Eloquence: Dogmaster3000 (example poll)Edit

Votes (13: 7/6: 54%)Edit

User:Dogmaster3000 has engaged in two edit wars and ignored the revert policy in spite of being made aware of it. I think he should be banned for 24 hours. --—Eloquence 15:49, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)


  1. Dogmaster3000 made a rookie mistake. Kingturtle 07:02, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Adam Bishop 02:30, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. FirmLittleFluffyThing I very strongly support permanent ban, plus calling the isp and the cops. Dogmaster3000 behavior is totally outrageous. (erik, you won't be able to say that I never support banning bad people now)
    • Sorry, Firm Little, but nothing more than a 24-hr ban can be decided here.
    1. But that is okay I vote twice ?
  4. User:Anthere I have been here more than two years, so I think I can vote twice :-) ban him.
  5. Bryan this is an example poll, so let's make an example of him. Destroy him, and all his descendants!
    • Well, for 24 hours anyhow. +sj+
  6. — Sverdrup Ban, Ban, Ban! This is the entertainment of the masses! Make it hurt!
  7. Koyaanis Qatsi Let's burn his house down too. That'll show him.


  1. Evercat 22:27, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Perl 22:52, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Please show us the edit wars, making it clear why you believe that this was the user who started them, and show us the warning given. Jamesday 23:27, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Is this accusation really true, Eloquence? According to user contributions, Dogmaster3000 made only three edits and all of them are here. -- Taku 04:14, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)
  5. I see his username is red so I cannot track his contributions. However, I call it him becasue it is a master (not a mistress). Anyway, where are the evidence? Or is it where is the evidence? Pfortuny 12:57, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • My contributions clearly show that I am the true defender of NPOV on Wikipedia! Either that, or I'm a sockpuppet created specifically because some users just don't get that this is an example poll, not a real poll. -- Dogmaster3000 16:12, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • So you think I thought you were real? I think what you thought about my thougths was at least forethinking! :) I may change my mind and vote if I am abused in this way. Pfortuny 17:41, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  6. Nerd and also against this three times rule!--Nerd 15:25, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~ NB: Eloquence isn't allowed to vote in this poll, since he created it; I removed his vote in support. +sj+ 04:24, 2004 Mar 21 (UTC) I'm also not allowed to vote yet... so I removed my own. (:
    • I strongly oppose banning Dogmaster3000 // Dogmaster4000 18:21, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Suspected sock puppet vote, not counted.—Eloquence 19:03, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)

Abstentions/Comments (4/4)Edit


  1. I've always wanted to abstain from something, but never got around to doing it. :) But this brings up a point- do we want an abstention option on a quickpoll? Would it count towards the vote count in any way? - Fennec 04:46, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Explicit abstention serves many purposes, so yes. Martin 23:25, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Such as? Timwi 15:42, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Interesting. Ambivalenthysteria 10:44, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. One such purpose of an abstentaion is to show that you are an informed user but you do not want to get involved, you do not have an opinion or that you still need more information and that you feel that this topic needs to be discuessed more before it is voted upon. Andrew D White


  1. I resent these false accusations against me... no wait, I don't: this is just an example poll, not a real poll! -- Dogmaster3000 03:38, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. I've only been editing for a couple of months, but I certainly didn't like the way Dogmaster tried to boss me around over raining cats and dogs. -- Catmaster666
  3. I'll get you next time, Dogmaster... +sj+
  4. Port wine abstain. Davodd 13:47, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)

Anthony DiPierro and GrazingshipIVEdit

These users participated in a lengthy edit war on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. I think they should each be banned for 24 hours. Anthony has been warned many times. Kingturtle 04:55, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Votes regarding Anthony DiPierro's behavior (23: 17/6: 74%)Edit

(it is the behavior that is wrong, not the person)

Support temporary ban of Anthony DiPierro:

  1. Seth Ilys 04:56, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Taku 05:03, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC); Requests for adminship is not a place for edit wars by all means.
  3. MerovingianTalk 05:14, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Moncrief 05:25, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC) . In reviewing the record, it seems to me that the balance of the problem here lies with Anthony.
  5. Anthony flatly refused my attempt at de-esclation. Hcheney 05:26, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  6. Tim Starling 05:36, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
  7. David Newton 06:47, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  8. Its time to Anthony to understand that he cannot do anything he pleases Muriel 09:37, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  9. Ambivalenthysteria 10:58, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  10. BCorr¤Брайен 13:40, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC) I'm surprised that this even happened, considering all the controversy already swirling aroung Anthony.
  11. Jwrosenzweig 16:50, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  12. DavidA
  13. Arvindn 17:38, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC) Not the first time
  14. Secretlondon 23:11, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  15. Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:30, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  16. GrazingshipIV 22:23, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
  17. ugen64 00:03, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose temporary ban of Anthony DiPierro:

  1. ESP 05:06, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC) This is a misuse of user bans.
  2. —Eloquence 05:43, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC) (because he misunderstood the three revert rule not to apply to perceived vandalism, next time I will vote for a temp-ban)
  3. +sj+ 07:12, 2004 Mar 23 (UTC) Wrong application of temp-ban; not the right solution in this case. No serious third-party attempts at de-escalation, and as noted on Talk page I consider this a 'first warning' in this context.
  4. Martin 23:49, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC) (agree with Erik above)
  5. Ruhrjung 00:13, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC) (ditto)
  6. Acegikmo1 06:27, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC) (also agree with Erik)


  • I would like to state that Grazingship in this case was removing my explanations of my vote [1], and I was adding them back [2]. Also that no warning was given. Anthony DiPierro 05:04, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • HCheney's vote probably should not count as he has not been active on WP for longer than 3 months...Oh less than 24 hours...this is going to be disputed, I bet. Anthony DiPierro 05:47, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Close call. Depends on how we define three number of months or number of days. There was an extra day in February. Had there not been, then today would be 24 Mar. Kingturtle 05:53, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • By the time comes to close the poll, he will have been here 3 months, so I say let the vote stand. Dori | Talk 06:04, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
        • Yeah, assuming the poll doesn't close until then, this'll be moot. Fortunately. I don't feel like getting into an argument over it. anthony 06:45, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I think history should be taken into account considering Anthony is banned from many pages and I have yet to be banned from one. Although it would seem fair to disqualify us both from voting considering we were just going to cancel each other out anyway.-GrazingshipIV 05:04, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • Could both Anthony and GrazingshipIV agree to withdraw their votes and recuse themselves from the RfA page for the next week? --Hcheney 05:09, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I like that idea very much. →Raul654 05:10, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
      • I find it interesting you would want us to withdraw our votes, since that would make it more likely that your vote would reach consensus. No, I'm definitely not withdrawing my vote. Anthony DiPierro 05:11, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • I would prefer peace over being elected admin any day of the week. And would also prefer for the two of you to make peace instead of getting banned. --Hcheney 05:16, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • So withdraw your acceptance of the nomination, and peace we will have. Anthony DiPierro 05:22, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
            • It's not the fact that he was nominated that created the edit war. I hope you don't withdraw your perfectly legitimate acceptance of your perfectly legitimate nomination, Hcheney. That isn't going to "solve" anything. Moncrief 05:27, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
              • I didn't say it was he who caused the edit war. He claimed he'd prefer peace over being elected admin. Withdrawing his acceptance would end the edit war, and would bring peace. Anthony DiPierro 05:34, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I think Grazingship should likely receive the 24-hour ban for the revert war, but the question comes down to whether or not it was vandalism. If it was (and my cursory guess is that it was), then, while this isn't something I would normally say, I think Anthony was justified in reverting. If you can prove me wrong, fair enough, I'll reconsider, but abstain for now. RADICALBENDER 05:15, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Due to certain interest groups I will lose this vote but it should be noted that anyone who wants the actual truth on what happened is should review the talk page (resolution) and check the edits and all the courses of action I took namely reporting vandalism to the vandalism page and to admins before taking it into my own hands to protect others-not myself.GrazingshipIV 05:24, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

I think people who were voting against my side should be eliminated from being aloud to vote they have a political agenda namely junta rick and Wik who both were strong advocates against this administrator for non wiki reaons and couldn't this vote be held when my supporters who I guess have things to do are available to participate?GrazingshipIV 05:29, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

  • Soooo...because they don't agree with you, they shouldn't be allowed to vote against you? Sounds like sour grapes to me. RADICALBENDER 05:31, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is a violation of wikipedia policy where is my FAIR CHANCE? read the top of this very page. Radical bender please review the record. GrazingshipIV 05:35, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

"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" I am a first time offender who has never been previously warned I am not subject to this-anthony may be in a different situation-but this is my first warning!.GrazingshipIV 05:37, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

  • OK, fair enough. But what about all the calls to stop reverting the page? Did you heed them? RADICALBENDER 05:40, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • In the past six weeks, Anthony has been involved in roughly 20 edit wars that resulted in article protections. Over 15 different admins have participated in protecting these pages. This episode was not a rare occurrance, but was part of a long standing pattern of behavior. Kingturtle 06:47, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I thank all who participated in this vote (especially those who voted for me) and can honestly say I gained allot of knowledge from it. Thanks.GrazingshipIV 23:20, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

Implementation I would vote against Anthony if I believed he wouldn't immediately instigate an edit war against me too. 10:54, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC) logged out to be anonymous

As per Wikipedia policy, I banned Anthony for 24 hours when this poll reached 12/3 80% consensus for a temp ban. I believe that an admin may do this even when having voted in the poll. If I am wrong, either reverse the blocking or contact me asking me to reverse it immediately -- I read all the policy docs and couldn't see any guidance on this. If the numbers dip below the prescribed threshold, I will unblock (though anyone who notices before me ought to go ahead and unblock). Jwrosenzweig 17:39, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Note, the prescribed threshold for removing this temp-ban is for the percentage to fall below 70% with at least 5 valid votes against. Kingturtle 17:52, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Votes regarding GrazingshipIV behavior (22: 15/7: 68%)Edit

(it is the behavior that is wrong, not the person himself)

Support temporary ban of GrazingshipIV:

  1. Seth Ilys 04:57, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. RickK | Talk 04:58, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC) Do it now.
  3. Taku 05:02, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Wik 05:08, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
  5. RADICALBENDER 05:11, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC) Seems like a clear violation of the three revert rule on this side.
  6. MerovingianTalk 05:14, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
  7. —Eloquence 05:20, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC) clearly trolling on RfA
  8. Tim Starling 05:36, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
  9. Dori | Talk 05:43, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
  10. Ambivalenthysteria 10:59, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  11. BCorr¤Брайен 13:40, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC) A time-out is definitely in order.
  12. Given new information on Talk:RFA, he needs a full reprimand. Jwrosenzweig 00:00, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  13. Given the new information, I change my vote. ugen64 00:02, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
  14. Ruhrjung 00:25, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  15. --Hcheney 02:02, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Both TheBam and Information Koopa are sock puppets with no prior history of editing. RickK | Talk 05:40, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
That seems like a typical Junta style attack. 'Discovering' the sock puppets and reportng them to look like a good admin. Information Koopa 05:43, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

NOTE:Information Koopa is a sockpuppet of TheBam

How interesting. Looks like you forgot to log out and back in again before posting this, Graz. RickK | Talk 05:47, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yeah cause I really wanted to vote against myself...dumbass. Check the records. GrazingshipIV 06:29, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose temporary ban of GrazingshipIV:

  1. ESP 05:06, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC) This is a misuse of user bans.
    • Jwrosenzweig 17:31, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC) Grazingship is a newer user who has affirmed to me (I believe truthfully) that he was unaware of the 3 revert rule. As Anthony was aware and Grazingship was not, I believe that Anthony is deserving of a temp-ban but Grazingship isn't -- if anyone can demonstrate that Grazingship was given a warning and disregarded it, I'd change my vote. The point is that we need to enforce our rules fairly, and I'm not sure we communicated the 3 revert rule well enough here to revert Grazingship. This does raise an interesting issue though (ignorance of the law, which I think actually has been kicked around here recently), and I think that issue bears discussion somewhere. I am open to discussion on the point, at least.
        • For the record, GrazingshipIV claims to be an old hand who only recently got an account. [3], [4]. -- Cyan 20:42, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • It's obvious that GrazingshipIV is someone who has been around. I am suspicious that he might be Lancemurdoch/HectorRodriguez/Richardclifton. RickK | Talk 02:26, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Graz's account might be new, but his long experience with Wikipedia is apparent. With some he feigns innocents, and yet with others he says "I have used Wikipedia for years". I don't buy Graz's claim of ignorance to the law. He is quite an expert in Arbitration rules and Nomination rules. He is a very savvy user with a hidden agenda. Kingturtle 04:09, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. DavidA 17:30, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. There was no warning. Secretlondon 23:10, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. 172 23:53, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Martin 23:56, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC) (Agree with Secretlondon, though neither side covered themselves with glory)
  6. No warning was given. anthony 22:13, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  7. Time to end all of this. It is taking up too much time. Danny 01:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)


  • User:GrazingshipIV did not respond to my plan of de-esclation. --Hcheney 06:09, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • User:GrazingshipIV I was protecting others dignity please review the record.
  • -ah-ha more vandalism from the junta this is no just vote [comment by GrazingshipIV, moved here by Dori]
  • At 05:39, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC), User:GrazingshipIV was banned for 24 hours by Kingturtle. Kingturtle 06:11, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • And now this user has email me asking me to change or at least withdraw my vote because the case "involving many facts you do not know." Definitely not a reason for me to do so... BCorr¤Брайен 17:05, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree with the opinion expressed in Hcheney's "oppose vote". -- Cyan 22:36, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I declined to vote, because both the hard-and-fast rule and this process are very new, and both users could plausibly claim ignorance. But this went on long enough that even if neither user knew the rule, or understood how it applied, it should still have been clear that the behavior was absolutely unacceptable. I hope GrazingshipIV is sincere about having learned from the experience. Most important would be to learn not to repeat it. --Michael Snow 00:15, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Should not this poll be closed now? GrazingshipIV 17:32, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • No, from the rules it needs to be at or below 50% (although this is assuming the poll was not successful, if it were deemed successful it could be removed after 48 hours). Perhaps clarifications are necessary. Also, don't put your comments at the top of the poll, that's what the comments section is for. Dori | Talk 18:52, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
      • I've rewritten the removal policy above for clarification. If I were GrazingshipIV, I wouldn't worry too much about whether the poll is closed. After the initial fury, not that many additional votes will trickle in, and I think the later voters will continue to trend against the ban. --Michael Snow 19:31, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Oh, now I can see why GrazingshipIV might have been worried. --Michael Snow 00:32, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No you do not. This is a sham not Hcheney has not changed his vote. GrazingshipIV 01:53, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

Hcheney has presented new information regarding GrazingshipIV. You may want to reconsider your Quickpoll vote. Kingturtle 23:55, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hcheney has not changed his vote because he understands the circumstances of the ban. Your feelings about me-no matter how misinformed- are not relevant to the polling question. Kingturtle should know that. GrazingshipIV 00:14, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
My impression wasn't that Hcheney had come clean -- rather he explained that Grazingship introduced him to Wikipedia, then nominated him for admin, and then asked Hcheney to return the favor. I see no deception on Hcheney's part. -- BCorr¤Брайен 00:23, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
Do we even know if Hcheney was telling the truth? An unsubstantiated accusation by a single user is not convincing enough evidence to temp-ban someone. This is getting ridiculous. anthony 01:46, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
We know that Graz and hcheney were acquaintances for many years before wikipedia. We know that they are from the same town. We know that Graz vandalized hcheney's user page, but then later nominated him for admin. Kingturtle 01:58, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Kingturtle seems to have the uncanny ability to make statements repeatedly when he has no clue what he is talking about. proof? GrazingshipIV 23:58, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

How is this all known? According to Hcheney, "I have been a regular contributor since and a couple of days ago, a user then unknown to me, GrazingshipIV, nominated me for adminship." [emphasis mine] anthony 02:05, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I strongly oppose the term "come clean", please use a less POV phrase. --Hcheney 02:41, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  1. I oppose any ban placed by RickK, and would like to see some action taken to prevent him from banning anyone Sam Spade 03:21, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • What does this have to do with RickK? He was just one of the voters, not the one who posted the poll, not the one who implemented the block.Dori | Talk 04:37, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • Actually I realized that soon after voting but my ISP gave out and I got so mad I forgot about it until now. My vote should be disregarded, sorry.
  • Note: this Quickpoll is over the issue of a lengthy edit war on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. With the new evidence, I think Graz definitely knew what he was doing. I doubt the legitimacy of his claims that he did not know the rules. Indeed, he had a hidden agenda. Kingturtle 00:06, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • The fact that he wasn't warned still holds true. anthony 00:10, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Graz continues to make personal attacks on me on his User page. He continues to call me a vandal with no evidence. RickK | Talk 20:09, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Probably because you are rickk I have never seen someone so offended over the truth coming out. You and kingturtle have entered into what you see as some self-important cabal against advancing wikipedia also known as the junta. Rickk note that most user do not like you perhaps I am not the problem. GrazingshipIV 22:36, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

Implementation [currently being banned; this will change after 24 hrs or if the vote here drops below 70% support. unbanned as support dropped to 67%]

Perl and WikEdit

These two users have been fighting on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Wik made insulting comments (as Anthony and I have been debating on the IRC channel) that may be defined as slander. Perl reinstated his request for adminship, which could be defined as trolling. They have both reverted each other more than three times. I think that both should be banned for 24 hours. ugen64 02:10, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

Votes regarding Perl's behavior (11:2/9) 18%Edit

Support a temporary ban:

  1. Wik (should be permanent really)
    That's because you can't vote on a quickpoll regarding you :-). ugen64 02:26, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
    NO!! I was removing insulting comments that wik said about me. He said I had mental issues and belonged in an institution. I don't normally get into trouble. This is really not fair. I object! Ugen was removing them too. Perl 02:44, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    I attest to this fact. ugen64 02:48, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
    Well it still doesn't seem to be true. I don't think wik ever said he belonged in an institution. anthony 03:56, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Tuf-Kat 05:11, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose a temporary ban:

  1. Cyan. No actual damage to Wikipedia.
  2. Danny 03:05, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC) No damage done.
  3. — Jor (Talk) 03:06, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC) As above.
  4. Kingturtle 03:09, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. anthony 03:15, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC) Temp-bans should be a last resort.
  6. →Raul654 04:56, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Ambivalenthysteria 02:22, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC) Changed vote after further thought.
  8. Michael Snow 07:23, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC) Process was not followed, neither user received notice of quickpoll on their talk page. Although Perl posted a warning on his talk page designed to prevent people from following that process. See [5].
  9. Quinwound 07:29, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC) No damage.


  • Perl you can't vote for your own quickpoll. ugen64 02:16, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell Perl was removing large segments of the vote and Wik was restoring them. (Correct me if I have this wrong.) Perl was vandalizing by removing text and Wik was putting it back the way it was as anyone would do under a vandal's attack. Perl, can you explain what led to you removing such large amounts of discussion that seemed very improper to remove? Was it vengence for something Wik did? (Not that it makes it right.) - Texture 02:45, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC) - I'm backing out until someone explains this mess well enough for my feeble widdle mind. - Texture 02:53, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Wik was restoring votes from a PREVIOUS request for adminship. There was no reason; Perl had revised his request and put it out again. Perl was removing irrelevant materials. The crux of the debate probably occurred awhile ago, when Wik said, in effect, "Perl has mental issues and belongs in an asylum"; Perl and I were removing those prohibited personal attacks, Wik was (in effect and thought) reverting us. ugen64 02:50, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • Let me try again. ugen64 02:58, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
      1. Yesterday, Wik said, in effect, "Perl is a troll and nobody should vote for his adminship" on a completely different topic. There was an edit war: Wik et. al. vs. Perl, me, et. al.
      2. Today, Perl requested adminship.
      3. Soon, Wik replied with, in effect, "Perl has mental issues [actually Asperger's; my brackets] and belongs in an asylum"
      4. Another edit war, this time: Wik vs. Perl and Me
      5. Perl revised his adminship, in effect withdrawing then renewing it.
      6. He then removed it again.
      7. Wik attempted to bring back all of the votes from the old request, and forcefully renewed Perl's adminship (this one number is where I was not present, and therefore perhaps a bit incorrect).
      8. Perl and Wik got into a revert war.
      9. They both reverted more than three times in a 24 hour period; both knew the policy. Additionally, Wik was on probation.
      10. They got into an edit war on User_talk:Perl.
      11. Here, now.
  • ok, that jives. But... others are bringing up a personal attack as the reason for reverse reverts. Where does that fit in? ("Perl is a troll" isn't strong enough to warrant labelling as a personal attack. If so everyone is guilty of much against Anthony that I happen to agree with.)- Texture 03:07, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I think we're overusing quickpolls. Generally, nothing should be done. In the case of pages like requests for adminship though, something has to be done. I'd suggest a very short temporary page protection. Give both users a chance to talk it over, and warn them about quickpolls, then, if the reversions continue after protection is lifted, possibly use a quickpoll. In the case of hotly contested revert wars which threaten to annoy people looking at recentchanges, I'd suggest the same. In any case, I see quickpolls as a temporary solution to an ongoing problem, not a punishment. anthony 03:22, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Votes regarding Wik's behavior (10:3/7) 30%Edit

Support a temporary ban:

  1. Ambivalenthysteria 02:22, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. — Jor (Talk) 02:57, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Tuf-Kat 04:52, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose a temporary ban:

  1. Perl
  2. anthony oppose for now per reasons below.
  3. Cyan. No actual damage to Wikipedia.
  4. Danny 03:10, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. silsor 04:37, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Michael Snow 07:23, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC) Process was not followed, neither user received notice of quickpoll on their talk page.
  7. Quinwound 07:30, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC) See Above.


  1. anthony no warning given AFAICT
    He doesn't need a warning, due to the arbitration guidelines... ugen64 02:18, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
    If you wanted to ban wik, you could, but I don't think he did anything wrong. Perl 02:20, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    He doesn't need a warning to be temp-banned under the arbitration guidelines, but he does need a warning to be temp-banned under quickpolls. If he's tempbanned under both, the length is extended to 48 hours. anthony 02:21, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell Perl was removing large segments of the vote and Wik was restoring them. (Correct me if I have this wrong.) Perl was vandalizing by removing text and Wik was putting it back the way it was. I have seen Wik violate this rule before but here it doesn't seem willfull.- Texture 02:45, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Can someone list the four reverts? anthony 02:28, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Perl has at least 8 reverts on RFA today:

  1. 22:34 (Wik)
  2. 22:49 (Ugen64)
  3. 22:55 (Wik)
  4. 01:48 (Wik)
  5. 01:49 (Wik)
  6. 01:50 (Wik)
  7. 01:51 (Wik)
  8. three edits 01:56 to 02:10 which had the cumulative effect of reverting Anthony's edit: [6].

In brackets, the person who was being reverted is shown. Wik, on the other hand, is clearly violating the 3-revert limit set by the arbitration committee. In most of the cases where Wik is noted in brackets, there was an accompanying revert from him. Hence, there should be no need for a quickpoll, he should be banned immediately. -- Tim Starling 02:30, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

Clearly Wik is still in love with his damaging revert wars. Too bad arbitration failed. Recurrent vandals should be banned immediately and for a long period. — Jor (Talk) 03:01, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
A successful quickpoll would extend the ban to 48-hours, per the arbitration committee's decision. But I can't find more than 3 reverts in one UTC day, which is how I interpret the revert guideline. anthony 02:33, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I would have interpreted it as three reverts in any 24 hour period. -- Tim Starling 02:36, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
Is it considered a revert if you are putting back your own text? And how many where removing text and how many were adding? - Texture 02:51, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yes; and it's 24 hour period. ugen64 02:52, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
I'd say a revert is any edit which returns the page to a previous revision, or any edit which does so except for trivial changes made for the purpose of subverting the revert rule. As for the time period, "Never revert the same article more than three times in the same day." is the text. Interpret it as you wish. anthony 02:58, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Interpret it at one's peril. - Texture 03:11, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Martin's 24 hour block of Wik on March 17 would suggest that the rule is to be interpreted as no more than 3 reverts in 24 hours, not one calendar day. Angela. 10:08, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
No, martin's block would suggest that his interpretation of the rule is a 24 hour period. However, the rule says day, not 24-hour period. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 23:18, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yes? Only if it is personal attack that are removed or even if you are restoring huge amounts of removed text? We have the following:
  1. No personal attacks
    • Can you remove personal attacks more than three times? (Wik's attack, others reverting)
  2. No more than 3 reverts
    • Can you revert the removal of huge wads of text, which in itself is vandalism? (i.e. removing non-attack text is vandalism - as Perl did beyond merely the attack text.)
    • If you put back valid text (and not merely a vandalism) more than 3 times is that allowed to restore what should not have been removed (and could be called vandalism for removing)?
  3. No more than 3 reverts even for good deeds?

There are way more ambiguities than the last poll. Can anyone tell me the above? - Texture 03:01, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

3 reverts is a guideline. Some, like myself, believe there is an exception for reversion of vandalism. anthony 03:18, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Your and Wik's (and others') constant prattling that it's "only a guideline" is one of the best arguments for making it a strict rule. - Hephaestos|§ 04:18, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Bravo, well-said. — Jor (Talk) 04:18, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Seconded. Ambivalenthysteria 09:31, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Except that there is no consensus that it should be a strict rule. anthony 10:59, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
My interpretation was that it was "no more than 3 reverts even for good deeds". Angela. 10:08, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
Yes; "good deeds" is an opinion, and anyway, both users could say they were doing "good deeds" (one was removing personal attacks, the other was restoring his comments...), and we would get nowhere. 21:37, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC) (ugen64)


(Tally: 20 votes / 15 support / 6 oppose / 72% in favour) (at 13:08, 27 Mar 04 (UTC))

User:Levzur (talk / contributions) has repeatedly participated in edit wars on Zviad Gamsakhurdia (talk / history) for apparent POV reasons over the past four months, with four reversions yesterday alone by three different editors. Has disregarded numerous warnings and a clear community consensus, and appears unwilling to accept NPOV policy. I believe that he should be banned for 24 hours. -- ChrisO 01:05, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

(Updated) Note: also appears to edit using proxy servers,,,,, and others. All belong to Rustavi Online, a Tblisi ISP. One of Levzur's characteristics is to mark his deletions as "corrections" - this is a characteristic of these anonymous IPs as well, on the same articles that Levzur edits (see e.g. [7] [8] [9]), and the exact same "corrections" are made by Levzur and the anons. It's reasonable to attribute the anon edits to Levzur as well. The appearance of the anon edits is presumably due to forgetting to log in. -- ChrisO 13:20, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Please be careful about blocking the anonymous IPs - Rustavi Online is one of the most major ISPs in Georgia, so it would not be good if a portion of its IPs are blocked. Ambivalenthysteria 13:34, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. The point of mentioning them is to note that the edit wars have involved a single user - whether anon or logged in - not a whole group of them, as edit histories might suggest if you didn't look carefully at the activities of the anon IPs. -- ChrisO 13:45, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)


  1. Wik 01:09, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Moncrief 01:10, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Danny 01:11, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. RADICALBENDER 01:22, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Qaz 01:23, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  6. Cyan 01:26, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  7. Graham  :) | Talk 01:28, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  8. The Anome 01:30, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  9. jengod 01:31, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
  10. Seth Ilys 01:40, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  11. Taku 01:41, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
  12. Ambivalenthysteria 01:54, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC) (Maybe an arbitration request would also be warranted here. It's been going on for a fair while.)
    JeffBobFrank 02:40, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    User has not been active for 3 months. -anthony
  13. Flockmeal 02:46, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
  14. Tannin 09:13, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  15. RickK | Talk 02:16, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC) Levzur is a repeated edit warrior and doesn't know the meaning of the word compromise.


  1. —Eloquence 02:08, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC) Is there any evidence that Levzur was warned specifically about the three revert rule? Telling the user that a quickpoll is underway about their behavior is not a warning. They need to be given a fair chance to improve their behavior and informed about the instruments that can be used to correct it (e.g. banning) if they fail to do so. My impression from the talk page is that Levzur has tried to discuss the matter reasonably, but failed to understand some key points of NPOV, which possibly have not been communicated to him sufficiently. Unless evidence is provided that Levzur was warned about violating the revert rule, I strongly suggest unbanning him immediately. Naivete and ignorance should not be used as a lever to get rid of "POV users" - quickpolls are not designed to resolve NPOV issues, they are purely designed to enforce a limited set of Wikipedia policies (edit wars, sysop rules, vandalism, extreme Wikiquette violations).
    Playing devil's advocate here, but isn't NPOV one of the major policies of Wikipedia? Dori | Talk 02:12, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
    I don't believe either naivete or ignorance can be cited as reasons. Several people including myself have been trying to work with him since as long ago as last December. Talk:Zviad_Gamsakhurdia documents the long and frustrating process of trying to point out the NPOV requirement, the reason why it's not a good idea to mark major deletions as "minor edits" and so on. It's been a waste of time, frankly. He doesn't offer alternative versions; he just deletes everything he dislikes. My guess is that he knows full well what the Wikipedia policy is but doesn't want to apply it because it conflicts with his political views. -- ChrisO 02:23, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Great patience is required to relate to User:Levzur. Clear communication is the best method, not banning. Fred Bauder 04:18, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Where is the emergency that prevents waiting on arbitration? -- J-V Heiskanen 04:39, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    User has not been active for 3 months.
    He has under a different user name. Angela. 05:45, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
    Then he should vote under that username. -anthony
  4. Not enough evidence. For instance, on the history page, I only see one edit from Levzur on 3/26. Where is the proof that and belong to that user? -anthony 04:51, 27 Mar 2004
  5. Although it seems clear that the user in question is lacking wikispirit, it's important for us, the wikicommunity, to apply the agreed rules strictly[10]. Was the user made aware of the three revert policy? Ruhrjung 07:27, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    I don't know if he was made aware of the three revert policy specifically, but he has been asked to improve his behaviour many dozens of times before, and has simply kept on vandalising Zviad Gamsakhurdia. Ambivalenthysteria 07:50, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  6. We know his English isn't particularly good. We also don't know that he is the IP addresses listed. I think we need to be careful that we don't describe POV arguments as "vandalism" - they are not. Secretlondon 13:07, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)


  • The evidence needs to be laid out better. Write assuming the reader knows nothing of the history. If warnings were made, give us specific links. If other user names and IPs were used, give specific links. Kingturtle 06:59, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)


  • Special:Ipblocklist: 01:38, 27 Mar 2004, The Anome blocked Levzur (expires 01:38, 28 Mar 2004) (contribs) (unblock) (as per quickpoll vote) (at which time the vote was 9 supporting, 0 opposing)

Anthony DiPierro (21: 16 for, 5 against 76%)Edit

More than three reversions on Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. The reversions are repeatedly restoring the name of Kobe Bryant's alleged rape victim. I attempted to discuss the issue with him on his talk page. Requesting a 24-hour ban. --Michael Snow 01:55, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)


  1. Maximus Rex 02:02, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    Seth Ilys 02:02, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I contest this vote as Seth was directly involved in the dispute. Although we do not yet have a clear rule against such votes, I believe we should.—Eloquence
      • Of out a desire to avoid controversy, I withdraw my vote. - Seth Ilys 02:11, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Angela. Anthony made 4 reverts despite being well aware of the 3-revert policy.
  3. Uh...why is this not the best way to resolve this dispute? (Not being sarcastic. I'd like to know.) Breaking the three-revert rule seems to be old hat for Anthony. RADICALBENDER 02:11, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Because Seth and Michael effectively had twice as many reverts at their disposal as Anthony. We should either amend the 3-revert-rule to not allow for such gang-ups, or not apply it in cases like this. Neither party committed clear acts of vandalism, which is the only instance where I see team-reverting as justified.—Eloquence
      • If you're going to start making exceptions to the 3-revert rule, why bother having it at all? There is no reason for one person to make four reverts without even discussing the issue. Angela. 02:21, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
        • Nor is there a reason for people to form revert-teams. If Anthony is banned, then Seth and Michael should be banned as well because together they exceeded three reverts -- they effectively formed one party of the dispute, while Anthony formed another. But I'm against any ban in this situation, because we haven't had clear rules for cases like this. That is exactly the reason that the three-revert "rule" has been approved as a guideline only, to allow for corrections and clarifications, and to prevent "gaming". I am very much reminded of my own disputes with another user on the Mother Teresa page. Under this logic, the other user would only have had to find one or two "buddies" to revert the page with, and they could easily have "out-reverted" me, effectively eliminating the need to peruse the discussion page, possibly even getting me banned in the process. I don't think that you would have approved of such a result.—Eloquence 02:31, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
          • "team reverts" are fine under the three revert guideline. Martin 02:45, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
            • I'm not only interested in the way things are, but also in the way they should be.—Eloquence
              • I'd agree that team reverts are problematic, but that's a matter for a separate decision. Why couldn't Anthony raise this issue, rather than reverting the fourth time? Meelar 03:16, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
                • We all know that Anthony is stubborn. The question is whether that is reason enough to slap him with another ban in this instance.—Eloquence
  4. Anthony knew the rule well. Meelar 02:13, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Texture 02:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC) - If this isn't a good way to resolve Anthony's repeated disregard to the rule (which he is now well on notice of) then it's time for more drastic action.
  6. Ambivalenthysteria 02:57, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC) - He's been warned plenty of times. This is one issue where discussion should have taken precedence to reversion, and Anthony should know better.
  7. Finlay McWalter | Talk 03:01, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  8. Whenever a reversion war hinders discussion, I think it's justified. -- llywrch 03:08, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  9. Hephaestos|§ 03:25, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  10. Absolute support. Moncrief 03:56, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Fred Bauder 04:48, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
  12. Users should find other ways than revert wars to settle disputes. Kingturtle 04:54, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  13. Dori | Talk 06:09, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
  14. BCorr|Брайен 01:32, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
  15. Jwrosenzweig 17:20, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC) To Eloquence, I would say that the reason the guideline allows for "team reverts" was so that vandalism could be handled by multiple editors without them coming collectively under a ban. That's my understanding.
  16. →Raul654 17:35, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)


  1. silsor 02:00, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
  2. —Eloquence 02:03, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC) - not a good way to resolve this particular dispute. Page is protected, discuss it on the talk page.
  3. Danny 02:05, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Fuzheado 02:09, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Taku 03:12, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC); The matter seems rather complicated. I think the protection is the best in this case and banning is unnecessary.


<SethIlys> Anthony has now made three identical reversions to [[Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion]]. Comments, anyone?
<FennecFoxen> SethIlys- get someone to rerevert and then get him banned.
<SethIlys> OK. I've undone anthony's 3rd revert.

silsor 02:05, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

A note. I later corrected myself... "get someone to rerevert and, if this keeps up, get him banned". - Fennec 02:39, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The name of the article needs to be listed. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 01:59, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The text that constitutes the title of the article is precisely the controversy. Absolutely nothing from the debate is lost by erring on the side of moral caution and omitting the woman's name until the debate is settled. (I'd note that I was the one who most vehemently argued for the inclusion of the name in Wikipedia.) -- Seth Ilys 02:02, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Until there is consensus that the name should be removed, it should not. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 02:04, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Can the name be removed by an admin from VfU until this dispute is settled? Those who feel it should not be published have a real point, and having the name present does not help with anything. -- VV 02:14, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This is public information you're talking about. Censoring it out of page histories is not the way to go about this. silsor 02:23, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
See m:The wrong version. There are two sides to this story -- one is about free speech, the other about protection of rape victims. The page should remain in its current state until the dispute is resolved on the discussion page.—Eloquence 02:24, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
Re: Wrong version: We're talking about a potential rape victim here, not some misinformation on Cleopatra or POV about cauliflower. No harm would be done in removing her name temporarily, while (if the decision is not to include it) harm can be done by having it up while the issue is discussed. And Silsor, who said anything about page histories?; I mean the page. Anyway, it looks like it's unprotected now, and the warring continues. -- VV 00:50, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Since we're posting snippits from IRC:

[02:53] <SethIlys> So that makes 4 reverts for anthony.
[02:53] <anthony> sure does
[02:53] <SethIlys> anthony, are you trying to get yourself banned?
[02:54] <anthony> I'm going to the park tomorrow anyway

Anthony is fully aware of what he's doing. Let him have a 24 hour "holiday" if that's what he wants. fabiform | talk 02:19, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Anthony was baited into making his 4th revert in violation of policy because of my comment on IRC (quoted by silsor above), in which I demonstrated my misunderstanding of the "three revert rule" (I erroneously believed that it was the 3rd revert which could launch a quickpoll, and not the 4th revert, which is the actual guideline.) I offer my deepest apologies to Anthony and to the Wikipedia community for this gross lapse of judgement on my part. I encourage users to vote against this ban, as the process which brought it about was tainted and unfair. -- Seth Ilys 02:21, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Can I just express my admiration of the inherent genius of the Wikipedia community. So keen to hide the name of a rape victim, that we get the issue brought to everyone's attention via a quickpoll. Way to shoot yourselves in the foot, guys. Martin 02:39, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's not what the quickpoll is supposed to be about. It's about the fact Anthony reverted more than 3 times. I can't see why people are looking at the content of those reverts as they shouldn't matter. The rule states "don't revert more than 3 times" so votes should be made purely on the fact he broke that rule, and not on the circumstances surrounding it. Angela. 02:42, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
It's not a rule, it's a guideline. There are of course exceptions. You yourself have in fact argued that the "rule" should be flexible: "Would support only [emphasis yours] with quickpolls. Otherwise, mildly oppose as such inflexible guidelines could be used by trolls to cause even more trouble." Don't be hypocritical. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 02:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I have always supported the 3-revert policy. The quote above (which has since changed) related to whether people should be banned for making it, not about my support of the policy. Angela. 03:10, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
So you have always supported "inflexible guidelines which can be used by trolls to cause even more trouble"? At least I'm glad to see you have changed your vote to be more consistent. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 03:16, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wik and JorEdit

User:Wik 10 votes / 3 for / 7 against 30% in favourEdit

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)


  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
    I'm not sure that's a valid reason, as that's not part of the "three revert guideline. As for his explanations, "I'm indifferent on those minor changes, but as you made them on top of Anthony's version, I had to revert them." anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 23:24, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 00:21, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)


  1. MerovingianTalk 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.
  4. Martin 21:32, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) ("both or neither" - vote to be changed to mirror the outcome of the vote on Jor)
  5. Secretlondon 21:40, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  6. Ruhrjung 22:46, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) on prosedural grounds: user is not "given a fair chance to improve his behavior" in the way that was discussed in connection with the adoption of the Quickpoll scheme.
  7. Ambivalenthysteria 00:29, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)


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
    • That was actually against Jor too, Morwen herself had partially reverted Jor. --Wik 20:25, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • 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)

  • How was Wik invited to/prompted to participate in the discussion? I think it's important not to make Quickpolls into beauty contests. The same rules should be valid for Wik as for other experienced wikipedians.--Ruhrjung 21:05, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Should they? Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Wik And I know from experience that discussion is pointless with Wik: once he starts labelling someone "vandal", "troll" or similar he makes it his policy to revert without discussion (see his own page). — Jor (Talk) 21:11, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Does he require an invitation? It is the responsibility of someone who is taking independent action to undo what another has done to explain their action. In this case it was not explained in the summary or in the talk page. Jor made an edit and it was reverted without explanation. (Jor beat me to the response)- Texture 21:12, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • The question is: What is to by understood by "Give Wik a fair chance."?
        Other users would have been prompted to disucss the issue. Prompted both in edit summary and on their talk page. If this is not to be relevant for Wik, then I think that has to be clearly expressed. This time it's about Wik. If we now accept that he is to be banned regardless of if he was prompted or not, then I fear that the "Give the user a fair chance to improve his behavior" too sone will become empty words.
        --Ruhrjung 21:29, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • There is no special treatment for Wik. He reverted without explanation. He should explain his actions rather than revert again and again without explanation. - Texture 21:41, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

User:Jor 11 votes / 2 for / 9 against / 18.2% in favourEdit

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)


  1. I believe that since they both wish to resolve this through Quickpolls, we should oblige. UninvitedCompany 19:44, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Jor was causing trouble on East Germany. Wikipedia has a template for the country pages. The point is the standardize the organization, content, and terminology across these articles. NPOV imposes certain guidelines vis-à-vis value-laden and non-neutral terms. This is essentially data entry. Yet, Jor choose to attack Wik and rekindle the asinine, pointless ideological proxy battle going on over that page. 172 18:34, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Back up your claims. I did not 'attack' anyone, I proposed a change on talk and after gaining initial support performed a move. Your buddy Wik was the one who began reverting without discussion, as the discussion below clearly shows. — Jor (Talk) 18:43, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Furthermore this Quickpoll is Wik's reply to a Quickpoll I requested on him which was removed after 10 votes while stoll ongoing. — Jor (Talk) 18:52, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)


  1. MerovingianTalk 19:36, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC) Really, this is childish.
  2. Michael Snow 19:43, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) Ditto.
  3. Texture 20:32, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) - see below - Jor started the fight by making edits Wik didn't like. Jor continued the fight with some reverts but not nearly the number of reverts by Wik.
  4. Ruhrjung 21:07, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) Jor has participated on talk pages.
  5. Martin 21:34, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) ("both or neither" - vote to be changed to mirror the outcome of the vote on Wik)
  6. Fred Bauder 00:19, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Ambivalenthysteria 00:29, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  8. Timwi 02:02, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. There are no guidelines for banning in this case, and it doesn't even seem malicious as far as I can tell. moink 19:08, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)


  1. Danny 03:03, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Jor's "rampage" appears to be mostly changes, not reverts. Jor made changes that Wik did not like and Jor reverted back in some cases.

Breakdown of Jor's reverts:

  • 1 against anon vandalism
  • 9 against Wik

(Feel free to check my investigation. There may have been more reverts but it seems that Jor created changes that Wik didn't like but Jor did not always revert them back. Mostly Wik's reverts are on (top)) - Texture 20:32, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

One last tidbit. Jor's history is filled with clean summaries that explain to anyone following why they were performed. Since they are mostly the pre-Wik entries they are not reverts. The summaries allow us to easily understand Jor's position and intent. - Texture 20:33, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nonsense. Jor's summaries are blatant lies. His summary "avoid redirect" actually credited the redirect. --Wik 20:44, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
Most of my Wik-reverts are not simple reverts, but attempts to carry through my changes without blatant reverting (which I dislike except against clear vandalism — Wik's reverts are not simple cases of vandalism). For example in the IFA article I tried to emphasize the company was state-owned, since I doubt everyone will immediately realize "East Germany"'s Kombinats were state-owned. — Jor (Talk) 20:42, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)


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)


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


  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. MerovingianTalk 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)
  10. Sam: true true :-). ugen64 20:28, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Agree with Seth, above. Martin 21:27, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  12. Ruhrjung 22:42, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) Blaming IRC#Wikipedia. As far as I understand, Reddi is neither berserking nor serial-reverting, and neither the 24-hours ban nor the arbitration remedy (which currently are the only two possible actions to agree to) is proposed.
  13. BCorr|Брайен 23:28, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)


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)

I reviewed Reddi's version of scientific skepticism for the first time and I agree that it is POV. However, this is not a good basis for a quickpoll. silsor 22:30, 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

Gdansk (18: 15 for, 3 against: 83%)Edit

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)


  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: [11]
  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: (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) [12]


  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)
  3. No evidence of a warning given. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 01:12, 31 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 ?????"


  • 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:

  1. 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)
  2. 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)

Since being unblocked, Gdansk IMMEDIATELY went on the offensive again and began edit wars all over Wikipedia. RickK | Talk 02:01, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Reddi and Lord KennethEdit

Lord KennethEdit

Lord Kenneth reverted the article Scientific skepticism at, in reverse order (and now converted to UTC Jamesday 07:27, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)):

  • 02:02, 31 Mar 2004
  • 01:38, 31 Mar 2004
  • 20:02, 30 Mar 2004
  • 03:33, 30 Mar 2004 making four reverts within 24 hours, the last being within 24 hours of this nomination. I propose simply a caution in this instance, in spite of the edit war history at that article. Jamesday 04:20, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Note that proposed remedy is a warning. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 22:30, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)


  1. What Kingturtle said. A warning is a good idea. --Alex S 14:57, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Warning is merited. -- Cyan 16:13, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. I agree that a warning, at the least, is appropriate. Jwrosenzweig 16:37, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Both he and Reddi need to stop this silliness (William M. Connolley 18:16, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC))
  5. Tεxτurε 23:50, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    Too many reverts. Kingturtle 06:10, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)


  1. Ruhrjung 21:41, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) This request for 24-h ban seems more of vendetta than serious to me. The meaning with the three-revert policy is not to be a tool in fights between warring parties, but to improve wikipedia. Requirement of policy above seem not met.
  2. The rule is 3 reverts in a day, not a 24-hour period. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 21:36, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Quickpolls are for clear and obvious violation of policy, not for marginal bush-lawyer matters that qualify only in a technical sense. Tannin 22:25, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. The page Scientific skepticism is currently protected. Let's unprotect it first, & the first person to achieve 3 reverts in 24 hours gets to be the subject of another Quickpoll. -- llywrch 01:40, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  5. After re-assessing, I have changed my vote. I am considering oppossing Quick Polls all together. Kingturtle 03:18, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)


  • An ambiguity here is whether the policy here covers "a chronological day in some time zone, presumably that of the editor or reporter" or "a 24 hour period". A question in IRC prompted the view that it should be 24 hours, for which this series of reverts qualifies. Jamesday 04:20, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Wik is on a probation that allows similar 24-hour bans for violations of the revert rule. The ban has been applied based on a 24-hour period, regardless of calendar day or time zone. See User talk:Wik#Arbitration committee ruling. --Michael Snow 06:35, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I agree but someone other than me (because of me making a nomination here) should really change the no more than three reverts page from one day to 24 hours so we give fair warning to those who might consider the morning being a new day. Jamesday 07:01, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • A specific warning on the user's talk page would have been appropriate; I don't think anyone should be assumed to "know the policies" when quickpolls and related policies are so new. That said, I do wish Lord K would be less negative and aggressive. +sj+ 05:14, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC)
    • Lord Kenneth started a nomination here with this edit, dated 04:21, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC). That demonstrated to me that he was aware of the policies prior to at least three of the reverts in question. Jamesday 07:01, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • To be fair, Lordkenneth did make appeals to everyone on IRC chat (including Silsor and myself) so he was not entirely unilatteral in his response to Reddi who really presented the conflict on the page. I do not understand why jamesday would vote against the Reddi ban then raise this one-if Lordkenneth is guilty so is Reddi. I hope this is not personal. GrazingshipIV 05:19, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
    • The nomination of Reddi by Lord Kenneth didn't seem to meet the policy requirement and I voted accordingly. While checking that, I noticed that Lord Kenneth had done four reverts himself. When my use of non-UTC time was corrected, I saw that Reddi qualified and switched from opposing to supporting. Jamesday 07:27, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Please show if and how the user has been given a fair chance to improve his behaviour!--Ruhrjung 05:57, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Four is a big and welcome improvement on the number of reverts to that article by him on 27 Jan. His listing of Reddi here followed by he himself breaking the policy he'd listed Reddi for breaking just the day before persuaded me that he knew of the policy, failed to follow it anyway and had shown welcome, but insufficient, improvement. Note that I chose to suggest only a warning, though if someone really thinks that we can't use this for a formal warning I'd change it to a 24 hour ban... but I'd rather not while we're phasing in a new policy - better to start really gently with a warning first for a while, IMO. Jamesday 07:01, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • They should BOTH be banned from scientific skepticism for one week, and given a talking to, that seems best. This has gone on for a long time, and I think at least one of them will take the hint. The other will prob be back here in a week ;) Sam Spade 22:28, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Why do you need a quickpoll for a warning? Just give him a warning. I don't understand the vote. Angela. 22:21, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • I haven't been following the scientific skepticism dispute, so I cannot make any judgments pertaining to it for now. But speaking as a historian, IMO Lordkenneth raises the bar on WP for all users, including me. When users people give him reasonable arguments backed up by factual evidence and solid sources, I've seen Lordkenneth treat them fairly. If someone isn't setting a score or pushing an agenda, my guess is that this dispute can be worked out w/out a quickpoll. 172 12:33, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • At the time, I was confusing the above user with Lord Emsworth. Talk about a mistake! 172 14:22, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)


User:Reddi made over three reverts in one day. This is a clear violation of policy. He reverted and repeatedly injected biased information into the page scientific skepticism. The first poll did not merit a vote in my opinion despite Reddi's conduct because he did not violate policy. Now he has. Please review the page history to confirm or deny this. This is a vote for Quickpoll on a 24 hours temp-ban. RE-ADDED because other user wasn't here for three months. I am, so I will host the poll. Lord Kenneth 03:18, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

  • It's questionable, then, whether votes case before 03:18 should be counted, given as this can be considered a separate quickpoll from the one improperly started. At least, they should be re-affirmed. -- Seth Ilys 03:26, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • This is an entirely different poll. - Lord Kenneth 03:30, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • He or she who proposes a Quickpoll must present the case clearer and not leave a lot work to each voter. Please be specific not only in describing his crime but show also where and how Reddi was given a fair chance to improve his behavior. To show this with single-bracket links might be a good idea. --Ruhrjung 06:17, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)


  1. This isn't the first time this particular article has come up in reference to Reddi; I think he needs a break from it, and unfortunately this is the best way I know to accomplish that. - Hephaestos|§ 02:52, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Danny 02:55, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Seth Ilys 03:21, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC). Reddi's repeated insults on Talk:scientific skepticism demonstrate that he is unwilling to engage in a dialogue.
  4. Support. Jamesday 07:13, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) I don't see three reverts to one article in one day by User:Reddi within the 24 hours preceding 03:20, March 31, so this doesn't qualify for a quickvote on the basis of reverts. If you disagree, please identify the three edits concerned, the one you consider to have been within 24 hours and the day you are using to qualify for them being within the same day. Jamesday 03:54, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • From the history of Scientific skepticism (edit times converted to UTC, but note that Reddi's comments reflect non-UTC times). --Michael Snow 06:16, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • 02:11, 31 Mar 2004 . . Reddi (rv 20:52, 30 Mar 2004 . . Sam Spade)
    • 00:36, 31 Mar 2004 . . Reddi (rv 19:17, 30 Mar 2004 . . Silsor)
    • 00:28, 31 Mar 2004 . . Reddi (rv 19:17, 30 Mar 2004 . . Silsor)
    • 22:14, 30 Mar 2004 . . Reddi (rv 2 17:14, 29 Mar 2004 . . Wik)
    • 04:00, 30 Mar 2004 . . Reddi (rv 2 17:14, 29 Mar 2004 . . Wik)
      • Thanks - and I've switched to UTC for all my views now so I don't make a similar mistake in the future. Jamesday 07:13, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Wik 16:00, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Reddi and LK both need to stop this silliness (William M. Connolley 18:18, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC))
  7. ugen64 03:15, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)


  1. In spite of the reverts, due to the failed quickpoll earlier it is very unclear to me whether the process was properly followed in notifying Reddi of this quickpoll. --Michael Snow 06:22, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Does not seem to me appropriate to hold two quickpolls for one incident, seems to be double jeopordy. Sam Spade 07:29, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. I haven't been convinced. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 21:27, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Quickpolls are for clear and obvious violation of policy, not for marginal bush-lawyer matters that qualify only in a technical sense. Tannin 22:25, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Agree with Tannin. Actually, I think this shows a strength of Eloquence's proposal. It's pretty soon obvious if it's a clear case or not. Ruhrjung 00:53, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  6. The page Scientific skepticism is currently protected. Let's unprotect it first, & the first person to achieve 3 reverts in 24 hours gets to be the subject of another Quickpoll. -- llywrch 01:40, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  7. Perl


  • Reddi did not respond to attempts by User:Silsor or myself to stop his current behavior to (what is in my opinion) an important page. I did not vote before because he did not violate the rules. Now he has so I setup this poll. I think the history speaks for itself as Reddi seems bent on injecting his POV into the page despite legitimate opposition and attempts to resolve the situation. GrazingshipIV 02:48, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • More than 3 reverts in one day does not clearly violate policy. No evidence of a warning. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 02:49, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I feel that User:Reddi either does not comprehend NPOV policy or chooses to ignore it. No vote now. silsor 03:07, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • This quickpoll is not valid because GrazingshipIV has not been a logged in contributor for 3 months. Maximus Rex 03:11, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Maximum Rex is technically correct although this rule is rarely enforced. So Lordkenneth is now the author of the poll. GrazingshipIV 03:25, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that both Reddi and Lord K are acting in anger and outside the spirit of constructive, NPOV editing. I think that, as with the Wik/Jor issue above, any censure should be a both or none affair. +sj+ 05:16, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC)
    • If it were for me to decide, I would prohibit both Reddi and Lord Kenneth from editing Scientific skepticism for a week, so other people like Silsor can work on it in peace. --Michael Snow 06:25, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • That would be a good thing IMO but I'm choosing to start slowly myself, just so there's less chance of us being regarded as unjust in not giving people ample warning that things are changing. Jamesday 07:32, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Warning is merited. Banning isn't, yet. -- Cyan 16:15, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • They should BOTH be banned from scientific skepticism for one week, and given a talking to, that seems best. This has gone on for a long time, and I think at least one of them will take the hint. The other will prob be back here in a week ;) Sam Spade 22:28, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily and 172Edit

User:VeryVerily (11 votes / 1 for / 10 against / 9.1% in favour)Edit

Multiple reverts in just over an hour on Red Scare. He didn't like some edits made to the article last week, but temporarily stopped fighting them. This is one of VeryVerily's tricks, total reversion of other people's work because of one grievance. Obviously, this sort of behavior provokes edit wars, since no user wants to be fully reverted because of some (often unrelated) objection. Recommend at least censure by the community; please note if you favor the 24-hour ban (forgive me if I don't fully understand quickpoll rules). P.s., VeryVerily is an old hat and knows the rules just fine. -- 172 07:21, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)


172 07:21, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC) Ineligible to vote - "Neither the subject nor the proponent of a quickpoll may vote in it, but they may add comments on this page." -- ChrisO 10:08, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  1. Wik 16:32, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC) (frequent POV editing)


  1. silsor 07:40, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC) I protest this dramatization of quickpolls. The quickpolls concept was inspired by serious instances in which immediate action was required. It is currently a page to list every petty conflict over material.
  2. Silsor is 100% right. The next person who puts someone up for a quickpoll without a prima facia case for banning is going to find themselves in hot water. →Raul654 07:43, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Ruhrjung 07:43, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC) (ditto)
  4. john 07:55, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC) This is silliness, 172.
  5. Delirium 08:30, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC) Don't see a rule violation.
  6. ChrisO 10:14, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC) I see this as a retaliation for VV's quickpoll below. Abuse of process IMO.
  7. Tannin 10:58, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  8. Fred Bauder 16:25, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
  9. Cyan 16:27, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  10. Michael Snow 18:00, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC) Not eligible, the guideline is more than 3 reverts, as VV correctly points out. The "I know you are but what am I" conduct is hardly impressive, either.
  11. Martin 19:16, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC) (multiple = 3)


  • I reverted thrice. This quickpoll is "retaliation" for the below one, in which the guideline was violated. -- VV 08:27, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes: "multiple" = 3:

  • 06:32, 2 Apr 2004 . . VeryVerily (rv wholesale reversion of days of edits)
  • 06:25, 2 Apr 2004 . . VeryVerily (rv wholesale reversion of days of edits)
  • 05:41, 2 Apr 2004 . . VeryVerily (rv wholesale reversion of days of edits)

Martin 19:16, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • I personally find VeryVerily very difficult but would require more evidence of POV edit wars to support a ban. Secretlondon 20:05, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

User:172 (11 votes / 1 for / 10 against / 9.1% in favour)Edit

Five reverts in just over an hour on Red Scare. He didn't like some edits made to the article last week, but temporarily stopped fighting them. Seven other users made edits since then, but just now he returned and reverted all of them back to his version (first edit on Mar 26). This is one of 172's tricks, total reversion of other people's work because of one grievance. Obviously, this sort of behavior provokes edit wars, since no user wants to be fully reverted because of some (often unrelated) objection. Recommend at least censure by the community; please note if you favor the 24-hour ban (forgive me if I don't fully understand quickpoll rules). P.s., 172 is an old hat and knows the rules just fine. P.p.s., it wasn't clear if the first revert should count, but without it it's still four. -- VV 06:56, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)


VV 08:29, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC) Ineligible to vote - "Neither the subject nor the proponent of a quickpoll may vote in it, but they may add comments on this page." -- ChrisO 10:07, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  1. Long history of aggressive point of view editing. Fred Bauder 16:26, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • Doesn't VV also have a long history of aggressive point of view editing? Certainly the shouts of outrage from our left-wing contributors have given me that impression. (I am non-partisan, and generally uninvolved in these contretemps.) -- Cyan 16:34, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)


  1. silsor 07:40, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC) I protest this dramatization of quickpolls. The quickpolls concept was inspired by serious instances in which immediate action was required. It is currently a page to list every petty conflict over material.
    • As I understand it, this page is primarily for users who break the three revert rule. 172 did that. His own quickpoll was simply his typically childish retaliation. -- VV 07:45, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • Quickpolls is a place to drag things through the dirt in front of the entire community. Feelings get hurt and conflicts are worsened instead of resolved. silsor 07:50, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
      • As for breaking the 3 revert rule, it is a new addition to Wikipedia policy in conjunction with this page. Although I appreciate the benefits it has in managing edit wars, it is providing an excuse for conflicts to escalate and is certainly doing nothing to help the community get along. silsor 07:52, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Ruhrjung 07:44, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC) (no comment)-:
  3. john 07:55, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  4. Danny 10:52, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  5. Tannin 10:58, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  6. Cyan 16:27, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  7. Wik 16:28, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
  8. Michael Snow 18:00, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC) Close call, in my opinion. He's eligible, and I would normally support, but he attempted to discuss the issue on Talk:Red Scare and the proponent of this poll failed to engage in discussion. That gives the appearance that VV was more interested in getting 172 quickpolled than in resolving the dispute. Since the reverter demonstrated more good faith effort at resolving the dispute than the quickpoll proponent, I oppose.
    • I had no such interest. 172 did discuss his objections to parts of the text; that did not justify reverting several days worth of edits. I stated this in the edit summary box, and didn't feel it needed more justification than that. -- VV 18:27, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  9. Martin 19:18, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  10. Secretlondon 20:05, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

User: (15 votes / 12 for / 3 oppose / 80% in favour)Edit

This user is intent on labeling Carl Sagan a pantheist. He will not accept any NPOV compromise attempts (that edit was instantly reverted) and has violated the three revert rule, even after a warning not to do so. Please peruse the page history for more information. He has also labeled other users "BIGOTS and CENSORS" and put the entire text of the Carl Sagan page on my talk page.

I propose a 24-hour ban ASAP.—Eloquence 20:31, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

I recommend extending this ban to all IPs listed as aliases on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress: - Texture 20:38, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Note that the user has now, on his talk page, stated that he finds my NPOV compromise acceptable, but has gone around and pasted his preferred version on various pages, including Talk:Carl Sagan.—Eloquence 20:46, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

Implemented. silsor 22:37, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)


  1. Texture 20:32, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) - this is not a new trend
  2. EddEdmondson 20:33, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Jwrosenzweig 20:34, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) - 24 hour ban seems most wise.
  4. Hadal 20:36, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) - Vogel has a long, tiresome history of trying to insert his POV and attacking anyone who dare oppose.
  5. UninvitedCompany 21:05, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  6. Ruhrjung 21:32, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) (not sure if Quickpolls so to say were intended for non-logged in users, but I think it's a good idea)
  7. Michael Snow 21:42, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  8. Tannin I'm not convinced that a quickpoll is needed for this obvious case. To me, it looks like one that any non-involved admin would be justified in implementing without needing the poll.
    • You could look at it as a test case for using quickpolls as opposed to the existing approach. --Michael Snow 22:40, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  9. Ambivalenthysteria 23:40, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  10. Taku 00:58, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Ashibaka 01:16, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  12. Adam Conover 01:36, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC) - also see his similar behavior on Subject-object problem and Talk:Subject-object problem.


  1. I haven't seen sufficient discussion by others in the talk page. Put the dispute to a vote first. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 21:29, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. I don't see sufficient evidence of having discussed the matter with him, warned him, etc... Paul is difficult, but not unreasonable (he even agrees w the compromise now, according to what is said above). Besides, I don't see a big difference between the two edits, its not like he was vandalizing or anything. I suppose I should be greatful that you even discussed it, instead of banning him outright, as usual. Sam Spade 22:36, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I never banned him. What are you talking about? Countless people have tried to discuss the matter with him, see Talk:Carl Sagan/pantheism.—Eloquence
      • I was refering to the past, situations not involving you. He is banned alot. And I don't see that discussion on talk:carl sagan as having been considerate of wikiquette, paul is not alone in having failed to be considerate in his communications (again not refering to you, don't be so thin-skinned ;) Sam Spade 00:25, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
        • Well, I feel that I have been reasonable with PV in the past, and he has always responded with an undue amount of hostility. I think it would be a good idea to send him an official message: "You can only go so far, but not further. Please try to work with others instead of bullying them into submission."—Eloquence
          • An official letter would be fine, but don't live up to his expectations, if it can be helped. He is a lively person, well used to debating these matters, but he isn't a troll IMO. He provides info, w citations, and sincerely wants to provide factual info in the article. He also has been becoming increasingly more reasonable about obeying policy. The only vanalism I have ever seen him to do involved blanking a talk page And that has almost never happened, in the aprox 6 months I have known him. He does have issues w flooding talk pages or wikiquette, but I think that stems for not understanding the applicable policies, or overzealousness. Sam Spade 01:33, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  3. The actual discussions on the article's talk page are unreasonable. Efforts were not made to create NPOV; rather, efforts were made to convince people that Paul's POV was completely wrong. ugen64 03:17, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

Comments and abstentions on 24.45

Looks like a ban is appropriate. I've not been a wikipedian long enough to vote, however. Dr. Z 20:52, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • This user repeatedly reverted the Carl Sagan page and made inappropriate remarks on the talk page. GrazingshipIV 21:18, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Do we need to do Quickpolls for anonymous users? Kingturtle 00:36, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • My first reaction is - no. The vast majority of our vandalism is from anons, and I hesitate to support anything that would make someone reluctant to remove a misbehaving anon. →Raul654 00:39, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • I oppose Quickpolls on anons, it would be impossible to do anything about vandalism. RickK | Talk 02:20, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't think there should be any diff b/t anons with Userpages and other users. One of the beautiful things about MWiki is that anons automatically have a userspace. (Cf. User talk: +sj+ 21:10, 2004 Apr 2 (UTC)


User - Talk - Contribs

Reverted Erika Steinbach five times within an hour. --Wik 00:37, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

This is not against any official rules I am aware of. I reverted a vandalized page back to the unvandalized version. According to the official Bundestag biography, Erika Steinbach was born in Rahmel in West Prussia [13]. Rahmel was officially a part of Germany and named Rahmel when Steinbach was born, just like it now is officially a part of Poland and named Rumia. "German-occupied Poland, in the town of Rumia (known by the Germans as Rahmel, Reichsgau Danzig-West Prussia" is vandalism in the same degree as "George Bush was born in occupied Mexico" or something like that. Wik declared he would start an edit war "upon unprotection", so I had asked that the page should not be unprotected before Wik was willing to cooperate with other contributors. Nico 01:04, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Revert#Revert_wars_considered_harmful_(the_three_revert_guideline) - Never revert the same article more than three times in the same day.
Also, next time you call an admin a POV pusher for protecting and reverting, you might want to remember - Where pages are protected due to revert wars, sysops may protect pages on the version disliked by those who have engaged in excessive reverts.→Raul654 01:15, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

Also, this listing is not in accordance with the guidelines: "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.". I haven't read the new policies before now. Wik is abusing this page to push his own POV on the naming of Steinbach's birthplace. This is not acceptable, and the frivilous ad hominem attack on me should be removed. Nico

On your talk page, Ruhrjung cited ([14]) that exact policy 4 days ago. If you didn't read it, it's your fault - you were warned. You cannot claim ignorance of the 3 revert policy now. →Raul654 01:49, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)
No, it's not my fault. Unlike you, I'm not reading all the policy pages every day to check for updates. Last time I read that page there was no such official policy. Finito. Nico 01:53, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Furthermore, I was not "reverting". I explained my edits. User:Wik is reverting without explanation. Wik's only comment was "(rv)". I wrote in the summary: "(she was born in Rahmel in West Prussia, see )" Nico 02:52, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)



  1. This seems a petty and trivial quickpoll. Moreover, as noted below, both Wik and Nico are equally guilty of reverting this article. Wik lacks "clean hands," so to speak, and so cannot propose this quickpoll in good faith. My two cents... Cribnotes
    • I suspect this is another sockpuppet account. He's only got 9 contribs. →Raul654 03:14, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)
      • He may be, but at least I do not know him. Please check if possible. Nico 03:22, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
        • That's right. You don't know me. And to clarify, in light of Raul's rude and unfounded accusation: I wasn't defending your actions. If a third party had opened a quickpoll regarding both you and Wik, I might have supported it. But as far as I can tell, Wik's behavior has been identical to yours. Consequently, Wik cannot quickpoll you in good faith. Just my two cents. Cribnotes
      • Nice, Raul. Very friendly. I haven't posted upteen-bazillion articles, so I must be a "sockpuppet." Thanks for the warm welcome. Cribnotes
        • I posted the above without logging in. Check the page history. I hope the transparency will allay any further "suspicions." Cribnotes
          • "If it Walks Like a Duck and Quacks Like a Duck"... →Raul654 05:19, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Was warned. [15] —Eloquence 02:32, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Incorrect. I was not made aware of any official policy, and I do not read all the policy pages on a regular basis. Also, I'm tired of this frivilous attack. Nico 02:37, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • Nico, do you pledge not to violate the three-revert-rule in the future?—Eloquence 03:00, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)
        • Of course. It was not my intention to break any rules. Nico 03:02, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
          • OK, under this condition, I oppose a temporary ban.—Eloquence
  3. Yes. His quickpoll below is the 'hot water' I was referring to yesterday when I said I am sick of frivilous quickpolls. He called me a polish POV pusher on the protected pages because I exercised my right to revert his 5 rvs before protecting. →Raul654 01:11, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC) Since Nico has has promised to abide by the 3-revert, I'll assume good faith and believe he was telling the truth about not knowing. In the spirit of fairness, I withdraw my vote. Nico - take care not to break the 3-revert rule again - we'll be watching. →Raul654 03:10, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)
  4. I'll follow Raul's lead here, and assume no harm was intended. Tannin


  • Glass houses: safe for stone-throwing? The story at 11. ;-) —LarryGilbert 01:14, 2004 Apr 3 (UTC)
  • Both parties equally at fault. I propose a duel between Wik and Nico at sunrise. Wik's choice of weapons, since Nico did revert more than thrice. Mkweise 01:54, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Hear, hear. Is there ANY way to resolve this endless Polish/German conflict? Please note that this is a rhetorical question. Meelar 02:25, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Lord Kenneth (85%/20 votes)Edit

User - Talk - Contribs

This user vandalised this page, and a whole series of other pages just now. I have exercised my own judgement and blocked his account for the time being. As a matter of form, I bring the matter up here so that the community can confirm a ban on Lord Kenneth, or suggest whatever other acton is appropriate. I'll detail the vandalism edits in another post shortly. Tannin 01:47, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)



  1. Yes. Just look at his last edit. ([16]) Nuff said. →Raul654 01:51, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Support. His behaviour was totally out of line. moink 01:51, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  3. Arr, string him up on the mast. Mkweise
  4. It was simple vandalism. Was warned, etc. Maximus Rex 02:07, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  5. silsor 03:23, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Least redeemable wikipedian I have thus met see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lord Kenneth and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct disputes archive/Lord Kenneth (JackLynch) or Talk:Atheism/Archive 5. Heck just take a look at his user page. Sam Spade 05:21, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  7. User appears to have left, so this is kind of pointless. But of course the ban was appropriate.--Eloquence*
  8. mav 06:23, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  9. Complete support. Moncrief 06:40, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)
  10. Tuf-Kat 07:26, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Support. Though I agree with his attempts to revert scientific skepticism, his subsequent temper tantrum deserved him some good ol' bannage. Postdlf 04:00 3 Apr 2004 (EST)
  12. Martin 13:58, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC) This fits the criteria of a vandalism spree, IMO. 24hr timeout ban to let him calm down.
  13. Sreyan 14:15, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC) He needs a time out.
  14. Time out, my ass. When "good users" "go bad" this much, they should be shown the door and it should be slammed on them as they're thrown out. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:18, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)
  15. I wish I didn't have to support...I think we all know Lord Kenneth is right, but the trolls he was fighting knew how to play the game better. Adam Bishop 16:51, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  16. Extremely obvious support. --MerovingianTalk 16:57, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)
  17. The ban was imposed without the poll, but there was some form of notice prior to the ban. So unlike normal quickpolls, this is really a poll about whether Tannin's judgment was proper in imposing the ban. I think it was. And if Lord Kenneth has truly left the project, I do not consider it a loss. --Michael Snow 19:58, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)


  1. Danny 02:04, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC) I am not condoning LK's behavior. It seems to me, however, that this is another example of how trolling and POV-pushing can push a valuable contributor away from the project. I am not opposed to disciplinary meansures, given the attacks, but I think that the problem runs much deeper than LK's actions and that these have to be addressed first
    As regards deeper problems, I agree, Danny. I was sadened to see LK go into vandal mode, as despite having a tendency to fly off the handle from time to time, he was a good contributor, and endured a great deal of grief over the Jack Lynch trolling incident. I will miss him, and like you, I believe that a good deal of the reason we lose valuable contributors from time to time is that we do not handle these matters very well as yet. Tannin 02:22, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    I for one am saddened to see tannin describing being presented with citations from reliable sources [17] as trolling. Too bad he can't recognize a real troll until they bite him in his... Sam Spade 05:21, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  2. There does not seem to be a case in controversy here. What are we being asked to vote on -- whether or not Tannin deserves a pat on the back for blocking Lord Kenneth? Are we voting on the length of the ban? Is banning intended to be a punative act intended to disgrace a bad actor? I doubt it serves that purpose if LK thought so little of the group to flagrantly edit articles against majority wishes (aka vandalism). If the purpose was to control a person who was not controlling their own actions, support or oppose offers a very narrow field of alternatives. It appears to me the user logged as LordKenneth fatigued from attempting to participate in dialogue that continued in circular non-productive patterns and resorted to what LordKenneth saw, at that moment, as a more standard behavior. If that is the case, "I know exactly how you feel, I would do the same, but I try not to" might be a more productive way to restore LK's preferred behavior than "He was (once-upon-a-time) a valuable contributor." LK likely suffered from battle fatigue, perhaps eye-strain resulting in mild meningial inflamation and perhaps stress from off-board conflicts. A bit of humanity might go a lot further than staging a quick poll to gain absolution for an administrator who might have just as well spent a few minutes reverting LK's rampaging edits, and making the sort of repeated sympathetic requests that are typical of most modern sales efforts. Bird 07:17, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • By the way, USER:Silsor apparently permablocked the USER:Bird account immediately after User:Bird voted on this page. What's up with that? Bird's only recent edits here have been to some pages about nuclear engineering, and then a vote on this page, which resulted in a "perma-block". I've never even heard of such a thing.
  3. Perl what danny said


  1. Agreed. Cribnotes
    • removed from "support" - active for less than three months. Martin 18:54, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)


removed due to objections below

Reverting Karl Marx 4 times in one day. Has been the source of various other conflicts, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/172 Sam Spade 22:08, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I propose he be given a request for arbitration. Sam Spade 22:50, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • So, what do you propose?--Ruhrjung 22:24, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • I pretty much just want him to be officially corrected. Even admins should not be above the rules. I'm not looking for him to be punished, but rather to become aware of the limits. Sam Spade 22:43, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)



  1. As long as ridiculous excuses are made up for Jor, who reverted over twenty times, 172 should not be banned for four reverts. --Wik 22:23, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Martin 22:29, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC) "official correction" isn't one of the remedies for quickpolls. If people want to scold 172, they should do so off their own bats. Thus this still isn't a proper quickpoll. It should be withdrawn. Martin 22:29, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Quickpolls_policy#Remedies is the link you gave me. Am I misunderstanding it or what? Since you are arbitrator, and my request is to have you look into the matter anyhow, I am gonna remove this poll real fast if you don't say something positive about it. Maybe it would be best if you removed it? Sam Spade 23:04, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • Ahh - my bad - I misread what you wrote - (specifically, I read the bit about "official correction", but not the change you made to your earlier comment. Sorry about that. Martin 21:47, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)


As has TDC. Secretlondon 22:10, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Review the edit history again, I see TDC reverting thrice. Sam Spade 22:13, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I just reviewed it myself - TDC reverted 172 three times [18] [19] [20] and reverted Slrubenstein's edit once [21] within a 24-hour period (All four reverts are the same text). - Tεxτurε 22:19, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Did anyone else read that as 172 reverts on first glance? Mkweise 22:27, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • If anyone reverts 172 times in a 24 hour period they need to be given an award - Tεxτurε 22:32, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Jor and WikEdit

User:Jor (18 votes / 9 for / 9 oppose / 50% in favour)Edit

Jor has reverted St Mary's Church of Danzig (Gdansk) no less than 19 times in less than an hour, only to keep the article at this inappropriate title, while another user wanted to move it to the proper title St Mary's Church in Gdansk (the city where the church is located is called Gdansk since 1945). --Wik 16:47, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

I am "adopting" this quickpoll, as I do not believe that change to quickpoll policy should be retroactively applied. Martin 22:14, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)


  1. I support ending this in in the most ruthless possible way. Adam Bishop 18:24, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  2. Martin 18:43, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC) 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. Jor was informed back in Feb of the revert guideline, and chose to ignore it.
  3. I don't like the idea of banning anyone, but the article titles are not a place for compromises, especially as disputable.Halibutt 19:30, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  4. Michael Snow 19:43, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  5. If Wik's been blocked for 24 hours for probation violation then I support the same measure being given to Jor - Jor is no innocent. And 19 reverts! (of which none were actually against "vandalism", at least by my definition). Secretlondon 20:06, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  6. Support uncoditionally. Irrational behaviour should be punished. Pfortuny
  7. I am absolutely in favor. Regardless of the justification, as Eloquence rightly says, reverts are not appropriate grounds to wage this kind of dispute. If this rule is to be taken seriously, such behavior must carry consequences. This may seem harsh, but we'll be better off for it. Conover 20:43, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)
  8. Support to the fullest extent of my ability to support. Moncrief 22:16, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)
  9. Danny 23:03, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  10. 172 10:22, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC) Jor's being a trouble-maker. 172 10:22, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)


  1. Perl This clearly violates the revert policy, but it isn't a serious violation. Perl 16:55, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  2. The first title is more neutral. --MerovingianTalk 17:06, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • That's beside the point - we have a three revert rule. Reverts are not for enforcing POV or NPOV.Eloquence*
  3. ugen64 20:41, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)
  4. I find Jor's explanation plausible. Fred Bauder 22:48, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Eloquence* (has pledged not to do it again)
  6. Mkweise I believe Jor has already learned his lesson from this experience, and does not need a "time out".
  7. I agree with Perl. It's clear that Jor was responding to an anon contributor, who should have been banned on the 3rd revert. Sorry, but if someone wants respect from me, create an account. -- llywrch 00:19, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Also, please note that this particular anon has a long history of troublemaking, vandalism and personal attacks. Nico 01:13, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  8. Tεxτurε 02:34, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  9. Ruhrjung 03:10, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC) The three-revert rule seems more like an excuse to even the score in this never-ending fight surrounding Wik. It's no good usage of the Quickpoll institution to regard it as artillery in battle.
  10. I agree with both Fred and Ruhrjung - Jor's explination sounds pretty solid and reasonable, and this seems like an abuse of the quickpolls by Wik. →Raul654 22:12, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)


  1. Strongly oppose banning Jor. Nico 18:37, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • I have moved this to comments, as Nico is a well-known participant of these ongoing edit wars, and to this debate in particular. As such, he is not eligible to vote per policy.--Eloquence*
      • It's OK. I absolutely agree with the policy changes (it was proposed after I voted). Nico 20:37, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  2. In retrospect I admit being wrong reverting so many times. At the time I believed I was honestly stopping vandalism by an anon, but after finally getting some discussion done with the anon I realized his goals, which we discussed on talk pages. I was unprepared for Wik abusing this for his own use. — Jor (Talk) 20:47, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)


In violation of policies, Wik is reverting edits on St Mary's Church of Danzig (Gdansk) to remove information added, even though discussion on the article name is ongoing on talk. — Jor (Talk) 16:59, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am adopting this policy for procedural reasons: I do not believe that policy changes should be retroactively applied. Martin 22:20, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
As nothing was actually proposed, this isn't a proper quickpoll. It should be withdrawn. ;) anthony (see warning) 23:20, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)


  1. I support blocking Wik just so I don't have to see this crap over and over again. Adam Bishop 18:14, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  2. Support unconditionally. Pfortuny 20:15, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  3. ugen64 20:42, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 22:49, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Mkweise I hope someday Wik will come to understand that revert wars do not resolve disputes, because he does do a lot of good work too. However, he has been involved in more recent edit wars than I care to count, and that has got to stop. (Incidentally, the talk page discussion in this case eventually reached a consensus leading to the outcome Wik was seeking. That makes his actions all the more pointless.) Mkweise 23:58, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  6. Wik needs to learn the skill of working with other people. llywrch 00:10, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  7. strongly support. Perl 02:49, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  8. Support. Wik seems to be focused on exercising passive aggression instead of contributing to the Wikipedia. This sort of petty squabbling is cancerous, and undermines Wikipedia's credibility. Let him come back when he's cooled down, and is ready to be constructive. My two cents... Cribnotes
    • Moved from support - active for less than three months. Martin 18:55, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • Martin: Please reply on my talk page. Thank you. Cribnotes
        • Moved back after cribnotes proved that he has been here for around 6 months. Perl 22:26, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)


  1. Don't you people have anything constructive to do?? --MerovingianTalk 17:06, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Indeed. 3 vs. 19...Halibutt 19:31, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  3. Not a rampage. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 19:37, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  4. Danny 02:56, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  5. Ruhrjung 03:12, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC) The three-revert rule seems more like an excuse to even the score in this never-ending fight surrounding Wik. It's no good usage of the Quickpoll institution to regard it as artillery in battle.
  6. Leave Wik alone. This is a witch hunt. 172 10:21, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. I see only 3 reverts to this article by Wik in the two weeks preceding this listing, not the required 4 in 24 hours, so it doesn't seem to meet the policy requirement. In this case I'm more inclined to act against Nico, based on the history of the discussion and edits. While considering this one I also chose to protect the page until the naming dispute is resolved in talk. Jamesday 06:48, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Personally I'm more inclined to act against JamesDay. Nico 20:10, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • If you believe that the record on the talk page supports a view that what you did with the name change was in accord with some agreement which had been reached, please feel free to do so. I think that it was your acting without that agreement which prompted both the recent sequence of edit warring in the article and my decision to protect the page until there really was agreement on what to do. Jamesday 05:26, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  8. Taku 01:35, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC). He might or might not have a problem with working with people. Apparently, he reverts probably too much. But regardless, Quickpolls is not a mean to accuse someone of not acting friendly. Is any negative voting result going to behave him? I don't think so. -- Taku 01:35, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)


  1. Tεxτurε 02:36, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC) - I agree Wik probably needs to cool down but this does not seem to violate any rule punishable through quickpolls.


  1. Oppose it was Nicos involvement that moved the St.Marys page in the first place and see Nicos contributions to just anti-polish he is. 19:05, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Only registered users may vote in quickpolls: sorry. Martin 19:12, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • As this anon was the one Jor was in the revert war with, shouldn't the anon be given a 24-hour ban too? --Michael Snow 19:48, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • You could start a quickpoll. I took the view that it was conceivable that the anon wasn't aware of our policy on the matter. He is now. Martin 01:34, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • I thought a sysop could just block the IPs of anon users. Since I've never done this (& frankly hope I never have to) I can't tell if said anon has been blocked. -- llywrch 00:10, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  2. Support. I wasn't going to take a position, but after watching Wik edit text critical of him out of this discussion, I just can't view it as an action of someone responsible. I think he was temp banned yesterday by Martin for just such the same action? - Wguynes 22:47, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • moved from votes as not active for three months. Martin 22:54, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • In a bit of irony, all voters will note Wik reverted my post, calling me a vandal in an attempt to not have a count against him. Then, when restored, realized (correctly) that I have not been member for 3 months again (incorrectly) reverting me out. Martin finally, restored me to comments. Is this the behavior you all want of your fellow wikipedians? - Wguynes 01:56, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)
      • I reverted Wguynes' post because he removed lots of stuff, as anyone will note looking up his edit in the history (he probably ignored an edit conflict). --Wik 18:47, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)
  3. I feel wik needs to be told how to act civily toward other users, a block, or warning is a start Comrade Nick
    • Not eligible to vote. Martin 21:13, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  4. Martin 18:42, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC) Wik made three reverts (one regrettably unmarked). Regrettable, but not worthy of a quickban. However, as Wik has violated the terms of his arbitration parole in edits to wikipedia:quickpolls, I have temp-banned him for 24 hours.
    • not eligible to vote (adopter of vote) Martin 21:44, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I thought Wik not was allowed to revert three times due to this arbitration thing. He continued reverting this page at 21:46, 22:00 and 22:06 -- Nico 22:25, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

More than three. Wikipedia:requests for arbitration/Wik. Martin 22:56, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
For everyones use, Ive created a quicklink to the 3revertrule policy at WP:3RR (Caps, like all my quicklinks). -SV(talk) 02:16, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Many reverts on Jerusalem. As evidence that he knew the revert rule and of quickpolls, I present his edit at 22:16, 5 Apr 2004 . . Uriber (rv. What do you know - someone already did it!) in response to 22:08, 5 Apr 2004 . . Wik (rephrasing is not reverting, you however reverted at least 6 times, eventually someone will start a quickpoll on you). I suggest a 24-hour ban. anthony (see warning) 21:57, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Okay - I'll adopt. Secretlondon 22:41, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
So please remove you vote - IIRC the initiator is not allowed to vote. -- uriber 22:43, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The poll currently has over 20 votes, with less than 50% approval. Can someone please remove it? (The policy doesn't say I can't do it myself - but I'd rather play safe). -- uriber 08:29, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)


  1. Tεxτurε 22:01, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC) - will support the same for Wik since he appears to have done many reverts on the same page in the same 24-hour period.
    No, I have not reverted more than 3 times, I tried different phrasings, but Uriber wouldn't accept anything short of his obvious POV statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" or equivalents that obscure the fact that the status is disputed.
    I saw two actual reverts and several attempts to say the same sentence reworded such that it was a revert in sheeps clothing. - Tεxτurε 22:44, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  2. Support. Note that I have also temp-banned Wik because he is in violation of the arbitration ruling against him (and changing a couple of words here and there doesn't make it a non-revert). Someone else's misbehavior is no excuse for your own. If Wik violates the arbitration ruling in the future, contact a sysop and they will ban him.--Eloquence* 22:32, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Cribnotes 22:36, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC) I support this action on the condition that it be applied equally to Texture Uriber and Wik. If Wik is to receive no punishment, then neither should Texture Uriber. As to Wik's argument that he is not obligated to engage in talk against "POV pushers": I believe Wikipedia rules indeed compel you to explain your actions, Wik. It cannot be left to any single user to decide whose input is invalid, or who is a "POV pusher." Moreover, as you were recently reprimanded by a process of arbitration, I think you are particularly unfit to judge the value of another user.
    • Um, Crib? I haven't touched the page. - Tεxτurε 22:42, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • Whoops! You're absolutely right, Texture. I apologize. I mistakenly typed your handle in place of Uriber's. Cribnotes 22:46, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
        • I feel like I got too close to a stoning in progress... - Tεxτurε 22:48, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  4. Michael Snow 22:47, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  5. Martin 23:17, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC) (clear case of excessive reverts, Uriber has admitted guilt)
  6. BCorr|Брайен 23:39, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC) as Martin said...
  7. Dori | Talk 23:41, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)
  8. Jwrosenzweig 23:48, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  9. Tannin 23:52, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  10. Cyan 04:21, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC), as per Texture and Martin
  11. Dukeofomnium 14:09, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  12. The edit war is still continuing a day later. Angela. 22:49, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)


  1. Mkweise Who among us has not been in an edit war with Wik? Those who live outside the law forfeit its protection.
    • The point of this is not to protect Wik. Wik got a temp-ban too for violating his probation. --Michael Snow 23:53, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  2. I agree. These recent individual squabbles are obscuring the big picture, and the real root of the problem. - Hephaestos|§ 23:47, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  3. I for one am willing to forgive everybody involved in this edit war if Jerusalem gets reverted to my last edit (m 20:13, 3 Apr 2004). Right up till Wik's next edit we were meticulously and painfully converging on a compromise phrasing that was close to not unpleasing anybody even remotely reasonable. -- Dissident 23:59, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  4. First QP qualification. I think third parties coming across such an edit war should make a stubborn effort to warn the people involved as a first measure -- at least including a talk-page message. perhaps it would be appropriate to leave a note on this page (policies ignored; quickpoll not started; warnings left for User:Quickpollee on user talk page and article talk page) that a warning was issued. +sj+ 11:50, 2004 Apr 6 (UTC)
  5. If this is a vote to give Uriber a time-out, then I'm against it. He seems open to reason. Let's drop the matter, and give it one more day. After that, I would support a "First Warning" rather than a quickban on whoever first violates the 3-revert rule. --Uncle Ed 13:26, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  6. Fred Bauder 16:50, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Obviously provoked by Mr Revert Wars. (In other words: agree with Mkweise.) — Jor (Talk) 16:53, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. The edit war has stopped. Progress has been made on the talk page, and I do not think the edit war will start again. Bensaccount 21:50, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Blocking one participant isn't so fair. Hopefully current version can stand. Zoney 23:08, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. The talk page shows Uriber has made considerable effort in discussing the form of the page, and thus is I think acting in good faith. Unless I'm very much mistaken, I don't see any such contribution from Wik, so I can't regard Wik's actions as being in good faith. Although I wish Uriber had switched to de-caf that morning, censuring him (?) is unconscionable. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:25, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    Well, you are indeed very much mistaken. I said all there is to it back in October, and I will not waste my time going in endless circles with a POV pusher who tries to tire people out. I have explained my position and I will revert any POV version 3 times a day as long as it takes. --Wik 23:35, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. The correct community response would have been (and still may be) to protect the page for a lengthy period. I haven't been counting reverts, but I have been reading the Talk page and what I see is that Uriber makes an extraordinary effort to explain himself (unlike Wik, whose "I said something in October, nothing you wrote in reply is worthy of a response" attitude is much less community-friendly). It is simply unfair to consider action against Uriber alone. --Zero 23:41, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  12. I agree with Zero on this. Blocking someone because they reverted four times in 24 hours is ridiculous, anyway. john 00:47, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  13. Uriber seems ok to me. Lirath Q. Pynnor
  14. Oppose but am prepared to change my position if the call for the quickpoll is improved and extended with links to 1/ an explecite warning (in the context of "give the user a fair chance to improve") and 2/ a clear description, including links to the edits, of which reverts he is accused of. --Ruhrjung 06:34, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)


  1. I'd like to support -- the reasons for making 3 reverts in 24 hours are irrelevant unless dealing with an anonymous vandal -- but I've had cross words with Uriber in the past, so I must abstain. -- llywrch 23:58, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Guilty as charged. Not even trying to claim ignorance. In my defence I would like to say that my main opponent was Wik - which has a principle of refusing to discuss on the talk page. I have made enormous efforts to present my side of the argument on the talk page. I believe I even convinced several Wikipedians (not to mention all those which agreed with me in the first place). However - this was all in vain, since Wik just keeps reverting (recently he uses slight rewordings when he reverts, so he can claim he is not in violation of his probation. I could do the same of course, but I'm not that childish. I am, however, very persistent). -- uriber 22:24, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I made my point on this back in *October* and it still stands. I am not obliged to engage in endless repetitive talk whenever a POV pusher thinks he can start another round. --Wik 22:26, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)
Using alternate phrasing would be an excellent idea. It's called an attempt at compromise, which you seem unwilling to do. anthony (see warning) 22:28, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Note: Anthony has engaged in numerous edit wars with this user (Wik). GrazingshipIV 04:39, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

  • Technical note: I belive this quickpoll as it stands is invalid, since it was started by a user which was involved in the dispute (two edits today on the subject, both later changed by me). So someone else should "adopt" the quickpoll. -- uriber 22:40, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Fair point, Uriber. Although since you indicated that you were aware of your conduct, and you indicated that you would comply with the quickpoll ruling -- and in light of the fact that Eloquence has already temp-banned Wik -- maybe we can find a simpler solution. Perhaps you would agree to self-impose a 24-hour "cooling-off" period, and we could discard this quickpoll altogether? Just a suggestion. Cribnotes 22:44, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't belive a "cooling off" period (or a tempban, for that matter) will be effective in this case - it's been going on for months without progress, since Wik won't answer my arguments. Maybe mediation would work - but for that we need everyone to cooperate, which I'm skeptical if possible. -- uriber 22:52, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
        • Let's keep in mind what this poll is - its a first treatment for a larger problem, that may or may not shape an end result. So, after the quickpoll's decision to impose a (rare) hard ban, a temp ban, a cooloff ban, there are several other program options avaliable (ie. Counseling), and services can be given or denied depending on credit. -Stevertigo 11:15, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Regarding sj's vote above: While I appreciate the vote against banning me, I wish to make it clear that I was fully aware of the three-revert guideline, and of the possibility of being quickpolled, when I did what I did. Warning me on my talk page would probably not have had any effect on my behaviour. I have no complaints whatsoever regarding procedural issues with this quickpoll (except for that it was started by an involved party - which was corrected after I noted it). As I understand it, the reason that there is no automatic sanction on violating the three-revert rule, but instead a quickpoll, is that the community accepts that there are special circumstances under which multiple reverts can be acceptable. I believe this was such a case. I have previously gone a long way to avoid edit wars with Wik (including leaving his version untouched for many weeks, while discussing [with other people] on the talk page). I simply reached a conclusion that multiple-reverting was the only alternative to letting Wik have it his way, using his brute-force tactics. I was aware of the fact that Wik was on probation, and had hoped that the edit war would not be too long. I was also hoping (as I still do) to get some support from the community, given the circumstances. If this statement will lead Sj to change his vote, I will fully understand. -- uriber 12:49, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

User:I am sexyEdit

-> Wikipedia talk:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/WikiSex

-> WikiEN-l wikisex page

User:JRR TrollkienEdit

User page Talk

Nominate for 24hr temp-ban for trolling, misuse of quickpoll process, and other disruptive behaviour (under "rampage" and "a signed in user confesses to deliberate trolling"). Martin 23:56, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I implemented the 24 hr ban as JRR T was tempering with the votes. There was support of 11/0 at the time. Dori | Talk 00:50, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
Said block lasted the full 24 hours. Martin 01:06, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Support temp-ban
  1. User has made 102 edits since 31 March. Every single one of them has been an attempt to incite, disrupt, or otherwise cause trouble. This account should be permanently banned. The use of a quickpoll to reach such a determination (and for a useless 24 hours if it's even effective) is a clear sign that the system for keeping this website running smoothly is terribly broken. - Hephaestos|§ 00:01, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  2. Violated 3-revert rule on GNAA. --Wik 00:03, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Tεxτurε 00:15, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) - for reasons above.
  4. The user name says it all. Trolls are not welcome here. Isomorphic 00:16, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  5. Maximus Rex 00:18, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  6. Meelar 00:20, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  7. moink 00:20, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  8. Danny 00:36, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  9. silsor 00:22, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC) Permanent ban.
  10. Dori | Talk 00:24, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC) I'm with silsor
  11. RADICALBENDER 00:39, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  12. BCorr|Брайен 00:53, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
  13. Catherine 00:53, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  14. Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:37, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  15. Ambivalenthysteria 02:07, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  16. Decumanus | Talk 02:23, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) permanent
  17. Jiang 02:29, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) make it longer than 24
  18. --Node 19:05, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  19. Kingturtle 02:33, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  20. Cyan 02:36, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  21. MerovingianTalk 07:10, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
  22. — Jor (Talk) 13:54, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  23. Michael Snow 18:08, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC) I don't care about the name, just the "contributions". Case needs to go to arbitration for real sanctions, whether or not those are permanent.
Oppose temp-ban
  1. anthony (see warning) 00:00, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • I'd also point out this mailing list post from Jimbo [22] with the subject header "Deliberate chain-yanking" as evidence I'm not alone in the above belief.- Hephaestos|§ 00:06, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Jimbo later endorsed the quickpoll mechanism for dealing with trolls. Martin 00:11, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: This quickpoll has not been properly announced on the appropriate user talk page, and is thus invalid according to the Quickpoll policy. JRR Trollkien 00:32, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • To Isomorphic. There is no policy forbidding 'Troll' usernames. In any case, a different process has to be followed for usernames ehich are against policy (See User:TMC et al.). }JRR Trollkien 00:32, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • My objection is not that you have a troll user name, it's that you are a troll. Not only have you acted as one here, but the articles you're interested in make it pretty obvious that you're also a Slashdot troll. Isomorphic 00:44, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Silsor's "Permanent ban" comment is irrelevent. This quickpoll is for a 24h ban. You may want to ask for a referral to the Arbitration Committee
  • Oppose. You can't define Troll except as someone you disagree with. Vandalism is one thing, but "Troll" is just someone YOU don't like. The Trolls of Navarone 15:18, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
See User:The Fellowship of the Troll for more evidence of this.

User:Ed PoorEdit

-> Wikipedia talk:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/WikiSex


User pageTalk — [contributions] — Erika Steinbach — [page history]

Nico continues to revert Erika Steinbach and will not compromise. I am adopting this poll because Tannin involved himself by reverting Erika Steinbach. I have no special opinion in the matter but I want this quickpoll to have its due process. As per Tannin's original request, request a 24hr ban.silsor 08:24, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

Support action

  1. Kingturtle 09:59, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  2. Danny 11:48, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  3. DavidA 17:18, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC) How many examples do we need to make? Killing the dog won't cure the bite.
  4. Adam Bishop 17:09, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  5. Tuf-Kat 17:32, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Technically not a "3 reverts in 24-hours" case, but the majority of the last 10-15 edits to this article have been Nico reverting. This kind of action is bad because drives away other contributors who want to work on other parts of the article. -- llywrch 21:07, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  7. SimonMayer 01:21, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oppose action

  1. Eloquence* 10:01, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC) (a case for arbitration, really)
  2. +sj+ 10:47, 2004 Apr 10 (UTC) A cause for great annoyance, perhaps, but not for a qp. Perhaps Nico and Tannin could both devote their energies to arbitration RfC?
  3. Ruhrjung 11:46, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC) Unclear call for Quickpoll. "Rampage" or revertions?
  4. Martin 12:22, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC) three reverts in just under 14 hours (from 17:17, 9 Apr to 07:01, 10 Apr 2004). Not worthy of a temp-ban. (Tannin even less so - three reverts over 31 hours, and no prior history). Consider arbitration.
  5. Plato aka Comrade Nick, I think sould be a arbitration matter.
  6. Moriori. I can't vote FOR Support action if I don't know what it is. Exactly what action is proposed?
  7. Arbitration, definitely, or some sort of method that will actually get a resolution, rather than a pointless 24-hr ban that won't solve the root of the problem. Meelar 23:51, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  8. anthony (see warning) 23:55, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  9. Oppose because of the lack of a clear proposed violation or rmedy consistent with the description. Jamesday 00:05, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  10. Michael Snow 04:56, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC) Not a case qualified for a quickpoll according to the policy. But I support a request for arbitration, which is an available quickpoll remedy.
  11. Cribcage 06:13, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC) These Eastern European edit wars are tiresome, and have long since passed the point where either side was right. The community keeps running quickpolls, and keeps slapping the participants on the wrist. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. It's time for a new tack.


  • User:Nico continues to trample over community consessus in Erika Steinbach, despite having been listed here and warned before. User Nico has behaved with complete contempt for community norms and processes. Earlier he reverted the article 5 times in a day. Now he continues to revert as often as possible, and has taken to dishonestly marking his reverts as "minor" in order to try to hide them from other editors. In the last month, User Nico has edited this tiny 200-word article an astonishing 50 times, nearly all of those edits being nothing but reverts against dozens of other editors. The page has had to be protected several times, but every time the protection is removed, User Nico goes straight back on the rampage. He is in conflict with almost all other editors to the page. I am not personally involved in the dispute, but have taken on a watching brief to try to help the community deal with this problem user and his mindless reverts.
A 24 hour ban is nowhere near enough to deter this user, who is utterly determined to trample over any and all others Wikipedians in order to get his way. Unfortunately, 24 hours is all that a Quickpoll can deliver, so it will have to do as an interim measure. More and firmer action is essential. Tannin 08:03, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't think I need to comment on this. Nico
I agree: Yet another 24h ban isn't going to change Nico's faith in POV edit wars, and therefor pointless. Arbitration would be worth a shot. Mkweise 17:02, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I think we should ban for 24 hours then see how things turn out and if further action is necessary.
SimonMayer 01:21, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • I have not broken the three-revert-rule, so this poll is not qualified and may be deleted (see Wikipedia:Quickpolls policy). I certainly will compromise; my latest version is roughly based on the proposal by Kpalion. The problem is that more extreme Polish users, like banned user:Gdansk, just want to insert their POV. If a city then in Germany should be called "occupied Poland" or "Nazi occupied Poland", we also have to refer to Wroclaw as "Breslau, stalinist-occupied Germany" or "occupied Germany". Neither of those are NPOV. Wikipedia shall not take sides.
Note that this quickpoll was added by User:Tannin in retaliation after my request for comment after his vandalism and rampage on Erika Steinbach. Childish. Also, he vandalized the page exactly 3 times, while I cleaned up after him 3 times. Hence, according to him, he needs to be banned. Well, when are we going to remove this unjustified ad hominem attack from User:Tannin? Nico 12:35, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • I haven't voted yet on this... but locking up the dog will make sure it doesn't bite while locked up and might think twice before biting again. - Tεxτurε 16:45, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • So we temp-ban anybody who's ever edited an article containing the word "Gdansk"? Meelar 17:33, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • Let's not beat around the bush - Texture is saying that there are "certain people" who are prepetually involved in the eastern european edit wars, and that a 24 hour ban might 'encourage' the persistent ones to be more restrained in the future.
        • That can't be the answer, but something needs to be done. These people are poisoning the atmosphere, and will continue to do so until we can come to some consensus on these issues. Meelar 17:41, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • There will be only ever one Nico. she was an actress and rock-star of Andy Warhol's Velvet Underground who died when falling off her bike during a heroin rehab programme in Majorca in the 80's. This user is therefore plagarising an artist's name besides seemingly enjoying causing disruption to the 'pedia. much wasted time and effort here over a disruptive person. Norwikian 11:38, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • I'd just like to say that the little "User page"-"Talk"-"Contributions"-"Page History" header was extremely useful, and a good idea. Meelar 15:46, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • My $.02 - yes, Nico is now abiding by the 3-revert limit. That's improvement. However, I think the problems are that:
  1. He marks his most inflammatory edits as minor (which, as someone else said, is dishonest)
  2. He has a tendancy to slander other contributors. He said Tannin's work was vandalism; he called me a polish POV pusher for protecting a page and reverting after he had 5 reverts; the list goes on and on.
  • In short, he's made progress, but not enough. →Raul654 16:40, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • I think the three revert limit is silly, it allows people to make 2 reversions each day, they all add up and that's 730 reversions per year. Shouldn't we just apply common sense and find consensus on excessive reversion for each reversion war?
      SimonMayer 01:21, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Halibutt 20:13, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC) Support. A serious warning ban might do.
    • parts in the dispute in question not allowed to vote. Read the guidelines. --Nico
  • Quinwound 17:26, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC) Support action.
    • Not active for three months. Martin 21:26, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

extended Nico discussion

  • User Nico has now compounded his offence by trying to delete this Quickpoll. Tannin 08:21, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Because you are not allowed to start such a quickpoll, which I told you before. Nico 08:36, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Silsor, out of respect for you and your fine work here, I will not revert your adoption. However, it was not needed in the slightest and is something of a backwards step. Just as you did a moment ago, I became "involved" in this dispute only insofar as a couple of days ago I intervened as a disinterested third party in order to help preserve order. Tannin 08:32, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I did it to stop the edit war between you and Nico on this page. As I explained on my talk page, you became a direct party to the dispute by reverting him and Nico legitimately pointed out that you should not have started this quickpoll. silsor 08:34, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

User:Tannin is now making changes to my comments [23] -- Nico 08:49, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nico's was not a legitimate revert, Silsor, as my so-called "involvement" is purely as a disinterested observer trying to further the good governance of the 'pedia. Be that as it may, Nico is now telling further untruths, claiming that I am "changing his comments", when in fact I have not changed a single word (correction: accidently changed 3 words) of what he wrote, simply moved it back down so that it follows what I originally wrote on this page. Examine the page history and you will be able to verify that immediately. Tannin 08:54, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

See [this diff] for the rapid-fire Nico edit that I missed while reverting to the correct order. Tannin 09:18, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You removed a phrase from his comment. silsor 08:59, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)
No, I reverted to an incorrect version. See above

Are you lying again? Compare [24]

"I have not broken the three-revert-rule, so this poll is not qualified and may be deleted (see Wikipedia:Quickpolls policy). I certainly will compromise; my latest version is roughly based on the proposal by Kpalion. The problem is that more extreme Polish users, like banned user:Gdansk, just want to insert their POV. If a city then in Germany should be called "occupied Poland" or "Nazi occupied Poland", we also have to refer to Wroclaw as "Breslau, stalinist-occupied Germany" or "occupied Germany". Neither of those are NPOV. Wikipedia shall not take sides. Nico 08:28, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)"

which you deleted here:

"I have not broken the three-revert-rule, so this poll is not qualified and may be deleted (see Wikipedia:Quickpolls policy). I certainly will compromise; my latest version is roughly based on the proposal by Kpalion. The problem is that more extreme Polish users just want to insert their POV. If a city then in Germany should be called "occupied Poland" or "Nazi occupied Poland", we also have to refer to Wroclaw as "Breslau, stalinist-occupied Germany" or "occupied Germany". Neither of those are NPOV. Wikipedia shall not take sides. Nico 08:28, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)"

My apologies to the community. I had no intention of changing Nico's words, and must have lost those three words on-between edit conflicts. Notice that Nico, on the other hand, has continued to jump his reply up to the top in the hope that it will meet the reader's eye before the post I made that it was written in response to. Notice also that he has made absolutely no attempt to deny his 50+ reverts to the article in question, not to attempt to explain his multiple dishonestly marked "minor" edits. Tannin 09:12, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Anyone reading the page history will see that your comment was not there when I posted my comment. Why are you trying to hide my comment, anyway? Also, reverts are marked minor by default. I also do that. I'm defending the neutrality of an article I have written myself against Polish POV pushers like Gdansk. 50 reverts over a couple of months means 50 reverts from the POV pushers as well. What else have the POV pushers contributed to this article with? What have you contributed with, except being annoying and starting an edit war this morning? Nico 09:20, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The evidence:
[my post] 08:28, 10 Apr 2004
[Niko's reply] 08:03, 10 Apr 2004

No, here is the evidence: [25]. Comparing an edit by silsor, and the next edit by me, where I am adding my comment the first time. Nico 09:28, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Precisely. 8:28 - i.e., your comment was posted almost half an hour after mine. Tannin 09:38, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The essential question is: Why are you trying to hide my comment? Nico 09:39, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
And the essential answer is that your response to my Quickpoll summary of your one-man revert war should not have been jumped up over the post that it was responding to. You are trying to hide the damning list of charges I brought up in the first place. Once again, you are doing your best to bend, break and/or avoid all the rules of ordinary civilised Wiki behaviour. Tannin 09:55, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
This is nonsense. MY comment was not a respond to your quickpoll, because you are not allowed to start this quickpoll. MY comment was a respond to Silsor's quickpoll, and your quickpoll text was not there when I read this text. Your original, illegal quickpoll text does not need to be placed over my comment, as you already have commented. Also, you are doing your best to make unnecessary trouble for Wikipedia. Nico 10:01, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Also, note that this quickpoll was added in retaliation solely for my request for comment after Tannin started an edit war over Steinbach without any good explanation of his edits. [26]. This is childish. Nico 10:16, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

More nonsense, Nico. I started writing the carefully-researched and referenced description of your one-man revert war against the community immediately on discovering that you had dishonestly reverted Erika Steinbach yet again.(Yes: dishonestly. Marking substantive changes "minor" is dishonest. You posted your silly RFC while I was still counting your reverts - and you had plenty of time to post it because I had a lot of counting to do. Tannin

That's your words only. I added my request for comment after your rampage at 07:40, and you tried to start a quickpoll in retaliation at 08:09! You had plenty of time! Nico 11:41, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Your continual slander of an honest contrivutor disgusts me, Nico. Your ethics in this entire matter have been nothing short of appalling. Tannin 22:17, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the entire quickpoll system seems to be abused by POV pushers and vandals to fit their agendas. Known troublemakers like Wik, who is banned at least 7 times, and Tannin, who start frivolous quickpolls in retaliation, should not be allowed to start new quickpolls from now on in my opinion. Nico 05:35, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So now even Tannin is a "known troublemaker" for you. You have now called half of Wikipedia "known vandals" or "known troublemakers" or "known POV pushers". That gets boring. Just for your information, Tannin is a long time contributor with a vast amount of great articles produced by him. You in contrast are just getting on everybody's nerves. I would have supported a temp ban against you and your opponents as well if there was any use in it. Unfortunately after six months of dealing with your behaviour I lost any hope that we can ever get rid of you. -- Baldhur 12:31, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

    • This is an article I have written. User:Tannin's only contribution was to start an edit war. Ban him, not me. Nico 05:43, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)~
      • You contributed text to this article, but the nature of Wikipedia is that it is not your article; it belongs to none of us, and yet all of us. Please read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, which explains this policy. -- llywrch 18:43, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
        • Thank you so much for your concern, I am perfectly aware of the policy. I'm only pointing out who is being the troublemaker who have contributed with nothing but reversions to the Steinbach article, and is the person who should be tempbanned. Nico 18:57, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

    • I propose a 24 hour ban on all [the people who voted against me]. They have not broken any rule, AFAIK, but I have not broken any rule either. I don't like them and they don't like me. Nico 05:37, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • As I pointed out below, (1) you have marked non-minor edits as minor (Wikipedia:Minor edit - an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a "minor edit". A major edit is basically something that makes the entry worth relooking at for somebody who wants to watch the article rather closely, so any "real" change, even if it is a single word, is a major edit.) and (2) you have been abusive to other members of the community (See Wikipedia:Wikiquette). I would be a lot more comfortable voting not to ban you if you would promise not to do these again. →Raul654 05:46, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)
        • (1) As pointed out in comments moved to the talk page, reverts are by default marked as minor (including yours), and I also do that, because I'm not introducing anything new to the article and I know the reversions of articles relating to German-Polish issues are of little interest to most wikipedians. If you don't want me to mark them so, I will not do that, however. (2) Other wikipedians have been far more abusive to me. That includes a number of Polish users, especially those calling everyone they disagrees with "nazis", as well as User:Tannin, who is abusing the quickpoll system to attack an opponent in an edit war where I am defending the neutrality of the article. Nico 06:00, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
        • For the record, I do not dislike you Nico. Kingturtle 19:38, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)


-> Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FoxNews


Ho hum. Reverts, personal attack ad nauseum, etc. on April 12. See here for that day. Suggest 24 hours. Danny 15:57, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)


  1. What he's done today, had anyone else done it, would certainly qualify as a "rampage"—but for RK, it was business as usual. Perhaps a short timeout will help teach him that this kind of behavior just isn't cricket; but I rather doubt it. —No-One Jones 18:58, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  2. Violated three-revert rule on Alternative medicine (as did Mr-Natural-Health). Also needs to lay off the hysterical edit summaries. --Wik 22:57, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
  3. As commented below, this behaviour has been displayed by RK for so long it has become ho-hum. People are so used to it from him by now that they simply ignore it. They shouldn't. 24 hours in the cooler might make a difference. Tannin 23:28, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  4. RK has made a real habit out of this, to say the least. He needs to be taken to the arbitration committee. I really don't know what can be done - this user has been doing this exact sort of thing, accusing people of being "Nazis" and "vandals", et cetera ad nauseum since at least September. I am not certain he is capable of reform. Pakaran. 00:24, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  5. It is seems that the rules do not apply to RK. It was Easter Sunday morning and all the Sysops where either not online or they simply failed to respond in a timely manner. Sometimes it takes only a few seconds for an editor to respond to the edit summaries messages. If it wasn't for Easter, I would not have gone over 3 reverts. I was only reverting RK's reverts. Also, RK reverted Talk:Alternative medicine, too. Also, I am not aware of any "alternative medicine" idiots, referred to below. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 04:02, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • I think that the the new 3 revert/day limit is totally not the issue here. The issue is RK's pattern of harassment and vandalism through his method of destroying encyclopedic articles. I find editors trying to excuse the outrageous behavior of one of their buddies as sicking. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 14:09, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  6. Fred Bauder 04:32, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)


  1. Strongly oppose! The rules clearly state that a user must be given a fair chance to improve their behavior. I quote: "If a user might not be aware of a policy, make them aware of it first." So I placed a notice informing him of the new 3 revert/day limit at 3pm today. It is my considered opinion that this quickpoll is in violation of stated Wikipedia policy. --Uncle Ed 18:51, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  2. Eloquence* 09:59, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC) (no evidence of required warning)
  3. RK is a pain in the butt (as are we all at times), but he is willing to speak the truth on a range of subjects, such as defending science against the "alternative medicine" idiots, and this project needs people who do that. Also the "3-rvts" rule is idiotic and it is frequently necessary to break it to defend articles against evil-doers. I break it all the time and will go on doing so. So I can't condemn RK for doing the same. Adam 15:35, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. What are we, children? "Go stand in the corner." Jeeves 17:08, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  5. I've only had a recent "run-in" when I noted a revert war going on at Traditional Chinese Medicine. Although I agreed with RK's POV, I did not agree with most of his edits; but the "war" was very much pushed along by others against RK using "vandalism" as an argument (it was not; maybe poor editing at worst). RK "allowed" me and others to move in and make adjustments (as did the TCM side) and the war seems to have cooled down. That experience gave me no problems with RK, or reason to censure him. - Marshman 00:05, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  6. We ought to stick to the rules, until they are changed. Show that he was properly warned, and I'll change my vote. Ruhrjung 09:10, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)


  1. This is a rather difficult vote for me personally, if someone could prove to me that RK violated the 3 revert rule w/o him knowing about that was that there was such a rule than i might change my vote to oppose. Comrade Nick
RK was insistent on getting his changes in, perhaps 3+ times; but the other side was doing the reverting at TCM. - Marshman


  • RK is using antisemitism as an excuse to change articles as he pleases even when the change has nothing to do with antisemitism. This 'devalues' antisemitism as a real concern, which it is. Bensaccount 16:45, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • The behavior cited by Bensaccount has been displayed by RK for so long it has become ho-hum. I'm guessing people are so used to it from him by now that they simply ignore it. They shouldn't. - Hephaestos|§ 19:26, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • :Policy note: "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." Danny, please describe the "fair chance" you gave RK to improve his behavior. Also, did anyone make him aware of the 3-reverts policy (before my note of 3pm today, that is)? --Uncle Ed 19:25, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • This is taking too long for a quickpoll. It's better if people use other means if they wish to pursue the matter. -- Dissident 04:37, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

User:Cantus, User:Cantus2, User:Wikified, User:Kiw et al.Edit

Cantus has made constant reverts to Wik's talk page, insisting that he can put whatever he wants there. Wik kept removing them. As User:Cantus he added the material 9 times, which certainly breaks the 3 revert rule, and he did more as User:Cantus2, after he was blocked by me for 2 hours to attempt to relieve the situation. I am now asking that he be banned for a period of 24 hours with sock puppets banned indefinitely. I also ask anyone voting to consider the problem at hand, and not the two people involved in it. Danny 23:40, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Action: Cantus was temp-banned and blocked (by Danny) for 24hrs, starting 01:11, 12 Apr 2004. He evaded this ban for some time. At 03:02, 12 Apr 2004, his IP range was blocked (by Fennec) for 24 hours. This IP range block should ensure that the 24hr temp ban takes effect, as voted for. Martin 16:24, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)


  1. Support. Maybe ban sock puppets indefinitely? Ban primary account for 24 hours. Kingturtle 23:47, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  2. I think this qualifies as a "rampage". Agree with a 24hr ban, per quickpoll policy. Martin 23:51, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  3. I support, on the condition that action be imposed on Wik. This behavior is ridiculous, and both parties are equally guilty. (Wik has vandalized Cantus' user page 5 times today.) The only difference is that Danny chose to ban Cantus, not Wik. Community action is appropriate, but it must be equilateral. Favoritism will only exacerbate the problem. Cribcage 23:59, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  4. Dori | Talk 00:11, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Support a block. He is also engaged in a campaign of harrassment against User:Wik. RickK 00:18, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  6. Support, harassment is bad, and if it is allowed (as in the past) why shouldn't wik be grumpy? Sam Spade 00:23, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  7. Support 24 hour ban, users violated 3 revert rule, and Wik's talk page is Wik's domain that Wik may do with as Wik pleases. I do not support any indefinite bans as of yet as no concrete evidence has been presented. --Hcheney 00:31, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  8. Bypassing a block, even if one disagrees with it, is definitely a no-no. -- Dissident 00:32, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  9. Ambivalenthysteria 00:46, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  10. Support for 24 hours as per policy. Should not last longer unless the user continues reverting. Warofdreams 00:58, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  11. Meelar 00:58, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  12. Support. Strange behavior indeed. Is this Wikisuicide by Quickpoll? -- Decumanus | Talk 01:09, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  13. Support for either time frame -- this below was enough for me: --Cantus (using my Kiw account, because I've been banned by Danny) -- BCorr|Брайен 01:55, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
  14. Support 24-hour ban, to be extended if at any time during the ban Cantus returns using a sockpuppet, as suggested by Martin below. --Michael Snow 05:19, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  15. Support. Ban evasion. silsor 06:18, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
  16. Tεxτurε 13:02, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  17. Support Secretlondon 13:11, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  18. Support 24 hour ban. Charles Matthews 16:16, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  19. Support Wik! 172 23:56, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  20. Support. IMHO everyone of us should be banned for 24 hours now and then. Our families will appreciate it. :-) --Romanm 08:10, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


  1. On principle. User:Danny proposed a one week ban. Now, User:Kingturtle and User:Martin are talking 24 hours. Once again -- what are we actually voting for? Are other persistent vandals to be dealt with too?Moriori 00:04, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
I still support a longer ban, but I have agreed to a compromise as suggested by KingTurtle and Martin. I think other persistent vandals should be dealt with too. Danny 00:24, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)


  • How long is "and extended period"? Ban proposals should be specific. Moriori 23:44, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC) "An".Moriori 23:45, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • This is a clear case of acute vandalism. While a quickpoll can be held to approve a longer ban, why can't all his incarnations immediately get a 24-hour block? His IP is vandalizing my talk page as we speak. --Wik 23:50, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree with Wik. Many users are waging a concerted campaign to persecute Wik solely because he gets in the way of their POV agendas. On top of that, well-meaning users start attacking him because they've often failed to see through the bullshit criticism of Wik spewed by the POV users who get reverted by Wik regularly, and ought to get reverted regularly. 172 23:57, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • I have supported above, because 24 hours is a suitable 'exile'from the community, to make a point. But it is myopic to suggest that Wik is disliked solely for the reasons cited. Charles Matthews 16:21, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • As far as I can see, User:Danny was engaged in edit wars with User:Cantus etc. himself. Per policy, he is not allowed to start a quickpoll (not to vote either). Also, User:Danny seems to have violated the three-revert-rule himself [27]. As he previously has voted for banning other contributors for NOT having violated any rule, we should consider banning him when he violates the rules himself. Wik has reverted some 10 times as well. Perhaps both Cantus as well as Wik and Danny should be given a cool down? Nico 00:01, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks Nico. Finally someone with brains! I know reverting isn't good at all, but what I was reverting was the deletion of mine and other people's messages from Wik's Talk Page by Wik and then Danny. As far as I know, the removal of other people's messages in Talk pages is not permitted (even if you own the Talk page). User:Danny said the contrary, that the owner of the Talk page could delete messages at will. I believe this is innacurate and a violation of Wikipedia policy. I believe that Danny's admin status should be reviewed. --Cantus (using my Kiw account, because I've been banned by Danny)
      • I can count on my fingers the number of wikipedians who participate in continuous reversions. Thousands of other users find other ways to reach solutions. I hope that you too can learn how to find other ways than repeated reversion. Kingturtle 00:33, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
        • I did not defend him. I have no special opinion in this matter, really. But I believe in equal justice. User:Danny violated the guidelines, while he wanted another contributor banned for not violating the guidelines. Nico 00:42, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Note that, since having been blocked for 24 hours, Cantus has returned with a plethora of sock puppets (including User:Jimbo-Wales and anonymous addresses, attacking this page repeatedly. His block should be extended indefinitely, as he does not understand what being blocked means. RickK 03:02, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I would suggest requiring 24hours of continuous absence from Wikipedia. Every time Cantus returns with a sock puppet, the timer restarts. (I may add this to wikipedia:banning policy) Martin 03:20, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
And I will fight it. Why is 24 hours a magic number. Instead, I propose that for each time a banned user reappears, another 24 hours is added to the ban, beginning at that time. After all, each time is a new offense. Danny 14:33, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Note I have protected Wik's pages during the time of his ban.

I'm back. Can someone unprotect them now? --Wik 22:58, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Another note: I have blocked User:Serax for 24 hours as a fairly clear sockpuppet of Cantus. - Fennec 02:36, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Danny, with what moral do you create this quickpoll on me, when you were yourself engaged in the revert wars with Wik? You violated Wikipedia policy when you violated the three revert rule [28], violated Wikipedia policy by removing my comments in your Talk page [29], violated Wikipedia policy by replacing my User page with your own message [30], violated Wikipedia policy by supporting Wik's removal of other people's messages in his Talk page [31], and abused your admin rights when you banned me [32]. I believe your admin status should definitely be reviewed. --Cantus (alter-ego Kiw)


Anonymous troll vandalising Judaism, and Holocaust. Reverts etcAndyL 03:13, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Do we need to quickpoll this user? If he continues, I'd feel comfortable giving him a day off on my own discretion - and I suspect dozens of admins would agree with me. Pakaran. 03:11, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you Pakaran. This is an IP user, and the activity seems to be simple vandalism that clearly violates NPOV. If the user continues I will ban the IPs for 24 hours and protect any of the pages if nessecary, such as the user coming back under another IP and re-editing the pages in question with the same vandalism. Seems a simple issue to me. --Flockmeal 03:17, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

As I understand it this person had been blocked at one (or more) points for 24 hours with no effect. Now that it is clear that he is an anti-semite using Wikipedia as a platform to spread anti-semetic views, I believe his should be banned. His contributions to articles are at the very best contentious -- but usually they amount to no kmore than adding obscure and self-serving links to neo-nazi websites. On talk pages his anti-Semitism is clear. When I wrote, on the Judaism talk page, that a link to an anti-semitic site is inappropriate, he replied that people were placing inappropriate remarks on the cosmotheism page. This is very bad behavior at wikipedia -- no contributor should "punish" one page begause of something that happened on another page. More importantly, he is punishing me for what others have done, an example of collective guilt that makes perfect sense in his anti-semitism, but not in a wikipedia community. He practically said that Jews control wikipedia, which is a classic anti-semitic stance. I think he should be banned. Slrubenstein 12:31, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No change, no improvement. When is there going to be some action?AndyL 03:41, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Just ban this idiot. Don't go through quickpolls since this is unambiguous vandalism. And do it quick. Ban the IP before he/she gets a user name, which complicates things when we need to ban vandals. 172 20:20, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I've just banned the IP. Along with hard-banned User:Zog, this Nazi scumbag has no place on WP. 172 20:26, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
This should not be the place to list vandalizing anons. I agree with 172. - Tεxτurε 20:38, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
This user has not vandalized anything, only expressed a strong POV. silsor 20:43, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)
I was not voting. Only agreeing that anon vandals should not be Quickpolled and should be banned. I haven't voted (and I don't even see anywhere to vote.) - Tεxτurε 20:54, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Silsor, this user wasn't guilty of, say, childish Michael-style vandalism, but he/she's in league with other POV trolls/hard-banned vandals (e.g., JoeM and Zog) who couldn't function as constructive editors or writers on WP. 172 21:05, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Vandalism is deliberate mischief, but it seems this user believes what s/he is writing. Antisemitism is not against any policy and neither is being "in league" (which I have not seen) with other people. I have reviewed all of this user's edits and I think we need to treat his/her POV in the same way we would treat any other user's POV. silsor 21:16, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)


possibly same anonymous troll as Same behaviour as above. AndyL 03:13, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

See my comment above. Slrubenstein 12:31, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Reddi and StevenjEdit

Reddi (19/5, 79%)Edit

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)

Action: 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)
Actually: 8 for, 4 against (Angela's condition for support was not met. Martin 19:48, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Reblocked. 15 for, 3 against. 83% favour. silsor 05:09, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)
From the policy page, "Reversed remedies cannot be reinstated, even if the proportion subsequently rises again." anthony (see warning)
Per anthony's comment, I reversed the re-blocking. Martin 18:48, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Angela's vote was conditional; it's obvious that Stevenj would not be banned, so her vote should count as a support, bringing the percentage over 70%. The ban should not have been reversed in the first place. ugen64 19:02, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)
Angela's vote should count as oppose, as Angela voted for "oppose if Stevenj is not banned", and Stevenj was not banned at the time. Martin
Oh, haha, oops... I feel stupid now. My apologies, Reddi, for banning you for 1 hour and 50 minutes :-\... ugen64 21:48, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)


  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. Decumanus | Talk 21:36, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC) - Objections to inclusion of marginal scientific material should be resolved before the material is included. Onus is on the includer in this case.
  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. Martin 01:14, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC) - 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.
  10. →Raul654 01:39, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC) - Support for above reason.
  11. Exploding Boy 01:55, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC) - Support. User has a history of engaging in edit wars.
  12. RickK 04:47, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC) - Support.
  13. Lord Kenneth 05:00, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC) - Support. User is unable to think coherently, critically, and without NPOV. Banning him is the only way to remove this infectious disease.
  14. Wik 05:01, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)
  15. Cribcage 05:14, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  16. Bryan 07:53, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  17. Arvindn 10:06, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  18. Arwel 12:03, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  19. MerovingianTalk 15:00, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC) - Sorry dude(tte). 3RR.
  • Angela. 23:56, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC) - Support if, and only if, Stevenj is also banned.


  1. Jeeves 00:18, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC) - Oppose. See above.
  2. BL 00:55, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Jiang 01:04, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC) - Agree with previous 2 oppose votes above.
  4. anthony (see warning)
  5. Angela. 23:56, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC) - Oppose if Stevenj is not banned, as both should be treated equally.


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)

Stevenj (7/14, 33%)Edit

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)


  1. No-One Jones 21:08, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC) - He's been here long enough to be nominated for adminship; he should know better.
  2. Flockmeal 21:09, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Tuf-Kat 22:00, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Angela. 23:56, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC) - Support if, and only if, Reddi is also banned.
    • He is, so this is a support. silsor
  5. silsor 00:00, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)
  6. llywrch 00:34, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC) - 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.)
  7. MerovingianTalk 14:59, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC) - Sorry dude(tte). 3RR.


  1. →Raul654 21:25, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC) - He attempted a dialogue on the talk page, and his explination is quite clearcut and fits with Reddis' MO.
  2. Decumanus | Talk 21:36, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC) Decumanus.
  3. Nunh-huh 00:06, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC) - Oppose. Correcting an article should not be equated with inserting idiosyncratic "facts" into it.
  4. Jeeves 00:18, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC) - Oppose. Penalties are not the answer. Spanking people is bad practice in real life, and makes no sense at all for a web community.
  5. 172 00:48, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC) - Oppose. This sounds like a two-way content dispute. No one should be punished.
  6. Danny 00:51, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC) - Oppose. I think we are getting carried away with the 3 revert rule at the expense of content. This is one such case.
  7. Martin - Tentatively oppose, as it appears Stevanj was not aware of the guideline, and has agreed to moderate his behaviour.
  8. ugen64 01:40, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC) - Oppose.
  9. Isomorphic 03:28, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC) - 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...
  10. Lord Kenneth 04:59, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC) - 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.
  11. Cribcage 05:16, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  12. Arvindn 10:05, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  13. Arwel 12:01, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  14. Exploding Boy 01:25, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Angela. 23:56, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC) - Oppose if Reddi is not banned, as both should be treated equally. Was defending a solid scientific article against inclusion of extremely marginal material while attempting negotiation on the proper inclusion of it.
    • Angela, make up your mind. You can't vote in both categories. --Cantus 22:17, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • I disagree. When disputing users are subject to concurrent quickpolls, I see nothing wrong with making one vote dependent on another outcome. It may be more complicated, but we can figure it out. Cribcage 23:02, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
        • I strongly disagree with your judgement. If a user votes in both Support and Oppose categories, how are we going to get an accurate %, when is this % itself which determines the outcome? It is absurd. --Cantus 00:17, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)



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)

172 and VeryVerilyEdit

172 (14/11, 56%)Edit

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)

Action: awaiting community consensus

Note: 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
Actually, that's for de-adminship, not for temp-bans. Martin 18:11, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)


  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.
  7. Cribcage 05:12, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  8. Tuf-Kat 06:01, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)
  9. Cadr - Mostly refuses to respect views of other wikipedians, constantly pushing his own POV as NPOV.
  10. Αλεξ Σ 14:07, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC) - Reversion en masse is only damaging to a page. Both VV and 172 should learn to discuss their different opinions on a talk page instead of wasting time and energy by revert wars.
  11. MerovingianTalk 14:57, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC) - Sorry dude(tte). 3RR.
  12. Martin 18:34, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC) Support (esp. given than VV was temp-banned). That many reverts is ridiculous. Leaving because Wikipedia won't let one revert as many times as one wants is even more ridiculous.
  13. Fred Bauder 20:16, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
  14. Michael Snow 05:21, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) Don't these people have more productive ways to spend their weekends than revert wars?
  • JRR Trollkien (see warning) 20:28, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC) Support. Sysops are not above policies. [Not active for three months. john 20:58, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)]


  1. Hcheney 02:48, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC) - Oppose. User was not warned before Quickpoll was posted.
  2. john 05:17, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC) - 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.
    • I am not RK. RickK 05:29, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  3. Wik 05:33, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Danny 11:02, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC) - Looking at the content of the debate, rather than just the violation of 3 reverts (a silly rule, in and of itself, that fails to consider the stubbornness of certain trolls and vandals), I will obviously vote to oppose. By the way, Cantus, with whom 172 is also debating, was banned by me for repeat vandalism, including to my talk page. He was allowed back and look what happened. Another troll is succeeding in chasing away another good user.
  5. AndyL 12:57, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 13:15, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC) - Looks to me like 172 was acting in good faith, misguidedly; and should just be given clearer guidelines, away from the prominence of this poll.
  7. anthony (see warning)
  8. No-One Jones 15:04, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC) - What John said. 172 is too valuable to lose.
  9. Dittaeva 17:35, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  10. ugen64 21:56, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)
  11. BL 00:56, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)


(to Hcheney) 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)

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)

A tough one to call, and I had to think long and hard before voting - or, in this case, abstaining. In the end, I can't bring myself to vote to block 172 for this as although there were far too many reverts 172 was clearly correct in the first case. Having seen at first hand the extraordinary ability Wikipedians have to ignore the plight of a good contributor who is being swamped by a troll or POV pusher, I sympathise with 172. On the other hand, he shouldn't have responded to that provocation either. Which way to vote? For now, I'm abstaining. Maybe I'll change my mind and vote "no" though. Tannin 09:31, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm neutral. I voted to support, because the number of reversions was objectionable. That behavior undermines Wikipedia's credibility, and we should mitigate that damage by reprimanding participants. Having said that, I'm tempted to side with 172. I think he's probably right. I can't muster sympathy, though. Someone who gets into trouble so often is probably looking for it. And I've never been impressed by people who throw down ultimatums, or who announce their impending departure from internet forums. If you're going to go, then go quietly, with some dignity. Otherwise, knock off the drama and get back to work. Cribcage 13:20, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to be fair. I want to add, though, that I'm not looking for trouble. I'd just been a miserable failure when it came to avoiding it with VV. I made the strongest attempts to cooperate with him about a month ago, when I was acting as an admin to diffuse his numerous edit wars with LanceMurdoch/HectorRodriguez/Venecremos/etc. (e.g., over State terrorism, Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein) I was such a dismal failure that I'd say that I was hardly conversing with him at all. Not matter what I'd bring up, he usually turned me into a straw man, who was the one really reaching him. In all honesty, that's why I now assume that unless I'm ready to agree with him 100%, conversing with him is futile. 172 22:21, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Don't be fooled. These "strongest attempts to cooperate" consisted of following me around from page to page, opposing me, attacking me, insulting me, reverting me, and protecting pages inappropriately. If he really felt admin intervention was needed, he could have asked a neutral admin. His "failure" was not one of good faith effort. -- VV 09:58, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Yet another example of VeryVerily's attitude, lack of desire to follow Wikipedia rules and procedure and so forth can be seen at Wikipedia:Protected_page[33]. Right off of his temporary ban, VeryVerily starts an edit war on pages pertaining to Cambodia. When asked why he doesn't follow Wikipedia procedure and discussing the matter on say the History of Cambodia discussion page, VeryVerily says this is "not deserving of separate talk page comment". My 5 paragraph discussion of the History of Cambodia was beneath him reading (I had problems with whether some of the sentences were NPOV such as "Many Cambodians welcomed the arrival of peace, but the Khmer Rouge soon turned Cambodia--which it called Democratic Kampuchea (DK)--into a land of horror" and "The regime controlled every aspect of life and reduced everyone to the level of abject obedience through terror."). Nor was Stargoat's attempts for me and Stargoat to work together to try and come up with a page everyone could be happy with worth anything for him - why bother with all that when VeryVerily can just revert everything to his last reversion? Why follow Wikipedia procedure and discuss problems in the discussion page when you're always right, people who disagree with you are enemies and "not deserving of separate talk page comment"? Hanpuk 23:40, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
If anyone wants to bother, see User talk:Khmer Rouge (including archive) for our endless efforts to work with this troll. And that's not counting his eight or so other sockpuppet accounts (such as Richardchilton). -- VV 23:55, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)


(to RickK) 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)

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)

You say above "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". Out of curiosity I had a look at FOX News and wonder where you get the cheek to make such a statement. VeryVerily's version said "In fact, many analysts believe it to be the strong opinions expressed on these commentary shows that have led to FOX's overwhelming success." You amended to "In fact, it is the strong opinions on these commentary shows that has largely led to FOX's overwhelming success." You also had the gall to write in the edit summary "Revering (sic) VeryVerily's illiterate, ungrammatical changes". He wrote "opinions......have". You changed it to "opinions......has". Do you not know the difference? Also, your version is POV. Moriori 21:28, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, actually checking up on 172's assertions always clarifies considerably. He counts on people not bothering to do that. -- VV 22:59, 18 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)

Look at the page history. Just look at the difference between the Revision as of 06:08, 17 Apr 2004 and Revision as of 06:17, 17 Apr 2004, after a series of seven "minor" edits by User:Cantus with the summaries "fmt" or "slight fmt."

This was exactly the same bullshit that I had to deal with on Talk:Augusto Pinochet (e.g., take a look at this "minor" edit sweeping an ongoing poll under the rug here), where his changes were even more sweeping. Aside from removing people's comments on these two pages, earlier today he was even deleting comments not only made by me but also User:Dissident (e.g., he kept on sweeping this under the rug.) on user talk pages.

If people were willing to take a closer look at was going on before jumping all over me and voting to ban me, they'd see that my so-called "edit wars" started when addressing this bullshit from Cantus on the Pinochet page. At this point, VV saw that I wasn't in agreement with someone, so he assumed that I was wrong, because I'm always wrong, and had to be stopped at all cost. That's when the arbitrary reverts on most of the pages I'd been editing that day started. In effect, I had one user mangling talk pages, another user stalking me (which has been going on for weeks), and a bunch of users ready to jump in for a witch hunt. That's how I got on this Quickpolls page.

I'm shocked that my fellow admins and colleagues on this site aren't standing up to this. This clearly demonstrates that working on this site isn't worthwhile. If I'm going to be reprimanded for acting in good faith to scrap ill-informed, POV, and tendentious b.s. mucking up in the intro in a featured article (origins of the Civil War); trying to prevent censorship of the Wikipedia:Requests for comments page; trying to prevent a user from recreating the content of a talk page; and most outrageous of all, trying to fix grammatical errors on Fox News, I have no business on this site and must have a different conception of encyclopedic standards from almost everyone else. I guess WP doesn't want historians, academics, professionals, etc. to ruin the fun of users who get off on these childish antics. I now consider any of my former concerns regarding the quality of any articles on WP a lost cause. 172 08:57, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That diff looks pretty bad, true. A lot of diffs do. Looking at each individual diff in Cantus' last spate, however, I can see no substantive changes (except formatting). Annoying, yes, but not all that. - Hephaestos|§ 09:07, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The Hanputk comments vanished. But in all fairness, the changes were far more sweeping and confusing on the Pinochet talk page. I didn't even know what was going on most of the time during the Pinochet edit war. I'm more bothered by the pattern I'm seeing than the extent of the changes on this particular page really. 172 09:12, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Honestly I don't see any major changes in content here. Things were shifted around by the looks of it. But whether you're right about him VV or not, what bothers me is that you chose to engage in a revert/edit war (which, 3 revert rule notwithstanding has been banned on Wikipedia for as long as I can remember) rather than just backing off and seeking another solution. After all, it should be pretty clear that the revert war wasn't going to change anything, and it's easy enough to bring back the right information once a problem user's been dealt with. Exploding Boy 09:25, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)
I was a bit too unclear in my original posting. I should've stated right away that the changes to the Pinochet article were far more sweeping. The changes here weren't a big deal, but they reminded me of the kind of behavior that I had to deal with there. 172 09:33, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily (13/9, 59%)Edit

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)

Action: Banned VeryVerily for 24 hours. --Pakaran 08:09, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The action taken should be reversed according to the Quickpoll policy. An 80% approval with 8 or more users was reached as of 06:02, 17 Apr 2004. As of 18:29, 17 Apr 2004, support dropped to 75%. Per rules, User:VeryVerily should be debanned. --Cantus 20:10, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Actually, the threshold mentioned on Wikipedia:Quickpolls policy#Rules for reversal is 70%. Bryan 21:19, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Support has dropped to 67% (12/6). Per policy, VeryVerily must be debanned. He still has another 6 hours of ban time, so it is appropiate to deban now. --Cantus 01:33, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Done. silsor 02:07, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)


  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 03:02, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC) - Same here.
  4. Decumanus | Talk 03:12, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  5. Flockmeal 03:51, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC) - To be fair I must support a ban of both 172 and VV.
  6. RickK 04:44, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC) - Support just to be evenhanded.
  7. Cribcage 05:12, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  8. Tuf-Kat 06:02, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)
  9. Tannin 09:36, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC) - Just as many reverts as 172, but was in the wrong in the first place, so has no excuse. Trying to remove your own name from an RFC is not fair play.
  10. Danny 11:10, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  11. Αλεξ Σ 14:07, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC) - Reversion en masse is only damaging to a page. Both VV and 172 should learn to discuss their different opinions on a talk page instead of wasting time and energy by revert wars.
  12. MerovingianTalk 14:58, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC) - Sorry dude(tte). 3RR.
  13. Michael Snow 05:21, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) Don't these people have more productive ways to spend their weekends than revert wars?
    • 172 09:20, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) In light of Hcheney's arguments, I'd voted against the temp ban of VV in my 06:01, 17 Apr 2004 posting (crossed out below on the oppose side). After seeing him go back to his old ways (reverting Hanpuk's changes to Cambodia-related articles over and over again without saying a damn thing on the talk pages) even after a brief temp ban, I have changed my mind.
      • You remain ineligible to vote in your own conflict. -- VV 09:33, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
        • I don't see my user name listed anywhere. 172 09:43, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Hanpuk 04:32, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC) - VeryVerily is always involved in edit wars, this should be a lesson to him. [This user has not been active on Wikipedia for three months - see Quickpolls policy. Maximus Rex 05:18, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)]


  1. Hcheney 02:48, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC) - Oppose. User was not warned before Quickpoll was posted.
  2. anthony (see warning)
  3. Cadr - Oppose. Shouldn't have got into the silly revert war, but he was somewhat provoked, and had made a lot of good contributions to the discussion about Augusto Pinochet previously (this is the only page for which I have any real experience of his condunct).
  4. Martin 18:29, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC) - Oppose if 172 is not also temp-banned. Fairness, please.
  5. ugen64 21:59, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC) - Oppose.
  6. BL 00:54, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Jeeves 01:49, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC) - Oppose. I do not feel such actions accomplish anything
  8. Eloquence* 22:42, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC) - strongly. Either ban both, or neither one.
  9. Fred Bauder 10:07, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • 172 06:01, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC) - 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, you are directly involved in the dispute, thus, per Quickpoll rules, you can't vote here. --Cantus 20:12, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)]
    • In light of Hcheney's arguments, I'd voted against the temp ban of VV in my 06:01, 17 Apr 2004 posting. After seeing him go back to his old ways (reverting Hanpuk's changes to Cambodia-related articles over and over again without saying a damn thing on the talk pages, I have changed my mind. 172 09:19, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)


(to Hcheney) 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)

(to Flockmeal) 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)

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)


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)


Verily, verily, I say unto you -- I was going to quote something pithy from Jesus, because I rented The Greatest Story Ever Told this weekend, but I guess I won't. I'll just advise you to avoid getting into reversion wars for any reason.

  1. It makes you look bad.
  2. It doesn't get the job done.
  3. It wastes a lot of people's time.

You'd be much better off asking any of several DOZENS of admins for help or just leaving the matter alone. --Uncle Ed 13:53, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily & 172 (9/11, 45%)Edit

Both users violating the 3 revert guideline on Saddam Hussein. 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 request for mediation for their ongoing interpersonal conflicts over multiple articles. I would have proposed the remedy of a request for arbitration, which is listed in the policy, except that mediation has not been attempted yet that I know of. --Michael Snow 22:37, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)


  1. Isomorphic 22:49, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) - Obvious case for mediation.
  2. 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. →Raul654 22:52, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Damn, I didn't see that last remedy listed in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, although I have to concede it would be effective. -- VV 23:26, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • LOL, I hope I can be of some help as a mediator... --Uncle Ed 14:16, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  3. Cgranade 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 policy, has not been active 3 months --Michael Snow 00:02, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC))
  4. 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. mydogategodshat 23:57, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm curious..., who said "widely dispised [sic]" 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. -- VV 00:14, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  5. Tannin 00:22, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC) This is ridiculous. 24 hour ban and mediation. (No shooting, just amputate a typing finger or three.)
  6. Ban for 48 hours and mediation. Meerkat 01:20, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  7. MerovingianTalk 04:22, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC), ditto with Tannin
  8. Bryan 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. -- Tim Starling 05:01, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes, I realize that. But that's the way quickpolls work, so that's the only option that was available for me to vote on. Bryan 14:41, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  9. Fonzy


  1. See comments below. Jeeves 23:21, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. ugen64 00:19, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Strongly oppose. Mediation will only work when both parties want it. It is absolutely not something to be forced on people. Angela, member of the mediation committee. 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. --Michael Snow 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. Angela. 04:44, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
  4. 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. RickK 04:38, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  5. Mediation is necessarily voluntary. -- Tim Starling 04:41, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
  6. 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 mediation committee SweetLittleFluffyThing 04:47, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  7. I sympathize with proponents. Both 172 and VV are behaving like children. They're shamelessly violating Wikipedia's community rules, in a manner which damages Wikipedia's credibility. They deserve serious penalties. Having said that, I agree that mediation must be 100% voluntary, and is inappropriate for a quickpoll. Cribcage 05:15, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  8. Decumanus | Talk 05:26, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  9. Oppose forced mediation. Exploding Boy 05:56, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
  10. Temp-ban and be done with it. If they do it again, don't force them into mediation, force them into arbitration. If they don't cooperate with that, permanently ban them. We're indulging people far too much in this case. David Newton 12:00, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  11. forced mediation not appropriate; try arbitration next time. Unfortunately, this QP may have led to 172's leaving... +sj+ 13:04, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)


  • 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. --Ruhrjung 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. --Michael Snow 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? -- VV 23:03, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
        • Request mediation yourself. Even if you doubt that 172 will agree. --Michael Snow 23:10, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
          • I saw what happened when Sam Spade attempted that. -- VV 23:16, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
            • So? I think the arbitration committee 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. --Michael Snow 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 Wikipedia mediation. -- VV 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. --Michael Snow 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. --Ruhrjung 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. -- VV 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 (FOX News, Saddam Hussein) 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 he's just as guilty as 172.) No-One Jones 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 (User:Plautus satire 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. Isomorphic 23:04, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • Except that Plautus satire *did* require long, drawn out arbitration. And a lot of energy gathering evidence →Raul654 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.) Isomorphic 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. --Michael Snow 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. Jeeves 23:23, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • The entire point of mediation is to encourage people to work together. Isomorphic 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. →Raul654 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. Jeeves 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. -- VV 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. --Hcheney 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. -- VV 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. john 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.--Ruhrjung 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. john 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. -- VV 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. Bryan 04:39, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
          • To Bryan: This is not a vicious circle-type situation. If both sides hold the position that they won't make a fourth revert if the other guy doesn't, then it won't happen. -- VV 05:39, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
            • ...Until the next day. And every day, each side will use their three reverts to go back and forth. So it is a vicious circle, the net result of which is an article whose POV depends on the time of day. My question: What's your goal? Cribcage 05:46, 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. john 04:45, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Very Verily's response

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 Saddam Hussein 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) empirically shown 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. -- VV 22:58, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

reverting is my only tool against 172's rampages;: that sounds as if you were the Universal Soldier. You may ask for other people's help, you may simple let the matter cool down, etc... any less, and he would just always get his way, which wouldn't be right: well, it depends on what his way is (it does not matter who does sth as long as it is well done). By the way, I don't expect him to accept mediation; in his mind, he is too far above all us ignoramuses.: you will allow me to say that this is a) irrelevant (we don't care what you expect him to do) and b) perfectly nonsensical if not insulting. Pfortuny 07:05, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

172's response

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. 172 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. mydogategodshat 00:16, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Ditto on your edits to the history articles. If you're feeling wikistress, there's some good suggestions there that might help improve your disposition. →Raul654 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 Wikipedia, he has been arrogant, condescending, & impervious to the fact other contributors on Wikipedia 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. -- llywrch 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). David.Monniaux 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. Sam Spade 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. -IOH|taq 05:04, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
172: Once I tie up my loose ends on this site... 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. Cribcage 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. 172 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? Cribcage 05:18, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
None of your fucking business. I work on my time table, not yours. 172 05:23, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Refreshing the quickpoll page and typing profanities qualifies as work? Maybe I should have become a "professional historian"... Cribcage 05:29, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
If you'd bothered to read his user contributions page, you'd see he's been doing a great deal of work on Russian and Chinese history articles...but he's deleted his user page now, so I suppose he's gone for the moment. john 05:40, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Settle down, children. You're all up past your bedtime. Snowspinner 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 that any "finished product" you leave on those pages will promptly be undone. --Michael Snow 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. 172 05:25, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'm racking my brain, trying to figure why people can't seem to get along with you... Cribcage 05:29, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You all ought to be ashamed of yourselves and your collective behaviour. - Fennec 13:52, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Who is all and what is a collective behaviour? Pfortuny 13:59, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ed Poor's concluding comments

user:172 won't be the first "professional historian" to leave Wikipedia. But writing accurate and neutral articles doesn't require professional credentials: it requires professionalism. We all are writers, we all are editors. The same rules apply to all of us.

I am the original author of Wikipedia:staying cool when the editing gets hot and arguably one of the chief proponents of the NPOV policy. There is never a need for an edit war.

If I'm obviously right about how to phrase or organize something, then others will see this and back me up. If it's not obvious, then:

  1. I better make it clearer, e.g., via discussion on the article's talk page; or,
  2. Maybe I'm wrong!?

I've found that I've got much better results with "Uncle Ed's one-revert-a-day rule". Or as Jubal Harshaw put it, "If I can't handle it the commotion will fetch others." --Uncle Ed 14:30, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC


User: is still trolling and yesterday broke the 3rv rule again. He's already been banned once for a day. I propose he be blocked for good. see earlier quickpoll here. AndyL 18:26, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Do we even need a quickpoll? I think that any sysop who followed 172's lead and slapped Vogel's IP addresses with an indefinite block, would find few objections. People have been trying to talk to him for months (since Dec. 2003, if I remember rightly), and it hasn't worked at all; he started with page blankings (which he's stopped) and relentless personal attacks (which he hasn't), but now he's hurling blood curses at anyone who undoes his crap edits. —No-One Jones 18:57, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Of course, "Mirv" is lying hypocritically above in a slanderous attempt to ban and censor me.

Here is the exact QUOTE of mine and in proper CONTEXT:

"The article section is "quite appropriate" for the reasons I have just given, what information, specifically, was "not suitable" and "why" for the position in the article? HOW DARE you personally insult me with falsely and personally insulting me and calling me any "anti-Semitic" or "troll nature" because you do not understand just how relevant and important that section within the article actually is? You are such an narrow-minded bigot that you do not see what the future holds for all Jews, everywhere, with your own selfish and biased bigotry and ignorant pov editing of the truth. A blood curse be upon all of your ilk that always censors the Truth for any such selfish and foolish and bigoted narrow-mindedness!"-PV *is* Vogel and he still seems to be active. I don't think a Quickpoll is needed given his being an anonymous user but I don't know how else to bring this up. AndyL 19:20, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Have Vogel's various IP addresses:

  • 66.2.156.* (10, 27, 36, 38, 48, 69, 100, 123)
  • 216.99.245.* (139, 153, 154, 170, 171, 184, 188)

been blocked? If so I'll remove the quickpoll. AndyL 19:23, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

He last posted yesterday. I see from your link that he was blocked earlier today so, in the words of Gilda Radner, nevermind. :)AndyL 19:28, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

He's back. . . how did he get around the latest block? — No-One Jones 21:34, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)


  1. Jwrosenzweig 21:40, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC) - I'm confused by the format of this, and I'm curious why Sam objects, but until I get that clarified, I support a ban. Calling down a blood curse on someone's "ilk" is either an absurd joke or a vicious reminder of historic persecution. I do not believe, based on the context and other remarks, that this was an absurd joke. No contributor should be able to get away with intimidating others with such invective.
    Basically the format, the fact he is an anon, and that it doesn't fit into the requirements of what a quickpoll is ment to be used for. The quickpolls policy currently allows quickpolls when:
    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
    4. a signed in user confesses to deliberate trolling
    This situation doesn't fit into any of those. Sam Spade 21:44, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    Then I would say that Sam is right -- we simply have an anonymous user making a racist comment. Which any sysop may ban an anonymous user for 24 hours for, given precedent at least, if not explicit policy. Certainly I've banned numerous anons for various racist remarks. I think the quickpoll was an attempt to give Vogel the privileges normally given to those with usernames, but Sam's right. No need for it here. Jwrosenzweig 21:50, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  2. Support. - Hephaestos|§ 03:27, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  3. Support. --Humus sapiens|Talk 03:57, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC) + Given the trolling nature of his "contributions", the abundance of blood curses and slander, change my vote to complete & indefinite block. --Humus sapiens|Talk 20:24, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  4. Support. I wouldn't have been involved in this vote until GrahamN started making his nonsense comments about how vandals can just be ignored. RickK 05:25, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC) Chill, dude. I never said ignored. Not ignored, reverted. Simple. GrahamN
  5. Support. Irresponsible wikipedian. Postdlf 6:27 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  6. UtherSRG 15:56, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC) - Block/ban him for a month. If he resumes being arrogant and spiteful, make it permanent.
  7. DavidA 17:16, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC) - Support, though I also agree with GrahamN below in principle. If we spent more constructive time expanding and editing Wikipedia articles than attacking vandals (thereby living up to the democratic principles of the GNU Free Documentation License), vandals would be more marginalized that the rising number of quickpolls seems to indicate. (Isn't this the seventh or eighth quickpoll on vandalism and/or breaking the three revert rule in a month and a half?) Perhaps a one week ban on all Wikipedia users would allow us to cool off (chalk it up to a needed software upgrade) and persuade us all -- legitimate users and not -- to, speaking delicately, get a life.
  8. Tεxτurε 17:12, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC) - I have tried to compromise with him and even in some cases supported his concepts, if not his choice of implementation, however, in all cases his is an all-or-nothing brute-force it-will-be-my-way approach that becomes vandalism and disrupts any effort at reasonable consensus. - Tεxτurε 17:12, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  9. Dori | Talk 20:53, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC) - unwilling to follow policies, and prone to personal attacks for no reason.


  1. Sam Spade 20:37, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC) - I object to this quickpoll.
  2. GrahamN 05:23, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC) No need for a block or a ban. Bans are ineffective anyway. I wish more people would concentrate their efforts on articles rather than throwing their weight about banning people.
  3. I don't oppose blocking him, but I object to this quickpoll. anthony (see warning)
  4. ugen64 21:18, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC) - this is an invalid quickpoll.


I'm not sure of the status of this quick poll. Is the intent the permanent banning of an anonymous user, or the user Vogel and all his associated IP addresses since the user is a repeat violator of rules? - Tsynergy 22:24, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Quickpolls can only enforce a 24 hour ban. So I think it's a ban of Vogel and aliases for 24 hours (that's my understanding, though it is certainly confusing). Only the AC could enforce a larger ban, and no one's taken him there yet. Jwrosenzweig 22:28, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

PV has been banned numerous times and is trolling white seperatism formerly "white seperatist" and does not seem to have any intention of reforming his behavior. Sam's defense of him is political due to them sharing some beleifs. The format of the poll is a little odd though. If anyone has serious objections about the format or future formats they should vote on the talk page. GrazingshipIV 02:56, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)

Given his previous 24 hour ban(s) I think a permanent block of all his IPs should be considered. How and where do I propose this?AndyL 02:57, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I believe the appropriate action would be for a user to make a written complaint to an arbitration committee detailing all relevant pages showing infractions by the offending user. Information regarding the behavior and the fact that a permanent ban is requested would also be given. More information can be located at the Arbitration page. However, mediation is suggested before arbitration. Given the circumstances of this situation I'm unsure of the next course of action. Tsynergy 05:27, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Done AndyL 07:54, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It is clear that a cabal of censorous pov bigots have falsely accused me of being a "troll", "vandal", or of making "abusive comments" on some TalkPages, or of "breaking the 3-revert rule". This is psychological projection by a pov mob or ilk of lying hypocrites. I do request Sam Spade, to be my "advocate", and I also can provide evidence to demonstrate the fact that those here attempting to have me banned and to have me censored, are themselves "trolls", "vandals", and have themselves broken the 3-revert rule and have hurled "personal insults" and have abused and used slanderous and false personal insults and "abusive comments" as their own stock in trade and in their own pov bigoted and biased campaign of "character assassination".-PV

  • Bkonrad | Talk 19:01, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC) I dunno if this is the best forum, but the process seems ill-defined about what to do with users like this. This person has been around WP long enough, but apparently refuses to respect other users or common Wiki etiquette. I support a long, long timeout. -- Oops, I haven't been here for three months yet, so I don't think I can vote.
  • Personal attacks (blood curses) are not mere trolling or POV-pushing: they're a clear violation of policy. Block for 1 month. Refer to mediation, when/if he cares enough to get an account. [Not active for three months: this is not a vote] JRR Trollkien (see warning) 19:08, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • That's certainly hypocritical. I removed a personal attack against Alexander Plank by Wik, and I was criticized for it. Now, we are planning to ban a user partly because of his blood curses? I found it profoundly amusing, not offensive in any way. ugen64 20:49, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)

"Troll-kien", indeed!

Here is the exact QUOTE of mine and in proper CONTEXT:

"The article section is "quite appropriate" for the reasons I have just given, what information, specifically, was "not suitable" and "why" for the position in the article? HOW DARE you personally insult me with falsely and personally insulting me and calling me any "anti-Semitic" or "troll nature" because you do not understand just how relevant and important that section within the article actually is? You are such an narrow-minded bigot that you do not see what the future holds for all Jews, everywhere, with your own selfish and biased bigotry and ignorant pov editing of the truth. A blood curse be upon all of your ilk that always censors the Truth for any such selfish and foolish and bigoted narrow-mindedness!"-PV

I can provide plenty of evidence to demonstrate the fact that those here now attempting to have me banned and to have me censored, are themselves psychological projectionist "trolls", and "vandals", pov "reverters" and that they have themselves often broken "the 3-revert rule" and have hurled "personal insults" and have often abused and used slanderous and false "personal insults" and have hurled "abusive comments" as their mob mentality stock in trade and in their pov bigoted and biased campaigns of "character assassination".-PV

I won't comment on the accusations of "trolling", due to the ambiguity of the term. If you have specific complaints of policy violations (3RR, personal attacks, etc.) by some users, you may list your allegations on a subpage of Wikipedia:Requests for comment, e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user and link it from Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Please note your opinions and complaints will be given much more weight if you take the time to create an account. JRR Trollkien (see warning) 20:31, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

While I find it very interesting that PV thinks context helps his case at all (It really more establishes that, yes, he was blood cursing people), I wonder what the point is. He's shown that he can generate new IPs. What's the point of blocking? Perhaps Vogelposts should be marked as not counting under the 3-revert, and we should just be allowed to revert them endlessly and freely? Snowspinner 20:30, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • Too much crap here - my vote changes to neutral. ugen64 20:55, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite block. "Blood curses," indeed. Cribcage 14:31, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Maroux 16:08, 2004 Apr 21 (UTC) Worst kind of POV troll. Ban as long as possible.


Today I gave TDC his second warning in one month [34] [35] about the 3 revert rule. Should he get an official warning, a time-out, or what? --Uncle Ed 12:40, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Result: 10 to 1 against any official action. Should we archive or delete this thing now? --Uncle Ed 17:57, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Cribcage 19:08, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


  1. Uncle Ed (Official Warning) - I think an official warning will be more effective than a temp-ban. If not, we can always follow up.
  • JRR Trollkien (see warning) 21:32, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC) 24h ban. Either EVERYONE is TREATED EQUALLY, without DOUBLE-STANDARDS, with those POLICIES, or this WIKI PROJECT is being run by CENSOROUS and HYPOCRITICAL LIARS and POV BIGOTS. [JRR Trollkien has not been active for three months. john 23:19, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)]


  1. Fred Bauder 15:51, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC) - The user was trying to keep a notice that the article had been listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion included in the article. Which it had been.
  2. Jwrosenzweig 16:15, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC) - I count only three reverts for the restoration of the vfd tag. If someone can show me 4 diffs in a 24 hour period, I would change my vote, but I only count 3 reverts -- the maximum allowable.
  3. theresa knott 16:21, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC) - A VfD message should not be removed from an article whilst that article is still at VfD. I don't think it should ever had been listed, but it was so removing the message counts as vandalism in my book, and so TDC was justified putting it back in.
  4. Cribcage 16:31, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC) - This is ridiculous. TDC was correctly restoring a VfD notice. Looking at the vote, the inevitable result is clear, but it's perfectly appropriate to refer visitors to the debate. This wasn't an edit war. This was a clear-cut question of policy, and TDC was right.
  5. Michael Snow 16:47, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC) - Only 3 reverts, and then there's the question of whether we should even be enforcing that specific rule through quickpolls anymore. Certainly doesn't qualify as a rampage.
  6. Sam Spade 21:34, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC) - This is ridiculous.
  7. Jeeves 21:36, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC) - Oppose. These vindictive punishments make no sense.
  8. RickK 23:10, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC) - Oppose. He did three reverts, and therefore did not violate the ban. Had he VIOLATED the ban, than your proposed remedy is inappropriate, and he should be blocked, not "warned".
  9. GrahamN 23:39, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


  • If the rule has been violated, I would support a ban -- Ed, please provide a link to where the 3 revert rule was broken? I'd appreciate it! Jwrosenzweig 15:45, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • This is ridiculous. Quickpolls should only be used as an emergency measure. When you want to take action after the fact you should take it to [INSERT OTHER PROJECT PAGE HERE] instead. -- Dissident (Talk) 16:26, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, there is a consensus emerging in the 30-day-review that Quickpolls are not useful as a means of enforcing the 3 revert rule. Isomorphic 16:43, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Can't vote unless the call for Quickpoll is properly made. Is this a proper Quickpoll? Ought it be announced at "Recent changes"? The discussion ought to be made in advance and elsewhere. --Ruhrjung 17:06, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • "There is a consensus emerging" -- it's a start! I agree with Ruhrjung; if we're not willing to enforce procedures for submitting a quickpoll, what's the point in having them? -- DavidA 18:09, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • I hate to vote against sanctions against TDC, but I don't think revert violations should be punished with banning, and I don't think that some other form of sanction is appropriate for a quickpoll. john 23:21, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily and 172Edit

Both users are now fighting edit wars across almost a dozen articles, in continuation of their long running conflict on this site. I think it's time both of them were given a 24 hour time out period.

Articles where they are currently edit warring: Cu Chi tunnels, My Lai Massacre, Vietnam War, Tunnel rat, USS Ticonderoga (CV-14), USS Talledega (LPA 208), USS Tripoli (LPH-10) Vietnam Service, 1967-1973, USS John S. McCain (DD-928), North Vietnamese Army, Vo Nguyen Giap, Ho Chi Minh trail, Mekong Delta, Indochina War, and Tunnels of Cu Chi.

This latest round (in a long running conflict) appears to have started when 172 went through numerous articles and search-placed "American" with "U.S.". VV then countered. Edit wars ensued. →Raul654 21:30, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

I was careful not to break the three revert rule this time. I let VeryVerily have his versions after one attempt to stop him on each article (in hope that this would get someone else to see what's going on)-- I joined the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club last days ago, after all. Find an article where I did not adhere to the three revert rule and just let VV win. You people voting to ban me are being amazingly hypocritical. Someone goes through my user history every time he logs on, reverts any change that I make, and this time I just let him. And now you people are voting to ban me because I have a stalker and I'm not even doing anything about it? 172 22:51, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I support banning both VV and 172 for 24 hours

  1. →Raul654 21:39, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Guanaco 21:43, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  3. BCorr|Брайен 21:58, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  4. William M. Connolley 22:28, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  5. Gentgeen 22:48, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  6. RickK 23:44, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Ilyanep 00:50, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC). I agree with both, bust most especially 172. He has been involved in quite a few arguments and hasn't exactly established a moral high ground on some (see my Talk Archive 1 ). Wikipedia should be a co-operative place. BTW, I thought 172 had publicly stated that he 'left wikipedia'.
  8. Stargoat 02:23, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC) Seems like every time I turn around, these two are arguing about something else.
  9. Cyan 03:30, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I support banning just 172 for 24 hours

I support banning just VV for 24 hours

  1. Viajero 22:18, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC) — no excuse whatsoever for such stalking behaviour
  2. Danny 23:17, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC) more evidence of how a determined troll can harrass a user.
    • Next time try to adhere to Wikipedia's No Personal Attacks policy. Ok, señor admin? --Cantus
      • Is there any other way to say what Danny's trying to say? VeryVerily's one and only reason for being on Wikipedia is stalking me. Some users look at their watchlist to decide what pages they're going to edit; instead, VeryVerily obsesses over my user history. Aside from knowingly making edits that'll trap me in an edit war, for months he has been trying to enflame tensions between me and other users. Now that I joined the "Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club," he sees this good faith offer on my part as a free reign to now revert absolutely every single change that I make. Why is this not patently obvious to all of you people? Just look at his user history. When he can't figure out how to pick a fight with me, all he does is make some minor changes to articles finds through the random page feature. But above all else, this user is just a stalker how gets a kick out of trying to drive me off this site. 172 23:48, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • I assume any user familiar with the conflict knows better than to buy into this analysis, but one point worth mentioning is that I find 172's commitment to harmonious editing about as credible as his repeated declarations of leaving Wikipedia. If his editing style of bullying and abuse does truly change, I will notice it in due time. VV 01:56, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
          • VeryVerily has been going through my user history and reverting every single change that I make. I've been giving up trying to stop him after one try-- or in a few cases a couple of attempts-- since joining the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club. By virtue of the fact that I'm letting him get away with this practice on every single article, by virtue of the fact that his reverts are now the top version of every single article that I've tried to edit lately, the pledge is obviously sincere. I have not been "bullying" anyone; VeryVerily has been "bullying" me while playing the victim by writing similarly untruthful and misleading statements over and over again where ever he can manage to follow me around. 172 03:12, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
            • I have been reverting edits pertaining to a particular naming conflict, not all of 172's. 172's claim he is not bullying anyone ignores a months-long history of misbehavior, well prior to his supposed decision to become harmonious. VV 09:24, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
              • Heh, months-long history of misbehavior. I guess I had been violating the three revert rule. Of course, VeryVerily has never done that, right. 172 10:28, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  3. Based on the Pinochet article VV does not seem to be willing to compromise in spite of facts or consensus. Most of his supporters also tend to be people who just dislike 172 for political rather than academic or civility reasons and let their dislike blind any ability for objective analysis of the situation (particularly on the mailing list). Considering the disproportionate nature of attacks on 172 (who still holds a position as a trusted member of the community i.e admin) I think a 24 hour ban on VV would be appropriate in order to show a corresponding call by the community for reform on his part as well as 172s. I would submit for the record however that VV has not (from my view) violated the three revert rule or gone on a rampage (as currently defined). GrazingshipIV 13:10, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • "172's an admin and VV isn't, let's ban VV" doesn't strike me as a compelling argument. Indeed, it could be argued that 172 should be treated more harshly being an admin, i.e. someone who should know better. I suggest we stick to the actions of each, rather than their status - David Gerard 13:28, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • I agree it isn't a compelling argument, which is why I didn't make it. I am saying that I feel 172 to be less in the wrong than VV, particularly when concerning academic credibility. From the evidence I have viewed it seems like VV is tracking 172's movements on wikipedia and making a conscience effort to more or less erase any and all edits he makes. This behavior while not an explicit violation of policy (as far as I can tell) should be seen as worse than 172's inability to be civil (which I do not deny he can be at times. Incivility seems more a realm for the arbitration committee than a quickpoll, whereas questionable behavior concerning articles seems appropriate here. Hence, I think VV should face a temp-ban for his behavior. GrazingshipIV 22:58, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

I oppose banning either

  1. Cantus 21:43, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC) - Ridiculous.
  2. —No-One Jones 23:35, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC) - though I don't endorse VV's behavior, which was unacceptable. I suggest, instead, working on the naming conventions which are the issue in this dispute, especially for usage of US or American. This, I think, would ultimately be much more productive and engender fewer hard feelings.
  3. Jiang 23:44, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC) - will change my vote when this flares up again.
  4. Hephaestos|§ 00:29, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC) A 24-hour ban is an ineffective joke for anything but casual vandalism.
  5. JCarriker 00:36, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)- They both could have handled the situation better and they both have been involved in scuffles at other pages with other users. However I don't think we should be treating established wikipedians as if they were mere anon vandals. A 24 ban is a serious step, especially against established members of the community, and I am not yet ready to make such a move. I agree with --No-One Jones that the best way to handle the situation is to begin a dialogue with the users over the naming convention. I will change my vote if the situation worsens.
  6. Comrade Nick @)---^-- 02:53:30, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)-Banning either user for 24 hours would be ineffective, this matter should go to the AC.
  7. I didn't know that there was a consensus to return to using quickpolls, and there don't seem to be any three revert rule violations. john k 06:31, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    A three-revert violation is not the only reason for listing users here. Rampages are also explicetely covered, and I think it's pretty obvious that this qualifies. →Raul654 06:34, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
  8. Cecropia | Talk 12:33, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC) As a matter of principle, I oppose banning ongoing non-vandal contributors except for the most egregious violations; not only is it an insult, but I don't see how a temporary ban would create anything other than a pause and resentment. What we really need is a way to deal with the substance of obvious conflicting points-of-view. In this case, I think 172 is in the wrong for compulsively insisting that other people should be able to self-describe (i.e., he changes any instance of Viet Cong to NLF), but won't allow Americans to self-describe lest it insult people in the Americas, which describes both continents. "American" is the adjective for a citizen of the U.S.A. Abe's substitutions to avoid use of an adjective are often clumsy, sometimes inaccurate, and quite POV. We need a way to consider these issues, rather than have 24-hour bans of regular contributors. -- Cecropia | Talk 12:33, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • wikipedia is not a babysitting service. hand-wringing about "insult" is irrelevant. making a troll or other belligerant user "feel bad" is not relavent. Badanedwa 17:15, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
      • Feeling good is not my issue. I want to do what is effective instead of slapping people on the wrist. I consider neither 172 nor VV to be trolls. -- Cecropia | Talk 17:49, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  9. Grunt 04:17, 2004 Jun 13 (UTC) A ban is not going to help, and will probably instead make things worse. I would warn both of them to at least discuss exactly why they seem to be arguing here and, failing that, bringing in mediation or arbitration.


  1. indeterminant at this time. v v user's edit history suggests careful trolling; possibly for pov purpose. 172 user is a pov warrior, not a troll. Badanedwa 17:59, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)


  • What rule has been violated? Please provide links to the page histories. - Tεxτurε 21:32, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I believe the rampage rule applies to both users, in this case. →Raul654 21:34, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • 172 took it to "Vandalism in progress" and insisted it be kept on that page - something that's obviously either an editing or personality conflict being put on a page for immediate alerts. No vote, but I would expect him to know better - David Gerard 23:38, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I have blocked VV at 23:32 because 8 users voted, and 87.5% supported a ban. --"DICK" CHENEY 23:34, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I disagree. Only two people voted to block VV. This was an inappropriate block unless both were blocked. RickK 23:43, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • Just for the record, Jiang has undone this ban (because only two people had voted for VV alone to be banned). --Camembert
  • What the hell happened to mediation? Both should refrain from these changes until policy has been formulated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (US vs American). --Jiang 23:47, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I think it's wrong, utterly wrong, to view this problem as a problem with individual users. I think it's a general problem with Wikipedia's working, that tends to turn valuable contributors into arrogant un-cooperative reverters every now and then. And that problem is not solved by 24-hours bans.
    --Ruhrjung 23:50, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree wholeheartedly. Let's just absolve everyone from responsibility then- it's all right, must be Wikipedia's fault. We can say the same of routine petty vandalism as well. Some design flaw in the internal mechanisms. Let's dissolve Wikipedia altogether, that should fix it. - Fennec 02:54, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, look at how well it's been fixed with the arsenal we have at hands.
        --Ruhrjung 03:08, 2004 Jun 12 (UTC)
    • damage to wikipedia will be reversed and prevented, or won't be. Badanedwa 16:00, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • As part of a long-running dispute, this probably ought to be in mediation. I'm not sure a 24-hour ban would help anything, although perhaps it would convince one or both to tread more lightly. Isomorphic 00:36, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

172 (regarding Wik's user page)Edit

172 removed information about the current vandalbot that is almost certainly a creation of Wik from Wik's user page. Despite attempts by a number of users (including myself) address 172's concerns and to post a link on Wik's user page to information about the vandalbot, 172 continues to revert. (See the page history.) 172 removed all the added info from the page, and reverted after it was re-added. Then, when a link to the information was placed there instead, 172 again began reverting. 172 is now up to 4 reverts, and I am asking that he be banned for 24 hours. -- BCorr|Брайен 22:10, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)


  1. BCorr|Брайен 22:10, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  2. William M. Connolley 08:31, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC). People are too tolerant of vandalism.


  1. You're joking, right? anthony (see warning)
  2. Let's see some discussion of this issue somewhere first. moink 23:05, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  3. 172 was not given a warning, no attempt to de-escalate can be found, and Bcorr did not even notify 172 that a Quickpoll was started... (I just left a message on 172's talk page, four hours into the Quickpoll). --"DICK" CHENEY 02:21, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  4. Danny 02:25, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  5. I regard edit wars over non-policy and non-article related matters as not warranting a block. -- Cyan 02:27, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • i am persuaded to agree. but that is inapplicable here: information re combating a vandalbot pertains to articles. Badanedwa 03:30, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
  6. When did we come to a consensus that quickpoll banning for three revert rule violations was appropriate again? I recall fairly strongly that there was no such consensus on this matter when we went over it. And this is a particularly stupid instance of it. If 172 and VV weren't banned for the 50 reverts they did on a couple of pages a few weeks back on actual articles, surely he shouldn't be banned for four reverts on the user page of a departed user who may or may not be operating a bot to vandalize Wikipedia. I'd add that there's no particular reason for info on the vandalbot to go on Wik's user page. It would be a rather illogical place to look for such information anyway. (Yes, I do think that the Vandalbot was created by Wik, but I don't really think that's relevant - the important think about the Vandalbot is its existence and how it works, not who operates it.) john k 08:07, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  7. I basically agree with Cyan's view theresa knott 08:31, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  8. With all the arguments I've had with him...I do have to agree with Cheney and Cyan in this case (as opposed to the case below). Oppose on this one. Ilyanep 14:36, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)



  • Does 172 have anything to say about this? We're talking about hampering dealing with a DOS attack ... - David Gerard 22:15, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see what 172 has to say about your proposal. If he doesn't respond soon; given the nature of the reverts, that it is a violation the 3 revert rule, that he is already imbroiled in the 172/VV conflict, and his consistent disregard for other users I will support the ban. -JCarriker 22:51, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • # Badanedwa 03:25, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC) four reversions in 7 hours 42 minutes confirmed.
    • moved from support, voting requires 3 months. Badanedwa 03:52, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • 172 has indicated on my talk page that he is prepared to accept the page as it is now, although he would still prefer we respect Jimbo's declaration that Wik's user page not be touched. Now my personal opinion is that Jimbo was talking about certain users deliberatly baiting Wik, not by attempts by reasonable people to inform the community about the vandalbot. Never the less I believe that 172 was acting in good faith when he tried to enforce Jimbo's declaration. I don't think the three revert rule should apply in a case like this. I also don't think that 172's reverts could be considered vandalism, and so think it was innappropriate for admins to have used rollback to revert 172. theresa knott 11:57, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • First of all, I apologize for not informing 172 of the Quickpoll. I should have taken more time to make sure I was following the procedures properly. Secondly, I think that Theresa hascrafted a good compromise, and I appreciate that. Finally, I haven't worried about this in a while, but this all makes me wonder what is the current status of the three revert rule/guideline? Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 13:16, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    I don't know what this apology means. You're still listed above in support of a 24 hour ban. 172 13:33, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)