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

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.

One user may only start one quickpoll at a time, and only one quickpoll per day. A vote which is suspected of being made by a "sock puppet" may be queried as such on Wikipedia talk:Quickpolls, and it can be marked as a sock puppet vote (and therefore not count) if there is a community consensus to do so.

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 that results in a 24-hour ban can be removed from this page 48 hours after the ban is implemented (archive the poll in Wikipedia:Quickpolls/Archive). This applies even if the ban is reversed before the 24 hours are up.

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)

Support

1. Too many reverts. Kingturtle 06:10, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

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)

User:Reddi 6 votes / 4 for / 2 against 67% in favor

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)

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)

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)

User:Jor 9 votes / 1 for / 8 against 12.5% in favour

User:Jor went on a vandalism rampage, changing any links to East Germany he could find to German Democratic Republic, although the article is at East Germany and he has not established a consensus to move it. And he actually used the edit summary "avoid redirect", when he was in fact establishing unnecessary redirects! --Wik 19:25, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

Support

1. I believe that since they both wish to resolve this through Quickpolls, we should oblige. UninvitedCompany 19:44, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Merovingian ↕ Talk 19:36, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC) Really, this is childish.
2. Michael Snow 19:43, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) Ditto.
3. Texture 20:32, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) - see below - Jor started the fight by making edits Wik didn't like. Jor continued the fight with some reverts but not nearly the number of reverts by Wik.
4. Ruhrjung 21:07, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) Jor has participated on talk pages.
5. Martin 21:34, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) ("both or neither" - vote to be changed to mirror the outcome of the vote on Wik)
6. Fred Bauder 00:19, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
7. Ambivalenthysteria 00:29, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
8. Timwi 02:02, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Danny 03:03, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Comments

Jor's "rampage" appears to be mostly changes, not reverts. Jor made changes that Wik did not like and Jor reverted back in some cases.

Breakdown of Jor's reverts:

• 1 against anon vandalism
• 9 against Wik

(Feel free to check my investigation. There may have been more reverts but it seems that Jor created changes that Wik didn't like but Jor did not always revert them back. Mostly Wik's reverts are on (top)) - Texture 20:32, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

One last tidbit. Jor's history is filled with clean summaries that explain to anyone following why they were performed. Since they are mostly the pre-Wik entries they are not reverts. The summaries allow us to easily understand Jor's position and intent. - Texture 20:33, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nonsense. Jor's summaries are blatant lies. His summary "avoid redirect" actually credited the redirect. --Wik 20:44, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

Most of my Wik-reverts are not simple reverts, but attempts to carry through my changes without blatant reverting (which I dislike except against clear vandalism — Wik's reverts are not simple cases of vandalism). For example in the IFA article I tried to emphasize the company was state-owned, since I doubt everyone will immediately realize "East Germany"'s Kombinats were state-owned. — Jor (Talk) 20:42, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Outcome

Gdansk (18: 15 for, 3 against: 83%)

User has been involved with Polish and German related articles, engaging in near-vandalism for months. Recommend a 24-hour ban. - Hephaestos|§ 01:18, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

clause 3, i.e. "rampage" in my judgment. --Ruhrjung 01:31, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

clause 1, i.e. more than three reverts, can maybe also be argued: compare his last version of 20 March with his first edit after being banned: semi-revert 00:43, revert 00:51, revert 01:02, revert 01:10. A more lenient interpretation of the three-revert guideline could however either be based on User:Gdansk not being explicitely warned this time (however, he has been before, indeed), alternatively on not counting the version of 00:43 as reverting.

--Ruhrjung 17:48, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Looking at the rules above, anyone who isn't involved can hit the button now. Pakaran. 02:44, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Done: 03:48, 30 Mar 2004, Fabiform blocked User:Gdansk (expires 03:48, 31 Mar 2004) (contribs) (unblock) (Quickpoll. 12 for blocking, 0 against at this time.) fabiform | talk 02:50, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support

1. Danny 01:23, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
2. Ruhrjung 01:27, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) his current "contributions" or reverts are particularly outrageous in the context of ongoing mediation requested by himself.
3. Rmhermen 01:37, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC) in light of this comment: [1]
4. Tuf-Kat 01:42, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
5. BCorr|Брайен 01:47, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
6. —Eloquence 01:54, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC) - obviously in need of a cooldown period
7. john 02:00, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) not sure if I'm allowed to vote, given that I've been pretty involved in arguing with him and reverting him. Please delete my vote if I'm not supposed to.
8. Needs some time away from WP. I don't know (or care) about the Gdansk/Danzig/Germany/Poland Wik vs Gdansk vs Anthony etc issues, but the amount of reverting done is a bit excessive. Also using ad hominum against sysops, looking at edit summaries. Perhaps take to the list and Jimbo as well? Pakaran. 02:18, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
9. jengod 02:20, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC) Seems highly un-NPOV.
10. Texture 02:26, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) - a look through the history finds many reasons to support
11. Adam Bishop 02:43, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) - Apparently my apology for blocking him the first time was not enough; there is call for a review of me on the Administrators page if anyone wants to check that out.
12. Quinwound 02:45, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
13. silsor 02:49, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • Michael Snow 05:22, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) A "rampage" is a poorly defined concept, and the proponents should present more evidence here than they have. Instead, I support based on the 3-revert limit, violated for Munich and Kiel (and perhaps more, I stopped looking). It's much easier to think about that way, for those of us who are comfortable saying that a violation by itself justifies the quickpoll ban (double the penalty for two violations, anyone?). Vote withdrawn, missed the fact that Munich/Kiel examples cited were from the 19th, not the 29th. --Michael Snow 16:57, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
14. After having been blocked by this Quickpoll, Gdansk returned as User:62.244.138.99 (contribs -- ChrisO) and began editing despite the ban. RickK | Talk 06:11, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
15. ChrisO 11:54, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) - Needs to have a time-out to calm down, IMO: "Because I was blocked by some sort of Wikipedia Ku Klux Klan (see (Wikipedia:Quickpolls#Gdansk), just for using a Wikipedia naming convention, I am sorry I cannot participate in the mediation pro" (sic) [2]

Oppose

1. He was previously banned by Adam Bishop for at least 24 hours, without a quickpoll. So the present poll may be taken as a belated justification for the earlier ban, but he should be unbanned now. In any case Nico's constant POV edits are far worse. --Wik 12:04, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
   • Your unability to see that the below edits are unacceptable is alarming. Should we allow this behaviour, just because another user is even worse? That is a strange argument. -- Baldhur 14:04, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
     • • I didn't say his edits are acceptable. I just said he got the proposed punishment already. And that his actions are only reactions to Nico's provocations. --Wik 14:43, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
     • Wik regularly can't see when his own edits are unacceptable; this is utterly unsurprising. - Hephaestos|§ 14:11, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
2. One of the rules says They need to be started within 24 hours of the alleged incident.. None of the pages proposed as an evidence are valid. Oppose.Halibutt 14:56, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
   • Which is why I see this Quickpoll as concerning his behavior yesterday, after being unbanned, practically sabotaging the mediation he himself had requested.--Ruhrjung 16:32, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
3. No evidence of a warning given. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 01:12, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Selection from his user history:
  • "German names not required in Eenglish Wikipdia; Teutonic scoundresl GO AWAY!!!!"
  • "Please stop doing nasty things to Polish cities and Polish people."
  • "Nico, Adolf Hitler is proud of you for your activities, and he invites you to join NSDAP"
  • "Does it make any sense to edit in Wikipedia if your work is destroyed by some bandits ?????"

Comments

• Knowing nothing about Polish- and German-related articles, do you have an example or three that those of us who haven't been following along can see? RADICALBENDER★ 01:24, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Here is an example:

1. 02:03, 20 Mar 2004 (hist) Munich (REVERT TEST: retaliation action for blocking of Gdansk and Szczecin - just to enter in edit war, block editing, and make the Germans angry)
2. 02:03, 20 Mar 2004 (hist) Kiel (REVERT TEST: retaliation action for blocking of Gdansk and Szczecin - just to enter in edit war, block editing, and make the Germans angry)

Here's what I found - Texture 02:26, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC):

(cur) (last) . . 17:26, 20 Mar 2004 . . Gdansk (rv)
(cur) (last) . . 09:38, 20 Mar 2004 . . Ruhrjung (no need for other non-English names than the local)
(cur) (last) . . 00:33, 20 Mar 2004 . . Gdansk (revert)
(cur) (last) . . 00:04, 20 Mar 2004 . . Defence (reverting out-of-control vandalism by Gdansk)
(cur) (last) . . 21:31, 19 Mar 2004 . . Gdansk (Retaliation action for blocking Gdansk and Szczecin)
(cur) (last) . . 21:27, 19 Mar 2004 . . Defence
(cur) (last) . . 21:03, 19 Mar 2004 . . Gdansk (REVERT TEST: retaliation action for blocking of Gdansk and Szczecin - just to enter in edit war, block editing, and make the Germans angry)
(cur) (last) . . 19:47, 19 Mar 2004 . . Wetman (reverting out-of-control vandalism by Gdansk)
(cur) (last) . . 19:46, 19 Mar 2004 . . Hephaestos (revert. Munich was never vassal to Poland.)
(cur) (last) . . 19:45, 19 Mar 2004 . . Gdansk (if Gdansk has a German name bolded: Danzig; so Munich can also have a Polish name bolded: Monachium)
(cur) (last) . . 19:43, 19 Mar 2004 . . Gdansk (Monachium)

---

Since being unblocked, Gdansk IMMEDIATELY went on the offensive again and began edit wars all over Wikipedia. RickK | Talk 02:01, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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