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)