Jump to content

Wikipedia:Quickpolls

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Texture (talk | contribs) at 20:24, 30 March 2004 (=User:Wik 5 votes / 2 for / 3 against 40% in favour= - remove overstatement). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Policies

When is a quickpoll allowed?

Quickpolls can be used for three types of cases:

  1. someone violates the three revert guideline
  2. a sysop repeatedly misuses a sysop capability
  3. a signed in user goes on a "rampage" of some type -- puts insults on several user (not user talk) pages, vandalizes several articles, etc.

They need to be started within 24 hours of the alleged incident.

Before you take a quickpoll, give the user a fair chance to improve their behavior. If a user might not be aware of a policy, make them aware of it first. But there is no need to warn repeat violators of the same policy again and again.

Remedies

There are three possible remedies:

  • a 24 hour ban
  • A request for arbitration (although any user will always be able to request arbitration, a quickpoll may give an additional sense of urgency to the matter, and may influence arbitrator decisions to accept/reject the case.)
  • If the user in question is a sysop, desysopping. The recommended maximum lengths are:
    1. First violation: don't use a quickpoll - ask them not to do it again!
    2. Second violation: temporary desysopping for 24 hours.
    3. Third violation: temporary desysopping for one week.
    4. Fourth violation: permanent desysopping, pending final decision by the arbitration committee. If not confirmed by the arbitration committee within four weeks, the desysopping will be undone.

In any case, sysop status is reinstated, or a user ban is reversed if:

  1. The arbitration committee decrees that the sysop in question is to be reinstated.
  2. Support for the remedy drops below 70% (see below)
  3. The sysop is re-sysoped via wikipedia:requests for adminship

Announcing a quickpoll

A quickpoll should be announced on the following places:

  • The user_talk: page of the user in question
  • On Wikipedia:Recentchanges (the text shown atop the "Recent changes" page)

Encouraged, but not required:

  • Wikipedia: and wikipedia_talk: namespace pages that mention the incident in question.
  • The IRC channel.
  • If the ban is in relation to a specific article, the talk page for that article.

The format for an announcement on the user's talk page may look like this:

A [[Wikipedia:Quickpolls|Quickpoll]] is being held in regards to edits you recently made on {insert article name here}. You cannot vote on the poll, but you ''can'' make comments to defend yourself.

The format for a recent changes announcement is as follows:

<center><small>'''Please vote: [[Wikipedia:Quickpoll]] - on: [[User:Dogmaster3000|]], started by: [[User:Eloquence|]]'''</small></center>

For multiple polls:

<center><small>'''There are multiple ongoing [[Wikipedia:Quickpolls|quickpolls]]. Please vote.'''</small></center>

The notice on recent changes should be removed shortly after 15 votes have been received.

A quickpoll should be created on this page.

Format of a quickpoll

A quickpoll should take the following format:

User:Username
Tally: x votes / y for / z against / xx% in favour
User:User1 (talk / contributions) has participated in edit wars on Kermit the Frog (talk / history) and ignored the revert policy in spite of being made aware of it. I think he should be banned for 24 hours. -- User:User2
Support
(votes in favour go here; please update the tally)
Oppose
(votes against go here; please update the tally)
Comments
(comments go here. These do not constitute votes and do not count towards the final result.)
Outcome
(record the outcome of the poll)
This poll is to be moved to Wikipedia:Quickpolls/Archive after (insert date - 48 hours after start of poll)

Rules

Users must meet the following criteria to be able to start a quickpoll or vote in one:

  • They must be registered users. Anonymous users may not vote in quickpolls or start them.
  • They must have been active on Wikipedia for longer than 3 months.

One user may only start one quickpoll at a time, and only one quickpoll per day. A vote which is suspected of being made by a "sock puppet" may be queried as such on Wikipedia talk:Quickpolls, and it can be marked as a sock puppet vote (and therefore not count) if there is a community consensus to do so.

Neither the subject nor the proponent of a quickpoll may vote in it, but they may add comments on this page. Users who have joined Wikipedia recently may also add their comments.

There is no voting deadline for quickpolls. Quickpoll votes need to approach consensus. In practice, any quickpoll that shows at least 80% agreement with at least 8 valid votes in favor of the proposed remedy can be implemented. (If the remedy is a 24 hour ban, make sure that another sysop hasn't beaten you to the block button.) If the vote subsequently drops below 70% with at least 5 valid votes against, the remedy should be reversed.

Reversed remedies cannot be reinstated, even if the proportion subsequently rises again. If subsequent behaviour causes people to change their votes, you may instead wish to take a seperate quickpoll on the subsequent behaviour.

Removal of quickpoll listing

All quickpolls can be removed from Wikipedia:Recentchanges after 15 votes have been reached.

If a 24-hour ban or desysopping is proposed but not approved, the quickpoll can be removed from this page under the following conditions:

10-19 votes 20-29 votes 30-39 votes >= 40 votes

<= 40% approval

<= 50% approval

<= 60% approval

<= 80% approval

A quickpoll that results in a 24-hour ban can be removed from this page 48 hours after the ban is implemented (archive the poll in Wikipedia:Quickpolls/Archive). This applies even if the ban is reversed before the 24 hours are up.

Current polls

User:Wik 5 votes / 2 for / 3 against 40% in favour

User:Wik (talk) is currently on a revert rampage again, accusing me of "vandalism". (see his contributions) From past experience I know he is impossible to reason with, and he is still under probation. — Jor (Talk) 19:17, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. I believe that since they both wish to resolve this through Quickpolls, we should oblige. UninvitedCompany 19:44, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Texture 20:22, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) - based on Wik's failure to discuss a single revert in the talk pages and Jor's attempt to discuss on the talk pages

Oppose

  1. Merovingian ↕ Talk 19:33, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC) Really, this is childish.
  2. Michael Snow 19:43, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) Ditto.
  3. Angela. Correcting links to avoid unnecessary redirects is not vandalism.

Comments

Wik, why so many reverts in one day? (17 marked as rv) Why no explanation in the summary about why you are reverting? Why do (almost) none of the other edits have any summary at all? - Texture 19:51, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why so many reverts? Because Jor went on a rampage of creating unnecessary redirects and I cleaned up behind him. Edit summaries are not mandatory. --Wik 19:57, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
For "rampage" read 'editing run', for 'unnecessary redirects' read 'create consistency in links', and for 'cleaned up' read 'constantly revert'. — Jor (Talk) 20:02, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
For "Jor" read "liar". Anyone can see that the article is at East Germany, yet Jor changed any links to German Democratic Republic. Consistency in links??? --Wik 20:09, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
No, summaries are not mandatory. It was a question unrelated to these charges. Here are the reverts. I don't have enough of an idea to decide if either of you requires a vote yet. - Texture 19:59, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Subet of history marked "rv" or appearing to be reverts:
14:28, 30 Mar 2004 (hist) IFA (rv) (top)
14:22, 30 Mar 2004 (hist) Wikipedia:Quickpolls (can't vote on a poll you bring yourself)
14:18, 30 Mar 2004 (hist) Trabant (rv) (top)
14:13, 30 Mar 2004 (hist) Christian Democratic Union (East Germany) (rv) (top)
14:11, 30 Mar 2004 (hist) IFA (rv more POV vandalism by Jor)
14:09, 30 Mar 2004 (hist) History of East Germany (rv) (top)
14:07, 30 Mar 2004 (hist) Berlin (rv Jor vandalism - note how he said "avoid redirect" while actually creating one!)
13:55, 30 Mar 2004 (hist) Christian Democratic Union (East Germany) (rv)
13:54, 30 Mar 2004 (hist) East Germany (I thought you weren't interested in revert wars?)
13:42, 30 Mar 2004 (hist) Current events (rv)
07:11, 30 Mar 2004 (hist) Jim Bakker (rv)
06:16, 30 Mar 2004 (hist) Atlantium (rv)
05:44, 30 Mar 2004 (hist) India (rv)
05:22, 30 Mar 2004 (hist) Michael Checkland (rv)
05:22, 30 Mar 2004 (hist) Alasdair Milne (rv) (top)
04:31, 30 Mar 2004 (hist) McFly (rv) (top)
04:28, 30 Mar 2004 (hist) Michael Checkland (rv)
02:16, 30 Mar 2004 (hist) McFly (rv)

Please also note his "POV Vandalism" to describe a valid edit. — Jor (Talk) 20:02, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Jor's "valid edit" changed "East German" to "Communist German". I wonder if he would call a West German organization "Capitalist German" too. --Wik 20:09, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)


Here is some breakdown to show the reasons (for my own understanding):
  • 1 against Heron
  • 1 against Morwen
  • more than a few against RobinCarmody (obvious vandalism/improper attribution or signature)
  • 1 against Vakorde (legitimate objections)
  • 1 against LarryGilbert (removing Alistair Cooke's death from current events (?))
  • 2 against anon (obvious vandalism/possible copyvio)
  • 1 against Anthony DiPierro (quite a war of words)
  • 1 against VeryVerily
  • and many against Jor (many articles - same issue)

Based on this it looks like you and Jor need a time-out to discuss the single issue that has you reverting each other across multiple articles. The only alternatives are protecting all the pages or have you two find some compromise. Is there a possible compromise? - Texture 20:15, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As the edit histories show, I don't revert Wik constantly: as I normally handle blatant reverts I try one more edit incorporating different wording of what may be controversial and re-adding other edits (based on the chance the user is not just trolling but has a reason to revert), but if that is reverted again I leave the article alone. Wik will not draw me in his edit war games. — Jor (Talk) 20:18, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wik does not have a single entry in an article talk page for all of today (one early today unrelated to reverts). Reviewing Jor's shows justifications or discussion of his changes were entered into talk pages. Wik's failure to discuss or justify his reverts puts me on the support of this quickpoll. - Texture 20:22, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Outcome

User:Jor 3 votes / 1 for / 2 against 33% in favour

User:Jor went on a vandalism rampage, changing any links to East Germany he could find to German Democratic Republic, although the article is at East Germany and he has not established a consensus to move it. And he actually used the edit summary "avoid redirect", when he was in fact establishing unnecessary redirects! --Wik 19:25, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. I believe that since they both wish to resolve this through Quickpolls, we should oblige. UninvitedCompany 19:44, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Merovingian ↕ Talk 19:36, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC) Really, this is childish.
  2. Michael Snow 19:43, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) Ditto.

Comments

Outcome

User:Reddi 10 votes / 2 for / 8 against 20% in favour

User:Reddi (talk) has, over a long period of time, added uninformed and POV additions to scientific_skepticism. Attempting to reason with him has failed. I was directed here on IRC, so if this is not what I'm supposted to be doing blame them. - Lord Kenneth 04:21, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. Danny 11:47, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Wik 12:04, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Ambivalenthysteria 12:20, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. -- Seth Ilys 13:45, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) This is not one of the situations for which the quickpoll was designed.
  3. Texture 15:39, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) - I agree with Seth. Is this a candidate for Quickpolls?
  4. —Eloquence 16:34, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Taku 16:47, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC). Quickpolls is not a mean to resolve POV disputes.
  6. silsor 17:30, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Merovingian ↕ Talk 15:23, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC) -- Let's not forget that Reddi is a halfway-decent contributor, and we ALL have subjects here that make us prickly. Also, Seth is right.
  8. UninvitedCompany 19:23, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC). I usually don't vote, but this is a bad idea.
  9. I'd rather see kenneth here for his flaming. Sam Spade 20:23, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Comments

It's not that I want Reddi banned. I'd just like to see him blocked from making any more POV edits on scientific_skepticism. He is uninformed and too biased on this topic to make any rational additions, and he's only been trouble. - Lord Kenneth 04:21, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

Reddi, did knowingly injected pseudo-scientifc material into the scientific skepticism page. He has been warned and continues to do it. This vote is a bit controversial on the issues of violation so I suggest reviewing the page history and making up your own mind. This is a gray vote. GrazingshipIV 04:49, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the recent changes in the edit war, I do not have strong feelings about the changes themselves. However I would note that Lord Kenneth has shown a pattern of engaging in edit wars and injecting his own strong bias and POV into a select set of articles, Scientific skepticism being one of his favorites. I would not be comfortable seeing Reddi blocked from editing the article if that means that Lord Kenneth is allowed a free hand to reduce the article to his own narrow point of view. Grizzly 08:15, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I would like to note to anyone reading that Grizzly is also a "crackpot editor", he has inserted numerous POV and inaccurate information on pages relating to skepticism, especially James Randi. - Lord Kenneth 20:05, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that so many people want Reddi to have free reign to revert scientific skepticism. It shows that people here are more concerned with "rules" and "strict guidelines" than accurate and unbiased information. The wikiprocess does not work if nobody gives a damn. - Lord Kenneth


Outcome

Gdansk (17: 15 for, 2 against: 88%)

User has been involved with Polish and German related articles, engaging in near-vandalism for months. Recommend a 24-hour ban. - Hephaestos|§ 01:18, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

clause 3, i.e. "rampage" in my judgment. --Ruhrjung 01:31, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
clause 1, i.e. more than three reverts, can maybe also be argued: compare his last version of 20 March with his first edit after being banned: semi-revert 00:43, revert 00:51, revert 01:02, revert 01:10. A more lenient interpretation of the three-revert guideline could however either be based on User:Gdansk not being explicitely warned this time (however, he has been before, indeed), alternatively on not counting the version of 00:43 as reverting.
--Ruhrjung 17:48, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Looking at the rules above, anyone who isn't involved can hit the button now. Pakaran. 02:44, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Done: 03:48, 30 Mar 2004, Fabiform blocked User:Gdansk (expires 03:48, 31 Mar 2004) (contribs) (unblock) (Quickpoll. 12 for blocking, 0 against at this time.) fabiform | talk 02:50, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. Danny 01:23, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Ruhrjung 01:27, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) his current "contributions" or reverts are particularly outrageous in the context of ongoing mediation requested by himself.
  3. Rmhermen 01:37, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC) in light of this comment: [1]
  4. Tuf-Kat 01:42, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
  5. BCorr|Брайен 01:47, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
  6. —Eloquence 01:54, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC) - obviously in need of a cooldown period
  7. john 02:00, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) not sure if I'm allowed to vote, given that I've been pretty involved in arguing with him and reverting him. Please delete my vote if I'm not supposed to.
  8. Needs some time away from WP. I don't know (or care) about the Gdansk/Danzig/Germany/Poland Wik vs Gdansk vs Anthony etc issues, but the amount of reverting done is a bit excessive. Also using ad hominum against sysops, looking at edit summaries. Perhaps take to the list and Jimbo as well? Pakaran. 02:18, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  9. jengod 02:20, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC) Seems highly un-NPOV.
  10. Texture 02:26, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) - a look through the history finds many reasons to support
  11. Adam Bishop 02:43, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) - Apparently my apology for blocking him the first time was not enough; there is call for a review of me on the Administrators page if anyone wants to check that out.
  12. Quinwound 02:45, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
  13. silsor 02:49, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • Michael Snow 05:22, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) A "rampage" is a poorly defined concept, and the proponents should present more evidence here than they have. Instead, I support based on the 3-revert limit, violated for Munich and Kiel (and perhaps more, I stopped looking). It's much easier to think about that way, for those of us who are comfortable saying that a violation by itself justifies the quickpoll ban (double the penalty for two violations, anyone?). Vote withdrawn, missed the fact that Munich/Kiel examples cited were from the 19th, not the 29th. --Michael Snow 16:57, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  14. After having been blocked by this Quickpoll, Gdansk returned as User:62.244.138.99 (contribs -- ChrisO) and began editing despite the ban. RickK | Talk 06:11, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  15. ChrisO 11:54, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) - Needs to have a time-out to calm down, IMO: "Because I was blocked by some sort of Wikipedia Ku Klux Klan (see (Wikipedia:Quickpolls#Gdansk), just for using a Wikipedia naming convention, I am sorry I cannot participate in the mediation pro" (sic) [2]

Oppose

  1. He was previously banned by Adam Bishop for at least 24 hours, without a quickpoll. So the present poll may be taken as a belated justification for the earlier ban, but he should be unbanned now. In any case Nico's constant POV edits are far worse. --Wik 12:04, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • Your unability to see that the below edits are unacceptable is alarming. Should we allow this behaviour, just because another user is even worse? That is a strange argument. -- Baldhur 14:04, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • I didn't say his edits are acceptable. I just said he got the proposed punishment already. And that his actions are only reactions to Nico's provocations. --Wik 14:43, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
      • Wik regularly can't see when his own edits are unacceptable; this is utterly unsurprising. - Hephaestos|§ 14:11, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. One of the rules says They need to be started within 24 hours of the alleged incident.. None of the pages proposed as an evidence are valid. Oppose.Halibutt 14:56, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Which is why I see this Quickpoll as concerning his behavior yesterday, after being unbanned, practically sabotaging the mediation he himself had requested.--Ruhrjung 16:32, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Selection from his user history:
    • "German names not required in Eenglish Wikipdia; Teutonic scoundresl GO AWAY!!!!"
    • "Please stop doing nasty things to Polish cities and Polish people."
    • "Nico, Adolf Hitler is proud of you for your activities, and he invites you to join NSDAP"
    • "Does it make any sense to edit in Wikipedia if your work is destroyed by some bandits ?????"

Comments

  • Knowing nothing about Polish- and German-related articles, do you have an example or three that those of us who haven't been following along can see? RADICALBENDER★ 01:24, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Here is an example: 

 # 02:03, 20 Mar 2004 (hist) Munich (REVERT TEST: retaliation action for blocking of Gdansk and Szczecin - just to enter in edit war, block editing, and make the Germans angry)
 # 02:03, 20 Mar 2004 (hist) Kiel (REVERT TEST: retaliation action for blocking of Gdansk and Szczecin - just to enter in edit war, block editing, and make the Germans angry)

Here's what I found - Texture 02:26, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC):

(cur) (last) . . 17:26, 20 Mar 2004 . . Gdansk (rv)
(cur) (last) . . 09:38, 20 Mar 2004 . . Ruhrjung (no need for other non-English names than the local)
(cur) (last) . . 00:33, 20 Mar 2004 . . Gdansk (revert)
(cur) (last) . . 00:04, 20 Mar 2004 . . Defence (reverting out-of-control vandalism by Gdansk)
(cur) (last) . . 21:31, 19 Mar 2004 . . Gdansk (Retaliation action for blocking Gdansk and Szczecin)
(cur) (last) . . 21:27, 19 Mar 2004 . . Defence
(cur) (last) . . 21:03, 19 Mar 2004 . . Gdansk (REVERT TEST: retaliation action for blocking of Gdansk and Szczecin - just to enter in edit war, block editing, and make the Germans angry)
(cur) (last) . . 19:47, 19 Mar 2004 . . Wetman (reverting out-of-control vandalism by Gdansk)
(cur) (last) . . 19:46, 19 Mar 2004 . . Hephaestos (revert. Munich was never vassal to Poland.)
(cur) (last) . . 19:45, 19 Mar 2004 . . Gdansk (if Gdansk has a German name bolded: Danzig; so Munich can also have a Polish name bolded: Monachium)
(cur) (last) . . 19:43, 19 Mar 2004 . . Gdansk (Monachium)

Archived polls

Concluded polls should be moved to Wikipedia:Quickpolls/Archive.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Quickpolls&oldid=2984954"