Wikipedia talk:Call a spade a spade/Archives

My caveat

I added a pretty substantial caveat. Although I think it's correct, I'm not sure about the ettiquette for editing essays.

If people think my edit[1] changed the tone too much, I'd be happy to fork off my edits (maybe to WP:NOTASPADE), and just insert a "but see" sentence here. Thanks, TheronJ 14:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Strongly disagree

This essay states, amongst other things, that there is no policy against 'calling a spade a spade'. In fact, there are two. The Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks policies specifically prohibit this:

From CIV;

"Calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel. Even if true, such remarks tend to aggravate rather than resolve a dispute."

From NPA;

"The NPA rule applies to all users irrespective of their past history or how others regard them."

"Accusatory comments such as "George is a troll", or "Laura is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom."

This essay is sometimes used to suggest that it is 'ok' to be incivil and make personal attacks if you are 'right' about the person... but Wiki-policy directly contradicts this because everyone thinks they are 'right' when they are being rude and abusive. Ultimately, there is no good reason to 'call a spade a spade'. It does nothing to improve the encyclopedia. Nothing to defuse conflict. It serves only to allow people to insult those they do not like. Which is inherently poisonous to any sort of collaborative effort. --CBD 12:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely, which is why I wrote Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks. Discuss the person's edits, and the effect these edits has on articles. But don't try to evaluate the person's character or "behavior" at all. --Uncle Ed 17:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Although the last comment was raised months ago, this essay might convince people to assume things and take action out of mere assumption. VoltronForce 01:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

"A Spade is a"

Can we find a less clunky title? Was the page moved from a previous title by mistake? YechielMan 17:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Contradictory

This essay seems to flatly contradict itself:

While we must remain civil, calling a spade a spade is part of a reliable editor's job.

but...

Note, however, that although it is generally not uncivil or a personal attack to do so, calling a spade a spade may not be the most productive course.

So, is it part of a reliable editor's job, or is is not the most productive course? Why would it be part of a "reliable editor"'s job to be unproductive? Is there actually a situation where "calling a spade a spade" is productive? I've observed an awful lot of examples to the contrary. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse for meanness

Wikipedia editors -- at least those who are new, little known or who lack "social capital" as Jimmy calls it, are routinely told the solution to rudeness is to be nice and reasonable until the rude person comes around to the more reasonable approach to discourse. (Excuse me for not looking up examples, but those who need examples are no more likely to accept them as valid than they are likely to recall and recognize examples from their own Wikipedia experience.)

This essay claims the opposite -- that a person's perception of another's rudeness is enough to classify that person as rude. The proposed classification is not specific to behavior but to persons -- we aren't asked to identify Point of View pushing, we are asked to identify point of view pushers. If a garden hoe is used once to do the work of a spade, we are told by this essay to call a garden hoe a spade. This proposal is submerged in a fundamental attribution error attributing to character what more properly would be attributed to situational relationships. The problem appears to be that the author of this essay lacks the patience, or does not want to exercise the patience to understand situations that might cause one person to perceive another as a "spade" -- either that, or this essay is a plea for absolution related to ongoing meanness toward some contributors. Swords into spades 19:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Reword Essay Perhaps?

Hi. So, after reading this a number of times, it seems like the gist of it is that there's a fine line between incivility and calling a spade a spade. See this quote, for ex:

"What do you expect of me? I've always been one to call a spade a spade." "Fine," said Yevgenia. "But don't imagine that's always a virtue."

But on reading the essay, it seems like it's sometimes read to mean that "It's always ok to call a spade a spade", or "to call a troll a troll". I think it should be reworded slightly to more clearly make the point that people should consider whether there's a more polite way to phrase their accusations (even when such accusations have a strong basis in fact). For starters, I was thinking of added an "In a nutshell template" along those lines. But before I did, I wanted to make sure I wasn't misreading this, or going against some consensus. Cheers, --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Rename

Would anyone have any strong objections to renaming this page to Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade? This seems to be a in line with what the essay is trying to say, and completes the common expression that this is all about. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be a bit uneasy about it, since the essay seems to say that "yes, you can call a spade a spade, but you might not want to". Calling the article "Call a spade a spade" seems somewhat counter to that. Just my thoughts, --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the main gist of the article is that it's okay to call a spade a spade, and not tiptoe all around the term. However, it's kind of like WP:IAR, which says it's okay to ignore a rule, but the various pages in that reside in the "See also" from time to time indicate that this should be used with the utmost discretion. Yet the page is called "Ignore all rules". So I don't particularly see a name change as going against the grain of the piece, since the main push is to say "go ahead and say it", but to use discretion about doing so. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. By the way, I like your summary of the page ('"go ahead and say it", but to use discretion about doing so'). I might steal that to use as a nutshell summary if that's ok with you :) --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

By all means, go for it. I think that would be a great improvement to the page. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'm going to give it a few days to see if anyone else has any concerns, and if it seems okay, I'll go ahead and move the page and fix the shortcuts. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Editors hiding behind SPADE after violating CIVIL, AGF, NPA

I've personally seen a number of editors being uncivil, accusing others of certain things without proof and/or posting personal attacks and justifying their actions or having their actions defended by others using this essay. I've never seen it before this month, in fact. Is this some sort of fad that's starting to catch on? It really needs to stop before it becomes a serious problem. Jinxmchue 04:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a new phenomenon I'm afraid. Some people read the essay, and manage to skip the part where it says to be civil. I've added a bit to try and emphasize the importance of civility. Let me know what you think. --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a fundamental contradiction between 'call a spade a spade' and 'be civil'. The 'spade' term in question is almost always something like 'troll', 'vandal', 'liar', et cetera. There's just no way to go about following the advice of this essay and not violate the civility and/or no personal attacks policies... given that they specifically list those as examples of what people shouldn't do. The problem here is that people are encouraged to express their negative opinions about other people... if you think that person is a 'spade', go ahead and say so. Don't bother commenting on the content or your concerns regarding the person's actions, just go straight for the ad hominem. It's an inherently bad idea IMO. --CBD 18:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd argue there's a fine gray line somewhere. Do you think we can somehow reword this essay to make it more clear that users should comment on content, not make ad hominem attacks? The issue I've had with the essay is that sometimes it's hard to define the difference between commenting on behavior and people. Ie, if I report blatant vandalism (at the risk of ignoring WP:BEANS, say someone adding 'penis' to articles) to AIV, am I wrong to call them a vandal? If they're blocked for it, it seems apt. (But clearly, calling someone a lying POV-pusher is never productive or civil). I'd also suggest that one of the points that the essay is trying (or should be trying) to make is that 'please don't make personal attacks' (for ex.), is not a personal attack. Thoughts? --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There are certainly cases where calling someone a vandal is accurate... but is it helpful? Even with the obvious cases, what good does it bring? If only they knew they were a vandal they would stop? Does that, as explained in the 'Duck test' section of the essay, make any kind of sense? That said, if it were limited to obvious cases there'd be few objections... people who are truly out to do nothing but vandalism and trolling aren't likely to be offended by recognition of this fact. However, the problem is that this essay encourages people to 'call it like you see it'; and people frequently accuse others of 'vandalism' over just about anything they disagree with. So yes, there is a 'fine grey line' where calling a blatant vandal such doesn't do much harm... but it doesn't do any good either, and endorsing it encourages similar behaviour in countless cases where it DOES do harm. As to 'please don't make personal attacks'... there's no (accurate) way that could be called a 'personal attack' as it speaks solely to conduct. Whereas the title and apparent intent of this essay seem very clearly directed at the person, not their conduct. Look at it this way; what does this essay bring to the table that isn't covered by AGF, NPA, CIVIL, et cetera? So far as I can see it is only the suggestion that you should tell people they are 'vandals', 'POV pushers', 'trolls', et cetera if you think they are. Which is a direct contradiction of NPA and CIVIL. If you think someone is pushing a POV the proper course is to calmly explain why you think the text is not balanced and how it might be fixed... not call them derogatory names. This essay explicitly says otherwise. Thus, it is no coincidence that people have always cited this essay as justification for breaches of those policies... it was written to contradict policy. --CBD 10:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No one can actually 'hide behind WP:SPADE after violating WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF or WP:NPA', because those are official Wikipedia policies, and WP:SPADE is simply very bad advice. Editors who consistently confuse this wrong-headed advice with policy will no doubt eventually find themselves on the wrong side of ArbCom rulings. Dlabtot (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Terrible essay

This essay is counterproductive. Is there any way to express that it's deprecated, and the advice it contains is bad advice? I have yet to see a situation - on or off Wiki - where "calling a spade a spade" is actually a productive idea. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a way. Just write a counter-essay and link to it from the section "see also". A.Z. 03:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? Calling a spade a spade is not about advising people to run around slinging insults- it's about being able to speak honestly. Any time we revert vandalism, we're calling a spade a spade. What is the problem? Friday (talk) 03:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that reverting vandalism is calling a spade a spade. I manage to do it without making any kind of assertion about the person who made the edit. It's an non-constructive edit, so it gets reverted. Nobody need be called any name for that job to get done. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Generally people understand these kinds of essays as an excuse for running around slinging insults. A.Z. 03:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Precisely that - I've seen this essay cited as an excuse to persist in ad homimem attacks that were clearly counterproductive. Some people seem to be getting the message that attacking the arguer rather than the argument is somehow encouraged here. I've made some edits to the page to bring it more in line with what I see as reality. Please feel free to revert, but if you do, I'd like to discuss the edits here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice rewrite. It was a little contradictory and uncivil before. I think this version does a good job of telling people to comment on content, rather then editors. (While still reminding people that a comment on their content is not an attack). Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It's nothing but senseless, self-contradictory blather now. That, of course, was probably the intention of the revision. Gene Nygaard 21:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Gene, don't tell me what my intentions "probably" were. You may comment on the content, not on the contributor. My intention was to turn it from senseless self-contradictory blather into something true and non-destructive. If you disagree as to the content, then you may address your disagreement on that level, and not on an ad homimem level. Thank you for understanding. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The title "Do not call a spade a spade" is more appropriate for the new version. If people revert it to how it was before, I think it's best to write another essay and link to it from the section "See also". I think we can respect the opinions of those who think it could be good to call people vandals and trolls. We who disagree can have our own essay. A.Z. 22:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You are an ass. You just moved the article, improperly. You moved it on the basis that the meaning had changed from the original essay. So go make your own essay if you like. Don't hijack somebody else's. Gene Nygaard 22:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"You are an ass." Gene, you may not make comments like this. Please read WP:CIVIL, and remind yourself that it is a non-negotiable policy. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I moved it back already. Don't you have a sense of humour? My first suggestion (see above) was exactly that: that GTBacchus writes another essay in response to this one. I don't intend to edit this essay anymore. A.Z. 22:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Writing a response essay is one solution, but this one was causing active damage by sitting around with very bad advice on it. I don't see why we should tolerate actively desctructive essays. We don't have essays around on why civility is bad, neutrality futile, and vandalism good, do we? Well, this one seems to take a pot-shot at civility and attempt to punch holes in NPA. How is that ok? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it causes active damage. The people who use this essay for personal attacks would make personal attacks anyway, with or without the essay. I think the way to stop them is to convince them that they're wrong. A.Z. 00:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried doing that, with users who are very set in their "spade-calling" ways? Having an essay sitting around that sanctions their behavior gets in the way of doing what Jimbo has suggested, and starting to enforce WP:CIVIL as if we mean it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that changing the essay is like censorship. It's OK to say it, but it isn't OK to do it. People who do it and harass other users can be blocked. A.Z. 00:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You know, it's not as if I'm reverting. I think it's ok to apply WP:BRD to an essay. I've brought up issues with the essay on this talk page before, but nobody replied. This time, I make an edit to make a clearer point about what I think is wrong with the essay, and I'm accused of censorship. Quite the contrary, my goal was to start a discussion and have points of view stated rather than assumed to be understood. That's the opposite of censorship. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem may be that we view essays differently. I view you editing an essay to change what it means as you editing another person's post. I think essays belong to their authors. A.Z. 02:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that as firmly beside the point, especially since I have no intention of reverting to my version, and I explicitly invited reversion, so long as it accompanied discussion. None has been forthcoming, and we're still talking about whether or not the way I requested the discussion was appropriate. Can we instead have the discussion. Please? I will grant that I was wrong to make an edit, may we please discuss the content of the edit, pretty please? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your version. I think people shouldn't call other people vandals nor trolls nor POV pushers. A.Z. 02:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I was somewhat surprised at how little I had to change to apparently reverse the gist. I'm currently working on a new essay. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, check it out: WP:NOSPADE. I would welcome any improvements or other constructive edits. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hijacking essay

I haven't edited this essay before, and haven't ever used it to bolster an argument either. Don't intend to do so right now either, though it is possible I could do one or both in the future. But I don't like attempts to change the article away from its original meaning. You can discuss disagreements with it here on the talk page, just don't try to make it something other than what it is. I only reverted a recent major change, that's all I'm interested in doing at the moment. Gene Nygaard 22:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you not interested in the "D" portion of "Bold, Revert, Discuss"? If you disagree with my edit, let's talk about it. At least one editor above agreed that my edit salvaged the essay and made it something true instead of false. If you disagree, please explain why. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Must have gotten an extra "l" in there; don't you mean savaged the entry, and tried to make it something different from its original intent? Gene Nygaard 00:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, that's not what I mean, but you know that. The original intent of the essay, insofar as it claims that "calling a spade a spade" is ever a good idea, is destructive to our project. I attempted to rewrite it in a way that makes it good advice, rather than terrible advice. You may disagree with me on that point, in which case let's talk about it. I acknowledge that my edits made a substantial change, which is why I accompanied them with a talk page section explaining myself. Apparently, you disagree with the change. Why? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I'd rather answer good-faith questions than rhetorical, sniping ones such as "don't you mean 'savaged'?". -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Like it or not, this was an "essay". Others have various other essays giving terrible advice, such as Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. Don't be editing things like this essay to say the opposite of what it originally said. That's all I'm saying. It isn't appropriate, whether or not you discuss it on the talk page. Gene Nygaard 01:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"Was" an essay? Still is, right? What's wrong with making a suggested edit, with "revert at will, and please discuss," as a way to get a discussion started as to the ideas underlying this essay. Please note that I'm not reverting, but trying to have a good-faith conversation about the content dispute that I've introduced. Neither you nor A.Z. above has contributed anything on that topic, but I continue to ask - why do you think my content was worse than the current page? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

On a side note

Personally, I'd like to see the duck test split out of this essay. As it stands this is a fairly pointless essay (and I'm not suggesting that the previous version was any better); the duck test is probably the only usable thing here.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an essay. Why exactly are you fighting over it?

There appear to be two significantly different versions of this essay that people are fighting over. If this were a guideline, I'd understand that. It's not - it's an essay. It's absolutely not okay to rewrite it to significantly change its meaning; if someone wants to say something different, that should be a separate essay.

In short, why don't you guys have two essays:

• Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade
• Wikipedia:Do not call a spade a spade

with each making the best arguments for why an editor should label (or not label) someone as a "disruptive editor" or a "POV pusher" when they think that is the situation? Because right now you seem to be arguing that there is only one acceptable version of this essay (yours), which seems a bit absurd when we're taking about an essay. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a separate essay. Pursuant to the discussion above, I wrote Wikipedia:Don't "call a spade a spade". Please feel free to read it and make improvements or other feedback.

As for "fighting" over this page, I don't believe anybody is doing that. I made one major edit, with a note saying, "please feel free to revert and discuss", and I was reverted. We even had some discussion, but it was hard to get to under the weight of various inaccurate and distracting ad hominem accusations being made. I thought that underlined my point rather nicely.

Anyway, I do not, nor ever did, have any intention of reverting, edit-warring, or otherwise "fighting over" this page. I made one edit, as a valid means of starting a discussion, and I don't think I need to be berated for doing so. No harm; no foul. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine, if there is no fight, I apologize. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This should be made policy/guideline

I am 200% in agreement with this essay and I find a pity it's not included in policy or at least as guideline.

I think the approach of this essay is exactly what WP:NPA needs to be well defined and not become the center of many stupid conflicts of the kind "mamma, he called me whatever!"

One thing is gratuitously insulting or harassing a contributor and another thing is calling things by their name. Something at times much needed. --Sugaar (talk) 08:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions for translating

Hello, I am trying to translate this document to Japanese as an essay. Please give me advice.

There is no need to dress up the way (when) we address such users.

• Do editors dress up their words (or a turn of phrase)? Or is it larger meaning like including all way for communication or behavior?

Accusations should not be made without cause

• Does "Accusations" mean rebuking a user by a reliable editor, like user conduct RfC? Or is it only a talk/communication between a "reliable editor" and a user?

Regards, --Nightshadow28 (talk) 11:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to dress up the way we address such users (unsure why you added "when" in brackets) - clearly means that WP:PA policy forces people to use artifices and hypocritical style when adressing some cases that could be easily defined with a tag - using such tags (like maybe "troll" or "nazi") that is discouraged or even forbidden by said policy. It refers to Wikipedia practices, not in general, as in other contexts you surely can express more freely in this particular aspect.

Accusations should not be made without cause - refers to these kind of accusations (i.e. "you are a nazi"). In this example it should be, according to the author(s), very clear that it is the case - and not merely someone with bad temper, a person with conservative ideas, whatever... but a real Stormfronter or the like. It's meant in the context of normal exchange in Wikipedia, such as in all kind of talk pages, etc. The article is defending more flexibility in the aplication of the policy on personal attacks and such "attacks" can almost only happen in the context of talk pages of all sorts.

That's how I see it. Not sure if it's of much help. --Sugaar (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Users too often cite policies...

"Users too often cite policies, like our policy against personal attacks and our policy against incivility, not to protect themselves from personal attacks, but rather to protect their edits from review." Is there any WP:RS that supports this cliam? It seems that right from the gun the spririt of this essay is in violation of WP:AGF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the project namespace, and this is an essay - it's an opinion piece. So a lot of the rules we have in the article namespace don't apply the same way. Still, examples are always helpful. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Contradictions

Article as-is is contradictory. The article says, call a spade a spade, then says, don't do it. I personally don't see any difference between calling an edit trolling or POV pushing, and calling the editor a troll or POV pusher. I don't see calling an idea "an idea only idiots hold" as any different from calling the holder of said idea -who is usually standing right by- an idiot. Except the blocking behavior of the admin twiddling his thumbs in the background. So I guess what I'm saying is, that a poisoned atmosphere is just as easy to produce without calling a spade a spade as when you do call a spade a spade. So again what is the reason to change the essay? And, everyone uses it to say "I'm calling it that because it is that," when really it says the opposite. So if there is going to be any change, just use the first sentence "uncivil statements are still uncivil even if they are true." At least then the thing would fall out of use, as SPADE could not be used as if it consisted only of it's first two sentences as in this version. The current version is a mess could perhaps maybe use some work, by some anon editor who hasn't worked on it before, even though the current ones get little gold stars too. Oh, I didn't need to cross that out, it was commenting on the content, not the committee who wrote it. Civil, huh? True civility is not creating a poisoned atmosphere by actually being a reasonable person and fostering an atmosphere of respect. Legislating it so minutely won't really work. We only have WP:CIV because we can't have WP:DECENT. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 09:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

merge suggestion WP:SPADE >< WP:NOSPADE

How about merging WP:SPADE and WP:NOSPADE, and calling the new essay:

... Just a thought. I don't mean this as a joke, I'm suggesting an essay that discusses the pros and cons of the idea, with suggestions for deciding on whether or not to use that method of communication.

Personally, I feel that the best WP:CIVIL solution would be to delete WP:SPADE and redirect to WP:NOSPADE, but since the WP:SPADE method does have supporters, maybe it would best to come up with a good consensus combo version to replace the two competing essays. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be best to spell out very clearly why the WP:SPADE position is untenable, impractical and destructive. Neutrality is our goal in articles, but the WP:SPADE "method" having its supporters isn't a difference of opinion to describe; it's a problem to fix. As long as the ideas in this essay are touted as a "method" of dealing with conflict, Wikipedia suffers. I'd be interested to see what a compromise position would look like. From where I'm standing now, I don't see it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither do I. The WP:SPADE approach is untenable because of the primacy of WP:CIV above all other policies. On the other hand, WP:NOSPADE is far too verbose, which limits its usefulness. The tangents about "how to win a content dispute" and so on should be spun off to another essay. Both WP:SPADE and WP:NOSPADE should redirect to a slightly tweaked version of the current WP:SPADE. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I agree with both of you, I made the merge suggestion with the idea that the changes will need consensus. But I concur it would be better to modify WP:SPADE to convey that name-calling is contrary to WP:CIVIL, and explaining why it's ineffective and usually escalates the problems. I like the idea of spinning off or renaming WP:NOSPADE also into a different title, because having NOSPADE after SPADE is modified will just be confusing. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the NOSPADE essay could stand some re-organization. I'd be happy enough to see Wikipedia:How to win a content dispute spun off. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIV is a Wikipedia policy, and policies are not to be interpreted in isolation from one other - so saying it has "primacy" over the other policies is a strawman argument. CIV works with the other policies, it does not trump them....nor do the other policies trump CIV. An editor can be right about NPOV, but still be sanctioned for being uncivil in their "rightness". There is no excuse for being uncivil. Dreadstar † 04:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I wrote WP:TWILIGHT as an attempted middle zone between SPADE and NOSPADE. I think there are good points being made here, though I would argue that any attempt to change human nature in a major way is not going to be successful, and in fact would have disadvantages, and be unproductive. (That is, Jack-a-Roe, Raymond arritt, GTBacchus and Dreadstar,I think your noble aims, are just a little too high to be achievable in the REAL/online world, though I agree with the thrust of most of what you are saying. If WP:SPADE is untenable, as GTB says above here, how much more untenable is it to try to hold WPeditors to a standard which has never been achieved outside a Zen monastary, and probably not even there?) --Newbyguesses - Talk 20:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Working draft

A worjing draft of the new version is at Wikipedia talk:Call a spade a spade/Draft. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have concerns with this. Anyone else? Edits should be labeled as incorrect, disruptive, POV and whatever else, and should not be construed as criticism of the editor, but of the edit.

Similarly, the edit itself must not be labeled as POV, incorrect, or disruptive, as this can be taken as an implicit criticism of the person who made the edit.

I think this, at least, should be deleted. Since its a big change I am posting this here for comment rather than delete from the draft.(olive (talk) 02:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

That's going way too far. A certain amount of bluntness is good in WP. POV pushing is POV pushing, that's all there is too it. Disruption is disruption. The problem does not arise from this, but from poisonous atmospheres which occur when editors basically disrespect each other. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes....(olive (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

One person's bluntness is another's incivility and poisonous atmosphere, so best nip it in the bud. Martin, you've certainly been victim of such bluntness, and have rightly objected to it. So I'm baffled that you find this inappropriate. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Gosh. Maybe we should just stick to discussion of the draft.(03:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

(ec) I'm trying to, and don't appreciate your attempt to get in a little dig when I'm looking for constructive input. I would like for Martin to explain his objections more clearly so that I can accommodate them in the draft. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No dig intended...(olive (talk) 03:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

Because it is not doable, not workable. Look, my own level of civility is sufficient to discourse on WP, but that doesn't mean I'm not blunt sometimes. Maybe you are right, however, for those editors who can't tell the difference between referring to "idiots," when the intended idiot is standing right by, an saying "You're POV pushing" when justified. But there is a huge difference. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, the draft just doesn't reflect the normal community standard. It's way higher in terms of civility. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a suprisingly large difference between using verbs ("you're pushing a POV"), and using nouns ("you're a POV-pusher"). The former is fall less inflammatory than the latter. If the "normal" community standard does not reflect this fact, then it needs to change. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think people were going much beyond this, in fact they were/are trying to say that charicterizing the edit itself is verboten. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the difference between "that was a stupid edit" and "you're a stupid editor," or between "that was a disruptive edit" and "you're a disruptive editor", or between "that was a POV edit" and "you're pushing a POV." And my experience is that most other people don't see the difference either. The statements are equally likely to offend. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It is so slight as to be non-existent in many cases. Civility is about creating a generally respectful environment. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Draft edits

Ah, Arritt, you changed "If you choose to be blunt you should consider how your bluntnees would appear to an uninvolved party if it is reported as incivility."

to

"If you choose to be blunt you should consider how your bluntness can be made to appear to an uninvolved party if it is reported as incivility."

Don't you think this is rather an assumption of bad faith to the general population of WP editors? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I'm assuming that the person being blunt doesn't mean to be uncivil, but that it could be portrayed that way by the person they're accusing of being a POV-pusher or whatever. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Drifting

Can we keep the draft on-topic and not drift off into things better left to other policies such as WP:WEIGHT? People are more likely to read and take it seriously if the essay stays concise and focused. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV and CIV go hand in hand. Why bother with CIV if you don't want to produce NPOV? Haven't you noticed that where you find rudeness, you almost always find a non-neutral editor? Even if not, neutrality in an article is unlikely to come out of uncivil discourse. But take it out if you like. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. CIV is necessary for any collaborative working environment, whether the intent is to produce a neutral encyclopedia, or something else. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What a joke. Next we'll have a policy that says you shouldn't call people disruptive or tendentious or sockpuppets etc. Good luck with your campaign. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with identifying sockpuppets. Describing behavior as tendentious or disruptive is also great. Describing a person as tendentious or disruptive is frankly unnecessary, when the issue is their behavior. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

In practice it's nearly impossible to draw a sharp line between describing a person and describing that person's behavior. Experience is that most people perceive "you are being disruptive" and "you are disruptive" as virtually the same, and are equally offended by both. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that it's difficult or impossible to sharply differentiate a person from their behavior, particularly in an online venue like Wikipedia where a persona is defined largely or completely by their on-wiki behavior. The idea that it's more civil on-wiki to say "your behavior is disruptive", as opposed to "you are disruptive", seems a bit farfetched. If I were the target, I certainly wouldn't feel one was more civil than the other. MastCell ^Talk 16:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. You still have to stay on one side of the line, and make it clear that you're staying on that side. A good way to present it civilly is to combine your pointing out the disruption they're causing with statements indicating that you don't think they're trying to be disruptive, and that you recognize their good intentions. Statements explicitly dignifying an editor have a way of disarming most accusations of incivility. It's not always trivial to make it clear that you're distinguishing a person's actions from their person, but making it clear is possible, and worthwhile. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

In principle you are absolutely correct. In practice this would involve changing human behavior and perceptions on a grand scale, which is not a feasible goal for an essay such as this. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, in practice, dignifying all participants, and refusing to back down from the idea that each person must be respected, has the effect of making dispute resolution go much more smoothly. I speak from experience. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, yes it works. But expressing criticism in a clear yet disarming way requires a higher level of finesse, diplomacy, time commitment, and communication skills than most people exercise on a routine basis. One must parse his words carefully indeed. It's great that you can do this. But from reading your posts it's clear that your communication skills are above average (they're certainly better than mine). Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it can be difficult. That's why we need to do a better job educating editors in how to handle conflict. That's why I wrote WP:NOSPADE in the first place, but it's only a start. We need to write down sound conflict-resolution strategies, be sure that people know where to find them, and encourage experienced Wikipedians to model correct behavior for newcomers. A good first step would be scrapping this damaging essay.

It's really not that difficult, if you follow a few simple rules, such as never making personal comments, never edit warring for any reason, and never mentioning the possibility of bad faith. The greatest difficulty most people have with these strategies is believing that they could possibly work, but they do. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No matter how we address the matter, the fact is that some editors do act in bad faith; it's quite common on controversial topics to see edit-warring, gaming of various policies, misleading accusations, sockpuppetry, and so forth in the effort to "win" a battle. Not everyone comes here with the intent of improving the encyclopedia. Observing this behavior but not directly addressing it is potentially enabling, or at best confusing. It's also very hard on the editor who is expected to consistently ignore evidence of bad faith or abusive editing and pretend that these are just misguided editors. But I am an empiricist at heart; if there's some evidence that this approach succeeds more often than it fails (or more often than the currently employed approaches), then I'll preach it with the zeal of the converted. MastCell ^Talk 22:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, there's lots of evidence, because I use this approach every time I work on dispute resolution. I keep using it because it keeps working. It would take me some time to compile diffs, but I can work on that if it would help.

That aside, I'd reply to your point. Suppose we grant that some editors act in bad faith. Is it helpful to say so, aloud? Is it true that we need to label the person in order to directly address the behavior? I would disagree with that. I'm not advocating "observing this behavior but not directly addressing it." I'm advocating addressing the behavior very directly, while simultaneously dignifying the person.

Finally... what is "bad faith", if it isn't misguidedness? People who want to push a POV believe in that POV. A POV-pusher believes that they are improving the encyclopedia, according to their warped notion of "improve". Nobody self-identifies as a POV-pusher, so what's the gain in calling someone out as one? They're not going to say, "yeah, you got me". They're going to say, in all sincerity, "no I'm not!," and Bingo!, we're one more step removed from the edit we should be talking about.

I'd like to see an example of a situation where making an accusation of bad faith is helpful, in the sense that it leads to a resolution. I've never seen it happen. Even in cases of blatant trolling, not calling them a troll, but instead dignifying them more than they dignify themselves, works.

It's quite surprising how people rise to the occasion when you address them with full respect. They don't expect it, and they find that they can't continue being a dick to you without looking utterly wrong. "Bad" editors expect to be treated brusquely, and then to complain about that treatment. Upsetting that expectation is a great way to throw them off, and to get the discussion focused on edits and on sources, whether or not they'd like to drag it into insults and lawyering. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

We have several conversations going on at once here, which renders it challenging to parse the fine distinctions required of the situation. You're claiming there's a distinction between criticizing the person ("you're a POV pusher") and criticizing the person's actions ("you are pushing a POV"). While that is correct in a formal sense, my experience is that on Wikipedia the vast majority of editors interpret those two statements identically and without true distinction. So, why do you insist on labeling the behavior or its resultant effect if many people interpret that identically to labeling the individual who created the action? Surely, people who perceive these comments as identical are not acting in bad faith but are giving a true account of how they perceive the situation at hand. The way we can most assuredly and confidently avoid offending other editors is not to label anything, and that is what we should do, or rather refrain from doing. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The distinction is not too fine for practical use, because the way to use it is to make it explicit. Tell the person outright that you respect them, that you do not doubt their good faith, and that you wish to understand their valid concerns, and then make a clear distinction between all of that and the situation at hand. Now, stating your criticism as "you are pushing a POV" is not likely to make that distinction clear. It would be better to start out by clearly dignifying the person, and then asking a very direct question about sources. The point is to always dignify the person, and always refocus the discussion on the topic. If you keep making it clear that you're not attacking them, it eventually gets through. This can take patience, and the ability to swallow some pride. Actively dignifying the person usually works to convince them that you're not attacking them personally.

"Not labeling anything" sounds tricky. What do you mean by that? I don't actually "insist" on labeling the behavior, but one must say something. Rather than labeling the behavior, it's probably better to address the content question that is giving rise to the behavior. Is that what you're getting at? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Starting out by telling a person that "you respect them, that you do not doubt their good faith, and that you wish to understand their valid concerns" and then proceeding to dismantle their edits or logic can be viewed as unctuous ingratiation, or even worse as hypocrisy. I would expect that from a salesman or politician, but not from a peer. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) Well, you have to mean it, too, and act as if you mean it. In context, you find a way to make it clear that you respect them, in your own words, y'know? The word "dismantle" might not capture the ideal spirit with which to initiate the discussion of the content. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Smooth talk like that makes one sound like the Walrus in "The Walrus and the Carpenter." I'll think you really respect me if you give it to me straight, without all the earnest praise. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'm not trying to say anything about tone or wording, right? My point is that you can make it clear to someone that you are respecting them. It's something to actively and consciously do. If someone is getting upset, doing that helps.

Now, when you do it, don't sound unctuous, don't use phrasings that make you sound insincere. My point is not to hand you a script, but to aver that explicitly dignifying a person in a dispute is a good way to make the civility line very clear, and to establish that you're both on the cool side of it. If the line between commenting on the content and commenting on the contributor seems grey, you can clarify it. That's the only point I was trying to make with my last two posts.

Honestly, this isn't even a point to sit and theorize about, it's a point for practical empirical application. Who cares what we think would probably work; let's just try stuff and see what works. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Civility is not a method for avoiding all conflict. It's a method of heading off much conflict, and it's a method for effectively picking up the pieces when conflict inevitably arises. Part of picking up the pieces is making it clear to the other person that you don't disrespect them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

How about "people who are emotionally involved in their POVs and can't keep that out of their editing should not edit the articles about which they feel strongly?" Maybe there isn't any other way to create an environment that really is decent and respectful. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarifying definition of the phrase

To "call a spade a spade" is more accurately defined in a more general way than we are using it here, that is to speak plainly or bluntly, but is not necessarily pejorative and does not refer to addressing an individual except in the most literal translation of the phrase. I would like to copy edit the essay since it has become awkward and cumbersome but I would have to redefine this phrase slightly. Is that a concern for any other editors.(olive (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

recent edits take care of this problem .... so no comments necessary.(olive (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

This essay is potentially dangerous

The community has decided that calling someone a POV-pusher or the like -- even if true -- is unnecessary and fundamentally uncivil. Since incivility is one of the top blockable offenses, this essay in its present form could get people into big trouble. I tried to harmonize the essay with Wikipedia community standards but my edits were summarily reverted en masse.[2] Do we really want to keep a potentially harmful essay in project space? Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, it's an essay not a policy or guideline. Secondly, it clearly states:

"Although editors who consistently engage in disruptive editing are disruptive editors, and editors who consistently vandalize are vandals, there is still a requirement for editors to be civil to each other. Name-calling and labeling editors is not the appropriate way to handle such situations. If the behavior is problematic, use the dispute resolution process.'"

This essay gives no excuse for uncivil behavior. I don't think it's wise to tell editors to be "less than sincere", in their editing, it's much better for them to be honest yet civil. This comment, is simply untrue, such accusations or observations can be made in RfC or RfARB requests. However, name calling on talk pages and in edit summaries is uncivil. Calling someone a pov-pusher is already covered under WP:CIV and WP:POVPUSH. Dreadstar † 04:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion Raymond links, which was archived as achieving "consensus", hardly includes a representative cross-section of the Wikipedia community. And I'll leave it at that. Additionally, several comments addressed themselves to one specific case rather than making a broad, sweeping statement that it's always uncivil to say X, Y, or Z - which is common sense. I wouldn't overinterpret that particular "consensus", however it may be presented. MastCell ^Talk 04:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to submit an RFC or even an ArbCom case if you think such name-calling is civil. I'd love to know what you term as a "representative cross-section of the Wikipedia community" thinks of such a thing. Dreadstar † 06:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I found that "mini-RFC" to be a valuable process and result. It's true that the RFC was not properly formed or clearly stated because it mixed up a policy question with a user conduct question, so some of the comments addressed the particular case that was the catalyst of the debate. But putting those narrow-focus comments aside, the rest of the conversation brought up relevant concerns. One editor suggested that WP:NOSPADE is a preferable approach; I think he was on the right track with that. It's easy enough for tempers to flare up in content disputes, why add fuel to the fire? If there's a real ongoing problem with an editor, there are forums for addressing that in a more effective way. Whenever I've seen people use talk-page accusations about a person's character or motivations, it's made the situation worse, not better. WP:CIVIL isn't just a word to quote, it's a well-written policy evolved over a long time. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

But MastCell has a strong point, as does this essay, that I would gladly upgrade to at least guideline. There is people who do wrong knowingly and insistently and hide under WP:CIV and similar policies. And there is people who do right and speak the truth. And by our current policies, that favor hypocrisy over sincerity, the latter are the ones being punished.

This essay is only dangerous for wrongdoers who play the game of wikicourtesy and wikihypocrisy. --Sugaar (talk) 06:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Faulting someone vor violating one of our core policies - NOR, POV, V - is not only not an offense, it is actually essential if our policies are to have any meaning, since the vast majority of enforcement of policies is done by the community itself, and not some centralized authority. All the moreso, if someone has a persistent policy of violating policies, other editors need to be able to call attention to the problem. My main concern is that many people, for fear of seeming uncivil, might not call a POV-pusher a POV-pusher. So I do see an issue that needs to be addressed, but it is not the nature of this essay itself. I think editors, especially newbies, need guidance in distinguishing between precise and accurate identification of a POV-pusher, which would be a necessary part of community enforcement of policy, versus a personal vendetta. Maybe we could be clearer about when not to call someone a POV pusher; about the reasons for calling someone a POV pusher (which ought to be to encourage other editors to look closely at the person's edit history), and about what to do if this approach fails. Perhaps we could urge more strongly that the accuser study more closely the NPOV policy, and encourage him/her to explain why s/he is making the accusation (including providing some examples). This essay needs to be crystal clear about appropriate and inappropriate times to call someone a POV pusher, so that no one would ever hesitate or be fearful of calling an actual POV-pusher a POV pusher. But it is obvious that if someone really is a POV pusher, to call them so is in no way a personal attack. By the way, I do want to acknowledge that this essay can be abused. I have seen people appeal to "the duck test" when it was clear to me that the accused was no duck. So this section has to be clearer, what scientists call "operationalized." Let's move beyond imprecise and folksy but in the tough cases useless aphorisms, to a real essay that helps someone know when they are not personally attacking someone but rather addressing a very real problem. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, you're missing the point entirely. Describing edits as non-neutral is perfectly great. Describing behavior as tendentious is perfect. Describing a person as a POV-pusher crosses the line, and is utterly unnecessary. It is never necessary nor desirable to call anybody a "POV-pusher", a "troll", or any other of the aspersions that we've coined around here. It's about behavior, not about people. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a reason that name calling occurs often with anger and impulsive behaviours and that is because name calling in such a situation doesn't require intelligent thought, but occurs as a response to "flight or fight" response mechanisms. Thinking, intelligent editors might consider that a non-thinking, non thoughtful response to other editors might be less than the most intelligent response possible. If Wikipedia is a collaborative project then possibly the most appropriate response in any given situation would be that which deals with the collaboration, that is, deals with the individual editors in that place and in that time who have come to collaborate on the editing of a particlaur article . Such editing transcends, but utilizes policy, delineates behaviours clearly and does not rely on the nonthinking responses such as name calling. If however Wikipedia is seen as a platform for anything other than collaboration, then POV enters the picture. This is not the POV of a specific viewpoint but is a larger Pov that undermines the original purpose, and practice of Wikipedia itself.

Civility is never mutually exclusive, but is a behavioural issue, that requires thought and possibly control, and should not impact the more mechanical issues of editing.(olive (talk) 16:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

Could you state that a bit more directly and concisely please? Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to summarize: Civility is never mutually exclusive, but is a behavioural issue, that requires not only thought, rather than what can be the non-specific, less non-thoughtful response of name calling, but also, possibly control, and should not impact the more mechanical issues of editing. Intelligent editors might consider that intelligent, thought ful responses would have more impact on collaborative projects and the community environment of Wikipedia, than the more general voice of name-calling, and might reflect highly on the individual editors themselves (olive (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

I generally agree with the points above, except GTBacchus. GTB, you do clarify the issue constructively, but respectfully, I still disagree with you. There really are trolls who come to Wikipedia to push their own POV, soap-box, and disrupt. Once upon a time there was no ArbCom and the community policed itself. Even now I believe that formal mechanisms like ArbCom should be a last resort; I think the community should police itself as best it can. If an editor is acting in good faith, as most do, identifying an edit that violates a core policy is as you suggest the only right thing to do. But if someone has a pattern of repeatedly editing in violation of core content policies, that person is a POV-pusher and the community needs to deal with it. I continue to believe that this essay is at its root correct: to call a POV pusher a POV pusher is not a personal attack, it is flagging a problem-editor that calls for more community action. And I think that we should try community action before trying any formal process like mediation, RfC, or Arb Com. The problem with this essay is that it does not develop the point in a helpful way. It does not provide clear guidance for distinguishing between a POV pusher and a naive newbie. It does not provide clear guidance for distinguishing between an appropriate use of the term "POV pusher" and inappropriate uses. I do not like the "duck" test. I would propose that a POV pusher is someone who has been editing for more than a couple of weeks; someone who mostly edits a finite group of related articles; someone who ignores the talk page or edit summaries altogether, or who explains his or her edits (in edit sumaries or talk pages) as "the truth" or throuh reference to primary sources, and as someone who has ignored suggestions to comply with NPOV. I would suggest that it is appropriate to call someone a POV pusher in order to call attention to a pattern of edits rather than just one or a few edits, and in order to clarify the nature of the edit conflict, since "POV pusher" just raises the question, which POV is being pushed. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, thanks for the thoughtful reply. I still think it is not only possible, but profitable, and quite desirable to avoid terms such as "POV-pusher" to describe an editor. You can say that someone shows a pattern of editing from a certain POV, which communicates everything you want to communicate, without making extra assertions about their motivations, which are frankly invisible to all of us.

Most people are doing what they see as the right thing. If you accuse them of being a POV-pusher, they will likely say something to the effect of, "I'm not a POV-pusher; I'm trying to make the encyclopedia more accurate/more neutral/better." Replying with something like, "No you're not; you're trying to push a POV" is singularly unhelpful, because it casts the discussion in terms of that person's motivations, instead of casting it in terms of the edits. If you say that a person "shows a pattern of making non-neutral edits on certain subjects", then we've got something much more concrete to talk about, and even better, something that doesn't engage people's emotions nearly as much as the application of labels to persons. The community can look at the edits, make a decision, and block the person if necessary, without it ever being necessary to label the person as a "POV-pusher". -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh!, I know! I had to read your edit several times...and I hope I made my statement below neutral enough not to seem to be disagreeing or agreeing...I think you and I are on the same page...you pov-pusher, you...;) (kidding!) Dreadstar † 21:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, and to extend that point, what about editors who make edits that seem to be stupid or idiotic, we're certainly not going to call them names! So I don't think calling an editor who seems to be, or actually is pushing a pov, a "pov-pusher" is anything but schoolyard-style insulting. It's far better to civilly point out to an editor that their edits seem to be geared towards a certain pov, thus violating NPOV or other applicable policies. And allowing editors to engage in name-calling is so easily anf frequently abused, used as a tactic to ridicule, bully, and drive away editors - even ones who aren't pushing a pov. I've seen plenty of editors making NPOV edits being called 'pov-pushers' by those who are aggressively pushing their own POV. Most of the time, those calling others pushers, are pov-pushers themselves, so if it's allowed to name-call, then we just degenerate into a series of name-calling between editors. It's unnecessary and totally unprofitable, not to mention immature. And any new editors who see such aggressive name calling can be put off from editing. It's uncivil. If someone is actually a pov-pusher, there are other avenues to deal with that behavior that are far superior to name-calling and labeling. The only times I can see someone legitimately calling another editor a "pov-pusher" is when filing an RfC or RfARB about that behavior...but not on talk pages or in edit summaries... Dreadstar † 21:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The key issue is this: pushing a POV violates policy; being stupid or idiotic does not. For better or worse. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

To me, the key issue here is name-calling and labeling editors. If someone is indeed pushing a pov, there are better ways to handle that than calling them names. One of the real problems is with editors who push a pov themselves, then hypocritically accuse their opposition of being pov-pushers; or even if they're right and the other editor is indeed pushing a pov, engaging in name calling without using any of the processes or tools available to deal with such behavior isn't the right way to handle the situation. There's no need for name calling, it's too easily abused and creates a hostile environment for new and established users alike....and it distracts from the real goal - collaboratively writing good articles. Dreadstar † 19:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Not always a black and white matter.

Many users get confused, I do. Things are not always black and white. --Newbyguesses - Talk 17:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not an example of a gray zone; this is a shining beacon to lead you through gray zones: Never "call a spade a spade". This "essay" is terrible, terrible advice. There is no practical justification for name-calling. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I'm trying to make that clearer in the essay. Dreadstar † 08:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I both agree and disagree here, GTB and user:Dreadstar. Agree, if someone does a bad edit, which pushes a POV, one ought to call it a "poor edit", and NOT call the editor a POV-pusher, which is unhelpful, sure. HOWever, if editor2 makes the mistake of saying, to editor1, "You are a POV-pusher", it may be necessary for other editor or Admin to step in.

"Punishing" editor2 for what is, essentially, a "poor choice of words" is a secondary consideration to examining, and probably revert/modifying editor1's work . What I am saying is, DO NOT get hung up about a "mild" abuse of words, to the effect of empowering editor1, who breached our principles more severely.

I see that kind of thing happen too often (!) where the disruptive editor, the one who engaged in disruptive actions, gets away with their unhelpful activities, and continues them, because all too many editors step in to censure the poor old nOObie who makes a blunder with a couple of words, but who nevertheless is acting in good faith.

An editor who can discern a problem (with another editor's work) needs SOME WAY to bring the matter to the attention of the community, without getting jumped on, and having their hands tied behind their back.

That is why I think there is a place for this essay, WP:SPADE, as there is a place for WP:NOSPADE, and for Wikipedia:The grey zone, where I am hoping thoughtful editors will contribute to a discussion of matters similar to those under consideration on this discussion page today. --Newbyguesses - Talk 04:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I just now updated WP:TWILIGHT with a section expanding on the point I tried to make here. I would appreciate any feed-back concerning WP:TWILIGHT at that page, if it seems at all helpful to do so. Thanks --Newbyguesses - Talk 02:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Slowing becoming WP:NOTSPADE?

I'm not sure what's going on here, but if you want an essay explaining that its not OK to call a spade a spade, by all means start it. The transformation here over the past several weeks is just plain Orwellian. It started off saying it's OK to call a spade a spade and then went into great depth explaining that this isn't the case. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The essay WP:NOSPADE already exists. I think the recent changes here have come about because people are trying to get the essay to reflect reality a bit more closely than it previously had. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. There's already an essay that says it's not OK to call a POV pusher a POV pusher. This isn't it. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This essay gave the wrong advice, contrary to how Wikipedia should work. Either we clarify that or we delete it. Giving advice to editors that allow them to start calling others names and labeling people is contradictory. If editors want to call a spade a spade, then this essay should tell them the proper way to do it. This is different than “not calling a spade a spade.” The way this essay was originally written contradicts WP:CIV and even WP:NPA Dreadstar † 18:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's the point. We don't need an essay that tells people to violate Wikipedia's most important policy. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well stated. I suggest:

• Modify WP:NOSPADE to spin off Wikipedia:How to win a content dispute as GTBacchus suggested above.
• Rewrite WP:SPADE to address Raymond, GTBacchus' and Dreadstar's approach, with strong references to WP:CIVIL, and clear advice that not calling a spade a spade is more effective than escalating tensions with divisive comments, and, with links to dispute resolution forums for situations of disruptive editing.
• Redirect WP:NOSPADE to the new version of WP:SPADE.

--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. The whole point of this essay is calling a spade a spade isn't a violation of WP:CIV. Someone has simply gone into WP:CIV and changed that policy in the past few weeks also. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Never mind "a violation of WP:CIV". Why think legalistically? "Calling a spade a spade", in the sense of labeling people as trolls, POV-pushers, etc, is a bad, bad idea. It's ineffective dispute resolution, it raises the heat, and it leads to no positive effect. The earlier version of this page gave terrible advice, the heeding of which is directly destructive to the project. The community has just about had it with the "call a spade a spade" mentality, and most champions of that theory of conflict resolution have lost their sysop bits under clouds. Wikipedia is changing into a more professional, less drama-fueled environment, and part of that is learning not to "call a spade a spade".

If you wish to argue for calling spades spades, then please explain what the concrete benefit of doing so would be. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Then you should MfD this, not try and transform this essay into the opposite of what it originally said; i.e. saying it's OK in the nutgraph, then not okay, then explain in parable form that it's ok to call a duck a duck, except the essay just said this would be a WP:CIV violation. Any editor that has a problem with omg name calling!!!!1! needs to graduate from elementary school post haste. If some editors are abusing this concept to call "swans" "ducks" that's not what this policy is about. If someone is a POV pusher, I will call them a POV pusher -- I'm not going to go thru some elaborate kabuki dance to get my point across. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a misinterpretation of the intent of most of the editors here. To call a spade a spade doesn't mean to engage in name calling. If someone is making edits that violate NPOV, then to say so is calling the spade what it is. If the editor always engages in pov pushing, even after being warned (without saying, "hey, stop being a pov-pusher"), then the proper process is to start an RfC/RfARB, a place where one can say that the user is being a pov-pusher. But to revert an edit and say in the edit summary "reverting pov-pusher's edits" or to state on an article or user talk page that so-and-so is a pov-pusher, just isn't the correct course of action. I can say an editor is engaging in disruptive editing while not calling them a disruptive editor. One is personal, the other is not. I have no objections to this essay being deleted, it's been abused for far too long. Dreadstar † 19:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to open another RfC on this, Kendrick. The earlier one is here. Dreadstar † 20:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Kendrick7, You'll find that dispute resolution is more effective if you avoid the name-calling. It's not about "people need to graduate from elementary school"; it's about doing what works, versus doing what doesn't work and then complaining that it didn't work because of POV-pushers. Good communication involves avoiding personal comments in favor of constructive ones, and good communication is essential. If you think it is helpful to call someone a "POV-pusher", then please explain how. I've asked this question many times of many editors, and nobody seems to be able to say how "calling a spade a spade" is supposed to bring about the resolution of a conflict. If you think I'm asking you to do a Kabuki dance, then you're misunderstanding my point entirely. I'm talking about being effective instead of ineffective, and I'm prepared to show ample evidence that non-spade-calling is more effective than spade-calling, even in tasks such as dealing with trolls and COI editors. If you have any evidence to the contrary, bring it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(r to GT) Because you can warn other editors that the person is a POV pusher. Or a troll (although I personally abide by DNFTT and so find that unhelpful). It is a kabuki dance if you are suggesting I can't say "Kendrick 7 is a POV pusher" but I can say "Kendrick7 is pushing a POV." There's nothing beyond a purely linguistic difference there. Or if I can't say "User:Petesmiles is a sockpuppet, and here's why" -- I have to couch such an accusation some other way. WP:SPADE is the bulwark against a slippery slope of never being able to point out the editors who are problematic in our community so our community can deal with such people effectively. Sure this will reduce traffic on WP:AN/I but at a terrible cost. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppetry is different. There's no problem saying you think someone is a sock-puppet, because that's just a matter of fact that can be checked easily enough. Claiming that someone "is a POV-pusher" is a claim about their motivations. It's saying "you're not here to help; you're here to make the encyclopedia less neutral". It's very likely that they don't see it that way, and that in their mind, they're enforcing WP:NPOV. If I say "Kendrick7" is a POV pusher, I'm attacking your motivations and your good faith, which are things I'm not in a position to know about. If you need to "warn" other editors, then you can say "Kendrick7 has been involved in conflicts at such-and-such articles, and seems to be resisting the community interpretation of such-and-such policy." This is better than saying "Kendrick7 is a POV-pusher, because it gets to the point, and also because it avoids bringing up personal accusations that engage your defensiveness. If you do take offense, and say that I'm calling you a POV-pusher, then I can make it very clear that no, I'm not, that I understand that you are trying your damndest to improve the encyclopedia, and that we just need to sort out a consensus-approved neutral description of the conflict.

Once you start talking about people's motivations, which you do when you call someone a POV-pusher, it's very difficult to get back on track, and talk about the content dispute in question.

The only time it becomes profitable to label someone as "a POV pusher" or the like, is if we're community banning them. Short of that, you're going to have to work with the person, so you'd better not undermine that process by showing them that you doubt their intentions. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(r to Dreadstar) So let me get this straight -- if I want to tell GT that "Dreadstar is a POV pusher" I have to (a) Find another user who thinks you are a POV pusher, without being able to explicitly suggest so (b) With that other user, both contact you on your user page and make up some dispute, where none might exist, so we can (c) Start a RfC (c) write "Dreadstar is a POV pusher" on the RfC page and (d) Link to the RfC on GT's talk page and say hey man, read this. Yeah, um, no. This isWP:BUROcratic insanity. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no. If you want to tell me that Dreadstar is a POV-pusher, just hand me a link to a dispute or two, and say Dreadstar has been involved in these disputes, and seems to be resisting consensus." Rather than applying a fairly empty label, tell me something meaningful about the specific edits or behavior that is a problem. No bureaucracy, no madness, no personal remarks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to say that Dreadstar "seems to be resisting consensus"? That's a clear accusation of bad faith. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(after ec) Ok, Raymond, how would you say it? The point isn't to come up with the perfect utterance, ok? The point is to actually respect the person. If you respect them, and believe that they have the best intentions, which they do, then the rest of these problems work themselves out.

I would personally not take "seems to be resisting consensus" as an accusation of bad faith, because I don't see how resisting consensus is necessarily a bad-faith action. I could resist consensus in the best of faith; have done so. However, if I said that someone seemed to be resisting consensus, and they thought I was being uncivil, I would clarify my point to make it clear that I don't doubt their good faith. I'm not going to recommend any particular words with which to do that, Raymond, because I get the impression you'll pick them apart. Are you getting my point, beside the particulars of phrasing? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I really don't get how "seems to be resisting consensus" is an accusation of bad faith. Bad faith is: "Editor X is here to make things worse, not better". Resisting consensus is almost completely unrelated to that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that, GTB. Dreadstar † 21:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No kendrick, that's not what I was saying at all, GTB has it right. I don't think you should be calling anyone a 'pov-pusher'. You can tell GT that you think Dreadstar is editing from a pov that seems to violate NPOV, but just name calling...well...nah... The real problem is the ever-increasing abuse by some editors where they relentlessly call editors who disagree with them 'pov-pushers', better not to name call at all than to suffer this increasing abuse. I'm perfectly capable of telling editors that a specific editor's edits are pushing a pov without calling them names, and I think most other editors here are too. What I am saying is that if you want to call someone a POV-pusher, then start an RfC and do it there, where frank discussions about user behavior is allowed - but don't be doing it on talk pages or in edit summaries - even if the RfC finds that the user actually is a pov-pusher. Heck, I'm not sure that such name calling belongs in RfCs or RfArbs either, but it definitely doesn't belong on mainspace or user talk pages. Dreadstar † 21:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And there might be a reason someone "seems to be resisting consensus", consensus is not always 100% correct (I have seen consensus WP:OR for example). So by saying the editor "seems to be resisting consensus" there is not the automatic accusation put on them for being "a POV pusher". No matter which way the reality, there is a lot less drama by not calling someone a derogatory name.Ward20 (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't know. I really need to go find a 5th grader to explain that getting upset over name calling is so passé. Trust me: if you give POV pushers an inch to complain about being called this using a certain verb tense and phraseology, they will take a mile such that even a hint of a suggestion of any edit being anything similar to representing a POV with be equated with a WP:CIV violation. Maybe you've never met a POV pusher "in the wild" before, but this plays into their modus operandi entirely; and for the record, I have no respect for POV pushers what so ever, and I'm not about to pretend otherwise, especially when they are removing sources, making up sources, etc. I consider that simply intolerable.
But, none of this addressed turning WP:SPADE into WP:NOSPADE or the fact that the essay is currently lacks logical consistency; it says calling a spade a spade is ok, then that it isn't, then again that it is ok. Man up and MfD this if you think calling a spade a spade is bad policy, or I will; don't make war mean peace and freedom mean slavery, etc., which is still my primary objection. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your last point. We should decide whether this essay recommends for or against calling spades spades, and name it accordingly. The title and the contents contradicting each other is silly.

I disagree with most of the rest of your post. This is not about "getting upset over name calling". This is about being professional and effective, versus unprofessional and ineffective. I'm arguing for professional effectiveness, of which name calling is no part. You're absolutely right that pointing out bias should not be interpreted as a WP:CIV violation, because people shouldn't think of WP:CIV in terms of violations at all. If someone tries to use WP:CIV as a hammer, that's not remotely civil, and any 5th grader knows that.

As for trusting you... no. I have a lot of experience in dispute resolution here, and I've dealt with many POV-pushers. I don't give them an inch about complaining, what I do is avoid the personal issue entirely, and continue to refocus the discussion on content issues. If they try to play a WP:CIV card, I take it out of their hands by being unfailingly polite to them. It works, according to long experience. I know their MO, and I know how to beat it. Calling a spade a spade is not the answer. I am prepared to demonstrate my point, in the field - I'm that confident.

If you can't conceal your lack of respect for others, then your dispute resolution skills will suffer. If you learn to address content without talking about your speculations on people's motivations, then you'll be more sucessful. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:26, March 13, 2008 (UTC)

Example, I had a dispute with JzG over an EL he wanted to keep and I wanted to remove due to original research at the EL.[3]

JzG argued one way, and commented about my POV. I stated my POV does not matter and argued about content issues. The consensus was that all the EL's should be removed. Guy had a strong POV about keeping that link. If I had called JzG "a POV pusher" does anyone think that would have went well for me? Ward20 (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This essay has been contradictory from the start, violating WP:CIV and WP:NPA. At best, the usage of it has been "A person who calls a spade a spade is one speaks frankly and makes little or no attempt to conceal their opinions or to spare the feelings of their audience." I don't mind the first part of that, but we're not here to hurt feelings. We should explain exactly how to call a spade for what it is in terms acceptable to Wikipedia. But if calling a spade a spade means to be insulting or uncivil, then redirect it to "don't be calling a spade a spade," use nicer language. There's a right way and a wrong way to identify a spade, sometimes it take a little heart to find a diamond without using a club to make the point. Dreadstar † 23:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It ought to be re-named "don't poison the wiki." That's the problem, not what name you get called. Sure, "POV-pusher" is uncivil, but there is a point at which you can't say the truth without calling a spade a spade. That isn't what CIV was meant to prevent. CIV was meant to prevent a disruptive level of poisonous atmosphere, which can easily be created without violating CIV. There are certain people here who know that, and are violating POINT with their arguments. See? It's easy. But seriously, we need to come up with something that reflects the needs of human communication. WP:RESPECT, WP:DECENT, WP:NOPOISON. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Two essays, two points of view

I think it best that WP:SPADE and WP:NOSPADE continue to co-exist. The SPADE essay does not condone or recommend breaches of civility, though the wording of WP:CIVIL may be changed from time to time. You only have to look at these threads above (which should be considered as closed, for being FAR too long), to see that some Editors regard the difference between NOUN and VERB as crucial, while other editors feel that that is not a real distinction. Be civil, be factual, be respectful (of editors), and respect the Neutral Point of View. Let all views be expressed, but avoid outright name-calling, as it is unproductive. There must be some way of identifying unhelpful actions, though, as user:Kendrick7 rightly points out above. --Newbyguesses - Talk 23:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually three. Ward20 (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly -- the noun versus verb thing is the problem. Claiming writing "Newbyguesses is a POV pusher" versus "Newbyguesses is pushing one or more POVs" affects the subject (Newbyguesses) differently is a form of magical thinking: that in the first instance, the arrangement of letters magically releases a curse with then "attacks" the person, but in the second instance (since it's not "name calling") no magical damage is done. I know somewhere in our lizard brain we think this is perfectly rational, and most adults still go through that phase as children, but it's not the part of the brain we should be making policy with. If it was a real violation of WP:NPA, it wouldn't matter if you used a noun or verb. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think either of those statements is necessary, comment on the content not the contributor. I'd like to see two articles, but neither one should encourage name-calling or labeling of others; instead they should encourage following WP:DR. Dreadstar † 02:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Kendrick7, you're missing the point. If you say "I think you're editing with a bias", the person might still take it personally and get offended. However, if you're refrained from using nouns to describe the person, then you're in a very good position to say, "I'm sorry that I offended you, but I don't mean it as a personal attack, I just wish to discuss these edits." If you've already called them a name, it's much harder to back down and say that you haven't made a personal remark. Just don't open that door, and if somebody claims you already have opened it, be very clear, and very polite, that all we're talking about is content, not about people.

The whole bit about nouns versus verbs isn't just for children; it's taught as part of adult dispute resolution. There is no part of effective adult dispute resolution that makes labeling of other people effective or recommended. It's not about "word magic"; it's about effective communication. People will still be offended, but if you've kept the line very clear for your own behavior, then you're in a much better position to make progress with the argument. If you've crossed that line, then the waters are far muddier.

Seriously, just try it. I know people who didn't believe it, then tried it, and it worked. Why not try it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree with GTB here (as GTB is no doubt aware) that a Verb and a Noun can make a big difference, it aint necessarily "magical thinking". As well, agree with GTB that what we are aiming for is lessening of conflict, by any means, because conflict does not progress the encyclopedia.

However, I believe that User:Martinphi has made a much more telling point. CIV was meant to prevent a disruptive level of poisonous atmosphere, which can easily be created without violating CIV.(per Martinphi 01:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)). Name-calling is a drag, bUT, it is not necessarily POISONOUS. Sorry for shouting, but this is the real world, not Pollyanna's playground. A certain amount of hurt is caused by any word, if one is over-sensitive. (I know K7 didn't mean to offend me above, I am not a Pov=pusher.)

If I picked up on every slight that gets slung at me on a talk-page, I would be a wreck, and that is despite the fact that i generally keep my nose clean, and dont have enemies out to get me. If I say today is Friday, and it is a lovely day, even that innocuous statement is going to upset someone, for sure, who would prefer it to be raining, or snow-season to be here or something. People get upset by lots of things, not just personal attacks. In fact, there are lots worse things than personal attacks. That is no excuse to make personal attacks, but it is also no reason to ham-string, and hog-tie any user who has a valid point to make, and just makes a slight slip of the tongue. And Martinphi goes on, quite rightly that we need a WP:DECENT, and a WP:(NO)POISON, but not, I think, a WP:If ya cant say something nice, shut the f--- up. --Newbyguesses - Talk 03:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a more succinct version of my comment below: Name calling isn't civil, but neither is getting upset and lawyerish over being called a name. Neither is part of trying to get along, which is what we should be doing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm catching on to a misunderstanding here. When I say that calling someone a name is uncivil, I do not mean to imply that it is a "violation of WP:CIV". Those are very different things. I don't think of WP:CIV as a law, so how could a violation exist? I think civility is an idea we should be applying each to our own actions, not to other people's.

The point is, don't call names, because there are better ways to communicate. No, I won't block you for it, but don't do it because you've got better things to say. If someone calls you a name, don't get all "you violated WP:CIVIL" on them; say something like, "Hey, I don't think that was fair. Can we talk about this?" Be very civil back to them. That makes it very difficult for them to continue being a dick. Get other people involved. Don't present them with a j'accuse; that contributes to a poisonous atmosphere.

How can we get people to think of WP:CIVIL less as a law to hit other people with, and more as a code of practical conduct? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well geez, after all that it looks like we agree at least 99%... My beef is that the routine abuse of WP:CIV as a bludgeon in content disputes is undermining the application of real civility. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Once again, I agree with you GTB. We ought to try to be reasonable, decent and have respect. We ought to be civil to one another, (because it works). Those things are personal values, and may not have anything to do with a policy such as WP:CIVIL. Did not yourself say, at another forum, that you would be leery of someone who had to read a policy (WP:CIVIL) before they could understand what civility is? You did, didnt you. Well, I'll adopt those words as mine, if not.

And, another good point, it is wrong to call names, when there is a better option, AND it is just as wrong to try to use CIVIL as a weapon against another editor. We need to get past a rules-oriented mind-set. There are too many users, and too many policy changes for that approach to work. I still think that WP:SPADE is reasonable, but it is being watered down, when the correct approach, IMO is to retain it and NOSPADE, and let users work it out from there.

I think I agree most with this, Raymond Arritt -the routine abuse of WP:CIV as a bludgeon in content disputes is undermining the application of real civility. --Newbyguesses - Talk 04:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's not mix up the issues, dealing with those who routinely abuse WP:CIV in an attempt to win content disputes can be handled elsewhere. The problem here is with those who use WP:SPADE as a bludgeon in content disputes, as well as justifying uncivil behavior. Insulting, negative name-calling and labeling is uncivil, period. Calling editors or groups you disagree with "cranks" "nutjobs" "woo-woos" and "pov-pushers" is not only uncivil, it's unnecessary. It's been a nice piece to allow for the ridicule and disenfranchisement of those you disagree with. By what criteria do we decide and who decides these names and labels? I call you a pov-pusher, you call me a pov-pusher...where does that get us? Nowhere positive. Dreadstar † 09:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Brevity is the soul of...

... and the edits to this essay are making it read like a political campaign piece, not a witty bit expressing views about what to call a spade. It's fine, but at this rate it may deserve to be renamed. Antelan ^talk 04:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we may be in danger of turning this essay into a five-legged WP:HORSE. --Newbyguesses - Talk 05:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Origins of the Spade

The following appears to be the earliest text of the essay: Users too often cite policies, like our policy against personal attacks, and our policy against civility not to protect themselves from personal attacks, but rather to protect their edits from review. Users who consistently engage in disruptive editing are disruptive editors. Users who consistently push a POV are POV pushers. Users who consistently vandalize are vandals. There is no need to dress up the way we address such users. While we must remain civil, calling a spade a spade is part of a reliable editor’s job.

It appears that this essay has been twisted around to dilute the original point completely. While it is important that we remain civil, it is also important to be honest and realistic. --Kevin Murray (talk) 11:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Honesty and reality don't require insults, name calling or labeling. Pointing out bad behavior is indeed part of a reliable editor's job.. but attacking an editor or a group by calling them "nutjobs", even if in your opinion they are nutjobs, is not good behavior on our part. If this essay is to remain in place, it needs to reflect the realities of WP:CIV and proper behavior on Wikipedia. There are plenty of flame sites out there for those who like to call others names, spade all you like there. If this essay is so twisted because it doesn't allow for name calling and other insults, then by all means...delete it...or write it so that while it describes all aspects of calling spades what they are, including the ways that hurt and insult people, then make sure it's clear that those extremes of behavior are not welcome on this project. Dreadstar † 11:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's not forget that this is just an essay, not a pivotal policy document. Antelan ^talk 17:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Some editors seem to use it that way, and some at the very least as an excuse to attack other editors. Dreadstar † 18:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point that essay's contents are not based on consensus or else they would be guidelines. If you don't agree with the essay, put it up for MfD so the community can decide whether the minority can express its view through the essay. Watering down the essay[4] isn't the right way to do this. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not missing anything, thank you very much. There's nothing that says editors can't contribute to or try to change essays they don't agree with. If I feel the need to MfD it, I'll do it...no worries on that count. The point I'm trying to make is that certain editors use this essay to be uncivil and create hostile environments...even unto applying it to the subjects of articles. I think one can call a spade a spade on Wikipedia, but it needs to be done in a civil manner and in the right way - that's not watering down the essay, it's clarifying it. Dreadstar † 20:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Likelihood of constructive collaboration

I've rewritten the essay again,[5] and added this as an important caveat. No matter how civil the community is to trolls, vandals, sockpuppeteers, etc. I believe this essay rightly contents that such problematic editors are not going to suddenly repent and become productive wikipedians. WP:CIV isn't a suicide pact, and having to go thru absurd circumlocutions all across the wiki everytime we comment on the problematic behavioral trends of such editors is counterproductive to the goals of the project. Hopefully this version gets the point across that where there's the possibility of rehabilitation, incivility is still inexcusable. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

A "suicide pact"? Interesting analysis...never crossed my mind that any of this could be construed in such a manner. As far as being rude to trolls and the like, well, you know what they say about feeding trolls... Dreadstar † 17:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do, because, long ago, someone once called a troll a troll this one time and gave this advice. It was a real debacle for incivility, and all, but a net gain for the internet. Not being allowed to call a troll a troll would inhibit the sharing of such advice to newbies in a timely manner. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Extreme examples aren't what we're looking at here, we're looking at general behaviorial guidelines. Most trolls don't last long, and identifying who is a troll to a newbie is the least of our concerns. Who decides which editor is a troll or a vandal? Just anyone? The problem is editors who regularly use those terms as weapons instead of neutral and informative descriptions. I've been on the internet a long, long time, and I've seen a lot of things. I like Wikipedia because of the very civil environment it attempts to provide those who edit here. I can flame with the best of them, but I find it much more satisfying to make my point without insulting others. Dreadstar † 18:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Kendrick, you keep talking about not being "allowed" to call a troll a troll... what if it just turns out that it's a bad idea? Then, are you "allowed" to do it? Sure, but why would you do that, when you could do something better instead? Those of us arguing against calling spades spades aren't trying to make it "illegal", we're just trying to point out that there's a better approach. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to the wrong essay! You seem to be looking for WP:NOSPADE, which isn't trying to make calling a spade a spade a blockable offense, but points out that there's a better approach. Thanks for stopping by. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I'm not trying to change this essay! I haven't made any edits to it, ok? I have already agreed with you that rewriting SPADE as NOSPADE is a bad idea. I'm just having a conversation here, and apparently, you're telling me to go away? May we not discuss ideas?

When you said "not being allowed to call a troll a troll would inhibit the sharing of such advice to newbies...," what were you responding to? Who has ever suggested that anyone not be allowed to call a troll a troll? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Constructive collaboration isn't possible without establishing the importance a fundamental principle of any kind of collaboration; that collaboration is not about "you", (a larger "you" rather than anyone in particular) but is instead about the response "you" give to another editor. Collaboration is not about what "you" want to say, but about what the other editor in the interaction needs to be be able to participate and contribute. No good teacher, and teaching is a learning collaboration, comes into a class room, and thinks about himself or herself first, but must think about the student first and what each and every student needs. No good actor, and acting and performance are performing collaborations, even in a one man performance ... and thats a whole other discussion.... thinks about himself first but must respond first to the the other actor/actors. Thinking that an editor can come into a situation with a set of rules in place that gives you permission to not consider the individuality of each and every editor, each and every time you interact is not a scenario that can create real collaboration. Think about the other editor first, and what that editor needs to be productive and we as editors will be more productive, collaboration will flow, and the environment will be more comfortable to work in than in one where editors are considering themselves first. I believe there are "bottom lines" in the theories about how collaboration works successfully and this is one of them.(olive (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

Recent edits

User:Raymond Arritt, I think I see where your recent edits are going, they seem good enough and are likely to stand. To my mind, it is getting a bit wordy, and hedged with too many negatives and hints of bad consequences, without actually making the point more directly. It appears that the general sentiment on this page is to basically demote WP:SPADE, and replace it with WP:NOSPADE. I disagree with that idea, I think it will more likely facilitate an overall increase in incivility on en.Wikipedia, rather than a decrease; however, if that is the way we are going (with the essay I mean), then i am fine with that.

I note the input of user:little olive oil, these points though coming at a tangent it seems to the general debate, ought to be considered carefully, as I hope will the input of those of us at the periphery of the debate, who still seek to contribute constructively, even if a little outside the loop. Thanks --Newbyguesses - Talk 21:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand... what will facilitate an increase in incivility? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Further empowering [by spaying this essay SPADE (!)] those contentious editors who hide behind spurious claims of personal attacks whilst pursuing uncivil agendas, such as bullying is what I mean. The current trend towards mounting a witch-hunt against any hint of incivility in words, empowers those who wish to damage this site by importing off-wiki dramas and pursuing private agenda which breach our COI policies. I may not be expressing myself felicitously, but I believe that breaches of our NPOV, carried out under such cover, are a worse breach of Civility, than some harsh words, (Not excusing harsh words). Censorship of legitimate ideas, and writing that which is self-serving and unverifiable, these are egregious breaches of civility, as I define it. A murderer, for instance, has been uncivil to his victim and to society. A liar, a cheat is uncivil, that is how i see it. These things are worse than swearing, or invective, in my opinion. (doesnt excuse swearing!)

I do not think such persons should be empowered because a few namby-pambies are upset by plain speaking. Sorry if I aint speaking as plain as I might here! i do hope most people by now know where i stand, and what principles (NPOV) that I hold most dear. Not that I have any problems with the consensus which seems to be developing here, though I do wish i could get my point across. Thanks, --Newbyguesses - Talk 23:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this essay is being spayed, nor that anybody is being empowered to hide behind spurious claims of personal attacks. Why do we accept spurious claims of personal attack? What's stopping us from applying sound judgment in such cases?

There is a huge gulf between pointing out that name-calling is stupid and empowering people to hobble us with litigious claims. We're doing the former here, not the latter. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I didnt say "suicide pact". Now, I have read all the history of this page available, right to back when, and I reckon the essay came into place to address a legitimate need, or to express a legitimate point of view. I see the various arguments, which resulted in the rival esay, WP:NOSPADE, and I think that was a fair and well-reached position. But, as I said, i took the time to read back over this stuff, it does seem to me that this essay is currently being "neutered", which is definitely not the same as "neutral".

However that is the way the wind blows, and as I stay close to shore, there is no worry that i will be blown off-course, to distant and dangerous lands. Us fraidy-cats do not venture into deep waters. I liked this essay, and it now, as a matter of purely literary style, is getting wordy, self-contradictory etc, and has lost some of its charm.

Live and let live suits me, and I admire the application which users are capable of when they see the need, as is happening here, and damage from that quarter I do NOT fear. I am sure the ultimate result of our edits, and discussions will be one of which we can all be proud. Thanks --Newbyguesses - Talk 03:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Please provide examples

I am going to ask here for any user, or particularly user:Dreadstar, to please provide any recent non-trivial example of where a user has cited this essay, WP:SPADE to support an infringement of CIVIL or any other policy. The assertion has been made numerous times, unsupported by evidence, and I dont think it has happened. This is not to say that I oppose any user's right to update this essay. --Newbyguesses - Talk 20:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'd hate to single anyone out and then get attacked for it, but WP:SPADE has been specifically cited and used to justify calling others "morons", "thoroughly uninformed and misguided persons" and "liars", all in the same single paragraph. That's just one example of many. I myself have been called names and had WP:SPADE used to justify it. It's been used to defend calling many other editors, article subjects, and non-editors "woo-woos", "nutjobs", and a whole host of lovely names. Perhaps a little good faith could be used in gauging whether I know what I'm talking about or not. Perhaps some of the other editors here can supply diffs, if it's really necesssary. Believe me, I wouldn't be wasting my time here if I hadn't seen it happen again and again, to the point where I think it's a problem. Dreadstar † 20:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That's fair enough, I appreciate your tact in not naming names, where it was personal to you and some other editors. Were you able, in those instances, to redress the damage by making a winning argument against editors who had acted uncivilly? I would have thought that a user being uncivil, and quoting an essay as justification to breach a Policy would get the short end of the argument, especially if other editors "weighed in", which is how we deal with breaches of the civility policy. But dont feel you have to drag any previous unpleasantness up for our edification, I didnt mean for that to happen, my apologies. --Newbyguesses - Talk 20:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a recent case of an admin citing WP:SPADE to justify unjustified namecalling. I found it by using "What links here": Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive383#vandalism?. Of course the real issue there is that the admin in question is not familiar with WP:VAND#NOT, so it's perhaps not the best example. But I think it's not entirely irrelevant either. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Just new here and finding my way around...looked at the Civility policy after I read where someone tried to justify a personal insult using "spade".

Doesn't this entire essay more or less conflict with "Comment on the actions and not the editor" found in the civility policy? Dosk7 (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Insofar as it hasn't been rewritten to correct for that problem, yes. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

More or less, as you say, so this essay still has a point. It's a matter of degree. E.g. when a new user adds a tangentially relevant link, we can say in the edit summary: 1. "Removed link that was only tangentially relevant." 2. "Reverted good faith link spam." 3. "Reverted good faith vandalism." 4. "Reverted vandalism." 5. "Reverted spammer." 6. "Reverted vandal." WP:NPA says that 5/6 is not OK. 1 is clearly OK, and in my opinion this essay should say that 2 (and perhaps 3) is also OK, and it's bad form to accuse someone of doing 4.

The conflict here seems to be about the two aspects: What are we allowed to do? What are we allowed to complain about? --Hans Adler (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a useful distinction, although I'm not too sure about couching it in terms of "allowed". What ought we do, and how ought we react when someone is uncivil? Does that make sense? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's a slightly different aspect, with which I also agree. I chose "allowed" for symmetry with "allowed to complain". --Hans Adler (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and people are bound to approach a page such as WP:CIVIL with questions in mind such as, "what am I allowed to do?" or "what is the other guy not allowed to do?". It seems that our efforts on a page such as this (or NOSPADE, or whatever it ends up being called) are directed towards getting editors not to look for violations with which to charge another, but to provide better strategies than indictment for dealing with incivility. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

If I might weigh in, with a purely pedantic, and semantic proposition; to my way of thinking, there is a difference between "assuming good faith", and "the assumption of good faith"; in other words there is the question of noun, or verb, which was discussed much previously. Now, we are making similar distinctions between "allowed", and "accusing" and stuff,

In fact,now that I think about it, the distinction we want is between calling an edit a "spade" and calling an editor a "spadey thing". Just clarifying, I think. Thanks --Newbyguesses - Talk 00:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a pretty fundamental question: when you've been wronged, what needs to happen? Is there a necessity that some justice be exacted? Lots of people want that. Does the desire that "violations" be noted and sanctions issued conflict with the desire for progress, neutrality, etc?

The questions go on: What can we fairly expect from people, as far as putting up with abuse? When someone is pushed past their frustration threshhold, what is the best way to de-escalate the editor in a way that leads to their retention as an editor, and a positive change in their handling of similar situations? I'm pretty sure I can't rattle off answers to all of these. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, I count five question marks in that post. A) Run away, lick your wounds stay to fight another day. B) Yes, if enough people want to, because they have been hurt, and don't want such hurts to continue to occur. C) Yes, noting all violations is time-wasting. We can't achieve a zero-tolerance regime. D) Put up with it, until Fred your neighbour, and your cousin and the visiting accountant and the shop-keeper etc. all weigh in and say hmmm there's a problem here. Thats how it gets sorted out. E) Take a wiki-break. Go work on another article. Topic-ban, by community decision. Come back, refreshed or burn-out is a personal matter.

Just drafty answers here and, by the way, my answering these questions therefore implies there are bound to be vast numbers of answers I cannot ever give, without your help that is. --Newbyguesses - Talk 01:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Related essay

I've started a new essay WP:Bait which addresses certain issues that some of us have been trying to shoehorn into the SPADE essay. Maybe the two can complement one another. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

wow.. i agree 64.131.204.90 (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Why a duck?

Has the section entitled The duck test ever been any longer? This bit seems to get linked to often, and is the under-pinning of many investigations. It is a justification for something we do not usually allow in article-space, but which is necessary when a whole complex of previous and current actions need to be examined: the synthesis of ideas to show that a conclusion is valid. As it reads currently, the Duck Test doesn't really hold water, and that is a bad thing. Either it belongs in a separate place, and gets expanded, or we lose it, and lots of people will miss out on their roast Duck for dinner. Seriously, does it need beefing up, or poaching, grilling or deep-frying? --Newbyguesses - Talk 03:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That section currently does read like an awkward hybrid, doesn't it? Check out its history:

The first bit was added in November '06, and the shortcut and a few words were added in early '07. That summer, the first "watering down" or "fixing" of the page happened. Althouh that was largely reverted, the game was on, and it wasn't long before the duck test grew a caveat... and that's where we stand now.

I think the reason it gets cited so much is that people use "WP:DUCK" as a euphemism for "troll", as in "Ignore him, per WP:DUCK." That's my suspicion, anyway. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The duck bit should be spun off to WP:DUCK. I can sort of see its relation to WP:SPADE (calling a duck a spade? hmmm...) but DUCK has broader applicability in less contentious areas than SPADE. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec with raymond)- Ok. I was under the impression that DUCK was useful, and used, when someone wanted to say: "I have looked at <these edits> and <these posts> and <this guideline> and <these POV issues> and <what the sock-puppet had to say> and <the way the wind blows> and, taking all of these into account, I smell DUCK." (ie. a synthesis of points, which may all be minor and inconclusive, but add up to something conclusive taken all together). So, we dont want to kill the duck that lays these golden eggs, do we? And for the dreaded "trolls" we have WP:DFTT, and good riddance!

I agree with Raymond, it is probably best to spin this out into its own article WP:DUCK. Thank you,-Newbyguesses - Talk 04:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Not having examined "what links here", I can't say whether DUCK is generally used to say "coughtroll" (*nudge, nudge*), or whether it's generally used to talk about sniffing out socks (eew!) of banned users. I guess that's an empirical question, but I don't go through that many links at this hour of night. I don't see why anybody would mind spinning it off to its own page. That in no way guarantees that somebody won't, of course. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Good. I made a slight addition, the section needs a little expanding if it gets spun off. Probably take the "No Jack Kennedy" section with it. Don't know what will be left of SPADE then, maybe look at merging with NOSPADE, with any other ideas from the DRAFT? --Newbyguesses - Talk 05:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Proof of duckiness

Dreadstar removed Newbyguesses' edit to the DUCK section with the summary: "distracts from the point of this section. If it looks like a duck but doesn't think it's a duck, then gently and kindly provide proof to the duck so it realizes what it is."

I'm wondering, is that actually good advice? How does that translate into practical terms, exactly? Do we explain to people we see as trolls and POV-pushers that they really are trolls and POV-pushers? This seems like a bad idea, because they generally don't see themselves as those things because of some belief they hold about the world.

The paragraph in DUCK seems to recommend telling people, "see, here's why I'm telling you that following the dictates of your own conscience is somehow a bad-faith action, because I know your mind better than you know yourself." Has that ever helped a situation? What's it supposed to do, de-escalate the person? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The content I removed doesn't help with the problem you're describing. I totally agree that this entire "essay" is bad advice, including the duck section. However, if it's going to stay, then it should clearly state that "shouting at the duck is bad", where "shouting" means "name calling" and "insulting" the duck. But you're right, the "prove to the duck that it's actually a duck" is not the best way to phrase it, so...I made a minor change that perhaps helps mitigate the sharpness of the pecker's beaks. Dreadstar † 06:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that a solution like that (± whatever grammatical/aesthetic tweaking) makes sense. That's a good edit. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Dreadstar, those edits look fair enough, but I am wondering, what if we spin the whole "duck" and "Kennedy" bits off into a new essay? They deserve being dis-ambigged that way, I think. Read the above section. Is there then enough left at WP:SPADE? (Have a look, I think SPADE reads quite well, without the Ducky bit.) Thanks, --Newbyguesses - Talk 08:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Olive, I wanted (belief that it probably is) an Anatidaen to reinforce the original quote and convey to the reader it is just someone's belief it's a duck verses the duck's belief it isn't. Also ("if the duck grows up") tried to be an allusion the duck would not grow up if they were driven away. Perhaps I did not have convey that very well. Do you think those analogies are worth trying to work back into the section? Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Why not? I'll give it a try. Perhaps you should fiddle with it too if its not right.(olive (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC))

Everyting can be improved, but I like it.Ward20 (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

What about terrorist?

Wikipedia has a whole list of words to avoid, including terrorist, sect, myth. How can these two guidelines co-exist? Emmanuelm (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC) (cross-posted in Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid)

What is a spade

Can someone join the Spade and Nospade in an essay titled What is a spade, because I seem to have trouble understaning either of the two. I am a new editor, and I have no idea how Wikipedia works, so keep it in layman terms, so me simple Joe can get the gist of the topic at hand! If you have trouble joining the two, then have one essay tell what is a Spade and the other essay what is not a Spade. But today, they both tell me, No Spade, No Spade, No Spade It is like saying, I am not a Troll stop calling me that or I will report you to ANI Igor Berger (talk) 05:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh... Neither essay says anything that's particular to Wikipedia. It's just the ordinary truth that, if you make it clear that you think someone is working from ulterior motives, then you've already given up on collaborating with them. Don't worry about this essay or the other; just remember that we're working on a free collaborative encyclopedia, and that we're all in it together. If you stay focused on that, then the question of "what is a spade" will never even arise. Calling someone a troll has never made any situation better, and neither has reporting anyone to ANI for calling someone a troll. Those are both unproductive; we're here to be productive. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of us are, anyway. Raymond Arritt (talk) 08:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

We're here to be productive. Anyone who isn't will get bored and leave pretty quickly... unless someone decides to make it fun for them by "calling a spade a spade". -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, no. I can think of a couple of folks who love to waste people's time with endless circular arguments on talk pages, contributing nothing. I ignore them but inevitably someone gets sucked into their nonsense. Raymond Arritt (talk) 08:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

So are we suppose to Feed Trolls just to entertain thier fantasies? If a Troll is not happy because he cannot delete an article and he runs around Wikipedia talking shit do we just indulge him? Should we say oh you poor Troll, we feel bad you are not allowed to delete this article. Here use Wikipedia as a playground!!! Really stupid, if you ask me! Trolls, socks, POV pushing SPA, that is what they are, not established editors. So, please Do not feed Trolls DUCKS are DUCKS not Swanes! Igor Berger (talk) 11:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Feeding trolls?

No. I'm not suggesting that you feed trolls. I'm suggesting the opposite. You know what feeds trolls? How can we tell? Well, examine what they laugh the loudest and longest at. You know what that is? It's people going off in all caps with statements like "DUCKS are DUCKS not Swanes!" When you make such statements, trolls eat well. Don't take my word for it; look at their websites and see how they hoot and laugh and thrive when people call them DUCKS and trolls.

Raymond, there may be people who "love to waste people's time with endless circular arguments", but we don't have to let them waste our time. These "endless circular" arguments are actually easy to dispense with if we stay focused. If you make it worth their while, they'll stay. So don't do that. That doesn't mean to call them names. It means to respond effectively. There's no circular argument that need waste our time. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I ignore those people myself, but you missed the point. I was objecting to the common generalizations that everyone is here for constructive purposes, that we must AGF of everyone at all times (unless they say a bad word or make a remark that someone somewhere might possibly consider impolite), and so on. There really are more than a few jerks around here. Ignoring them is best, but sometimes the project would benefit if we say openly (especially to warn new participants, or perhaps in an RfC) that someone is only here to waste others' time and it's best that they are ignored. But WP:CIV and WP:NOSPADE say we can't do that. Instead, we have to let the newbie wander into the minefield, or twist and turn our words in an RfC so that we walk a fine line between obeying WP:CIV and having to tell a lie. Which seems more uncivil to me than warning them off, or responding honestly to the RfC, but... whatever. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's get empirical. I can cite cases where people called people spades, and the trolling continued, and then when someone took a different approach, and dealt with them professionally instead, the trolling stopped. Show me a case where "calling a spade" has actually been helpful, ever. Otherwise, I'm not buying it, because my personal experience tells me otherwise.

As for the "common generalization" that we "must AGF of anyone at all times", I'd like to see where that's been claimed. I don't believe it, and I don't know anyone who believes it. Is it a "common generalization", or is it a straw man? Do you think I'm taking that position here?

I know where to find the diffs supporting my claim here, just give me a few hours. I'd like to see diffs showing that "calling a spade a spade" has ever helped a situation.

I would say that you're also presenting a false dichotomy: we either have to tell people that someone is best ignored, or else "let the newbie wander into the minefield, or twist and turn our words in an RfC so that we walk a fine line between obeying WP:CIV and having to tell a lie" That sounds terrible, and like nothing I would ever advocate. I would advocate a third approach, which is to be professional about it. Why not talk about some position I'm actually advancing, instead of one that nobody here holds? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

...can cite cases where people called people spades...??

It's not about calling a person a DUCK, it is about labelling a set of circumstances as suspicious after the Duck Test is applied. Not about name-calling for people, which (CIVIL sanctions). IS about labelling of "a set of circumstances" as worthy of further investigation, or as showing strong signs of likelihood that a particular proposition obtains. Discuss edits, not editors. And keep inter-personals on a low, low flame. --Newbyguesses (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean about "labeling a set of circumstances as worthy of further investigation". What does that mean? Is there really a need to create such a label, or wouldn't we just start investigating further, and talk directly about results? I suspect I'm not fully understanding you here. I certainly agree with your last two sentences there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A fine line

I think, directing a label at a person is an insult and incivil. Saying to an editor "you are a troll" should get a block. But to say this editor trolling an article, maybe justified as an expression of reference to the action being done by that editor. Yes how we use it and when we use can be problematic. To say that about establish editor is no good. But an SPA editor? If you say too many times they are trolling an article, you can say they are a troll. But you still cannot say to the editor directly, "you are a troll", because it becomes a personal insult per WP:NPA. Igor Berger (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with saying that someone is trolling, is that trolling is defined in terms of intent, not in terms of specific actions. Simply asking a question is not trolling; asking it with intent to disrupt is trolling. How can we tell the difference?

The best reason not to say, "you are a troll," is not that it's an "NPA violation" or something like that. The best reason not to say, "you are a troll," is that saying it is utterly useless, whether true or false. Our goal is always to be useful, not useless. Even if there were no NPA policy, calling people trolls would be a foolish idea. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is simply counter-productive to call someone as trolling (or, a "troll"). This alternative might work (not in all cases) : Look at [DIFF] and [DIFF] which simply repeat themselves, and don't answer the questions which were put. Please answer the questions, and stop repeating this stuff. Or something like that. (Right, User GTBacchus, now I am pretty sure that we agree fundamentally, but there is a mis-understanding of contexts or terminology, it spreads over a number of posts, no matter, it will gell at some point.) --Newbyguesses (talk) 06:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This earlier break was inserted later, for conveniences.

<-- Example : right and wrong ways to discuss disruptive editting.

A) Over at talk:Blah, User:Bigmouth is constantly trolling, and acting like a dic-. Bigmouth is a dic- - WRONG! WRONG!

B) At [WP talk:Blah] , [User:Bigmouth] posted [DIFF] and [DIFF]. The first insults User:Poorboyo, and the second post is a rant, and also incivil. There are other instances, some as recent as yesterday [DIFFs]. Would User:Bigmouth please Stop this kind of behaviour, or perhaps take a break from editting [WP:Blah]. RIGHT!

(Yes, no, comments?) --Newbyguesses (talk) 06:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, time for a concrete example based on real experience. Let's suppose UserX is a long-term timewaster, someone who does nothing but argue on talk pages. He has demonstrated that he has zero knowledge of the topic at hand in terms of basic principles or the published literature. Rarely, he will make a controversial edit to an article in order to keep the back-and-forth going (being perfectly aware that such edits have been soundly rejected by consensus in the past). He's smart enough to skate right up to the line on WP:CIV and WP:NPA without quite going over. In other words, he's a CIVIL troll. Some of the regulars know enough to ignore him. New participants UserY and UserZ wander in, and UserX makes a provocative comment to them. The regulars think "uh oh, here it comes." Is it fair to tell UserY and UserZ "be forewarned, this guy loves to waste people's time in endless, unproductive argumentation?" Raymond Arritt (talk) 10:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"Civil Troll" a new kind of breed? Yes I agree calling someone a "Troll" directly or indirectly is not productive. But refering to editor's behavior as "trolling" and alerting the community maybe. Should we have a new board? "Troll alerts" Igor Berger (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

How is calling someone's behavior "trolling" different from calling them a "troll"? The very definition of "trolling" involves intent, which we can't read. Calling someone's behavior disruptive is one thing. Calling it intentionally disruptive is unwarranted, and likely to waste time. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(Comment) Yes, Raymond, of course remember no DIFFs, it didn't happen. (comment, only) --Newbyguesses (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A "troll alert board" sounds like a terrible idea: something we would do if we've decided we're not here to write an encyclopedia, but to play at some kind of moral roulette instead. If you refer to someone's actions as "trolling", you're coming right out and saying that you think the person is more interested in disruption than in improving the project, and we cannot know that.

People can be incredibly insane, or stupid, in millions of ways, and many of them might come across as intending disruption, but most people are actually interested in making the encyclopedia "better", according to their understanding of the "good".

Raymond, in your example, it would be inappropriate to say "be forewarned, this guy loves to waste people's time in endless, unproductive argumentation". How do you know what he "loves"? Maybe what he would love most is for the article to reflect his POV, which he sees as "neutral". If you want to let users Y and Z know what's going on, just state calmly and professionally that this issue has been addressed before, and point them to a previous instance of it. If the behavior is truly incessant, then you can pursue dispute resolution on the grounds that user X's edits are disruptive, but not on the grounds that you can read their mind and determine them to have malicious intent. Their intent should never come up, because it is a topic that is extremely likely to waste time. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

*sigh*... so we do let the newbie wander into the minefield. That hardly seems civil. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you got that from what I said. We point out to the newbie that the question has been addressed before, and we show them where. How is that the same as "letting them wander into the minefield"? I'm quite honestly confused by your reply. Are you suggesting that communication is crippled unless we can say "he loves to waste time"? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

So we put the onus on the newbie for inadvertently taking the bait? That hardly seems fair. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I said either. We point out to the newbie that the topic has been discussed at length, and we show them where. How is that putting an onus on them for inadvertently taking bait? Can you help me out here? Are we talking about the same thing? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

We point out to the newbie that the topic has been discussed at length, and we show them where. -- True dat. Though things get discussed and then have a habit of being shuffled off to the archives. An' some of our Archives are v. looong. --NewbyG (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That's true. Sometimes, we do end up repeating ourselves a lot, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. The difficulty in finding things in the archives also points to another solution for particularly contentious articles which is to organize the talk page archives. This has been tried on some articles (Evolution, I believe?), and it makes pointing to the history much easier. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Convinience break

Look, I agree with you calling editors Trolls, or even saying an editor is Trolling is not productive. But when a DUCK behaves like a DUCK, and you tell the DUCK, "You are not an uglly duckling but a beautiful swane, please stop acting like a DUCK, be more gentle and people will respect and listen to you. But the duck says' "Quak, Quak!" and walk away forgeting everything you said, goes back to Troll the same article in the same way. Other editors try talking to a DUCK, but the DUCK keeps Trolling the same article. What do you do next? Igor Berger (talk) 23:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You run an RfC, and you shine more light on what's going on. If someone is disruptive, the community will tell them to go away (community ban), and it will happen more quickly if you let the disruption speak for itself. Describe it, but don't label it. At no point will calling them a DUCK be more productive than not doing so.

Furthermore, I'm not sure why you think I'm suggesting saying, "please be more gentle and people will respect and listen to you". You can actually be quite firm without indulging in labeling. Firmness and frankness do not in any way require incivility or an unprofessional tone. We do not have to tolerate disruption, and we do not have to label people. You don't ever have to decide that they're "trolling" the article, simply that they're being disruptive. "Trolling" implies that you know their intention, but you don't. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to make it in a polemic argument - debate for the sake of debating, or even say that you are wrong, which I am not saying. But if you file SSP, the Troll goes to ANI. This is tit for tat. How do you deal with such a behavior? The Troll turns around and calls you a Troll, eventhough he been editing only a month under the account. And who knows how long under other accounts. So sticking one's neck out to do SSP or any other reports is not healthy. Especially on controversial articles. The Troll, The Duck, The Swane, or a good faith editor, how you call the Rose if it is just a flower by any other name, is not important. How you deal with it and how you fix the problem is. Igor Berger (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean, "the troll goes to ANI". What does he say there? Something you can respond to, right? Do they call you a troll? Can't you defend yourself, and point out that you're being productive, and that it's unhelpful for them to speculate as to your motives. Heck, get me, and I'll tell them that, just as energetically as I'm telling you now. I've dealt with plenty of trolls, but I've never been called a troll back, or if I have, I've laughed it off.

Anyway, the way you deal with it is to stay very focused on the articles and the edits. You make it very clear by your productive contributions that you're not a troll, and then you're bulletproof. Does this approach not work, in your experience? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, without going into it too deeply, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Igorberger harassment, Igor has been called a "troll", and Igor calls editors "trolls". And, it has NOT been helpful, sigh. --NewbyG (talk) 02:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The Ugly Duckling

Ya know, I am just as fond of the Ugly Duckling story as the next person, but as a matter of bald logic, that particular story belongs in an essay entitled Wikipedia:Don't call a spade a spade. Wouldn't it be better over in that essay, not this one? --Newbyguesses - Talk 03:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Quackitty quack. --NewbyG (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Has anyone considered the idea of merging Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade with Wikipedia:Don't call a spade a spade and placing it on a title like Wikipedia:Should we call a spade a spade? It seems that with the discussion over some points in SPADE being more appropriate for NOSPADE and such, we might as well merge the two, and discuss both points together, since while on their faces they seem separate and opposing, they overlap quite a bit. What do you think? SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think a merge seems a good idea at this time. Probably no need for a new name, most of the material here would fit well into Wikipedia:Don't call a spade a spade. --Newbyguesses - Talk 19:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Quack. --NewbyG (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, while both mostly recommend against, or at least call for discretion, I would recommend retitling because it does indeed state that spades are spades, and ultimately it leaves the spade-calling to the Wikipedian to decide. Of course, we should pick a title for purposes of page history, and then perform a move on that title, but I believe a new name is necessary. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I oppose this merge. It is true that the meaning of Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade has been changed by many small edits until it now argues against speaking frankly, but that is not a good thing and, hopefully, is not a permanent thing. Cardamon (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Cardamon, why do you say that the current essay "argues against speaking frankly"? It doesn't seem that way to me at all; which bit in particular suggests that we not be frank? In my understanding, there's no conflict between speaking frankly and avoiding name-calling, which I think is what the essay argues against. Does that seem right? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, question: I'm not that fond of the fact that "spade" also argues against, either, but why not merge the concepts into a single article that treats them both together? SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the argument for "calling a spade"? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes that is right, User GTBacchus. The article argues against "name-calling". It used to argue for frankness. That is all good, but "consensus can change". Waiting, still thinking about the merge, as other opinions a have now been voiced. Cheers --Newbyguesses (talk) 03:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, WP:SPADE is being used to justify uncivil behavior, such as name-calling. There's a big difference between being "frank" or "direct" and being rude, insensitive and blunt...and believe me, spade is being routinely used to justify and excuse some egregious personal attacks - so yes, this needs to be strongly addressed. Dreadstar † 18:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think calling a spade a spade can be fine. Calling a person a spade is ridiculous. Name-calling is unhelpful at all times, or un-civil. But we need to be able to call a DIFF a DIFF, and call a post an "unhelpful" post. Now sometimes people go on to say "an editor is being unhelpful" or even "an editor is an unhelpful editor". Those are name-calling, but I think people are going to say such things. In some circumstances, blocks could be enacted. But, what does that all mean for this essay? --Newbyguesses (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, if that were indeed the limit of the name-calling and labeling, this wouldn't be an issue...but the problem is far worse than that, and it is being used to justify calling a person a spade. WP:SPADE isn't an article in Wikipedia about the meaning, origin and usage of call a spade a spade, it's a Wikipedia essay, which means it addresses "some aspect of creating and managing an online encyclopedia" (Wikipedia).

Saying "that's an unhelpful edit" or "your edits appear to be vandalism", is quite different than shouting names at editors you disagree with...there's nothing "frank" about calling another editor a "disruptive, wikistalking, pov-pushing troll" or a "moron" or "crank" or "idiot." And that's the kind of behavior this essay was being used to justify. That has to stop. It needs to be very clear what is allowed and what isn't. WP:SPADE isn't a license to call whomever you like, whatever name you personally feel is justified, nor should it allow you to attack other editors.

Besides, I don't see where the current version of WP:SPADE disallows an editor from calling a "DIFF a DIFF," or calling "a post an 'unhelpful' post," or even saying "an editor is being unhelpful", although one should be wary of poisoning the well when making statements like "an editor is an unhelpful editor". Dreadstar † 01:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we should be chaging ANI board name to "Pot don't call a Kettle black!" Igor Berger (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

More like "Pot don't call Kettle butthead!"...;) Dreadstar † 05:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If SPADE is cited in calling [Editor:example] a 'moron", that is uncivil, but it is just plain wrong in logic, and should be shot down in flames by a crushing counter-argument. We don't need essays to do our thinking for us.

I am entirely on the side of putting as much BITE into CIVIL as possible; I would send SPADE to Mfd in a second if I was convinced it was an unhelpful essay to us at en.wikipedia. We can continue this discussion, though, if it addresses "some aspect of creating and managing an online encyclopedia" (Wikipedia). --Newbyguesses (talk) 06:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Jack Kennedy test

I don't get this bit. How is it a "test"? How is a story about Lloyd Bentsen making Dan Quayle look bad in a 1988 debate related to editing Wikipedia?

Is the application supposed to be that if you deflate someone with a condescending insult, then.... you win? Does it mean anything that the debate in question actually hurt the Dukakis/Bentsen ticket more than it helped? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking from the other end of the world I am even more puzzled because I have never heard of any of these people (except John F. Kennedy of course, who I have never before heard referred to as "Jack"). So I find this section quite distracting. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about it more, I guess the idea is that, if someone is comparing himself to "Jack Kennedy" (claiming some position of prominence or authority?), then it's appropriate to call them out, and point out that they aren't what they claim to be. I guess that makes it clear to observers that the person is a phony. I can't say I think it's good advice, but I guess I see what it's saying. That's not altogether clear from its wording. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

...

What kind of namby-pamby foolishness turned an essay on calling a spade a spade into an essay that says that if you call a spade a spade, you'll probably be blocked, so best to be ever-so-civil and NEVER, EVER dare say anything that will ever offend anyone? Are we trying to build an encyclopedia, or practice before we have tea with the queen? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

In any case, calling a spade a spade when it comews to discussing article content is important and productive. It's NECESSARY to call, say, a problematic source a problematic source. It's necessary to be able to point out problems with a suggested addition. And, if someone's edits are truly egregious, over many months... well, dammit, call a spade a spade and do something about it =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps an example would help: Here's me calling a spade a spade on an article talk page, deconstructing why I find a suggested wording inappropriate. [6]. This does not mean I do not respect Dave souza, the creator of the content I'm criticising. But calling a spade a spade makes points clear, prevents miscommunication, and allows for productive discussion on how to move forwards. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Your viewpoint is expressed in a refreshingly forthright manner. Call a spade a spade was the original gist of this essay; a companion piece Wikipedia:Don't call a spade a spade was got under way. If you examine the "Merge Discussion" above, and the revision history, you will see how these two essays have now seemingly come together. There have been some suggestions as to how to proceed, so how would you proceed, Thanks --NewbyG (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the sensible part of calling a spade a spade comes to dealing with content issues and arguments. If a source doesn't really support the comment, say so. If yu've looked at a study that someone has used, and find major problems with it, tell them so on the talk page. If it seems a suggested wording would confuse rather than assist, then by all means say so. So long as you're dealing with content and arguments, but stay polite when discussing with the person making them, calling a spade a spade makes discussions clearer and helps solve problems much more quickly.

What you don't want to do is call a spade "the sorriest excuse for a spade you ever saw". Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're totally right. Haven't read it recently, but has this essay really come to the point where you can't say a spade is a spade, like "That's a really bad source for the statement"? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well no it hasn't come to that. Or, yes it has come to that. It depends which way you look at it. --NewbyG (talk) 02:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I do think this essay goes just a little too far. It should be modified basically to say that this is usually the best policy, but, for example, sometimes you do use the term "POV pushing" about certain edits, or whatever. In other words, I've never been at a loss to express myself within the CIV policy, but I do feel that sometimes saying exactly what the situation is, is the correct way to proceed. Even if that means you say that an edit is POV pushing. It almost never comes to that point. At that point, for me, it is a warning that I'm going to do something, like get mediation or report. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If you think that a source or an edit is a "spade", call it that. If you think that a contributor is a "spade", keep your judgment to yourself, and proceed based on encyclopedic grounds, not based on your conclusions about someone else's motivations. Right?

Should the essay say that trying to be diplomatic is a bad idea, when dealing with people whom you consider to be sufficiently wrong? -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If the point of this and the Don't call a spade... essays is to play advocates for the opposing viewpoints, then yes, probably. And, certainly, if noone expresses concern with the trends in a user's behaviour, then why would they change? So politely expressing concern does have its place, and we should explain how to politely do so. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't assume that the point of this and the other essay are to oppose each other. If one of the two opposing viewpoints is destructive or wrong, then I hope we would avoid endorsing that one. as for politely expressing concern with an editor's behavior, I'm pretty sure nobody has ever been against that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it was a good idea that these would be two essays espousing opposing viewpoints; perhaps it could be thought of as having different strategies for different occasions, and that that difference concerns a sanction against the labelling of editors with disparaging names, which can be made clear by considering both essays, or merging them. As has been previously discussed in preceding sections . The current state of both essays is , I think, a little unclear. --NewbyG (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Honesty

I find this edit by Raymond Arritt somewhat troubling. Is asking editors to be honest really "jarringly inconsistent with the preceding material"? Is there anything on this page that says "be dishonest"? What's going on there? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a disconnect with the rest of the paragraph, which discusses how one should avoid giving an opening for accusations of incivility and such. Out of nowhere suddenly comes "always practice honesty." So yes, it's jarring. If you want to say that none of the preceding discussion implies that we can't be honest, it would be better to build it into a coherent paragraph on its own. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not wanting to say anything, so much as asking whether this page currently advocates dishonesty, in your opinion, or in anyone's? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it advocates dishonesty as such. But it doesn't advocate complete honesty, either. There's not always a dichotomy. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I added 'And always ... honesty' in response to a previous good edit. The essay Wikipedia:Honesty is good. Actually, And to always practise honesty -- it was meant to jar a little, as a stylistic measure, but maybe it just doesn't fit precisely there anyway. It was meant to suggest that maybe both or either of the editors might make an honest mistake, I was reflecting on that, and trying to round out the paragraph. --NewbyG (talk) 02:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with what Raymond said. The sentence fragment about honesty was jarring and not well integrated into the preceding material; it didn't fit with the rest of the essay. If you really want the essay to say something about frankness and honesty, then as Raymond says, it would be better to build at least a coherent paragraph on the subject, rather than just suddenly sticking "And always be honest" at the end of a paragraph that seems to be about something else; it's a question of composition. It's not that the rest of the essay advocates dishonesty and then the sentence fragment about honesty is jarring in contrast; it's more that the essay seems to be about something else entirely (being nice, I guess), and then the sentence fragment about honesty seems to be tacked on out of nowhere.

It seems to me that last time I read this essay, it advocated frankness and honesty, within reason; I found it very intelligent and refreshing. But now I can't see a great differentiation between this page, WP:CIVIL as it now reads, and Don't Call a Spade a Spade. All of these now kind of say the same thing (be nice) and I'm not sure why they even need to be different pages. I'm curious what the section on the duck test said before it turned into a children's story about how if you shout at the duck the duck will quack at you and if you're nice to the duck, the duck will turn into a swan. Surely it didn't always read that way? Woonpton (talk) 02:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the essay advocates dishonesty - indeed, if it does, we should fix that. I think what the essay advocates is staying on topic, which doesn't really have anything to do with honesty or dishonesty.

This essay has converged with WP:NOSPADE, which is a bit odd. The trouble is, this essay had been used far too much as a justification for making personal attacks, on the grounds that the person being attacked is a "spade". The essay has been drifting away from that idea, and in the direction of not calling people names after all. Making this into an essay about frank honesty that doesn't involve disparaging other editors sounds dandy. Like I said in another section above: if an edit or a source is bad, call it bad. If you think a person is bad, keep it to yourself.

One small point - it doesn't say the duck will turn into a swan; it says he might turn out to have always been one. That's rather different. What the duck test used to look like can be found in the history; see this version for example. As you can see, it didn't really say much. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has said they think the essay advocates dishonesty; I certainly haven't. My point was that the essay as it stands now doesn't advocate honesty or dishonesty, so why suddenly stick in an exhortation to be honest? Your question was: does the essay advocate dishonesty? My answer: no, I don't think so. But neither does it really say anything that's not said as well elsewhere, say on WP:CIVIL. Ducks are ducks and swans are swans, its unlikely that what looks like a duck could turn out to have always been a swan. Having never shouted "It's a duck" at ducks or swans, I guess I'll have to take it on faith that this story will make people stop doing that. Woonpton (talk) 05:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you say here. The reason I thought someone might perceive that the essay advocates dishonesty is that Raymond didn't say in his edit summary, "this is jarringly off-topic", he said "this is jarringly inconsistent". I was trying to get at why he said "inconsistent".

As far as the likelihood of mistaking a swan for a duck... I've seen it done enough times to make it worth writing down. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that the edit in question was jarringly inconsistent, stylistically with the text that it followed. lol --NewbyG (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

But it startled us into realizing, because this little bit about honesty didn't fit with the rest of the essay, that the essay was no longer about honesty or frankness or clear expression, and that we wanted some of that back. So it was a good thing.Woonpton (talk) 03:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

From ducks to swans

No doubt I'm belaboring a vanishingly trivial point, especially since I think the whole page as it stands now is redundant to other pages that also advocate politeness and niceness and giving the other guy the benefit of the doubt, but this little duck analogy annoys me, because I like things to make sense, and it makes no sense. Even children like their stories to make sense. The Ugly Duckling story works because there was something from the beginning that didn't fit about this little duck. He didn't look like the other ducklings, didn't walk like the other ducklings, didn't feel like he belonged with the other ducklings; the other ducklings pecked at him and wouldn't let him play. He was a lonely and unhappy little duck. It was only when he grew up that everyone realized that there was a good reason for his differentness: he hadn't ever been a duck, and trying to be a duck had only made him unhappy, and now he could go and find the swans and be who he was and feel at home. The moral of the story: don't be afraid to be and celebrate who you are, even if you're different from those around you; maybe there's another group somewhere that you fit with better.

This story here tries to make the Ugly Duckling plot fit an entirely different moral: Don't assume someone fits in category x just because they have qualities you've decided are associated with category x. (An example: the apparently widespread assumption that anyone who comes into Wikipedia and figures out things quickly must be a sock puppet, because no one who is really new could possibly figure Wikipedia out so fast. That assumption, BTW, has never any made sense to me. They want no smart people in Wikipedia? They have engineered Wikipedia to be so incomprehensible that new people can't possibly figure out how it works, and if someone manages to figure it out anyway, there's got to be something subversive going on? I don't get it. But I digress). The Ugly Duckling story works because the duck was always recognizably different from the other ducks, and the reason for his differentness eventually became apparent; he belonged to another species altogether. Being nice to him, being mean to him, positive reinforcement, etc is irrelevant; either way, he's still a swan, and to tell the truth, anyone who ever took a clear-eyed objective look at him would never have mistaken him for a duck. A biologist certainly wouldn't have mistaken him for a duck. It was just that everyone assumed without thinking about it very much, that because he was in the duckling flock, he must be a duck, so they tried to make him conform to the norm of duckness even though he didn't look like a duck or act like a duck.

So what's that got to do with the essay at hand? Not much that I can think of. The principles underlying this section appear to be (1) the characteristics that are commonly associated with categories are often poorly drawn, not overly characteristic of all members of the category, can be characteristic of many that aren't members of the category, or are simply mistaken, so be careful about putting people into categories; you could be wrong. (2) it's not productive to call people names. These are both good principles that I would endorse. The duck thing is apparently here because in the old days it seemed to be arguing for a cursory look and quick judgment: if it acts like a duck, it must be a duck. We want to say that's no longer a good practice to follow, if it ever was. But in order to make that point, maybe you should just say: Let's not be so quick to judge people, and even if you're sure someone is a duck, you shouldn't ever call ducks ducks in the course of normal discussion or in edit summaries; it's not helpful. Just take it to COI or the sock place or ArbComm or whatever venue is appropriate. At any rate, why not just keep it to ducks and leave the swans out of it.

I agree with "Making this into an essay about frank honesty that doesn't involve disparaging other editors sounds dandy." I would endorse that effort wholeheartedly. I still think there is room for calling a spade a spade (meaning concepts, not people) and the essay WP:HONESTY doesn't serve the same purpose; it's about how lying is bad for the encyclopedia. This essay should be about not beating around the bush, saying straightforwardly what you mean, which is what it used to be about, and I don't think it should just be rolled into Don't Call a Spade a Spade or some other "niceness" essay. I'm sorry that the essay has been misconstrued by some to excuse calling names, but that doesn't mean it's not a good idea to advocate frankness and speaking your mind about issues, just because the basic idea has been sometimes misapplied to excuse insulting comments about people under the guise of honesty. I suppose this should probably win a prize for the longest post about the most trivial issue. Woonpton (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly welcome rewrites to that effect. The whole duck business could go away, as far as I'm concerned. As you point out, the adage about "if it walks like a duck" doesn't hybridize all that well with the Ugly Duckling story. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing

Most of these arguments User:Woonpton makes make good sense to me also, particularly essay about frank honesty that doesn't involve disparaging other editors sounds dandy. - This essay should be about not beating around the bush, saying straightforwardly what you mean, which is what it used to be about - be careful about putting people into categories; you could be wrong. - it's not productive to call people names. Yes, that post deserves a prize. --

To me, the point of WP:Honesty is to be honest not only with others, but with yourself also; acknowledge that one can be wrong, and make mistakes, and therefore refrain from making hasty judgements about others (even if others share the same characteristics) --

There is very much a case for retaining the idea of the Duck test, and determining where that would be useful (Hint, it is appropriate for investigations of sock-puppetry, it is not appropriate for people to get called names, that is really tiresome). --

The Ugly Duckling section belongs in Wikipedia:Don't call a spade a spade, obviously, I think it should be moved over there. --

Is no-one interested in pursuing a merge debate, is that just another false trail? --NewbyG (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems that we're agreed (no?) that the duck section belongs in Don't Call a Spade a Spade; could someone move it there, please? Every time I look at it, it annoys me for a different reason. Today it annoys me because Anatidaean is the group that ducks, swans and geese all belong to, so what are we saying exactly, when we say "If you believe that a duck is an Anatidaean, you should inform it of its duck-like behavior."? I can't make that mean anything informative But at any rate, it belongs in that other essay.Woonpton (talk) 03:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) Yeah, there seems to be some support for keeping SPADE and NOSPADE as separate essays, dealing with different questions. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Newby, but just to give credit where it belongs, the statement "Making this into an essay about frank honesty that doesn't involve disparaging other editors sounds dandy." was a quote from GTBacchus; I was just agreeing with it.

I take your point that the duck test may have its uses, but seems problematic here, as it does seem to encourage labeling individuals >calling names, and as such it may not serve the goal of advocating "frank honesty that doesn't disparage other editors." Woonpton (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That's all good, thanks. I am wondering now, maybe what WP:Spade is about is the difference between clear thought and direct speech, as opposed to hastily jumping to conclusions and expressing them indelicately? --

Jumping to dangerous conclusions without considering carefully, is that a way of acting dis-honestly? If an editor was always jumping to conclusions that were wromg and potentially harmful, their incivility would be causing problems. --

Maybe I am saying that being wrong about other people in such an incivil manner is a way of being dis-honest with oneself. --

Being wrong about facts is unfortunate; being wrong in making inferences about other people's motives, or mis-representing one's own motives, is uncivil, or perhaps dishonest in the sense I am construing here. --

The newer material in the essay does not gel fully with the old, but that is a normal part of the editing process. --NewbyG (talk) 00:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, you've just lifted my spirits considerably; after reading that previous discussion I was feeling like this is just an exercise in futility, like the people in prison camps who are kept busy moving a big pile of rocks one way one day and back the next day. But here I see a possible way forward, and I am going to think about this while I take a walk. Woonpton (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. The other thing about facts is, that you could just as likely be correct! That is the time to speak clearly, and call a spade a spade, when you have looked in to the matter reasonably thoroughly. Cheers! --NewbyG (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Drafted

Okay, I like the idea of valuing clear thought and direct speech, but I'm not sure I entirely agree with making the crucial distinction one between clear expression and jumping to unwarranted conclusions; I think maybe those two things are on different vectors. I'm still thinking about that.

What the people who rewrote this essay apparently wanted to say is that it's bad to call people names, but in the process, they threw out clear thinking and honest discrimination along with name-calling. There has to be a way to split clear-thinking from name-calling so as not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I've lost track of who the ducks and who the swans were supposed to represent, but there really are different species of individuals here, whose approach to building an encyclopedia, whose style of thinking and approaching information, and whose communication styles are quite different from each other. One group tends to a direct, forthright style; the other to an indirect, less straightforward style. I prefer the direct style myself; it makes communication straightfoward and uncomplicated and easy to understand. While we don't want name-calling, I also don't think we want an essay that suggests that a direct style of communication is bad, just because people who prefer a more oblique style don't like it or are inclined to misinterpret it as rude or abrasive or personally intended. (Again, let me stress that I'm not condoning name-calling here.) I hope those who want to get rid of name-calling don't mean to go further than that, to say that a direct, straightforward communication style should be discouraged.

Being so oversensitive that you see personal attacks where there are none, seems to me about as incivil as actually attacking someone. I would put that into Newby's category of a kind of jumping to conclusions that qualifies as dishonest. If the emerging civility policy encourages this kind of incivility while outlawing its inverse, I would have a problem with that, and this is where I take issue with this essay as re-written; it could be interpreted to mean that any direct or straightforward assessment of a situation should be avoided, because someone might take it personally and be offended. This attitude was apparent in the earlier discussion now archived, where people argued not only against calling names, but against saying negative things about anything, which taken to extreme could lead to, say, the position that giving a fringe viewpoint its proper (very small to nonexistent) weight is uncivil because it could make the fringe idea's proponents feel unwanted and devalued. It sounds ridiculous, but it's not more ridiculous than arguments I've seen on many fringe article talk pages, such as that it's uncivil to call an idea "pseudoscientific" because that's pejorative and disrespectful to the people who hold the idea. Again, way too much text, sorry. Woonpton (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking to see where I could start to move this in the direction we want it to go, and I personally think we should just start over.

I really have a problem with this passage: "Certain editors will take a statement, detached in tone, that negatively evaluates their work as a personal insult, no matter what. You should take this into consideration; it will often be the case that you can make a more positive suggestion, concerning improvements or modifications to the text that editor introduced." This seems overly solicitous. If there are editors who can't accept a neutral, detached observation about their work without seeing it as a personal insult, they don't belong in any kind of collaborative environment where they have to work with other people. It's possible this may fit somewhere, but surely not in an essay titled "Call a Spade a Spade" unless it's covered as an example of the incivility=dishonesty of jumping to unwarranted conclusions. Oh, Newby, I think I see how this can go, I think your idea will work. If I have time this weekend, I'll start a draft for your consideration. Maybe you're already writing one. Woonpton (talk) 04:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've started a draft and have taken it as far as I have time for just now. The ideas are somewhat disjointed and incomplete, but wanted to see if this is remotely in the direction of what you had in mind. Many of the sentences in there are directly lifted out of your posts, but of course you're not responsible for what I've done with them; feel free to delete or re-arrange. I've tried to incorporate your thoughts with some of my own.Woonpton (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this draft is off in entirely the right direction, I would say, for the lead section. Up to that point no "jargon" or adversarial infighting stuff is even mentioned. It's good, I think it should be suggested as a draft down below in a new thread. I want to see where those other conversations get to, though, there seems a lot going on, doesn't there. --NewbyG (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing if...

I think the important distinction to make is not between communicating directly and indirectly. It's about commenting on content versus commenting on contributors. If you're talking about content, then nobody is arguing that you have to be indirect. If you're talking about contributors, then no amount of directness or indirectness will make that productive.

If there are going to be two essays, which I think sounds great, then WP:SPADE could be about the virtues of communicating directly and frankly - bluntly even. It could help people who tend towards bluntness to understand that their way is valid and valued, and to avoid unnecessary conflict with differing ways, and conversely, it could help people who tend towards indirectness to understand and work better with more straightforward styles. That's an essay worth writing, but it should be clear that we're not suggesting that we label people as "spades" and call them out accordingly.

A separate essay, WP:NOSPADE could point out that being plain-spoken and direct does not imply name-calling. That essay could focus on how questions of motivation are irrelevant to the project of improving articles, and that trolls and POV-pushers are best dealt with in a dispassionate and professional manner. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, GTB, that's what everyone's been saying. The NoSpade essay has already been written, and it's fine as far as I can see, although of course if you think it can be improved, you're welcome. No one who has been arguing to return Call a Spade a Spade to some shadow of its original meaning has been arguing for advocating name-calling; I think to continue belaboring that point is beating a dead horse. Also, I don't think anyone has argued for making the essay about communicating directly vs indirectly; that part of my musings was simply to help me understand why the essay had reversed direction from frankness to niceness rather than just being tweaked to be about frankness without name-calling which is what I gather most people think it should be. It ended up disparaging frankness altogether, which went too far, and I was just wondering if a possible reason for that might be a distaste for frankness, even without name-calling. But that was a meta-discussion; I wasn't suggesting that it be part of the essay.

I just re-read your post, and I see that after beginning with the idea that the distinction to make isn't between communicating directly and indirectly, you go on to suggest that the essay be about telling people who communicate directly and people who communicate indirectly how to communicate more effectively with each other, in other words, making the distinction between people who communicate directly and those who communicate indirectly. That might be an interesting essay, but it doesn't belong under Call a Spade a Spade; it belongs somewhere else. Communicating Effectively with Others, maybe. The duck story might fit well there. If there is to be an essay Call a Spade a Spade (I get the impression some would like it to just be eliminated altogether) it should be about clear thought and direct speech. And no, I don't mean you should be able to call people names, and, frankly, :--) it rankles me a bit that I have to keep saying that. Five times should really be enough to be taken at my word. Woonpton (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Did I imply that you are in favor of name-calling? I hope not; I certainly am taking you at your word. I'm sorry for not being clearer about that. When I said we should be clear about not calling people spades, I just meant that it should be explicitly in the essay, and not assumed to be understood.

Mostly I was just thinking aloud about what an essay about direct speaking would look like. I don't think it would be about telling people how to communicate more effectively; I think it would be about the virtues of direct communication, as I said above. The part about helping people understand each other better would be a welcome side-effect. That was the intended substance of my comment above. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ducking the merge question

For why these two essays have converged, you might want to look back in the archives as far, or further, than October 2007 at Wikipedia talk:Call a spade a spade/Archives#Hijacking essay and other sections. The merge question, and the Duck question have been discussed there, without resolution. --NewbyG (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've just read that, or as much of it as I could manage, enough to see I'm following well-worn footprints of those who have trudged the same circular path before me. SorryWoonpton (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

We may be heading in the direction of reverting to an old version. The current incarnation just spits back policy. We have the policies themselves for that; not every essay must parrot them. (Bird reference completely intended.) Antelan^talk 15:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Picture of spade

I agree with Newby that since the essay no longer has much to do with spades, it doesn't make sense to keep a picture of a spade in it. Shoemaker is right that the picture still relates to the title of the essay, but nothing in the essay relates to the title.Woonpton (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

After you raised a similar point a few minutes ago, I was reminded that we should probably instead try to bring the essay back in line with its original purpose. I tried to do this earlier today but was partially reverted. I still think the essay is better now than it has been in a few weeks. Antelan^talk 00:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're right; at least the duck fable is gone and it no longer says we should be aware that some people will take even the most neutral, detached statements about their work as personal insults and be extra kind and super polite so as not to offend those people. So I suppose we can count some progress, but even at that, we've made little progress toward steering it back to an essay about calling a spade a spade. I didn't think it could be worked with at all as it was and needed to be started over from scratch. Woonpton (talk) 00:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a spade.

Go ahead and write a new essay

This is an essay, not a policy document. Recent edits have flipped this essay entirely on its head, and I have undone those edits. If what you are trying to say is "don't call a spade a spade because doing so may be uncivil", consider writing a new essay. Antelan^talk 16:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia essays are not articles describing a subject, they are editor-created pages that typically address some aspect of creating and managing an online encyclopedia. They describe a way to handle situations, and WP:SPADE is too often used to justify uncivil conduct. We've gone over this and this essay needs to make it clear that Wikipedia policy needs to be followed. Dreadstar † 16:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there consensus for Antelan's reversion back to the version that allows for name calling and uncivil behavior? Dreadstar † 16:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, ask loaded questions much? It's an essay, not a policy. As such, it expresses a private sentiment publicly. It doesn't purport to be policy, and as such it can't be construed to "allow" anything. That's purely a rhetorical flourish on your part.Antelan^talk 16:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll be happy helping you do that without twisting the text of the essay. For example, a big box at the top of the page could emphasize that this is not policy, and that policies must always be followed. Oh wait, that's already there. But we can make it brighter or more bold if that would help. I see no reason to censor the text itself. Antelan^talk 16:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "loaded question," it's a fact. The box may be at the top, the but the text in the body contradicts the statement in the box - and that's what's being used to justify uncivil comments. Dreadstar † 16:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not a fact; it's incorrect. If a document doesn't have any power to allow a behavior, then it is not a fact that it allows any such behavior. Now, if people are using this to justify acting against policies, then all that is necessary is to tell them that they are wrong. That's a user behavior problem, not a problem with this essay. Antelan^talk 16:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Please post your proposed changes here on the talk page or in a sandbox. Your good faith bold edit has been disputed and we've all been working toward a resolution to the conflict between this essay and the civility policy. Let's continue that and find an acceptable resolution. Dreadstar † 16:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, that's an unnecessary lecture. Like me, you also made edits without posting here or a sandbox. It's perfectly acceptable to do so. And my suggestion was to put a box at the top of the page. It's already there, and I don't see what more is needed. What do you think? Antelan^talk 16:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, essays are not policies. Claiming that an essay is in tension with a policy is like claiming that a letter to the editor is in tension with the Constitution. Antelan^talk 16:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you. Let's see what the other editors think. Dreadstar † 16:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you heart-set on sanitizing the body of this essay, or are there alternatives (such as brighter boxes at the top, more clearcut warnings about it not being policy, etc) that you would be willing to try? Antelan^talk 16:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

There has been an ongoing, robust discussion of this essay, and many changes made to the body of the essay. I only objected to your reversion to a version that I believe is problematic. I'm not for "sanitizing" the essay, I'm for clarifying how one should actually be calling a spade a spade on Wikipedia. Dreadstar † 17:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sanitizing by any other name is still sanitizing. And this is "call a spade a spade", not "a spade is a spade, but don't say it." I look forward to a direct response to my question about alternatives.Antelan^talk 17:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

As I already stated, I don't think the boxes are sufficient. The text that says a "pov-pusher is a pov-pusher" and then follows up by saying that an editor has "no need to dress up the way we address such users." is problematic in that it seems to allow for name calling based on nothing more than an opinion. This needs to be addressed so that it is undeniably clear that such name calling is not civil. Discuss the edits, calling them spades, not the editors. If you want to call an editor a "disruptive pov-pushing troll," do it in an RfC, Mediation or RfARB, but not in edit summaries or in talk page discussions. Dreadstar † 17:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

So boxes aren't sufficient for you. Instead of sanitizing the text, what are other options that you would consider?Antelan^talk 17:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Antelan. Many Wikipedia policies, guidleines, essays intersect, as a matter of fact most of them do, so that seems a moot argument and you are maybe dealing with a Dead Parrot:0) on that comment. The recent edits are more general and all-ecompassing in their scope and importantly more neutral. I would have to support them over a less neutral version.(olive (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC))

So you think all essays must simply restate and explain policy, albeit in different words? Also, if the essays currently intersect with policy, then it's anything but a "moot" point, from the definition of moot. Antelan^talk 17:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No, actually what I said was, that Wikipedia policies guidelines often intersect, that is a given , and to argue that we here should try to create an essay that does not or cannot intersect is not an legitimate argument given that very fact. The version in place now,with Dreadsatr's edits, I believe, more clearly without bias, outlines the metaphor in my mind, bearing in mind that the metaphor itself is just another way of approaching the civilty issue.(olive (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC))

I thought there was some agreement that the current version (as of a couple of days ago) went too far toward disparaging frankness, didn't say what we wanted it to say, and was redundant with several other pages. The essay had come to mean "Don't call a spade a spade" and (speaking of birds of a feather) was redundant with the essay "Don't call a spade a spade." I agree with Atelan; what's the point of an essay that just repeats policy? the purpose of an essay would be to say something new that's not already said elsewhere. I'm not so sure I agree that the essay should go back to saying it's all right to label people in general discussion or edit summaries, as I don't think that's particularly productive. But if people actually are POV pushers rather than productive editors (and make no mistake, there are such ducks about) there should be a better way to deal with them that actually confronts the disruption they cause and eliminates it before it develops into festering chaos. Woonpton (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean when you say that "Wikipedia policies and guidelines often intersect"? That point is not very clear. Antelan^talk 17:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Few exist in isolation in terms of what they are saying. Spade deals with civility. Civility deals with civility. Reliablity deals with or supports NPOV. Verifiable deals in some senses with NPOV and Reliablity. Isolating them, delineating them them only happens on the computer screen in attempts to explain. They are not truly separate in meaning.(olive (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, but would you agree that essays and policies are different entities entirely? That they are two different types of documents that fulfill different roles? Antelan^talk 17:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

In actuality, no. This is a community - written encyclopedia. Essays, policy, guidelines should all somehow support that focus in some way or other. I see essays as a collecting place for ideas, and policy and guidlelines as further crysatallized versions of one-time ideas. Rather than serving different purposes I see them as progressively more formal steps in formulating ways to write and collaborate on an encyclopedia. One simply becomes the other eventually or bleeds into the other. They intersect even if subtly because they must all be about the community and the encyclopedia, otherwise the writer is probably in the wrong place.(olive (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC))

I disagree with that view, but for sake of argument, why should this essay be any exception? Who is to say that it wouldn't ultimately rise to the level of a guideline or a policy as the community matures going into the future? Who is the arbiter of that? Antelan^talk 23:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's any point in this side discussion, but I would think that this essay could very well become a guideline or merge in to a policy at some time. My point is that what begins as an essay could become a policy eventually, if the community finds that it needs it.I would think the community would decide through some form of agreement or consensus. I'm not sure if I'm addressing your point or what the point is about ... not because of anything you're saying, but just because of miscommunication. I may not be understanding you.(olive (talk) 03:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC))

Antelan, do you think it's appropriate to call editors "POV-pushers", "vandals", "trolls", etc, if you believe them to be so? That seems to be the thrust of the version of this page to which you're reverting, but please correct me if I'm wrong. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how my personal preferences would move us forward in this discussion, so I'll answer a different question. To wit, "Antelan, do you think it's appropriate for essays to diverge from policy?" In response to that question, I offer an equivocal yes. No, I do not think that essays that are themselves in violation of policies (i.e., essays that themselves attack a user, a living person, etc.) should be permitted. Yes, I do think that essays can treat the same topics that are definitively covered by policies. I would be interested in hearing your response to the same question that I have asked myself. Antelan^talk 17:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think there's an extent to which it's ok for essays to diverge from policy, and I think there's a line that can be crossed. I don't think we would keep an essay that explicitly encourages vandalism, or edit-warring, or inserting propaganda disguised as fact. I think an essay that diverges sufficiently from policy would be deleted by the community.

If this essay is going to say that calling people names is appropriate, then I would support its deletion, as sufficiently opposed to our fundamental policies, and inimical to the project of collaboratively writing an encyclopedia.

The reason I asked your personal opinion about spade-calling is that, if you don't think it's appropriate, then I wouldn't bother to ask you why you think it's appropriate. If you, or someone else, can explain that it makes sense to have an essay advocating calling editors "spades", then maybe you'd change my mind about this essay. As it is, I think it should either be about calling edits and sources "spades", and not editors, or else it should be deleted. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

GTBacchus, we know you think that it is unhelpful for us to refer to people who persistently insert vandalistic edits "vandals," or to refer to those who persistently and aggressively use dubious sources to advocate a particular viewpoint "POV pushers," and so on. I think that's a helpful perspective. But my question for the present is, do you think that people who disagree with you on those points should be allowed to express their views in an essay? Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems to be the question, and that's why I'm trying to find out why those who disagree with me hold the views they do. I'm honestly trying to see what the best arguments are for the other side. I think that it makes sense to get rid of essays that fly in the face of policies with seemingly no advantage. I hope that someone will show me the advantage of saying "Users who consistently push a POV are POV pushers... there is no need to dress up the way we address such users."

To give you a direct answer to the question of whether those who disagree should be allowed their essay: If there is any worthwhile substance behind the disagreement, then yes, put it in the essay and keep it; if there is nothing other than a preference for name-calling, then no, delete it, just as we would a pro-vandalism essay. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Who would be the judge of "worthwhile substance"? Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Us, the community, consensus. Same as for anything. I'm not trying to appoint myself judge of others' opinions, if that's what you're implying. I'm trying to see the best arguments for the perspective presented on this page. So far I don't think I've seen any argument advanced as to why calling people "spades" is a good idea. I've just seen people say "there is no need to dress up the way we address such users," but I haven't seen the underlying arguments. Am I wrong to ask for them? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right to ask for them. But the question I'm asking here is, are people who in good faith disagree with WP:NOTSPADE permitted to have a different essay that expresses their opinion? Or must every attempt to write such an essay be altered so that is for all practical purposes equal to WP:NOTSPADE? Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought my answer was clear: "It depends". If the essay is simply going to assert that name-calling is helpful, without offering any explanation of how, then it's equivalent to an essay advocating vandalism, as far as I can tell. Those who disagree with NOSPADE (of course in good faith, who ever questioned that?) are permitted to have an essay that expresses their position, if they actually have a position to express other than "I'd rather call people names". That essay should actually express a coherent position, and somehow argue that it is not directly inimical to our project. Otherwise, I'm not sure what the difference is between it and a pro-vandalism essay. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd hope our discussion could have a little bit more nuance. Name calling is used to mislead - it is ad hominem that is meant to avoid discussion of the facts. One might argue that this essay, far from advocating name calling, advocates for summarizing the facts succinctly, even when these facts are about editors. Without going into my own personal positions on the ideas within this essay, I will still tell you that it clearly does not advocate name-calling. Antelan^talk 22:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I see a big difference between "You're a $&%ing pile of mother@#3ing @#&%$" and "I blocked the vandal." Subsuming both into an over-broad definition of "name calling" risks trivializing the former. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(after ec, reply to Antelan) I find this conversation a bit odd.... you seem to want to defend this essay without actually defending its contents.

I would point out that the essay historically has been used to justify name-calling, so it's not totally off-the-wall for me to suggest that it supports that behavior. People really do take it that way. The current text certainly doesn't advocate name-calling, but the original text did; or would you disagree about that?

I'm very sorry that you're unwilling to say what you think about the essay. I think you could help me understand another perspective here, but you seem unwilling to do that, and I don't know why :( . Would it be bad for me to understand where you're coming from? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

First I'd like to get the terms of reference clear, because I think that's where much of the disagreement lies. Can you define in one simple declarative sentence what you mean by "name calling"? Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can do that. Name-calling is applying, to another editor, labels that they do not self-apply, and which purport to categorize the editor or their intentions. In particular, name-calling often means calling other editors "trolls", "POV-pushers", and other such epithets. Is that clear? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that your personal definition doesn't jibe with more... official definitions, which generally require that language be abusive or misleading for it to qualify as name calling. SPADE has never been about the use of abusive or misleading language. Antelan^talk 23:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(Outdenting) Which "official" definition of name-calling have you got in mind?

At any rate, if it was always clear whether a label was accurate or misleading, then we wouldn't need essays like this, would we? However, calling a spade a spade, and then turning out to be mistaken - that is misleading, even though it's not meant to be.

At any rate, I'm interested in hearing why applying labels to other editors is a good idea. I'm travelling this weekend, but I'll be certain to check back in here, because I'm very interested in this conversation. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well usually I go to dictionaries for official definitions. For example, "the use of abusive names to belittle or humiliate another person in a political campaign, an argument, etc." from Random House. This essay explicitly rejects that approach, as it explicitly embraces WP:civil. Thus, a discussion of name calling is off-topic here. Antelan^talk 23:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, except that this essay has been used a lot to justify name-calling, both the abusive kind and the simply useless and distracting kind. I don't really care whether we call it "name-calling" or "ad hominem remarks" or "labeling others"; the point is that this essay, in certain versions (not so much the current one), encourages it, and it's actively destructive. Just as one can remain superficially civil while being extremely disruptive with one's edits, one can remain superficially civil while utterly derailing a discussion by making it personal. The fact that one can be superficially civil while doing something doesn't mean that what they're doing is helpful, or a good idea to encourage. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Nutshell

Raymond edited the nutshell to say: "It's okay to call a spade a spade, to speak plainly, except when referring to other editors."

Does anyone agree with this sentiment? I can agree with it on a very superficial level, but ultimately, it seems wrong. It's okay to speak plainly and directly about what we're doing, full stop. Also true, but unrelated: straying off-topic is counterproductive.

Talking about other editors is simply off-topic. It's not very cool or helpful to jump to conclusions about others' motives based on incomplete information - but even that is harmless if the person jumping can keep their judgment to themselves. What's really not okay is dropping the topic of improving the encyclopedia to instead talk about how rotten you think someone is. I'm not okay with having a page that encourages that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This is, essentially, trying to have your cake and eat it, too. The original essay expanded on the notion of calling a spade a spade (as it relates to editors). The modern incarnation of the essay backs away from a core part of "calling a spade a spade" (namely, the "call" part), making Raymond's change true to the text of the essay. Antelan^talk 21:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

An essay undergoing a personality change in public, it's getting a little forensic here. Can we back off a bit from pscho-analyzing editors and their motives in this essay? And just, you know - (why can't we all get along?) --NewbyG (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Antelan, I think you're missing my point. I'm asking whether anyone agrees with the sentence "It's okay to call a spade a spade, to speak plainly, except when referring to other editors." I'm not asking whether it's true to the text of the essay; I'm still trying to get at what ideas people actually agree with.

I'm not sure how I'm trying to have my cake and eat it, because I'm not sure what you see me as "trying" to do here. I'm trying to suggest that people stay on-topic when working on the project. Is that unreasonable? Is name-calling on-topic? Is a request to stay on-topic the same as a stance against frankness? Going off-topic isn't wrong because it's done bluntly; it's wrong because it's off-topic. The two issues are orthogonal. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The "cake and eat it too" refers to this: There are two strong options: (1) The essay can be about editors, and then the box wouldn't need the caveat. (2) The essay can be about anything except editors, and then should have the caveat. Having your cake and eating it, too, involves changing the essay to be about anything but editors (reverse of what it originally was) while not changing the summary box to reflect this change. I don't mean "you" personally, by the way. Antelan^talk 21:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with having the caveat; I disagree with the way it's phrased. It implies that, when talking about other editors, we should somehow not speak plainly. That's not anybody's position that I'm aware of, and it's certainly very different from "stay on topic". -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Since "calling a spade a spade" is synonymous with "speaking plainly", what would you propose? Antelan^talk 22:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The current nutshell is like saying "speak plainly - except when talking about stuff unrelated to the project". The part after the comma is kind of random. Would you support that as a nutshell summary?

I would prefer something like "It's okay to call a spade a spade - to speak plainly - but remember to remain civil and on-topic." -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but on topic? Antelan^talk 23:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That's right. What's the sense in a nutshell that says "It's okay to call a spade a spade - to speak plainly - except when you're talking about something that's got nothing to do with the project here"? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, this is all beside the point that there seemed to be a general agreement a couple of days ago that this essay as now framed is redundant with Don't Call a Spade a Spade, and with WP:CIVIL, and that we wanted something that advocated for more frank expression, with the exception of name calling. I haven't seen any change in the wind that would suddenly justify adopting it essentially as it is. I'm not wedded to the draft I started in response to those concerns, but I'm very much against keeping it in its present form. I think it needs to be rewritten, or renamed, or deleted.Woonpton (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'm in complete agreement. My point is merely that as long as the essay remains a misnamed version of "don't call a spade a spade", that summary was perfectly fine. The goal should be to bring the essay back to its original meaning (which, yes, did include cautions about civility). Antelan^talk 23:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I wasn't responding to yours so much as the whole discussion above. I agree with you.Woonpton (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Tentative draft

It's a spade.

Newby suggested I should make a new section for this; I've made a rough beginning on a [draft proposal] for a rewrite of the essay, so far incorporating some thoughts of Newby's and some thoughts of mine along with what I think are consensus ideas. Woonpton (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Is that a draft for NOTSPADE? It seems better suited for that page. Antelan^talk 20:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could be more specific about what you'd like to see that's not there, or what you'd not like to see that is there. The previous rewrite, in an effort to discourage namecalling, ended up throwing out frank and honest speech along with namecalling. This is an effort toward an essay advocating for frank and honest expression without namecalling. What am I missing? Woonpton (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think what we're running into is that some people really want to have an essay that says, "if you decide someone is a POV-pusher or a troll, call them that." That's precisely how people have often cited WP:SPADE in the field. Others would like to have an essay that says "speak frankly and honestly, but stay on topic, i.e., don't talk about the other guy's motives, personality, etc."

I'm hoping someone will explain why it would ever be a good idea to talk about the other guy's motives, personality, etc., but when I ask that question, I don't seem to get many answers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If this were a policy, I'd be more sympathetic to that concern, but it's just an essay. At issue is that those of us who support the existence of this essay need not support its contents. I'll invoke Evelyn Beatrice Hall and all that. In truth, if I felt that, in answering your question about the utility of this essay, I would, in doing so, answer the question of whether or not it should continue to exist, I would gladly respond. However, I don't, so it makes no sense for me to do so. Whether it is a "good idea" or not is inconsequential to whether or not this essay ought to be allowed to represent ideas with which you disagree. Antelan^talk 21:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't care whether I disagree with the essay. I mean nothing; who or what am I? I just care that it flies directly in the face of our mission here. Would you support the existence of an essay that advocates vandalism? What's the difference between that and an essay that supports counterproductive dispute resolution? The only way there's a difference is if the message of WP:SPADE is somehow useful. Therefore, I ask again, for anyone to answer: "What's the use in calling people spades?" -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, you're the one saying this is an essay describing counterproductive dispute resolution. I'm saying it explores an idea that is neither purely anti-policy nor purely pro-policy. As such, it explores a gray area. You don't have to agree with the conclusion, but this doesn't warrant removal of the idea. Antelan^talk 21:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm trying desperately to find out how the idea in the essay is not purely anti-policy. I've seen nobody explain that. I think it is purely anti-policy to the extent that it advocates name-calling. If it isn't, someone show me that, please!

Keep the pro-vandalism essay in mind - I can claim that it's not purely anti-policy, and that it explores a gray area... but will you believe me, if I don't explain how that's true? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

For example, this essay explicitly states that you should be WP:civil when calling a spade a spade. Now that we have established it's not purely antithetical, are you willing to let ideas which conflict with your own, though not with policy, remain on Wikipedia? Antelan^talk 21:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I've always been willing to let ideas that conflict with my own remain on Wikipedia, and I don't appreciate the suggestion that I'm against letting people disagree with me. That's not what we're talking about here.

That said "we" have not "established" that the essay you advocate is not purely antithetical to policy. Simply saying that you, "should be WP:civil when calling a spade a spade," is kind of like saying you should have an eye to improving the encyclopedia when vandalizing. If my pro-vandalism essay said that, would you oppose it, or would you be willing to let ideas that conflict with your own remain of Wikipedia? See how that's a rhetorical cheap shot? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I would agree that your example is a rhetorical cheap shot. This, however, isn't an essay on "Don't be civil," making that example impertinent to the discussion at hand. If you want to get this focused on policy, it would help you to demonstrate specifically which section of policy this essay's contents are violating. Antelan^talk 22:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

My point was that it's the same cheap shot you threw at me. This is not a conversation about whether I'm willing to tolerate disagreement. It's a conversation about how to improve the essay "Call a spade a spade". As to whether this is an essay on "don't be civil", I would contend that the original version of this essay was precisely that.

As for violating policy, I don't really care whether the essay "violates" whatever "rule"; I don't think of Wikipedia that way. I care about whether it might be a really bad idea to have an essay that encourages (intentionally or not) destructive behavior. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I clarified why my example (this article) should be distinguished from a cheap shot. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at how differently we're reading the same text. Antelan^talk 23:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh. The cheap shot I was referring to was your asking me, "are you willing to let ideas which conflict with your own, though not with policy, remain on Wikipedia?" The answer to that question is clearly "yes, I am", and it's clearly my position that this essay, in certain versions, does conflict with policy. Framing the discussion as if it's about me "allowing" people do disagree with me is inaccurate.

This discussion is about whether it's consistent with policy or with good sense to encourage editors to label others while simultaneously (and contradictorily) mentioning that they should remain civil while doing something fundamentally unhelpful. I think an essay that says "Someone pushing a POV is a POV-pusher, and it's somehow useful to call them that," but then turns around and says, "be civil while doing it," is absurd. If the community thinks that such an essay is a good thing, then of course I'll go along with consensus, but I'd like to see some evidence of that consensus first. Does that seem fair? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the above reads an awful lot like "It has to agree with policy and good sense, and only my interpretation of policy and good sense is the right one." Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Does that come across in the part where I say "of course I'll go along with consensus"? Do you object to even asking these questions? Do you object to my arguing for what I genuinely believe is right? Am I forcing the essay to be any particular way; have I nominated it for deletion? What would you have me do differently here, Raymond? If there were an essay that you honestly believe to directly damage the project, would you keep your opinion to yourself, instead of stating it? Am I wrong to ask how "calling a spade a spade" is helpful, or to point out that nobody seems to be answering that question? Is it an unfair question? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This [draft] of 5 paragraphs, 3 of them go by without ever calling an editor an anything, or a spade or a platinum sputnik. Isn't that a better approach then, for the lead section of this essay? --NewbyG (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[7]. This is a pretty good version, perhaps it is slightly over-hedged just a touch in parts, and a little polishing if necessary. --NewbyG (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The return of the Duck

[8] The Duck is back, and WP:DUCK now redirects to thispage. --NewbyG (talk) 00:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Delineation: Spade and No Spade

Given the distinctions GTB is making could WP:Spade be more about content rather than behaviour, and if so, being direct would not imply any actions towards an editor but rather towards the content/edits, and strong, direct language could be more acceptable, although many editors are subjectively attached to their edits so care would have to be taken here too. WP:No Spade would possibly apply to behaviour towards other editors and could be described as that kind of behaviour that although problematic, is best dealt with not condemning the editor in any way but by dealing with the editor in a civil manner so as not to further support an already less than opimal working environment. Spade then becomes a more objective note, No Spade the more subjective one.(olive (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC))

You could make this into an essay about content, but then you might as well write a totally different essay; this has always been an essay about editors. Antelan^talk 15:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess I was not so much suggesting a shift in the actual content but rather a shift in the focus. There has already been much discussion here on whether reference is to edits or ccontent or the editors themselves. They are at this point tangled up together. I guess I wondering if its possible to delineate them or untangle them to more cleary be able to react or act in a manner appropriate to either situation.(olive (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC))

I think with the version I've posted, it's now much more clear. Antelan^talk 16:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I don't see so much confusion; I see a consensus for an essay that advocates for clear thought and clear expression without disparaging other editors personally. I don't see what's confusing about that. Maybe if I could write this draft you would see what I mean. I'm intrigued by Antelan's comment that the essay has always been about editors; I hadn't read it that way before.

To respond to olive's comment about supporting an optimal working environment: I've been thinking about what it is that makes Wikipedia feel disagreeable and unpleasant to me, and has kept me postponing the decision whether to stay and become involved or decide it's not for me (though I seem to be getting in over my ankles already, while I'm thinking about it). I don't know how typical I am (if unique, of course, it just means I don't fit here and my decision should be to exit rather than stay and be frustrated) but for me, it's not name-calling or frank speech that makes Wikipedia an unpleasant working environment. I don't like name-calling, don't think it furthers discussion, but it doesn't upset me to the point of making me unhappy.

What makes me unhappy, and makes me think I can't possibly stay and work here without tearing my hair out, is something else: an oh-so-civil obstructionism that ignores or distorts policy in the service of promoting fringe ideas, that picks out trivial side issues to argue with rather than engaging in honest debate on the important issues, that subtly provokes and provokes until someone loses their temper, like the kid in the back seat who keeps poking her brother, again and again and again, until finally he's had enough and hauls off and whaps her. That's the kind of stuff that really makes me dislike working in Wikipedia. The poking is just as uncivil as the whapping, but the current emphasis on civility seems to consider that only the whapping is a problem, which IMO will just encourage the poking. This has little to do with this essay per se, but I think it's germane to the discussion since the purpose of rewriting the essay seems to have been to discourage incivility "so as not to further support an already less than optimal working environment," in olive's words. My point is that name-calling is only one of many ways to create an unpleasant working environment, and should not be addressed in isolation. Woonpton (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is the very first version of this essay, which makes it clear that this is about editors. Antelan^talk 20:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and that's a terrible essay, giving terrible advice. An essay that says that should be deleted, IMO. If it serves any practical benefit, then I hope that someone supporting this kind of wording will explain how. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess I could have looked that up myself, but thanks for making it easy for me. Gosh, it's even shorter than my first effort that I was afraid was pretty lame.

I'm really thinking a lot about this; I'm conflicted about whether there are times when it might be useful to just flat out call a person a spade, so to speak. As I've said elsewhere, there really are ducks who are disrupting the encyclopedia, and I don't think it's useful to continue endlessly to extend the assumption of good faith when it's not warranted. But at the same time, as I've said, I don't think it's productive to call people names either (although I'm not at all sure I understand why "POV pusher" should be considered an unacceptably vile description of someone who is in fact a POV pusher). I go back and forth on it. If you could expand on your thoughts about this, it might help me resolve my dilemma.Woonpton (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the choice is between calling them a spade and endlessly extending an assumption of good faith. Those are unrelated. It's entirely possible to block and ban an editor for POV-pushing, effectively and decisively, without ever calling them a spade.

As for "POV-pusher", it's not that it's a vile insult - I hope I've not given the impression that I'm trying to protect people from insults. I don't really care about that. The problem with calling someone a POV-pusher is that it doesn't help. A genuine POV-pusher doesn't see themselves as a POV-pusher; they see themselves as being neutral and correct, and they see those who oppose them as POV-pushers. If someone who is opposing them in some content dispute calls them a POV-pusher, what will that accomplish? Will they say "oh, gee, you're right. I'll stop pushing my fringe POV, now that you've shown me the light!" Of course not. They'll simply defend themselves - with full sincerity - against the accusation, and the conversation will go further and further off-topic.

That is the reason to avoid name-calling: it isn't helpful. If it were helpful, I'd be all for it, but in an actual content dispute, it doesn't get us where we need to go. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

" It's entirely possible to block and ban an editor for POV-pushing, effectively and decisively..." Where, exactly, is it possible to do that? Have you ever actually seen it happen? POV-pushing dealt with summarily, effectively, decisively? Goodness, how long did it take (2 years, I think I read somewhere) before someone finally did something about Xietwel on the 9/11 articles; even ArbCom didn't have whatever it takes to block or ban them effectively, but left it to some poor administrator to do later, and it's kind of hard to imagine a more blatant case of tendentious, disruptive, POV pushing. This is why I've held back from editing here, because the articles where I think I could make a contribution are populated with such folks, not all as blatant as that, but all tirelessly determined to present the topic with a slant that's biased positively toward misinformation in violation of NPOV; I've been watching and waiting to see if the community is going to recognize the problem and take some action, but so far all Ive seen is that they recognize there's a problem, but not that they have identified it accurately or that what they decide to do about it will be likely to make the situation better rather than worse. Woonpton (talk) 04:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, I've seen it happen. We're not very good at it yet, and the POV-pushers who are at all good at surfing the wiki are able to stick around for a long time, but I maintain that it's entirely possible; we just need to get better at it. I think there's some good work in that direction going on at a couple of pages around here. (such as here and here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you can't have it both ways; you can't here point to those discussions as "good work" when at the discussions themselves, you're telling the discussants they're barking up the wrong tree. At any rate, I'm quite aware of those discussions and have taken part in both of them. But these are the people who are already well aware of the problem and hoping for a solution, these aren't the people who can implement a solution, that recognition and action has to come from higher up. But at any rate I didn't ask whether people are talking about the problem, I asked, and will ask again: where, when, have you seen it happen, POV-pushing dealt with immediately, effectively and decisively? I don't mean after months or years, I mean right away, long before it starts burning out editors. Woonpton (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

And that's a fine, laudable approach that you take. Really, it's an exemplary model of behavior. That said, it's not the only model of behavior. The lovely thing about communities is that they are composed of people with different ideas. I'm simply saying that the ideas in this essay, though you disagree with them, are not harmful, especially when taken in the whole rather than in parts taken out of context. Antelan^talk 21:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This is why it is harmful and counter productive. Name calling (POV-pusher, truther, anti-science, troll, bigot and so on), discredits the editor and their views without substantiation. If an editor is not what they are called (already stated, if they are, who does think they are?) they must submit their edit history to prove it (and it is unlikely anyone will read it to check), otherwise plead their case, or they can reciprocally attack as GBT states. Conversely, if a person is said to make a (describe name here) edit, then the next question, "diffs please", will usually resolve the matter. IMO name calling is mostly an easy and often dubious way to put an editor at a disadvantage. If an editor deserves a name, the best way to illustrate it is not to call them that name, but to describe the editors relevant edits with diffs.Ward20 (talk) 23:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

What would you call it if it didn't have a name?

[9] There is nothing other than the title which has anything to do with spades in this revision.. --

What would the essay best be re-named -? --NewbyG (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The version of a few days ago would have been "Comment on edits, not on editors." The version as of this moment is actually relevant to calling a spade a spade, but I have no idea how long it will stay that way. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

One can be honest and direct about another editor's behaviour or edits without resorting to name-calling or attacks. - Taken in the context of the current text, that looks reasonable to me. Maybe I was hasty with the rename suggestion, but really there is a lot of re-thinking going on here. --NewbyG (talk) 01:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I've also taken the liberty of jumping over to Wikipedia:Don't call a spade a spade to try and add some sanity there - I think that that essay had gone beyond advocating civility, to advocating civility above all else, even if you get hurt. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to let the civility-above-all crowd have their version, and the call-a-spade-a-spade crowd have theirs. I'm more troubled by what's going on at WP:CIV -- it doesn't take paranormal abilities to divine the agenda there. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no "civility-above-all crowd". Characterizing anybody's position as that tends to obscure the issue, and doesn't move us closer to understanding. The dichotomy between "call-a-spade-a-spade" and "civility-above-all" is a false one. The rejection of "call-a-spade-a-spade" does not imply that civility trumps everything else, and I object to the portrayal of my position with those words. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The glory of essays is that there is room for even wildly divergent viewpoints being expressed in different essays. If some think that WP:CIV trumps literally everything else, then hey, that's great. I'd read an essay about that. Antelan^talk 02:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure nobody thinks that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The dichotomy between "call-a-spade-a-spade" and "civility-above-all" is a false one. Also, reflexively characterizing positions in that way is intellectually lazy, and cannot be fruitful, and tends to obscure the issues, turn discussion into disagreement, and create a combative atmosphere to no good purpose. --NewbyG (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

My question

My question is this: Why call a spade a spade (regarding people, not edits)? How does it help? In what circumstances is labeling another editor more useful/beneficial/productive than refraining from doing so?

I think this question is worth asking, because ultimately it's an empirical matter. "Calling a spade" is either sometimes helpful, or it's not, and if it is helpful, then I'd like to know, so I can do it. If it's not, that would be good to know, too, it seems.

Can anyone help me with this? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have never yet made a post that looked like this - "Example-editor changed civility to read reasonable civility. That is just horrible. How dare they! Example-editor is a POV-pusher or a troll, or a commie, and they shouldn't be allowed to edit wikipedia." And I hope I never do make such a cruddy post. But that doesn't stop me from calling a spade a spade. --NewbyG (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you mean. Can you clarify that? If the point of this page is to help people understand something, could we maybe explain it? In what cases do you "call a spade a spade" (applied to people)? How do you do it, and what is the benefit that derives from it? These seem to be questions we should answer, no? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I don't know what you mean. in what cases do you call a spade a spade "applied to people"? That would be never. No cases. I already musta said that about a thousand times in these threads, do I have to tattoo it on my forehead? (That being said, given enough time and aggravation, anything is possible, lol.) --

I don't see any benefit in such a behaviour, I am in no position to explain something that doesn't make sense to me; and I am not even sure that it is a sensible question to be asking of me. I am not sure what questions need answering, but I don't think these ones are the right ones. Are you a POVpusher who has yet to stop beating your wife? Sure, such questions can be asked, but where does it get us? While our debates follow that style, progress will be hard. --

What I really meant to say, is that I don't have any answers at this time, sorry. And good questions are a bit thin on the ground to date, also my fault as much as anyone's. We have no alternative but to keep trying to understand, and hope understanding comes in time. Thanks. -- [10] --NewbyG (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that you're not really the person to whom my question is directed. You don't have to tattoo anything on your forehead, because I never suspected that you were in favor of calling "people" spades. However, Raymond, Antelan, and others here have been very clear that they do want to call people spades, and that they think it's a good idea. I really want someone who believes that to explain to me why it's a good idea, according to them. You can't help me with that, NewbyG, because you and I already agree that it isn't a good idea. Nobody in favor of it seems willing to say anything in its defense, which I find slightly troubling. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Great in theory

That's great in theory, but how about these, all of which are based on things that have come up in my recent experience and been relevant. "I'm sorry, but you've been caught out time and time again misrepresenting and selectively quoting from studies in order to support your point of view. At this point, we really can't trust you to present a study neutrally" (And many other things in that line. The user had been caught out about 5 times already, and had a habit of going back to studies that had been rejected after a week or two. At the moment, he's under a three-month topic ban after he tried to quotemine another user's statements to make the user appear to back him, while the user was right there, strenuously objecting to same.

In situations like that - extreme, but depressingly, not uncommon in the most contentious parts of Wikipedia, if no admin will step in - and there's certainly some reason for the popular meme that the best way to avoid administrator sanction is to promote a fringe viewpoint - If you don't call a spade a spade, then certain disputes never end.

Yes, there are better ways to deal with that. Sending more neutral admins into Alternative medicine, nationalism, and other such disputes would help. But until Wikipedia gets a reasonable number of admins willing to deal with its lawless backwaters, calling a spade a spade is about the only defense against POV-pushing editors with no respect for Wikipedia rules, since they've broken them without sanction over and over again, and who migrate from article to article, trying to get information that supports their POV added there.

And if you think my description is nonsense, why don't you go manage, oh, any of the article topics that have had recent arbcom cases for a few months, then see if I'm incorrect. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would you imagine that I take your sensible words to be nonsense? I didn't ask for a reply so I could take it less than 100% seriously. I have edited controversial articles (though not much recently), and I don't pretend that it's easy. It's very difficult, and stressful. All the more reason to improve how we do it, and make it less stressful.

You mention a couple of things that I'm very interested in. First of all, "Sending more neutral admins... would help". I'm interested in finding a systematic way to do this. I imagine a kind of group that keeps track of edit wars and applies conflict resolution strategies in a mindful way, documenting what works, and getting better at bringing edit wars to a resolution that accords with neutrality. Does that seem to be a good suggestion?

Another question I have regards, "If you don't call a spade a spade, then certain disputes never end...," and, "...calling a spade a spade is about the only defense..." So, does it work? If you call a spade editor a spade, does the dispute therefore end in a satisfactory way? Is it an effective defense? How does that work? What's the best way to do it? What kind of editor is best at it? How do you avoid false positives?

If we're going to get good at managing controversial articles — which we must — we might as well document what works, right? I don't know what the page currently looks like, and by the time you read this it may be different, but the original version of the page documents something that, as far as I know, doesn't work. That's an empirical question, right? So let's answer it, and let's show people. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I don't see a problem. Le's not go into specifics, but the user was caught out fabricating stuff, and is now topic-banned. Problem solved. I don't think what you're saying is nonsense. If editors cause problems and break rules we have to apply rules to fix the problems. Editors get blocked or topic-banned when enough DIFFs are produced which show disruptive editing or incivil posts as evidence of the problem. --NewbyG (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[Unindent] Sorry if I was a bit aggressive in my description, but...

Well, basically, the editor in question went about to a lot of articles, and took a very long time before anyone did anything about him. The information put before the arbcom was up at the probation page for a couple months while he, basically, continued as always. I really think the disruption would have been much greater if, once he was caught out, the other editors had not been warned, simply and clearlyu, tat his quotes from sources could not be trusted.

Not exactly calling a spade a spade in conversation with them, but with others, when the editor in question is truly disruptive, they need to know to look out, and pussyfooting around it isn't going to help. I'd probably say that well-judged and evidenced labels are also useful at WP:ANI and WP:RFAR, as they do serve to communicate a set of behavioural problems clearly.

Now, in resposse to GTBacchus - If you can get a group of neutral admins able and ready to be called in and investigate problems in any article probation, that would be great. It would take a reasonable number of them, though, and there would have to be methods in place to make sure there were always at least X of them active and willing to step in. On the Homeopathy probation, for instance, there were a lot of admins who stepped up at first. But at least by March or so, they seem to have all burned out, and were unwilling to deal further.

There's also the problem of who's doing it. If you get a couple admins in ready and willing to block for a single act of incivility, given a diff, but unwilling to look at anything more complex - well, you get the backlash against WP:CIVIL you see happening right now, where civility has been turned into a weapon, because in some areas there's at least a perception that it's the only thing people are reliably getting blocked for.

There is one problem that would be really, really bad:

In the end, policy more-or-less says some disputes only really have one side in the "right". WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience, for instance, privileges mainstream science over fringe theories and pseudoscience. Having a "neutral" admin who was neutral in the "equal weight to all views" sense (You know, "They have sources too! They can use their sources to write their sections, you can use yours to write your sections, what's the problem?") would seriously risk putting Wikipedia in disrepute. I don't think it's worth saying more on that subject, though, barring confusion from me not really wanting to call a spade a spade in this case. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Does it work?

I thank you for that reply, but you didn't address the question I care the most about; the purpose for which this section is written. Does "calling a spade a spade" work, and if so, how? Can we please document that better? My paragraph above full of question marks is very important to me. Can you please reply to that part? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Only past a certain point, or where a concerted attack on Wikipedia is happening. When you have to deal with dozens of newbies, sent to you from [Fringe orginisation] and desperate to push the POV of that organisation - The Discovery Institute's regular attacks on Wikipedia is a good example - then new editors who expouse the same things as the previous hundred editors sent by that organisation might reasonably be boxed into labels, as it's the only way for harried admins to cope. I'd also say that after a fairly long time - at least a month - of dealing with a disruptive editor who refuses to "get it", that taking the gloves off and telling him to his face what he's doing wrong everytime he does it, may be a reasonable, last-ditch attempt to make him follow Wikipedia policy. I personally think this essay should be mainly about articles, and plain-speaking, backed by sources, about the issues within them, as well as plain-speaking about problems with the articles on their talk pages. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

(reply to GTB): I think maybe it's that you're asking the wrong questions. Although actually, I thought Shoemaker did provide an answer. Woonpton (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I'm asking the wrong questions, and I think Shoemaker provided a partial answer. I'd still like to know just how "calling a spade a spade" works. Right now the plan seems to be:

1. Determine that someone is a "spade".
2. Call them that.
3. ??????
4. PROFIT!!!

I'd like to know what happens in step 3. What is the concrete benefit of calling a spade a spade? When addressed by their true name, do they lose their power and hasten back to the underworld? Once someone is called a spade, do admins become willing to block them? Shoemaker says "taking the gloves off and telling him to his face what he's doing wrong everytime he does it, may be a reasonable, last-ditch attempt to make him follow Wikipedia policy." This is strange to me for two reasons: (1) What gloves? Whence a dichotomy between telling someone what they're doing wrong and calling them a spade? I'm pretty sure nobody is against "telling him to his face what he's doing wrong". (2) Does the last ditch attempt to make him follow policy work?

The position I'm trying to understand is the one that says we should not only tell him what he's doing wrong, but call him a spade. There are people taking this position, and I would love to understand it, but I don't yet. I don't see the practical benefit of calling someone a spade. What is it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

There are other vantage points besides the purely utilitarian. Antelan^talk 23:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just done that but I don't think it will ever work, but it is the last resort. At least in the topic in dispute.

The only way is just to abandon wiki edits, or engage in editing wars. Wikipedia is still not developed enough to allow only intelligent, policy abiding editors to edit articles.

My last resort in solving this problem is to propose wikipedia to:

1) normal editors can only add, not delete. 2) automatic computerised editors that will delete based on well proven policies, such as duplicate phrases and profanities.

Isn't this already in place in order to avoid spams? 3) Grading of editors based on online standardised tests. There must be many grades based on knowledge and logical abilities.

They are only allowed to delete articles that they have sound knowledge of.

4) Increasing the standard of high class editors, those that can block other editors. Currently some of them will just delete and delete. Someone who does not even know that England is an International team.

Even in disputes, these editors themselves are the vandals as I had experienced, changing my comments so as to support his argument, and showing off his power.

Othmanskn (talk) 05:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Say more

Can you say more about that, please? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I understand all that; my point was that "I" think you're asking the wrong question, not that I think you think you're asking the wrong question. Of course you don't think you're asking the wrong question, or you wouldn't be asking. To me, it's a pointy question that only has one right answer and is asked only to make a point, and furthermore it's not a question that will lead us toward understanding what's wrong with the encyclopedia and fixing it. You could pull people's arms out of their sockets until they screamed "Okay, okay, calling a person a spade doesn't really help anything!" and where would that get you? We'd still be faced with the urgent and immediate problem of POV pushers (of all stripes--political factions, new age groups, pseudoscience, ethnic partisans, commercial interests, etc etc etc) misusing the encyclopedia, that isn't going to be changed in the least by requiring everyone to be nice to each other. That's the problem we should be addressing.

As I've said a number of times here and elsewhere, I don't think calling names is helpful, and I wish people wouldn't do it, because it's not helpful and because it serves as a handy red herring to take people's attention away from the real problem. This diversion of attention only works to the advantage of people whose agenda is to promote fringe ideas or propaganda rather than to build a neutral, serious encyclopedia. By enforcing WP:CIVIL rather than policies like NPOV, NOR, RS, the community is sending a message to POV-pushers that civility is the only thing Wikipedia cares about, and POV editors have free rein to distort, misinterpret and misuse the other policies to their heart's content as long as they remain civil at all times. And don't tell me again that if other policies are being violated, that can easily be dealt with effectively and decisively. I've asked you twice to give an example of a case where the other policies have been enforced decisively and effectively, and you've failed to give me a single example, but instead backpedaled to a position that it should be true, or maybe someday it may be true, or in the best of all possible worlds it's possible... we need to do better at it. Well, yes. In the meantime, incivility is the least of our worries. Woonpton (talk) 00:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining that. You say that the problems with POV pushing won't be changed by people being nice to each other. I would disagree, for this reason: I believe, quite firmly, that the truly effective strategies for maintaining neutrality here are actively undermined when people "call a spade a spade".

The idea of "enforcing WP:CIVIL rather than policies like NPOV, NOR, RS" is a false dichotomy. First of all, I'm not talking about enforcing WP:CIVIL; that page is crap. I'm talking about people actually acting professionally for the reason that it works better. Secondly, the only way to enforce NPOV, NOR, RS, etc, is to act very professionally, and to commit to the difficult task of learning, mindfully and as a community, how to maintain a neutral and stable article about alternative medicine on an open wiki.

When fighting a fire, incivility is gasoline. That doesn't qualify as "the least of our worries". To get the fire put out, we actually have to stop throwing gasoline on it.

One last matter - my question is not entirely "pointy". I am open to finding out that there are situations in which calling someone a spade actually helps. I'm open to using anything in our arsenal, but only if it's helpful. As far as my current understanding goes, incivility is actively destructive, which is worse than unhelpful. If someone can show me wrong, I will thank them for teaching me.

Last note: I do not advocate the "enforcement" of WP:CIVIL; please do not confuse me with someone who does. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad to know

I'm glad to know you don't advocate "enforcing" WP:CIVIL, but still, it's the only policy that's usually enforced in dispute resolution, and there are people determined to put more teeth into its enforcement and to broaden the definition so that even innocuous remarks are "actionable" as incivility. I had associated you with the group that's reworking WP:CIVIL toward that end; I apologize if that perception was mistaken. At any rate, I think it's naive to expect that being nice to POV-pushers will make them suddenly interested in writing a neutral encyclopedia; instead my fear, as expressed very well by Shoemaker's Holiday above, is that the direction taken in order to calm down the battling will take the form (intended or not) of appeasing POV-pushers, softening policy to make them happier, and in the process, making the project an object of ridicule and causing an exodus of the people who are really interested in producing a neutral and serious encyclopedia. I was one of three people I know of (and I wouldn't be surprised if there were more; these were just two I happened to cross paths with) who joined about the same time (about three months ago) who have a rational/scientific sort of background and were interested in helping with fringe topics, the other two have already left, seeing no way to accomplish anything useful here, and I don't see much incentive for me to stay on longer.

I'm not sure where the injunction to ""act very professionally and commit to the task of learning, mindfully and as a community, how to maintain a neutral and stable article about alternative medicine" comes from in the context of your post which is ostensibly addressed to me, since I don't believe I've ever acted any way but professionally, and I don't believe I've edited any article in the field of alternative medicine, nor is that field one of the several fringe areas of which I've read miles and miles of talk page discussions. I'm interested in a larger perspective that covers a wide range of topics, and everywhere I look, I see the same kind of dysfunctional editing environment with the same kinds of dynamics operating. But since I haven't looked at the alternative medicine articles, I can't say whether what I've seen elsewhere is the same as what prevails there, or not. I rather doubt it, because I gather there's rather a large contingent of scientific types in alternative medicine as well as evolution (another area I've stayed away from because it seems well covered). In the areas I've been looking at, there are few if any people trying to defend the neutrality of the encyclopedia, and the fringe advocates pretty much have it their own way. One person might drive by and make a comment or leave a tag about the neutrality of the article or about reliable sources, but the tags are removed after the people leave, and the POV continues as it was or even gets worse. Without a critical mass of people who are dedicated to neutrality paying attention to an article continually, there's really not much that can be done to turn the tide in any given article against vested interests who maintain a constant presence to keep the POV where they want it.

At any rate my point isn't, and has never been, that acting badly is a good thing. My point is that acting badly or professionally is beside the point, since behaving professionally won't make any difference in the real problems of the wikipedia; I've certainly found that to be true in my own editing work. So we'll have to agree to disagree on that point. When people are determined to misinterpret NPOV, for example, in order to gain their purpose, it does no good to explain to them in a calm and professional tone how their edits aren't consistent with policy; their only interest is getting the information they want into the encyclopedia, and they will proceed on that path without regard to my concerns about policy. I could be be too pessimistic; it would be lovely if you could make the Wikipedia a truly better place in a way that actually improves the encyclopedia's reliability and neutrality, and not just "better" in the sense of being even more congenial to fringe advocates and partisans of all kinds and easier for them to use the encyclopedia as a platform to promote their ideas. I doubt I'll stick around to find out. Woonpton (talk) 06:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Remember your audience

You need to remember who your real audience is. As you say, "it's naive to expect that being nice to POV-pushers will make them suddenly interested in writing a neutral encyclopedia." But they're your audience in only a simple and superficial way. Your real audience is the outside editor or admin who comes across the article. Take the high road so that your own actions will appear impeccable to outsiders who know little of the topic or the article's prior history. Then get as many outside eyes on the thing that you can. Don't overdo the process stuff but it's appropriate to call and RfC on the article's neutrality, post on the reliable sources noticeboard to draw attention to the article's lousy sources (fringers always use lousy sources), and so on. It will take a lot of patience and there are no guarantees. And you may run across the occasional anti-expert or anti-science admin (will avoid naming names here). But play it right and you have a fighting chance. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I would also point out, regarding "it's naive to expect that being nice to POV-pushers will make them suddenly interested in writing a neutral encyclopedia," that POV-pushers are interested in writing a neutral encyclopedia. They happen to think that their edits are neutral and correct, because they see the version they oppose as simply inaccurate, and therefore not NPOV. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

My dog often thinks she's head of the household and should be deferred to accordingly. But we still treat her like a dog. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Raymond, that's not an apt analogy. The point is are we trying to "make them interested in writing a neutral encyclopedia", or are we trying to make an argument about undue weight? We'll take very different approaches in the two cases. Also, are we going to make accusations of bad faith? In the first case, it would be appropriate, or at least accurate, it would seem. In the latter case, it would be distracting to the point that we would lose the ability to make our cases. It would become debilitating for us. Smart dispute resolution would preclude it.

The point is that you have to treat a content issue as a content issue. You can't try to make it into a behavior issue and expect to get anywhere except deeper and deeper in mud. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't understand your first paragraph above. As for the second, content issues often are reflections of behavior issues. When someone already has made hundreds of edits that ignore our policies of WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, and so on, do we continue playing whack-a-mole with each subsequent occurrence? Or might we conclude that there's a behavioral issue and respond accordingly? Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Am I being misunderstood?

Thanks for the advice; I appreciate your taking the time to think about this. However, I think I've studied and observed enough to understand exactly what's required, but the idea that even after all that, all I can hope for is a "fighting chance" is hardly enough incentive to make me want to stick around and volunteer my time and energy. I have no interest in fighting, and no interest in putting time and energy into an effort with such a small probability of success; I don't see how that rationally makes the least bit of sense. I thought maybe I could be useful here on the side in some small way, but it's obvious that in order to impose and maintain neutrality in even one article that's manned by fringe advocates, you pretty much have to give your life to it, and not just for the short-term, but forever, because those people are never going to go away and leave the article alone. And one article, of course, is just a drop in the sea; there are hundreds if not thousands of such articles.

But your answer makes me wonder if even yet, I'm being misunderstood. When I say that the civility issue is a red herring, and that getting tough on incivility won't make the real problem go away, I'm not condoning incivility, and I'm not saying that since being nice to POV pushers won't change the fact that they're POV-pushers, one might as well be nasty to them. This is NOT what I'm saying. I'm just saying that insisting on civility won't do anything toward improving the quality of the encyclopedia or improving the working environment for people who are trying to maintain the neutrality and quality of the encyclopedia. And that I won't be interested in working in the encyclopedia until I can see that something is really being done to address the real problems that the core content policies are not being protected and enforced by the community.

And to clarify further, I'm not sure people have understood that in the areas I've been considering, articles I would work on if I thought there was any hope of making any difference without endless aggravation and frustration (or even with), civility is not an issue. Most of the time, there aren't people calling names or anything like that. But that doesn't mean there's no problem with the articles. People come along, raise legitimate issues of neutrality, reliable sources, undue weight, the usual problems with fringe articles, are rebuffed by the owners of the articles, try a couple more times, are rebuffed again, and go away rather than fighting the people who see it as their job to defend their POV. There's no incivility, but the result is that the quality of the encyclopedia is compromised by the information that's presented in the article. And that's the problem that's not going to go away until it's addressed directly by the community.Woonpton (talk) 23:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

"I'm just saying that insisting on civility won't do anything toward improving the quality of the encyclopedia or improving the working environment for people who are trying to maintain the neutrality and quality of the encyclopedia." I disagree, because too many people pushing for NPOV are actively compromising their ability to get work done through their incivility. That's an improvement we can make. Civil defenders of NPOV are quite a lot more powerful than uncivil ones. Once we get up out of the mud and rise above all of the shouting over WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, we can talk at a high level about how to deal with these problem-articles, and take a smart, scientific approach. That's actually impossible to do while we're busy throwing recriminations around, and that's precisely where incivility and ill-considered "spade-calling" leads. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Assuming Woonpton already is being civil, how would you address his concerns? Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's start a new thread

That's the question - let's start a new thread for it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please do. I'm quite interested in seeing your recommendations. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but you're missing my point completely; you keep answering my posts by arguing against a position I'm not taking. As I've said now at least 15 or 20 times, I'm not arguing for incivility. But I have to disagree very strongly with the idea that a civil defender of NPOV is "quite a lot more powerful than uncivil ones;" my entire point I've been making all along, and all of my (admittedly brief, but intense) experience and observation backs this up, that a civil defender of NPOV has no more power than an uncivil one, except for the little matter that they're not wasting a lot of time being hauled into civility court. But the civil one has no more power to improve the article than the uncivil one. That's my whole bleeping point, that it's not incivility that's the problem. I have no more ability to change the behavior of fringe advocates with my reasonable, rational appeals to policy than someone who jumps in yelling "morons" or "woo woo queens." Why is this so hard to grasp?Woonpton (talk) 23:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Woonpton, I know that you aren't arguing for incivility, I don't suspect you're arguing for it, and you needn't repeat that you're not arguing for it. We're ok on that point. I'm saying that not arguing for it isn't enough, and that we actually have to take a stand against it, as a means to achieving our more important goals.

The important point is that I disagree about whether a civil NPOV defender is more powerful than an uncivil one. How to use that power effectively is an important conversation, and let's have it, but I won't consent to beginning it with the assumption that civility is simply irrelevant. That's not a good starting assumption; let's assume that it might be relevant, and look at it, as well as other factors. What if the required formula involves civility and three other elements? Then civility is not irrelevant; nor is it sufficient alone. I know that you're not arguing for incivility, and I don't suspect that you're arguing for incivility. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Versions

quack, quack!

[11] Take a moment to read the current version, GTB. It has been up a little while, and is quite different from the version from back in 2007. --NewbyG (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

(I hope you don't mind me refactoring for a new subheader. If so... rvt plz.:/) The current version's pretty good. It was also described a few days ago as "maundering obfuscation... a tangle of words that basically says nothing..." The commenter hasn't responded to replies. That's a little bit like consensus. I'd like to have a conversation with someone who agrees with Raymond.

I'm also genuinely interested in those questions I asked Shoemaker's Holiday up there. I mean, if we're going to get good at DR, why not document strategies that people say work? Maybe that's for another essay. If so, can someone who knows what it should say please help me write it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

What if this page was a collecting place for strategies that those in trouble in dispute situations could come to or be directed to. It could include strategies that have been successful here but also other strategies... for example , I know someone who has expertise in this area who might have suggestions? What if initially, the essay contains some background on why dispute occurs in groups, for example, but then just is an open doorway for additions as editors come up with them. Patterns may begin to emerge as information is added or later on, that would allow the essay to be organized. A thought... but I do really like the initial idea. (olive (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC))

Oops . When I say "this page" I mean this new essay for dispute resolution not the page we are on presently.(olive (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC))

Clarificationalize maundering obfuscation

Is it a... spade?

The present version of the page is a tangle of words that basically says nothing. Is it time to delete the whole thing and start over? The version of a couple of days ago was OK. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean this version? I guess I no longer have any objection. I thought there was some feeling that the group of people here around that time wanted the article to be more about clear thought and clear expression without disparaging other editors, but my thought about the essay has undergone some change since then. Two things have exerted opposite pressure on my thinking: Antelan's case for leaving the essay alone (reverting it back to an even earlier version) and letting it stand as one of many different points of view on the subject, and on the other hand, olive's countering suggestion that essays often grow up to be policy, to which my reaction is, eek, if that's a real possibility, we should strangle the "always be nice" version in its crib. But I think the version pointed to above is a reasonable-enough compromise, though it doesn't say much about calling a spade a spade. It sort of argues for being honest and civil at the same time, and at least recognizes the real problem that accusing other editors of incivility is often used by editors as a red herring to "protect their edits from review."Woonpton (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[12] This version explains what To call a spade a spade means. What this version lacks is ammunition for one set of supposed partisan editors to throw at another set with a different point of view. I think that is a good thing. --

[13] This version was fair enough, up to a point, but it has nothing to do with "calling a spade a spade" except the title, and it focuses on putting editors in little named boxes so they can fight over points of view. --

Of this version, [14] there is only one sentence that is worth saying, and I would not like to see any of the rest restored, it is not helpful. --

While we must remain civil, calling a spade a spade is part of a reliable editors job. --NewbyG (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I presume that [15]'s good sentence is the first one, as that's the only one I'd agree with. I suppose one of the problems is that calling a spade a spade, as it applies to editors, is only really defensible in some of the more extreme parts of Wikipedia:

• Evolution and related: The strong opposition of some American churches to evolution, and the propoganda efforts they back assures that plenty of new, problematic editors will always be coming in and causing problems. How bad are things there? It's the only page on Wikipedia that has administrator review (of a draft page) before edits get added to the main article as the permanent solution to ridiculously persistant vandalism. Oh, and did I mention that most of the edits to the draft article are still vandalism anyway, thanks to the most persistent vandal (and probably the most prolific sockmaster) on Wikipedia jumping over there?
• Fringe theories/Pseudoscience/Conspiracy theories - e.g. the lawless regions. I think Wikipedia dropped the ball on handling these, and the ___ were completely unchallenged for years, leading to massive violations of NPOV or NOR. The Augean stables, without a river in sight, are going to have to be forked out by hand, and very entrenched editors who like things as they were, are going to be difficult to deal with.

Symptoms of these problems can remain even after (most of?) the problematic editors are mostly rooted out. Ridiculous over-referencing, caused by people challenging every word. A strong reluctance to remove mainstream material, caused by so many attempts to remove all criticism from the article - this leads to anything from a little too much repetition of the key mainstream points, to ENDLESS repetition of the key mainstream points. (see, e.g Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. It can be hoped that once the controversy dies down that article will look a bit saner, though this is the article after strong consious attempts were made to fix it up.) For that matter, an FA of this type will show a strong resistance to change - Compare, say, Intelligent design to the verson that got featured. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Combined version

[16] Elements from the earliest and latest revisions of this essay (see above) are contained in the current version, combining those ideas which have had most support (or least opposition) in recent threads concerning the direction this essay has been taking. --NewbyG (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)