Wikipedia:Filibuster reform
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
Filibusters are evil. Editors who take part in a discussion with no intention of finding an agreement with other editors are evil. This is not to say that every failure to find an agreement is a disruption to the encyclopedia. But editors are expected to negotiate in good faith with each other, with the intention of finding an agreement. The purpose of a discussion is to find common ground and consensus, not to record everyone's unique opinion.
Signs of a filibuster[edit]
Filibusters can utilize a variety of tactics to ensure that a discussion never reaches a consensus. Here are several ways to spot a filibuster:
- When their comments represent a minority opinion, but a majority of the talk page text.
- When you ask them to propose an idea that might achieve consensus, but they refuse to do so.
- When the community rejects their viewpoint, but they continue to act as though their viewpoint is an established policy.
- When they make a habit of voting and running, instead of engaging in back and forth discussion.
- When he uses democratic rhetoric to justify an unlimited right to stonewall that is prohibited on Wikipedia.
- When you offer to explore a compromise, but they continue to repeat the same position and arguments.
Accusing someone of being a filibuster should not be done lightly. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, which includes the right to dissent and the right to their own beliefs (even when those beliefs are rejected by others). A filibuster insists on forcing their beliefs on everyone else, and is willing to engage in multiple "no consensus" discussions for months or even years until they get everything they want. Editors should only be reported for filibustering if they have a clear pattern of stonewalling efforts to achieve consensus, over the course of several discussions, usually on a single broad issue.
How filibustering kills progress[edit]
If an institution is unable to make decisions, it is unable to adapt to new problems and opportunities, and move forward. While a dissent can often work with a majority to find a broader consensus, an endless filibuster can cause the decision-making process to break down.
[Filibustering] makes it very difficult for us to move forward ... and actually reduces compromise. ... If Republicans know that they can block anything ... then they feel no need to compromise. And that means Democrats... their attitude is ... we don't have to compromise, we can't get [enough] votes. And everyone moves in opposite directions.
— The President
- Replace "Republicans" with "Inclusionists" and "Democrats" with "Deletionists"
- Replace "Republicans" and "Democrats" with any two ethnic groups
- Replace "Republicans" and "Democrats" with any two religions
- Replace "Republicans" and "Democrats" with scientific materialists and new age mystics