Wikipedia talk:Don't bludgeon the process/Archive 1

Archive 1

October 2008

This was created out of userspace, with input from several editors over a few months. It is still a little rough, but I am confident with some help it will improve. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have read your article and find it provides good pointers how to deal with decisions processes, but I feel it is not fully applicable to general discussions on issues considered a minority view by the active majority, personal or dealing with a single user actions, be them right or wrong. The level of difficulty to present even any type of defense is skewed by the uneven playing field and because the Wiki is a publishing medium and perception is extremely important, the article does have some pointers to avoid errors or appearing foolish by doesn't take in consideration the uneven forces in action besides advising retreat to the debate. That, will undoubtedly lead or be interpreted as a concession to the other party argumentation or statements, since on any significant size Wiki only a minority would be willing to check any existing facts outside of any major dispute. --213.22.5.71 (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Change in scope

• I'm thinking about rewriting this essay to narrow the scope to deal with just the multiple replies in discussions, and would invite any opinions (if anyone actually watches this page...). For the record, I am Pharmboy above, I just changed my name since creating this essay. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 14:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• Already reduced in scope, but needs to be more concise. I've asked for outside help. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Non-admin bludgeoning

In response to Scolaire's revert of my addition: it happens quite a fair bit on AN and ANI. It's a form of process-bludgeoning: the user will seek to disqualify non-admin participation in a discussion if the non-admins aren't backing up that person's opinion. I added it precisely because I saw this essay linked in a recent AN thread where this had happened as part of the bludgeoning. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Except that this essay really deals with the likes of RfCs, AfDs etc. which are open to all to participate, and the suggestion that a non-admin couldn't participate would be ludicrous. Besides that, it specifically refers to attempts to force a point of view by the sheer volume of comments, not to the substance of any comment, whether a reasonable one or not. I don't doubt that it happens on AN, but it doesn't belong in this particular essay. Scolaire (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes the person bludgeoning the process is also argumentative and repetitive, but sometimes the comments are civil and to the point. In the latter case the only problem is that there are way too many of them -- a case of Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Header

I'm on the fence about the new header Guy Macon. The original intent of the essay when I wrote it was AFD, with the understanding it applied to other places (AFD was more of a cesspool back in 2008). Of course, Wikipedia changes as does the direction of the essay. I'm not saying the new header is wrong, I'm just not sure if it is "more right" or not. Pondering it, with the understanding that it isn't my baby any more, and not rushing to judgement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Right now, bludgeoning the process is more common in RfCs than AfDs, but you still see it a lot on article talk pages. I think that they key to deciding which header to have is whether anyone actually disagrees with the basic premise of this page, and in my opinion pretty much nobody except the bludgeoners themselves does. Nonetheless, I am fine with whatever the consensus turns out to be. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you are right that RFCs are the problem today, just as AFDs were in the past. Will leave alone, I think you have some reasonable ideas that I just hadn't thought of. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Bludgeoning vs legitimate discussion

This essay makes some excellent points, but there seems some scope for misusing it... even, to use it in what is arguably itself bludgeoning.

It's been linked to a couple of times from Talk:New York (disambiguation)/Meta and also from the RM associated with that page, which is what brought me here.

I have created a new shortcut, see Wikipedia talk:Bludgeoning, which may help a little!

Comments? Or just watch this space. Andrewa (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• I started it back in 08 and I've seen it used a lot, but I really haven't seen it misused. It draws a pretty clear line with "If your comments take up 1/3rd of the total text or you have replied to half the people who disagree with you, you are likely bludgeoning the process", as well explaining in detail what it means. Do you have any actual examples of it being misused? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Wow, that was fast! See the RM to which I linked. (And I've linked here from there.) Andrewa (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The case in which I (and others) have been accused of bludgeoning... perhaps rightly as the essay stands!... is characterised by failing to get the point and rantstyle (more in the past than currently but it's starting to reappear... and I'd love your comments on my user essay to which that last shortcut leads). Andrewa (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• I'm working on a couple of projects, so I notices pretty quickly. Being the resident bludgeoning expert (he says tongue in cheek) I did a random sampling of how many times a bunch of editors have edited that talk page, as it currently sits, and this is what I got.

Andrewa 37

Beyond My Ken 3

bd2412 6

Emir of Wikipedia 4

Station1 5

Amakuru 16

SmokeyJoe 13

Paine Ellsworth 27

I didn't get into the details of the conversation, as this is more academic than administrative at this point, but worth noting. At first glance, it does seem that the term is being used a bit loosely there, as bludgeoning as a "crime" is usually reserved for XfD, RfC, RfA and other polling situations, although it isn't necessarily limited to that. Again, I don't have time or the inclination to read that entire page, but your name is scattered all over it and you have posted more than anyone, greatly more than most, so you may be giving someone the impression you are bludgeoning even if you aren't. This isn't any different than people arguing about what is "incivil" and where the line is for WP:NPA, stuff like this is rarely a clearly defined line in the sand. Bludgeoning is most commonly done by responding to everyone who disagrees, but can also be any kind of dominating of a conversation to get others to capitulate or drop out. As to what is happening or not, I will leave to the editors there to decide at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

From my point of view, I have done a great deal of work on this proposal, see Talk:New York/Proposed move and its history and Category:New York City and New York State move discussion pages, and am in possibly a better position to reply to many posts than anyone else, and two editors explicitly supported me in this when the bludgeoning allegation first arrived.

So that's the other side to this. It's also been offered as evidence of bludgeoning that the oppose !votes have all been discussed inline, some extensively, unlike the support !votes. But my experience of consensus in the Uniting Church in Australia#Decision making is that this is exactly what we seek to do... I have been in one meeting where the initial poll was 200 to 3 one way, so we listened first to those three, and ten minutes later it was 203 to 0 the other way. That is how consensus should work IMO.

I am not the only one accused, but all of those accused have been on the support side, and all those accusing on the oppose. So in this I am hardly uninvolved!

any kind of dominating of a conversation to get others to capitulate or drop out... Very well put. Have a look at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request and I think you will see plenty of that... and again IMO all on one side. We will never know how successful the tactic was, but there is a nasty smell of intimidation about the whole business frankly. Lots going on. Andrewa (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

That is what RFCs are for, to bring in fresh perspectives and put ideas to a vote. I can't speak to this essay in this situation, but I see policies and such misquoted all the time. People call edits they don't like "vandalism", they call editors with a different POV "disruptive" when they are equally disruptive. They call them "deletionists" when someone thinks an article doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. This situation isn't unique. Dropping a line at a project or at the village pump is probably the best way to put more eyes on it and break a stalemate before it gets to the point of running people off. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Definition

Would anyone object if we changed "To beat powerfully with force with an object of great mass" to "To beat powerfully with a massive object"? "Powerfully" and "with force" is redundant, the consecutive prepositional phrases is a bit awkward, and it really doesn't have to be an object of great mass (the Sun an object with great mass). Unless this is a sourced definition from somewhere (I didn't see the source). -Jordgette [talk] 19:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• That was a typo and I'm not sure when that got there. I changed to "To beat powerfully with an object of great mass." Yes, it does have to be of great mass, but it kind of does here, as in a mass of comments. Looking at dictionary definitions, they seem to always mention the tool being heavy or of great mass. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Each time you use an argument, it becomes weaker.

I doubt that and it seems to prohibit discussing. Sometimes different people post the same vote-message - and one shall not be allowed to reply to each of them, trying to convince them, or let them convince oneself. 77.183.70.51 (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• See WP:WABBITSEASON.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

This essay goes against WP:NOTAVOTE

The essence of WP:NOTAVOTE is that Wiki decides things based on consensus, not on pure vote-counting. As such even one editor debating a point that is opposed by ten others, possibly for differing reasons, may carry the point, or of course that editor may not carry the point but they may still have a response to make to each of the ten others. Establishing consensus necessarily requires discussion even if it is between a small minority and a larger majority. However, were one editor to respond to ten others then, according to this essay, they might be engaging in disruptive editing and sanctioned at ANI for doing so.

More generally this essay is now being used extensively by editors in the majority against those in the minority, simply because the number of comments an individual in the minority might make in a discussion will necessarily be higher than those in the majority if they are each responding to each others points, and this use is often accompanied by threats of being reported to ANI, not for rudeness, not for repetition even, but purely for the 'crime' of WP:BLUDGEON. Even the numerical limitations given on this page can be ignored in doing this, apparently.

This essay needs to be reigned in and made fairer to those in the minority if it is ever going to be accepted by the community. There is a valid point here (don't repeat yourself pointlessly) that's buried under verbiage that is too readily misused. At its most extreme it is simply gives carte blanche to those in the majority to silence those in the minority FOARP (talk) 13:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• The essay is quoted because it has been accepted as good advice for 10 years. The number of comments isn't the only measuring stick to determine if someone is bludgeoning. If someone makes 10 comments and they are all unique answers to questions, that is not bludgeoning; that is discussion. If they keep repeating the same basic comment over and over 10 or 20 times, that is bludgeoning. The essay covers this: Bludgeoning is making the SAME argument over and over. As this is an essay, you are free to ignore it, but don't be surprised if others still quote it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

If it's about repetition then it needs to be limited to that. At present it isn't. Instead it's about "dominating" the discussion in a way defined only in numerical terms, and gets quoted even - or especially - when those numerical limits aren't even met, by people who themselves regularly repeat themselves. I would be happy to edit the essay to be limited to repetition if that's OK with you. FOARP (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• You are welcome to start a discussion here requesting the change, and we will see how the WP:CONSENSUS comes out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Essentially it would be to edit the lede to read:

"Bludgeoning the process is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of repetitive comments"

and the definition section to read

"Bludgeoning is when a user dominates the conversation by repeating substantially the same argument over and over in order to persuade others to their point of view. It is typically seen at Articles for Deletion, Request for Comment, WP:ANI, an article talk page or even another user's talk page. Typically, the person replies to almost every "!vote" or comment, arguing against that particular person's point of view using the same argument they have already made elsewhere. The person attempts to pick apart each argument with the goal of getting each person to change their "!vote" using points already made elsewhere in the same discussion. They always have to have the last word and normally will ignore any evidence that is counter to their point of view. It is most common with someone who feels they have a stake in the outcome or feels they own the particular article or subject matter. While they may have some very valid points, they get lost due to the dominant, repetitive behavior and others are less likely to consider their viewpoints because of their behavior."

(additions shown in under line, deletion shown in strike-out). FOARP (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• I reverted. Again, you need to get consensus. This essay is 10 years old and has been more or less stable since day one. Major changes need a consensus discussion first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

My proposal edit above was an attempt at starting a discussion. WP:BRD here is another way of doing it - what is right/wrong about my proposed edit and how can it be improved on? FOARP (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm saying it already covers the topic with adding a lot of extra verbiage. You are welcome to start an RFC or just discussion on it, but I don't see how adding all those extra words makes it more clear, but I'm always for using fewer words rather than more. Again, it is a stable page, the burden to get a consensus to change is on you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Getting an RFC for a mere re-stating of the point in more clearly/with extra words (delete as appropriate) is more than a bit of over-kill, no? Ultimately this is your personal essay, you know best what it means. The attempt to promote it to a supplementary essay back in 2015 was reverted and hasn't been re-attempted, so so long as we're clear that this only applies to repetition it really doesn't matter how this is said - this talk page is sufficient evidence of that. FOARP (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

This is widely used essay, and the vast majority of the time, it is used properly. I don't think that trying to narrow the language down helps reduce the few misuses. And there ARE times when someone is responding to multiple others but they aren't saying the exact same thing, yet it is still bludgeoning. If every response is just contradiction with no new information being presented, then it is still bludgeoning, for example. Volume of replies isn't the sole determiner of whether someone is bludgeoning, although that is obviously an element. It is about how they are replying. If they are arguing with everyone and countering every single vote, they are bludgeoning, which is disrespectful of the individuals and the process for building consensus. Bludgeoning is kind of like porn: It's hard to define, but most people know it when they see it. As I have never seen any significant amounts of abuse, or any really, I'm hesitant to go about redefining the term when it has worked quite well for a decade, and has broad support among Wikipedians. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support discussion on these changes--I have to say that they make sense to me. WP:ALLARGUMENTS is an essay I put together a long time ago that may apply here. I believe that many editors mistake "discussion" with "bludgeoning" -- I've seen many times when several editors seem to team up against a minority voice in an attempt to silence that one voice. Being "long-winded" is not the same thing, but it sometimes is treated as though it is.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  • No need to support/oppose discussion. I've already recommended an RFC. The problem with doing it local only is that this page isn't watched by a large number of people, so the only way to get a consensus one way or another is by getting outsiders involved. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

A talk page is very appropriate place in which to build consensus as to content, and is indeed the appropriate place for an RFC according to WP:RFC if you want to start one. If this page is widely used already then I'm sure there'll be more people along to give their input. FOARP (talk) 08:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support restricting it more clearly to "repetition" if it is only meant for "repetition" 77.183.70.51 (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Coming back around on this, Dennis Brown, there does appear to be a degree of support for my proposal. FOARP (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

That isn't the same as a WP:consensus. You can always nominate it for deletion if you really think it violates policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no point in deleting an essay. FOARP (talk) 11:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• As a compromise, and to add a bit more clarity, I added "Typically, this means making the same argument over and over, to different people." in the lede. I use the term "typically" because it isn't restricted to just repetition, although that is the most common issue that is considered "bludgeoning". As this is in the lede, this should clear up what little ambiguity in the definition, without restricting the definition solely to repetition. Simply being contrarian to every point made is also bludgeoning, even if it isn't the same argument, btw. ie: saying "That isn't true, what about $x" or similar arguments to each person's vote is more than a single instance of whatabout, and is bludgeoning. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Not a guideline and yet....

With some frequency this essay gets cited at conduct resolution forms (mainly WP:ANI) as an example of conduct from a user that needs to be stopped. However I have found it impossible to issue sanctions on the basis of BLUDGEON'ing because it's not actually a guideline and so I don't know where the lines or what the community does and doesn't support. There are other behavioral guidelines and policies (e.g. WP:CIVIL) where the community has wide ranging disagreements but a thoughtful administrator can be expected to know how to issue blocks related to the policy/guideline without causing ire and how to issue ones that might cause disagreement but which will ultimately be supported by the community and importantly I also know how to counsel editors about them. I don't think that's the case with BLUDGEON. However, I think, again owing to the frequency with which it's cited (there are two different threads referencing this at ANI right now), it might behoove us to try and move this from essay to behavioral guideline. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

At WP:Village pump (policy), you can propose making it a guideline. That's where making WP:BRD a guideline was proposed. That proposal failed. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I could. I don't think is ready to be proposed as a guideline. Hence my starting a discussion here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• I started the essay years ago as an explanation for people participating in AFD, which was a wilder place back then. I don't think it should ever be a guideline, although I respect differing opinions. The purpose of the essay is to summarize existing guidelines and policies, and help the reader understand these larger, broader policies, as they apply to a fairly specific type of behavior. It has been fined tuned over the years, and continues to be, although I believe it is fairly stable. The advantage of leaving essays as essays is you can have 10 different essays that accurately describe the same guideline, but each applies to different types of behavior. WP:BRD is easily the gold standard of essays, and is accepted as virtually being policy because it accurately explains existing policy without adding anything new. Like BRD, this essay doesn't add anything new to our guidelines, it just explains how they apply to a particular behavior, in a way that anyone can understand. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Btw, if I need to block someone for what is described in this essay, WP:DE or WP:TE (which itself is an essay) usually is just fine. ie: "Blocked for WP:DE, specifically WP:Bludgeon". WP:DE isn't the only policy violation possible, but it is the most common. I think WP:DE will always be a better rationale than this essay, which was designed to STOP WP:DE, not justify the block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Basically agree with Dennis Brown here. Bludgeoning is at some levels an issue but trying to phrase a proscriptive rule or guideline against it is going to be hard as it is more one of those "you'll know it when you see it" phenomenon. Too often people simply deploy it against a prolific commenter on the opposing side in an RFC without 1) checking to see whether they really are repeating themselves or are instead just commenting a lot in a perfectly valid fashion, 2) considering whether they too, or someone on their side, may have been equally prolific or even repetitive. I think it was correct to revert this back to an essay when Guy Macon tried to promote it to guideline. It is also obviously not balanced against WP:NOTAVOTE - in a discussion it should be possible for even a single commenter to show a consensus based in the policies of Wiki over a dozen others, but if you are going to bar a single commenter from responding to a dozen others then you potentially foreclose that possibility. FOARP (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
• Ditto the above. I'll add that WP has a number of {{Essay}} (and {{Supplement}} – a narrow class of essay) pages that have enough community buy-in to be effectively actionable, like guidelines. They are not tagged {{Guideline}} because they are not written in guideline wording, more often have situational exceptions than the actual guidelines do, are about something too narrow to really require a guideline editors are expected to absorb (see WP:CREEP), and because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy – consensus can form anywhere and even not be written down; it does not require exact legalistic labeling and categorization to be consensus. Just a few examples of guideline-level essays are WP:BRD, WP:AADD, WP:TE, WP:ROPE, WP:DUCK, WP:CIR, the aforementioned WP:CREEP, and various {{Wikipedia how-to}} and {{Information page}} instances (which are of essay authority level), e.g. WP:GOOGLETEST, WP:ASPERSIONS, and so on. Then we have guidelines that effectively have the community acceptance and reliance level of policies (e.g. WP:RS, WP:MEDRS), while there are policies that few people read and which are rarely cited outside of a specific circumstance (e.g. WP:Clean start).

  [There are occasionally also questionable guidelines that probably really have the community awareness and acceptance level of essays. E.g., several wikiprojects' {{WikiProject style advice}} pages (WP:PROJPAGE essays) have, over the years, been moved to "WP:Manual of Style/..." names and given an MoS guideline banner, despite no WP:PROPOSAL process to elevate them to guidelines. I can think of at least two that were semi-recently reduced again to PROJPAGEs and moved back to "WP:WikiProject Foo/Style advice" names, or even marked {{Failed proposal}}.]

  The policy/guideline/supplement/information-page/essay/how-to/help/etc. distinctions are often nebulous, and may have to do with how the page came into existence, whether exceptions to it should be less or more circumstantially permissible, whether other pages of a certain type should be considered equal or subordinate to it in cases of conflicting interpretation, the nature of its wording and tone, whether it stands alone or is interpreting another, pre-existing page, how important it is to the community or to the foundation, whether what it says is normative or just descriptive, etc., etc. This nebulosity, this lack of bright-line categorical boundaries, is one of the reasons that "Well, that's just a guideline" and "Who cares what some essay says?" are often wiki-ignorant arguments that do not understand these pages, their rationales, and their interplay, or the community itself. Cf. WP:Writing policy is hard, and WP:Wikilawyering.

  The general nutshell: Wikipedia policies are what are required for the project operate at all; guidelines are what help it operate smoothly; high-acceptance essays are what help its operators not make fools of themselves; and miscellaneous essays are part of the community mindshare that helps shape all of the above over time.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:SATISFY

Someone, for unexplained reasons, butchered the SATISFY section and turned it into "No one is obligated to answer you". That completely missed the point. It's not about whether we are obligated to type out a reply to someone (and in some cases we might be; cf. ADMINACCT). It's about whether someone's tendentious insistence that we must satisfy their (often unreasonable or one-sided) demands and expectations, creates an obligation of any kind on the part of other editors (it does not). It's about the attempt to WIN by badgering the hell out of everyone, from a sense of entitlement. So, I have reverted that change, and also made the material a bit clearer, so the section doesn't get mangled again by someone thinking it's about questions and answers. Or ... whatever the heck that was.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• It was too verbose. It wasn't butchered, it was made more concise, and now it is less concise. That section doesn't need more than two sentences, really, else we are hammering them. The primary goal of the page has always been to keep the page simple and short so people will actually READ it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Suggested addition

How does everybody feel about adding this under "Dealing with being accused of bludgeoning the process":

"5. Finally, remember that if an accusation of bludgeoning is incorrect, it will probably seem incorrect to most people and will not help the case of the person making it. If the accusation is correct, responding just makes matters worse."

--Coretheapple (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

No offense to Coretheapple, but I think it's unnecessary, wordy, unhelpful, and not easy to understand.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking the same, but waiting for the ANI to calm down. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The intention is noble. That said, I agree with DB and Bbb23, but coming at this with perhaps the opposite perspective. If I read the suggested addition, I would not know how best to proceed. Chumpih ^t 13:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

People forget, this is one of the most stable essays around, since 2008 and often quoted without nary an incident. That doesn't mean changes can't be good, but when an editor is crying over it while bludgeoning, the problem is probably not the essay. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Irrelevant digression.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, the ANI is closed now. We live and learn. IMHO the concept 'Bludgeoning' needs a revamp, possibly with the suggestions made in the section above - and it's of course open to debate. Just not too much debate from one person. Chumpih t 22:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC) No, it doesn't. It's working as intended. Three editors objected to your AFD, and you responded to all three right off the bat. You were advised that it wasn't necessary or desirable to reply to every comment. You ignored that advice, and apparently got your feelings hurt in the process. I understand that; it's normal to feel bad when criticized. But it's time to let it go. Please. BilCat (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC) Here. Look. It's a bludgeoning link + request not to reply, when from me there was just one apology/explanation and one clarification requested. Not three. That aside, I'm grateful for the sympathy. And yep, that stick will get dropped now. Chumpih t 23:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC) Two, actually, but not 3, so I stand corrected. But you did reply to the third one afterwards. It's sometimes hard for me to remember that the goal of an AFD isn't necessarily to delete the article, but to determine whether or not it meets Wikipedia's policies. If an article I took to AFD is improved because of the AFD, then I did my job in nominating it. Samuel Johnson said, "Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully." And well-timed AFD can get people moving to save an article, and that's a good thing. BilCat (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• Well I won't weep bitter tears if this change doesn't go forward, but I do see a lot of wikilawyering over "bludgeoning" accusations (not just this latest unpleasantness), and I think it would be helpful to make the point that if you are accused of bludgeoning, ignore it. Don't get your underwear in a twist. I fail to see the harm in that, but let's see if there is further input In fact I think it is generally true that "arguing over arguments" is a waste of eenrgy. Perhaps that's worthy of a separate essay, if it hasn't already been done. Coretheapple (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand the argument, a large section of the essay is already dedicated to dealing with being accused of bludgeoning the process. It's called "Dealing with being accused of bludgeoning the process". And there is further advice below that. Blame me if you want, but the essay isn't "the problem", it's just a summary of policy for a very specific issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, yes, you have a point. Chumpih ^t 22:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

How about: "5. If you're accused of bludgeoning, there's at good chance it was done for a valid reason. Consider the number of interactions you've made, and engage the full capacity of your prudence, skill, judgement and cool head before interacting further." Or something like that. or not - as DB points out, words are already there. Chumpih ^t 22:25 + 22:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

My biggest battle has been to keep the essay short, very short, so it is more likely to be read. My original goal was 5k in size. Then I agreed to 8k. It is 9k, and if anything, needs trimming so again, it is more likely to be read. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

They...they...their

Can we clear up this sentence?

"While they may have some very valid points, they get lost due to the dominant behavior, which makes others less likely to consider their viewpoints."

Here the subject "they" refers to valid points, but the beginning and the end of the sentence uses they and their to describe an editor. This is unnecessarily confusing.

My first choice having been reverted, I suggest: "While there may be some very valid points, they get lost due to the dominant behavior, which makes others less likely to consider those viewpoints."

-Jordgette [talk] 22:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

That's a bit clearer. Also, should it be "dominant behavior" or "dominating behavior"? I'm genuinely not sure, but the latter seems better to my ear. BilCat (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Good point. I prefer "dominating." It highlights the act rather than the result of that act. -Jordgette [talk] 23:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I've modified just a bit, and I'm always open to ideas to improve it. Keep in mind, when I started this, the goal then (and now) is to 1. Keep it as short as possible, so people would actually read it. 2. Keep the language simple (ie: 8th grade level), as many of the people who need to read it may be young or have English as a 2nd language. and 3. Avoid too many adjectives or fluffy words like "very", "exceptionally", etc. Of course, I don't own it, but I still edit it with these ideas in mind. It isn't necessary to be completely thorough or go in excruciating detail, it just needs to summarize and be useful. It is one of the more often linked essays on behavior, so keeping it simple and concise is important. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Two sealions

If I look for WP:sealion (lower case letters) I end up here, No one is obligated to satisfy you; If I look for WP:SEALION (capital letters) I end up here, Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. Does this make any sense? In case it does, I suggest to write WP:sealion (instead of WP:SEALION) in the box with the shortcuts on this page. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• Not sure what to say. This is a much more viewed and used essay, by a mile (disclaimer: I created it in 2008). I agree they should both point to the same place, however. You could be bold and edit one to match the other, I suppose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  It's a hard call. The essay on Civil Pov pushing has recently become one of my favourite readings, but I wouldn't decide which sealion to suppress on that basis. Besides, I'm not sure I have a good grasp on the figurative meaning of "sealion" - I've never hear that word until a couple of days ago. So I'll wait for others to jump in and if nothing happens in a couple of days I'll through a coin in the air and remove one sealion (also in the "Sea also" section of this essay there's a link to Wikipedia:Sealioning and Sealioning that needs to be modified). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Weaponised bludgeon accusation

It seems like a call of WP:Bludgeon can be used to quickly shut down an opponent in an argument.

Would it be sensible to tweak the guidelines? e.g.

• requests for clarification are generally acceptable, although don't expect these requests to be satisfied
• different arguments for different people are generally acceptable; bludgeoning is when things get excessively repetitious.
• continuing discussions with a few individuals, exploring the issue is acceptable. Debates should be allowed to run their course. The nuance of policy is complex for good reason, and sometimes this needs to be explored without accusations of bludgeoning.

Occasionally, cries of "no, you're all wrong" may be warranted, especially when originating from some subject expert. We don't want to stifle debate or unduly silence such voices. Chumpih ^t 07:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Often the subject "experts" are the worst at bludgeoning. They expect everyone to kowtow to their expertise, but have no respect for anyone elses. Wikipedia has guidelines governing acceptable conduct for a reason, and everyone, even the experts, is expected to follow them. BilCat (talk) 07:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, and Dunning-Kruger suggests that most people will be over-confident in their "expertise". I take your point. Chumpih ^t 07:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

It does go both ways sometimes. We Wikipedians sometimes aren't willing to look outside our playpen long enough to realize someone new may have a good idea. But this essay is primarily referring to discussions between regular editors, though noobies can fall into that trap too. I've seen it happen many times on AFDs where the nominator or main objector insists on cross-examining every comment they disagree with, even, or especially, when the consensus is against them. I've even had to be careful I didn't do that myself a few times. Sometimes it's not easy to accept that rational people can have opposing views on something, especially when we've so convinced ourselves we were proposing something everyone should agree with. BilCat (talk) 10:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

But here's the thing: the person playing the "You're bludgeoning" card is possibly going to be some well-meaning moderator seeking to ensure a good quality of debate, but it's more likely to be someone who is on the receiving end of some scrutiny. Not many people are content to have their reasoning dissected. How do we ensure the "you're bludgeoning" play is done by the former and not the latter? Chumpih ^t 12:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

"Not many people are content to have their reasoning dissected." If you're the one dissecting everyone's comments, then it's likely the former. :) BilCat (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree, if everyone's comments are being dissected by the editor, then that's bludgeoning. But if one or two ... that's ... what? And then when there are different arguments presented , is an editor limited by how many can be countered, even when each is different? Chumpih ^t 21:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you referring to this AfD? Pahunkat (talk) 11:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Not exclusively..... Chumpih ^t 12:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• Don't respond to every comment and you won't get asked to stop bludgeoning. It's that simple. This essay is pretty self explanatory in that, and it is one of the most quoted essays on the Wiki, and has been since it was started in 2008, without much issue. If you have a problem with my request that you stop bludgeoning, you can always take it to ANI. My point still stands, if you nominate an article for AFD, it is not your duty to continually badger everyone until they agree with you. This essay was created specifically to address that behavior. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done. Chumpih ^t 18:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

This is an essay not a behavioral guideline. You could write an essay of your own on the subject, if you so desire. Coretheapple (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Correct. Some have wanted to make it a guideline, I've been against it. What it is, is a widely accepted, long standing, and stable explanation of our policy on tendentious editing, which is a form of disruptive editing. It was created specifically because of problems in the AFD process, as a way to explain to AFD participant that are overzealous in their posting, and thus far has stood up to community examination. More than a few times, I've seen Arbs use it during a case, even. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree that this oftcited essay (considered by many a policy) may be more of a problem than a benefit for Wikipedia. It is being used to prevent editors in the minority to dissect the majority's argument, present a detailed analysis and a poin-by-point logical rebuttal. It sets a very subjective but hard limit in the discussion. Legitimate expressions of analysis of editors defending mostly minority opinions are then unreasonable curtailed. Editors are then accused of bludgeoning, not getting the point, and being disruptive.

I have seen it happening even in discussions that have been up only for a day. This is chilling proper logical discussions and reducing them to a despotic rule of an intolerant majority. I would absolutely support doing away with this. It would be better to have editors write incredibly long replies that others are free to ignore, than giving power to those who don't tolerate dissenting opinions. Thinker78 (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Bollocks. -Jordgette [talk] 20:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

"It is being used to prevent editors in the minority to dissect the majority's argument, present a detailed analysis and a point-by-point logical rebuttal." (Emphasis mine.) In other words, the "user dominates the conversation in order to persuade others to their point of view". (Emphasis in original) This is exactly what is improper, and why the essay exists. BilCat (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

One more: "Participating fully isn't a bad thing: dominating and nit-picking others' comments is" BilCat (talk) 20:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

For a debate based on logic and the scientific method to take place, point-by-point rebuttal is necessary. This as a way to offer proof of why one editor thinks the other editor is mistaken or their own point is better. If one editor writes a series of connected assertions in one post, then it is reasonable to expect a rebuttal of the points that the other editor doesn't agree with. And if they disagree with all of them or more than one then an explanation of each is expected.

This of course can evolve in a complex thread because such professional debate evolves and progresses as consensus or lack thereof makes its way. It is different if we talk about casual conversations where one person or group of persons don't want to hear about it and just want to make their opinion heard and applied and others suppressed. Specially if the others are the minority or only one. Thinker78 (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

You are confusing Wikipedia discussions with applying "logic and the scientific method". The latter sounds more like wikilawyering than discussion. -Jordgette [talk] 23:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. Wikipedia isn't a debating society, and not for "professional debate", which does sound like courtroom debate. That's especially inappropriate in an AfD, which is decidedly not a debate, the focus of this essay. BilCat (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

You guys got it wrong. How are you going to prove that an action you took is valid or correct in the face of editors who think differently? You can get away with doing it without the scientific method. But I don't think you can do it without debating or without logic. That makes no sense. When one editor has one opinion and another has another opinion and there is a discussion to seek consensus, that's literally one form of debating.[1] Thinker78 (talk) 23:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

If there are in fact editors (plural), with various angles on the question, they will comment in turn. If it's only one editor who finds themself on the wrong side of consensus, and they keep insisting how they are right and the others "got it wrong," it's bludgeoning. -Jordgette [talk] 23:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Bingo. We aren't after the Truth®, we aren't a debating society, we are here to build an encyclopedia by collaboration, using consensus as our method of dispute resolution. This isn't optional, it is hard coded into what Wikipedia is. Many people can't function in that environment. Some leave, some get blocked, some adapt, but regardless, that is how we do things and there is no vehicle to change it. See Wikipedia:Five pillars. Endless debate and constant badgering will result in sanctions. I started this policy based essay to help people NOT get blocked, so they can read, accept and adopt these methods. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Well said. BilCat (talk) 00:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown No one said we are a debating society... I indicated debate is necessary per Merriam Webster definition b: to discuss a question by considering opposed arguments. Anyway, ok. I see I'm getting bludgeoned so I head for the exits. :D Thinker78 (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The point is, debate and discussion are two different things. We specifically do not want debate, we want discussion. The whole of wikipedia is based on it, collaboration, cooperation, say your piece, I'll say mine, everyone else will too, then a disinterested party will decide what the consensus is. This is the opposite of debate. Nothing against debate, I've done some in my youth, but the entirety of Wikipedia is setup to avoid debate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEON comes in handy, where RFC, RM, AFD etc are concerned. Once any editor takes a stand on any topic, that editor shouldn't be ganged up on with non-stop questions or attempts of any kind, to convince the editor to 'change' their stance. GoodDay (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

What many editors don't realize is that AFDs and similar discussions aren't about changing the minds of the other editors. They are about expressing reasons based on policy and guidelines. It's not even vote. The closer will evaluate the reasons and determine what the consensus is. Trying to persuade a participant to change their mind just distracts from that, and in most cases is totally unnecessary. AFDs are sometimes closed in favor of the minority opinion, if that position is policy based, and the majority's isn't. Questions can be asked for clarification, but that's generally the limit of what is tolerated in such discussions. It isn't the place for amateur, or even professional, lawyers to hone their skills at cross-examination. BilCat (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I think something should be added on how to deal with someone bludgeoning

Because frankly, I have no clue. Just accusing someone of it seems like it would either make them shut up (not ideal) or turn them hostile (not ideal) and not have a desired effect. DarmaniLink (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I tried adding something to start with. I don't know if this was the right thing to do, but, I'll see what you guys think. Be bold, or something. DarmaniLink (talk) 04:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The policy that this covers is WP:DE. Bludgeoning is just one type of disruptive behavior. Best to look the mosther policy for tips. This essay is more about educating people who are doing the bludgeoning, not so much about how to deal with them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Finding oneself at AN/I

I think there should be an explicit exemption here for the situation where one finds oneself being dragged over the coals at AN/I. Whether you were taken there or took someone else there and got boomeranged, I think an editor should always be free to defend themselves from comments by others about their actions/conduct/etc. At a recent AN/I an editor was accused of BLUGEONING article discussions (among other criticisms) but when they responded to these criticisms found themselves accused of BLUEGEONING the AN/I section about themselves.

While some of the advice on this page is appropriate to that situation (such as repeating the same point, or when volume is excessive and just ends up weakening your case) many other points are not. For example

• If the conversation is about you (or became about you) then you already dominate it and that's not unreasonable.
• It isn't necessarily appropriate just to walk away. Things can happen quickly at AN/I and the community isn't always patient to hold fire while you get some sleep or take a break. You could wake up in the morning and find yourself topic banned. Lack of participation can be held against you.
• While in article space, we don't OWN the content and there are no winners/losers, at AN/I you OWN your own account and can very much end up a loser. This isn't something where most editors just shrug and go do something else for a while.

So I suggest the essay has a sentence or so about this, to say that it is reasonable to defend yourself to criticism at AN/I and that not all of the advice here is appropriate for that. -- Colin°^Talk 11:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Sounds fair. ANI has always struck me as a trial without a defense attorney where the jury is whoever shows up. Being motivated to defend oneself at length and at every turn is understandable, and not all advice about content disputes will apply there. XOR'easter (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• The essay is about disruptive editing. There is no exemption to the disruption policy just because you are at ANI. In fact, it would be very foolish to think you are exempt from WP:DE (the authority behind this essay) in the very place you are best served by being on your best behavior. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  Dennis, with all respect, I think you've entirely missed the point. I am not suggesting editors can disruptively edit at ANI, or that writing too much at ANI can be a problem, but that some of the rationales given for why this behaviour is a problem on article talk pages, RFCs, etc, and the advice given to editors who might be prone to this, aren't appropriate for when one finds oneself being bludgeoned by a thousand knives at ANI. Please look at the bullet points. -- Colin°^Talk 14:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Not a fan of use of this essay

In my humble opinion, this essay is used too often in ways that appear to be inappropriately silencing those with a different perspective, specially if the other editor/s are a minority in a discussion or if the editor/s are against the status quo edit of the page. It has a direct effect of curtailing discussion when even the regular refutation process has not played out and even just a couple of paragraphs may have been exchanged. Regards,--Thinker78 (talk) 21:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• I'm fat: Do I blame the fork, or myself? Don't blame the essay, which has clearly stood the test of time, just because you think someone misused it. The misuse doesn't change the fact that it is accurate at describing a particular set of undesirable behaviors, as well as give solid advice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  It does give some good advice but ironically, it does provide also for bludgeoning the process. Reason being is that protracted refutations fine-tune small editing details or even discoveries of edits that otherwise would not have happened. Quality work many times require attention to small details. Stopping discussion by citing bludgeon because an editor has provided on-point refutations to a slew of other editors stops the fine-tuning that was going on, smashing the discussion with a hammer. Basically bludgeoning the process. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• • You are being uncivil by disagreeing with me and blaming the essay! See what I did there? You can take any essay or policy and misquote it. That isn't the blame of the policy or essay. One of the things I've insisted on with this policy (I don't own it, but I did start it in 08, so I shepard it) was to keep it short and to the point, with no extraneous text, no broadening of the scope. That is all you can do, keep it short, simple, accurate, and useful. I see people DAILY call edits they disagree with "vandalism".... same thing. We clarify in the the page, but you never can stop people from quoting it wrong simply because either 1. they don't understand it, or 2. they don't care and are just trying to win a fight. Again, we don't blame the fork. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

    I understand the point that a user may misinterpret any given guidance and that may not be the fault of the guidance. But in practice I have found that this essay has in my opinion more weight than the civility policy. Routinely I see editors who seem to violate the civility policy. I have even treated to a tirade of f bombs and no administrator says anything. Basically, the civility policy seems to have the power of an essay.

    For some reason on the other hand I see the WP:BLUDGEON essay being treated as if it were a policy. The problem is that it routinely is being used to curtail discussion, specially in pages with a strong status quo that doesn't welcome people with different takes. Then the issue is that the essay gives a powerful tool to users who may be all too happy to try to restrict dissident voices.

    I think the solution is not to make this essay just about "sheer volume of comments" or "a one-third of the total text". Specially if there is a lone voice versus several editors with a passionate point of view. Mirroring my earlier post in this thread, bludgeoning should also be considered unduly trying to curtail discussion and the consensus process. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

    Specially if there is a lone voice versus several editors with a passionate point of view. There's an essay for that one too. WP:1AM. I feel essays like WP:BLUDGEON, WP:1AM, WP:IDHT, etc. are often mentioned when one editor is bugging other editors, and the other editors would like the one editor's behavior to improve and become more collegial. I think the ideal outcome is for these essays to trigger introspection and behavior changes, so that everyone can get along better on talk pages in the long term. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with this. There's a clear temptation to use this very article as a mechanism to stifle some voices. For sure, if things are repetitious, then comments should be made. But if someone is taking the time to explain and defend their viewpoint from different aspects, then that should not be silenced in this manner.Chumpih ^t 15:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not the fact that a person is explaining or defending their viewpoints, but how they are doing it. The essay is very specific about what behavior should be avoided. BilCat (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• The reason this essay is often treated as "policy" is because the essay is simply an explanation OF policy. It is simply explaining how one kind of behavior is a violation of the WP:DE policy. (It says this at the top of the essay, in fact). Since no one has said "this part of the essay is wrong or causes people to do this", then is seems there isn't a flaw in the essay, the flaw is the user who is misquoting it. So I get it, people are complaining, but your complaints are about the actions of others, not anything specific about this essay, so your complaints are misplaced, and need to be on the talk page of people misusing it. Again, I see 100x more people misusing the policy against vandalism than this. Probably way more than 100x. So once again, do we blame the fork? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  It's also possible that the accusations of bludgeoning are completely correct, and bludgeoning is in fact occurring in these cases. BilCat (talk) 00:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  From my observation, that is the case in half the cases, or more. People just don't like being called out on it. They feel "Freedom of Speech" (which doesn't apply on Wikipedia) means they can type all they want, because, you know, this is 'Merica and they want to defend their ideas against everyone who disagrees. That is the very definition of bludgeoning, but they don't always see it that way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  I think there was some overlooking about the part where I pinpointed what I believe this essay can be improved. Namely, that it emphasizes one side of bludgeoning a discussion. Although it says that "falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered incivil", it doesn't treat neutrally to a large degree that bludgeoning can also mean trying to quash relevant and appropriate discussion.

  Quoting,

  Mirroring my earlier post in this thread, bludgeoning should also be considered unduly trying to curtail discussion and the consensus process.

  There are other things that I think could be improved in the essay.

  For example, The fact that you have a question, concern, or objection does not mean that others are obligated to answer

  actually may directly contradict WP:DISRUPTSIGNS,

  A disruptive editor is an editor who exhibits tendencies such as [...] repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits.

  Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  Hi there. Personally, I'm not sure that "multiple editors choosing a single time each not to reply to a single editor voicing disagreement with each of them one at a time" matches that example of disruptive editing that you quoted. Also, note that, that example is about building consensus, so perhaps consider the section of this essay § No one is obligated to satisfy you which explains a bit about how this idea relates to building consensus. —siroχo 05:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Siroxo No idea why you are quoting "multiple editors...". Can you elaborate? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry for the quotation marks, that could have been confusing as it wasn't actually a quote. I'm just trying to describe how the BLUDGEON-related scenario you're describing does not fit the DISRUPTSIGN scenario you quoted. The DISRUPTSIGN scenario about a single editor ignoring multiple other editors' concerns about their edits.

  In the case here, where one editor may or may not be BLUDGEONing, it's somewhat reversed. Multiple editors have made comments in a discussion, and a single editor replies to each one. It is not disruptive for each of those multiple editors to independently decide not to reply to the single editor. —siroχo 05:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think DISRUPTSIGN is intended to any number of editors but uses a single number language to denote that editors shouldn't repeatedly ignore others' questions or requests. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I think this is a bad essay, and should ideally be moved to User:Dennis Brown/Don't bludgeon the process to make it clear who controls this page and that there is no consensus on the wording of the essay. If, by contrast, this is in fact supported by consensus, it should be able to pass a vote/request for comments to be classified as a guideline or a policy. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

That isn't how it works here. WP:BRD is one of the strongest non-policies we have, and people have consistently voted to keep it an essay for a reason. The same is true of this essay. Others have suggested this be bumped to a guideline and I've been against it. The reason is simple: It doesn't establish any new rules or guidelines, it simply summarizes the existing policy as it applies to a common problem. You can always hold an RFC to elevate it to a guideline or policy (it will fail, trust me), or you can send it to WP:MFD to be deleted, which will also fail because it does enjoy a strong consensus as an accurate and helpful essay that applies to a particular behavior that is common at enwp. The fact that it is abused doesn't change that. People call "wrong" edits "vandalism" all the time, that doesn't mean we get rid of essays on vandalism. The same for everyone that claims anyone that disagrees with them is committing a "personal attack". Virtually every essay/policy/guideline has people misusing, misquoting, wikilawyering with it. This essay is not unique in that. For MOST people, the essay provides some solid information about how to be more effective in discussions by not trying to dominate them. Dennis Brown 2¢ 13:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Virtually every essay/policy/guideline has people misusing, misquoting, wikilawyering with it. Good point. But to unreasonable quash discussions or prevent editors from legitimately expanding on a point, I think disruption and bludgeoning are the preferred accusations. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree at all. I have rarely seen this essay misused or misapplied; if anything, I feel a more common problem is people forgetting about it and wasting vast amounts of time and effort with five or six editors trying to answer every single objection from a single intransigent editor who refuses to WP:DROPTHESTICK and essentially responds to everything with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. This essay serves a vital purpose, since filibustering has so much potential to harm Wikipedia and disrupt its processes. ---Aquillion (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I guess we have different opinions and experiences. A discussion at Talk:World War I#The Great War for example was very good in regards to collegiality, collaboration, and patience, without editors accusing others of bludgeon, disruption, failure to get the point or other similar things.

Sadly, it is—again in my opinion—frequent seeing editors who get irritated at getting contradicted that start throwing accusations to end discussion even after a couple of short paragraphs.

I think that quality and detailed oriented work if discussed, requires by its very nature often more extensive and nuanced discussion than simple work that overlooks details and whose discussion editors want to end just for the sake of an arbitrary count of number of replies. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

If that's a problem, why not write an essay to address it? Something like "Don't use bludgeon accusations as a bludgeon"? Coretheapple (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

How is the existence of a bad/badly written essay that is not "thoroughly vetted by the community" properly solved by writing other essay not "thoroughly vetted by the community"? To add to the volume of low-grade material in Wikipedia: namespace that is not fit for purpose? Create a good writeup, make sure each sentence is true or at least not obviously untrue, address defects, approve it, and then call it "an essay" if you must. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Re: "The reason is simple: It doesn't establish any new rules or guidelines, it simply summarizes the existing policy as it applies to a common problem" (italics mine): that is untrue, as far as I can tell; if it were true, the statements from "Don't bludgeon the process" would logically follow from a real policy. And then, a page that summarizes another policy is redundant to it; in general, X that is summarized by Y is more detailed than Y; that is not the case here at all, from what I can tell.

I stand by the proposal to move the page to User:Dennis Brown/Don't bludgeon the process to prevent a whole class of maladministration. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

And the repeated reference to/application of a page that "is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community" is something I find very problematic. It feels as a psychological manipulation at a minimum. Is the page supported by "the community" or not? If it actually is supported (even if it is only an "essay") then say so; if it is not supported by "the community", remove shortcuts to it and move it to user space. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

This essay shouldn't exist.

A user is not committing violence against anybody by making an argument - including by clarifying it, or by elaborating on it, or by pointing out how it is relevant to a different statement, or by reminding people of it in case it seems that they are not considering / addressing it. All of that is a normal and necessary part of discussing. Since votes in a poll, not to mention ordinary comments, often feature new arguments, it is reasonable to react to these arguments. If you disagree with several people, of course you will find yourself having to write several comments, i.e. more comments than these people have posted - there is no rule that says every individual only has the right to write the same amount of comments and no more; this would basically mean banning the very act of arguing against the majority, just because it finds arguments against its position annoying. Objecting to everything you disagree with is perfectly normal; if there are just two or three comments you disagree with, nobody would doubt that it's normal, and the principle doesn't change if there are more. The only restriction on how much you post to make your point is how much time and effort you are willing to spend - that's your own business, nobody can force others to read all of your comments, let alone act in accordance with it. Words per se aren't violence or 'domination' - the notion that they are is being dangerously extended in modern culture to more and more circumstances, more and more vaguely defined, and I see that this is affecting Wikipedia, too. This essay is a tool to threaten and arbitrarily criminalise normal discussion as 'disruptive editing' and I've recently been witnessing it being used as such against other editors more and more, so as to attack behaviour that was perfectly standard and uncontroversial up to a few years ago. Anonymous44 (talk) 08:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• You are mistaken about a great many things. Dennis Brown 2¢ 13:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

You are certainly mistaken at least in your notion that this is a meaningful reply contributing to the discussion (assuming that you even intended it to be one).--Anonymous44 (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

+1. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• In addition, the accusation of bludgeoning is clearly itself a comment about the style of argument, rather than refuting the points or contradiction. In Graham's hierarchy of disagreement, this would be well into the lower end of the spectrum of debate tactics. There's little wonder that a bludgeoning accusation can be irksome, especially when the comments being passed are in the higher grades. By claiming bludgeoning, someone could both dodge engagement with substance of the arguments, and effectively silence further discussion with limited chance of come-back, in one simple action.

Of course, at the bottom of the hierarchy are the ad hominem and insults. These are the very lowest forms of debate. It is suggested that articulate forms of name-calling are no different from crude insults. Chumpih ^t 21:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, basically bludgeoning accusations are used often by editors who don't tolerate people contradicting them, specially against single editors or editors in the minority. I have raised the issue before that bludgeoning should also be about editors who try to unreasonably stop discussions, because literally they bludgeon the discussion into an end, many times using illegitimate tactics, like inappropriate accusations (for example, failure to get the point or disruptive editing). Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The key point about bludgeoning (and this essay in general) is that one editor who continues to object to a clearly-established consensus cannot prevent it from taking effect; nor can they filibuster it by demanding that other people continue to reply to them. It's related to WP:DROPTHESTICK in that respect. Nobody has an obligation to answer anyone else's arguments; obviously any change requires consensus (your recent addition, which I reverted, seemed to starkly misread the essay as encouraging people to make reverts with no discussion), but discussions are intended to end eventually. An editor who continues to try and filibuster endlessly in the face of a clear consensus needs to recognize that nobody is obliged to answer or interact with them and that if they do so long enough it would be considered disruptive due to the way it wastes the community's time and energy. I also disagree with your assertion that bludgeoning should also be about editors who try to unreasonably stop discussions; the term has an extremely well-defined definition going back sixteen years, so it's not really reasonable to try and change it now. Sometimes editors might bludgeon a discussion in order to derail or disrupt it, but the crux of bludgeoning is trying to filibuster a discussion coupled with the implicit belief that everyone is required to reply to you or answer your objections. That means that a large part of this essay is ultimately about how discussions do ultimately end naturally and how trying to continue them endlessly just because you don't believe your personal objections have been answered is disruptive. --Aquillion (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, nobody has an obligation to answer anyone else, but nobody has an obligation not to answer anyone else either, and this essay posits precisely the latter obligation. Let's assume that someone really does 'feel entitled' or 'have the implicit belief' that people are required to answer their objection - so what if they do? That's their own problem, they can't actually do anything about it. They are unable to 'filibuster' anything, since, unlike the US Senate, there is no rule that prevents a decision from being made before everyone has stopped talking. Hence, their talking is harmless. If they try to move beyond talking and edit the article against the majority opinion, their edits will be reverted. But this essay attempts to outlaw even their expressing their disagreement on a talk page and to declare even that to be 'disruptive editing' basically just because some people in the majority feel annoyed by it. This is utterly unreasonable and amounts to tyranny of the majority.--Anonymous44 (talk) 11:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Your recent addition, which I reverted, seemed to starkly misread the essay as encouraging people to make reverts with no discussion).I guess it is an edit I made mentioning the consensus policy. I directly addressed what the essay said before my edits,

The fact that you have a question, concern, or objection does not mean that others are obligated to answer

Then, if someone opens a talk page thread and has a question or concern about an edit, per the essay, it does not mean that others are obligated to answer.

Which directly seems to contradict the WP:TALKDONTREVERT policy, which states,

Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing

Obviously any change requires consensus. But if the essay is saying that if you have a question or concern it does not mean others are obligated to answer, then it obviously seems to be ditching consensus. Because consensus requires people to address each others questions and concerns, otherwise it is just a monologue, not a consensus.

That's why I added the word "necessarily". Because of course, not everyone who reads the thread is obligated to answer it and other cases like the one you mentioned. But those who are editing the relevant text are obligated, to a reasonable extent per the aforementioned policy.

The term has an extremely well-defined definition going back sixteen years, so it's not really reasonable to try and change it now. Consensus can change.

We simply have a different way of seeing things. But Im not the only one that has some thoughts different than yours as you can see in this talk page. It is just a diversity of minds. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Strong disagree. Bludgeoning is about repeating the same argument again and again in different words, against clear consensus, yet continually feeling entitled to a response every time. -Jordgette [talk] 05:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The above does not match the first sentence from the page: "bludgeoning is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own". Following this quoted definition/characterization, someone who is trying to refute every faulty argument made by others is "bludgeoning" regardless whether their arguments are repetitive or not. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

And yet in the essay, the criteria for bludgeoning are given as If your comments take up one-third of the total text or you have replied to half the people who disagree with you, you are likely bludgeoning... with no words about the repetitiousness of the arguments, nor about the stance, tone and aggression in the comments.

Doing a search of recent AfDs, I see plenty where the bludgeon accusation is appropriate, (e.g. here) all with over ten comments from the bludgeoner.

And yet we have folks who feel aggrieved by the process.

Perhaps that volume of output should be the criteria (more than ten), as opposed to the words above. And rather than the request in the article to 'step away' - which is effectively silencing- perhaps the request should be 'reduce, don't be repetitive, but don't necessarily stop'. Chumpih ^t 22:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

This essay addresses a perennial problem, which is editors continuing to hammer away at other editors, again and again and again. This happens often in RfCs amddeletion discussions. Somebody wants an article deleted, and the article creator reesponds angrily to each and every !vote to delete. Or someone wants deletion and does the same thing to every keep !vote. The point is simply that doing this gets people angry and accomplishes nothing. You say "reminding people if they are not considering." That assumes they aren't considering a point one makes. More likely they just don't think it has any merit or they ran out of steam. Everyone is a volunteer here. This is not a court proceeding in which people file pleadings and have to be comprehensive. Coretheapple (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The voter who is responded to only has to read the response once and doesn't even have to reply. This doesn't hurt them and they have no legitimate reason to be 'angry' about it. Yes, it's possible that the voter has, in fact, considered the point made and just hasn't bothered to explain why they object to it - and it's also possible that they have explained it but the other person hasn't understood it. Crucially, though, you can't assume either of these to be the case and proceed to declare the very act of objecting illegitimate. All of this happens in discussions and it can all be sorted out only through discussions on a case-by-case basis, not through threats and blanket bans. You are free to whine about people being annoying in a discussion, but you aren't entitled not to be annoyed and you can't legislate that sort of thing. It is not 'disruptive editing'. There are annoyances that you have to deal with and which you just can't formally ban without chilling actual productive discussion.--Anonymous44 (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

You are wrong. Over-replying in a discussion IS considered disruptive editing, and has always been, even before this essay. The essay was created to coin a term on the act (bludgeoning), to explain it, and to teach people how to NOT do it. Just because you say "It is not 'disruptive editing'" doesn't make it so, and the consensus supporting blocking people who do it is overwhelming and long lasting. They aren't blocked for violating "WP:BLUDGEON", they are blocked for violating "WP:Disruptive editing". So as I said in my original comment in this thread, "You are mistaken about a great many things." Dennis Brown 2¢ 11:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The statement "You are mistaken about a great many things" adds nothing to the debated substance; I don't see why such statements adding oil to the fire and insulting other discussion participants are made and welcome. The question is not who is mistaken; the question is which statements are true, plausible, easily refuted, etc. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, as I argued in #Not a fan of use of this essay above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Inaptness of the metaphor

Let me make this point under a separate heading. If I use a real bludgeon to hit someone on the head, they may lose consciousness or have trouble concentrating. By contrast, if I post a long text that someone does not want to read because of the length, or if I post repeated points, no one gets stunned or rendered cognitively impaired; anyone can actually skip the point at a glance. This alone is a reason not to use the metaphor since it insinuates something blatantly untrue. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Is this page supported by the community? Then say so on the page

That, I think, is one of my main points. Don't waffle/equivocate about "not vetted" and such.

Then, remove all the obviously untrue statements and make the badly written page fit for purpose.

But above all, don't state something is not vetted and then go to apply it anyway against users. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Essays like this are never vetted by the community. Some of them, like this, are popular and are cited frequently. But they are still essays and do not carry any force. Coretheapple (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

From what I have seen, WP:BLUDGEON very much carries a force. It has even morphed into a verb "to bludgeon", adding to the Wikipedia's newspeak, never mind that the metaphor could hardly be less apt (a bludgeon is a blunt tool; if something resembles the use of a bludgeon, it is an attempt to prevent discussion and argument/evidence analysis by invoking a page inaptly called "WP:BLUDGEON"). I struggle to understand how a page that gets repeatedly mentioned under the convenient shortcut WP:BLUDGEON does not get force through the acts of being mentioned without challenge. The users this page is being used against, me included, then have to read an incoherent accumulation of untruths and half-truths and wonder what has gone wrong with the English Wikipedia. Incidentally, WP:BLUDGEON was used against me in the English Wiktionary despite Wiktionary's repeated position that Wikipedia policies are no Wiktionary policies, and it was used against me on Meta when I tried to challenge a dubious statement made by a participant of a vote that is misleadingly called "request for comments". The harm of WP:BLUDGEON is hard to assess. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• We are not responsible if some people use the term incorrectly. Just as people call edits they don't like WP:Vandalism. Blame the people using it incorrectly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  • You are responsible for introducing an inaptly metaphorically coined term "to bludgeon", for untruths and half-truths and for the overall incoherence of the page. Other people are responsible for failing to point these issues out and pretending that all is fine with WP:BLUDGEON. The term "to bludgeon" cannot be used "correctly" either since it has no single coherent definition. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

It is defined clearly on the essay page, in detail. If that definition doesn't fit your actions, then you know they used the link incorrectly. Whining about it isn't going to accomplish anything. You can always take it to WP:MfD, but it is unlikely to get deleted, as it has stood the test of time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The initial definition is this: "where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own". It often does fit my actions in principle, by me responding to great many comments that say something untrue, inconclusive or problematic. On the other hand, this very definition is not really workable since it is not clear how a sheer volume of comments could magically "force once's point of view"; if others disagree, they disagree and a mere volume of comments cannot force them to agree, not can it force the outcome to be consensus. This is one of the reasons why I said the definition was incoherent. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Dan, you aren't going to get anywhere moaning that essays are cited incorrectly and doing so has negative consequences. For example, anyone actually reading WP:BRD will finds it bears virtually no resemblance to any editing practice anywhere on Wikipedia and describes almost imaginary use cases where bold editing in practice is often viewed as disruptive rather than clever and wise. Yet it is frequently cited, including at AN/I, as though that is how everyone should edit all the time. Some people do bludegon the process. Frankly most people don't read beyond the WP:UPPERCASE shortcut of being told they are WP:BLUGEONing, which suggests that this essay's content matters less than that it exists. -- Colin°^Talk 11:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

About "anyone actually reading WP:BRD will finds it bears virtually no resemblance to any editing practice anywhere on Wikipedia": and that's a bad thing to be addressed, isn't it? --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• I'm guessing you mean you didn't like hearing the word used to describe you at [the meta discussion] where you commented 9 times but consensus went against you. I probably wouldn't have called that bludgeoning myself, but this discussion isn't about me. This is the wrong place to complain about outcomes of Meta discussions, or to blame an essay on a discussion that had 58 supporters of a ban, and 18 opposers. I have no opinion of the merits of that discussion because I don't have the facts, however, one fact is clear: this essay isn't why Guido den Broeder was banned. You are misdirecting your frustration, which was obvious in that discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  A careful reader of Meta:Requests for comment/Global ban for Guido den Broeder may note that on that page, "WP:BLUDGEON" was not invoked. The word "to bludgeon" was used on that page, not against me but against someone opposing my position, SHB2000. And it should not have been used against him. No, I was not talking about this page when I said that WP:BLUDGEON was used against me on Meta. On the other hand, it is an example how the verb "to bludgeon" and WP:BLUDGEON leak into other projects in a harmful way, to stifle discussion and argument/evidence analysis.

  But let us return to "Is this page supported by the community? Then say so on the page". My point is simple. Regardless of the formal status of WP:BLUDGEON (policy, guideline, essay), either there is consensus that the sentences on the page are true, valid and fit for purpose, and then, people should demonstrate the consensus and make clear the page is fine. Or there is no consensus that the sentences are true, valid and fit for purpose, and then referring to the page should stop, and instead, people should use their own words to say what needs to be said, for instance, "responding to everyone you disagree with in a repetitive manner is a bad idea", if that is what they mean; and if they cannot formulate these things, they should perhaps step back and pause before they go chastise someone articulate enough to write one's own thoughts and arguments for doing exactly that, articulating. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• At this point, I have no idea what your goal is, other than complain. You are in the minority, in that most people find it very useful to help new editors to NOT bludgeon. It doesn't establish any new policy, it explains how the existing policy is enforced, WP:DE. It is clearly a violation of the disruptive editing policy to badger or continually respond during a discussion to the point that it interrupts normal dialog. This essay just puts a name on it and explains why it is an undesirable behavior. It IS an undesirable behavior. We can't control if others use the phrase as a cudgel to suppress discussion. That is like complaining about the vandalism policy, because half the time, people use that word wrong, and define edits they disagree with as "vandalism". If you are trying to delete the word from the vocabulary of Wikipedians, I'm afraid you are too late, as the essay has been around since 2008. You are just complaining to be complaining, and that isn't useful and it is a waste of time. The fact that it hasn't been deleted and is so widely used IS the proof that it is widely accepted by the community. See WP:SATISFY. If you want the page deleted, WP:MfD is that way --> . You are also welcome to write your own essay and have others contribute to it, and see if it gets widely accepted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)