Wikipedia:Quickpolls

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

Policies

You are responsible for reading Wikipedia:Quickpolls policy before using this page. Quickpolls are not for arbitrary issues between users.

Concluded polls should be moved to Wikipedia:Quickpolls/Archive (which also includes an example poll).

user:JRR Trollkien

Nominate for 24hr temp-ban for trolling, misuse of quickpoll process, and other disruptive behaviour (under "rampage" and "a signed in user confesses to deliberate trolling"). Martin 23:56, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Support temp-ban

1. User has made 102 edits since 31 March. Every single one of them has been an attempt to incite, disrupt, or otherwise cause trouble. This account should be permanently banned. The use of a quickpoll to reach such a determination (and for a useless 24 hours if it's even effective) is a clear sign that the system for keeping this website running smoothly is terribly broken. - Hephaestos|§ 00:01, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
2. Violated 3-revert rule on GNAA. --Wik 00:03, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
3. Tεxτurε 00:15, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) - for reasons above.
4. The user name says it all. Trolls are not welcome here. Isomorphic 00:16, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
5. Maximus Rex 00:18, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
6. Meelar 00:20, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
7. moink 00:20, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
8. silsor 00:22, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC) Permanent ban.

Oppose temp-ban

Other

• I'd also point out this mailing list post from Jimbo [1] with the subject header "Deliberate chain-yanking" as evidence I'm not alone in the above belief.- Hephaestos|§ 00:06, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Jimbo later endorsed the quickpoll mechanism for dealing with trolls. Martin 00:11, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

User:Ed Poor

User:Ed Poor (talk) has blocked User:I am sexy and deleted her user page and User:I am sexy/WikiSex. All three were out of process and a abuse of sysop privileges. This user is experienced and knows what the rules are so there is no excuse for this behaviour. I feel that the community must make a statement that policies and procedures must be followed and hence propose a 24 hour de-sysopping. Secretlondon 20:44, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Block log, Wikipedia:Deletion log

Support disciplining

(vote here)

1. Ed acts unilaterally all the time, assuming (correctly, it seems) that as a developer he is completely immune to any sanctions. If he is to be de-sysopped, he will also have to be de-developered. Could other developers do this or does it take Jimbo? --Wik 20:50, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
   • As the steward votes are apparently still ongoing, it is not clear who would be allowed to do this, but technically, any steward or developer could. Angela. 22:21, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
2. moink 21:02, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
3. ugen64 21:53, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
4. I am sexy 22:35, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
5. Lirath Q. Pynnor He should be strongly warned. He can't just go and violate the rules simply because he thinks he is Uncle Ed.

silsor 21:56, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC) This action was taken unilaterally, but community support is the source of his privileges. Note that the user namespace is also used for such things as chess games and lotteries. Whether or not this account was inappropriate is a personal moral judgement on Ed's part. silsor 21:58, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC) Withdrawn on review of user's contributions. silsor 22:02, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose disciplining

(vote here)

1. This account clearly meets the definition of an account created only for trolling or vandalism. The ban was entirely appropriate. The user is an obvious sockpuppet, clearly very familiar with our system and proceedures. Angela tmpbanned this user a few days ago, I did yesterday (for a whole 2 minutes before Martin unbanned "her"). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:04, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
   • Looks like a visitor from the de: Wikipedia rather than a sockpuppet. Mkweise 22:34, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
2. That user is clearly a vandal, [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] How many edits does it take? Dori | Talk 21:59, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
   • "However, user accounts that perform a mixture of valid edits and vandalism should not be blocked in this manner. Instead, consider taking a quickpoll to decide whether accounts that go on a "vandalism spree" should be given an emergency temporary ban." (Wikipedia:Blocking policy). He made some actual edits, including creating virtual sex, so there should have been a quickpoll. ugen64 22:12, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
   • Please note I am a she and feminist :-) I am sexy 22:58, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
     • Erik, was right, this user is pointing out glitches in our policy. So making one or two useful edits, gives you enough ammo to make 7 or 8 vandalisms. I can see where this will go (read: open troll season). Dori | Talk 22:18, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
   • Whether the user was a vandal is not the question here. Ed didn't block her for vandalism, but, according to the reason in the block log, for "Running virtual-sex website at Wikipedia", i.e. for her WikiSex user subpage. And I don't see how that's any worse than chess games or lotteries etc. --Wik 22:26, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
     • I don't see how that sub-page was in any way appropriate here. What is this a teen-chat or an encyclopedia? No I don't think the chess pages are appropriate either, but the users who created them are not vandals as far as I can tell, so I'd be willing to be more tolerable toward them. As I see it, the chess relaxes them, and helps keep useful editors happy. Dori | Talk 22:34, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
3. Danny 22:01, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
4. silsor 22:02, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
5. Nico 22:04, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
6. Account was only used for trolling and vandalism, Ed was just the one who finally picked up the bait. The banning was overdue already. andy 22:06, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Let's have a quickpoll on giving quickpolls a 24 hour time out! 172 22:11, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
8. Oppose (although awarding a medal to Ed might be in order). - Hephaestos|§ 22:14, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
9. This is ridiculous. Maximus Rex 22:17, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
10. I commend Ed for taking this action in this circumstance. Kingturtle 22:20, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
11. Yes, Ed overreacted, but given the user and page in question, it's not that big a deal and can be easily undone. Ed has the good sense to know when he's gone too far and will not reblock the user or redelete the page. That doesn't mean he can do whatever he wants, of course, but he can be forgiven in this instance.--Eloquence* 22:24, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
12. His actions were out of line but do not warrant de-sysopping given the record of the user in question. A minor slap on the wrist will do. --Jiang 22:31, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
13. Support warning only. anthony (see warning) 22:33, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
14. Taku 23:41, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC) This has got to be ridiculous, the ridiculousest thing I have ever known.
15. Ed saw a clear case of abuse and took action. Whether or not he acted within the letter of the rules, I believe he acted within the spirit of the project. Wikipedia is not a chat forum, and contributing an article here and there does not change that. I still wish Ed had acted with more consensus, and I do support a mild warning on those grounds. Isomorphic 23:57, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
16. Conover 00:14, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC) I agree -- no need for discipline, this was the right thing to do in this case.

Comments

• See my note at Wikipedia:Possible abuse of User namespace—we do not currently have a consensus policy as to which uses of one's user space are acceptable or not. Blocking and deleting a user with no policy to back up such an action was a very bad call. Mkweise 21:03, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• As it was mentioned that I had previously tempbanned this user, I feel I should point out that all of her edits at the time were simple vandalism ([9], [10], [11], [12], [13]). She had been warned twice [14] by Meeler and Maximus Rex and was listed on vandalism in progress. I think this was a totally justified block, and should not used to argue whether or not the block made by Ed Poor was justified. Angela. 22:15, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

• I think I deserved somewhat better treatment than blocking and user page deletion. isn't this a free wiki? I am sexy 22:38, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • This is a wiki to build a free encyclopedia. Not the same thing. fabiform | talk 23:06, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • But your sysops seem to ignore the policy too often. You have succeedd in creating a free encyclopedia, but your community isn't yet. A free community has policies which guarantee the freedoms of each member. But in Wikipedia I have experiences discrimination, name calling (troll), censorship (deletion of user pages) and such things. If this is your ideal of a wiki community, then very soon you should start to experience the pain of drop outs and forks. How will you feel after a fork will become more succesful than Wikipedia because of its free community and good policies? I am sexy 23:27, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • I for one would actively encourage such forks, built on that philosophy. In fact I think there already are several. - Hephaestos|§ 23:29, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
        • Can you introduce me to these forks? I am sexy 23:32, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
          • McFly springs immediately to mind. - Hephaestos|§ 23:55, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • (Not voting) Then we'll get users who sign up just to muck around with the Wiki concept and not contribute anything. How would that help improve our content? Dysprosia 23:31, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
        • • I contributed articles and I continue editing. I am sexy 23:32, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
            • I wasn't referring to you though - I'm talking about others who may come, and exploit this possible permissivity. The Wikipedia's built for making an encyclopedia, not for socializing - if I want to socialize or whatever online, I usually take it somewhere else... Dysprosia 23:36, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
              • But you tolerate WikiChess, lotteries and such things when done by old members. It isn't fair to discriminate against newcomers. I am sexy 23:39, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • In fact, the ability to fork is a powerful part of the "open" development process that the Wikipedia has been using. There is no fear of fork, in fact, the GFDL intentionally reserves you that right. The problem is, saying that you want to form a Wikipedia fork that reserves your right to have WikiSex whenever you want is not really much of a reason for all of the other users of the Wikipedia to want to join your fork. --Wirehead 23:48, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
        • I find your community unfriendly but perhaps I can find a home in some wiki fork. Please can you introduce me to some of the wikipedia forks where I can edit articles, meet people, etc? I am sexy 23:51, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
          • I recommend this fork for all your "I am sexy" needs - Tεxτurε 23:57, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
          • damn its server is slow. I am sexy 00:06, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
            • I can't believe no has mention wikinfo yet. That's where users such as yourself are welcomed. Dori | Talk 00:22, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
          • Unfriendly is a funny word. If you walked into a real library and announced that you wanted to have sex with random people right there in the library, near the encyclopedias, are they unfriendly or did you merely cross an unwritten social line and offend people? You are not being persecuted, you have a persecution complex. The Wikipedia itself lists forks at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks --Wirehead 00:07, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Further comment

I changed the headings above re support or not support because I think they are now clearer for newbies. Ok , undoubtedly someone will change them back if they don't agree. Moriori 23:33, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

I oppose the spelling - and have changed it to suit my dictionary fetish. - Tεxτurε 23:48, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Aw shucks. Fifty per cent not good enough for you? ): Moriori 00:00, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)