Wikipedia talk:Quickpolls/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Wik and Nico

message: 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===
# User:Dogmaster3000 , was a test poll.
#: It was a test poll, and it worked out fine. Kim Bruning 22:04, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Quickpolls evaluation

message: # User:Dogmaster3000 , was a test poll.
#: It was a test poll, and it worked out fine. Kim Bruning 22:04, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Quickpolls that helped wikipedia

message: # 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)
thread_title: Quickpolls that didn't help wikipedia

message: # 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)
thread_title: Other

message: Is Wik allowed to delete content from the page by blatantly reverting? — Jor (Talk) 18:19, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see talk pages. — Jor (Talk) 16:57, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Wik 

message: #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)
thread_title:  Merovingian on neutrality 

message: 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)
replies: text: Does that include vandalism? — Jor (Talk) 18:45, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  MyRedDice on reverting 

message: Is a quickpoll needed to ban (not 24 hr block) User:Jo%E2%84%9D 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)
thread_title:  Impostor 

message: 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)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Quickpolls_policy#Rules. Martin 23:29, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting eligibility

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  How does the 3 revert rule apply to move wars? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: meta issues

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Retrospective votes

message: 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)
replies: text: I put the ceiling back to 8 votes. 48 hours is enough time to take emergency action. Martin 23:51, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. Jamesday 22:15, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing quickpolls after 48 hours 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: removed from main - not a quickpoll, just a suggestion. Martin 21:16, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: TDC and 172

message: ... that feels kinda nice. :) Martin 01:27, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  no active quickpolls... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Updated Format

message: 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)
replies: text: Not true. I reverted two times , , 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 , , . Sixth edit was a minor grammar fix.  I haven't checked Nico's edits so can't speak for him.  — Jor (Talk) 22:47, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Erika Steinbach

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Read above. Could anybody remove this ludicrous poll, please?--Cantus 23:07, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Point taken. Can we get rid of this silly poll now, please? --Cantus 02:29, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

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

text: No he hasn't (as of the timestamp on this post). He did add  to the article, but that's not the same thing. —No-One Jones 19:46, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, well I guess he fooled me.  It won't happen again. -- VV 20:33, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: No activity again