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

Wikipedia: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! _ct 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 m: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 m:Don't be a dick is that I do not know how to. So if someone know, then please do so. Chris! _ct 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. Ryan Postlethwaite 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 Wikipedia:Assume good faith is not one of fundamental guiding principles? Chris! _ct 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! _ct 21:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Notably, m: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! _ct 22:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Perhaps you should read WP:DICK's lesser known counterpart, m: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)
• 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 m:Don't be a dick regardless of the outcome. Ryan Postlethwaite 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. Ryan Postlethwaite 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! _ct 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! _ct 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^∇∆∇∆ 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! _ct 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^∇∆∇∆ 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! _ct 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)

• Keep. Wikipedia is not censored. ScienceApologist 23:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, re others, SqueakBox 00:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)