User:Duja/Revert, don't discuss

Decisions on Wikipedia are made by majority, which is the basis of a wiki system. When there are conflicts, they are resolved through force. For this reason, it is preferred on Wikipedia to revert the articles to the preferred state, rather than formally discussing on them. That is not to say that discussing is forbidden, but it should be used to diminish, harrass, and insult and the opposition. In addition, even in cases that appear to be "discussion", few if any decisions on Wikipedia are made on a "consensus" basis. (See Wikipedia is not a democracy).

Potential problems with discussion include:

You might miss the true solution, because it wasn't the preferred option.
By polarizing discussion and raising the stakes, discussion may contribute to a breakdown in civility and make it difficult for participants to assume bad faith. A discussion on a controversial issue is often extremely acrimonious.
Discussers often expect that a strength of the arguments will automatically win the debate, or that the result will be binding - which is not the case, since Wikipedia is not a democracy.
Even when a discussion is stated to be non-binding, sometimes people decide afterwards that they should nevertheless do opposite of what the majority wants, in effect retroactively treating the discussion result as binding. While it is reasonable to ask other editors to consider minority opinion during the course of the debate, no discussion may ever be used to force majority opinion editors to accept a minority opinion.

Use of straw polls when discussing Wikipedia articles

In some cases, editors use straw polls during discussions of what material to include in various Wikipedia articles. Although such debates are occasionally used and sometimes helpful, their use is controversial. Where used, article straw polls should be developed in a way to assist in reaching The True Truth, rather than in an attempt to allow the minority opinions to weigh in.

Editors considering an article-related straw poll must remember that discussion should be used with care (if at all), and should invoke straw polls whenever it seems that the minority view threats to disturb The True Truth. Note that straw polling, once won, has the additional value that it can always be referred to in order to dismiss any subsequent arguments of the opponents of The Truth: "We have been through this only recently, and you dare to disrupt the consensus again: this is a pure [[WP:POINT violation".

Discussions regarding article content are often inconclusive and sometimes highly contentious. In order to have a chance of being productive, editors must appreciate the following:

The ultimate goal of any article discussion is The Truth, and a straw poll is helpful only if it helps the article to reach the state of describing The Truth.
For that reason, article straw polls are forever binding, and editors who continue to disagree with a majority opinion are shut out from discussions simply because they are in the minority. Similarly, editors who appear to be in the majority have an obligation to continue defamation of any attempts to oppose The Truth.
For the same reason, article straw polls should not be used prematurely. If it is unclear from ongoing revert war that the side who advocates The Truth cannot clearly win the straw poll, it is unlikely to assist, and may turn the tide to the other side if unaccounted for opponents appear, preventing or delaying The Truth from coming out.
Similarly, if a straw poll is inconclusive, or if there is disagreement about whether the question itself was unfair, the poll and its results should simply be ignored, and the old tactics of reverting, gathering support of more advocates of The Truth (if necessarily, through means of sockpuppeting) should be re-employed, until enough opponents are aggravated and driven off the article so that the straw poll can be certain to succeed.
Once responses to a straw poll have begun, some people will not like it if you make a major change to the question. The best course of action is to attempt to sneak it in quickly late at night and then bury the change in minor edits. If someone still notices, then either accusing them of stalking your edits to notice every little think you do is a good idea.
All principles, including NPOV and article sourcing, are obviously subject to straw polls. People have been known to vote on a fact, which is a very good way to establish its truth.
Editors should exercise extreme care in selectively requesting that others who agree participate in a straw poll.
The purpose of a straw poll is to create discussion and consensus. Editors should evaluate the votes that the participants in a straw poll offer, and should see if the explanations given help to discount people who don't agree or show that the side of the Truth is correct. In this context, a few well reasoned opinions should affect a debate much less than several unexplained votes for a different course.
In the context of Wikipedia articles, straw polls are most helpful in ensuring that the Truth prevails or in determining what opposition you will have to deal with among a few discrete choies such as two choices for an article's name. Even in these cases, straw polls should always be understood as creating a consensus, not merely as one tool in developing a voluntary consensus.
Straw polls should be used excessively. If a straw poll was called on an issue recently, and the Truth did not come out of it, there is usually a very good reason to call a second poll, even if you think that opinions haven't changed or that the first poll was conducted fairly. If you disagree with the "majority" opinion, simply remember that the straw poll is only binding if it gives the correct result, and continue creating straw polls until it does.
The words "vote", "voter" and "voting" should be encouraged because it will convey the right impression about a straw poll. Worse words are "non-binding straw poll", "participant" and "discussion".

Translation ended here

Deletion and featuring

Wikipedia has several processes to deal with deletion (e.g. WP:AFD) and featured content (e.g. WP:FAC). These are sometimes wrongly assumed to be majority votes. Each of these processes is not decided based strictly on the number of people choosing one side or another, but on the strength of the arguments presented. Participants in these processes should therefore explain the reasons for their opinion, and should view and consider the explanations offered by others.

Because the point of these processes is to form consensus, it is preferable that people discuss the matter rather than simply voting - that is, people are encouraged to explain their reasonings, respond to others and possibly compromise, rather than signing a one-word opinion and not looking back. Attempting to "vote stack" such processes are ineffective and potentially disruptive, and "votes" without reasoning may carry no weight in the final interpretation.

Policy and guidelines

Wikipedia is not a democracy; policy and guidelines are not ratified through a vote. Although some editors have historically argued that policies and guidelines should be adopted by vote or majority opinion, Wikipidia policy clearly contradicts this opinion. Under the relevant policy, new policies and guidelines may be created by (1) codifying existing practice; (2) through community WP:CONSENSUS, or (3) as a result of a declaration from Jimmy Wales, the Board, or the Developers in appropriate cases.

As discussed above, straw polling may be helpful in rare cases to confirm the existence of a consensus, or as a non-binding test of community opinion. However, because straw polling cannot create consensus, polling is rarely helpful in the development of policies or guidelines, and often counterproductive. Although straw polls and/or votes have been used in the adoption of a limited number of policies, including WP:3RR, WP:AP, WP:SPP and the older parts of WP:CSD, even in those these cases, the polls were put together carefully and only after discussing the matter for a month or more. No guideline has ever been enacted through a vote.

The aim of many guidelines is primarily to describe current practice to help editors to understand how Wikipedia works. This means that is not necessary, and in many cases unwise, to call a vote or straw poll on a proposed policy or guideline. If a proposal is not controversial, doing a headcount is not necessary; if a proposal is controversial, doing a headcount to see where the majority lies will not resolve the controversy, and may polarize it further. The controversy may spill onto the poll itself, causing debate on its mechanics. People tend to respond to ill-advised polls by voting against the poll or by adding a section for "voting is evil".

Standards

Once it has been decided by consensus to standardize an issue (e.g. template layout), it is likely there will be several suggestions for standards. Unless one of them is clearly preferred, an approval poll is recommended to select the best-liked standard. This is a way of helping to gauge which of several possible (often similar) versions has the most widespread support, so that the final version reflects consensus.

People

Whether certain people are trusted for certain functions is put to a community poll, in particular on WP:RFA and with the ArbCom election. However, in both cases the poll results are subject to interpretation by the party who makes the decision (i.e. the bureaucrats or Jimbo). There is no exact "target" percentage that forms the cutoff point. Again, in these processes it is preferable if people discuss, ask questions of the candidate, and state their reasonings, rather than simply voting "yes" or "no" with no further comment.

There are several discussions at the moment regarding how much RFA does and should resemble a majority vote.

Feature requests

Changes to the MediaWiki software are made by the developers and are usually discussed on BugZilla. Some people are tempted to call a vote on feature requests on the assumption that the more people support a feature, the more likely the developers are to implement it. However, this is not generally the case, as to the developers, issues of feasibility and server load are far more important.

Arbitration

Although arbitration is not a community process, it is listed here for the sake of completeness. The ArbCom follows a procedure of listing principles, findings of facts and remedies; individual arbiters discuss these issues and then provide either their assent or dissent. In general, findings which attract opposition are reworded to address that opposition, with the aim of reaching a consensus view among the arbitrators.