Talk:Don't be a jerk

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
(Redirected from Talk:Don't be a dick)
Jump to: navigation, search
Votes for deletion Several proposals have been made concerning this page. Before making a new one, please review these discussions. (k/c/n)

Archives of this page


elements of anger[edit]

I think this is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia "Editors should treat each other with respect and civility" but expressed in anger. the writer was really pissed however i liked some couple of points on the essay! Bobbyshabangu (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


I don't think it's very appropriate to have Don't be a dick as the title. --Good afternoon (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

For the record, if efforts are made by the community to substantively rewrite or re-title this, I no longer stand in opposition. Tarc (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
In light of efforts by some (myself included) to encourage the use of more civil language on Wikipedia (and other WM projects), I too support renaming/retitling this to "Don't be a jerk" or something like that. Something that most reasonable people would agree is more gender neutral. Lightbreather (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Really. I can be a jerk, but don't ever call me a dick! It's a gender equality thing after all. Face-smile.svg 04:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC) ada User:Carolmooredc

I would also support retitling to "Don't be a jerk". Mr. Granger (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Dare we proceed or should we take it to a village pump or something?? Carolmooredc (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Seeing neither nays or yays, will do nothing, cause who wants to get reverted on this one. But perhaps next week - or when I recover frm related burn out - will bring it up at one Enlish Wikiproject most likely to have reservations. Also since I see Wales has participated here, could bring it up there as things develop. But another crusade for another week - or month... Carolmooredc (talk) 12:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Bold edit made. See if anyone reverts. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Reverted. The proposed revision failed civility, among other things, in that it didn't sufficiently warn the reader about treating other people well.
I don't see consensus for the rename and I'd also like to see an assessment on the suitability of the new proposed term in terms of understanding by non-native speakers of English. What word translates best to other languages? It's unwise to change established terminology without considering this. --Nemo 16:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

At this point, six people have voiced an opinion in favour of the change. The claim that DICK is not offensive on other languages is, IMO, absurd. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd support the change as well. I thought the title was funny once, but it feels a bit dated and tired now. Andreas JN466 05:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

So glad that the revert warring has started. User:Nemo bis, have you ever considered talking and then starting reverting? Some common courtesy around here would go a long way. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there a wider forum in for discussing this? Otherwise, the consensus does seem to be to change, including in light of the Foundation's desire to attract more women editors. 18:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
There is no wider proper discussion page than this one as far as Meta is concerned. I fear that people who do patellar reflex reverts seem to rule, alas. Collect (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
What about Gender gap strategy Initiative 4: More friendly-space policies? That's on Meta. Djembayz (talk) 00:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

AFAICT, we now have at least seven supporting the changes, and a single voice opposing them here. Nemo -- if you REALLY love the current status, start an RfC to support your singular position. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Will someone perform the move? The consensus is clear. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Teles has moved and move-protected the page. Hopefully if people have concerns they will raise them here instead :-) Ajraddatz (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
They don't have the Thank feature here so THANK YOU TELES!!! 18:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I just moved it on En.Wikipedia so the fur should be flying soon, in case anyone can/wants to protect it there or knows someone who will. Feel free to do so on any other language pages that link to it. aka User:Carolmooredc
We've now substituted a colloquialism that is widely used across English-speaking countries for one that is used almost exclusively in the US. Lovely piece of systemic bias, that is. (unsigned comment)

"Jerk" also has Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, and UK usage, inter alia. Sorry -- the cavil about it being exclusively US usage fails. Collect (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Collect: Given your previous involvement in this topic, it seems a bit disingenuous for you to wait for a tenuous consensus to form and then boldly move the page, asking for a revert, and then be pseudo-scandalized when someone reverts you. --MZMcBride (talk) 12:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Eh? 7 to 1 appears to be a noticeable ratio, and not a "tenuous" one. I would point out my "previous involvement" was three years ago (3 October 2011, in fact) -- "a long time between drinks"[1] as the adage goes. As for your ad hom about me being "pseudo-scandalized", I suggest you actually follow the precepts of collegial discussion here and elsewhere on Wikiworld. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
You're resorting to vote-counting. Try to instead focus on arguments and general agreement, which is the basis of consensus.
Your previous involvement doesn't need to be wrapped in scare quotes, it's quite evident from this talk page and the history of the subject-space page. As for alleged ad hominem attacks, nobody's attacking you, I'm simply calling you out on your feigned surprise expressed in this section after posting "Bold edit made. See if anyone reverts." Is it really so unexpected? And you know from previous discussions, in which you were an active participant, that there's disagreement here, which gives me even greater reason to boggle at both your recent action and reaction. --MZMcBride (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
In case it was not clear - I did not start this latest discussion. This discussion was, as is easily seen, started in July. Not in October. Three months without any objections. Not a single objection- and I was not a participant in that discussion whatsoever. I had not been here for three years. Three years. A long time. Only one person (one) seemed to object to the changes. I came here because one of those who had previously objected to any change had changed their mind and so informed me at Jimbo's talk page on Wikipedia. Where such a change had occurred, I came back here - three years later than the prior discussion. So as far as being "active participant" the "long time between drinks" applies - I fear you are more interested in scoring points in this now than in understanding that the consensus is clear, the ArbCom for enWiki is now clearly looking at the gender issues, and if you wish to revert, do so - but I think it would be a tad unwise now. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
[Insert:Consensus evolves over time. As Wikipedia matures and takes its responsibilities more seriously, it's not surprising that editors want to make things a bit less puerile - and a bit more inclusive. Carolmooredc (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse move to "Don't be a jerk". –Neotarf (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Bold words I don't think "jerk" conveys the same meaning insofar as its intensity. Killiondude (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
    • In that case, "asshole" would be a good gender-neutral candidate, but I can't think of a good justification for the intensity--I mean, you generally want people to calm, not stir the pot. –Neotarf (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
      • What about just "don't be an ass"? KonveyorBelt 23:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
How about we just leave body parts out of the equation. "Jerk" describes a sociological phenomena, as opposed to ass or dick etc. that is a metaphor for a sociological phenomena, as well as a word for a body part. Carolmooredc (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
      • The conclusion of pointing people toward a page of this nature is that they have gone overboard in some regard. Don't be "value" implies a level of heavy intensity already. On the opposite end of the spectrum, we could rename it to Please be positive trait if we're caring about feelings. Killiondude (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The complaints about misandry below this section are more immature than the essay ever was. And we don't need to invert the logic and tell users to "please exemplify a positive trait". This is already done in WP:CIVIL. Collect's count of 7-1 appears to include editors who were indifferent and came here simply to mention other forums where this might be discussed. In case you can't tell, I Oppose the "dick" to "jerk" change.
The word "dick" is not used to teach social courtesy... it is used for humor in much the same way as the "ignore all rules" wording. This helps to remind people that this is a community where the content of an argument takes precedence over other nitpicks. Connor Behan (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Offensive to Men[edit]

If this were called "Don't be a cunt" it would be down in a flaming minute.

And, yes, the word "cunt" is often substituted for "dick" but men (and only men, I might add) are ever referred to as "dicks" and only women as called "cunts."

As a proud, gay man, I deeply offended your gender bias and complete disregard for male emotions. Shame on the hateful CUNT/DICK who made this article!

MensKeperRa (talk) 07:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Let's make Don't be a cunt as a redirect. :) Wnt (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
As a man, let me assert the superiority of women, including when it comes to dickiness/jerkitude/whatever. --Nemo 16:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh noes![edit]

Moving this was a good idea. Moving it to an even worse and more offensive, and equally gendered title was a bad idea.

I am tempted to suggest "Don't be a cad"...

Rich Farmbrough 02:37 29 October 2014 (GMT).

Do you think jerk is more offensive than dick? PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely! Rich Farmbrough 02:48 29 October 2014 (GMT).
Seems to be from "jerkwater town" old railroad slang for a place which has absolutely nothing except a water tower where you got water for the steam engine on the fly, or not even a water tower but getting water from a trough or stream - not making a stop. [2] Nothing remotely offensive in the oldest derivation. Collect (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Alternatively, or influenced by, verbal phrase jerk off "masturbate"
I would favour the latter derivation, or at the very least the influence, for otherwise "jerk" would be synonymous with "hick" and "rube".
However, as in a similar discussion over bad words at en:wp, we run the risk of falling afoul of the w:Etymological fallacy.
It is no good telling people that actually "jerk" is perfectly inoffensive, because of its (supposed) derivation, if they are already offended, and maybe have left. Even if they merely decide that the community is immature, and leave, damage is done.
Rich Farmbrough 01:35 8 November 2014 (GMT).

New RfC[edit]

Please see Requests_for_comment/Jerks_vs_dicks. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The consensus is recent (under two months) - and this seems an end-run around the normal process of determining consensus - discuss here first instead of starting an RfC first. I know one can say "consensus can change" but under two months is pushing it a tad. Collect (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
As I've said at the RfC page, this is also about the bigger picture. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
While I welcome the invitation to discuss this again next year, the RfC is seeking a clearer picture of what the consensus is now. The only indication of a change occurring is the opinion of Tarc. As described in MZMcBride's comment, one person reviving the "dick" -> "jerk" proposal and six people saying "me too" is not a consensus. It is only chance that people like Nemo, Michaeldsuarez and myself were late in noticing the move. I don't know many editors who frequent this talk page, but it seems likely that people who never read it will still be interested in a decision that affects the overall tone of the project. Connor Behan (talk) 22:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the proposer at that RfC has said the question there is about general softening of language, and is not aimed at this essay. And the "six people" was eleven. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Poorly written RfC. I gave example of essay name/topic that would be removed immediately. Or maybe I should just write it and see?? :-) User:Carolmooredc 17:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Proponent accused me of not "cooperating" with the RfC on which I had already opined <g>. Needs the proper award, I would suppose. Collect (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

That RFC is riddled Google+ references (which is ironic, since Google loves censorship: a topic that the proponents of moving the page back to a more coarse title claim to be fighting against). They also allege that not randomly swearing for no reason is against an alleged "progression" that has occurred in modern society (read: nonsense). As it is, I can't really take the RFC seriously with arguments like that. Tharthan (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Two things:
--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I am well aware that "+1" was used to denote agreement before Google+. However, I scarcely saw it used on the Wikmedia projects that I am on before Google+ became popular. Tharthan (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Wheaton's law[edit]

Eh? We stopped obeying Wheaton's law?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

+1 to renaming this page to Wheaton's law. --Nemo 09:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
A minor meme not supported by actual sources? Pass. Tarc (talk) 13:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

No sign of actual significant usage. All of 209 actual Google hits (some of which may be duplicates, in fact). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Collect (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2015‎ (UTC)

I'm not fond of nerd idol Wil Wheaton. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
The current name seems fine. Tharthan (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
It's cheeky and fun in forums, but not really part of the Zeitgeist (nor should it be outside of gaming types). It makes those who are unfamiliar with Wheaton's Law go look it up, when saying "Don't be a jerk" is quicker. If it were Godwin's Law, you'd have a point. 17:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Restore original page[edit]

Don't be a dick 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. In 2014 somebody started a field trial to prove that they are both a dick and a jerk, by moving the page to don't be a jerk. After this successful experiment move it back, please. –Be..anyone (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Good point. Experiment succeeded, no need to continue. --Nemo 09:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
    • What a silly claim - the move was made after substantial discussion over a period of time - and the iterations of jerkitude expressed in continuing this are plain. Collect (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Adding DICK image?[edit]

I suggest here that adding an image with "Don't be a Dick" in the image is a POINTY and improper addition to the page. Collect (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

What's "DICK"? If you want to use jargon, you should probably link pages which explain your terms. Please be mindful of the newbies who may want to participate in the conversation. --Nemo 18:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Wow. I believe that sets a snark record here. Collect (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I suggest that there are 3…4 folks supporting the original English wikipe-tan trifecta image as it was for seven years, and 1…2 folks opposing it in a revisionist crusade to replace dicks by jerks started in 2014. –Be..anyone (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Meanwhile I decline to participate in your edit war to repeatedly add the "DICK" image -- it only shows how damn sophomoric and puerile the essay is in the first place, and always was, and always shall be. Collect (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd support the idea of adding a picture of Dick Cheney instead...and obviously reverting the title back to "Dick", as it stands currently, the Wikipe-tan used "makes no sense" I'm not sure how people find jerk less offensive than dick?.... dick in this reference means an abrasive person, but jerk in the urban dictionary means "a cocky person" would we be moving this to "Don't be a cock" next or "Don't be an abrasive, insensitive, selfish, ignorant and cocky person" to incorporate the definition of both dick and jerk?..--Stemoc 04:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Page protection[edit]

I've just editprotected to a random wrong version. Meta's page protection dropdown menu lacks of an editwar entry. It's pretty ridiculous there's a silly editwar about an essay meaning "don't be silly". I'll leave this editprotection for a week before which I'll block users instead of pages. You have, then, 7 days to find create some consensus but don't forget civility is a must on meta too: I've just seen a personal attack in the section above, it's too late to block but I won't tolerate more incivility. --Vituzzu (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not surprised to see you appear here after Nemo_bis' credibility is questioned: You have a record of supporting Nemo_bis:
Frankly, I feel that you're here to protect Nemo_bis and find excuses to block Nemo's opponents; I don't believe that you're here to protect and aid in the construction of this page. I don't trust you to behave neutrally when your friend Nemo_bis is involved. I believe that this discussion would be best handled by a different admin. I make comments based on my experiences and what I know to be true; I don't make personal attacks. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
If your conspirationist self-apology were right I had already blocked you for the clear-cut personal attack just above. Anyway, feel free to use such a deep self-indulgence, but on Italian projects I have a long history of quarrels with Nemo bis, you can pick up a random Italian long-term user (or even spend some minutes in googleing) and ask him how much "friend" me and him are.
Before you played the usual "z0mg everybody has a COI against me" trump do you plan to betray incivility and set up a discussion with @Be..anyone:, @Mr. Granger:, @Collect:, @Nemo bis:, @Tarc:, @Lightbreather: and @Connor Behan:? --Vituzzu (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
How can anyone have a discussion when you're using fear, intimidation, and threats? I've been speaking with the people you mentioned since December, and no amount of threats from sysops is going to turn division into consensus. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
A rather simple solution would be a content fork. Generally a bad idea, but for an in essence humorous essay it should be okay. The traditional dicks can have their dick (plus picture and edit history) as it was for years, and the postmodern jerks can have their 2014 jerk optionally using the new 2015 softened picture if they like it. And the RfC could be closed as unnecessary. –Be..anyone (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Second. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
One of the most ridiculous ideas ever seen in Wikiland. The old essay was sophomoric and puerile, and a net negative to Wikiland. Time to grow up. When Wiki was a child ... Collect (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
What's Wikiland? Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. --Nemo 15:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The wonderful land where genuine (fill in the blank)s rule. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
@Nemo Bis:, rethorical questions are a cul-de-sac by definition. --Vituzzu (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
My preference would be to not have an image renowned for glorifying lolicon i.e. the sexualization of prepubescent girls. Tarc (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Some images in Category:Wikipe-tan are on the wrong side of odd, but the majority including all Trifecta variants is okay. –Be..anyone (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)