leave a lot work to each voter. Please be specific not only in describing his crime but show also where and how Reddi was given a fair chance to improve his behavior. To show this with single-bracket links might be a good idea. --Ruhrjung 06:17, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Support

  1. This isn't the first time this particular article has come up in reference to Reddi; I think he needs a break from it, and unfortunately this is the best way I know to accomplish that. - Hephaestos|§ 02:52, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Danny 02:55, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Seth Ilys 03:21, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC). Reddi's repeated insults on Talk:scientific skepticism demonstrate that he is unwilling to engage in a dialogue.
  4. Support. Jamesday 07:13, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) I don't see three reverts to one article in one day by User:Reddi within the 24 hours preceding 03:20, March 31, so this doesn't qualify for a quickvote on the basis of reverts. If you disagree, please identify the three edits concerned, the one you consider to have been within 24 hours and the day you are using to qualify for them being within the same day. Jamesday 03:54, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • From the history of Scientific skepticism (edit times converted to UTC, but note that Reddi's comments reflect non-UTC times). --Michael Snow 06:16, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • 02:11, 31 Mar 2004 . . Reddi (rv 20:52, 30 Mar 2004 . . Sam Spade)
    • 00:36, 31 Mar 2004 . . Reddi (rv 19:17, 30 Mar 2004 . . Silsor)
    • 00:28, 31 Mar 2004 . . Reddi (rv 19:17, 30 Mar 2004 . . Silsor)
    • 22:14, 30 Mar 2004 . . Reddi (rv 2 17:14, 29 Mar 2004 . . Wik)
    • 04:00, 30 Mar 2004 . . Reddi (rv 2 17:14, 29 Mar 2004 . . Wik)
      • Thanks - and I've switched to UTC for all my views now so I don't make a similar mistake in the future. Jamesday 07:13, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Wik 16:00, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Reddi and LK both need to stop this silliness (William M. Connolley 18:18, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC))
  7. ugen64 03:15, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. In spite of the reverts, due to the failed quickpoll earlier it is very unclear to me whether the process was properly followed in notifying Reddi of this quickpoll. --Michael Snow 06:22, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Does not seem to me appropriate to hold two quickpolls for one incident, seems to be double jeopordy. Sam Spade 07:29, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. I haven't been convinced. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 21:27, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Quickpolls are for clear and obvious violation of policy, not for marginal bush-lawyer matters that qualify only in a technical sense. Tannin 22:25, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Agree with Tannin. Actually, I think this shows a strength of Eloquence's proposal. It's pretty soon obvious if it's a clear case or not. Ruhrjung 00:53, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  6. The page Scientific skepticism is currently protected. Let's unprotect it first, & the first person to achieve 3 reverts in 24 hours gets to be the subject of another Quickpoll. -- llywrch 01:40, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  7. Perl

Comment

  • Reddi did not respond to attempts by User:Silsor or myself to stop his current behavior to (what is in my opinion) an important page. I did not vote before because he did not violate the rules. Now he has so I setup this poll. I think the history speaks for itself as Reddi seems bent on injecting his POV into the page despite legitimate opposition and attempts to resolve the situation. GrazingshipIV 02:48, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • More than 3 reverts in one day does not clearly violate policy. No evidence of a warning. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 02:49, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I feel that User:Reddi either does not comprehend NPOV policy or chooses to ignore it. No vote now. silsor 03:07, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • This quickpoll is not valid because GrazingshipIV has not been a logged in contributor for 3 months. Maximus Rex 03:11, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Maximum Rex is technically correct although this rule is rarely enforced. So Lordkenneth is now the author of the poll. GrazingshipIV 03:25, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that both Reddi and Lord K are acting in anger and outside the spirit of constructive, NPOV editing. I think that, as with the Wik/Jor issue above, any censure should be a both or none affair. +sj+ 05:16, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC)
    • If it were for me to decide, I would prohibit both Reddi and Lord Kenneth from editing Scientific skepticism for a week, so other people like Silsor can work on it in peace. --Michael Snow 06:25, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • That would be a good thing IMO but I'm choosing to start slowly myself, just so there's less chance of us being regarded as unjust in not giving people ample warning that things are changing. Jamesday 07:32, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Warning is merited. Banning isn't, yet. -- Cyan 16:15, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • They should BOTH be banned from scientific skepticism for one week, and given a talking to, that seems best. This has gone on for a long time, and I think at least one of them will take the hint. The other will prob be back here in a week ;) Sam Spade 22:28, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Quickpolls&oldid=3021871"