Wikipedia talk:Don't bludgeon the process

Bold edit

The new section was interesting, but I felt it was talking around the issue a bit, and could be more clear. One of the initial goals of the essay when originally conceived was to keep the language simple so everyone (including those whom English is a 2nd or 3rd language) can understand. So I rewrote the section, simplifying it and giving it a simple header and "plain speak" language. Feel free to tweak (or revert, or whatever), but as always, I'm a huge fan of concise and simple languages for essays like this. In the end, I feel this serves everyone better because it has clear "don't do" language, and clearly says when extra leeway should be given. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

(I originally posted this above but have now seen this new section. I'm all for simplifying language but this seems to have missed the point)

I don't think this edit captures the idea of the previous text at all. It rather actually seems to encourage excessive posting and the bold "need" seems to imply excessive posts may actually be a requirement/expectation at times. The retitle of the section to "Exception" also suggests this really is a case where one is allowed or even expected to bludgeon the process. That's completley wrongheaded. It isn't an exception to the advice, it is a case of where the advice is not relevant. Like if one had rules for how to drive a car, that one had to indicate before turning the steering wheel, and people were wrongly claiming those rules applied to pedestrians. It isn't like pedestrians are an exception to the rules for driving, they just aren't the target of those rules. Similarly, the advice in this essay is aimed at discussions that aren't about oneself (e.g. content or policy). When the discussion is about oneself, they mostly aren't relevant in the same way as people don't have steering wheels and indicator lights.

Dennis, I think it would be best if you reverted. I can see your change being cited at those at ANI for, in someone's eyes, failing to adequately defend themselves to every single accusation, and it completely misses out the advice that excessive posting in such a situation could be to ones disadvantage for entirely different reasons. So we don't want editors to think, as the new text says in bold, that there's a need for excessive defensive posting. Pinging Firefangledfeathers who tweaked the previous text. -- Colin°^Talk 13:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, been keeping in the same vane, what do you think you should say instead? Farmer Brown - 2¢ (alt: Dennis Brown) 22:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

To add, now that I"m logged in, the previous edit simply talked around the issue. An essay like this needs to stay direct, give exact, concise examples, or it will muddy the meaning. Again, it needs to be in language that an 8th grader can understand. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 04:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I modified it again, trying to take what you are saying into acccount. What I don't think we need to do is explain why the essay is bad (it isn't) and instead focus on making sure people understand that replying many times isn't always "bludgeoning". Plenty of people watch this page, let's see what they think. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 04:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Trivial comment: "A little extra leeway has to these editors, so long as they are not combatively repeating themselves." I'm assuming the words "to be given" (or "be given to" :-) are missing. No comment on the content of your change. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, fixed. It's always ok to fix obvious errors, btw. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

What is not bludgeoning

I thought this was an essay, but it's being treated like a PAG, so hatting this for now.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following was removed. I'd like to hear what others think of the described situation: "If an editor has made an accusation against another editor, the accused editor has a right to demand evidence backing that accusation, and the accuser is obligated to provide it. The burden of proof is on the accuser. If the accuser won't comply, they should withdraw their accusation and apologize. Responding to that justified demand by falsely accusing the accused of bludgeoning is very uncivil." It was removed because the language was deemed...too strident? Well, then revise it. The issue is very real. I took my cue from this in the lead: "To falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered uncivil, and should be avoided." Wordings in the lead should be backed up with content in the body, so I provided it. (I know, this is an essay, but... ) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC) I thought this was an essay, but it's being treated like a PAG, so hatting this for now. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)