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


 * 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)

Don't be a dick
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! c t 21:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - page is frequently referenced, and is a key aspect of policy. Note also that WP:DICK is just a soft redirect to a page on meta, and deleting this would have no meaningful effect - one would just reference Don't be a dick instead. Phil Sandifer 21:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't really care if this gets delete or not, but just to note something, WP:DICK is an essay and a opinion, NOT a WP policy. nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 21:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The only reason I didn't nominate Don't be a dick is that I do not know how to. So if someone know, then please do so. Chris!  c t 21:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, as WP:CIV more than suffices and can be used in WP:TRI instead of this derogatory remark. Biruitorul 21:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - complements policy well and is a meta page anyway, so if you want it deleting then I suggest you go over there.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  21:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. (ec) Virtually every time this page/section is referenced, the person citing it is violating the sentiments expressed therein; as well as actual policies, as noted by the nominator.  I have yet to see a use (or link if you will) of this page, trying to get across an idea, that couldn't be expressed in a better way (in keeping with the 3rd "pillar") or without some degree of hypocrisy involved.  R. Baley 21:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Would further like to add:  I would bet anything this essay was sown in anger and is only cited out of anger.  Not only that, it serves to increase discord by promoting conflict among established editors when referenced.  People who would never themselves type out "you're being a dick" will nevertheless find themselves on occasion piping/linking to this.  This essay is demonstrably harmful to the project every time it is used/cited.  R. Baley 22:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Even if someone is a dick, they simply lash out at whoever put it out there by saying "saying I'm a dick is a dick thing to do". It doesn't solve anything. David Fuchs ( talk  ) 21:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. One of the fundamental guiding principles of this – or any – collaborative process.  Just because there are a few dicks who are misusing or misinterpreting it doesn't mean that it isn't a sound or worthwhile essay. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Then are you saying that Assume good faith is not one of fundamental guiding principles? Chris!  c t 21:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * An example would be on the bottom of this page where one editors response to a WP:DICK comment out of frustration and used User:Cyde/Don't be a fucking douchebag as a rebuttal. Chris!  c t 21:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Notably, Don't be a dick counsels against citing it in arguments, noting that to do so is to violate AGF. The issue here seems to be more with specific users than with the page. Phil Sandifer 22:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * By telling editors not to use the page won't work. Delete it will solve the problem entirely. Chris!  c t 22:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should read WP:DICK's lesser known counterpart, Don't be dense. Phil Sandifer 22:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should know that, regardless of what the page actually means (I also have no clue about it), it is used for personal attacks as well. See an example. A.Z. 00:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You have no clue about it? Did you, ummm... read the page you nominated for deletion? It's a good way of knowing what pages mean. Anyway - WP:MfD can be used for blithering idiocy, as this discussion shows. Shall we nuke it too? Phil Sandifer 04:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: uncivil, and personal attack nonsense masquerading as an essay, clearly against Wikipedia policy on no personal attacks. NO matter how you call someone a dick, you are still calling someone a dick, even if WP appears in front of it. If this is such a "fundamental guiding" process then why does it need to be written down. Most people are aware that being "dick" isn't something those who play well with others does. Has this essay any positive benefit? Are there hundreds of reformed dicks clamoring down the doors at Wikipedia after having read this essay? I didn't think so. IvoShandor 21:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well said, IS. Typing quickly, R. Baley 21:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - While I can agree with the basic sentiments of the page, the shortcut, the title, and much of the language is at best inflammatory. A more carefully and objectively phrased version of the same article would be welcome; this one less so. John Carter 22:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is simply a redirect, not an article, so should be at WP:RFD. further to that, people are still going to quote Don't be a dick regardless of the outcome.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  22:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I'm just saying there's no point in deleting the redirect when people are still going to quote the meta-text.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  22:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - It's just an essay. It's just the opinion of the authors, nothing else. A.Z. 22:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * But the page is extremely vulgar. Chris!  c t 22:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a reason to delete an essay. It's their opinion, they're entitled to have it, and to express it vulgarly or not. It isn't attacking anyone. It's just a good faith attempt to improve things. A.Z. 22:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's vulgar. As they say, shit happens. Phil Sandifer 22:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 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!  c t 23:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Keep - its an obvious redirect to have (this really should have been nominated at WP:RFD). If people object to the meta essay, I suggest they nominate it for deletion on meta. WjBscribe 22:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Keep. It's the only principle that really matters, both in life and on Wikipedia. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment So, other principles like WP:CIV and WP:NPA don't matters? Is that what you are saying? Chris!  c t 23:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Basically, yeah. If you're being a dick, it doesn't matter if you're being civil. If you're being a dick, it doesn't matter if you're not making personal attacks; in either case, you're making yourself unpleasant to be around and Bad For Wikipedia. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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! c t 00:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Keep - there is a lot of good advice there (and it's just an essay). I particularly like this: If a significant number of reasonable people suggest, whether bluntly or politely, that you are being a dick, the odds are good that you are not entirely in the right. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Most of the keeps seem to be little more than "I like it". Just a note. I am done now, may the debate play out. IvoShandor 23:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep fundamental rule of human interaction. Also, one hundred lashings for every person who cites this page, because you shouldn't. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 23:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, per all of the above. It's not calling someone a dick, it's saying don't be one. And it's an essay. We need balance, all this nicey nice, is like drinking kool-aid. That's not to mean free reign for PAs. Wikipedia can be real pain in the ass. Jeeny (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * It all depends on the context in which it is used. - Rjd0060 02:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyway, the essay is confusing, and I don't really see its point. A.Z. 02:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if we can establish consensus here to prohibit its abuse during discussions, that would be good. Chris! c t 01:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedia is not censored. ScienceApologist 23:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, re others, SqueakBox 00:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Question... What does the nominator and the deletion advocates expect from this discussion? As Ryan and Will pointed above, if you wish to delete the redirect, then you should nominate it at RfD. If you wish to delete the essay, this is not the place; it must be requested for deletion at meta. Do you wish to establish consensus here to prohibit its use during discussions and arguments, possibly punishable by civility warnings and blocks? - Mtmelendez (Talk) 01:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (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)
 * 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!  c t 02:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 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 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Keep - Should be policy, regardless of who uses it.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 02:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 Nescio Gnothi seauton 12:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. — Da rk •S hik ari [T] 17:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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.