This debate has been archived. To preserve the discussion, please do not edit it. Any comments should be posted to the discussion page
The result of this Approval Vote was Approve by a vote of 10 support to 2 against, with 1 abstention


We're still testing the poll function. If there are problems with the vote, we will use the Confirmation below as "voter verified balloting".

This vote will determine whether Three-revert rule will become official policy for Campaigns Wikia. Before voting on this policy, you may want to read its Talk page.

Three-revert rule approval

The poll was created at 13:44 on December 21, 2006, and so far 0 people voted.

Vote ends September 25th. You may change your vote until the end of the vote count.

Confirmation of vote (10/2/1)Edit

Please vote here as well. Votes should be in the following form:
* '''[Approve/Disapprove/Abstain].''' - ~~~~
:[optional comment]
We will have a process to make adjustments/improvements after this initial vote. Right now, it's this or anything goes, which has proved not to work very well.
Policy is cryptic and too strict. See talk page.
  • Approve - McLurker 09:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
We can tweak it after we implement it, right now its crucial to get some kind of rule out there
We've already been using it without prior approval. Jfingers88 03:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Approve --ШΔLÐSΣИ 12:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Approve Midian 21:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Approve -Y2Keynes 00:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Approve -CocoaZen 01:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I would tend to go with a one year ban at the second offense, followed by a permanent ban, if the user repeats the behavior again. But I think it's important to have the rule rather than endless revert wars.
A year? Three days for a first offence seems enough for me.
I agree. Three days is fine for the first offense. Sorry if I was unclear, I meant 1 year for the second time and infinite for the third. As I read the current version, it jumps from the 3 day/1st offense to infinite on the 2nd. Seem a rather steep jump to me. --CocoaZen 22:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
We'll have to put that in as an amendment after this vote. Chadlupkes 22:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Quibble on "concensus" (see talk page) plus seems a bit strict.
  • Abstain - Ferguson 16:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I think we should start considering policies that recognize the difference between NPOV and 1POV articles.
  • Approve - Jfingers88 20:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC) We need something to maintain a semblance of order.
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.