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)