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

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

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

Reverted over a dozen times on Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Revert war with User:VeryVerily. See below. Suggest banning both 24 hours to let them cool off. — Jor (Talk) 02:42, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

According to Quickpolls Policy an admin should not be subject to a quickpoll violation for a first violation. I propose that this poll be removed immediately. --Hcheney 05:53, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It is not 172's first violation as an admin. See Archive. --Cantus 05:59, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

172 was acquitted, thus has a clean record. This would be a first violation if a warning were to be issued in lieu of a Quickpoll. --Hcheney

Support

1. Maximus Rex 02:51, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
2. →Raul654 02:52, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC) - I think they both need a nice, 24 hour rest.
3. Exploding Boy 03:01, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC) - Same here.
4. Decumanus | Talk 03:11, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
5. Flockmeal 03:18, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)
6. RickK 04:43, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC) - 172 says that if he is blocked he will consider it permanent. That's incentive enough for me. Support.
   • Damn straight. I'll even bestow on you the honor of deleting my user page. You can even be the one who shows my statement to a developer so that my admin privileges are suspended. With me gone no one will be able to stop the Marxist trolling of Origins of the American Civil War and the anti-American vandalism of FOX News (honestly, that's what I really was doing). So that's your burden now. BTW, I'm going out for a drink now to celebrate all the free time this'll give me, and being able to get paid for similar work. Too bad I wasn't banned a long time ago! 172 05:20, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
7. Cribcage 05:12, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
8. Tuf-Kat 06:01, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. User was not warned before Quickpoll was posted. --Hcheney 02:48, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
   • From the Wikipedia:Quickpolls policy: There is no need to warn repeat violators of the same policy again and again. Both have been listed before for revert warring. — Jor (Talk) 02:53, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
     • If due process and attempts at de-escalation are skipped, Quickpolls will be nothing more than a lynch-mob under the democratic veil, becoming a tyranny of the majority. I propose you withdraw this Quickpoll, give 172 and VV due notice, and if there is any further reverting, then post a Quickpoll. --Hcheney 03:09, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
       • Considering that both of them have continued revert-warring (on the two articles mentioned below) after this quickpoll started, I don't think that will be necessary. —No-One Jones 03:26, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
         • That is not due process. This poll is about RfC, thus I will not support a ban on the grounds of their sins in the American Civil War or the savior of Chile. If either of these users are warned, then revert past #3, and a Quickpoll is posted, I will support a 24 hour ban. JusticeDue process is not efficient, but it is fair. --Hcheney 03:43, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
           • Fair enough, I suppose. My point was that neither has given indication of any change in their behavior. —No-One Jones 04:06, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
           • You're advocating due process, not justice. Two different things, and they're not always compatible. Cribcage 05:37, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
2. Well, if RickK is voting yes solely on the basis that 172 has said he'll leave if this goes through, I'll vote no solely on the same basis. Sigh. john 05:17, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

   I am not RK. RickK 05:29, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

3. Wik 05:33, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

Comments

• 172 and VerilyVerily have also been reverting each other repeatedly on Origins of the American Civil War and Talk:Augusto Pinochet Bkonrad | Talk 02:47, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • I've protected Origins of the American Civil War pending the outcome of both the VV and 172 quickpolls. --Flockmeal 03:37, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Talk:Augusto Pinochet has also been reverted to a version by Ed Poor and also protected pending the outcome of the 172 and VV quickpolls. --Flockmeal 04:00, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)
• 45 reverts in 40 minutes with no attempts to discuss the dispute. —No-One Jones 02:50, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Response

It should be easy enough to see that this guy's just being a pest. On Fox News I get automatically reverted for correcting grammatical errors. On the request for comments page, VV keeps removing the listing of his own user conduct dispute (first restored not by me but by another user). On the origins of the Civil War (I wrote that damn article series, while VV's has had nothing to do with it until now), he found another excuse to play games with me. On the Pinochet talk page, I don't even know what's going on. VV and Cantus have been making so many edits rewriting the entire talk page that I hardly know what's going on. And so it goes... 172 03:17, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If I wind up getting banned, consider it permanent. I know what belongs in an intro for an article on the origins of the Civil War, but I have no goddamn idea about how to deal with the juvenile antics of these stalkers and POV trolls, despite having been a user for 16 months. Lately content on WP has been determined by games that are hardly a better arbiter of scholarly and encyclopedic standards than roulette. To any developers, please suspend my admin privileges upon the ban. An admin can delete and/or blank my user pages. 172 04:22, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Reverted over a dozen times on Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Revert war with User:172. See above. Suggest banning both 24 hours to let them cool off. — Jor (Talk) 02:42, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Support

1. Maximus Rex 02:51, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
2. I think they both need a nice, 24 hour rest. →Raul654 02:52, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)
3. Same here. Exploding Boy 03:02, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)
4. Decumanus | Talk 03:12, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
5. To be fair I must support a ban of both 172 and VV. --Flockmeal 03:51, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)
   • It's your vote, of course, but one can be fair and yet note our roles are not symmetric. -- VV 03:58, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
     • 172's misdeeds do not justify your misdeeds. After the tenth revert, having done nothing to resolve the situation, you both were equally guilty. --Hcheney 04:02, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
       • What would you have me do? Really, that's a serious question. If there's something I have not tried with 172, I'm curious to know what it is. -- VV 04:08, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
         • A good starter would be the Dispute resolution page. If you could not resolve the issue with 172 one-on-one, you should have asked other users for help in the matter. I don't think 172 has it in for you, and I would be more than happy to work with either of you in getting this behind everyone. --Hcheney 04:21, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
           • I've tried all of the above. Communicating with 172 is impossible; when he doesn't revert my comments, he ignores them or misrepresents them. I repeatedly ask other users to get involved, to the point where I feel guilty about doing it again; I asked two users on this issue specifically in addition to the Talk and Req for Protection pages. I have brought these issues up on a User dispute page, an RfC page, and a quickpoll (I'm not the only one to quickpoll him, either); even on the latter I did not ask for a ban but merely censure, but his ideological allies refused even that. Many others have had similar complaints, but 172 feels bound to no rules, including those of honesty and community. (Sam Spade offered mediation repeatedly, for instance, and was simply called a "troll" and dismissed.) Though I appreciate your offer, until Wikipedia finds the tools to fight chronic rulebreakers like 172, brute force is what it will come down to in the end. It's sad, but it's all I have left. -- VV 04:30, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
     • Regardless of your motive I feel you both need a cool down period, which would be provided by a 24 hour ban from wikipedia. --Flockmeal 04:07, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)
       • I should note I've voluntarily stopped editing RfC after Mirv's edit, which reinstated the inappropriate listing of me, but without 172's near-vandalistic revert and misplaced commentary. -- VV 04:14, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
6. Support just to be evenhanded. RickK 04:44, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
7. Cribcage 05:12, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
8. Tuf-Kat 06:02, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

• VeryVerily is always involved in edit wars, this should be a lesson to him. Hanpuk 04:32, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • This user has not been active on Wikipedia for three months - see Quickpolls policy. Maximus Rex 05:18, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. User was not warned before Quickpoll was posted. --Hcheney 02:48, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
   • From the Wikipedia:Quickpolls policy: There is no need to warn repeat violators of the same policy again and again. Both have been listed before for revert warring. — Jor (Talk) 02:53, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
     • Not claiming ignorance or anything, but my listing was merely retaliatory (and juvenile) and did not report a violation. -- VV 03:00, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
     • If due process and attempts at de-escalation are skipped, Quickpolls will be nothing more than a lynch-mob under the democratic veil, becoming a tyranny of the majority. I propose you withdraw this Quickpoll, give 172 and VV due notice, and if there is any further reverting, then post a Quickpoll. --Hcheney 03:09, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
       • Considering that both of them have continued revert-warring (on the two articles mentioned below) after this quickpoll started, I don't think that will be necessary. —No-One Jones 03:26, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
         • That is not due process. This poll is about RfC, thus I will not support a ban on the grounds of their sins in the American Civil War or the savior of Chile. If either of these users are warned, then revert past #3, and a Quickpoll is posted, I will support a 24 hour ban. Justice is not efficient, but it is fair. --Hcheney 03:43, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Regardless of what I think about VV's conduct, I think that Hcheney makes a good case. The Quickpolls page has been absused considerably lately. 172 06:01, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Comments

• 172 and VerilyVerily have also been reverting each other repeatedly on Origins of the American Civil War and Talk:Augusto Pinochet Bkonrad | Talk 02:47, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • The latter is quite a curious case. He changed an ongoing poll to ask a completely different question, reverted all attempts to restore old language, and then, when Cantus in exasperation gave up and made the old question a second poll, began repeatedly deleting the second poll, along with the comments that had been added to it. In his edit summary, however, he claims that I am the one deleting a poll! See for yourself. -- VV 03:02, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• 45 reverts in 40 minutes with no attempts to discuss the dispute. —No-One Jones 02:50, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • I felt I said all I needed to in the summary box. -- VV 03:04, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm sure 172 feels the same way. Both of you should have realized by, oh, the fifteenth revert, that you hadn't said enough. —No-One Jones 03:08, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • I see where you're coming from, of course, but my long experience with 172 is that this is personal and naught to do with what's right or wrong. Recall he created the attack on me page, so is not going to be even-handed. Saying more to him would have made no difference; believe me, I've tried in many other forums, with the same result every time. The Dude abides, 172 reverts. -- VV 04:05, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Response

A word of explanation: I passed the three-revert limit because last time I stayed my hand and instead asked for community support against 172's five-revert attack, I got none, and even got accused of "setting up" 172 by restoring the content he was deleting! 172's abuse of this page in creating a frivolous retaliatory poll did not even seem to bother anyone, and I didn't want to be taken for a fool again by, as I generally do, sticking to the guidelines of Wikipedia even against those who do not. 172 undid a typo fix in a link, restored my dead archive page (deleted by me with explanation after long overstay, cf. mav's "day and a half" comment; the only recent addition was a sockpuppet complaining that I had removed the link from RfC!), and added his own comment in violation of RfC style. Of course, 172 knows how much he's gotten away with on Wikipedia, so he felt free to revert over and over, and I was clearly on my own fighting him and his bully tactics. -- VV 02:58, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Reverted at least 5 times on Luminiferous aether in combatting Reddi. If we ban one, I think we have to ban the other. Jwrosenzweig 21:03, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Support

1. He's been here long enough to be nominated for adminship; he should know better. —No-One Jones 21:08, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
2. Flockmeal 21:09, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)
3. Tuf-Kat 22:00, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)
4. Support if, and only if, Reddi is also banned. Angela. 23:56, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)
   • He is, so this is a support. silsor
5. silsor 00:00, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)
6. Am I the only person who thinks that this issue should have been passed to the Mediation Committee long before it got to this step? A quick look at both the page & the history of Wikipedia:Requests for mediation fails to show that either brought this issue there. Perhaps banning both will encourage people who should know better (& I consider both in this catagory) to seek mediation instead of slugging it out over reversions. (And helping to sharpen this sword, I am willing to die by it.) -- llywrch 00:34, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

1. He attempted a dialogue on the talk page, and his explination is quite clearcut and fits with Reddis' MO. →Raul654 21:25, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)
2. Was defending a solid scientific article against inclusion of extremely marginal material while attempting negotiation on the proper inclusion of it. Decumanus | Talk 21:36, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC) Decumanus.

   Oppose if Reddi is not banned, as both should be treated equally. Angela. 23:56, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

   • He is, so this is not an oppose. silsor

3. Oppose. Correcting an article should not be equated with inserting idiosyncratic "facts" into it. - Nunh-huh 00:06, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Penalties are not the answer. Spanking people is bad practice in real life, and makes no sense at all for a web community. Jeeves 00:18, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
5. Oppose. This sounds like a two-way content dispute. No one should be punished. 172 00:48, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
6. Oppose. I think we are getting carried away with the 3 revert rule at the expense of content. This is one such case. Danny 00:51, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
7. Tentatively oppose, as it appears Stevanj was not aware of the guideline, and has agreed to moderate his behaviour. [ Martin ]
8. Oppose. ugen64 01:40, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Plenty of good editors pay little or no attention to policy discussions, and don't know about every new rule that comes along. Not knowing the revert rules probably means he hasn't been in enough disputes to have needed them yet. That sounds like a good thing to me... Isomorphic 03:28, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
10. Oppose. I will not allow someone to be mistreated by the corrupt system as I have. I, too, have dealt with Reddi's garbage in much the same way, Steven. And they, too, tried to make a quickpoll about it, with no concern over content, only their stupid rules and guidelines. Don't BS me with "wiki process" BS, the system is corrupt and does not work. - Lord Kenneth 04:59, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)
11. Cribcage 05:16, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Comments

Since I am the person at issue here, let me explain. In both cases, the original texts by Reddi were deeply flawed, conveying to an unfamiliar reader a misleading picture of the current scientific consensus of the issues in question. In the aether case, this was noticed by someone else, and in the Trouton-Noble case, it was noticed by me after I noticed that it looked suspicious and did a literature search on the subject. I explained on the Talk page why I revised the articles. Instead of pointing out any specific objection he has to the revised articles, however, Reddi simply reverts (or pastes in unedited slabs of the old text), at most claiming that his version has more "information" (without addressing the misleading objection) or that mine is "POV" (without saying specifically why). Since he reverts, or places an "NPOV dispute" message, without explaining what is POV, I saw no reason not to simply revert until he provides an explanation.

Unfortunately, I've dealt with him in the past and I doubt a coherent explanation from him is forthcoming; he persists in editing technical topics in which he clearly has no background or understanding, and it's difficult to have a rational discussion with him. I'd be perfectly happy to have a neutral, informed, third party review the changes in the topics at issue. (Note that, in the aether case, there are at least two other people on the talk page and in the history who support my version; none have spoken in support of Reddi's.)

Sorry about the trouble; I'll refrain from reverts now that this page is considering the topic. —Steven G. Johnson 21:24, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

As I can't vote, I just want to note two things concerning this vote. One is that I did hesitate before posting here because of the reasons Raul and Steven note -- Steven did seem to be otherwise doing everything possible to handle things the right way. Two, though, is that Wikipedia:Revert allows no exceptions -- the policy is pretty clear that even discussing things and making good faith efforts to compromise doesn't exclude you. As the policy says, if it needs reverting that badly, someone else will take over. So while I recognize mitigating circumstances to some extent, I also believe the policy is clear -- no one dies if a bad version of an article is displayed for a bit. Rather than go to revert #4, find someone else who agrees, wait until the following day, or attempt sincere compromise. That's my two cents, and I congratulate Steven for being very calm about the whole thing -- if he'd listed me in a similar situation, I fear I might not be so even and rational, and I am glad of his example. Jwrosenzweig 21:37, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That seems like a good policy. (Not generally frequenting the Village Pump, like Reddi I have to confess ignorance of the rule.) If you want to ban me for 24 hours on principle, I have no objections. —Steven G. Johnson 21:43, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

I'm casting a split vote based on a principled objection to the revert policy in the case of scientific articles. -- Decumanus | Talk 21:47, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

User has today reverted Luminiferous aether 8 times(!), reverted Trouton-Noble experiment 4 times, and has declared that he will "continue to do so" after being notified of the three-revert rule. In light of this I believe that a 24-hour ban is in order. —No-One Jones 21:01, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Implemented. 8 for, 1 against, 88% favour. silsor 23:58, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

Unblocked by User:Decumanus. 9 for, 4 against, 69% favour. silsor 01:25, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

Reblocked. 15 for, 3 against. 83% favour. silsor 05:09, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

Support

1. Jwrosenzweig 21:03, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC) Reddi knows the rules, and for whatever reason has decided to ignore them.
2. Flockmeal 21:09, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)
3. ugen64 21:13, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)
4. William M. Connolley 21:22, 2004 Apr 16 (UTC)
5. Objections to inclusion of marginal scientific material should be resolved before the material is included. Onus is on the includer in this case. Decumanus | Talk 21:36, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
6. Tuf-Kat 21:59, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)
7. Hephaestos|§ 22:42, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC) (mainly because of the declaration)
8. Maximus Rex 23:42, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
9. Support if, and only if, Stevenj is also banned. Angela. 23:56, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)
10. Tentatively support: Reddi was notified of the guideline in a prior quickpoll, and on his talk page by WMC. I think that's sufficient warning. Martin 01:14, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
11. Support for above reason. →Raul654 01:39, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)
12. Support. User has a history of engaging in edit wars. Exploding Boy 01:55, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)
13. Support. RickK 04:47, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
14. Support. User is unable to think coherently, critically, and without NPOV. Banning him is the only way to remove this infectious disease. - Lord Kenneth 05:00, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)
15. Wik 05:01, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)
16. Cribcage 05:14, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose if Stevenj is not banned, as both should be treated equally. Angela. 23:56, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)
2. Oppose. See above. Jeeves 00:18, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
3. Agree with previous 2 oppose votes above. --Jiang 01:04, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Comments

• As the information ... both verifiable and reliable has been removed, I will continue to edit it ... I have tried to put in a "NPOV" warning and a "Accuracy" warning, both to no avail (when I put the tags in they were removed). I won't find it surprising if I get temp banned (especially since there is no acknowledgement of the information) ... I do not desire this, but that is for others to decide. The information should be included in both articles. Sincerely, JDR [BTW, when did this "rule" come about? I musta missed it]
  • JDR, the 3 revert rule has been policy for close to a month, I believe, and has been discussed on the mailing list, in numerous policy pages, and has generally been bandied about many places, including the Village pump, as I recall. Someone else will have to give you more specifics....all I can recall is that for a number of weeks it was hard to spend time at WP and not read/discuss about the policy. Jwrosenzweig 21:17, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the info ... I have _not_ been paying attention (ie., reading) to the Village pump for some time [nor to various other "administrative" pages]. I am not a subscriber to the mailing list, either. So all this has occured without my knowledge. I woud have voted against it though, so I guesd that doesn't help me here (surprisingly agreeing with some ppl I don't usually agree with (and who voted against it)) ... JDR [PS., I just browsed over to that page and looked at it]

• Interesting ... seems as if William M. Connolley and Stevenj are in cohoots together [see WMC's talk page] ... as to this "Rule" and the associated polls, it will make the Wikipedia suffer, IMO. Valid information (and verifiable information) that is not acknowledge (and repeatedly removed) does nothing for the credibility of Wikipedia (nor it's goal to encompass human knowledge). As it seem that the votes are for me not to edit these articles, I guess, regretfully, I'll edit other pages till this ban goes into effect. Mark it up to a strike against the quality of Wikipedia. Sincerely, JDR

Reddi was aware of the 3 revert rule since he was listed on a quickpoll before for violating it. He was notified about it on his talk. Maximus Rex 01:01, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)