Wikipedia talk:Status quo stonewalling

Deletion proposal withdrawn

This essay was proposed for deletion on February 10, 2013, and withdrawn per WP:SNOW four days later. The proposal and discussion are here:

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Status_quo_stonewalling

--Born2cycle (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Unjustified moratoria

Regarding the recent addition of moratoria to the list: Born2cycle, I'm not sure the way you present it (and have now twice restored it) is reasonable. This page is most useful when it identifies things that the community would likely agree are stonewalling tactics; throwing in extra things that most would not erodes its usefulness.

Your content, as well as your insistence on titling the section with "moratorium" rather than "unjustified moratorium", conveys the idea that any control on the frequency of a proposal is necessarily a stonewalling tactic, but I think you'll find that's inconsistent with the views of the community. Though clearly it's a weighty step and never to be done lightly, setting a limit on repetitious and unproductive discussions is sometimes justified — and that's not just "another view", it's the common view. Wikipedia's perennial proposals list is a good example of a governor on unproductive, repetitious debate, and a longstanding one that's operated for many years with the support of the community, so presenting it as a stonewalling tactic would seem to veer into the expression of a personal dislike rather than a fair reflection of the community's view.

Your list is also problematic; for one thing, it presents a few examples where repetitious discussion was ultimately followed by a stable resolution but excludes the many examples where repetitious discussion has never led to something the community has accepted — i.e., proposals on the perennial list, and many others beyond. It also includes things like Yogurt from Wikipedia's list of lamest edit wars... and I would respectfully suggest that none of the debates from that list should ever be promoted as a positive example to others.

I note all of this to explain my re-(re-)write and tight pruning of that section, but others' views on this would of course be very welcome. ╠╣uw [talk] 10:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the view that any moratorium is contrary to the spirit of WP and how we develop consensus deserves coverage here, regardless of how many we think may or may not agree with it. I, for one, do see it as stonewalling, and would never engage in it myself, and I've been on both sides. I think a much better way to handle it is to clearly document the history, summarize the key arguments on all sides, etc., and this usually suffices. There are situations where there truly is no better answer, and there are situations where there is a better answer but it will only be reached through further discussion, which often only happens to any serious extent with more proposals. The problem is it's difficult if not impossible to tell which of the two categories a given situation is, and all a moratorium does is stifle natural resolution of the issue. --В²C ☎ 17:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the current form of that section is still somewhat problematic, but it's acceptable. I'd be cautious about pushing for the inclusion of dissenting rebuttals, or including alternate arguments that represent minority or fringe views; what's already an (IMO) overly lengthy essay could grow longer still. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• I see a lot less status quo stonewalling than when this essay was new.

A counter force to stonewalling is more diverse participants, which we get more of I think, and less tribal behaviour, friends agreeing just because they are friends.

Moratoria is less a stonewalling tactic than a time for breathing. It is actually better for proponents of change, to force them to reflect on the last discussion, and helps them compose better arguments for the next round. It’s hard to see this when you are invested, but I saw it clearly in the NYC discussions, in which I participated but was not much invested. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that's well put. Temporarily stopping discussion can allow the dust to settle, participants to take a breath — and possibly overly-zealous nominators to pause for a while and think about formulating a new and more successful approach. It's also worth noting that moratoria like those at WP:PERENNIAL do still allow for an otherwise suspended proposal to be made — if the nominator can make the case that his/her proposal is more than just another rehash. ╠╣uw [talk] 21:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• The main reason for moratoria is proponents who don’t hear the community does not buy their arguments and proponents keep repeating the same arguments. Repeating the same losing argument never works. B2C frequently errs in that respect. The SJB RMs, ever since #6, display a huge amount of repetition. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

No "mother may I" for a bold revert supported by a substantive objection

Step 2 at WP:SQSAVOID provides:

Unless the change is egregiously wrong, try to establish a lack of consensus support for a given recent change on the respective talk page before reverting.

I'm no fan of the status quo, but if an editor has a substantive reason for reverting a change then a bold revert seems appropriate. And, I suggest, that is the current practice at Wikipedia. I propose we remove this step. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, consider leaving a note about conflict of interest editing guideline as well (which requires the editor reach consensus either on the talk page or through dispute resolution and file a editing request). - Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 07:45, July 4, 2021

I've already made the change I proposed. You may want to start a separate talk page discussion about your proposed change. Or make a wp:BOLD edit and see whether it sticks. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Review of "Improper Tactics"

I think this essay is overlong and the Improper Tactics section seems to be a dumping ground for some random grumble about editors. For example, the "Unreasonable sourcing demands" is gives an example of MEDRS and claims it was even easier to abuse before its scope was changed. Well that scope change happened in 2009 and this section was added in Feb 2013 by an editor whose previous edit was complaining about MEDRS being misused. The same editor added the "Drive-by long-distance reverts" section in Feb 2013 immediately after complaining about GA versions. It isn't unknown for MEDRS to be incorrectly applied, but I don't think that is in any way an example of status quo stonewalling. Nor are "drive-by long-distance reverts".

Of course essays, and additions to essays are often provoked when editors with strong feelings get into conflict. Sometimes the results are useful. But sometimes editors "something I'm upset about on Wikipedia today" don't need to be kept in a well cited essay for 10 years. I propose they are both removed, and that other "Improper Tactics" be reviewed to see if they are actually common examples of status quo stonewalling. -- Colin°^Talk 12:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

"this essay is overlong." Agreed. I suggest you make one bold removal and then wait a week or two. If someone objects, discuss and make your next removal after that discussion resolves. If no one objects, make your next bold removal. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Let's see if there are more replies. I see from the history that Born2cycle wrote nearly all of it, and in fact the two sections I highlighted were the only substantial additions by another editor. I know it can be good to relook at something after a period. Perhaps User:Born2cycle could review it themselves to see if they still believe what they wrote 10 years ago and if all the points made are still quite so problematic or particular to this editing problem (rather than just things other editors do that annoy me). And if they'd like to condense things, that would help. -- Colin°^Talk 15:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree it’s overlong. Sounds like you get the main point. I say follow your gut to do what you feel will improve it. —-В²C ☎ 08:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the sections. I meant to come back and do that, but forgot about it. -- Colin°^Talk 09:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

More bilaterally-minded explanation

Obviously, this essay is worthwhile, discussing a real phenomenon. However, I think reifying essays of this kind do best when they explain a little bit as to how people can accidentally engage in the behavior. The paragraph that would seem to be for this purpose unfortunately leads with "The capacity of the human mind to engage in denial and rationalization can be impressive.", which is not nearly insightful enough a statement to be as snide as it is. I think the section should be rewritten to engage with situations that may lead users acting in good faith to stonewall the status quo, but I wanted to poll for what should be listed before I went and did it myself.
One I was thinking was simply that a given article may have areas of serious contention or above-average traffic from vandals, and so editors (including me) are much more likely to have their hackles up and act obstructively to an undue degree due to the article's history. Remsense留 04:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)