Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process
This is an explanatory essay about the disruptive editing and conduct policies. This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. |
This page in a nutshell:
|
Bludgeon: To beat powerfully with an object of great mass.
In Wikipedia terms, 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. Typically, this means making the same argument over and over, to different people. This can happen on a talk page,
To falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered
Bludgeoning
Bludgeoning is when a user dominates the conversation in order to persuade others to their point of view. It is typically seen at
Everyone gets to participate in discussions
Everyone should have the chance to express their views within
Tagging !votes with {{
No one is obligated to satisfy you
Wikipedia discussions are about
Dealing with being accused of bludgeoning the process
If you have been accused of bludgeoning the process, then take a look at the discussion and try to be objective before you reply. 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 the process and should step back and let others express their opinions, as you have already made your points clear. If the idea of "losing" in the discussion makes you angry, likely you are too involved and need to
Here are some things you may want to consider:
- 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, appearing combative rather than consensus seeking.
- When you dominate a conversation by replying many times, others may see you as attempting to "tendentious editing.
- 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 out on their own.
- You have the right to give your opinion in any open discussion, so long as you aren't doing it in a way that limits others from doing the same.
Improving your arguments in the future
Before you start any AfD or initiate any poll or other process, do your homework.
- Read up on the policy that governs the actions you are taking. Quote the policy in your reasoning (briefly, redacting extraneous material as needed).
- Expect others to disagree. Do not reply to every single opinion and !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.
- It is okay to answer one or two comments that are either quoting the wrong policy or asking a question. It isn't okay to pick apart every single comment that is contrary to your position.
- 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. Give other editors enough time to agree with you.
- 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 consensus. Everyone finds themselves on the other side of consensus 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.
When one actually is the topic of discussion
As a collaboratively edited project, nearly all discussions are improved when there are comments from many participants and no individual dominates. But some discussions are explicitly about one individual. This typically occurs if one finds oneself dragged to the
See also
- Wikipedia:Disruptive editing § Failure or refusal to "get the point"
- Status quo stonewalling- Essay about status quo unreasonable opposition to a proposed change
- Wikipedia:ARBBLUDGEONArbitration acceptance of this essay
- Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass
- Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions
- Wikipedia:Gaming the system
- Wikipedia:Sealioning and Sealioning
- Wikipedia:Wall of text
- Wikipedia:You have a right to remain silent
- Gish gallop