Forums: Index > Wiki proposals and applications > Voting rationales (poll page)


Good day, ladies and gentlemen. Following the recent discussion, this is an official vote to determine what you think of the following addition:

All users who take part in any formal wiki vote are encouraged to post an at-least-basic rationale explaining why their vote was cast the way it is. In addition, administrators reserve the right to require voters' rationales for voting on certain polls, if and only if they feel a necessity.

Please note that only the first part of the above will be posted on top of future wiki votes, to serve as a reminder. I would like to thank users Jspoelstra and GarouxBloodline for helping me produce this final wording.


Poll finished on 10:55 pm October 2, 2012 (UTC).
  • A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken.
  • You can vote by placing one of the following lines in the appropriate section:
    • Use # {{yes}} ~~~ if you support the proposal.
    • Use # {{no}} ~~~ if you are against the proposal.
    • Use # {{neutral}} ~~~ if you wish to abstain.
  • Please do not edit other people's votes.
  • yesIcon check I myself have never voted on something without giving at least a decent modicum of rationales. It's a good rule and will help keep our voting to standard.--Bunny2Bubble 22:59, September 25, 2012 (UTC)
  • yesIcon check This addition to the voting standards seem like an excellent addition and as far as I can see, leaves no negative things to occur. --3 of Clubs "This is my road, you'll walk it as I say" 23:01, September 25, 2012 (UTC)
  • yesIcon check I don't like seeing people voting, and not even showing why they are voting that way. You can put a rational as simple as noIcon cross because this person likes chocolate ice cream and i don't. FNV NCR Armor "Respect and Honor" 09:38, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
  • yesIcon check Per my arguments on the discussion page. --Skire (talk) 23:07, September 25, 2012 (UTC)
  • noIcon cross I dont think this rule will achieve what it sets out to do. It doesnt make voting informed, and by acting as just a recommendation has no real effect when most of us are doing it anyway. If we're already following the recommendation in most cases, and aren't doing more than "recommending" the few who don't to do so, then ultimately we're just adding more complexity for no gain. Additionally, it does nothing to deal with frivolous votes, as detailed in the discussion thread. Agent c (talk) 23:14, September 25, 2012 (UTC)
  • neutralIcon neutral I like the idea but arent we doing it already? We are encouraged to give an explanation but arent we already? Also the administrator part, we are doing this currently right? I think we should be forced to give a short 2nd Grade explanation at least. Topple101 (talk) 23:55, September 25, 2012 (UTC)
  • yesIcon check --Ghoullover666 (talk) 00:08, September 26, 2012 (UTC)
  • noIcon cross I'm against it for reasons I've stated previously. I'm especially against it now that the extra 'condition' of admins being able to reserve their right to require rationales has come about. This is a massive loophole that will only be problematic.--Enclavesymbol 09:16, September 26, 2012 (UTC)
  • yesIcon check I believe the way votes are currently cast and interpreted are increasingly becoming a seriously problem in polls and elections. While this rule is by no means sufficient to solve it, it is definitely a step in the right direction, which will hopefully help future proposals to reform the system properly. Limmiegirl Lildeneb Talk! ♪
  • yesIcon check I believe the votes should mean something and have a reason, not just "I like you, so I'll vote for you!"--Fo2 NCR Flag A Safe People is a Strong People! 17:33, September 26, 2012 (UTC)
  • noIcon cross I would like to reserve the right to vote and keep my rationale to myself, as in any good democracy. A vote is a vote, regardless of the intent behind it, and everyone is free to have a vote in policy decisions and adminship requests. Complete and utter no. FollowersApocalypseLogo Apocalypse Now! 04:00, September 27, 2012 (UTC)
  • yesIcon check I very much like the idea, in fact, Sigma and I formulated this idea together (even if he did do most of the work). MY basic argument towards it is, if you vote, why would you want to hid your rationale? Providing one not helps validate that your vote is relevant, but also helps clearly define why exactly a vote does or does not pass, by showing the true feelings of the community, making a vote a learning experience at least. Furthermore, providing your reasoning also encourages others to consider your expressed views, and to agree with them, or contest them. And there is a difference between an intelligent debate and a 'drama'-type argument. VictorFaceMonitor Might I Say You're Looking Fit As a Fiddle! 01:09, September 28, 2012 (UTC)
  • yesIcon check When people vote, a lot of the time they don't have a valid reason. They just vote because others are or they vote jut because. With a reasonable excuse, the vote will mean something Vault-Tec Circle "Editing With Triple S Technology!" 6:55, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
  • yesIcon check I was hoping for some ironic yes votes, with no explanation as to why. If someone wants to vote on something they should justify it, therefore giving insight to other would be voters, and showing that the voter has a valid understanding of the issue at hand. The lone wanderer's bad-ass grandma (talk) 10:49, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
  • yesIcon check A rather belated vote, but I've come to the conclusion that although this solves only a small fraction of the problem, it is far better than any current system in place (or rather the lack of system we have in place). People are treating votes in a rather haphazard fashion, instead of voting based upon what has been provided within the request (contributions, projects, community work, et cetera) I've seen countless votes based upon relations with the requester, good or bad, or over-shadowing political/philosophical views. Again, this is not a solution but it's a step towards it. Neko-signature Gothic NekoNeko's Haunt 14:24, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
  • yesIcon check This is absolutely necessary to deter bandwagon voters who merely vote for what everyone else is voting for. ~ Toci ~ Go ahead, make my day. 03:18, October 2, 2012 (UTC)


@Agent C; I think when it gets down to users having illegitimate reasons for voting, then it falls onto the admins to deal with those users on a per needed count. They could approach them (TP message) and see if they can offer a legitimate defense, and if not, they can either try and provide one, or their vote is stricken. This is of course up to the admin's pwn personally discretion in my humble opinion.--3 of Clubs "This is my road, you'll walk it as I say" 23:22, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

Ultimately though that isn't what is on the table. In the discussion it was indicated that if someone was to give a frivilous reason, the only come back would be that the user would look silly in public. Agent c (talk) 23:24, September 25, 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. It seems I misunderstood what was put onto the table. I am sorry for that. I shall review what exactly is being offered here, and possibly re-cast my vote accordingly. --3 of Clubs "This is my road, you'll walk it as I say" 23:28, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

Chad, you and I both know there is no practical way of forcing people to make informed decisions. That is why we have bureaucrats to interpret votes and make decisions after hearing from the community. What this proposal does is much less restrictive and demanding than its original wording - it reminds people to make informed decisions, as well as the additional part of granting administrators the right to require rationales on certain votes. It is that simple. --Skire (talk) 23:43, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

And that was my understanding :/ I can stand behind that I believe.--3 of Clubs "This is my road, you'll walk it as I say" 23:46, September 25, 2012 (UTC)
The reason why I changed it was because the original proposal received a significant amount of negative feedback. I reworded it to include other admins' points and now I feel it is ready for a vote. This is something that does not force anyone to do anything, but it is certainly better than nothing and serves as a reminder to voters. --Skire (talk) 23:50, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

But ultimately Sig, I think it does nothing. People I believe that people will simply skip over a reminder, especially one that has no actual rules effect. I believe that we already have a good incentive/reminder if you like to give a reason in that everyone else generally does already, and people don't tend to like to stand out. Agent c (talk) 00:22, September 26, 2012 (UTC)

I understand. And I think by common sense itself it would be better to leave a reason when voting than not, but this is a mandatory reminder of sorts. When I had wanted it to force a rationale, it was not well-received. Now that it has been modified to be less demanding, I am hoping it will be more acceptable to many people. And the second part of the proposal is also important, to make official the rights of the administration to mandate voting rationales on certain matters. --Skire (talk) 00:28, September 26, 2012 (UTC)
Yes but making it less demanding makes it have less of a point of having it, to me it seems like nothing is going to happen. Encouraging it wont stop everyone from putting no reason at all, FORCING a small 2nd grade logical answer at least would make people reason.Topple101 (talk) 03:05, September 26, 2012 (UTC)

The more that I think about this, I feel differently. Sure, it's fine to have a friendly reminder, but to be honest, I don't really feel that it's a forum issue. Since the votes already up, it's perfectly fine:)--Bunny2Bubble 00:32, September 26, 2012 (UTC)

For the most part, I agree with this. You don't need a policy/guideline to put reminders like that on votes/polls, but I have to agree that we do need an option to make certain matters require a legitimate voting rationale. The only problem I can see is, we're also going to need to set some guidelines so Sysops don't just take the lazy route and tag every vote/poll with such a requirement. This wouldn't be a problem now, but I can imagine new Administrations in the future taking advantage of such an option. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 00:37, September 26, 2012 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what if unreasoning votes help pass this vote amendment? Wouldn't that be a little... ironic?--Enclavesymbol 09:20, September 26, 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, as a matter of principle, shouldn't ghoullover666's vote be excluded? Agent c (talk) 12:37, September 26, 2012 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly.--Enclavesymbol 12:48, September 26, 2012 (UTC)
While the rule is being decided upon/proposed, then all processes will follow the status quo. Not to mention my proposal never mentions anything about excluding anyone's vote, so I wonder where that came from. --Skire (talk) 17:34, September 26, 2012 (UTC)
its about the principle. Don't you think there's something strange about a vote to strongly encourage / in rare cases require reasoned voting when there are now 2 unreasoned votes? It makes a bit of a mockery of the whole process, and shows how ineffective this rule is going to be.Agent c (talk) 17:44, September 26, 2012 (UTC)
I fully understand your concern, but the vote is essentially changing two things. The first part, the reminder, is just an extra bit to try to alleviate rationale-less votes, while the second is the more significant part - giving admins the right to require voting rationales on certain votes. While it has been done before, it is technically not in our policies yet and this is making it official. --Skire (talk) 17:48, September 26, 2012 (UTC)

(Sig, I think you miss the point. At least half of that rule is effectively in place right now - the bit about encouraging people to give a reason by having a statement on the page, because that statement is on this page. If people are not following it now, when its the actual key part of the vote, what chance does it stand when it's religated to background noise. Ghoullovers vote stands as a shining reason to vote no, as it proves it simply doesn't work. Agent c (talk) 18:39, September 26, 2012 (UTC)

Half of that rule is not effectively in place, which is why I'm proposing that the reminder be mandatory on all votes. And if anything, his vote proves that leaving no reason is a current problem. Also, I'm not exactly sure on what you are trying to get out of this - you have already voiced your opinion and others will do the same. I mean this with only the utmost respect. My initial proposal would've had a greater effect overall, if passed, but received much negative feedback from the bureaucracy. I changed it for them and because I think this can work too. --Skire (talk) 18:44, September 26, 2012 (UTC)
C, I'd argue it stands instead as a shinning reason as to why the second part, that enables admins to enforce the requirement at times, is necessary. Limmiegirl Lildeneb Talk! ♪ 18:46, September 26, 2012 (UTC)
"Half of that rule is not effectively in place, which is why I'm proposing that the reminder be mandatory on all votes. And if anything, his vote proves that leaving no reason is a current problem" - Yet the reminder is here, on this page, right now and seems to have failed in its goal. Agent c (talk) 19:03, September 26, 2012 (UTC)
I'll just be brutally honest here, this seems to be nothing more than a matter of whether or not one faces consequences from an admin for not putting a pretty bow on top of a vote. The rule is already implied clear enough in my honest opinion, making it 'official official' is the difference between against the rules and following the rules. So basically, right or wrong. Also, if the 'illegal' vote(s) like ghoullovers (and they will be illegally voted... votes, when this voting amendment passes) help pass said voting amendment, I'd say that's damned funny. Not further reasoning...--Enclavesymbol 21:23, September 26, 2012 (UTC)
I'll be brutally honest - from what you're saying you clearly have no understanding of the proposal at all. In the future, votes without rationales will not be stricken, but will be interpreted in the same way as they are now. The first part is a mandatory reminder encouraging voting, and the second part gives the administration rights to mandate them when they feel appropriate. It is honestly that simple. If you oppose it then that's fine, I respect your opinion. That is all I'm going to say on this matter. --Skire (talk) 02:20, September 27, 2012 (UTC)


The voting booths are now closed and the results are in. After the rewording it became agreeable with almost everyone that this is the way to go from this point forward. So we now have this to add as part of our guidelines on voting. Motion passed.--Kingclyde (talk) 18:47, October 3, 2012 (UTC)