| Revision as of 05:25, 20 April 2004 edit172 (talk | contribs)24,875 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:17, 9 January 2012 edit undo71.146.26.8 (talk)No edit summary | ||
| (364 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{historical|WP:QP}} | |||
| '''Quickpolls''' are polls among Misplaced Pages regulars on issues that need to be quickly resolved. | |||
| '''Quickpolls''' were a trial of a system for making fast decisions about problematic users. They consisted of polls among Misplaced Pages regulars on issues that needed to be quickly resolved. It operated from ] to ] of ], although some action continued into ]. | |||
| After mixed reactions in the 30-day review process this page fell into disuse. As seen on the ], there was much dissatisfaction with the process, and no agreement on what changes were needed to fix it. | |||
| ==Policies== | |||
| Potential alternatives to the quickpoll system include the "]" and other ways of ] and ]. | |||
| You are responsible for reading ] before using this page. Quickpolls are '''not''' for arbitrary issues between users. | |||
| Concluded polls |
At the time, ] contained the policy for this procedure. Concluded polls have been moved to ] (which also includes an example poll). | ||
| A proposal to revive quickpolls was active in March, 2005. See ]. | |||
| '''Please vote using this format:''' | |||
| :<nowiki>#~~~~</nowiki> - Optional comments. | |||
| ---- | |||
| <small>''Current UTC Time: {{CURRENTTIME}}, {{CURRENTDAYNAME}}, {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}'' (for archiving purposes)</small> | |||
| ---- | |||
| ==VeryVerily and 172== | |||
| Both users violating the ] on ]. This is the third time we have had a quickpoll that involved both of these users. '''I am not requesting a ban for either one'''. Although it's not a standard remedy, I am proposing a ] for their ongoing interpersonal conflicts over multiple articles. I would have proposed the remedy of a ], which is listed in the ], except that mediation has not been attempted yet that I know of. --] 22:37, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :172 is stalking me, now more than ever; any controversial page I'm on, he shows up soon enough to oppose me. In my defense I want to note that (a) my last revert on ] was to undo my second-last revert, (b) I had followed the three-revert guideline for quite a while until it was (to my disappointment) ] to not exist. As for now, reverting is my only tool against 172's rampages; any less, and he would just always get his way, which wouldn't be right. By the way, I don't expect him to accept mediation; in his mind, he is too far above all us ignoramuses. -- ]] 22:58, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ===Support=== | |||
| #] 22:49, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) - Obvious case for mediation. | |||
| # <strike>Absolutely. Either they settle it once and for all, or we take them out in a field somewhere and shoot them ;) I'm up for either. ] 22:52, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)</strike> | |||
| #*Damn, I didn't see that last remedy listed in ], although I have to concede it would be effective. -- ]] 23:26, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| #] 23:55, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC): Edit wars are no fun. I can't even tell who starts each one... my only thought is that one of them should have said something sooner. Oh, well. (vote will not count per ], has not been active 3 months --] 00:02, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)) | |||
| #Three Strikes and you're out - If you insert inflamitory words like ''widely dispised'' you should be subject to the arbitration process; If, in addition you make ad hominum arguments about ignoramoses,you should be temporarily banned; and if, in addition to these, you ignore the 3 reversal limit, you should be shot. ] 23:57, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| #*I'm curious..., who said "widely dispised " of someone? Also, 172 I don't think ever used the word ''ignoramuses''; that's just how he seems to treat people. He did use a lot of other nasty words, though; I could collect them if there's reason. -- ]] 00:14, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| # ] 00:22, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC) This is ridiculous. 24 hour ban ''and'' mediation. (No shooting, just amputate a typing finger or three.) | |||
| # Ban for 48 hours and mediation. ] 01:20, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| #] ↕ ] 04:22, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC), ditto with Tannin | |||
| #] 04:34, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC) Mediation isn't necessarily the correct option here, but ''something's'' gotta be done. | |||
| #*Your name is in the list for supporting mediation. This vote is on supporting or opposing the given proposal, not supporting or opposing the general idea of retributive action. -- ] 05:01, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ===Oppose=== | |||
| # See comments below. ] 23:21, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| # Oppose. ] 00:19, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| # Strongly oppose. Mediation will only work when both parties want it. It is absolutely not something to be forced on people. ], member of the ]. 04:36, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| #*They are of course free to refuse the request, in which case I think we should support a referral to arbitration. I want to force them to consider mediation, not force them to participate in it. --] 04:40, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| #**If you want them to consider mediation, suggest it on their talk pages. This is not what quickpolls are for. ]] 04:44, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| #Oppose. You can't force mediation on people, and mediation is pretty much useless, anyway. I have yet to see a single example of mediation that has actually worked. ]'''] 04:38, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| #Mediation is necessarily voluntary. -- ] 04:41, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| #absolutely and definitly strongly OPPOSE. Mediation should always be a voluntarily move, never forced on anyone. It is the very principle of mediation that people have to agree on mediation to share the special time for quiet discussion away from the noise of wikipedia. It is most inappropriate to force someone to follow a mediation. If such a poll resulted in forcing 172 to accept mediation, I sure would openly and vocationaly refuse to take care of it.Member of the ] ] 04:47, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| #*On further consideration, this is quite correct. The ] with the ] has changed my vote. ] 04:53, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| #**Nice. Thanks :-) ant | |||
| # I sympathize with proponents. Both 172 and VV are behaving like children. They're shamelessly violating Misplaced Pages's community rules, in a manner which damages Misplaced Pages's credibility. They deserve serious penalties. Having said that, I agree that mediation must be 100% voluntary, and is inappropriate for a quickpoll. ] 05:15, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comments=== | |||
| * I would support a 24-hour ban. To me it seems as a clear and deliberate violation of the three-revert guideline, maybe encouraged by the past failed Quickpolls. The very recent Quickpolls make me think they are given a fair chance to improve their behavior, and have clearly failed to do so. --] 22:54, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| **I have my doubts whether a ban would actually serve its cooling-off function with these two. Hence my proposal of a different remedy. --] 23:00, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ***As I asked Hcheney before, ''what would you have me do?'' Let him wreck my work on articles in the name of an abstract rule which only applies to some? -- ]] 23:03, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ****Request mediation yourself. Even if you doubt that 172 will agree. --] 23:10, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| *****I saw what happened when Sam Spade attempted that. -- ]] 23:16, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ******So? I think the ] is unlikely to hear your case unless you exhaust the available remedies. To solve problems, you have to keep trying, and it's apparent that neither of you cares enough to try. --] 23:25, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| *******No, I ''have'' been trying; I have initiated dozens of conversations with 172 on Talk pages over a period of months, hitherto to little avail. But don't just discount this effort because it wasn't formal Misplaced Pages mediation. -- ]] 23:48, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ********One-on-one discussion is rather different from using a third-party mediator. Not to discount any efforts you may have made in the past, but by your own statements you've given up trying. --] 23:58, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ****It's is precisely the "only apply to some"-impression that I dislike here. Your behavior is equally much disruptive as are less established contributors' repeated reverts. --] 23:09, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| *****I'm afraid I don't understand (maybe you don't understand me?). I was temp-banned (though it was later reversed) for matching 172's reverts. To me that makes it seem this rule applies more to me than to him. -- ]] 23:16, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| *This seems like a textbook case for mediation. In the two of their conflicts in which I've become involved (], ]) there were no significant issues that could not be resolved with a slight effort at compromise—which neither 172 nor VV seemed willing to do. Send them to mediation or kick them both out of here permanently; this constant ad hominem revert warring is intolerable. (BTW VV may try to play the innocent victim here, but .) ]] 23:02, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| **I might misunderstand, but I always thought that quickpolls were primarilly meant for removing those who were causing excessive disruption (] being an obvious example,) without the need for a drawn-out mediation and arbitration process. Here we have a running dispute between two veteran editors. It should be resolved through mediation and, if really necessary, by arbitration, not through repeated quickpolls. ] 23:04, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ***Except that Plautus satire *did* require long, drawn out arbitration. And a lot of energy ] ] 23:06, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ****Right. And that sort of thing is why we now have quickpolls. (BTW, warning, I slightly context-changed Raul654's comment by clarifying mine above.) ] 23:08, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| **A request for arbitration is also an available remedy, and a quickpoll in that situation is supposed to give the request some additional urgency and community support. In this case, since mediation hasn't been tried, I opted for that option first, but if the parties are unwilling, I think it should go to arbitration. --] 23:13, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| * I do not believe that these sorts of bureaucratic ideas are really going to help our long-term goals. Who cares if two users are childishly "waging an edit war"? I certainly don't. The concept of "mediation" on a community encyclopedia strikes me as self-indulgent and alien, if not bizarre. Have a third party condense their differences into a short paragraph, and then protect the page for awhile. I should hope, however, that those paticular individuals involved in this dispute would realize that they are no longer contributing to the value of the article and leave further edits of it to others. Let's work together, not against each other. ] 23:23, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| **The entire point of mediation is to encourage people to work together. ] 23:31, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ***Moreover, for those of us who have to deal with this childish fued, it gets pretty annoying fast. Not all of us have the luxury of ignoring it - like it or not, someone has to deal with it. ] 23:38, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ** I disagree. Grandiose delusions of power resembling modern legal systems don't represent a forward-thinking approach. Ignore the "edit war" -- you'll be surprised how easy it is. Someday, someone will come along and make that article better than it ever was before, in ways you can't think of at the moment. That's progress and cooperation, sight-unseen. Not everything can be resolved in the space of a few hours. ] 23:59, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| **I'd like to say I of course don't regard my behavior as childish, although I understand the interest in condemning edit wars as such. I was only gradually escalating my resistance to 172's intransigence. For instance, on earlier battles I was leaving him notes on his Talk page and writing long expositions of my position in Talk. This failed, and it was still revert, revert, revert, and sometimes protect. Now I've resorted to fighting on his terms, and so only now has the community taken notice. I feel bad about the energy and time this is taking from everyone, but perhaps it's just as well the issue has been pushed into the limelight. -- ]] 00:09, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| * As much as I hate brutal dictators, they deserve NPOV articles. VV had no business inserting his/her own opinions, and violating the three revert rule. 172 should not have violated the three revert rule, regardless of the merit of his/her NPOVing. I hope that for the good of the community that these two fine contributors will seek voluntary mediation, and continue their vital contributions to wikipedia. --] 00:53, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ** For both Hcheney and john, I can explain a bit about the dispute. Once upon a time, the discussion of how Saddam is perceived was in the intro; in December someone made it its own section, most recently called '''Reputation'''. Users continued to develop it from there. However, 172 decided it should go back to the intro, and through a short edit war had his way. However, he moved a different version of it, not the one that had been developed. Thus, I replaced it with the text from that version. I was not inserting my own opinion; I was restoring deleted content. -- ]] 04:19, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| * This whole situation is a mess. The history of the article, as usual in these situations, leaves me simply confused as to what the hell is even being argued about. As usual, I tend to think 172's version is substantively better, but, as usual, he doesn't improve his case by his poor behavior. Both of them are behaving rather disingenuously in their responses on this page, with VeryVerily acting particularly saintly in this instance. 172's frequent threats to leave are tiring as well. Beyond that, well, what the hell? I think it'll be too bad if 172 leaves and VeryVerily stays around by default, but there's nothing really to be done about that. I would suggest that part of the problem here is a fetishizing of process. In each case of an edit war, wouldn't it be better to try to figure out what the hell is going on and determine what the right thing to do in that case is, rather than just repeatedly sending it up here (or RFC) for chastisement? I think Jeeves is right - we are ourselves elevating this stuff into a problem by constantly talking about it here. Why not, as he says, just make a compromise version, protect the page for a little while, and then set it free? Quasi-judicial procedure should be reserved for people who are verbally abusive, or for trolls. ] 01:27, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| **While I agree with much of the critical voices here, I think the three-revert guideline is good and has improved the climate on pages where I've contributed. The Quickpoll scheme is good in as much as it made the three-revert guideline appear "real" (if not legitimate) to the frequent reverters.--] 01:50, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ***Actually, I don't think the three-revert rule should be abolished. I think that, as previously, it should be used to trigger page protection, and not action against editors. I remain deeply uncomfortable with the idea that someone be punished for being correct. ] 01:56, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ***For what it's worth, I think the three-revert rule is a reasonable one. But to restrict myself to three reverts when in repeated conflict with someone who does not is just total capitulation, and gets old after a while. -- ]] 04:19, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ****Where does it leave us when both sides hold that position, though? I don't think it really ''matters'' who's "right" and who isn't, at least not on the timescales where edit wars like this are concerned. If you can't take a few days of the article being "incorrect" while you're arguing your case to build support for a change, then IMO you're simply too close to the subject matter and need to focus on some other topic for a while. ] 04:39, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| *****Yes, which is why the three revert rule should trigger page protection. Making it cause people to get temp-banned (or, more accurately, making us discuss in each instance whether someone should be temp-banned) only gets everyone overwrought and upset. ] 04:45, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ==This is bullshit== | |||
| I don't like the tone from you people. I am a professional historian and I'm not interested in playing games with people on this site. I was interested in trimming down a verbose intro, but someone was stopping me from making those changes over and over again. Once I tie up my loose ends on this site and meet commitments expected of me by other users, I'm gone for good. Let this site go to hell for all I care. ] 23:50, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry to see you go. I have come to respect the edits that you have made in the economics and business sections over the years. For what it's worth, I think your simplifying and NPOVing of the intro were valuable contributions to the article. ] 00:16, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :Ditto on your edits to the history articles. If you're feeling ], there's some good suggestions there that might help improve your disposition. ] 00:23, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :172 writes: ''I don't like the tone from you people. I am a professional historian and I'm not interested in playing games with people on this site.'' I guess this says it all. Over the past 15+ months I've been aware of user 172 on Misplaced Pages, he has been arrogant, condescending, & impervious to the fact other contributors on Misplaced Pages might have a viewpoint that is as equally valid as his. If he won't play nice with the rest of us, then we can't be upset when he leaves. Goodbye. -- ] 00:42, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm sorry, but unless you give your real names and credentials, your claim that you are a "professional historian" is fairly unsubstantiated. For all we know, you could be a 15-year old history buff. :-) Furthermore, your argument is an argument of professional authority, which may apply in some cases, but certainly not in this case, which is a problem of respect and civility (or rather, lack thereof). ] 03:52, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::I just wish he was as honest as he is obnoxious, and then we'd have some reason to think were about to see the back of him. I for one believe he is a historian, and see no reason why that, and the good edits he has made, outweigh the abusive tone, inability to admit eror, and consistant violations of policy which I have seen this user inflict apon both his fellow editors (whom he clearly has no respect for) and the readers (who he lets down every time he lets his ego get in the way of whats best for a given article). As it is, I'd say this is prob. one heck of an appropriate name for this section. ] ] 04:56, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::I dislike 172's tone, but no more than I dislike the flaming lips that are replying to him above. John Kenney, makes a good point above, where he says that the 3 revert rule should trigger an automatic page protection. If that is the case, then it should be reasonable that the responsibility for this particular incident is shared by those who failed to protect the page. Even though this should bear no change in the temporary sanction of both parties, its something to consider. -]<small>]</small>]] 05:04, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| : 172: <i>Once I tie up my loose ends on this site...</i> Enough melodrama. This is the second time in a week you've blustered about how you're planning to storm off, forever. If you're leaving, then go. If you're staying, then learn how to behave like an adult. Either way, knock off the ultimatums and salvage some dignity. ] 05:09, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have some articles to finish, that's all. I don't give a damn what you think about that. ] 05:13, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::: If either of those statements were true, you wouldn't be monitoring this page and responding to comments. Who do you think you're kidding? ] 05:18, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::::None of your fucking business. I work on my time table, not yours. ] 05:23, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Settle down, children. You're all up past your bedtime. ] 05:21, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)~ | |||
| :::Nothing is ever "finished" here, as you ought to know by now. In the meantime, spare us the revert wars, because if you really are leaving, it should be apparent than any "finished product" you leave on those pages will promptly be undone. --] 05:20, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As I said to another user, I'll leave on my own time table. You too can fuck off. ] 05:25, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 01:17, 9 January 2012
 | This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. | Shortcut |
Quickpolls were a trial of a system for making fast decisions about problematic users. They consisted of polls among Misplaced Pages regulars on issues that needed to be quickly resolved. It operated from March to June of 2004, although some action continued into July.
After mixed reactions in the 30-day review process this page fell into disuse. As seen on the talk page, there was much dissatisfaction with the process, and no agreement on what changes were needed to fix it.
Potential alternatives to the quickpoll system include the "three strikes rule" and other ways of dealing with trolls and dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors.
At the time, Misplaced Pages:Quickpolls policy contained the policy for this procedure. Concluded polls have been moved to Misplaced Pages:Quickpolls/Archive (which also includes an example poll).
A proposal to revive quickpolls was active in March, 2005. See Misplaced Pages:Bring back quickpolls.
Category: