Wikipedia talk:Don't bludgeon the process

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&cent; 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&cent; 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&cent; 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&cent; 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,
 * 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 which explains a bit about how this idea relates to building consensus. &mdash;siro&chi;o 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. &mdash;siro&chi;o 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&cent; 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 isagain in my opinionfrequent 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)
 * 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&cent; 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,
 * 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,
 * 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.  -Jord gette  [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&cent;' 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 above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:51, 19 February 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 above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:51, 19 February 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&cent; 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&cent; 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&cent; 11:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * A careful reader of 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&cent; 13:23, 6 March 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)

Bold edit
The new section was interesting, but I felt it was talking around the issue a bit, and could be more clear. One of the initial goals of the essay when originally conceived was to keep the language simple so everyone (including those whom English is a 2nd or 3rd language) can understand. So I rewrote the section, simplifying it and giving it a simple header and "plain speak" language. Feel free to tweak (or revert, or whatever), but as always, I'm a huge fan of concise and simple languages for essays like this. In the end, I feel this serves everyone better because it has clear "don't do" language, and clearly says when extra leeway should be given. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 07:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

(I originally posted this above but have now seen this new section. I'm all for simplifying language but this seems to have missed the point)

I don't think this edit captures the idea of the previous text at all. It rather actually seems to encourage excessive posting and the bold "need" seems to imply excessive posts may actually be a requirement/expectation at times. The retitle of the section to "Exception" also suggests this really is a case where one is allowed or even expected to bludgeon the process. That's completley wrongheaded. It isn't an exception to the advice, it is a case of where the advice is not relevant. Like if one had rules for how to drive a car, that one had to indicate before turning the steering wheel, and people were wrongly claiming those rules applied to pedestrians. It isn't like pedestrians are an exception to the rules for driving, they just aren't the target of those rules. Similarly, the advice in this essay is aimed at discussions that aren't about oneself (e.g. content or policy). When the discussion is about oneself, they mostly aren't relevant in the same way as people don't have steering wheels and indicator lights.

Dennis, I think it would be best if you reverted. I can see your change being cited at those at ANI for, in someone's eyes, failing to adequately defend themselves to every single accusation, and it completely misses out the advice that excessive posting in such a situation could be to ones disadvantage for entirely different reasons. So we don't want editors to think, as the new text says in bold, that there's a need for excessive defensive posting. Pinging Firefangledfeathers who tweaked the previous text. -- Colin°Talk 13:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Ok, been keeping in the same vane, what do you think you should say instead? Farmer Brown - 2&cent; (alt: Dennis Brown) 22:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * To add, now that I"m logged in, the previous edit simply talked around the issue. An essay like this needs to stay direct, give exact, concise examples, or it will muddy the meaning.  Again, it needs to be in language that an 8th grader can understand.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 04:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I modified it again, trying to take what you are saying into acccount. What I don't think we need to do is explain why the essay is bad (it isn't) and instead focus on making sure people understand that replying many times isn't always "bludgeoning".  Plenty of people watch this page, let's see what they think. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 04:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Trivial comment: "A little extra leeway has to these editors, so long as they are not combatively repeating themselves." I'm assuming the words "to be given" (or "be given to" :-) are missing. No comment on the content of your change. ---Sluzzelin talk  23:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, fixed. It's always ok to fix obvious errors, btw.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 05:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)