Wikipedia talk:Don't be a jerk/Archive 1

Archive 1

From WP:VFD:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 Speedy close. This is a very old bit of wiki-lore. I'm not sure how one goes about get consensus to delete it; as it has been Vfd'ed before (in olden times), try DRV, if anything. Xoloz 15:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't be a dick

A favor for the people who want the soft redirect, I set up the MFD for them.. so we can settle the copy/link debate once and for all. -- Chris ^Ccool2ax _contrib. 18:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• See also: Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion/Wikipedia:Don't be a dick - previous deletion discussion

• Keep. This essay is important to Wikipedia and is not a personal attack per the latest comments on the talk page. -- Chris ^Ccool2ax _contrib. 18:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Close - no vote. How was this not settled by the original deletion vote that resulted in it being moved to Meta? The current kerfuffle is because a naïve editor copied it back from Meta over the long-standing soft redirect, and the reversion of this action was reverted a few times by well-meaning editors who didn't look at the page history super-carefully. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You wanted it moved to Meta for breaking WP:NPA (when it barely does) yet you just attacked the editor who was bold enough to copy it back. OF course, the longer something stands, the more unchangeable it must be... You say that since a redirect stood forever it shouldn't be changed? Sounds a little anti-wiki to me. -- Chris ^Ccool2ax _contrib. 23:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't see anybody attacking anybody. This page is clearly not a personal attack, but it is incivil. Zocky | picture popups 10:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Cool down Ccool2ax. I attacked nobody and my reason has nothing to do with WP:NPA. In fact, I rather like the essay and I'd be fine with it being at en:. Except! It is at meta, was moved there for a good reason, and having it in both places is duplication and fragmentation (both un-wiki things, but procedurally un-wiki rather than socially). — Saxifrage ✎ 14:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Close - no vote. This has been regularly VFD'd and deleted. The proper venue for this is WP:DRV, not AFD. Zocky | picture popups 21:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This shouldn't be deleted, it should be made policy. Gamaliel 21:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Close - no vote Please don't list something for deletion unless you want it deleted. Voting is evil. On a separate note, I dislike the policy on the grounds that it involves profanity and is uncivil, but I wouldn't support the deletion of an essay just because I dislike it. Andjam 01:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It doesn't cause any harm. David | Talk 23:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Please refrian from deleting (in this case soft redirecting) the article until the MFD is done. -- Chris ^Ccool2ax _contrib. 23:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Revert to redirect please. See previous delete debate on Wikipedia talk:Don't be a dick. ~Kylu (u|t) 23:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, useful information. JIP | Talk 07:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

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.

From WP:RfD:

• Wikipedia:Don't be a dick->Meta:Don't be a dick
• WP:DICK -> m:Don't be a dick
  • These used to be a "policy" page and its redirects, but the page was put on VFD and the consensus was to delete or move to meta. One of the main reasons was that we don't want users to use it as a personal attack veiled in policy, i.e. don't be a dick. The page is gone to meta, but judging by [1] and [2], redirects are serving the same function. So I think they should be gone too. Zocky 14:32, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As you demonstrate above, it's trivial to link to the meta page instead, and thus nothing is to be gained by deleting the redirect. Snowspinner 12:42, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Anybody can link anything from anywhere, but only internal links inside Wikipedia show in the default color. Wikipedia is Wikipedia and Meta is Meta. Not all stuff that is appropriate for Meta is appropriate for Wikipedia (hence the "move to meta" kind of votes on VfD). Zocky 20:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This one seems useful, and as they say, redirects are cheap. -- Ponder 13:00, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
  • I was going to say I was worried we'd break a bunch of links to it, but very few seem to be left - someone must have fixed them all. Noel (talk) 14:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not only it has been referenced in at least one recent RfC, it also contains the whole history of the page now at meta. It's not a simple redirect. As for using as a personal attack, removing the redirects wouldn't change a bit — people would just use the direct link to meta. --cesarb 21:50, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. BlankVerse ∅ 22:20, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme keep, and remember kids, don't be a WP:DICK. —RaD Man (talk) 09:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

People who have voted after the RFD was long over:

• • Keep - these types of redirects should be an automatic keep. - Pioneer-12 06:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme keep, and remember kids, don't be a WP:DICK. Cannot improve on this. :) Imacomp 18:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, it's true that there's WP:NPA but imho there should be one "exception to the rule" and this redirect represents that. Netscott 03:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Extreme keep--Who123 04:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

---

If people abided by this, we wouldn't need any other policies. :) Angela. 23:21, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

That goes on the page! - David Gerard 00:09, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, I am not impressed by that page. SweetLittleFluffyThing

If you can work out a better way of saying it ... - David Gerard 00:40, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, it's contracted instruction creep. Ah well! - David Gerard 01:53, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

It is quite uncivil... It is kind of like the bumper sticker that says "Mean people suck". If you say to anyone, "you suck", that makes you mean, so therefore your suck.--Rogerd 07:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

A featured essay?

Is something using a profanity like this worthy of being a featured essay? Andjam 14:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:DICK is cited frequently in discussions in WIkipedia and the mailing lists, so it's one of the more popular essays. 05:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Recreation

I decided to "be bold" and copy this back from meta. It seems to be alone among frequently cited unoffical policies/essays in not being on the main site. I know recreations are frowned upon, but the deletion debate was over a year ago. Wkdewey 05:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a horrible article. If I said "Don't be a dick" in an editing debate, that would clearly be a personal attack. If I type Don't be a dick that does not make it better. Just my twopenn'orth. Robin Johnson 15:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Wrong "be". The implication of "Don't be a dick" isn't "You're a dick", but rather "You're being a dick" (referring to the person's behaviour, rather than the person themself). As much as some might disagree with the name, Wikipedia:Would you kindly be just a little bit less annoying please? just isn't quite as catchy. Incidentally, there is also WP:DENSE (yes, it's a soft redirect), for use when dealing with the humour-impaired. In addition, I've put the redirect back for fork-safety. If so many people link to it, it's important that the essay be consistent, and the easiest way to ensure that is to keep only one "live" copy with many pointers to it. Precisely where that copy belongs is a matter for debate, however, it currently lives on meta. If someone moves it back here (properly, unlike the current copy), then so be it. 81.104.165.184 20:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

We have policy for dealing with difficult and dense people. It's called assume good faith and civility. I don't care how catchy it is. I don't want you going around Wikipedia calling people dicks, because it's not civil. Zocky | picture popups 19:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not alone. For instance, m:Polls are evil is also often cited. --cesarb 16:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Adding {{R from shortcut}} to WP:DICK

Could someone add the template {{R from shortcut}} to the page WP:DICK? Thank you. Korg (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. --  Netsnipe  ►  17:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Why does a redirect page have redirects pointing to it?

I'll go fix it >_> 72.192.54.23 13:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, they're protected. 72.192.54.23 13:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to rename article

Some editors at the failed MfD suggested that I should try to get a consensus to possibly rename the inflammatory page title. Now, I am not trying to fight the failed MfD. I just want to see what others think. So anyone, please comment. Thanks. Chris! _ct 23:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to rename the redirect, or the essay itself? Because, hopefully one thing you realized from the MfD is that if you want to change the essay itself, talking about it here (on Wikipedia) is absolutely pointless, as the essay is on meta. Any changes to the essay itself, whether it be content or title change, needs to be discussed over there.

Any consensus reached here regarding modification of any part of the essay, will have no bearing on the essay, as we have no impact on Meta-Wiki's content. Why don't you create an account (if you haven't already) on the Meta, and purpose this? If Meta changes the essay, then we can change the redirect. - Rjd0060 05:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I know. Thanks for your reminder anyway. But I have no idea how stuffs work on Meta-Wiki. Do you know how the renaming process work on Meta? Chris! _ct 05:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well anyway, I just create an account on Meta. I immediately comment on m:Talk:Don't be a dick, so anyone with a Meta account, please comment. Thanks. Chris! _ct 05:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You technically could start a deletion discussion for the redirect at RfD if you wanted to. I, personally am for keeping the page, but I dont agree when people said that if the redirect was deleted, people would just go to m:Don't be a dick, because I don't think people would be able to find it. Anyways, I've left a comment at meta, ad I see others have too. - Rjd0060 15:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

An alternative to this essay

If you're planning to link someone to this page, consider linking them to this one instead: Wikipedia:Don't be inconsiderate. It's a replacement for 'Don't be a dick' recently created by User:SilkTork, which simply replaces the word 'dick' with 'inconsiderate', and in my opinion is a vast improvement. Terraxos 00:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha

Great article. And I like how the redirect is a "soft" redirect to Don't be a Dick. LOL --smileyborg (talk) 06:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

recent edits

Call the civility police! someone might be mildly offended when someone else rightly points out to them that they are acting like a jerk!

Specifically this one [3], which I have reverted. There is a valid point that is trying to be made here, and transforming this widely-used soft redirect into an essay on political correctness that basically says that anyone who would link to this is an insensitive ... dick kind of defeats the purpose. Let the essay speak for itself, it covers this same territory in a much less ingratiating fashion. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I noticed this the other day and endorse Beeblebrox's revert. This seems to have been prompted by the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Civility#Wikipedia:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

nb: The correct way to link to the meta essay is m:dick. Cheers, User:Moby Dick 05:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus serems to be that we shouldn't be talking about dicks, period. I see no reason to delete this caution that I added - people shouldn't be linking to anything about "dicks" in relation to an individual - unfortunately they sometimes do, and they need to be reminded not to (and their victims need to be reassured).--Kotniski (talk) 06:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This is bedrock, really; Wikipedia:Trifecta, which I see you've edited. Jack Merridew 06:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I would rather see it deleted altogether than to see it turned into some wishy-washy PC handholding page about "playing nice." I don't think there is any consensus for that. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, referring to them as "victims" is just priceless. I love overblown hyperbole. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

All right, I wasn't being all that serious about "victims". But it is a serious matter if people are thinking it's all right to call people things like "dicks" on Wikipedia. "Playing nice" isn't just PC, it's important to the success of this project - by creating a pleasant atmosphere, we encourage the right sort of people to stay and work with us. (And yes, I too would prefer all dick-related pages and shortcuts to be deleted altogether, but still no-one has given any reason why, if we have to have them, they shouldn't come with a health warning.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

[4] Please cut it out. The current discussion is more related to WP:TWAT (now deleted) anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

So why shouldn't this one be next? I don't understand what anyone has against explaining our take on this dick meme. Do we disagree with what was written? If not, then it makes no sense to replace it with a soft redirect - that just provides the same amount of clicks with less information. (Soft redirects generally seem a silly idea anyway - they just provide a blank link which many people will not understand.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The page at meta explains itself. No introduction is needed here. As I said on Jimbo's talk page, I do not object to a discussion to determine a consensus on what to do with this redirect, but converting it to wishy-washy handwringing lest we offend someone who has been acting offensively themselves is a terrible result. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

If the meta page explains itself satisfactorily, why was it moved to meta? And I don't know what you mean about wishy-washy handwringing - can you explain in more explicit terms? (I'm concerned about people who have been offended by being called dicks, not the offensive people who call them that - though if we can make it clear that we shouldn't be calling each other such things, that's a good thing, surely? Or are you saying it's all right to indulge in such name-calling?)--Kotniski (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Not Appropriate ..

Excuse me for interrupting your fun, but this article is not appropriate. Perhaps it should be deleted ? DustinAbottuuf (talk) 01:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Several past discussions have found consensus to lie on the side of retaining this page in the Wikipedia. "Don't be a dick" is simply the basic rule of social spaces. If you wish to discuss the possibility of changing that, feel free, but do not blank the info on the main page again. Tarc (talk) 01:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently not - consensus seems to have been to move this inappropriately worded page off Wikipedia, and there's little sign of any consensus for even maintaining the soft redirect to the (still inappropriately worded) Metawiki page. (And "Don't be a dick" is not a basic rule of anything - it's just a vulgar retort - to be a rule it would have to carry some meaningful content.)--Kotniski (talk) 06:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you have expressed such sentiment in earlier topics above, none of which attracted much interest from others. If you don't like it, feel free to click that little watch/unwatch tab up to there. Tarc (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not so much that I don't like it; it's that potential good editors might reasonably be deterred from joining or staying with Wikipedia when they see this sort of thing.--Kotniski (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)