Forum:Genocyber

I've grown very tired of the image edit wars caused by User:Genocyber. He seems to be either ignorant of our rules, or either blatantly disregards them, or a bit of both. In addition to countless examples of bad images he's uploaded and re-uploaded (Such as images of Smoker and Hina from Z, which it was determined were unneeded since they look the same as past appearances) that have been deleted, here are several examples of his recent edit warring:
 * Reverting to a low-quality image of Shanks with no explanation given.
 * And doing it again.
 * Reverting to a scanlation image.
 * And doing it again.
 * Ignoring the intended use of the image, and reverting without explanation as well.
 * Reverting to Anime images when Anime is shown to have inconsistencies while a manga version does not.
 * And doing it again...


 * And this edit war is in a league of its own.

These continued edit wars are getting very troublesome and unproductive. Either his behavior should change, or he should get a ban. I don't wanna deal with this anymore. 16:05, April 21, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
I guess an one-week ban would be good. 16:10, April 21, 2013 (UTC)

I think it'd be fine if he'd just use talkpages more so we could discuss stuff. In 500 edits he deigned to reply to 3 talkpage posts. (And those edits cover everything from the beginning of March, so they do include those editwars) I agree with staw, 1 or 2 weeks sounds reasonable, and a general fixing of attitude is required. 16:27, April 21, 2013 (UTC)

He's been quite disruptive and unreasonable. He's gotta change or say bye-bye. 17:47, April 21, 2013 (UTC)

I don't really know about Geno that much but from what I've seen from this, I'd have to agree. 18:12, April 21, 2013 (UTC)

I definitely agree with banning him, but I'd say for a month at least. He went with this streak for a long time, despite warnings. 1-2 weeks isn't enough, if you'd ask me. 20:00, April 21, 2013 (UTC)

I'll have to agree. Let Geno feel the at-least-one-week Ban! >_> WU out - 20:18, April 21, 2013 (UTC)

I guess that it has finally come down to this. This behaviour isn't anything recent, as it has been happening for quite some time, but people were tolerant until now. I think that a one month ban minimum is within reason. MasterDeva (talk) 16:25, April 22, 2013 (UTC)

I believe 1 month is too much.but he definitely deserves a ban for one or twee weeks. 17:16, April 22, 2013 (UTC)

I would normally agree with that but as I mentioned above this has been going on for quite some time, and Genocyber is not a newbie here either. If it wasn't for that, a two weeks would have been enough. MasterDeva (talk) 18:09, April 22, 2013 (UTC)

Well,Genos is a good editor so I guess we can show some tolerance. 18:13, April 22, 2013 (UTC)

If you guys really want to ban me over trivial shit then be my guest. Just remember I've done alot for this place. And these edit wars are goddamn retarded. That one with Robins face? Guess what, her eyes were always blue in the show! For fucks sake just write in the trivia section the manga colors them in brown since they're never going to change in the show. And the RAWs I change? I do it because a blank scanslation is more crisp and looks ultimately better than a low quality grainy image. People visiting the wiki here don't give a shit about that sort of thing, but I'm sure they'd like being able to SEE the image clearly.

So go ahead and ban me. I really couldn't care less. I only do what I do for the love of the source material. Genocyber (talk) 02:51, April 23, 2013 (UTC)

You do what you love for the source material? That sounds kind of strange since you're denying the source material on things that come to Robin's eyes. The source material is the manga, not the anime. And while I do agree the color scheme isn't too important to change in the portrait, it's not something to war over. Especially how poor your reasoning is. One Piece is a comic first, and a TV show second. These edits are not "trivial". They're rude, spontaneous, and constant. Your attitude is not appreciative in this community. Even I agree with having stuff like Robin's portrait being the anime, or the scanlation being the manga, but it's too trivial and not important enough for me to care so much for. Even if it was, I wouldn't revert it as rudely as you do. I even remember the Supernova portrait wars: "reverting until you can come up with a less butthurt reason". You're a very rude user, Geno. It's not trivial; it's simply bad behavior. 02:58, April 23, 2013 (UTC)

I like the fact that geno is contributing but if his edits are going to be troublesome and also his attitude is not toleranted in this wiki, so i think two weeks ban 03:10, April 23, 2013 (UTC)

You ignore the rules of the wiki, Geno. If you disagree with them, edit wars aren't the way to change them. You may not like the rules, but you are still subject to them.

Anyway, are we good to start a poll here? 03:12, April 23, 2013 (UTC)

Kind of pointless since everyone seems to want me gone. But that Supernovas thing is still retarded. How are we expected to make any progress around here when nobody wants to change anything?? And my 'behavior' is merely my frustrations at the lack of understanding alot of you seem to have when I make these edits. Better pictures will come along, characters will get new looks, change them! If you people would stop painting me as black against white you might see some of my better reasoning, and me being alot nicer. Genocyber (talk)

What about the no ban option? SeaTerror (talk) 05:32, April 23, 2013 (UTC)

Hear, hear, some of you are making banninbg people into your hobby instead of focusing on editing and contributing meanigful stuff. Before you ban me again for just one remark. While others can go spouting off, unchecked and mostly unchallenged. (OnePieceNation (talk) 20:44, April 28, 2013 (UTC))

It's not that we want you gone, Geno. It's that we want you to change the way you act a bit to a friendlier mood. I understand you can be frustrated; we all are. But when you're unreasonably continuing an edit war without any input whatsoever except to insult, that feels more like stubbornness. It will cause less frustration to rationally discuss the war, rather than continue it with insults. You also need to understand the reasoning behind us keeping old images. Something like the Supernovas page strictly uses information that's pre-timeskip. Changing their portraits would be inconsistent. We also can't really act like that post-timeskip image is canon, since it has yet to be in the story yet. But I'm getting off-topic. Those are just examples of things you can rationally protest without having to resort to insults or edit-warring. 07:21, April 23, 2013 (UTC)

Bumping this, since Geno keeps editwarring without using the talkpages. ,, , ,  and. Gal seems to be at least making an effort to use the talkpages now. Geno, not so much. 12:54, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, in those reverts he's been rather rude too. I'm making the test poll. 19:06, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

I suggest polling the length at the same time. 23:56, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

That's not how we do it, according to the rules. I'm not arguing that here, because here is not the place for it, and since it's been a few days this poll will open. 00:30, May 5, 2013 (UTC)

Maybe mentioned already, but more edit warring.

I am an agressive editor. Merely passionate about my work. If one or two little swears gets me banned, then go ahead and do it. Genocyber (talk) 20:14, May 7, 2013 (UTC)

The swears aren't the problem. It's being a overly "aggressive editor" that has led to the ban. We don't want to edit war over everything, particularly when there's no discussions or when discussions are ignored. 20:32, May 7, 2013 (UTC)

The only edit wars have been over mostly Galaxy changing everything back to manga's which is infuriating. I have been giving my points and reasoning for changing things that have mostly been ignored.Genocyber (talk) 21:27, May 7, 2013 (UTC)

That's because your reasoning for them is too little and too late. Just because you give a reason for why you edit warred, it doesn't make it a god reason to edit war, or get you out of a ban. I really want you to edit war less and to be a nicer, more communicative editor, but at this point we'll see if that's something that you can do after your ban. 06:17, May 8, 2013 (UTC)

"That's because your reasoning for them is too little and too late." So in other words you just don't want to listen to the reasons. SeaTerror (talk) 17:10, May 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't say that. I mean that he continued to edit war extensively after this forum was created (and even after the poll started), and only stopped once the portraits were locked by admins. I find the reasons he gave to be inadequate for the extent of his deeds. That's what I mean by "too little, too late." Don't put words in my mouth. 17:19, May 8, 2013 (UTC)

You find EVERYTHING to be inadequate. Like when I had apologized on my own forum and explained everything you still voted for the ban along with other very similar things. You have this major problem where everything is inadequate and keep on bringing up pointless things like the chat thing on Galaxy's ban forum. Or ignore any responses that don't suit your agenda. SeaTerror (talk) 00:16, May 10, 2013 (UTC)

You vote for Geno's ban but you vote against Gal's ban. Those 2 cases are almost the same so I really don't understand why you want Genos ban but gal not. 13:17, May 10, 2013 (UTC)


 * Because gal is at least making a sense out of his edit wars, trying to talk with people why he thinks his image is better, while geno is just warring without a reason and just for edits, it seems. He is also very aggressive and ignores talk pages on images during edit wars.


 * I put reasons down on all the images I edit. Galaxy is fucking with the entire place reverting every image as he pleases, giving very half-assed reasons. And I do respond to the talk pages, but as usual everybody ignores my input around here. I feel like I'm trying to staple together a ship falling apart here! Genocyber (talk) 12:50, May 11, 2013 (UTC)


 * Well that is just your opinion. And yesterday you reverted not one, but three images that had already been discussed and closed, totally ignoring a long-since archived discussion and reverting them for the sole reason of noticing it when gal re-uploaded another version of the hody jones portrait. Files: File:Hody Jones Portrait.png, File:Zeo_Portrait.png, File:Daruma Portrait.png.


 * I changed those because those make for horrible portraits. Also spoilers? Sheesh....
 * By the way, I hadn't known about that discussion and if people agree that really looks better, and not even using the anime portraits then that makes me quite dissapointed. I think Gal is being quite manipulative and pushing his ways hard on others. I have been merely trying to keep things as they were before everything turned to shit. If your going to ban me for doing this, then stop talking and get it over with. Genocyber (talk) 22:35, May 11, 2013 (UTC)

Poll
This poll is closed. User:Genocyber will be banned for voted length.

This poll will decide if User:Genocyber should be banned for reasons described in the discussion above. If the vote decides that he will be banned, a second poll will be opened next week to decide the length.

Should Genocyber be banned?


 * Yes, Genocyber should be banned.
 * 1)  00:30, May 5, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2)  00:34, May 5, 2013 (UTC)
 * 05:28, May 5, 2013 (UTC)
 * 06:40, May 5, 2013 (UTC) (Dunno for how long though...)
 * 1) Klobis (talk) 12:37, May 5, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2)  13:21, May 5, 2013 (UTC) It's funny how the same people want to ban Geno for imageeditwarring but are gonna let Gal off the hook for it.
 * 20:55, May 5, 2013 (UTC)
 * 21:04, May 5, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) MasterDeva (talk) 18:10, May 6, 2013 (UTC)
 * 01:08, May 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 09:14, May 7, 2013 (UTC) (I finally see why you guys want to get Genocyber banned after seeing some of his messages on talk pages and forums. No offense Genocyber, but it's only temporary.)
 * 23:42, May 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * 23:42, May 10, 2013 (UTC)


 * No, Genocyber should not be banned.
 * 20:07, May 5, 2013 (UTC) well said panda
 * 1) SeaTerror (talk) 18:00, May 6, 2013 (UTC) (Pwned = Panda)
 * 14:18, May 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 18:55, May 9, 2013 (UTC) It's unfair to not ban gal but ban genos
 * 00:17, May 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * 00:17, May 11, 2013 (UTC)

Length Poll
This poll is closed. It closed on May 19, 2013 at 0:00. You must have been here for 3 months and have at least 300 edits to vote.

This poll has decided User:Genocyber will be banned for two weeks.


 * 1 week
 * 1)  07:04, May 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2)  12:03, May 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * 13:46, May 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2 weeks
 * 07:05, May 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * 10:54, May 13, 2013 (UTC) (Two weeks should be enough for a new start)
 * 11:06, May 16, 2013 (UTC) At least don't ban him for a whole month
 * 12:11, May 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * 12:45, May 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * 15:26, May 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) SeaTerror (talk) 19:38, May 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * 19:52, May 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1 month
 * 04:12, May 12, 2013 (UTC) A user has willingly ignored our rules, that's worse than 2 weeks to me. And for a user that has gone 2 weeks w/o editing many times, isn't much of a punishment.
 * 23:23, May 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) MasterDeva (talk) 12:30, May 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Klobis (talk) 12:31, May 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * 15:29, May 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * 21:23, May 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * 6 months
 * 1 year
 * Permanent
 * 1 year
 * Permanent
 * 1 year
 * Permanent
 * Permanent
 * Permanent
 * Permanent

Discussion 2
geno has started edit warring again and hasnt been listening to other users i think a discussion should be opened up about his behavior. here are some examples:


 * http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/File:Caesar_Triumph.png?action=history
 * http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:Galaxy9000?diff=prev&oldid=980847 (totally uncalled for)
 * http://onepiece.wikia.com/index.php?title=File%3ALuffy_Post_Timeskip_Portrait.png&diff=980360&oldid=978813 (i believe he did this against an already decided on decision)
 * http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/File:Luffy_Post_Timeskip_Portrait.png?diff=prev&oldid=980833 (and again after being warned)
 * for more just check out his recent contributions

-- 22:16, June 24, 2013 (UTC)

Let's not forget and it's talk page.

I also think another ban is in order. Clearly, nothing has been learned, and Geno continues to be "an aggressive editor". He continues to edit war, and far more rudely than we've allowed others to get away with. I was hesitant to re-open this forum in the past weeks, because he "just got off of a ban", but after today's blatant disregard of a poll and our rules, I will not be hesitant in the future.

I don't know if he just doesn't read talk pages before he reverts, or just chooses to ignore them. Either way, his behavior is still unacceptable, and another ban is in order.

And Geno, if you actually looked at our recently edited talk pages and forums, you'll find that there are ways to discuss changing the rules that you seem to think are so wrong. Like this one which could stop half of your edit wars 22:42, June 24, 2013 (UTC)

All edits I did were of already current edit wars going on. You seem to misunderstand vandalizing with trying to get your voice heard around here. I always provide reasons when I add or alter a picture. As I explained to Galaxy, the poll was decided on a anime picture that was being pushed at the time, but however I chose to use an older one that came before the poll and since the poll was on one picture and not ALL, my reasons did not break any rules. If you want to ban me, I suggest also banning Galaxy who has been micromanaging everything around here, and trying to push his way. Genocyber (talk) 03:29, June 25, 2013 (UTC)

^ This just proves he isn't reading our forums or talk pages.

The image that you reverted to was the one we polled. You are breaking our rules, and I definitely support a ban. 03:43, June 25, 2013 (UTC)

Even if you revert images with a reason provided, it's still edit warring. Edit wars are solved on talk pages, not in edit summaries. An admin told you to stop two days ago and you did not.

And often your reasons are flawed or ignorant of our policies. Here's an example: this version of Luffy's portrait (the one you reverted to) is the one that was beaten in the poll. I know this for two reasons: A) I voted for it. B) If you look at the dates of the poll (May 14-19), this is the only anime version of the image that was warred over. This version was first uploaded May 25th, after the poll had closed, and the fact that it was not part of the poll was discussed on the talk page. If you had actually done your homework by reading the talk page, or viewing the image history, or just believing other users when they told you you were posting against the poll decision, you could have avoided at lot of trouble. But you didn't, and you've gotten into an a petty argument with another user over your own ignorance. I don't see any reason why we should have to put up with behavior like this. 03:56, June 25, 2013 (UTC)

Yay more edit warring without first discussing it in the talk page!

Wow, on an image that had about 18-19 edits on the talk page by the time he made that revert. I don't know how you could ignore that before making an edit. I say unless Geno or anyone else can say anything notable in his defense before the end of the week (saturday), we start the poll. We shouldn't let this forum "die" and in effect forgive all of the actions mentioned in this section. 14:10, June 27, 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that talk page had only 2 actual posts when he reverted. 14:25, June 27, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with JSD.

Although, due to the messages on his talk, I don't think he's coming back. 18:47, June 27, 2013 (UTC)

Why don't we open a poll already and be done with it? There are are plenty or reasons that warrant one anyway. MasterDeva (talk) 13:36, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

Are we going to open this? 01:19, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

As it would seem Geno's behaviour hasn't improved, i support opening a poll. 01:43, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

Poll draft below. 01:45, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

He continues to not do things correctly. All of his recent images are named completely wrong, and don't have the correct categorization. 09:12, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean? I re uploaded one that needed a better name, but I been giving them all good names and the appropriate categories. Genocyber (talk) 09:49, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Names like Kizaru zephyr.PNG are not descriptive, and just cause more work for our image renamers. As for categories, you continue to leave out the movie image category, the episode images category, and the movie images category from your images, even though you have been asked before to include them. 09:58, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

I don't remember anyone telling me this, but if its what needed I'll at them. Genocyber (talk) 10:10, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Poll 2 Discussion
it looks great, i like the image of the gorosei in conversation-- 02:31, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea of a poll being in a separate box. But shouldn't the picture be something like Ace or Roger's execution? Other than that, the layout is good and organized. I'll take it. 02:39, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

nah the pic is fine, it properly represents users in a decision about another users fate-- 02:43, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

Template_talk:Poll None of it is fine. SeaTerror (talk) 02:45, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

Nah Nada, it needs to have something to do with polls. If you can find a more suitable image, it would be great. 03:03, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

How about an image of Otohime collecting signatures? It's the closest thing to voting (at least visually) the series has that I can recall.
 * 海賊☠姫 (talk) 03:15, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that would work great, do we have any images of that already uploaded somewhere?

Yeah, good idea.

Closest thing is. 03:26, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

How about this?

How about an anime version of this? 04:09, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

Updated with the ban poll version.

Hm, yea, you mean a manga version ^^, but thinking about it, I don't think signing is really relative to voting, it's not really voting for some thing or the other when signing something, it's really just helping that person out.

A good image would be 2 people disputing over something and a third person stopping them.

In a way, by giving their signatures, the citizens were voting for integration with humans; while not doing so or taking it back was either neutral or being against it.
 * 海賊☠姫 (talk) 05:00, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

Let's take that talk here. Getting back to Genocyber's poll, have we all agreed to start it now? 06:46, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disagrees.

I would put in the options for the poll, but I think the poll template should be automated more. I think if you put code like or something, it should just fill out everything, including the poll options. There are never any alterations to ban polls, except for start/end times anyways. 11:45, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

It would be the same thing. This one basically has 2 polls in one which is why there are so many options. And you still need a variable for voting (on each length option) so I don't really get how adding another sub-page for the user would make it simpler. Adding a sub-page for each user would only remove the user variable.

Talking about templates...in a ban forum... 13:38, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

Right, gonna open it. 04:52, July 1, 2013 (UTC)

Weeellll...I leave for a few days vacation and come back to this. Nice to know you people have found your witch to burn. Go ahead and ban me if this is how I'll be treated from now on. I'd rather move on to a better place. Genocyber (talk) 11:58, July 2, 2013 (UTC)

You brought this on yourself. I'm surprised you expected something less of a turnout after your actions, and it doesn't really seem like you care about this community at all anymore since you decide to quit just like that and wont even defend yourself? Why should we respond with a positive attitude after that?

Because Sewil, it doesn't matter what I say up to this point. The decision has already been made. Genocyber (talk) 19:33, July 2, 2013 (UTC)

If you had rectified your behaviour after the first ban, this wouldn't be happening now. You had your fair share of warnings. As Sewil said above, you brought this on yourself so don't try to play the victim. MasterDeva (talk) 20:53, July 2, 2013 (UTC)

It is entirely his fault since it matters if eye color is blue instead of brown.

Please leave the snarky attitude out of this forum and if you have something to say just say it... MasterDeva (talk) 22:10, July 2, 2013 (UTC)

Everything I did here was to help this place. Some folks here just don't like how I do business, and talking about it only seemed to irritate them all the more. Oh well. I did what I could for this place. Genocyber (talk) 00:20, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Rudeness and ignoring policies don't help the wiki. 01:18, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you've never cared to learn or follow our rules reflects just how little you respect the community. The "way you do business" is not in accordance with our policies, and is destructive to our community. After all the reminders and warnings about our rules, you can't even post a response in the proper section of your own ban forum (The "poll discussion" section is only for issues related to the poll, you should be posting in the "Discussion 2" section). And this isn't new, because you never make a new section on anyone's user talk page, always just add your post to the bottom of the page. Since you've posted in the wrong section, I can't even be sure if you read my response to your most recent post in the actual discussion section. To quote a movie, "What we got here is a failure to communicate." Let's see if you can communicate in 3 months. 01:29, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

I follow the rules here to the very best of my ability. If I miss a few here and there it isn't intentional. The only real problem has been over the image wars. I find I have a right to speak my voice over something I feel is wrong, even if everyone disagrees with me. Even if the discussion is over, I'd speak my mind and let things be heard. That is what part of being a group effort is. And if others have a problem with me I will approach them over it. But regardless, it seems my time here is at an end. Nothing can change that now. Genocyber (talk) 05:08, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Well, this shows that he's still not reading. Post in the proper section. 09:12, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Since I still don't know if you've read my post above, here it is again:


 * Even if you revert images with a reason provided, it's still edit warring. Edit wars are solved on talk pages, not in edit summaries. An admin told you to stop two days ago and you did not.


 * And often your reasons are flawed or ignorant of our policies. Here's an example: this version of Luffy's portrait (the one you reverted to) is the one that was beaten in the poll. I know this for two reasons: A) I voted for it. B) If you look at the dates of the poll (May 14-19), this is the only anime version of the image that was warred over. This version was first uploaded May 25th, after the poll had closed, and the fact that it was not part of the poll was discussed on the talk page. If you had actually done your homework by reading the talk page, or viewing the image history, or just believing other users when they told you you were posting against the poll decision, you could have avoided at lot of trouble. But you didn't, and you've gotten into an a petty argument with another user over your own ignorance. I don't see any reason why we should have to put up with behavior like this. 03:56, June 25, 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter if you broke the rules intentionally or not. That would only affect how long I'd vote for your ban to be. The fact of the matter is that your actions, like the ones I mentioned above, are disruptive and create more work for other editors who have to clean up your messes and take the time to deal with your incessant and flawed arguing.

Take the time to truly learn how the wiki deals with things and what our policies, particularly those regarding image wars. Feel free to ask questions about the rules, and you'll get happy responses. Don't just edit without full knowledge of them, that is only a recipe for disaster for everyone. If you do those things, then you can become a truly valued editor here, instead of a nuisance. 12:32, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

This is why i hate polls where u can see others' votes. It disables you to vote from your opinion and just makes you vote on what others voted on. Say you wanted to vote for "permanent", but you see that it's kind of tied between "1 week" and "3 months", you know that, because you can see the votes, that voting for "permanent" would be throwing away your vote. If you couldn't see the votes, you wouldn't think twice, but rather just vote for whatever you think.

Nobody cares. SeaTerror (talk) 17:53, July 9, 2013 (UTC)

Sewil has a point. 04:55, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. SeaTerror (talk) 07:03, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with Sewil. I wish it was possible to hide the polls. 07:04, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

Good thing it isn't possible. SeaTerror (talk) 07:20, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

I brought this up ages ago in Meganoide's ban forum, but I feel the best solution in these multi-option ban length polls is to make it so that if you choose an extreme at either end and it doesn't win, your vote is moved to the next option closer to the centre. So if 3 people vote one-week, 5 vote one-month and 6 vote three-months, the one-week votes would be counted as part of one-month, which would win 8-6. This would prevent people having to change their votes to avoid wasting them. It would be justified on the basis that the people voting one-week would prefer a one-month ban to a three-month. We could make the redirection opt-in/out as well, just in case people don't want to for any reason. 07:27, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

Hell no. We will never allow that. A person who voted for one week doesn't mean they voted for one month and vice versa. A person's vote only counts for the option they voted on and only they can change it. SeaTerror (talk) 07:30, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

I kinda like that idea actually.

I agree with the opinion raised by SeaTerror above. There is no point to hiding the voters on polls and the process should be as transparent as possible. If someone feels insecure about voting for something, outside what majority has voted for, and can't handle the weight of their own decisions, they shouldn't vote at all. There is no such thing as "throwing away your vote" like removing your vote all together from the poll. MasterDeva (talk) 21:20, July 10, 2013 (UTC)