|
This is a rant; it contains the ranting and raving of User:Vassyana. It is not a policy or guideline, nor an essay, and editors are not obliged to follow it.
Discuss it on the talk page, if you have comments. |
Wikipedia utterly lacks a mechanism to force people to seek consensus or bow out. On the contrary, much of this negative behaviour is encouraged as unobjectionable "good faith", "defending" Wikipedia, and myriad related excuses. Stonewalling and obstructionism with the intent of blocking any consensus or progress contrary to an entrenched position should be clearly enforceable as disruptive editing and a form of edit warring.
Scope of the problem edit
This serious issue has infected not only a broad swath of article space (notably many nationalistic and religious articles), but also plagues policy and process discussions as the climate of tolerance has encouraged such counter-consensus behavior. Consensus is a fundamental part of the wiki process (if not the fundamental part). Allowing people to act in a way counter to reaching consensus breaks the wiki process at its root.
It's not about content edit
It is not a "content dispute" issue, but rather a behavioral one, if someone is refusing to engage in the wiki process (including consensus seeking). This conflation of the two distinct issues is exactly part of the problem.
"My way, or the highway" edit
Consensus isn't built with a "my way or the highway" approach. Most often, it's built with compromise and incremental change. Those who point out flaws and work with others to address them and improve the wiki are most welcome. Those here to say it's their way or the highway, need to reexamine their approach and decide whether or not Wikipedia as a whole is a suitable place for them. Consensus is fundamental to the wiki and it does not arise among entrenched parties unwilling to compromise or work together in an intelligent and civil fashion.
No need to grease the squeaky wheel edit
The community is under no obligation to entertain those holding extreme and/or uncompromising positions in discussions, even though editors should do their best to form some compromise between all parties. Similarly, we are only obligated to engage and consider those participating in productive discussion and consensus building.
| “ | Anyone with a complaint should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity. They should be encouraged constantly to present their problems in a constructive way in the open forum of the mailing list. Anyone who just complains without foundation, refusing to join the discussion, I am afraid I must simply reject and ignore. Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal. I must not let the "squeaky wheel" be greased just for being a jerk. | ” |
| — User:Jimbo Wales. Statement of Principles. #7. | ||
Conclusion edit
A number of articles and process discussions are derailed by such idiocy. So long as there is a solid group of entrenched people unwilling to seek consensus and compromise, and people are unwilling to ignore, restrict and/or block the obstructionists, the problem will persist.