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


 * 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 keep by overwhelming consensus. El_C 13:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't be a dick
A DRV consensus overturned an old MD result on this ancient policy page, which is now a soft redirect to Meta. The matter is referred to a new MfD for a finding of consensus. A note on procedure: this might have listed at RfD; however, given the location of the previous debate, the fact that page is a soft redirect, and the page's age, I have relisted it here. Unless there are very, very strong objections, I'd suggest either forum is well-suited in this ambiguous case, and that an argument over the right forum could last till Doomsday. Hence, I'd suggest strongly that the issue be settled here and now, and that requests for transfer of jurisdiction not be made. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep in some form or another. One of the classic guidelines. --kingboyk 17:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep for reasons of circular logic. —freak([ talk]) 17:53, Aug. 5, 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete; the page it redirects to encourages hypocrisy, circumvention of the dispute resolution process, and plain trolling. It's also redundant with the Civility policy. Stop calling users dicks, you dicks. // [ admin ] Pathoschild (talk/map) 18:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep it is a redirect and a useful guideline.-- Dakota 18:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Redundant with WP:CIVIL, except that it's less useful, less developed and less civil than that. --Zoz (t) 22:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It is necessary. I've seen users told to mind WP:CIVIL who start plucking out quotes about the definition of incivility to establish their defense.  WP:DICK is quite often used appropriately; a good collection of diffs showing otherwise would be the only way to sway my opinion.  In addition, considering its wide use, moving it to meta has made the page and talk less accessible; if it's going to be used by the community, let the community properly manage it.  Thus: move back to projectspace, else keep as is.  ~ PseudoSudo 23:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've seen more users wikilawyering over WP:CIVIL (as Sudo describes) than I have users abusing this. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The way to improve civility is not to insult editors, and "dick" is an insult. The only thing this does is put the backs up of people it's applied to and increase hostility. Grutness...wha?  23:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * PS - full marks to Xoloz for his well-reasoned listing here. Grutness...wha?  06:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Leave as-is. Ye gods, little fishes, and all their various mites, why won't this stay settled... Having it at meta with a reference to it here is a nice compromise between the people who love it and the people who hate it. (For the record, I would like it at WP. However, I think it ought to be at meta and soft-redirected, if you see the difference.) &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 01:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Leave should redirect and useful guideline. *~Daniel~* ☎ 01:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Leave as is per Daniel5127 and Sam Blanning. ~  c.  tales   *talk*  03:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:DICK. --Carnildo 05:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and be done with it. If you don't want this guideline quoted at you, then don't be a dick. Opabinia regalis 23:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep A great historical page, and still heavily quoted by people. Jtkiefer T  01:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I am not a fan of the title, but WP:CENSOR. -- Avi 04:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete As was mentioned here: "Me, I think it's likely to fail because of inescapable teen boy cultural bias; as one departed editor told me, there's a limit to the number of times one can tolerate being called a cunt." Well, when it comes to attracting an retaining genuine experts (such as in hard-science domains and other legitimate ares of "education", which is supposedly why the Foundation gets a is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization tax break), this same applies to this four-letter word as well. Calling somebody a "dick" do not really communicate anything: it is just a juvenile put-down. Using the word is strictly a social act of non-communication. It is merely a means of forming a clique. -- DocCory 05:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this is part of the problem - in some places, yes, Dick is a mild schoolboy insult. In others, it is pretty strong. To me, it's about level with "fuckwitted moron" in terms of its strength of insult - and I don't think that's a reasonable thing to call (or be called by) other editors. Grutness...wha?  06:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * speedy keep this time-honoured piece of wisdom, of course. WP:DICK isn't puerile, it is intended to remind others not to be puerile. dab (&#5839;) 09:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: Don't be a fucking douchebag. --140.247.214.180 12:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jtkierfer, et al. (Note that DocCory has only edited in this MfD and another one up the page, and has no article-space edits.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Re: User:DocCory, see also MfD WP:VSCA &mdash; MrDolomite | Talk 03:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Cyde. Used to end-run around WP:NPA. -- nae'blis 21:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'd even support moving it back from meta.  It's a very valuable (and attention-grabbing) way to state the guideline.  --  stillnotelf   is invisible  02:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:DICK. Computerjoe 's talk 10:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep for obvious reasons. - Mailer Diablo 15:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep for usefullness. --The Raven is God 23:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep --Ter e nce Ong (Chat 06:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP: links should not be invoked as personal attacks, which is what people use it for. Redundant to more professional/friendly WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA Karwynn (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Personally, I'm not a fan of the language here. why do we have to use the word "dick"? Like DocCory, I think that the usage is profane and should be frowned upon. Sadly, it's *way* easy to remember. Also, people will continue to use it for a while WP:DICK is way easy to remember, and I love the shortcut. McKay 00:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or do a transwiki-auto-copy-thingy from the meta page, like is done for help pages. Does it have a negative connotation?  Yep. Is it supposed to?  Yep.  Does it make its point when used properly?  Yep.  While I know they do not strictly apply, since this is used in talk spaces and not the main article space, but see also WP not censored, Profanity. &mdash; MrDolomite | Talk 02:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Question I admit, I had a difficult time following the edit history, but the times I viewed the page, it was always just a regular page. It is it normal to Soft redirect during an WP:MfD?  Or is it because of some combination of 2nd MfD or WP:DRV? &mdash; MrDolomite | Talk 02:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Yes, this conflicts with guidelines on Civility, but by the time anyone should be quoting it, civility has probably long gone out the window. Its long been considered a fundamental principle here, and I agree with that because sometimes someone really is that far over the edge that they need to be reminded not to be a dick, and if they are, gentler reminders probably won't work. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 07:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - as per User:Triona - sometimes professional and friendly doesn't cut it and you need to state your point more bluntly.  T.K.   TALK  10:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: But what is the point? To address the issues at hand? No: the point, the blunt piont is to publicly insult and to avoid the issues. The only "point" is the struggle for popularity - no collaboration occurs at that point - only polarization, struggle, and, likely, ostracization for the losers. That is neither collaboration, nor it is dialog: it is just ignorance and conflict. You are merely expressing hatred and disdain. You might "score points" with your clique, but that has more to do with gangs and warfare than it does with respectful dialog and collaboration. -- 67.121.113.135 11:17, 10 August 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.
 * 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.