Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 discussion was Keep. Clear consensus for keep, even though this went over the discussion time, it is indeed one that could be considered a WP:SNOW keep due to the consensus determined. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you

This page is against all that Wikipedia Stands for. The words used are used often as a personal attack, the topic is in a sarcastic tone, and the page would be confusing for the newcomers. Talktome( Intelati) 05:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC) reply

This is a personal opinion. If you don't like my opinion, fine. I don't care.-- Talktome( Intelati) 18:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. I don't think that newcomers wandering across the page is a real problem, and the message behind the page is sound and sage advice, far from being "against all Wikipedia Stands for". Well within the range of tolerable essay material.— Kww( talk) 06:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The thesis is "cease all dickery", meaning behave yourself, or else "be a giant dick" so we can ban you. The clear choice is to behave well, rather than continuing to push the envelope and see how much you can get away with. This is good advice mingled with humor. The essay goes on to highlight many types of envelope pushing (gaming the system), and implores editors to stop that behavior. If you don't like the crass word "dick", generate a consensus to change it to "pest" or another synonym. We don't delete when editing can solve a problem. Jehochman Talk 08:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • keep. It's an essay that puts a humorous spin on a real phenomenon. Sure, the title is a bit provocative, but I think overall it is quite harmless. Wapondaponda ( talk) 09:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per my comments at Wikipedia talk:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you#Should this essay be deleted? Yaris678 ( talk) 11:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, per above. I think the nominator would have done well to discuss the page's usefulness on its talk page before sending it here. Strange Passerby ( talk • c • status) 12:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, Its a humor article, clearly marked. There is no reason to delete this, or any other humor article. Ronk01 talk 12:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • comment. It's not funny. It's misleading. It fails to persuade. Some of these tricks apparently work, of course, if the plotters aren't complete dicks. East of Borschov 14:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The nominator doesn't have the slightest idea what the "Wikipedia stands for" if he/she thinks this essay is against it. The title is a bit provocative, but we don't practice censorship around here. The message itself is sound; "if you act like this (a WP:DICK), then this ( WP:BAN will follow". It is a humorous take on the matter and tagged as such as well. Tarc ( talk) 14:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I believe a lot of editors here, both new and old, need to learn the value of cheeks as the best receptacle for tongues. →  ROUX  ₪  19:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep "This page is against all that Wikipedia Stands for." No it isn't, and I don't see how anyone could think it was, unless they are completely blind to all irony. "The words used are used often as a personal attack." Yes, but they are not being used as a personal attack here, so that is irrelevant. "The topic is in a sarcastic tone." If "sarcastic" is here being used in the popular sense of "ironic" then yes, but what is the objection to that? If "sarcastic" is being used in the older sense of sneeringly cutting then no it isn't. "The page would be confusing for the newcomers." How and why? JamesBWatson ( talk) 19:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. "Against all that Wikipedia Stands for"? Grow up. –  iridescent 21:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Userfy. I am coming to the conclusion that many pages of this nature, while they have their uses, generally should not be in the Wikipedia namespace. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 04:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete At odds with civility and AGF guidelines. Also, humor is inherently POV. The Eskimo ( talk) 19:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or userfy per Newyorkbrad and per Jimbo's comments here. The whole "dick" meme is unprofessional. Let's start here in getting rid of it. Besides, this essay is tagged as "humorous" but is not funny, which is reason enough to get rid of it, unless someone wants to adopt it into their user space. Neutron ( talk) 22:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC) reply
    Humor is quite subjective; just because you find something unfunny does not mean that others do. Tarc ( talk) 23:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC) reply
    That works both ways, of course. In your "keep" comment you asserted that this essay is "humorous", so I could make the same comment back to you, just taking out the letters "un". Curiously, nobody has found it necessary to point out that your opinion is only your opinion. Neutron ( talk) 02:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Snow keep I see a large notice, saying: "This page is intended as humor. It is not, has never been, nor will ever be, a Wikipedia policy or guideline". The page has both a disclaimer and a valid point. The deletion rationale is, frankly, misguided. But that's just my personal opinion. / ƒETCH COMMS / 00:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, do not userfy. This many-authored essay has a clear, useful, educational purpose. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, I think the sticking point is the use of the word "dick", and not necessarily the theme of the essay, which most seem to agree is a humorously sarcastic representation of a phenomenon that many have experienced. If a less controversial alternative to "dick" could work just as well, then maybe such an alternative would be satisfactory to most or all. Wapondaponda ( talk) 06:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The word is well understood and doesn't have a formal synonym. As long as meta:Don't be a dick is OK, so is this. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC) reply
I don't think "Don't be a dick" is ok, but whether it is or isn't is not relevant here, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Neutron ( talk) 15:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC) reply
"Other stuff exists" isn't his argument. This essay is a tongue-in-cheek rebuttal to the other essay. If he were arguing that there were other random, unrelated, essays with the word "dick" in the title, and the word "dick" were really the only reason why some want to delete this, then that would be "other stuff exists". Gigs ( talk) 17:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Yup, it's called parallel structure. If one essay says "dick", the rebuttal should also say "dick". Jehochman Talk 14:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Not funny, badly written, and inconsistent with other Wikipeida policies as noted above.-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Suggestions (not a vote; I already voted): (1) this page could be transwikied to Meta where it would reside with m:Don't be a dick. (2) If people don't like "dick" they can propose an alternative. Jehochman Talk 14:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC) reply
    • I suggest "cock". The Richards out there probably don't appreciate the current form, since they can't help being a Dick. Preferring to offend chickens rather than humans does indicate a sort of systematic bias toward our species, but we can always point out that if they don't keep quiet, we'll have them for dinner. That usually shuts them up. Gigs ( talk) 16:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC) reply
      • I think the real issue here is whether Wikipedia editors care whether the encyclopedia is taken seriously by readers. Judging by most of the comments here, it appears not. Neutron ( talk) 23:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Unless or until WP establishes a specific line in the sand about such wording. Collect ( talk) 14:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • comment I personally don't have a problem with the essay and I prefer to keep it. But I do see a situation where grumblings about its existence will persist into the future. IOW if the essay is kept, this MFD would probably not be the last. Toning down some of the controversial language, while maintaining the essence of the article could help the article gain wider acceptance. Wapondaponda ( talk) 04:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC) reply
    As this is so overwhelmingly tilted to the "keep" side at the moment, I see that as an affirmation of the current version, salty language and all. A second filing in the wake of this result is going to be viewed rather dimly. Tarc ( talk) 12:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC) reply
    I hope that this debate is not seen as an affirmation of the current version, salty language and all. Deletions of reasonable, imperfect, expression is not beneficial in the long run. Deletion debates are poor exercises in the editing process. The wiki-way is better. If there is a desire to reword it along the lines of "If you flagrantly flout our behavioural guidelines, it makes it easy for us to ban you", then editors may attempt it in the usual way. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC) reply
    I like the word flagrant. A simpler version of SmokeyJoe's title would be "Please be flagrant, so we can ban you". Yaris678 ( talk) 14:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC) reply
    I hope it does just that. The less thin-skinned whining, the better. Tarc ( talk) 14:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Sophomoric and a bit of a pointless inside joke. No comment on whether it should be kept or deleted. -- RegentsPark ( talk) 15:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or rename and rewrite accordingly. As a non-native speaker of English my reaction to surprising uses such as this ("Dick? Doesn't this mean Richard? Why Richard?") is to look things up. I have looked it up in several places, and they all agree that a dick is (1) a detective, or (2) a penis. Neither meaning is at all appropriate. My conclusion is that this is sexual terminology being used for bonding in a primarily male internet subculture. I find this disgusting. (If there were any doubt how the word is meant, the picture would dispel it.) Wikimedia has a systemic bias against women, and some people are looking for strategies to address that. This silly "dick" terminology that is floating around to an extent that you can see it on ANI (almost) daily could well be one the many small things that tell women they are not particularly welcome here, and it's certainly among the things that are easiest to change.
This is not about censorship of what you can say. In the past there have been attempts to make any form of "strong" language automatically blockworthy. I strongly rejected those and provided evidence that swearing is normal in a real-life workplace. What is not normal is swearing or sexualised language in internal written memos and such. It should not be done here either. Hans Adler 15:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC) reply
You are right, of course. But wikipedia is full of college kids who find this sort of writing funny. -- RegentsPark ( talk) 16:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Yes. I guess having a child (yes! I have actually had sex with a real woman!) makes me a bit exotic here in that I don't feel the need to talk about penises. Hans Adler 21:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Like Hans, I was surprised that I couldn't find the expected definition. I understood the term to be chiefly american, and synonymous with wikt:jerk #3, "A person with unlikable or obnoxious qualities and behavior, typically mean, self-centered, or disagreeable, and often not very intelligent." -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC) reply
How come whenever an editor in support of "delete" brings up policies like wp:agf and wp:civil they are rebuked because this is an essay and policy guidelines are not as strictly enforced...but then when an arguement is made that it should be deleted because inferring someone is a dick is patently offensive, suddenly wp:notcensored applies? The Eskimo ( talk) 14:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC) reply
It was actually NPOV that Roux said did not apply to project space. He was correct. NOTCENSORED is also about articles and not project space, so you are right on that one. Sometimes I think people just think throwing policies and guidelines around makes their argument sound more reasonable. The real question is: does this essay do any good? Yaris678 ( talk) 16:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC) reply
People throw policy around because of experience. I posted on WP:ANI about an article that contained a link which linked directly to a pornographic site. There were no warnings, no age checks, nothing. One click and you were confronted with explicit, penetrative sex. I suggested that the link be removed and three or four editors all said it should stay per WP:NOTCENSORED. My reasoning was ignored in favour of policy. Since then I have tried to do everything by the book and to quote policy as much as possible. It shouldn't be like that, but it is. — Fly by Night ( talk) 16:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I propose closing this discussion, and keeping the page. The discussion has been open for eight days and is 21-to-6 (78%) in favour of keeping the page. — Fly by Night ( talk) 14:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC) reply
    Deletion discussions are not a vote. You should look at the arguments presented, not the numbers. For example, I would remove every argument that claims that this is covered by WP:NOTCENSORED because that applies to content, not to random essays. I would also exclude all arguments that want to keep the essay because the !voter finds it humorous since there is no policy reason to keep articles merely because a subsection of editors find it funny. The focus should be on trading off whether the essay is useful (does it provide value) with whether its 'dick' theme is obnoxious and detrimental to the serious mission of the project. Counting votes is definitely not the way to go. -- RegentsPark ( talk) 15:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC) reply
    And on the flipside of that coin, I'd retain all of what you wish to throw away, while discounting any call for deletion based on a thin-skinned "I don't think it's funny" reason. It'll be closed when someone gets around to it. Tarc ( talk) 15:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC) reply
    That doesn't make any sense. Are you suggesting it correct to ignore the wishes of the overwhelming majority? A consensus has been reached, the majority want to keep the essay. — Fly by Night ( talk) 15:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC) reply
    Sorry, but WP:NOTCENSORED applies everywhere. While it is somewhat more limited outside of articles, it's also in force here, userspace, and everywhere else- including this essay. If you (not you specifically, just in general) don't like the reference to dicks here's a very simple way to solve that problem; don't click the links, and don't read the essay. NOTCENSORED has to be in force elsewhere, because people get offended at everything. The one userbox I have would probably aggravate some Burmese people, but I'm not removing it just because someone doesn't like it (and also because it's quite true). Same thing applies here; I see some people who don't like this essay, but far more people (like myself) who, NOTCENSORED aside, see the humor/usefulness in it and want to keep it. And yes, I can point to at least one time where it did help me, if you want an example. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 16:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC) reply
    I think you need to read WP:NOTCENSORED. It refers only to content. If you believe that there are good reasons to retain the article, you should perhaps include those reasons in your !vote above. That something is humorous is not a good reason for keeping an article. There are plenty of humorous things out there, I, for example, know this really funny story about a sheep, a cow and a pig who walk into a bar but I seriously doubt if you'll !vote keep if I create an essay in project space on that story. (Personally, I don't find this offensive and appreciate the sentiment behind it. It is a tad silly, perhaps, but I have young children and am aware of the attraction that youth has toward prurient material. So, no worries.) -- RegentsPark ( talk) 16:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC) reply
    I'd probably leave that alone as well; it's your essay, your opinion, so why mess with it? I see your point; the argument I made in my vote is more what I was getting at, NOTCENSORED is just an aside (and I really only care to the extent that I'm not forced to remove my one userbox because a few people wouldn't like it, even though most people wouldn't know what it's about). The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 17:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I agree that WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't come into this, but this isn't something that needs censorship anyways. It's no more offensive than WP:DICK (that is to say, hardly offensive at all), and I don't think the nominator would argue for the deletion of WP:DICK. This page isn't the funniest, but I enjoy its lightheartedness. The list of examples is kind of lame, but it makes a good point that the worst users in the long run are the ones that do small bits of damage here and there. I think it's valuable to illustrate that point and doesn't make us look overly "unprofessional" - just like there is a fun, human community behind the site. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 16:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC) reply
(edit conflict) :It makes us look extremely unprofessional, and credibility is one of Wikipedia's biggest obstacles. By its very nature, a WP article would probably not pass its own wp:rs standards...but all of us as editors- being familiar with the process of article ratings, peer reviews, protections, etc.- we know that Wikipedia is a hell of a lot more credible than the general public tends to believe. Unfortunately, it is articles like this, (and yes, wp:DICK as well, I believe) that gives ammunition to Wikipedia's critics, and fuels the general public's ignorance about the project's intentions. Most people have no idea the detailed process good articles go through to become, well...good. So when a new editor comes along and wants to give Wikipedia a try, and perhaps unknowingly breaks a rule or two and is directed to- or just stumbles upon- this essay...well, it might be making some good points, but I think the message is wrong, in bad faith and frankly rude (regardless of whether I find it funny, which I do). The Eskimo ( talk) 17:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC) reply
But most people have no idea that WP:PBAGDSWCBY exists. Take a look at the traffic stats. WP:PBAGDSWCBY got 170 hits last month. Notice that last month's figures are influenced by a blip between the 17th and the 20th. There must have been some discussion about the article around those dates. The figures for August were 15 hits, for July there were 14 hits and for June there were 23 hits. Compare that to the Main Page that got 168,161,702 hits last month, the Help Desk that got 37,852 hits last month, or even your own user page which has more hits in August and July than WP:PBAGDSWCBY does. — Fly by Night ( talk) 19:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Thank you Fly, I was honestly not aware of that functionality to view page hits (I was also not aware anyone but me was looking at my page since I haven't gotten a message in a while). But to your point, I'm not sure I agree with your example anymore than I would for someone arguing for NOTE vs NON-NOTE based on the number of Google hits. Quality over quantity and all that. Furthermore, WP is not a private club (is this a policy? It should be.)...anyone can see/change anything (barring protection) and keeping an essay like this (my personal opinion of it can be found above) just because only a few editors "in the know" will ever read it does not seem like a persuasive point to keep it. The Eskimo ( talk) 20:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC) reply
But your last point was that it should go because it makes us look unprofessional, etc, etc. The truth is that no-one ever sees it, so it does none of the things to the public's opinion that you said it does. — Fly by Night ( talk) 21:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Actually, that counting tool does redirects separately. So it's more like 1200/month (still, not that many). Calliopejen1 ( talk) 21:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC) reply
@Fly (Thanks for the tip BTW:) I can see how those two points you referenced can seem at odds...but in my mind they are separate. My bottom line is that I simply don't think articles/essays written in a humorous tone should be on WP at all, mainly due to POV issues. (I know POV doesn't apply to essays, but that is just my feeling) Maybe I am a bit of a prude in that sense, but I also believe that unreferenced articles should be deleted (after a reasonable amount of time) if no one bothers to work on them (regardless of inherent notability.) So I guess that makes me what I've heard referred to as a "deletionist." So whether or not very few people read the essay or not is not really a point that would change my opinion. Just the fact that it is there at all bothers me. But I will say that though I don't personally accept that a low hit count is a reason to keep the article, I understand where you are coming from. Furthermore, if someone where to argue that these humor essays are good for the creative writing process, and an outlet from the monotony of WP editing, I would (reluctantly) agree that, in some way, they do have merit. I guess I would just like essays like this to be more clearly removed from the mainspace, as well as a clearer disclaimer that editors citing this policy essay in the course of article discussion could face sanctions, regardless if the intent was to be humorous. The Eskimo ( talk) 22:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC) reply
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.


Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Please_be_a_giant_dick,_so_we_can_ban_you&oldid=1143738019"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE