Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't be a dick (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was

Invalid nomination:

  • policies, guidelines, essays , etc. are marked historical, not deleted. (This was decided because deletion records are NOT kept permanently, and we need a complete history of wikipedia guidelines if we're ever going to keep our heads on straight)
  • We cannot instruct meta to delete pages at any rate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim Bruning (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Don't be a dick

[edit]

The primary reason I nominated is because the page is extremely vulgar, rude and incivil. In many cases, editors response in bad faith using the link to this page, which violates WP:AGF, possibly violates WP:CIV and WP:NPA. The page also prompt other frustrated editors to create pages such as User:Cyde/Don't be a fucking douchebag to point out the blatant hypocrisy of WP:DICK. Lengthy discussion regarding the deletion of this page is currently undergoing on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cyde/Don't be a fucking douchebag. As a side note, I nominate this because I think this page deserve no place in this encyclopedia. I am not trying to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Chris! ct 21:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, IS. Typing quickly, R. Baley 21:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason why the redirect can't be deleted/salted and the appropriate section removed on the basis of this discussion. This forum is appropriate and beginning again somewhere else seems like a bit of a run around, imo. As for the meta, can't we deal with that in due time? R. Baley 22:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just saying there's no point in deleting the redirect when people are still going to quote the meta-text. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: And calling someone a dick is still calling someone a dick, meta essay or no. If you want to call someone a dick, just do it, don't WP:GAME the system so you can get away with calling someone a dick without someone saying no personal attacks. Which should be the response anyway when someone posts this essay. IvoShandor 22:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If someone uses this essay to make a personal attack, what they did should be treated as a personal attack. The essay in itself isn't a personal attack. A.Z. 22:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is referring to this page "a good faith attempt to improve things?" The act of referring to this page is in itself bad faith. Keeping this page is like letting users WP:GAME the system. Chris! ct 23:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think there could exist ways to refer to this page without attacking anyone. I'm not saying this is likely. I agree that the page is used for attacks, but I think it's more effective to address the attacks when they happen, and explain to people, when they use the page for this purpose, that this is wrong and they shouldn't do it. That people think it's OK to be so rude to others doesn't necessarily mean they are acting in bad faith. They may genuinely believe that attacking certain people can be a legitimate and justifiable way to make things better for all people. They may think it's just "pragmatism". That the page keeps existing may even be useful for us to discover which people need to be thought how to treat other people. We can just click on "what links here" for a list of personal attacks. A.Z. 23:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to make it easier for people to attack each other. In the mean time, if the editors of the English Wiki don't care to link to the meta attack page, perhaps the redirect can be refactored to say as much, without actually redirecting to meta. R. Baley 22:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that this redirect exists is not a license for people to call each other dicks. Such behaviour is regulated by WP:CIV and WP:NPA. In any event people can just as easily link straight to the meta page were the local redirect not present - m:Dick. WjBscribe 22:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be a license, but it does constitute both an invitation and an (implied) endorsement. We don't have to do that. R. Baley 23:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think NPA and CIV fall under DICK. Of course they matter. I am currently heavily involved in a problem that was caused by linking this page in a comment that I wrote. I would say keep but move it over to Wiki (and perhaps protect it), and rephrase some things. I, personally dont consider this to be a personal attack, unless you flat out say "DONT BE A DICK". Just linking the essay, I see nothing wrong with that, which is why I am knee-high in this dick-shit right now. - Rjd0060 23:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concurrence: The "Don't Be a Dick" essay is the civility policy and the no-personal-attacks policy, just more bluntly stated. Ironically, you can't cite "Don't Be a Dick" (I'm tired of the TLA, is that okay?) because that would constitute a personal attack. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 23:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the differences between flat out say "DONT BE A DICK" and citing DONT BE A DICK link (not the content) to attack others? I think we should at least change the language to make in less rude. Chris! ct 00:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "DBAD" and linking the essay are different IMO. Linking the essay implies a suggestion, which is found in the essay. - Rjd0060 00:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I admit I don't have a clue what the essay is supposed to mean. It doesn't look in itself a personal attack to me. What people use it for, however, is to call other people dicks. A.Z. 00:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you in the sense that it doesn't look like a personal attack, and there shouldn't be generalities that say "If you refer to this essay, that is considered a personal attack", because this essay can be referred to in a number of contexts. As I said above, I am currently the "topic" of a discussion about this on ANI because I linked this article with a comment I made. Linking this essay isn't any different that linking WP:CIVIL and it is just a very blunt way of saying "Don't be uncivl", "Dont make Personal Attacks", etc.. - Rjd0060 01:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look like a personal attack, but it doesn't look helpful to me either. I checked some of the pages where people linked to the essay, and many of them seem not to be personal attacks. There are some personal attacks, though, such as this disgusting personal attack complete with a threat and an appeal to authority. A.Z. 01:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It all depends on the context in which it is used. - Rjd0060 02:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, the essay is confusing, and I don't really see its point. A.Z. 02:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we can establish consensus here to prohibit its abuse during discussions, that would be good. Chris! ct 01:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) As I see it, consensus on keeping it or deleting it will not be reached (ignoring the technical limitations various users mentioned above about actually deleting it here), leaving the option open to reach consensus that it should not be used to refer directly or indirectly at any user(s), and anyone who does is clearly violating policy.
My personal belief is that, no matter what the debate is about, responding to a user with a link to WP:COOL or WP:AGF will suffice to bring about order and civility, while WP:DICK may in fact worsen the situation. But I believe the essay should not be deleted because of its apparent abuse if the essay was made in good faith, and more so if the community has yet to decide what is its proper use and effectively enforcing it (be it through policy, guidelines, etc.) I don't think it harms anyone as an additional essay to WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and especially WP:MASTODONS, but it should definitely not be directed at someone. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 01:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think we should put a notice on the top of the page, clearly warn editors not to abuse the page? That would possibly eliminate the problem. Chris! ct 02:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, consensus hasn't established that this is the best course yet, but assuming it is I'm unsure on how to proceed at this point. If consensus is established here, in the English Wikipedia, we should document it somewhere in our policies, with the best alternative being at Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. We could also document this consensus by expanding the WP:DICK page under the soft redirect template, stating that, although it is an essay, it should not be used to refer to any user. We could certainly elaborate on it so as not to confuse new and old Wikipedia users. But, again, this is assuming that this is the best course. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 02:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Working to establish a consensus here is pointless, unless we are going to copy that essay to Wikipedia. If not, then the consensus needs to be established on the Meta, perhaps on the essay's talk page. - Rjd0060 03:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Long standing page that sums up civility simply. As per the essay, this page is not license to call someone a dick. Additionally, although this is not the right forum to delete this (and has no force at meta:) moving this to RFD is less helpful so continuing here is ideal. — xaosflux Talk 01:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. I know I'm not going to win this one, but I feel that this is worse than useless - it actually has the opposite of the intended effect, which is surely to defuse arguments and reduce behaviour seen by one party as contrary to what is needed. There has never been an argument yet that hasn't been made worse by one party calling the other a dick. WP:DICK is the Wikipedian equivalent of Godwin's Law - if you have to resort to calling the other person a dick during an argument, it's pretty clear you have no counterargument and are prepared to attack the person rather than what has been said or done, so the argument has been lost. WP:DICK is thus not only rude but both inflammatory and counterproductive when it comes to its general use. Grutness...wha? 01:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Editors who bring this essay up in an incivil fashion should be rebuked, not this or whatever WP:EIEIO wikilink they use. east.718 at 02:30, 10/25/2007
  • Keep This essay is the best way to detect editors who meet the essay's criteria by actually using it to refer to another editor. Ample reliable and verifiable sources establish that this essay is notable. Alansohn 02:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Should be policy, regardless of who uses it. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to WP:MFD, since the latter seems to have turned into a dick size contest. :-) In seriousness, this is just another one of those pointless issues that Wikipedians get very worked up about. WaltonOne 08:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So long as the meta page exists, deleting this redirect is fairly pointless. The bigger issue is that some people need to understand that just because they don't find the term "dick" offensive, many others do. Worse, calling people dicks just makes the caller part of the problem. There are better ways to address this. Cyde went with shock tactics. I prefer to persuade, which is why I created WP:MOBY, which is, interestingly, also at MfD. --Dweller 09:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: The shortcut WP:DICK is clearly in violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, and its continued existence simply provides opportunity for naughty editors to WP:GAME. It is a hypocritical anomaly. Logically, I cannot see how any argument can be made in favour of WP:DICK without refuting WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. What next, WP:GENITALS? --feline1 11:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has been pointed out, without violating WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL many people are capable of disrupting WP. Surely you can be a **** without violating those and therefore we should make clear that such is not tolerated. Skirting policy to technically not break the rules is a perfect example of why WP:DICK is needed.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 12:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see no compelling reason to delete. Saying "people use it to be uncivil" is no reason to delete it. People are going to be uncivil whether that redirect (or the page on meta) exists or not. Deleting any of this won't change that. ^demon[omg plz] 13:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. It is vulgar, sexist (referring to the male genitals as a derogatory term), and almost always used as an uncivil personal attack. Telling someone "don't be a dick" is almost always being a dick about it. It inflames things. We shouldn't be facilitating that kind of behavior. Most of the "keep" votes are impertinent, defending the essay. This vote is about deleting the redirect, not the essay. Whereas the essay itself has some valid points (some could object to it and say Meta should delete it too, but that's Meta's business), the redirect has no valid purpose other than to facilitate citation. Even if it's a valuable essay, it seems to be consensus that it's improper to cite the article when in an argument. The essay is almost never cited in a general discussion about dickness, it's almost always used here in argument. Hence, even if the essay is valid, the redirect is not. It's an embarrassment on Wikipedia that this kind of nonsense exists. Wikidemo 15:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In reply to the above comments; having a !vote here does nothing. It is not the proper forum. We cannot delete the redirect if the consensus here says to. - Rjd0060 15:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename, and refactor the content in metawiki. If we'd rename it to something nicer and make the content use less naughty words, it'd be more difficult to use it for unsavoury purposes, no? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. People who are going to violate WP:AGF or WP:NPA will do so regardless of whether essays like WP:DICK exist. Those people are not a reason to delete what is honestly a cornerstone of Wikipedia culture, and in many ways the most important rule of them all. At my college, the number one rule of the entire school (an official rule, mind you!) is "Don't be a jackass." While loads of other rules are indeed described, this rule makes most of them unnecessary most of the time. —Dark•Shikari[T] 17:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the following reasons:
1. It's a redirect, not an essay.
2. Don't be a dick on meta is quite sensible. It discourages, rather than encourages, as stated above, incivility and bad faith.
3. Don't be a dick on meta states that you can't accuse someone of being a dick without being a dick (ie. assuming bad faith)
4. Don't be a dick on meta ddoes not label anyone a dick.
5. Don't be a dick on meta is an essay. It's the opinion of a number of editors, not all editors

--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 19:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Chris might not be trying to violate WP:POINT, but he does violate the rule that policies, guidelines and essays may not be deleted, they are always marked historical at best. So we need to close this mfd, and warn Chris. --Kim Bruning 22:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Don%27t_be_a_dick_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1144853250"