Forum:Removal of "Pending"

The "Pending" option shouldn't be there, and to me it seems more like an excuse to edit. There is no good reason for it, people don't really need to know that you're waiting to vote. I propose it be removed. 00:25, March 25, 2012 (UTC) Addendum: Seeing as people already feel I didn't give enough good reasons. I'll state a few 00:41, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * If a person is waiting to vote, then they simply wait, no need to announce it to the world.
 * Announcing you are pending will not stop voting processes, such as RfA's as they have a set time period in which they must pass.
 * They'll probably get crossed out eventually anyways, as the voter would have probably voted by then.
 * Isn't it just an extension to "neutral"? 00:27, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * It's like a "Neutral for a few hours" kind of thing. 00:29, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the reason to remove it, it's used to show that you're thinking it through, which there is nothing wrong about. It essentially shows that your going to vote, but you haven't made a decision yet. It can also give supporters or opposers a chance to rebuttal their arguments to try and sway the vote, it's how debate and voting works. 00:31, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral is essentially that, and people don't need to put they'll eventually vote. Everyone that votes thinks it through for the most part, and they didn't have to put "Pending". But that's just the way I see it. 00:33, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * So should we just remove the entire neutral vote as well? Because people say "Voting neutral is like not voting at all."? Using that reason is the same a saying that neutral is an excuse to edit as well. Waiting on a vote is an essential part of debate and forming consensus, as I said above, because it can allow for other people to rebuttal and in turn possibly change the votes of others as well. What a pending really does is encourage both sides to give better, more clear-cut reasons to their choice. 00:42, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * No, neutral is a valid vote as long as people explain why they are neutral and why they weren't swayed either way. That helps to reach consensus towards discussion, telling us you'll vote eventually doesn't. 00:49, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * I still don't see your point, maybe I want to pend on what I will say next, maybe you'll want to take this time to sway me your way while I pend my decision. Maybe I'm waiting for a better, more clear-cut reason to one side, maybe me showing I'm waiting for that will get people to actually do it. You're going to start making me repeat myself, "Pending can allow for other people to rebuttal and give better reason behind their vote." 00:57, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Then tell me how the Pendings in Red's RfA helped reach consensus. You don't need to tell everyone you're going to wait to vote. Also, you make it sound like it's impossible to be swayed unless you put Pending. Just read over the forum, and if you aren't ready to vote, don't vote, simple as that. 01:00, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Per TWC, why do you need to alert the entire forum you're thinking about it in a comment on said forum? By right every user is watching a forum pending. 01:02, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a very strong reason to remove it. 00:34, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

I understand the reasoning behind removing it, as it basically allows a user 2 edits on a forum, one for putting their stake in, and another for when they actually vote. This seems rather minute in the long run however, however if a user is pending I don't see why they need to say on the forum itself. 00:43, March 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * I see what your saying but "it basically allows a user 2 edits on a forum" doesn't seem like a strong reason as neutral people do the same, and what is gaining another edit on a forum decently bad?01:01, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, attempting to get as many edits out of something isn't constructive and it violates COD:DGTS, but I'm not saying people do that with that intent. Also people that vote Neutral aren't necessarily swayed, and it doesn't necessarily equate to 2 votes, as "Neutral" is a clear cut vote. 01:03, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

There is no downside to allowing this template to exist and be used. You have cited that people will "edit whore" them, but that argument is not valid; you may only collect a few edits from using this templates over long periods of time. It is such a miniscule amount of edits that it cannot even be considered detrimental. I cannot see any major issue with allowing pending votes to remain as they are: they show that the user is involved with the vote and does plan on voting. Shotrocket6 02:26, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * You were the one that said Consensus requires discussion. Tell me then how this helps in discussion and I'd like to point to Red's RfA. How did the pending votes affect the RfA. They just aren't necessary. Might as well make every user put pending if they plan on voting and are unsure. 03:08, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Tell me then how this harms the voting process and I might see some sense in your argument. Shotrocket6 03:14, March 25, 2012 (UTC)