WikiQueer:Status quo stonewalling



Status quo stonewalling is disruptive behavior in opposition to a change by taking advantage of the status quo rule:
 * If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change.

Status quo stonewalling is typified by an insistence on reverting to the version prior to a disputed change (the status quo) and avoiding substantive discussion of the issues related to the change while engaging in behavior that is typical of disputes, thus creating the appearance of a real substantive dispute about the change when none exists.

When a substantive objection to a change exists, stonewalling is not required. So stonewalling is typically used only when those opposed to the change don't actually have a substantive objection to the proposed change, or when they know whatever argument they have can be easily refuted, or is contrary to consensus.

What is status quo stonewalling?
Status quo stonewalling is disruptive behavior in which anyone opposed to a proposed change is engaged that is characterized by the use of tactics which obstruct, delay, prolong, or distract discussion from reaching consensus, usually when the opposing side has few if any substantive arguments with which to support their position, and often when it appears that consensus supports, or is close to supporting, the change. While it's very difficult for one editor acting alone to succeed with stonewalling, if only 2 or 3 are involved, who don't even have to be coordinating their efforts, their ability to successfully build and maintain a stonewall retaining the status quo can be distressingly effective. With a few more editors it becomes even easier.

True consensus in a given situation is ideally measured and determined by the strength of the arguments presented, but often formal or informal polling is used as a substitute to determine consensus. So if enough people express objection to a change, that can be easily interpreted to be evidence of a lack of consensus in favor of the change. While that's probably usually an accurate assessment, if those opposed don't actually have substantive arguments supporting their objection, but those in favor of the objection do, there can actually be consensus in favor of the change when it appears that there isn't. Status quo stonewalling is about taking advantage of such a situation in order to prevent a change.

Can stonewalling be done in good faith?
The capacity of the human mind to engage in denial and rationalization can be impressive. As such, someone engaged in what may even seem like blatant stonewalling might not be fully aware of it. In fact, it's almost certain that the stonewaller feels justified in doing what he is doing for one reason or another. So, challenging as it might be, it's probably best to assume good faith and help them find a way to stop stonewalling without them losing face.

Reverting with "discuss first" without discussing
Also known as BR D (note that the D in BRD is struck out, symbolizing that crucial element of BRD is avoided by this tactic), probably the most common form of status quo stonewalling is when someone who supports a change makes the edit (or move), then someone who opposes the change reverts it with an edit summary that says something like "discuss first", or "no consensus", and then does not engage in any substantive discussion about the change despite inquiries regarding the revert having been made (if neither party shows interest in discussing, of course no discussion is fine). If someone objects to an edit because he believes it is opposed by consensus, then he should explain the reasons he, or consensus, holds whatever position it is. It's unreasonable to require the person making the change to speculate about what the objection might be, and require him to address it. Reverters should be clear about the reasons for the revert.

Now, if this has been repeatedly discussed and the reasons clearly established, of course the reasons don't have to be reiterated again; in such a case a revert like this would not be stonewalling.

Arguing more discussion is needed, without discussing more
Reverting a change, or opposing a change, based solely on the argument that "more discussion is needed", "discussion is in progress", or something like that, without demonstrating any serious inclination to engage in substantive discussion about the change.

Avoiding substantive discussion because of who is involved
Instead of explaining why the proposed change is opposed in substantive terms, those opposed instead complain about those who support the move, or their behavior (comments which, even if justified, don't belong on article and policy/guideline talk pages, but, rather, on user talk or dispute resolution pages).

Reverting or opposing on procedural grounds
When someone does not like a change but has no substantive reason to revert or oppose, sometimes he or she will justify their action on procedural reasons. Possible reasons given are:

Defending a revert because it's related to an ongoing dispute
A variation of avoiding substantive discussion because of who is involved is reverting a policy or guideline edit solely on the grounds that the edit favors the person who made the edit in some ongoing dispute. The evaluation and discussion of the edit should be regarding whether there is consensus support or opposition to the edit, and/or whether there is good reason to support or oppose the edit, and what those reasons are. Justifying the revert solely on the grounds that it favors the editor in an ongoing dispute and avoiding any substantive discussion about the edit independent of that dispute is simply a lame excuse to retain the status quo.

Defending a revert because the related text is mentioned in an open case
If an issue related to the text that is the subject of change and revert is being discussed in an Arbcom or other case, that is sometimes used as a basis to "restore" the "original" wording until the case is resolved, which might take weeks or even months. But any objection to a change should be accompanied with a substantive explanation explaining why the change is believed to be against consensus or contrary to policy, guidelines, conventions or accepted practice.

A !vote of "no change needed"
In a poll, someone opposing might !vote Oppose with a non-substantive justification like "No need for change", or "current title is fine", etc.

Arguing the status quo "does no harm"
Very little in WikiQueer can actually cause harm, so arguing something "does no harm", while almost certain true, is not saying anything substantive.

Lacking any legitimate argument, status quo stonewallers will often resort to the straw man argument that the status quo "does no harm", which is based on the absurd premise that for a change to be justified, the status quo must be harmful.

Use of this argument in RM discussions is particularly laughable because no titles ever do any harm. In other words, the logical extension of their argument is that no title should ever be moved, since no title ever does any harm.

Ignoring good faith questions
As part of the normal process to develop consensus, there will typically be some discussion, until it gets to a question or issue on which the argument of the status quo stonewallers fails. At this point they drop the discussion to avoid answering. Some time later a discussion picks up again, which also ends at a similar point. A talk page with numerous discussions about a change, each stalled at a similar point like this, is a tell-tale sign of status quo stonewalling.

Accusing change proponents of tendentious editing or TLDR
In multiple stalled discussions, proponents of the change are likely to make patient and good faith repeated attempts to discuss the substantive points at issue. Trying different approach, some posts might get long and repetitive. So another diverting/delaying tactic used at such a point is for the stonewallers to accuse the frustrated proponents of change of too much editing, either in the form tendentious editing or for making TLDR posts. Their argument is usually something along these lines: any apparent consensus in favor of the change is invalid because of the tendentiousness of the change proponents' editing, which has caused proponents of the status quo to no longer participate.  As the TLDR essay notes, "As a label, [TLDR] is sometimes used as a tactic to thwart the kinds of discussion which are essential in collaborative editing."  So is TE.

Filibustering
Filibustering is the practice of writing long meandering comments that look serious and substantive, but don't really say anything substantive. For example, they might go on and on about hypothetical cases that are practically unlikely to occur. Another form is to bring up supposed issues in great detail, even though they were raised and addressed before. They could also involve straw man arguments, or red herrings which are likely to not be immediately recognized as such by the uninitiated. The purpose of filibustering is to wear others out, so that they leave, and thus no longer contribute in support of the change, helping to create the appearance that there is no consensus.

Starting a new diverting discussion when existing discussion is favoring change
If it appears that an ongoing discussion is leaning towards favoring change, a common tactic is to start a new section/discussion. This move is based on the hope that editors who contributed to the first discussion will be too busy or put-off by all the wikidrama to also contribute to the new discussion, thus weakening apparent consensus in favor of the change in the new discussion. The excuse given for having a new discussion might be an alleged need for "more" or "broader" discussion, but anything plausible sounding is likely to be tried.

Finding excuses to ignore discussion results
There is no end to the excuses those opposing a change may use to argue the result of a discussion favoring the change should be dismissed. After all, any excuse to dismiss the result favoring change will serve their position for retaining the status quo, so the motivation for rationalization in favor of dismissal is strong. For example, one discussion might be moving in favor of the change, so a stonewaller starts a second diverting discussion, then a change supporter summarizes the results of the first discussion in the second discussion, which moves on to favor the change as well, so the stonewallers claim the second discussion they started is invalid because it was biased by bringing in the results of the first discussion, thus successfully stonewalling two change-favoring discussions, and retaining the status quo against consensus.

Suggest a third option without actually proposing one
This tactic involves suggesting that neither the status quo nor the proposed change is satisfactory, and so a third option needs to be discussed, without ever proposing an actual third option. If an actual third option is proposed, this delay tactic will not work, since an actual 3rd option can be discussed, and consensus about it likely established one way or the other, which either results in a change, or going back to considering the first proposed change, so the delay would be very temporary. Much more effective stonewalling is to argue endlessly that a 3rd option is needed, without ever coming up with one.

Edit war lockdown
With two or three editors opposing the change, they have enough people to revert good faith efforts to effect the change in question in a manner that puts no one at risk for a 3RR violation, but creates an edit war situation that motivates an admin to lockdown the page, probably at the status quo version. Such an effort does not have to be coordinated, but can occur naturally as long as a few stonewalling opposers are watching the page in question. This tactic is especially effective on policy pages where admins seems to be less tolerant of multiple reverts, and more apt to restore the status quo version once they get involved.

Manipulating an admin into helping
Because many admins are predisposed to favor the status quo whenever there is a dispute, after creating sufficient smoke and noise with some of the tactics listed above, stonewallers can often be successful in convincing an admin that a legitimate dispute exists, and there is no consensus in favor of the change, when the dispute is actually non-substantive, and the apparent lack of consensus is actually the result of successful sandbagging. Duped in this manner, the admin is then likely to restore the status quo version (if necessary), and possibly even lock the page if any evidence of an edit war can be demonstrated. This tactic is particularly effective because it causes an admin who sees himself as being uninvolved to get involved in a manner that favors one side (the status quo stonewallers) over the others. Once so engaged, such an admin can prove to be useful to the stonewallers repeatedly.

How to defend the status quo without stonewalling
The chief characteristic of status quo defending that is not stonewalling is substantive discussion regarding the change and how it compares to the status quo situation:


 * 1) If you revert a change, provide a clear substantive explanation of your objection to the change in the edit summary, and on the talk page if additional space is necessary.
 * 2) Honor the  D in BRD.
 * 3) Answer good faith substantive questions about your position favoring the status quo over the proposed wording.
 * 4) Don't close your mind to the possibility of a compromise, or even changing your mind entirely.
 * 5) Support the use of polling to determine whether there is consensus in support of either the change or the status quo, even if the polling results in an outcome with which you disagree.
 * 6) If a discussion starts to move away from supporting status quo, don't use diversionary tactics to try to prevent that from happening.  Instead, engage editors in discussion, try to understand why they hold the opinions they hold, try to persuade them about why the status quo is better (if they don't persuade you to favor the change, or a compromise).

Discount or dismiss non-substantive !votes in discussion evaluations
If closing admins would discount if not dismiss entirely !votes lacking substantive justification in polls that they are closing, and be clear that they are doing so, then people would be discouraged from simply !voting against a proposal, without explaining why.

Refactor non-substantive diversionary comments in discussions
Comments that are non-substantive, especially if diversionary (attempt to divert discussion from substantive points about the proposed change in question), can be refactored, like with the Hide template. However, it's probably more effective and less combative to ask an uninvolved admin to make an edit like that rather than doing it as an editor involved in the dispute.