Wikipedia:Quickpolls

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Danny (talk | contribs) at 00:51, 17 April 2004 (=Stevenj=). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

Policies

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).

Stevenj

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.
  3. 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
  4. Oppose. Correcting an article should not be equated with inserting idiosyncratic "facts" into it. - Nunh-huh 00:06, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  5. 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)
  6. Oppose. This sounds like a two-way content dispute. No one should be punished. 172 00:48, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  7. 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)

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)

Reddi

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. silsor 23:58, Apr 16, 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)

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)

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
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Quickpolls&oldid=3220160"