Wikipedia talk:Quickpolls/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Proposed "no retaliation" rule

I agree that retaliation is a bad idea, but simply making that policy is an open invitation to the usual trolls to carry on with their favourite tactic of complaining about the victim before the victim finally feels obliged to complain about the troll. (We saw this exact sequence happen countless times on RFC and Complaints about Users. Habitual trolls are very good at this stuff.) Is there a way to avoid this problem that you can think of? Tannin

Uh, focus on accuracy of content rather than assigning euphemisms to donors?

---

How to deal with frivolous quickpolls?

We have a fairly blatant example of a frivolous quickpoll at the moment - 172 has started a quickpoll in apparent retaliation for VV's quickpoll started about an hour earlier. Frankly, I think this is an abuse of process. The question is, how do we deal with it? Should we have some sort of sanction for abusing the quickpolls process - say a temp ban of the user, or a more limited ban on the user starting new quickpolls (e.g. for one month or whatever)? -- ChrisO 10:27, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

We should require that any new Quickpoll be sponsored by an admin user, Chris. That would reduce the volume of silly and trivial stuff here enormously. Think about it:

• From the point of view of an ordinary (non-admin) Wikipedian desiring to start a Quickpoll, Joe:User has only to persuade one out of the 200-odd admins. If Joe:User can't persuade even one (i.e., 0.5%) of the admins that there is a genuine matter of concern here, then the case does not deserve to be taken to a Quickpoll.
• From the point of view of a relatively new user (i.e., someone who does not yet meet the length of membership/number of non-reverted edits qualification), this would be an improvement, as it would put them on a more even footing with the "elite" 3-month users. (Or 100 edits, or whatever the qualification is at the moment.)
• From the point of view of an admin, this means that some careful thought is required. Let's say that Jill:User contacts me, requesting that I move a Quickpoll as regards your reverts on List of stupid lists. I have to ask myself if Jill's concern is genuine, or if it's mere trolling. I have to ask myself if this is a matter suitable for decision via Quickpoll, or if mediation might be more appropriate - or, indeed, other measures, such as page protection, or help with NPOV in the article concerned. I have to ask myself if the proposed Quickpoll has any chance of succeeding, or if it is most likely going to go nowhere. And, finally, I have to ask myself if moving this Quickpoll is going to make me look petty or stupid. In short, I'm not going to start the poll unless I can see that Jill's complaint really does have some merit.

You see what's happened here, Chris? All of a sudden, we are reintroducing the idea of personal responsibility. We are proposing that starting a Quickpoll actually require thought beforehand, not mere short-term anger.

You are an admin too, if I remember correctly. How many trivial and petty Quickpolls are you going to sponsor if the last one you signed your name to was roundly voted down? Or Martin? Or Hepastos? Or Angela? Or any of the other 200-odd admins? On the other hand, if the matter really is serious, then you (or me, or whichever one of us), if we take our responsibilities seriously, will stick our necks out and move the poll. Tannin 10:55, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps we could have a Wikipedia:Requests for quickpolls page, along the lines of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. The quickpolls page could be protected (so that only admins can add new ones) but the individual quickpolls could be includes, similar to those used on VfD, that all users could edit.

An alternative might be to restrict who can actually vote on quickpolls, perhaps just restricting the "franchise" to the 200-odd admins. That would eliminate at a stroke the sock puppets, ineligible voters etc. It could be accomplished simply by protecting the quickpolls page so that only admins can edit it. Again, there would need to be some kind of "requests for quickpolls" procedure where an admin can take a quickpoll request forward if it passes the "smell test".

Admittedly, these aren't particularly elegant solutions and I don't want to bog the whole process down in another layer of bureaucracy, but there does need to be some way of weeding out the hopeless and frivolous. The whole concept of quickpolling will be discredited very quickly otherwise. -- ChrisO 11:12, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree, Chris, at least in the broad thrust of your remarks. I think that the notion of restricting quickpoll voting to admins only would produce rapid howls of outrage! For all that it would produce a technically neat and tidy, and very practical, way of proceeding, I think its chances of being implemented are close to zero.

But something has to be done, and done fairly promptly, as - just as you say - the whole concept of quickpolling will be discredited very quickly otherwise. Tannin 11:28, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Bear in mind that it was a non-admin who made the valid quickpoll, and an admin who made the frivolous, childish retaliatory one. (Ditto for RfC.) 172's violation of guidelines and abuse of the system seem to be of precious little concern, however, if the 1-10 vote on his censure is any indication. -- VV 01:47, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Neither poll was supported by the jury, VV. Neither one wound up being "valid" in any significant way. Notice also that there was a similarly clear vote against the suggestion of banning you. In other words, the community clearly felt that you had both violated the spirit of the guideline, and also that the violation was better dealt with via reprimand rather than an actual ban. Tannin

My issues with this so-called "jury" have been noted, but that is beside the point. I reported a violation of the guideline; he did not. That is the difference. In fact, the frivolous nature of his poll was so obvious I don't know how you can twist it around to make them equal. And if the "community" felt I had violated the "spirit", I was not made aware of this. -- VV 06:12, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Maybe we should require that quickpolls, in general, need to be started by someone who is not a party to the conflict. It doesn't need to be a sysop, just a regular, known member of the community.—Eloquence 02:30, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

Just remember to check to see whether the listing party has also failed to follow the policy and ensure that you list them if they have. Jamesday 07:02, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Purpose of quickpolls

I apparently did not understand what the point of having quickpolls is. 172 clearly violated the guideline in question in addition to his generally belligerent behavior on that page, but votes (though few in number) were overwhelmingly opposed. So, what is the criterion? I understand of course that 172's ideology fits with the community (at least most of the voters), but is it really going to be the policy that a user's actions are tolerable as long as they have the "right" opinions? Or, should I assume that there is no three-revert rule at all? I held back on undoing 172's grossly inappropriate reverts because I believed that there was a rule and system for this. Apparently there is not. -- VV 01:47, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In most cases the purpose of a quickpoll is to cause the subject to shape up, knowing that any further misbehavior will almost certainly result in a ban. Clearly, an improvement in a user's behavior is a better outcome than a ban. Mkweise 02:16, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome to try talking to 172. Perhaps you will wind up being relentlessly personally attacked and campaigned against as well. -- VV 06:27, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I would have supported a temp-ban if you had given 172 a warning and a fair chance to improve his behavior, as required by quickpoll policy. Otherwise you open yourself up to charges of a "setup".—Eloquence 02:22, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

I have been dealing with 172 for months on this issue. See my comments on the RfC pages, for instance, or Talk:State terrorism, or Talk:History of the United States (1980-1988). He has never improved his behavior. In this case, I explained in the summary box my objection to him reverting days worth of edits because of some objection left over from last week; what more needs to be said? And, how could it be a "setup"? By undoing his wrong revert, I'm "causing" him to re-revert? Isn't the whole point of this guideline to address this very situation, known as an edit war? -- VV 06:27, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Quickpolls can result in temporary bans from editing any page on Wikipedia. This is a rather drastic measure that can drive a user away permanently. That's why, when developing the quickpoll proposal, I took great care to explain that quickpolls should only be used when the user has been given a fair chance to improve their behavior, and when they have been made aware of the guideline which they appear to have violated, or are about to violate. Otherwise it would be very easy to trick a user into reverting more than three times and then start a quickpoll on them.

Note that if 172 breaks the three-revert-guideline again, that will certainly be grounds for a 24 hour ban. But it's his first violation under this new system.--Eloquence* 06:31, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

172 cannot seriously claim ignorance. And I really doubt two or even a hundred violations would change anything. 172's appalling behavior is irrelevant to most; this is ideological, and nothing else. Look at most of the users who opposed 172's censure. Secretlondon all but declared in my poll she was itching for a reason to ban me (apparently because I'm part of the "Fox News crowd" - hah!), but was unwilling to go as far as 172's outright fabrication of an excuse (unlike Wik). I'm sure if I ever fought back against someone like 172 with four reverts, I'd be banned at the drop of a hat. We may find out soon enough, because my inference as of now is that this supposed "rule" is simply empty rhetoric, or, at best, a way to hold a popularity contest. If I sound rather annoyed right now, it's because I am. -- VV 08:13, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I understand. Whether 172 can claim ignorance or not, warnings are a precondition for quickpolls. Regardless, I do agree that some users vote simply with their bias, and that is a trend that concerns me. Do you have any suggestions to remedy that?--Eloquence*

I don't have a specific policy recommendation, but perhaps we should not have this rule if it's not going to be enforced, or will only be used to force a majority POV. A project like this requires participants to put ideology aside and make honest judgements on the facts of the cases. Since it is clear that is not the case, I don't know what can be done; Wikipedia may become naught but a battleground. (Certainly some leftist users are willing to remove crudities such as "BUSH SUCKS!!!" from pages, but beyond that I see little evidence of sincerity from those I have crossed with.) 172's behavior is beyond the pale; he reverts at will, provokes edit wars, abuses every system of conflict resolution (RfC, quickpolls), misstates facts and deceives incessantly, and refuses mediation when people ask. Why is this tolerated? The answer is sad indeed. -- VV 21:27, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, I doubt that the answer is that a majority of Wikipedians secretly worship Mao and Lenin ;-). I think the poll would have had a better chance of succeeding if it had as its goal an official warning, rather than a 24 hour ban. Like it or not, people are afraid of losing valued contributors, and 172, in spite of his undeniable flaws, is widely considered one. He has contributed huge amounts of generally qualified historical information to Wikipedia. Rest assured, however, that at least I take the revert policy seriously, and will not make exceptions for anyone. I hope that the reforms below will contribute to more consistent enforcement.

Next time you have a problem with 172, feel free to leave me a message, and I'll see what I can do.--Eloquence* 21:37, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. No, I do not think most are as far out as Mao/Lenin. Anyway, I just want to point out that I did only ask for a warning (a "censure", actually), not a ban. -- VV 21:43, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Notice location

Can some kind soul remind me where else I am supposed to post notice that I have blocked a signed-in user? I seem to remember that I am supposed to place a notice somewhere. (No, not the mailing list - I stopped reading & posting to that unreadable madhouse long ago.) But I think there is a page here somewhere I'm supposed to put a note on. Thanks -- Tannin 01:57, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nowhere that I can think of. Do you want me to tell the mailing list for you? moink 01:59, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thankyou. I'd appreciate it. I find the mailing list overly difficult to post to. (For complex reasons to do with using multiple ISPs.) Tannin

Done. moink 02:11, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wik and Nico

I strongly oppose the idea of using this page to attack opponents in edits wars and pushing own POVs, like Wik is allowed to. Also, a strong Polish lobby, which also has an army of known and unknown sock puppets, may certainly be able to abuse this page in order to reach such a goal. There is clearly a need of more discussion of how this is supposed to work. Nico 02:26, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I resent your generalization. With the exception of Wik and a couple of anons, they are all reasonable people unless provoked. Mkweise 03:37, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

User:Gdansk is worse than anyone else involved in these disputes. As far as the other Polish contributors, most of them are fairly polite, if often unwilling to listen to (or unable to understand?) what those who disagree with them have to say. To some extent, this might have to do with a language gap, I'm not sure. As to Wik, he's perfectly reasonable assuming one makes the effort to actually discuss things with him. As far as I can tell, on the Polich city name issue, his only concern is that the older German names be listed as "former" names, rather than as present-day alternatives. Wik's unwillingness to actually discuss his concerns can be irritating, but usually the actual issue is fairly valid (if sometimes rather nit-picky). john 06:29, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I counted User:Gdansk as an anon since that username is now blocked. As for Wik—his POV is generally very reasonable, but the way he conducts himself in disputes goes against the spirit of Wikipedia and creates a hostile climate. Mkweise 13:48, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Quickpolls evaluation

Well, while I don't personally agree with quickpolls at all (see archive), at least we can work on them and make them Suck Less (less perjorative than it sounds: see: mutt (email client) ).

(A quickpoll can be listed under more than one catagory at once, if you think someone else listed it under the wrong one, list your example under the other. This division allows for easier tallying. )

I'm pulling 4 that I saw *didn't* work out too well from the previous archive page, since that's what I've concentrated on so far. This doesn't mean I'm trying to push my bias, just that my particular POV was biased up till now. Please do add quickpolls that *were* useful to balance my POV. Thank you!

If you participated in a quickpoll that reached its goals successfully please do add it to the "quickpolls that were successful" list.

Quickpolls that helped wikipedia

1. User:Dogmaster3000 , was a test poll.

   It was a test poll, and it worked out fine. Kim Bruning 22:04, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

2. User:Anthony DiPierro was banned after consensus was reached
3. User:GrazingshipIV was not banned after gaining much support

Quickpolls that didn't help wikipedia

1. user:reddi Revenge poll by user:Lord Kenneth
   • Quickpolls shouldn't be used for revenge, like done here. Kim Bruning 11:01, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
2. user:172 was in an edit war with VeryVerily
   • 172 and Veryverily were actually trying to influence content in this way Kim Bruning 11:01, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
3. user:VeryVerily was in an edit war with 172
   • see under 172 Kim Bruning 11:01, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
     • VeryVerily nick and link fixed in above comments. — Jor (Talk) 03:25, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
4. user:Lord Kenneth (first poll, second or both?), user left went on vandalism rampage after quickpoll, resulting in his blocking and a 2nd poll.
   • The quickpoll was the last straw. Kim Bruning 11:01, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
5. user:Lord Kenneth (second poll) the user was banned prior to the poll, so the concept of using a quickpoll to judge agreement prior to acting failed. Jamesday 07:55, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
6. User:wik, User:Jor Revenge polls and quickpolls to settle political naming issues rather than article talk don't help anyone.
7. User:Anthony DiPierro was banned after consensus was reached

Other

1. user:Lord Kenneth, user left went on rampage after quickpoll
   • Playing devil's advocate: given this user's record, is that really a bad outcome? -- ChrisO 10:48, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
     • He wasn't entirely a bad editor you know :-) On editing: leave people under both headings. (only add, don't remove). When tallying, the ayes and nays will cancel out neatly. :-)

Wik

Is Wik allowed to delete content from the page by blatantly reverting? — Jor (Talk) 18:19, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Please see talk pages. — Jor (Talk) 16:57, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Is Jor allowed to vote in his own polls by calling them "non quickpoll polls"? --Wik 18:24, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "non quickpoll vote" on the Quickpolls page, which is obviously designed for Quickpolls, but Jor keeps adding this nonsense, so that he can thwart the rules and vote in his own poll. Any comments relevant to the polls below should be made in the polls below. --Wik 18:47, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

See also his comments above. Any one with eyes can see he is incorrect. — Jor (Talk) 17:02, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wik is currently attempting to remove info by reverting this page. — Jor (Talk) 18:14, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Above (User:Jor) is not taking into account that a) page location was decided by talk page, b) anon being reverted was doing highly questionable edits, and c) discussion of page title is ongoing on talk page. — Jor (Talk) 19:00, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

St Mary's Church

Round two of Wik vs Jor, place your bets now! — Jor (Talk) 17:30, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Since this is a political dispute about a controversial page title which is being actively discussed, I feel it does not belong here. — Jor (Talk) 17:07, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This is not a political dispute, but simply a (blatant) violation of the 3-revert rule by Jor. --Wik 17:09, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

Number of reverts is explained by this diff, and the reason a revert was done is that the copies are not identical: the Danzig (Gdansk) copy is a later edit. Quickpolls are not to drag someone through the mud because you refuse to use talk pages to discuss controversial naming issues. — Jor (Talk) 17:12, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This was by no means vandalism, it was you doing your usual POV pushing. --Wik 17:15, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

Yes Wik, I think everyone knows by now everyone you disagree with is a vandal, moron, idiot, revisionist, POV pusher, or combination of the above. — Jor (Talk) 17:17, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Support both:

Oppose both:

NON Quickpoll vote:
Support removing these polls so the issue can be discussed on talk, where it should:

1. — Jor (Talk) 17:36, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Clarify need for non-quickpoll vote: This began because of a political dispute, and is just distorting this page. — Jor (Talk) 18:24, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Comment: Wik has multiple times reverted this page, deleting a vote from the non-quickpoll vote above and comments. — Jor (Talk) 18:12, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wik on Jor

Additionally, Jor violated Quickpolls rules by reverting this very page several times to reinstate his own vote on a poll he brought himself as well as an invalid vote by an anon. --Wik 18:11, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

I'd rather not use a Wik-defiled term, but that is a blatant lie as edit history proves. — Jor (Talk) 18:24, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh come on Wik. As you could see from the article's talk page, and the anon's talk page, this anon was doing similar reverts on many pages. I simply put it back where it belonged, according to community consensus as seen on talk. — Jor (Talk) 16:51, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is not even remotely such a consensus. Stop lying. --Wik 16:54, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

Please see talk page, Wik, and refrain from your insulting and accusing. — Jor (Talk) 16:57, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You just continue lying. The talk page clearly shows that you have no one but Nico on your side. --Wik 17:00, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

Sigh. Whatever Wik. — Jor (Talk) 17:02, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Is User:Mkweise Nico or me according to you? — Jor (Talk) 17:19, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Neither, but he proposed "Gdansk (Danzig)". But if you want to count him, it's still anything but a consensus since Halibutt, Kpalion, the anon, and me oppose it. --Wik 17:23, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

Merovingian on neutrality

1. The first title is more neutral. --Merovingian ↕ Talk 17:06, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)
   • Huh? Care to explain? The name of the city is Gdansk and nothing else. Danzig is a former name. Do you dispute this? --Wik 17:09, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)
     • Gdansk = Polish, Danzig = German, right? --Merovingian ↕ Talk 17:10, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)
       • 1) The city is Polish and Polish is the only official language there. 2) Not that it matters, but even in Germany, the name Danzig is only used half the time nowadays. There is no need to mention the name Danzig in the title here at all, but certainly not in the first place before Gdansk! --Wik 17:15, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)
         • And that is why the page title is being discussed on the talk page. — Jor (Talk) 17:18, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
           • Alright, how about a move to St Mary's Church of Gdansk (Danzig)? --Merovingian ↕ Talk 17:22, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)
             • Won't solve it in the long run. Suggest taking it back to talk? — Jor (Talk) 17:29, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC) (comment was deleted by Wik)
               • Nice example of more lying by Jor: "comment was deleted by Wik". As the history shows, the opposite is true - Jor added the comment while deleting comments by me (overriding an edit conflict apparently). I just reinstated the overridden version. --Wik 17:56, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)
                 • Three times deleted (by Wik) comment: Wik, please stop accusing me of lying and using ad hominem attacks. — Jor (Talk) 18:14, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
           • This is not the place to discuss the substance of the dispute. It is to recognize Jor's violation of the rules. --Wik 17:23, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)
             • Alleged violation of the rules, Wik. I wish you'd learn to discuss matters on talk pages! — Jor (Talk) 17:26, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
               • Funny from someone who just reverted the article over 20 times. --Wik 17:28, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)
                 • Grow up, Wik. — Jor (Talk) 17:29, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

1. Don't you people have anything constructive to do?? --Merovingian ↕ Talk 17:06, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

   Exactly! Discussion is ongoing on talk, and this REALLY does not belong here. — Jor (Talk) 17:07, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I quit this discussion. You two can battle it out. I find it to be absolutely ridiculous and childish to continue to dispute German/Polish names in such a small-minded and pugnacious manner. --Merovingian ↕ Talk 17:35, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

Adam Bishop on crap

1. I support blocking Wik just so I don't have to see this crap over and over again. Adam Bishop 18:14, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Which crap? Bringing a perfectly legitimate case here, which this page is explicitly designed for (violations of 3-revert rules)? --Wik 18:16, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

Having an edit war over the Quickpolls page? This is bullshit. Do you even do anything but go around reverting things? We would be better off here without you, I think. Adam Bishop 18:19, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Am I having an edit war on my own? I wonder how that's possible. Yet you say no word about Jor, who started it by reverting a page 20 times. I'd say we would be better off without people whose judgement is that much off balance. --Wik 18:22, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

You're right about that, get rid of him too :) Adam Bishop 18:24, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

MyRedDice on reverting

19 reverts in under an hour is a clear and serious violation of the guideline to revert no more than three time in any given day. Martin 18:43, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Does that include vandalism? — Jor (Talk) 18:45, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It includes everything. Whether you consider some edit vandalism or not is irrelevant. If it really is vandalism, someone else will revert it. Martin 18:51, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Some reform steps

I have changed the Wikipedia:Quickpolls policy in two ways:

1. Users must not be a party to a dispute to start a quickpoll, they must convince someone else to do it for them.
2. There needs to be a minimum number of 20 votes in order for the quickpoll to be implemented (note that 16 votes, i.e. 80% of 20, are not sufficient, we do want a reasonably large sample).

This is a response to two observed problems:

1. Users start quickpolls in the heat of the moment. By requiring them to convince someone else to do it, quickpolls become a community instrument rather than an instrument of individual revenge.
2. The first wave of votes tends to fall into one side or another. Furthermore, important comments may appear that would have altered the QP had it run for a little while longer. Hopefully we can make better decisions by getting more people involved.

If we still get pointless polls, we may want to allow uninvolved admins to remove a poll. However, I believe that the two above measures should already make a substantial difference.--Eloquence* 19:57, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

So can involved parties vote on a quickpoll, then? There's been some uncertainty about that, but it's established that the proponent cannot vote. That rule seems tied to an assumption that the proponent is the opposing party to the quickpoll subject, who cannot vote either. --Michael Snow 20:05, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, involved parties cannot vote.--Eloquence* 20:08, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

If somebody goes on a rampage, then, and a number of people are involved in fighting it, it seems to me like this disqualifies quite a few people who in my mind should be allowed to vote. And incidentally makes it a lot harder to come up with 20 votes.

What does "involved" mean, anyway? Do we start excluding people, including negative votes, who have been working on the article where a revert war is taking place? I know Wikipedia operates by consensus, not democracy, but when we do use voting procedures I have serious concerns about disenfranchising lots of people with subjective criteria. --Michael Snow 20:25, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, involved is too ambiguous. I like a clearcut definition whenever possible. Dori | Talk 20:27, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

I object. These are supposed to be quick polls you can hold BEFORE acting. It takes too long to gather 20 people before acting in an emergency. Jamesday 07:52, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

on Jor

I am adopting this quickpoll in order to comply with the policy that the proponent of a QP may not be a party to the dispute. As Jor himself as previously started a quickpoll on Wik with the comment "Wik is currently on a revert rampage again, accusing me of 'vandalism'", and shown the exact same behavior here, we can assume that he is well aware of the guidelines. I therefore propose a 24 hour ban.--Eloquence* 20:13, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

As Jor has now recognized his error, I withdraw my support for this quickpoll. Hence, if nobody else adopts it, it can be removed from this page within 6 hours. However, it is to be archived, so that if Jor engages in similar behavior in the future, we can refer to this case.Eloquence*

On Wik

Unless someone else adopts this poll within 6 hours, I will remove it from this page as per the policy that participants to a dispute may not propose a quickpoll.--Eloquence* 20:19, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

Please delete. I retract it as it was made in the heat of the moment. — Jor (Talk) 20:47, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You added that policy after the poll was started. No ex-post facto rules, please. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 20:24, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have adopted these polls for procedural reasons - I do not believe changes to policy should be retroactively applied. Martin 22:16, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Gdansk/Danzig

Why couldn't the Gdansk/Danzig issue be resolved through a Wikipedia-wide poll? It seems to me that this would go a long way toward resolving quite a few issues. One party may not like the result, but at least there will be some stability. Dori | Talk 20:11, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. However, someone would have to refactor all the arguments, so it is an informed vote.--Eloquence* 20:20, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

Each side could give their arguments in round one, give replies in round two, questions by other people in round three, and round four is a vote. After the vote, whichever name is picked as the more dominating one, will go into titles, be used throughout the articles (the other name(s) will of course have to be explained), etc. I am tired of seeing this issue come up time and time again. Dori | Talk 20:23, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

It's not about that. Noone are trying to move the main article from Gdansk to Danzig, or use Danzig in references to the present-day city. We are mainly discussing which name(s) should be used in historical references to Danzig before 1945 (Free City of Danzig, Danzig Research Society, Günter Grass was born in Danzig etc.). John Kenney has proved numerous times that the city in English is overwhelmingly referred to as Danzig as such. Nico 23:09, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The issue here seems to be native German speakers and native Polish speakers arguing over what native English speakers should write. We've occasionally seen such things in other areas as well, where the local partisans bring their naming fights to en. Perhaps we should bar non-native English speakers from such things, so they don't bring their fights here? Jamesday 08:08, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My assessment would rather be that some Poles (they don't need to have Polish mother tongue, but they most certainly are Polish nationalists) put a pride in eradicating traces of German presense east of the Oder-Neisse line whenever, and wherever, they can. German spekers are not concerned to any particular degree.

— A quickpoll doesn't help if the conflict continues after it. What's needed is discussions on Wikipedia's policy in this regard.

--Ruhrjung 08:19, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I expect that there are also cases of some German nationalists doing things related to Germany. Never all of any nationality, of course - most people of all nationalities are good people and a pleasure to deal with -it's just the exceptions which cause problems. Jamesday 22:12, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Impostor

Is a quickpoll needed to ban (not 24 hr block) User:Joℝ and any new incarnations? It seems to be a clear-cut case of vandalism to me. Dori | Talk 20:40, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

I believe there are policies on inappropriate usernames that can be leveraged in these cases. wikipedia:username. Martin 22:22, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Voting eligibility

I see on the article page that Martin has moved some votes based on what he said were eligibility issues. Where are the voting elibigility rules located? RickK | Talk 23:26, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Quickpolls_policy#Rules. Martin 23:29, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How does the 3 revert rule apply to move wars?

Nico and Wik have been at it again. This time they stopped at 3 reverts each, then switched to a move competition. I can't count exactly how many times the article was moved back and forth—I think only developers can look into that—but they did move it several times each. Mkweise 22:59, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I moved two times, I think. Nico 23:21, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Did any part of the article, including its title, change to effectively what it was before? If it did, it was a reversion. Jamesday 05:53, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

meta issues

A growing number of contributors seems to be concerned that Wikipedia:Quickpolls tends to place the rules of a game before the quality of encyclopedic entries. Perhaps this page ought to be ditched, and replaced with an entirely new stage in the WP conflict resolution process. What do people think about naming specialized, subject-area arbitrators? 172 08:16, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In sum, I'm just wondering if there's a way to bring in an element of specialized expertise in the conflict resolution processes pertaining to content (rather than "behavioral") disputes. 172 08:44, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A great idea, so long as they can be over-ruled, and so long as you arn't one of them ;). It strikes me as a fascinating way to combine the best of nupedia and the wikipedia. m:Wikipedia needs editors has some thoughts/ideas on the subject. Sam Spade 08:22, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If I were nominated and/or elected to any post, I'd accept/not accept, notwithstanding your stance. 172 08:44, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Clearly you are not interested in the thoughts or feelings of others, that is why you'd make a poor arbitrator. Sam Spade 18:30, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Huh? What does this have to do with anything? I'm not being nominated for any post right now. 172 20:11, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Retrospective votes

Jamesday raised a matter of some import above, but as it is tangential to the issue discussed up there, I'll put it here, in a seperate section. James wrote that: "user:Lord Kenneth (second poll) the user was banned prior to the poll, so the concept of using a quickpoll to judge agreement prior to acting failed."

In this case, I think it would be fairer to say that the concept was not applicable: it didn't "fail", it just wasn't one of the options available at the time.

But that said, I don't think that this matter was really one that Quickpolls were designed for. I made the judgement that there was an urgent need to intervene in an ongoing vandalism spree, and blocked the user. This is something that admins have both the right and the duty to do on their own initiative, provided that the situation does indeed warrant such action. It's not something that any admin should do lightly, of course, and the admin in question is obliged to post an immediate explanation of his action so that the community as a whole (a) knows about it, and (b) has the opportunity to comment on it and if necessary reverse it.

Prior to the advent of Quickpolls, this community judgement was done on an ad-hoc basic, with the ultimate authority resting with Jimbo or the arbitration committee. Now that the Quickpoll mechanism exists, is it an appropriate one to use in cases like this, where the action has already taken place? Or is this type of circumstance one that should still be dealt with by Jimbo or the arbitration committee? Or is there a third possibility.

Tannin 08:55, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

One of the matters which prompted quickpolls was the actions of individuals banning, unbanning and desysopping prior to seeking the views of the community, at times contrary to those views. The purpose was in part to provide a fast way to confirm that the views of the individual contemplating the action accurately reflect the view of the community, thereby providing some protection from inappropriate action even in rapidly changing situations. I agree with the decision you took, but not with the way you took it prior to a quickpoll. Jamesday 05:49, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

But James, that is what admins are for - to protect the 'pedia against vandalism. There is no requirement to seek a vote on outright vandalism, and never has beem. Nor could there be, for two very practical reasons: (a) it takes several hours for a Quickpoll to achieve a consensus (hours during which the vandal is running rampant), and (b) if the vandal decides to target the quickpoll voting page itself, it becomes near-impossible to use it to determine a consensus. The role of admins in preventing vandalism is not in question here. What is in question is the role of Quickpolls (if any) in this process. There is no policy on this at present, which is why I brought it up. I am quite surprised that no-one has expressed an opinion on this matter yet. (Including your good self: your reply above addresses a different matter.) Tannin 07:25, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The history of this is in part Tim Starling insisting on a straw poll before desysopping someone, then proceeding while there was agreement and reversing once that agreement had ended. Then Erik desysopped someone without a straw poll first and there was discussion with Erik in IRC about the need to have at least a straw poll prior to unilateral action. After that the following was proposed on the mailing list and here by Erik:

"Please look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quickpolls .It is a proposed polling system for backing up sysop and developer decisions in cases like 24 hour bans or emergency desysoppings. Not a voting system per se but more a way to confirm that the community is behind a certain action before it is taken. 80% approval is needed or any quickpoll."

So, proposing here prior to acting was the original intent. If it turns out not to be fast enough (and it's extremely unlikely that anything requiring 20 votes will be fast enough) then we can adjust it as necessary. It has to be fast at first, requiring enough people to ensure it's not unilateral, and easy to undo if necessary as more people vote and possibly disagree, if it was a clique who made the initial votes. Jamesday 10:30, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

3-revert rule and anons

Since registered users are constrained by the 3-revert rule and can be brought to Quickpolls to be held accountable... is there any reason that an anon that violates the rule cannot be blocked for 24 hours without a quickpoll? I am watching a revert war at Cosmotheism where registered users are trying to adhere to the rule while an anon is flagrantly disregarding it. All registered users and another anon are reverting three times and the anon believes himself above the rule.

Either this anon needs to be brought to a Quickpoll again or blocked immediately - Tεxτurε 17:18, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Anons can be brought to quickpolls to be held accountable - if they are aware of the rule in question.

I think there's definately an argument for violations of the 3-revert rule by anons being a blockable offense (see wikipedia:blocking policy), but I'm personally unconvinced. It might create more problems than it solves, to be honest. Martin 22:59, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Have there been cases where users log out in order to be able to squeeze in an extra few reverts as an anon? I could well imagine this strategem being employed, if it has not already. -- VV 23:05, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but so far they've been pretty obvious (and it only gives you three more reverts - the sort of scum who pull this trick are normally outnumbered 10-1). Martin 00:38, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's worth remembering that developers can link logged in and not logged in edits. If you suspect that a logged in user was trying to conceal their identity so that their breaking of the policy would not be noticed, please ask a developer to check, so that the appropriate action can be taken. This applies to sock puppets as well as edits while not logged in - the policy is addresing people, not accounts or IP addresses. Jamesday 05:56, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I asked a developer to check this one. Nothing was reported except what is clear from the visible edit history. Jamesday 06:27, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The case in question is Paul Vogel, who has never bothered getting a login (but signs his talk page comments). All attempts to introduce clues to him have so far been futile. Where would one report gross violations of the three-revert policy? - David Gerard 07:32, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

Report gross violations to any administrator for appropriate action. Note that by "gross violaton" I don't mean 4 reverts rather than 3! If it's marginal, take it to a Quickpoll, or just ignore it. What I'm talking about is the sort of case where you have a user doing a whole great stack of reverts against a clear consensus - 10, 20, 30 of them - or (as our friemd 24.45.99.191 was doing about 10 hours ago) getting abusive and calling people lying hippocritical Jews. Tannin 07:57, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To follow the process to the letter, please warn all of the IPs involved and Paul, then if it continues and you're not involved, start a quickpoll yourself if you meet the qualifications. If you don't, a request here should be sufficient, just paste a template with the edits giving the warnings, the dates and times of the reverts and any information you may have about the individual acting. Once we can tie in an account and a series of IP ranges we can act against all aliases which are in use by the person and make it harder for them to dodge. Note that if it is an IP editing, the sysops have an easier threshold for acting than if it is a named user, so it may be viable and appropriate for a sysop to block the IPs while still proceeding against the named user and all of their aliases via a quickpoll. Jamesday 10:23, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Removing quickpolls after 48 hours

Wikipedia:Quickpolls policy says that A quickpoll can be removed from this page [...] 48 hours after listing if no ban is implemented. However, Wik's quickpoll (regarding St. Mary's church) is still here after almost 72 hours. Did I misunderstand the policy, or it this simply an oversight? -- uriber 15:31, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any policy placing a 48 hour limit on voting. It's all permissive can rather than setting a voting time limit. However, IMO a 20 vote ceiling and a 48 hour time limit makes it almost impossible to use quickpolls to impose a penalty. It effectively converts them to the polls we had before but with a short time limit which almost guarantees nothing happening. Jamesday 21:33, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I put the ceiling back to 8 votes. 48 hours is enough time to take emergency action. Martin 23:51, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Jamesday 22:15, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I hate quickpolls

At first I thought quickpolls were a good idea. I envisioned them as a good way for the community to quickly come to consensus in cases of egregiously unacceptable behaviour. It now seems like they're just one more way for people to get angry with each other and people are using quickpolls to push their POV or to punish users they disagree with. I don't think they're contributing to a peaceful community. moink 20:29, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 20:47, 2004 Apr 6 (UTC)) On the plus side, if all there is trivial disputes, then that must imply that there is very little "egregiously unacceptable behaviour". Which must be a good thing.

I think quickpolls for solving excessive reverts have failed. I still think they're useful in cases of emergency de-sysoping and vandalism rampages. Martin 21:11, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sheesh, give it some time. We just changed the policy to disallow involved parties from starting quickpolls (and thanks to Martin, the current polls don't even fall under that policy).--Eloquence* 21:18, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

Fair point Erik. Longer term, we might want to think about replacing "violating the 3RR" with "violating the 3RR on several pages" - IE, a reversion rampage to mirror vandalism rampages. Martin 22:19, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It has its uses. Before the quickpoll page, the battles ranged over Wikipedia:Requests for review of admin actions, Wikipedia:Problem users, Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, and Wikipedia:Possible misuses of sysop rights. So a large number of otherwise useful pages were rendered periodically useless due to some discussion that was never going to be conclusory anyway. Now all of those pages (or their descendants) are markedly quieter, and so work gets done. So frankly if all this page does is to condense all the hate into one nasty little bolus that most wikipedians strike from their watchlist and get on with something constructive, then it's succeeded. This, or any other device, isn't going to fix the entrenched problems or cure the deranged, but it serves one function more: there is that class of troubled user who genuinely thinks they're doing the right thing and that most folks would agree with them (which was usually the plaintif cry on ViP, for example). A quick vote here settles that speedily and conclusively. This, or something much like it, is as good as it's going to get. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:12, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You may be right. I didn't really mind most of those other pages, though I thought ViP was (and still is) abused for disputes rather than the pure simple vandalism it was designed for. Maybe I'm too much of an idealist, to think that people should just be able to talk out their problems. moink 01:20, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Agreed mostly. Quickpolls have failed: they are neither quick nor particularily effective. — Jor (Talk) 03:23, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

They are starting to give me the creeps. And it takes a long time to make up one's mind on what to decide that ... well, I have been led to unvoting in almost all of them, at least lately. We need to think better of the problem, I think. Pfortuny 07:56, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I see a good deal of inconsistancy. Two users participating in the same actions are not given the same support or opposition. Kingturtle 08:01, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That's right. Even more, actions (which I assume are the reason for the quickpolls) are judged taking history into account (this user has done this more times, or was banned 3 days ago, or whatever) and that makes me wonder... what are we voting here about? Pfortuny 09:38, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

TDC and 172

I would suggest that User:TDC and User:172 be held to this policy, since it appears that there is an issue. Giving two people a time out is also good, because it equally eliminates partisan hostiles. In this case TDC should probably get a 48 hour ban, since he seems to be starting an ill tradition of insults. -SV(talk) 02:16, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Honestly, I admit my guilt. I prioritize stopping the vandalism of an encyclopedic entry over the daily gamesmanship on the Wikipedia:Quickpolls page. Perhaps the fetish of the "three-revert rule" has caused people to forget this, but the reason we're on this site is to work supposedly on an encyclopedia. Things would go a lot more smoothly if another admin backed me up next time, instead of dragging me on this page to play count the reverts games with the trolls attempting to mutilate articles. 172 05:28, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• • That's not an admission: it's a defense. I suggest you read the reversion guidelines again. When other people tell me to stop going it alone at Wikipedia, I listen to them! (Which is one reason why every time I threaten to resign my adminship or to quit Wikipedia altogther, there's a storm of protest!! :-) --Uncle Ed 17:10, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • What can I say? Some things are beyond our control, and we have to deal with tradeoffs at times. Is a 24-hour "time out" worse than allowing an article to turn into garbage? I'd rather focus on a way to stop asking this question than bother figuring out an answer. So, while we're still here, before either of us are driven to the point of resigning our adminships in a storm of protest, why don't we focus on improving the encyclopedia first and foremost? On that note, if the quality of the encyclopedia carried more weight in mediation and arbitration than "the three revert rule," the encyclopedia would benefit. Otherwise, if there are incentives for the best users to ignore mediocrity, then Wikipedia won't realize its potential. Since the vast majority of edit wars pertain to history and politics, perhaps it's time to consider specialized, topic-area, subject-area policies for (and even governance of) the history and politics articles. 172 19:58, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. WP will not be interesting if it just relies on this Quickpoll thing. We need deep thought for complicated problems. Pfortuny 09:42, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• I object to any idea that TDC recieve a stronger punishment than 172, if you are looking for a traditionof insults, 172 is one person who is not just starting out. Sam Spade 02:51, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

removed from main - not a quickpoll, just a suggestion. Martin 21:16, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

no active quickpolls...

... that feels kinda nice. :) Martin 01:27, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Spoke too soon! ;-) Martin 12:08, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

... that feels kinda nice. :) Martin 21:29, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Updated Format

I don't know who revised the Quickpoll format, but I like it -- particularly the note, "Please vote using this format." It's a good suggestion. It'll keep voting more uniform, and it will be easier to assess votes. Good job. (Although the "current time" seems a bit like showing off! ;-) Cribcage 22:09, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. It was me :-). I feel the UTC time is important, to know when a poll has expired and should be archived. Most people have their account set to their local time, so it's difficult to see UTC. --Cantus 22:21, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Erika Steinbach

Erika Steinbach reverted 6 times by User:Jor and 8 times by User:Nico today, could someone start a quick poll to ban them for 24 hours please? --Voodoo 22:43, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not true. I reverted two times [1], [2], three other edits were attempts to rewrite a disputed paragraph after concerns raised in edit summaries and on talk, and introduce info from the German article on Steinbach, while also incorporating info from other edits [3], [4], [5]. Sixth edit was a minor grammar fix. [6] I haven't checked Nico's edits so can't speak for him. — Jor (Talk) 22:47, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'll mail a dollar to whomever just deletes the damn Steinbach article, once and for all. :-/ Cribcage 22:59, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The phrase that is being disputed is "German-occupied Poland," and more specifically whether that is the phrase that should be used to describe territories annexed by Germany between 1939-1945. Jor changed the phrase "German-occupied Poland, in the village of Rumia" to Rahmel (now Rumia, Poland)" five times. The 6th time he changed it to "West Prussia, in the village of Rumia (German: Rahmel)." In some of the edits he also included other text. If you can hide reverts by including other text, then perhaps he hasn't exceeded the 3 reverts rule, but in that case the rule is useless. Again, Nico reverted 8 times. --Voodoo 23:24, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If replacing a POV term ("German-occupied Poland") with another term (annexed "Polish Corridor" or annexed "West Prussia") as part of a large edit is 'hiding a revert', I think almost every contributer to the Wikipedia can be quickbanned. As said, I am speaking only for myself and not for Nico, the Polish anon, or other users. — Jor (Talk) 23:29, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You are now talking about your 6th revert, not the previous 5. As I said, if you can revert a disputed phrase 20 times an hour as long as you come up with a different alternative each time, then the 3 revert rule is useless. --Voodoo 23:53, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Talking about my third, fourth, and fifth edit. The sixth edit was a minor one which really ought to have been in the fifth had I previewed it. I reverted twice, well within the limit of WP:3RR. However, if you insist on labelling any version which is not according to your POV as a 'revert', I guess that would increase the numbers astronomically. — Jor (Talk) 23:57, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

We must be looking at a different history page. You've made 8 edits today, 8th edit was a minor one, and in 6 of them you removed the disputed phrase. If adding a slightly different versions of an alternative phrase is considered an edit and not a revert, then fine, I learned something new. I would just like to have that confirmed by someone other than Jor. --Voodoo 00:08, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Fine, I'll humour you.

1. (cur) (last) . . m 21:01, 17 Apr 2004 . . Jor (sentence fix)
2. (cur) (last) . . 21:00, 17 Apr 2004 . . Jor (some linking, and another attempt to rewrite dreaded 'occupied Poland' bit.)
3. (cur) (last) . . 20:48, 17 Apr 2004 . . John Kenney
4. (cur) (last) . . 20:41, 17 Apr 2004 . . Space Cadet (Why is it nonsense? Can you explain?)
5. (cur) (last) . . 20:24, 17 Apr 2004 . . Jor (Remove "no other country recognised annexation" - rather nonsense, add back deleted info, Hanau -> Hanau, Hesse)
6. (cur) (last) . . 19:36, 17 Apr 2004 . . Space Cadet
7. (cur) (last) . . 19:17, 17 Apr 2004 . . 24.2.152.139
8. (cur) (last) . . 17:51, 17 Apr 2004 . . John Kenney (reverting to my (slight edit) which indicates that Germany *did* annex this region)
9. (cur) (last) . . 17:46, 17 Apr 2004 . . 24.2.152.139 (Stop it was German Occupied Poland.....)
10. (cur) (last) . . 17:44, 17 Apr 2004 . . Jor (Last attempt to incorporate info anon tries to delete, see also talk)
11. (cur) (last) . . 17:41, 17 Apr 2004 . . 24.2.152.139 (RV: Stop inserting your POV this is the title that was aggread apon by everyone but nico and you....)
12. (cur) (last) . . 17:38, 17 Apr 2004 . . Jor (Anon deleted info again (talk page has been checked, what exactly is your problem with the current version? Discuss on talk instead of reverting please.))
13. (cur) (last) . . 17:36, 17 Apr 2004 . . 24.2.152.139 (Check the talk page....)
14. (cur) (last) . . 17:34, 17 Apr 2004 . . Jor (Anon deleted info, try and appease the "it is in Poland" crowd some by adding a historic note)
15. (cur) (last) . . 17:28, 17 Apr 2004 . . 24.2.152.139
16. (cur) (last) . . 17:28, 17 Apr 2004 . . 24.2.152.139 (No Rumia was in Poland it was settled in the talk page)
17. (cur) (last) . . 11:49, 17 Apr 2004 . . Jor (some info from the German article)
18. (cur) (last) . . 11:38, 17 Apr 2004 . . Jor (Minor tweaking of Rumia/Rahmel business)

My edits are 8 in number: 1, 2, 5, 10, 12, 14, 17, 18. Of those, 18 and 17 — the first time I touched the article — were before the anon reverted, leaving six. Of these edits, 14 and 12 are reverts. 10 is an attempt at rewrite of the paragraph the anon is feuding over, while adding back info the anon deletes. 5 is another attempt at rewrite and inserting info from the German article (not a revert), after three other users (anon, John Kenney, and Space Cadet) have edited or reverted. 2 is another (different) attempt at rewrite of the disputed paragraph, and 1 is a two word fix for sentence flow.
I count 2 edits (18, 17), followed by 2 reverts by me (14, 12) and 3 by the anon (16/15, 13, 11), then one more edit by me (10), after which I left the article for 2 hours. Then I started an attempt at rewrite (5), continued in (2/1). Where are your 6 reverts? — Jor (Talk) 00:19, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Jor, rather than posting the whole history and complicating the issue simply answer this question, thruthfully: how many times did you remove the phrase "German-occupied Poland" today? I already explained that I was counting every removal of that phrase as a revert. That is the controversial phrase. I also said that if removing the phrase the whole edit conflict is about is not considered a revert as long as you think of a different alternative each time, or add some more content each time, then there is no issue here, and that I'd just like to have that confirmed by someone other than you. (Though Nico still needs to be banned.) --Voodoo 00:35, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I removed the phrase twice by reverting the anon back to my edit which introduced new material (14 & 12), and then twice by editing it in an attempt to remove the historically incorrect and POV term (5 & 2). Please read WP:3RR: a revert does not mean 'replace term' or 'delete info', but overwriting an edit with an earlier version. What I was attempting is described there as Instead of performing a straight revert, look for ways to compromise, or alternate ways of saying the same thing. — Jor (Talk) 00:42, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Actually I was wrong: re-checking my own edits shows I only reverted once, #12. #14 was not a clean revert but a revert plus additional info clarifying the status of Rumia/Rahmel in 1942 with a historic note. Apologies for my mistake earlier, but I had left the article alone for 2 hours and it is hardly the only thing on my mind. In any case you are therefore dealing here with 7 edits in 24 hours, and only 1 revert. Well within any limits. — Jor (Talk) 00:53, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I suggest you check again. You removed the phrase 6 times in one day, not 4 as you claim. The rest of this was already covered. I think the idea behind "think of a different way of saying the same thing" was that you are supposed to, if possible, think of a way of saying what you want to say whithout using the language that the other people object to. It probably wasn't meant to be used as a loophole. Any way, I think it's obvious that we have different opinions on this, so let's just end it at that. I'm still asking for a poll, and will simply start ignoring the 3 revert rule when reverting you or Nico if I don't get any feedback (note that feedback doesn't mean the result I want, just means some kind of explanation. I simply don't want to have to follow rules that others can safely ignore.) --Voodoo 01:27, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Cantus

Moved from the main page by yours truly. silsor 20:42, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

Cantus has just removed someone else's quickpoll on this page. Earlier today he also tampered with people's comments on this page. He needs to be banned permanently. --Wik 23:02, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

My dearest Wik, I did not remove any Quickpoll from this page. I moved a request to create a Quickpoll to the Talk page. And I did not tampered with anybody's comments. I just changed the formatting, as you can see for yourself in History. Nice try, though. --Cantus 23:07, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't know about a ban, but Cantus, please stop deleting (or displacing) other people's comments. Leave that to someone more experienced, and trusted with admin status. Thanks. Cribcage 23:05, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Read above. Could anybody remove this ludicrous poll, please?--Cantus 23:07, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why should a request to create a poll be moved to the talk page, it's not a conversation about quick polls. How many people read the talk page? In any case, I just posted a response to Jor on the talk page, and would really appreciate it if someone created this poll. I always abide by the 3 revert rule, and always assumed that it would not be applied selectively. --Voodoo 23:34, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It just seems appropiate to discuss the inclusion of a Quickpoll in the Quickpoll Talk page, don't you think? Or else you'd have Quickpoll-inclusion discussions all over this page, possibly distracting from the real Quickpolls. Should we create a new Wikipedia:Quickpoll request page? --Cantus 00:12, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The point of quickpolls is to quickly resolve an issue, and not get bogged down in red tape needed for other affairs on 'Pedia. If people read Quickpolls Policy and understand what a quickpoll is, why shouldn't they be allowed to add them as needed? -- Kwekubo 00:22, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but these people were discussing here whether they should create a Quickpoll, instead of just creating it. --Cantus 01:41, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The point is, people were discussing something. Participate if you like, but don't displace their conversation. I don't delete others' comments even when I think it's appropriate. That action should be exercised by admins, users elected by the community. You're a new user. You've already had problems and received a ban. You might consider that your judgment is still questionable, by community standards, and perhaps you should leave deleting comments to someone else. Cribcage 02:13, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Point taken. Can we get rid of this silly poll now, please? --Cantus 02:29, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That's because according to the rules I can't create a poll, and have to ask someone else to do so. That's why I'm asking (details on the talk page.) Why that's the rule, I really don't know (though I agree that I shouldn't be allowed to vote.) --Voodoo 02:02, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Having a request for a quickpoll on the quickpoll page defeats the whole purpose of requiring third-party requests. -- VV 02:31, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Note to Admin: I think Cantus is right: This discussion has probably run its course. If Wik wants to propose a legitimate quickpoll, he can do so. In the meantime, discussion seems to have wrapped up, and continued existence serves no constructive purpose. Could an admin delete or archive this section, please? Thanks. Cribcage 04:27, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Any admins around? Almost a day and nobody has deleted this. --Cantus 20:02, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Go ahead and delete it, Cantus. I stand by my point with regard to deleting others' ongoing conversations, but on second thought I must concede that some deletions might not require an admin. Since no one's posting, here, yet no admin has taken the initiative to remove the section, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be able to delete it. Cribcage 20:36, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Quickpoll hypocrisy: brief statement

Two weeks ago, when the community overwhelmingly shrugged off 172's five reverts in two hours on Red Scare (and his childish, retaliatory quickpoll), I wrote on this very page,

I really doubt two or even a hundred violations would change anything. 172's appalling behavior is irrelevant to most.... I'm sure if I ever fought back against someone like 172 with four reverts, I'd be banned at the drop of a hat.

It's amazing how a clearcut demonstration materialized so quickly. 172 deleted comments and a poll on a talk page, tried groundlessly to resurrect his stale RfC page on me while damaging the main page, and reverted one of my edits over a supposed punctuation error which was in fact according to Wikipedia style. By fighting back against someone who is allowed unlimited reverts, I suffered a 17-hour ban, while excuses are made for 172, e.g., that I "provoked" him by having the gall to undo his reversions and deletions (what exactly would be an "unprovoked" edit war?).

Some used this time-out to smear me unanswered, calling me a troll and a POV-pusher and what-not. I am none of the above; I am a reliable contributor who has played by the rules and devoted hundreds of hours contributing to Wikipedia. It would be foolish to push away such users in favor of those who openly state their contempt for Wikiconsensus (see, e.g., 172's comments on Talk:Augusto Pinochet), ignore policy, lie, and disrespect others.

I have edited on numerous topics, but it's the controversial ones that bring trouble. I have gotten my hands dirty on subjects where many fear to tread or are "above" touching, and for that I am ruthlessly attacked. I was called a communist by User:LibertarianAnarchist, a libertarian by User:Kevehs, and now a right-winger by User:172, all because I pursued neutrality against those with other agendas.

So what now? Should I feel betrayed and slandered by the community I have served? Are the high ideals of neutrality and consensus just empty rhetoric? My focus will surely change due to this experience; where I feel I have a stake I will have to fight harder, since it's clearer than ever that in the end it's mostly force that matters, and be leery of "rules" which clearly don't apply to others. The upkeep and new articles I was once excited about contributing seem a distraction now that I have been personally impugned. I hope the community someday matures to functional normative standards instead of these ideological head counts, which of course I will lose. Just think how much stronger the 'pedia would be if users like myself could be contributing new content instead of defending against abusers.

I want to say that I don't resent those who supported both bans, although I do wish they had paid attention to the context, in particular the other, failed quickpoll which established my lack of recourse. I also want to extend my appreciation to all those who gave me support, which in the end shortened the ban's duration. (Notably, it was heavily from those close to the conflicts in question.) There is hope yet for this project.

VV 10:38, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC) (VeryVerily)

I supported both bans. I don't follow the details of your revert wars; and if you'll notice my exchanges with 172 on the current quickpoll, you'll note that I'm hardly biased to favor him. I hope you'll read this comment accordingly.

I don't question the merits of your edits. I doubt I'm as well-versed in these subjects as either you or 172; and as I wrote, I don't follow the details of your disputes. I object to the behavior, to the constant reversions. It's childish, both embarrassing and discrediting to Wikipedia -- and most strikingly, it accomplishes nothing. You revert his changes, he reverts yours. Back and forth, day after day. I find it difficult to believe that someone with something serious to say would behave like that. Just as these edit wars discredit the Wikipedia, they invariably embarrass and discredit their participants.

What's your goal? Cribcage 06:27, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

First, I want to say I was upset when I wrote the above :). But, good question. At first my encounters with 172 consisted of him reverting almost everything I did on "his" articles until I gave up and went on to something else (e.g., the US history articles, where I tried and tried and then stopped trying). Maybe this is the "right" or "mature" thing to do, but in the end it means parts of Wikipedia will only have the POV of the aggressive, obnoxious users. It means whenever such a user is involved in an article there will be no question of reaching a consensus in discussion or presenting other views fairly. It also means I must surrender whatever work I've done if said user is not pleased with it. My attempts to discuss issues continued to be fruitless on page after page. It became clear the only weapon I had left is to do what he does, revert back. And so this is what I did, from my perspective standing up to 172 on his own terms - and the result was this explosion. One hoped-for result might have been that he would be forced to discuss issues rather than revert, or that other users would step in (which has stopped him before). But, I might have guessed he would never accept anything less than complete control, and would leave before surrendering it.

I don't claim, as john implies, that I have been "saintly". Lately, I have been acting out of runaway frustration as much as anything else. I'm sick of wondering every time I make an edit whether 172 will swoop in and revert it (like that crazy FOX News battle with him; "illiterate and ungrammatical", sheesh!). I'm sick of every content conflict I have ending by 172 taking the other guy's side and reverting or protecting the page. And, I'm especially sick of being called a "troll" and "POV-pusher" and the like by 172, his ideological allies, and users who don't understand the context. So, I upped the ante, and wouldn't give in. It may not be noble, and it may make me look bad (hopefully just in the short run), but it has forced the issue to the forefront. -- VV 06:48, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You're right: The nature of Wikipedia is such that, absent revert wars, certain articles will always lack credibility. Without clear authority, there's little you can do against persistent vandals. This is a fair counterargument to my point about credibility: If the FOX News article will always lack credibility, what difference does it make whether there's an edit war?

I agree there's no easy answer, but I cannot condone stooping to a lower level. If the only mature option is to walk away, so be it. Eventually, the problem will solve itself: either Wikipedia will evolve a mechanism to cope, or it will ultimately become a joke. Personally, I'd rather Wikipedia become a joke than to behave like one myself.

I'm not sure what you mean by "forced the issue to the forefront." You must know: The issue on the forefront is your (and 172's) behavior, not the merits of any argument. In fact, your substantive arguments are largely drowned out. This may be unfortunate, but it's reality.

Maybe your original goal was substantive. But maybe your goal has since become simply to eliminate 172, for simplicity's sake. I suppose I couldn't condemn you for that. It might be understandable from your perspective -- and frankly, I question the value of any user telling others to "fuck off." But you might consider whether it's worth the time and attention you've allowed it. Edit wars and quickpolls have become distracting. If they were stopped, yes, FOX News might be damaged -- but would that damage be mitigated by all the constructive work that could be done, in place of arguing and voting? Cribcage 07:14, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No activity again

What's the record for the longest period with no active quickpolls? Can we break it? --Michael Snow 16:17, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Maybe not. 172 has protected Fidel Castro, an article in which he has been very active. If I recall, this is the third case of him protecting an article in which he has a personal stake (of course, he only protected it because he is stalking me). I imagine most will for the usual reasons treat this as not quickpoll-worthy, but it is a violation. -- VV 19:37, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No he hasn't (as of the timestamp on this post). He did add {{msg:protected}} to the article, but that's not the same thing. —No-One Jones 19:46, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hm, well I guess he fooled me. It won't happen again. -- VV 20:33, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You two just couldn't resist, could you? --Michael Snow 22:45, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Quickpolls suck

This whole thing is ridiculous. Bringing every instance of violations of the three revert rule before the entire community so that we can have a chance to express our dislike of one violater or the other does absolutely nothing for the quality of the encyclopedia as a whole. Trying for procedural fairness, as though Wikipedia has laws which must be followed, and the presumption of due process, and so on and so forth, is simply not going to work. Instead, we should try to work towards figuring out what the proper thing to do is on each page, and do that. Yeah, revert wars can make the history pages less useful, but surely all these endless discussions here do nothing towards preventing problems. I think we need to try to find another way to deal with stuff like this. john 01:37, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I concur with your last two sentences. Cribcage 06:15, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree that quickpolls are being overused. I think the reasons for starting one need to be more clear. Quickpolls are designed to prevent another repeat of the Platus satire debacle - in which I was a key player :( - not this tit-for-tat three revert crap that everyone is using. →Raul654 06:16, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

A better idea would be to block any ip or user name from editing a page for 3 hours after last edit (by that ip or username.) In other words, you edit a page, then you have to wait 3 hours before you can edit that page again. Shouldn't be to hard to code, the system would simply have to check the list of pages edited by a user in the last 3 hours each time he/she tries to edit a page. If you did try to edit the same page again, instead of the editing window you would get a message. This is important since we wouldn't want editors to spend an hour working on somethig just to lose it. This would encourage people to hit the show preview button before saving, which would minimize the tendency some editors have (includig myself) to type something, hit save, then read, then edit again to correct spelling mistakes which clutters up the page history just as much. In cases of vandalism you could simply post to the vandalism in progress page. You could also just hit a report vandalism link which could be added to the 'you can't edit this page for another xx minutes' message people will get when trying to edit before 3 hrs pass. You could give sysops the right to edit a page unlimited number of times in cases of vandalism, such edits could be listed in some specialpages section to easily check if there has been abuse of this priviledge. Any abuse would mean automatic arbitration with the removal of sysop rights as a result. Finally, certain pages in the wikipedia namespace could be exempt from this rule, if there is a need for this. You could make this 1 hour if 3 hours is too long. This rule shouldn't apply to talk pages, which would encourage discussion instead of revert wars. (Talk pages should just be regular message boards, without the ability to erase other editor's messages, but that's another topic.) If this idea hasn't been discussed before, could someone just copy and paste it into where ever it should go? I'm still a newbie here, so I don't know where that would be, but I remember seeing other proposals somewhere. --Voodoo 06:54, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, perhaps this restriction should only kick in after you make...say 2 or 3 edits in an hour, and should last for 24 hours..or something like that, the details could be worked out. --Voodoo 07:01, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If the guidelines allow quickpolls for violations of the 3-revert rule, people will continue to start quickpolls for these violations. I was trying to find another way of dealing with the problem by proposing a different remedy. But ultimately I sympathize with john's position that we should just let the reverts lead to page protection and not divert all this energy into quickpolls.

The quickpoll process was started as a 30-day trial. We're now at 30 days, and I think we've had a long enough trial to evaluate the implementation. So how about if we start a review to see if people want to keep using quickpolls (maybe with additional tweaks) or get rid of them? --Michael Snow 16:33, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Tannin 16:42, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)