Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process

What is Bludgeoning the Process?

Bludgeon: To beat powerfully with force with an object of great mass.

In short, bludgeoning the process is where someone uses sheer volume of comments, or multiple nominations of an article in order to dominate and/or disrupt a discussion or article.

One example is when a user dominates the conversation in order to persued others to their point of view. It is typically seen in an AFD or poll discussion, but can be done on any talk page or discussion. Typically, the person replies to every single "!vote" or comment in a poll, arguing against that particular person's point of view. The person attempts to pick apart each argument with the goal of getting each person to change their "!vote". 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.

Another example is where an individual repeatedly submits an article for deletion after a concensus has already decided to keep the article. The person may be trying to make a point or simply wants the article deleted regardless of concensus and is hoping to eventually get enough persons to agree in one of the many AFD submissions. They may also undermine the editing of the article by constantly reverting legitimate edits, with the goal of reducing the quality of the article. This is akin to "shaking the magic 8 ball" until it gives you an answer you like.

Vote stacking is another example, where someone contacts as many people as they can to get them to !vote in a particular way in a discussion. Bludgeoning is considered abuse and can be against a number of policies, and in some cases can get an editor blocked or banned.

Everyone gets to participate in discussions

Debating is an important part of how concensus is reached at Wikipedia, and everyone should have the opportunity to express their views, within reasonable limits. A long talk entry or answering a couple of questions or addressing a couple of issues within a conversation is perfectly acceptable. Nominating an article for deletion once or twice (after time is given for it to improve) is often fine. When someone takes persistence to a level that overwhelms or intimidates others, or limits others capability to freely interject their opinions in any discussion without feeling attacked, then their activities has risen to a level of abuse. This can be considered an act of bad faith as the purpose is to win at any cost.

Appropriately marking !votes with {{spa}} should not be considered an abuse of the AfD process, even if such !votes are numerous. Replying to a few comments is also fine. Asking an admin for an opinion or even asking people who have already participated in editing the article to participate in an AFD is perfectly acceptable as well, since they have invested time to improve it.

Dealing with being accused of bludgeoning the process

Nominating abuse

If you have been accused of Bludgeoning The Process for multiple actions (nominating an article for speedy delete, then AFD, then review, then MERGE/REDIRECT, etc.) then you might want to go get a Third opinion or ask an uninvolved administrator. If the idea of "losing" your particular AFD makes you angry, likely you are too involved and need to step back. It happens. Otherwise you may be subjecting yourself to disciplinary action.

xFD discussion abuse

If you have been accused of Bludgeoning The Process while participating in an AFD or similar discussion, it would serve you well to look at the discussion objectively. If many editors have replied but your words take up 50% of the text, you are bludgeoning the process and should step back and let the process work instead. Here are some things you may want to consider:

1. 1. Each time you use an argument, it becomes weaker. Continuing to argue the same point doesn't reinforce it and can be annoying to others who have already considered your opinion.
   2. When you dominate a conversation by having multiple talk entries and address every other person's opinion, others may see you as attempting to "own" an article or the subject at hand. This is a type of fanboyism and reduces your credibility within the conversation. It is also very annoying and inconsiderate to others.
   3. Everyone has a right to an opinion, including you. It is not your responsibility to point out every flaw in everyone's comments. If their opinion is so obviously flawed, give other readers the benefit of the doubt in figuring that fact out on their own.
   4. You have the right to give your opinion and reasoning in any open discussion. You don't have the right to dominate the conversation in a way that prevents others from participating fully.
   5. If an article has been nominated for deletion, speedy delete or similar process more than once, be sure you have quotable, specific reasons. Just because it offends you or your don't like it isn't acceptable.

Improving your arguments in the future

Before you start any AFD or initiate any poll or other process, do your homework.

1. 1. Read up on the policy that governs the actions you are taking. Quote the policy in your reasoning.
   2. Expect others to disagree. Do not reply to every single opinion/!vote in the process. Wait a few days and perhaps add ONE comment at the bottom of the discussion that may address any or all of the concerns expressed by others.
   3. It is ok to answer one or two comments that are either quoting the wrong policy, or asking a question. It isn't ok to pick apart every single comment that is contrary to your position.
   4. Never reply to a comment right after you see it. Wait a bit, clear your thoughts, and make sure they are saying what you think they are saying. Often, someone else will reply back and correct an error or offer some insight that is new to you. It is not your job to correct everyone's misunderstanding of policy.
   5. You don't always win in a discussion, and the point of the discussion isn't to find a winner or loser. It is to find concensus. Everyone is on the other side of concensus every now and then. Accept it and move on.

If you can't step back...

Some people may not be able to pull back and have only an equal say in a discussion. This is particularly true with topics that have a history of heated debate, such as religion, politics or nationality. If you find it is difficult to participate in heated debates without dominating the conversation or by adding a dozen comments, then perhaps you should avoid them altogether and find other ways to contribute to Wikipedia.