Wikipedia:Bring back quickpolls

Quickpolls were a fast, easy way to settle disputes without the lengthy intervention of the Arbitration Committee. I, for one, enjoyed using them. I would like to see this feature returned to regular use. --Ryan! | Talk 04:05, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)


  1. Ryan! | Talk 04:05, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  2. I was in favor of quickpolls before and I still am. They are far from perfect, but the idea behind them is basically sound: a simple way to determine community opinion about behavior. It is a lot harder to protest a block that has community consensus than it is to protest one done on the basis of a single sysop's opinion or interpretation. In short they are a reasonable and fair way to clarify ambiguities of circumstance where policy does not yet suffice. Everyking 05:31, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Quickpolls were a useful project and still can be. RickK 06:43, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  4. If I become an admin and I've just blocked someone, then someone else tries to start a block war, I'll block everyone involved, then unblock myself, then start a quickpoll. A consensus needs to be reached if block wars are to be avoided. Scott Gall 09:44, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. I'd support trying quickpolls again, although it doesn't look like it'll happen. The main problem before, IMO, was that virtually all of them were for 3RR violations, with the intent of imposing slap-on-the-hand blocks. I think they would useful as a way of showing quick consensus in the face of a user who is clearly being an ass. One of the problems with Wikipedia now is that if you come across someone being unreasonable, it's hard to say "look, you need to stop" because it's just you against them. Isomorphic 16:35, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. I support Quickpolls as well--Comrade Nick @)---^-- 22:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. i think it's the best way to resolve disputes. Gilgamesh he 23:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. I'd support the use (of this system as far as I understand it) although I think a number of edits quota should be used. Not that number of edits denotes quality by any means but it shows commitment? This could be good just for the cases that arbitration would otherwise take years to get to. gren 07:55, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    What cases would those be? The ArbCom generally finishes cases within a week or two of the evidence being presented. --Carnildo 08:07, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  9. Dan100 20:42, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support I don't like to be influenced by people in the oppose section. I will vote for I believe to be the best solution. All the people from the Abtri. Commitee are not suprisingly voting in the oppose section, and that was expected. I believe that a quickpoll will: 1) Give a better say from different groups of Wikipedians regardless of ethical background, ages, intellect etc. (The current group in the Attri. commitee are all whites, not to be racist or anything). 2) Provide consistentcy with the way the Wikipedians votes for things such as RFA, VFD. 3) The role of Attri. Commitee is for last resort disputes, Quickpolls is a lower level and will ease the burden. 4) RFC is usually long, and there are lots of comments and arguments and will take much longer to make a decision then that of a concise and get-to-the-point quickpoll. 5) RFC is probably for article disputes and not the actions of a Wikipedian, these two should be seperated from each other, as they are different - just like the way we seperate Article and Wikipedia/User namespace. 6) Some accuse quickpolls of failing, there is somethings that should be given another go, and this is it.. 7) Certain members of the ArbCom would be biased and prone to say that there is nothing wrong with the current system... but there is something broken (too long, too much wikipolitics, long time to answer) thats why we need to fix it. Squash 23:11, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  11. Silas Snider (talk) 17:27, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Yes, but should be policed by admin. staff. --Harro5 06:14, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  13. I agree with Harro5. One reservation of mine is that they can be used by a group of POV pushers to overcome some NPOV statement or article. Arno 09:22, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


  1. Dysprosia 04:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. What about RFCs? They fulfill, loosely, the same role for which most quickpolls would be used. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 04:30, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
    RFCs are mainly for article disputes, no? --Ryan! | Talk 04:35, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
    Not really. Haven't you seen the user dispute section as well? Johnleemk | Talk 13:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. nsh - "For every problem there is a solution that is simple, easy and wrong". Quickpolls may be intended as a way of settling disputes without resorting to abritation, but they will be (have been?) used to avoid making the effort to reach consensus in the first place. If everyone plays the game and puts the work in, consensus can be achieved most of the time. Let's not give more excuses for people not to. nsh 04:33, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Quickpolls generally worked horribly. It mostly resulted in uneven treatment, popularity contests, and witchhunts. I firmly oppose reinstatement of quickpolls. john k 05:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Quickpolls were a stopgap solution that failed dismally. In times when an arbitration case takes an average of ten days (and brings a permanent, rather than temporary, action with it), they're particularly unnecessary. Ambi 05:49, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Quickpolls were tried as an experiment. The experiment failed in the eyes of many and was not continued. Bringing quickpolls back without modification will undoubtedly fail again. Even modified, bringing them back under the same name would probably be enough to doom a new experiment. --Michael Snow 05:55, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • What do you think a good name for this possible procedure might be? --Ryan! | Talk 06:14, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  7. The ArbCom seems to be doing an adequate job. --Carnildo 06:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. I'll echo what Ambi wrote. Hephaestos|§ 06:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  9. These were before my time, but looking at the archived polls, the whole process seems to have devolved into tit-for-tat retaliation amongst a small group of combatants. Concentrating on the punitive measures was the problem, not the open comment-gathering. So I guess I prefer RfC, et al. -- Netoholic @ 06:54, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
  10. In my opinion Arbcom seems to do a good job, and if you don't want worry them, you can use RfC. It is not limited to the article disputes. --Aphaea* 08:27, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  11. No. Danny 12:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  12. Weakly opposed. I quite liked quickpolls at the time, but I think things have changed since: the 3RR is now (fairly) well enforced; the arbcomm process is quite rapid; RFCs exist for both user and content disputes. Its not really clear to me what lack Quickpolls are filling (William M. Connolley 14:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)).
  13. Wikipedia would need a process to solve disputes on texts, not disputes between "individuals". Besides, this proposal is far too vague to be supported. --Ruhrjung 15:05, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  14. No, they produce more chaos than they're worth are likely to harden attitudes and encourage groupthink. A RFC is more wikilike, and since admins now have power to enforce the WP:3RR and deal with simple vandalism, I don't see any reason to introduce yet another mechanism that would take effort from RFC's. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:29, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  15. I believe that reintroducing quick polls would lead to more problems than they would solve. The dispute resolution process could probably be tweaked a bit, but it seems to be working well. Carrp | Talk 15:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  16. I fail to see any serious problems with the current way of doing things, and while I wasn't involved in policy back when Quickpolls were happening, I have some doubts that the mechanism as described, or any simple variation on it, would be a good thing. With the current setup, we at least have good trust that blocking follows policy. I doubt quickpolls would ensure that consistency as well as the current way of doing things. --Improv 18:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  17. Yes, let's have another method of backbiting and avoiding working to build consensus. It's also already practically impossible for a minority to be heard.Dr Zen 04:28, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  18. I wasn't around when the quickpolls were in use, but judging from the quickpoll history, and common sense, I think that these could be used to harass and block unpopular, but law-abiding users. Also, I think the rules for de-sysopping are too lax, and could be used to start a "witchhunt" for admins. Conclusion: Quickpolls have the potential to be dangerous to the Wikipedia. Bratsche (talk) 04:42, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
  19. I think ArbCom are doing a fine job at the moment. I think quick polls, from what I understand of them, will be highjacked to continue conflicts and hound out unpopular users, they're more trouble than they're worth. In my opinion they are akin to mob justice. Rje 14:47, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
  20. Lynch mobs are even worse than lone vigilantes. —Charles P. (Mirv) 18:26, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  21. They weren't useful before, and I think they'd be worse now. Tuf-Kat 23:53, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  22. Not useful. Oldak Quill 22:09, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  23. Discussion is useful to determine consensus and forming a good NPOV. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:27, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  24. There is too much pretend democracy already. No more. --iMb~Mw 09:24, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  25. Nice idea — but Ambi said it all. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:51, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  26. Quickpolls was a nice try, but it didn't work out. Agree with Ambi. Kim Bruning 15:09, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  27. direct democracy needs safeguards against mobbing and witchhunts. The arbcom is required to get a reasonable background on each case. Having an elected body that takes responsibility for fair assessments is much preferable to drive-by voting. dab () 10:23, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  28. I had a little look-up of the old quickpoll thingies.....I got the impression that there were mainly used to make a point (or that they degenerated to that) RfC and Arbcom are more than enough...'Dont be hasty' Lectonar 13:58, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  29. Sorry. They were a nice idea, but they failed utterly. Vacuum c 16:01, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  30. Not useful. Kelly Martin 03:18, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  31. Quick poles don't help in achieving consensus and have too little deliberation to work as a democratic tool. Barnaby dawson 14:56, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  32. Polls are evil, Don't vote on everything, and in conclusion, Voting Is Evil. The majority has no claim to the truth. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 05:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


  1. Enjoyed them, Mero? ;) Neutralitytalk 04:24, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Sure! It was nice to be an active part of an informal decision-making body on Wikipedia. --Ryan! | Talk 04:32, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah, I suppose. I thought you meant you enjoyed the blocking part. ;) Neutralitytalk 04:33, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
        • Urk! No, not that part. --Ryan! | Talk 04:35, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  2. I reserve judgement until I see a much more detailed proposal. In particular, how do you address Neutralitytalk's concern of tyranny of the majority? It seems that while the goal of quickpolls is laudable, it needs flushing out before I can vote in favor. --Cgranade 10:35, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  3. I'd agree with Cgranade for now. I saw some of the quickpolls and what went on with them. A lot of the problems occured with people just teaming up on others, and there were also problems with individuals that would participate without much previous knowledge. On the other hand, they were useful at points, and they did have their benefits. I guess the system needs more work, but the time needed to fix everything might not warrant the other benefits to the situation. HolyApocalypse | talk | 02:51, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Agreed with the others. I'd like to see a more detailed proposal, but I won't oppose the idea. Johnleemk | Talk 13:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. It's an intriguing idea. However, as is greatly acknowledged above, the origninal quick polls did have severe flaws. On the other hand a reformed version of quick polls could supplement the ArbCom and bring more minds together for a solution. It is important to strick a balace. We don't want mob rule but we don't want elitism either, and as long as we have the current arbitrators, eletism won't be a problem; but they won't be around forever. -JCarriker 06:57, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)


I see this as a devolution-of-power/tyranny of the majority issue. While it's always good to bring power to the people (rather than with administrators, Jimbo, or the Arbitration Committee), I also feel that quickpolls pose various problems and issues: due process, tyranny of the majority, trolls, sockpuppets, and special-interest users voting in bad faith. I also feel that at some level policy will be ignored in favor of popularity. Therefore, I cannot vote either in favor or oppose, and remain neutral at this time. Anyone care to convince me to one side or the other? Neutralitytalk 04:43, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

The old quickpoll was sloppy and the process was ill-defined. Before a quickpoll is set up, there should be designated abstaining users to check against trolls and sockpuppets. Quickpolls are not meant for long-term problems which, in all logic, should be referred to the ArbCom. As long as the policies for quickpolls remain stringent, the populace should, in theory, not be able to commandeer the vote. Besides, quickpoll access was limited to users who had been registered for a specific amount of time. This should be extant. About bad faith, that is not something that people outside the voter's head can determine without clear indication of bias toward the parties. --Ryan! | Talk 05:03, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

We have far friendlier proposals to deal with user conduct issues than this: see Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts and also the proposed revision to user conduct dispute RfCs on WP:RfC, jguk 22:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I like the sound of that idea a lot! Much better a virtue-based society than a rules-based one. Hmm, something to think about... nsh 19:10, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)