 | This is an explanatory essay about the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and Wikipedia:Gaming the system behavioral guidelines. This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. |
Status quo stonewalling is opposition to a proposed change without (a) stating a substantive rationale based in policy, guidelines and conventions or (b) participating in good-faith discussion.
Such stonewalling is typified by an insistence on keeping a current version instead of adopting a proposed change – or 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. Such behavior creates the appearance of a real substantive dispute about the change when none (or little) exists.
When a substantive objection to a change exists, stonewalling is not required. So stonewalling is typically used 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.
Editors seeking to defend a status quo situation should refrain from employing the stonewalling tactics listed here, and instead follow the advice at How to avoid status quo stonewalling.