Forum:Voting rationales (poll page)

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

Foreword

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

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 user's votes.

• 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.-- 22:59, September 25, 2012 (UTC)
• This addition to the voting standards seem like an excellent addition and as far as I can see, leaves no negative things to occur. -- ^{"This is my road, you'll walk it as I say"} 23:01, September 25, 2012 (UTC)
• Per my arguments on the discussion page. --Skire (talk) 23:07, September 25, 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

• --Ghoullover666 (talk) 00:08, September 26, 2012 (UTC)

Comments

@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.-- ^{"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. -- ^{"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.-- ^{"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)

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:)-- 00:32, September 26, 2012 (UTC)