Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cyde/Don't be a fucking douchebag


 * 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 Keep. After Midnight 0001 01:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Cyde/Don't be a fucking douchebag
I see two reasons for deletion. First, the page is extremely vulgar, rude and incivil. While I fully believe the mainspace should not be censored, and I don't mind being told something similar in polite terms, this essay takes things to a new low and can easily poison the atmosphere of a discussion. Second, while I understand the creator's sometime frustration with WP:DICK (which incidentally is a core principle here), there already exists a perfectly civil riposte to its invocation: WP:KETTLE. In the interests of full disclosure, I was recently pointed to this essay (see the bottom of this page, and I took it as a personal attack. In short, it is this innate potential for the page to create WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:CIV violations that I believe mandates its deletion. Biruitorul 01:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - As long as WP:DICK is around (and somehow acceptable), I see no reason to delete any page similar (even if it's borderline WP:POINT). I think it's disgraceful that WP:DICK is listed so prominently and proudly as a "core principle" on Trifecta. WP:CIVIL is the core principle. WP:DICK spits in WP:CIVIL's face, and I see nothing wrong with an essay in userspace that points out that blatant hypocrisy. --Onorem♠Dil 01:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a perfectly valid essay, per Onorem's reasoning. This essay is not a personal attack, by the way. It's simply a statement. If, by chance, the reader should feel "attacked" by this essay, a Wikibreak may be in order.--WaltCip 02:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I find that absurd. First, one could say "it's simply a statement" about anything; we should have higher standards for what we retain here. Clearly one of its purposes is to attack other users, stopping discussion in its tracks through a base insult. Second: if someone makes an attack, shouldn't he be made to take a break (ie, blocked), rather than his victim? WP:NPA, an official policy, says yes. Biruitorul 03:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Clearly one of its purposes is to attack other users" - EXCUSE ME??? You mean that this is an attack page? Anything that couples foul language with a command is an attack?--WaltCip 13:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not just a couple "foul language." This is used by editor to direct insults at other editors, which violate our policies. Violators should get punished, not those who are trying to enforce policies.  Chris!  c t 21:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So if Joe editor yells "Don't be a dick" to a group of editors who support a certain position on Wikipedia policy, that editor is absolved from receiving the same courtesy from other editors?--WaltCip 21:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Change of position - Should the AFD for WP:DICK end in delete, then - and ONLY then - will I support deletion of this essay.--WaltCip 21:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Though it is valid, the title is extremely vulgar. There are cases where editors blatantly use the title to attack others. I also support the deletion of WP:DICK if editors by any chance nominate it. But if editors nevertheless agree to keep, then could we at least change the title. Chris!  c t 03:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * comment I read this as somewhat ironic and self-referential. to paraphrase; dont call people stupid vulgar names. if you do so you yourself are something best described by a stupid vulgar name, and that's what I'm going to call you. DGG (talk) 04:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think I understand your comment. I never call people stupid vulgar names. So in what way do you think I deserve the vulgar name calling? Chris!  c t 06:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. No Personal Attacks only applies to attacks aimed towards a specific person.  This page, by definition, is not, as its entire point is to discourage the use of "Don't be a dick" as a personal attack.  It is pointed and vulgar, but serves a very specific purpose. — Da rk •S hik ari [T] 04:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * While "dick" isn't normally something I'd call someone, this is at an entirely different level of crassness. Moreover, linking to the page in a discussion comes at least very close to a personal attack, and WP:DICK is enshrined in the trifecta (for now, at least), so using it in an appropriate context is far more accepted. However, I would agree that a discussion on replacing WP:DICK with WP:CIV in the trifecta is a good idea. Biruitorul 05:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously ironic and meant exactly to counter the (also considered offensive by many) WP:DICK arguments. If all people in favor of deleting this would equally hard try and manage to get WP:DICK deleted, I am pretty sure User:Cyde will delete this one himself. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 06:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment All the keep votes here are essentially argument of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Editors have not explore the possibility of this page being use or refer to in a negative ways. Chris!  c t 07:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How about you actually show that it is used in a negative way. The page is hardly ever linked to . Above you claim "There are cases where editors blatantly use the title to attack others". Show me where (other than in an ironic reply to a WP:DICK argument). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Read the link provided by the nominator in the nomination statement. Chris!  c t 21:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have read it, have you? The exact quote is: "And the trifling gratuitous remark is a perfect example of this Wikipedia essay". I see no "blatant use [of] the title to attack others" here, just a link in response to a WP:DICK mention. Its a sarcastic reply at the most, not even close to an attack. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 06:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. As the nominator points out, this page is basically redundant to WP:KETTLE, which makes the same (perfectly valid) point. Also, IIRC, WP:DICK actually points out that calling someone a dick (and linking to the essay) may itself be prima facie evidence of dickishness. I further concur with the nominator that while Wikipedia is not censored, the no-censorship policy applies only to encyclopedic content, where vulgarity may be necessary to give a full and complete picture of a topic; in userspace, in contrast, one should try to avoid being offensive or inflammatory. WaltonOne 08:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry - what you state is neither printed in policy nor in guideline; WP:USER does not directly apply to a page of this sort. Until I see some kind of decision otherwise by the powers that be, there is nothing preventing anyone from being vulgar or inflammatory on their userpage (I saw an admin at one point link a picture of a middle finger to her talk page).--WaltCip 13:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I know it's not "printed" (or even wiki-coded) in any policy or guideline; I was using reasoned argument for why the page should be deleted, which is IMO more helpful than playing "Let's see how many policy acronyms we can fit in a sentence". And there are no "powers that be" who could make a "decision" on this matter; the highest authority on Wikipedia is the community, which, through a process of consensus, has the authority to make decisions on deletions. Also, if you want to be pedantic, WP:USER does apply to user subpages (there's a section on it), and just because another admin has used their userspace inappropriately doesn't mean it's an acceptable action. WaltonOne 15:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We are not debating the deletion of a potentially or immediately volatile article, we are debating the deletion of a potentially or immediately volatile userspace essay. Those are two entirely different things. An AFD is generally more complex and less reliant on policy than on well-founded common sense arguments. MFDs, in particular - USERSPACE MFDs - should have some form of policy justification in order to justify deletion, and the policy violation needs to be apparent, unquestionable, and inherent. In any case, we seem to be out of line. WP:USER states that in extreme cases, content from userpages will be deleted via the MFD process if they contain "inappropriate content" by the justification of policy. What I want to know is, why has nobody taken the less extreme step of notifying the editor and inquiring that he edit his page, as User:Fred Bauder was eager to do following the premature MFD of his userspace essay "Don't be a chickenshit"? This deletion should not have happened to begin with.--WaltCip 16:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

*Vote to delete Violation of policies, including civility at worst. Offensive title too... --Whitmorewolveyr 12:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * AFD is not a vote.--WaltCip 13:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My reasoning for deletion still stands. --Whitmorewolveyr 13:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your reasoning for deletion is false. This doesn't violate a single policy. To say that WP:CIVIL, of all things, applies here, is almost a totalitarian approach to policy enforcement, and certainly not in the spirit of Wikipedia--WaltCip 13:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. --Whitmorewolveyr 13:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as completely redundant with WP:KETTLE, and Rename WP:DICK to something a bit more civil. ("Lawful Evils not wanted here?" Too gamey...) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So now we're deleting essays in people's userspaces because they're redundant? Because we've got a lot of redundant essays here that are in mainspace. Or are we singling this one out because it could be a "facetious personal attack"?--WaltCip 15:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, truth to tell, I'm not really that strongly in favour of deletion - a redirect to WP:KETTLE would be just as fine. However, I'm also completely withdrawing the "redundancy" claim if someone makes a complementary essay that says "Don't be a complete and utter mental case by actually linking to Cyde's 'fucking douchebag' essay in any discussion about civility and expecting your point to be taken seriously", because that would make Complete and Utter Mockery of the whole case, thusby lessening the potentially offensive impact of the other two essays. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? My essay was created a full four months before KETTLE.  So if you want to use the "redundant" logic, it's actually KETTLE that should be deleted, as it was the one that was redundant.  Mine was the original.  -- Cyde Weys  02:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll not call it redundant then. So, it has instead been superceded by WP:KETTLE, a more civil and more throughout discussion of the exact same topic. Just because an essay came first it's not necessarily better. Hope this makes my rationale clearer. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So what? It's not as if we routinely delete our history here on Wikipedia.  Even assuming KETTLE does supersede DOUCHE, that does not mean DOUCHE should be deleted.  It's useful to be able to track down the evolution of policy memes.  We should not be in the business of deleting everything before the current revision (and surprise surprise, on Wikipedia, we aren't).  We lose valuable history that way, and we may end up making the same mistakes all over again.  -- Cyde Weys  21:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete even though I find it very humorous, I'm afraid that it's not a rational response and falls into the category of uncivil. (I'd also vote to delete WP:DICK because of civility problems).  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Then delete that first. You stop weeds from growing by cutting them off at the root, not the flower.--WaltCip 18:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep unless changes to the existing WP:DICK page make it redundant. I don't actually like either page, but think there's no reason to prefer one over the other in their present state, so if one goes, they all go, if one stays, they all stay. If WP:DICK is made a bit less vulgar, then things would be different. John Carter 18:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The perfect response to WP:DICK. Just ask the nominator, who seems to have gotten the point. Unfortunately, he believes that WP:DICK is a civil means of interacting with other users. Alansohn 18:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Kindly review WP:STALK and cease commenting on me, confining your comments to content. I invoked WP:DICK only when pushed to the limit, and you fully deserved having your attention called to it. However, on further review, I have determined that too can go, as we have WP:CIV. Biruitorul 21:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Stalking?!?!?! Unfortunately, while you violated WP:CANVASS in soliciting a vote from User:Chrishomingtang, you failed to provide me with the same courtesy. It was only in searching through another MfD that this caught my eye. Pointing out a persistent failure to violate Wikipedia policy in a disruptive manner was all I was trying to do. Your hypocrisy in thinking that WP:DICK constitutes civil discourse is astounding. This MfD, and your response here, only add to the mounting evidence. Besides, this essay should be kept because it provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn 23:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, there was no WP:CANVASS violation: "neutrally worded notifications sent to a small number of editors are considered "friendly notices" if they are intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion", and as Chris was also a target of that link of yours, and he appreciated my notification, you have no cause for complaint here. "a persistent failure to violate Wikipedia policy" - well, yes, I have persistently failed to violate Wikipedia policy; nothing wrong with that. I happen to have changed my mind on WP:DICK, something I am perfectly entitled to do upon further reflection, so the issue of hypocrisy is moot. Notability is not a concern regarding miscellanea. "Mounting evidence" of what, exactly? Again, do resist the impulse to put me on trial - it's getting very tiring. Biruitorul 23:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that is not WP:CANVASS violation. In case you forget, you direct your personal attacks at both of us. Chris!  c t 00:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Ah interesting. Please see my recently created essay WP:MOBY and its attendant MfD, lol. --Dweller 19:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note to the closing admin Almost all the keep votes here are WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and should carry no weight in this AfD. Just because WP:DICK is not nominated for deletion, doesn't mean we should keep this one. Chris!  c t 21:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (crassly) Chris - Don't be a dick.
 * But seriously, you've already mentioned your opinion of the Keep votes above. You don't need to make up a closing admin's mind for them.--WaltCip 21:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would also note that this really isn't a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as that is generally used to refer to votes about articles. This page is a response to another policy/guideline page, and as such is I think an entirely seperate matter. John Carter 21:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to make up a closing admin's mind. I just want to point out the fallacious comments editors made. Chris!  c t 21:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your assessment of the keep votes. Arguments to keep the essay include its usefulness, its relative harmlessness, and the fact that it doesn't violate any rules.  The existence of WP:DICK was noted not as an argument that other stuff exists, but to explain why this essay is valuable (as a response to that one).  —David Levy 22:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I nominated WP:DICK for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't be a dick (3rd nomination). So this should address the concern that I am unfairly targeting this particular page. Chris!  c t 21:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete this and WP:DICK both. David Fuchs ( talk  ) 21:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know why.--WaltCip 21:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * These only apply to articles as the other editors point out. Chris!  c t 21:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean WP:JUSTAVOTE? If so, so does WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.--WaltCip 21:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is what I am saying. The other editors point that out. Chris!  c t 22:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just so's you know, Walt, attacking everyone who votes delete is not a way to endear yourself. I think all that needs to be said has been said on the subject. Quoting essays is the whole reason this stupid page is here in the first place... David Fuchs ( talk  ) 22:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to endear myself, but I will not let a statement go unchallenged. Being bitter, crass, unfeeling, and intrusive is not necessarily an "attack." Even I know my limits.--WaltCip 22:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you actually look at the example? The editor in question did not call anyone "a fucking douchebag." He/she simply linked to the essay (without even displaying its name) in response to the nominator's unpiped link to WP:DICK. If someone were to link to the page when calling someone "a fucking douchebag," that wouldn't render the essay itself uncivil. It would mean that the responsible party demonstrated incivility while completely missing the essay's point. One needn't link to an essay to uncivilly refer to someone as "a dick" (or "a fucking douchebag," or anything else), but some people believe that doing so is a clever means of getting away with it. This essay's purpose is to discourage such behavior. —David Levy 22:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 3. We don't delete pages simply because they're subject to abuse (not that any evidence of such abuse has been presented); every page (including our most important policies) is subject to abuse. We handle such situations by addressing the abuse. —David Levy 23:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 2. You're missing the essay's point. Again, it isn't uncivil because no one is being called "a fucking douchebag." The phrase is used to illustrate that such name-calling is inappropriate. You seem to be offended by the mere presence of profanity in a personal essay. —David Levy 03:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This essay is valuable, relatively harmless, and violates no rules.  Its very purpose is to satirically discourage incivility, so deeming it uncivil doesn't make sense.  No one's actually being called "a fucking douchebag."  —David Levy 22:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How is this essay valuable? This page is incivil. And according to the example in nomination statement, one editor actually called one "a fucking douchebag." Chris!  c t 22:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The essay is valuable because it cleverly illustrates the hypocrisy of calling someone "a dick" by linking to WP:DICK (whether directly or via the soft redirect).
 * The hypocrisy is so clear, that the existence of this essay is not needed. As for my example, the editor linked to the essay in response to WP:DICK, sneakily implying someone is being "a fucking douchebag," a comment far worse than "dick." This is actually an example of someone WP:GAMEing our system. And to prevent it, we have to delete the page. Chris!  c t 23:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. The hypocrisy is clear to you and me, but obviously not to everyone. I've seen respected members of the community imply that people were "dicks" by linking to WP:DICK. 2. You're misinterpreting both the essay itself and that editor's motive.  The essay is satirical.  It isn't actually referring to anyone as "a fucking douchebag."  It's illustrating the inappropriateness of behaving in that manner.
 * Oh no, I interpret that editor's motive correctly. That editor has a history of incivility and was nearly blocked for 3RR. Also the writer should write his satire in a more civil manner. Using phrase like "a fucking douchebag" definitely wont solve the problem. Chris!  c t 23:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. I'm not taking anyone's side in that dispute. I'm simply noting that the editor in question didn't call anyone "a fucking douchebag."  In fact, he/she went out of his/her way to avoid displaying that phrase in the visible text (by piping the link).  This was done in criticism of the nominator's unpiped link to WP:DICK.  In other words, it was not an act of name-calling, but condemnation of name-calling.
 * Any 3RR blocks on the part of the author are entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 06:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In case you don't know, I have nominated WP:DICK for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't be a dick (3rd nomination). Chris!  c t 23:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I always read the entire deletion discussion before commenting, so I'm aware of that. But that's merely a soft redirect.  Its deletion won't stop people from linking directly to the actual essay.  —David Levy 23:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm clueless. It'd be hypocritical to oppose this page but not oppose Don't be a dick, yet I'm also of the opinion that this page really goes too far. Also, it makes the point I made on the other page: you shouldn't cite Don't be a dick. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 23:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 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 02:29, 10/25/2007
 * Weak Keep, as it may seem redundant due to Dick and WP:KETTLE, but it seems OK, just so long as no one is attacked by a user citing this essay. WP:TTR hasn't been deleted, and it too expresses an opinion. That's why it's an essay. I also find it to be slightly humorous as reflecting the same behavior it chastises people for by linking to another essay. J- ſtan TalkContribs 19:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't much care for the title either, but that's quite irrelevant. This page is in userspace, and we typically keep pages like that unless there is a strong overriding reason not to. I don't see any such overriding reason here. Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored. That and the page mostly just satirically makes fun of another long-standing page (and perhaps imparts some wisdom, one can hope). Not really much to stand on for deleting it. --Kim Bruning
 * Sure, it's not censored, but that's primarily a mainspace rather than userspace concern. Biruitorul 22:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What's the difference (in censorship standards between mainspace and userspace)?--WaltCip 23:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not at all versus not at all. --Kim Bruning 23:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not a comment on this proposed deletion, but to say that we are "not censored at all", meaning that one can use any word in any context at any time without consequence, is misleading. There is an administrator that an arbitrator is proposing to desysop right now in part for unnecessarily using certain words in edit summaries. I'm not saying this is a good thing or a bad thing, but it is a fact. Newyorkbrad 23:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's obviously wrong. WP:NPA (and to some extent WP:CIV) trumps WP:CENSOR, for one. If someone made a box reading "This user hates Jews [or k____]" and had a picture of a swastika in there, do you think he'd last long? What about a box reading "F___ You!"? Or "This user believes 30 nuclear bombs should be dropped on Mecca because Islam is a wicked and violent cult?" I could go on with some other egregious examples. The point is: in mainspace, we record facts, including some extremely unpleasant or vulgar ones. In userspace, we allow some leeway, but there are limits - the very next section on WP:NOT, WP:ANARCHY, reads: "Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech." "Not at all versus not at all"? I think not. Biruitorul 02:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What you've written is essentially accurate, but it doesn't apply to this situation. It would have been okay if you'd written out the words "kikes" and "fuck" because you didn't direct them toward anyone.  Likewise, this essay does not refer to anyone as "a fucking douchebag."  The phrase is used to satirically illustrate the inappropriateness of such name-calling.  There is no violation of WP:CIV or WP:NPA.  There are merely words that some people dislike.  —David Levy 03:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not only is it crude and unnecessarily vulgar (do we really need to be using terms like "fucking douchebag"? It makes us sound like a bunch of drunk college freshmen!), it's three lines long! Since when is a three-line-long gripe considered an "essay"? More trouble than it's worth and a waste of space. K. Lásztocska 01:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This essay doesn't actually "waste space", per WP:PERFORMANCE. Also, as to your complaint about the essay being only three lines long, WP:IAR is a policy that's only one line long. You also seem to be unfamiliar with essays; the essay is the personal opinion of the editor who wrote it, not necessarily the collective opinion of Wikipedia. This is also stated in WP:POLICY.--WaltCip 01:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

*Keep, but re-write Yes, this page is un-civil and very vulgar, and I agree with the nom. But I think it should be re-written, as it serves a good purpose. If not, delete. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 02:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - ok this essay is kind of hypocritical - "don't call names while telling people not to call names, douchebag" - but it makes a good point. Also, stay out of userspace.  Milto LOL pia 01:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom, and essentially a copy (a very vulgar copy) of WP:KETTLE. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 02:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Redundancy (which I dispute, incidentally) is not a valid reason to delete an essay. Vulgarity is not a valid reason to delete anything.  —David Levy 03:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What? My essay is not a copy of WP:KETTLE.  It's actually the other way around.  My essay was written in July 2006 and KETTLE was written in November 2006.  So if you really want to use "is a copy of" as a deletion reason, go delete KETTLE and not mine.  -- Cyde Weys  02:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No adequate reasons for deletion have been established. Vulgar? Deal with it. It's a parody (of sorts), not an attack. The point wouldn't be driven home if he used "loser" instead. Redundant? Okay, and? Many of the pages in Wikipedia and userspace are redundant. That's not a reason to say one author's take on an issue gets to stay while another's isn't original enough. So, let's keep it until a better reason for deletion is established. Picaroon (t) 05:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In the spirit of the essay, Fucking Keep. Offended by strong language? That's unfortunate, and has no grounding in policy; see WP:ITBOTHERSME. How hard is it to not look at the page? Seriously, we've got 2 million pages in the main article space alone; how difficult is it to simply not come here? EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 06:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I for one was linked to it; I didn't seek it out on purpose. This page's innate potential to violate WP:CIV and WP:NPA is what makes it so unacceptable. Biruitorul 22:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The act of it being linked to antagonistically in an argument is of much more concern than the essay's existence. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 23:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * keep The WP:othercrapexists argument against keep votes referring to WP:DICK's existence miss a few key points I think: one, that that standard exists to refute AfD votes, not MfD votes. It is primarily a response to arguments like "If we have X number of articles on Y, then certainly we should have Z" (with Y usually being "pokemon"). It isn't meant, in my opinion, to strike down arguments for parity in policy.  Two, Othercrapexists isn't clear-cut. Frankly, I disagree with the logic of wp:othercrapexists.  Three, I've never found the invocation of essays to be convincing in an XfD situation. To the article itself, I'm not entirely convinced: vulgar, yes; needed, quite possibly.  The existance of WP:DICK itself is contentious, and this is a satirical essay designed to lampoon it and disagree strongly with the invocation of WP:DICK in debates.  The user is entitled to his opinion. Wintermut3 12:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not the most civil of essays, but a valid point nonetheless. Out of the way since it's in userspace. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The essay itself makes a valid point, and I appreciate its humour, but its title, as with WP:DICK, is simply a vehicle for invective by proxy. Effen D-bag?  Using profanity is how a weak mind fails to express itself, and I'm not keen on dumbing-down the Wikipedia.  Moreover, it is redundant to WP:KETTLE. István 15:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Profanity is how a weak mind fails to express itself" is not a Wikipedia policy, and is not a valid reason for deletion. Its redundancy to Kettle is also rather irrelevant, since this is userspace, where such redundancies aren't the end of the world. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 16:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ...and is not presented as such. This is the reasoning behind *my* vote, and describes *my* preference to move standards higher rather than lower.István 16:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Since when did we start "voting" essays off of Wikipedia?--WaltCip 18:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Since people first started *voting* "keep" or "delete" in AfD discussions. Even if things are not officially decided by voting, a person's vote is still a vote. K. Lásztocska 19:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Stay away from if you don't like. - Pilotguy contact tower  20:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What if you're linked to it? Isn't that a form of attack? Especially if you don't know where the link leads. Biruitorul 22:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Kindly remind the user that it is not the purpose of the essay to be used as an attack, and if he or she persists, consult WP:PAIN.--WaltCip 23:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I can understand not knowing where "WP:DOUCHE" would lead to, but considering I just created that shortcut yesterday, that isn't a possibility. I'm wondering how you could not guess what a link to User:Cyde/Don't be a fucking douchebag could link to... EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 23:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep a good essay on being civil. I know the language is still harsh, but it's still useful. William Ortiz 20:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - serves the same purpose as WP:KETTLE and other dialogues on incivility, of which there are a few. WP is a place where minors and all sorts of folk can come who find the use of such language offensive (not me personally as anyone who knows me in real life can attest). Though on a userpage, is still under the 'mantle' of wikipedia and there are browsers (people that is) who may not know the difference between mainspace and userpage material. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - No valid reason to delete. This is in my userspace.  It's not a projectspace essay or anything.  You're going to have to come up with a better reason to delete it than that it uses foul language, and that it hurt your feelings that someone linked you to it.  If you were calling someone a dick by citing WP:DICK, you got exactly what was coming to you when you were called a fucking douchebag.  So take your lumps and stop reflexively lashing out and attempting to delete everything you don't like.  -- Cyde Weys  02:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But undoubtedly you would agree that using WP:DOUCHE as an insult in place of WP:DICK is uncalled for, correct? Because this is what the nominator seems to take issue with: the possibility that vandals may use this to...well, vandalize.--WaltCip 02:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Some editors here don't understand what WP:DICK means. WP:DICK is not a medium for editors to insult. That happens because editors misuse the link. But it seems to me that WP:DOUCHE is created for the sole purpose to retaliate against editors who cite WP:DICK. Chris!  c t 04:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If an editor uses this essay to vandalize, we need to deal with the vandalism, not the essay. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 05:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Onorem. At least this essay is in user space, which means it doesn't have the endorsement of the community. The redirect to WP:Dick at meta does.  Spitting indeed.  R. Baley 04:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that I have began a discussion on m:Talk:Don't be a dick to discuss the possibility to rename it. So if anyone has Meta account, please comment. Chris!  c t 04:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The irony. Recommend redirect to WP:KETTLE, that should save everyone from future WikiDrama. - Mailer Diablo 19:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete with Brimstone. Per nom. This so-called "essay" does nothing to improve the culture of the community nor further the goals of the project. On the contrary, it is an example of the sorts of attitudes which have eroded morale, led to public embarrassments and created an acidic (with a capital DIC)editing climate. It is not really an essay at all, but merely a short, vulgar rant. I suggest (with Wikilove) that the author first learn to practice civility before he preaches it, then perhaps write a real essay on the subject which he could entitle Don't be a fucking hypocrite!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 12:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you read it?--WaltCip 14:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your comment and the edit summary associated with it (This may be my last edit if Cyde has anything to do with it. TELL THE WIKITRUTH!) are just... wow... -- lucasbfr talk 20:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like all of my old enemies are coming out of the woodworks here to try to get in their last feeble barbs. It's quite pathetic.  And I do appreciate the irony of RDH lashing out against my supposed incivility, then saying I'm a fucking hypocrite.  Clearly, this is as Jesus would do.  -- Cyde Weys  21:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Very Strong Delete per nom and per Chrishomingtang. &mdash; $PЯINGεrαgђ  16:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per alansohn and Cyde. Mike R 19:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, don't really see a reason to keep it. Wizardman  20:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Contrariwise, I don't see any reason to delete it beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--WaltCip 20:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per Cyde, and the fact that what editor's do in their user space is their own business. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  20:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm not a fan of Cyde's my userspace argument above. Were the material utterly unrelated to Wikipedia I'd be in support of deleting it.... but it isn't unrelated. It's an amusing commentary on our sometimes insulting use of policy. The only cause I could see for deletion at any time in the future would be if it's point were incorporated in the Wikipedia namespace pages on our social interaction. Given how fond many in our community are of being incivil by using claims of incivility, I just don't see that happening anytime soon. --Gmaxwell 21:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Gmaxwell's well thought argument above. I came here open minded and wasn't convinced by the delete comments. -- lucasbfr talk 21:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Gmaxwell. This is an appropriate use of user space. NoSeptember  21:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Do not delete per Kim Bruning and Gmaxwell. Hiding Talk 00:39, 29 October 2007 (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.