Wikipedia talk:Don't be a dick

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Keep 22 / Delete 28 / Meta 14. As it stands, it is a redirect to a Meta page. Consensus seems to be delete, however it has been moved to Meta which is out of juridistion of VFD. The only possibility for this is to either relist it as a Redirects for deletion, or make it as No clear consensus -- AllyUnion (talk) 01:10, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Don't be a dick

A jocular guideline page which at first mascaraded as policy. It doesn't cover anything that other policies don't cover, and the juvenile language makes it inappropriate for a policy page, so I see no point in merging. I asked for this page to be moved to user space or meta, but it didn't happen, so I'm listing it here. Zocky 03:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In reply to Wetman's question ("Why would you delete this?"):

1. It serves no purpose that's not served by other project pages
2. Its language is border-line vulgar, and certainly juvenile. It's certainly not written in what would be considered conventional style for policies.
3. Having a thing like that in wikipedia namespace, especially categorized as policy, makes us look not only childish, but also dumb (hehehe, I said "butt").
4. It could possibly pass as humour, but it's not really such a good joke that it would need its own page. Zocky 03:53, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Many of the votes to keep (and recategorize) seem to be based on the presumption that this is humour, yet authors of the page insist that it is not humour and is not intended as humour [1]. Zocky 13:54, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Would that be me? I'm not the author - David Gerard 18:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Although I've just changed my vote to 'move to meta' - David Gerard 18:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've just moved this to m:Don't be a dick - David Gerard 03:56, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Snowspinner 03:36, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Move to meta. Neutrality^talk 03:39, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Recategorize as humor and keep. It's amusing. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 03:40, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Moving to meta is also a good idea. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 22:42, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Why would you delete this? It's even good advice. It's a sin to tell a lie, but to be dull is a crime: d.b.a.d.! --Wetman
• Delete Redundant, juvenile, and only barely funny ;-) Johntex 03:48, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• As was suggested by Charles. Recategorize. Cerceole|(talk) 03:49, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• keep --SPUI 04:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep you cant claim POV on this because every photo of a person named Dick I could find on Wiki is included! If you want to change a percieved POV upload some other non US politicians known as Dick and Include them.  ALKIVAR™ 04:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, nonserious. Move to meta. silsor 04:44, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Zocky. JoaoRicardo 04:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, agreeing with Charles P./Cerceole and Silsor. Samaritan 05:29, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- trust me, it's funny ➥the Epopt 05:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but recategorize as humor because, juvenile language or not, it states what good faith is in much more familiar terms. Agree that this cannot be policy, however — if only because it's an obvious invitation for personal attacks in the name of policy. "You're being a dick" is supposed to comment on behaviour, but legitimizing it this way will also cement it as a personal attack "supported by policy". This, ahem, document, is not so brilliant that it gets to override these concerns. JRM 05:43, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

  Now that it's there, I'd like to replace my vote with what User:Jwrosenzweig said. JRM 02:04, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

• Keep. It's a good policy.  :) Besides, it's in the Wikipeda space, not the article space. RickK 06:04, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and vote to see if it should be made an enforcable policy. --Carnildo 06:26, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete redundant, poor humour. →Iñgōlemo← ^{(talk) 06:42, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)}
• Keep. I know a few people who should have it tattooed on their foreheads. Bacchiad 07:17, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mikkalai 08:21, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Excellent advice, delivered succinctly and with a little humor. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:30, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Should be required reading. Mattley 09:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pointing someone to this page would be a good example of acting like a dick, wouldn't it? Everyking 11:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Ambi 11:47, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- It's well written and direct to the point. Longhair 11:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep</a> Move to meta. As I put into it, it's the fundamental rule of all Internet social spaces, and every how-to-get-along rule we have is a special case of it. It is possible it belongs on meta: rather than en:, of course - David Gerard 12:03, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - It's true and funny, but everyone knows that a lot dicks just plain don't know how not to be a dick, so there's not much use in telling them not to be one... AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 12:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not at all funny, clever or helpful. Nothing more than a rude comment. The author should take his own advice. --LeeHunter 12:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - It doesn't even reflect current policy accurately, jguk 13:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Why isn't this in the main namespace?! I've come across the phrase several times recently, so it must be becoming popular. Anyhow, as the article notes, Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, and No personal attacks. If nothing else, this is a personal attack by policy; even if amusing, the No personal attacks guidelines seem fairly unforgiving. Ben Cairns 13:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC).
• Delete. It was funny, but that's enough. Carrp 13:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete sannse (talk) 13:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Boils a huge amount of verbosely pretentious and confusing m:Instruction creep down to a reasonable size (especially for the intended audience who are most likely to either ignore or deliberately distort all the myriad volumes of policy, semi-policy, thinktank, guidelines, etc.). Oh, and it is funny. older≠wiser 14:08, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• delete / BJAODN - I'm new, perhaps this would be funny if I knew the history behind it. As it stands today, it doesn't seem to fit into a serious encyclopedia, a bit too sophmoric. I think even more important is the obvious offensiveness to everyone's mom. I think contrary to what other says, that being in the wikipedia namespace is more embarassing than in the article namespace. I dont even think this is accurate. I'd say if alot of people said you were a dick, then alot of dicks called you a dick, and who cares what a dick thinks? *shrug* come on guys, is this really that funny? --t9 ^(Talk) 14:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; if it's not indented to be funny, than it's not fun at all Lectonar 14:27, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Invites personal attacks.--Eloquence* 14:42, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Intriguing amount of keep votes though. Xezbeth 16:13, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Amusing but not useful. (Or redirect to Matthew 7:12). Dick 16:16, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. FoeNyx 16:31, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's value to promote discussion of values has been used up. rob chamberlin 16:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to meta. Agreed, not humor, strikes me more like "ha ha only serious". Personally, I'd like to see this replace most legal policy as well. It deserves public airing, but much as I like it, en: probably isn't the place. Mindspillage (spill your mind?) 17:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Robert Pendray 17:20, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 17:39, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Move to meta (historically the place where such things reside) or BJAODN, only Delete if supporters refuse to agree with either of first two options (yeah, I know, it's an Iasson-esque vote, but not much other way of handling this). It is a quasi-humorous expression of the frustration many of us feel with the inability of current policy to deal with POV-pushers who game the rules, dance close to personal attacks, and generally seek to anger/annoy admins into doing something remotely wrong so that spurious RFCs and RfARs can be filed. As such, it might be good to preserve it, but it can't be anywhere that makes it look like official policy. m:The Wrong Version is a classic example penned by Angela -- it is funny, it expresses a frustration we often feel, and it lives somewhere that makes it clear it's not actually site policy. Jwrosenzweig 18:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  You're right. Move to Meta - David Gerard 18:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  I also would support a move to meta, though I'm content to keep it where it is as well. Snowspinner 19:18, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep (or move) Maybe revise it a bit, but the basic sentiment is valid. — Davenbelle 18:25, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

DRUMMOND. (Honestly.) I’m sorry if I offend you. But I don’t swear just for the hell of it. You see, I figure that language is a poor enough means of communication as it is. So we ought to use all the words we’ve got. Besides, there are damned few words that everybody understands.

    — From Inherit the Wind, by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee.

• Merge and redirect. --Michael Snow 18:30, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth and expansion. GRider\^talk 18:51, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, I question the usefulness of such an article given its original premise as some type of "joke", written in juvenile language. Does Wikipedia need such a named article? I would in this instance politely say no. Megan1967 00:19, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. bdesham 01:27, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• This is a bluntly stated version of a very fine general policy for living and working with other people. Move to meta, though it sure is tempting to vote keep. Antandrus 04:09, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Meta or delete. It's bad enough that personal attacks aren't blockable offenses without providing an excuse for more. —Korath (Talk) 04:52, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Meta or Keep or merge with somewhere. --JuntungWu 16:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (or move/rename). I'd like to see this refactored into a usable bit of policy. I fear the current policies are tending to drift towards rigidity, leaving no room for the plain old "don't be a dick" kind of rules.

I agree the wording does lend itself to personal attacks, but then it's difficult to have policies like this without breaking them being an insult. Changing it into "be reasonable" seems fair until you realise that saying someone's breaking it is saying they're "being unreasonable". Calling someone a troll or sockpuppet is a personal attack, calling an edit ill-researched and ill-cited can be construed as one. Aren't these both policies?

I realise one of the ideals of Wikipedia is professionalism inside and out, but is having a bit of fun on our end going to kill anyone? I personally think this policy makes a point, and it does it in a way that's fun. That's why we're doing this, remember? 'cause we enjoy it? At least, that's why I edit here. CXI 16:58, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Articles in the Wikipedia namespace are interpreted as "official", and the Wikipedia Talk pages are for commentary on policies, etc. This has not been proposed as a policy statement. If it is not deleted, it will be cited as policy, as there is nothing to distinguish it from Wikipedia space pages that are official policy. It should be on the author's User Talk page, or maybe in meta. From the keep votes, it seems like people believe that anybody should be able to write Wikipedia policy just by giving the page a pithy title. Maybe I should write Wikipedia:Wikipdia should not suck --BM 18:01, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • "are interpreted as official" is curiously in the third person; do you mean that you erroneously do, therefore assume others erroneously will? Being in the "Wikipedia:" space just means it's a project community page, not that it's "policy" per se - David Gerard 03:53, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, I do. Is it erroneous? There are quite a few WP articles that are cited all the time as if they were official. For example, Wikipedia:Deletion policy, or Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Are those official? From your previous references to them, I take it that they are. How can anyone tell which are policy and which aren't? --BM 12:56, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Reading the page assists in clarifying these matters, e.g. both of the examples you name being in Category:Wikipedia official policy. HTH! - David Gerard 14:47, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • It is useful to know about Category:Wikipedia official policy. I haven't noticed that before. --BM 18:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Move to meta. Tuf-Kat 18:04, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not appropriate for the Wikipedia namespace. -Frazzydee|✍ 19:11, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Move to meta. --Idont Havaname 01:51, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Don't be a dickhead, Don't be an asshole, and Don't be a fuckwad. Then delete. - Nunh-huh 03:56, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment The only context in which this is every likely to be used is that of dismissive mockery. People will simply say Don't be a dick rather than "Don't be a dick." The link gives it a spurious authority and implied permission to use the vulgarity. If someone thinks that in a particular discussion it will be helpful to tell someone "don't be a dick," they should put the words in their own mouth and take responsibility for them. (I am sooooo tempted to say "They should put the..." must resist... must be strong...) We should not make it easy for people to give the impression that Wikipedia endorses vulgarity as an effective method for group decision-making. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:28, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Would that other policies were so succinct. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:02, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Move to meta was a good first step. Even there, it needs to be more professionally worded. The "jocular tone" will not come through when the link is actually used in a dispute (and I don't see it being used unless the parties are already in a dispute). Last, I believe we should delete the redirects. Preserve the edit history through other means. We should not encourage inflammatory language. Rossami (talk) 19:04, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, on basis of arguments already raised. Lacrimosus 19:37, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, come on, no one would want to keep a "Don't be a cunt" article, so delete "Don't be a dick" for the same reason. Calling someone a genital of either gender is not appropriate. FrankH 01:51, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Votes as of 05:24, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

Since there were so many votes, I decided to make a tally. When necessary, comments have been added next to the vote entry (Michael Snow's vote to merge with Richard M. Nixon probably means delete). Where users made double recommendations, they are included under both. Hope this helps! →Iñgōlemo← ^{(talk) 05:24, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)}

Keep

1. Snowspinner
2. Charles and recategorise
3. Wetman
4. Cerceole and recategorise
5. SPUI
6. User:Alkivar
7. Samaritan
8. The Epopt
9. RickK
10. Carnildo
11. Bacchiad
12. User:Tony Sidaway
13. Mattley
14. Ambi
15. Longhair
16. Bkonrad
17. Robert Pendray
18. Davenbelle
19. GRider
20. Juntung
21. CXI
22. Jmabel

Delete

1. Zocky (original nominator)
2. Johntex
3. JoaoRicardo
4. Ingoolemo
5. Mikkalai
6. Everyking
7. AlbinoMonkey
8. LeeHunter
9. Jguk
10. Ben Cairns
11. Carrp
12. Sannse
13. Travis9
14. Lectonar
15. Eloquence
16. Xezbeth
17. Dpbsmith
18. FoeNyx
19. Rob chamberlin
20. Rdsmith4
21. Michael Snow (original vote was: merge and redirect to Richard M. Nixon)
22. Megan1967
23. Korath
24. BM
25. Frazzydee
26. Nunh-huh (original vote was: "Merge with Don't be a dickhead, Don't be an asshole, and Don't be a fuckwad. Then delete.")
27. Lacrimosus
28. Rossami (talk) (specifically, the redirects left after the move to meta and rename)

Move to meta

1. Neutrality
2. Charles
3. JRM
4. Silsor
5. David Gerard
6. Mindspillage
7. Jwrosenzweig
8. Snowspinner (main vote went to keep)
9. Antandrus
10. Korath
11. Juntung
12. Tuf-Kat
13. Idont Havaname
14. Rossami

Neutral This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.