This policy establishes the rules for participating in votes on this site, and how votes should be run.

Votes are common, especially for choosing featured content and electing admins. But they are also used on the forums to vote on proposals for the site.

Battlefield Wiki Policies

Voter Requirements

To vote you must meet the following criteria (unless stated otherwise at the place of the vote):

  • At least 20 mainspace edits
  • Have been active for over 1 month

These are to prevent multiple account abuse. Any suspect accounts will be IP verified. Any ineligible votes should be struck-out and ignored.

Vote Management

Votes typically stem from a proposal. For example:

It is proposed we develop a policy on voting

Users would then either support, oppose or comment on the proposal. To do this, the following format should be used:

*'''Support''' - Reason - ~~~~
*'''Oppose''' - Reason - ~~~~
*Comment - ~~~~

Bolding is important to differentiate a comment expressing an opinion and a formal vote.

Vote results should be displayed using Template:Vote, in the following format:

|Support votes
|Oppose votes

All votes last for 1 week unless stated otherwise at the place of the vote.

Upon completion, all votes and related discussions should be archived in situ or somewhere appropriate for record keeping purposes (BF:DDD). These should then not be altered.

Requests for Adminship

In the case of a Request for Adminship, the voting process is taken differently from the Battlefield Wiki's standard voting process.

  • All votes on RfA's have a maximum length of 4 days unless stated otherwise at the user's nomination.
  • In the case of a unanimous voting result of either support or oppose to the acquirement of the admin rights, the vote should be closed 48 hours after the nomination was made, having a bureaucrat taking the action decided by the vote.
  • If the nominated user does not meet the RfA's guideline requirements, the voting shall be closed immediately, having no effect on his/her rights.



If a vote ends with a draw, the tiebreak procedure, agreed here, must be employed. Note that this is intentionally longer than should ever be required and should always lead to a conclusive result.

Proposal Style

If the vote is, for example, a proposal, where a user must vote for, against or other, then tiebreaking is simple:

  • Whichever of support or oppose has the higher count wins
  • If this is a draw, all votes except those of admins are ignored and a recount takes place.
  • Should this still be a draw, the casting vote resides with the current user of the month

Featured Style

If there are multiple proposals, for example, for featured content, where users can support or oppose multiple proposals, but only one proposal can go ahead, then tiebreaking is similar. If one proposal is tied, the above must be followed before an overall tie may be determined.

  • If there are multiple approved proposals, whichever has he highest net result (support-oppose) wins
  • If this is still a draw, all votes except those of admins are ignored and the net result recalculated.
  • Should this still be a draw, the casting vote resides with the previous month's user of the month



When a vote is held, each user gets the chance to voice their opinion and cast a single vote. Attempts to improperly sway a vote are considered a breach of policy. This comes under four types:

  • Spamming: Users should not spam others to get their opinions on a matter. For important debates and votes, a central notice (a blog, forum, etc.) may be posted and users who have previously expressed opinions on a matter notified. Uninvolved or inactive users shouldn't be actively harassed for their opinions. No attempt should be made to sway an outcome by selectively notifying editors on the basis of how they are likely to vote.
  • Campaigning: Any central or inter-user notifications of debates and votes should be phrased in a neutral manner, without attempt to sway opinions. Arguments and opinions should be consigned only to the debate itself.
  • Stealth Canvassing: Campaigning for involvement in a debate or vote should always be done in a transparent manner - making on-wiki discussion preferable. General discussion of issues in off-site media is permitted, but "campaigning", by harassing users to either get or change their opinions, through off-site media is considered improper.
  • Sockpuppetry: Each user is given one vote and one vote only. Attempts to vote multiple times with different accounts is considered a breach of policy. Voter requirements are set and should be enforced for the purposes of preventing such activity.

Any attempts to sway a vote in an improper manner should be reported to an admin. Users responsible should be issued a warning, with a possible block if ignored.

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.